개인정보를 보호하라는 주장은 정보자기결정권을 거쳐 잊혀질 권리에 대한 주장으로 변화해 왔다. 과거에 대한 영구 기억이 가능해지면서 이로부터 자유로워지고자 하는 욕구는 프라이버시에 대한 보호와 개인의 행복추구권을 결합시킨 주장으로 나타났다. 잊혀질 권리를 정보인권적 관점에서 접근하여 법체계 내부로 도입하겠다는 유럽연합과 재산권적 관점에서 접근하면서 이를 반대하는 미국 사이에서 타협점을 찾기가 쉽지 않다. 잊혀질 권리 도입에 찬성하는 논리는 프라이버시권 보호와 행복추구권의 보장이며, 반대 논리는 표현의 자유와 알 권리의 보장이다. 이처럼 중요한 기본권들이 충돌하고 있어 이익형량의 원칙을 적용하기도 쉽지 않다. 국제간 정보유통에 관련된 문제들이 걸려있어 서로 다른 질서를 계속 고집하며 양립하는 것도 불가능해 보인다. 본고에서는 잊혀질 권리 도입의 찬반 양론에 관한 유럽과 미국의 시각을 비교하고, 규제적 접근과 타협적 접근의 차이와 실효성 여부를 검토하였다. 특히 우리나라가 새롭게 잊혀질 권리를 도입하느냐 기존 법안을 확대해석해서 대응하느냐의 결정과는 무관하게, 이 문제와 관련된 권리주장들을 모두 교과서에서 소개하고 가르칠 필요가 있음을 주장하였다.
* Gyeongin National Univ. of Education In the age of analogue technologies, the oblivion as time passed was common and natural thing. New digital technologies makes the permanent memory possible. Every single data can be stored in digital media at almost no cost. Everyone can recall these mega data memories through digital information devices without any delay or failure. Big Data processing can be a harmful threat to individuals who has some dark past history. He would like to forget the whole things about the tragic past. But his digital footprints are scattered everywhere in the whole world. And those information are fully networked with each others via internet and mobile devices. Nowadays the right to oblivion becomes an essential precondition for his own happiness pursuit. After 1995 Directive, European Union develops some revised version of regulations for personal data protection. From the 2012 Proposal for GDPR, through 2014 Compromise Texts for GDPR, to 2016 final version of new GDPR, EU never stops its attempt to develop more effective protection methods for General Personal Data Protections. EU’s comprehensive legislation projects are based on the concept of Information Human Rights. Whereas EU prepared it’s own data protection system based on the Parliamentary Regulation, United States continued it’s conventional approaches so called ‘patchwork legal system’ based on civilian autonomous regulatory agencies for personal data protection. While EU’s attempts to grant ‘the right to be forgotten & right to erasure’ in the article 17 of 2012 proposals document caused severe controversies, EU never gave up its faith upon the information human rights. This controversial issue would grant individual person a new ability to demand permanent removal of personal data from internet or from searching engines like Googles. But, United States also have an extraordinary strong faith upon the freedom of expression and People’s Right to Know. They insist on denying any possibilities of Right to be Forgotten and Right to Erasure. United States want to treat these privacy rights in the traditional perspective of Property Rights. Most major components of Pro-right to be forgotten are related with the right to pursuit of happiness and the right of privacy. Other components of Con-right to be forgotten are related with the freedom of expression and the right to know. When these conventional basic human rights collides with each others, we should consider some balance between colliding rights. But it is not easy and also not obvious. Regulations for General Data Protection have something to do with the problem of free transborder data flows. In 2015, European Court of Justice finally declared invalidity of the Safe Harbor agreement which was made in 2000. Now those two sides have to seek any kind of accommodation or compromise in a hurry. The future of right to be forgotten is not so optimistic. It should eliminate many obscurity within its own words and sentences. Actually it needs more powerful means to protect this declaratory rights. At the part of conclusion, I argued that we should start to use our utmost endeavor to protect the right to be forgotten right now at this point. We don’t need to wait for the final decision whether or not to adopt the right to be forgotten. In the perspective of information ethical view, it can be clearer than other cases of political view or legal view.
* Gyeongin National Univ. of Education In the age of analogue technologies, the oblivion as time passed was common and natural thing. New digital technologies makes the permanent memory possible. Every single data can be stored in digital media at almost no cost. Everyone can recall these mega data memories through digital information devices without any delay or failure. Big Data processing can be a harmful threat to individuals who has some dark past history. He would like to forget the whole things about the tragic past. But his digital footprints are scattered everywhere in the whole world. And those information are fully networked with each others via internet and mobile devices. Nowadays the right to oblivion becomes an essential precondition for his own happiness pursuit. After 1995 Directive, European Union develops some revised version of regulations for personal data protection. From the 2012 Proposal for GDPR, through 2014 Compromise Texts for GDPR, to 2016 final version of new GDPR, EU never stops its attempt to develop more effective protection methods for General Personal Data Protections. EU’s comprehensive legislation projects are based on the concept of Information Human Rights. Whereas EU prepared it’s own data protection system based on the Parliamentary Regulation, United States continued it’s conventional approaches so called ‘patchwork legal system’ based on civilian autonomous regulatory agencies for personal data protection. While EU’s attempts to grant ‘the right to be forgotten & right to erasure’ in the article 17 of 2012 proposals document caused severe controversies, EU never gave up its faith upon the information human rights. This controversial issue would grant individual person a new ability to demand permanent removal of personal data from internet or from searching engines like Googles. But, United States also have an extraordinary strong faith upon the freedom of expression and People’s Right to Know. They insist on denying any possibilities of Right to be Forgotten and Right to Erasure. United States want to treat these privacy rights in the traditional perspective of Property Rights. Most major components of Pro-right to be forgotten are related with the right to pursuit of happiness and the right of privacy. Other components of Con-right to be forgotten are related with the freedom of expression and the right to know. When these conventional basic human rights collides with each others, we should consider some balance between colliding rights. But it is not easy and also not obvious. Regulations for General Data Protection have something to do with the problem of free transborder data flows. In 2015, European Court of Justice finally declared invalidity of the Safe Harbor agreement which was made in 2000. Now those two sides have to seek any kind of accommodation or compromise in a hurry. The future of right to be forgotten is not so optimistic. It should eliminate many obscurity within its own words and sentences. Actually it needs more powerful means to protect this declaratory rights. At the part of conclusion, I argued that we should start to use our utmost endeavor to protect the right to be forgotten right now at this point. We don’t need to wait for the final decision whether or not to adopt the right to be forgotten. In the perspective of information ethical view, it can be clearer than other cases of political view or legal view.
