博碩士論文 103424021 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:12 、訪客IP:54.226.41.91
姓名 黃翊軒(Yi-Hsuan Huang)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 產業經濟研究所
論文名稱 隱私權於資訊時代中之再思考-以被遺忘權為核心
(Re-conceptualizing the Right to Privacy in a Network Society: Refining the Right to Be Forgotten)
相關論文
★ 網路中立原則 - 我國管制可能性之研究★ 電子投票與民主參與 -以英國之實驗經驗為借鏡
★ 智慧財產證券化—法制環境之檢討與建議★ 開放源碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能之解決途徑
★ Google Books計畫所涉之法律問題研析─以反托拉斯法律相關議題為中心★ 論債權式新資金引入—以公司重整制度為中心
★ 頻譜資源分配之政策─以開放模式為目標★ 律師業管理機制與公平交易法衝突之研究─從法易通案談起
★ 專利主張實體問題之研究─以美國經驗為借鏡★ 論跨媒體合併行為之管制―以民主機能之健全為中心
★ 雲端個人健康資訊系統專法芻議 ─以平衡、有效之隱私保護為核心★ 離職後競業禁止約款之適法性研究-以人才流動自由化為政策取向
★ 網路環境中之著作權法第一次銷售原則-迷思之化解與困境之突破★ 非實施專利實體與專利訴訟-美國發明法實施前後之實證分析
★ 美國軟體專利適格性之研究 —談審查之趨勢與我國企業的因應之道★ 新興市場中之合作與競爭—以U.S. v. Apple案為中心
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 在資訊社會中個人資訊大量流通、數位記憶永恆、充斥偏頗與極端資訊、資訊唾手可得、資訊分析技術進步之五種環境氛圍,造成個人隱私權侵害問題不斷叢生,當代的隱私權保護法制也亟需革新。而所謂「被遺忘權」乃順應於當代資訊社會中的科技環境而生,2014年歐盟法院在Google v. AEPD一案中提出被遺忘權的概念,歐盟地區並預計於2018年落實歐盟個人資料保護規則中被遺忘權之規範,歐盟以被遺忘權作為解決政策提供了我國對於資訊時代中隱私權議題的新方向。
本文將被遺忘權之本質理解為包含「忘卻權」與「刪除權」,並定義被遺忘權為「當資料主體權益凌駕於資料控制者權益與公共利益時,資料主體有使資料控制者刪除或隱匿個人犯罪、負面、未合法處理或未成年人之個人資訊的權利」。在上述的定義下之被遺忘權能重新建構資訊社會中的記憶倫理、賦予個人對於個人資訊之掌控權、解決數位世界中的名譽侵害問題並給予未成年人高度的保障。因而於肯認被遺忘權能因應現今數位環境產生良好作用之前提下,本文認為有必要以被遺忘權來解決資訊時代中個人之隱私權侵害問題。本文最末則對於我國應如何落實被遺忘權提出幾點建議,首先,我國司法機關應扮演更積極的角色,而在被遺忘權的實際案例中勇於認事用法。再者,於我國司法機關尚未對被遺忘權提出明確判斷的情況下,本文參考歐盟立法例建議我國立法機關應於現行個人資料保護法中明訂被遺忘權之規範,且我國行政部門並應建立獨立之主管機關,並依據統一標準判斷個案中資料主體被遺忘權之請求以適當地落實被遺忘權。
摘要(英)
Five characters in a network society- abundant personal information, the infinite life of digital memory, prejudiced and extreme speech, easily retrieved information and advanced data-mining technology- result in enormous privacy infringing problem which also give rise to the proposal of so-called “right to be forgotten”. In 2014, Court of Justice of the European Union recognized the concept of right to be forgotten in the case of Google v. AEPD and the general data protection regulation set out right to be forgotten which would be formally implemented in Europe by 2018. The new movement of European Union provides us the perspective that exploits right to be forgotten as a solution policy to deal with the privacy issue in a network society.
This thesis regards the substance of right to be forgotten as including ‘right to oblivion’ and ‘right to erasure’ and defines right to be forgotten as “when the interest of data subject override the interest of data controller and public interest, data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure or conceal of personal data concerning him or her criminal record, negative information, unlawfully processing information or juvenile record.” Under above definition, right to be forgotten can reconstruct the memorial ethics in a network society, empower individual the control over personal information, settle the reputation dispute in a digital world, and provide higher protection to the juvenile. It’s therefore necessary to practice right to be forgotten on the observation that the implementation of a right to be forgotten could overcome the hazard came along with the aforementioned characters in a network society, also would beneficial for the individual. To the end, this thesis suggests the judiciary should play a more positive role in recognizing the right to be forgotten in any related case. Besides, the legislature should amend right to be forgotten provision into Personal Data Protection Act by referring to the general data protection regulation when the judiciary hasn’t yet provided a clear view about right to be forgotten. To well exercise the discretion of right to be forgotten, an independent administrative agency should handle the right to be forgotten application with a consistent pattern, as well.
關鍵字(中) ★ 被遺忘權
★ 隱私權
★ 刪除權
★ 個人資料保護
★ 數位記憶
關鍵字(英) ★ right to be forgotten
★ right to privacy
★ right to erasure
★ personal data protection
★ digital memory
論文目次
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………ii
誌謝……………………………………………………………………………iii
目錄……………………………………………………………………………iv
表目錄………………………………………………………………………vii
1 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與問題意識 1
1.2 研究方法 3
1.3 研究限制 4
1.4 研究架構 6
2 資訊時代中的隱私權隱憂 9
2.1 數位科技對當代社會的影響 9
2.1.1 個人資訊大量流通的時代 10
2.1.2 數位記憶永恆的時代 13
2.1.3 充斥偏頗與極端資訊的時代 16
2.1.4 資訊唾手可得的時代 19
2.1.5 資料分析技術飛躍的時代 20
2.2 資訊時代中失控的隱私威脅 23
2.2.1 隱私權的概念 25
2.2.2 數位科技對於隱私權的挑戰 30
2.2.3 資訊時代中隱私權議題的救贖 36
3 從資訊時代中躋身而出的被遺忘權 45
3.1 被遺忘權概念的提出 45
3.1.1 Google v. AEPD(2014) 46
3.1.2 Google v. AEPD佐審官意見書 51
3.1.3 Google v. AEPD判決之實施指南書 57
3.1.4 歐盟個人資料保護規則中被遺忘權之規範 64
3.2 被遺忘權之近期發展 74
3.2.1 Google對被遺忘權之回應與落實 76
3.2.2 歐盟各國對被遺忘權之回應與落實 85
3.2.3 歐盟各國之被遺忘權相關案例 93
4 被遺忘權之深入分析與探討 101
4.1 尋求定義之被遺忘權 101
4.1.1 被遺忘權之權利本質-忘卻權與刪除權 102
4.1.2 被遺忘權之權利內涵-由權利本質觀察 110
4.2 被遺忘權之落實實益 122
4.2.1 重新建構記憶倫理並維繫遺忘的價值 123
4.2.2 賦予個人資訊掌控權 127
4.2.3 解決資訊時代中名譽侵害之問題 130
4.2.4 維繫資訊時代未成年人之利益 134
4.3 被遺忘權之侷限與負面效應 136
4.3.1 侵害表現自由 137
4.3.2 減損公共利益 140
4.3.3 權利內涵過於模糊 143
4.3.4 落實成效有限 145
4.3.5 被遺忘權並非解決數位時代隱私威脅之最佳方案 147
4.4 小結-調和被遺忘權之相異觀點 150
5 被遺忘權於我國法環境之適用 161
5.1 我國隱私權保護法制之檢討 161
5.1.1 司法院大法官解釋之再思考 162
5.1.2 個人資料保護法之再思考 166
5.2 於我國落實被遺忘權之方式與手段 172
5.2.1 我國法院之被遺忘權相關判決 173
5.2.2 被遺忘權之立法與相關配套措施 179
5.2.3 被遺忘權之權責機關與判斷標準 185
6 結論與展望 197
參考文獻 209
參考文獻 1.中文文獻
Jarvis, Jeff著,許瑞宋譯,數位新分享時代-網路上的分享與交流如何改善我們的工作和生活方式?,財信,2012年。
Mayer-Schonberger, Vicktor & Kenneth Cukier著,林俊宏譯,大數據,天下文化,2014年。
王澤鑑,民法總則,自刊,2008年。
王澤鑑,侵權行為法,自刊,2010年。
王明禮,論資訊隱私:科技與商業發展脈絡下的觀察,中原財經法學,第32期,頁59-105,2014年6月。
李震山,行政權得依法介入私權爭執之法理基礎,台灣本土法學雜誌,第43期,頁123-127,2003年2月。
李震山,資訊時代下「資訊權」入憲之芻議,律師雜誌,第307期,頁15-25,2005年4月。
李震山,論資訊自決權,收錄於人性尊嚴與人權保障,頁205-240,元照出版,2009年。
林子儀,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,1999年。
邱文聰,從資訊資決與資訊隱私的概念區分-評「電腦處理個人資料保護法修正草案」的結構性問題,月旦法學雜誌,第168期,頁172-189,2009年5月。
范姜真媺,網路時代個人資料保護之強化:被遺忘權利之主張,興大法學,第19期,頁61-106,2016年5月。
徐彪豪,M2M時代下的資料保護權利之進展-歐盟與日本觀察,科技法律透析,25卷11期,頁47-62,2013年11月。
徐彪豪,被遺忘權近期發展-歐盟法院判決週年後回顧與本土觀察,科技法律透析,第27卷第11期,頁50-70,2015年11月。
徐一修,被遺忘權之研究,世新大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2014年。
陳昭如,交叉路口與樓上樓下:反歧視法中的交錯問題,月旦法學雜誌,第189期,頁51-68,2011年2月。
許炳華,被遺忘的權利:比較法之觀察,東吳法律學報,第27卷第1期,頁1-39,2015年7月。
葉俊榮,探尋隱私權的空間意涵-大法官對基本權利的脈絡論證,中研院法學期刊,第18期,頁1-40,2016年3月。
張陳弘,已公開個人資料的隱私保護可能-司法陽光網引發的隱私保護爭議,法令月刊,第67卷9期,頁143 - 164,2016年9月。
楊智傑,個人資料保護法制上「被遺忘權利」與「個人反對權」:從2014年西班牙Google v. AEPD案判決出發,國會月刊,第43卷第7期,頁19-43,2015年7月。
楊柏宏,陳鋕雄,被遺忘權之研析-以歐盟法院Google Spain SL案及歐盟個資保護規章為中心,萬國法律,第208期,頁98-120,2016年8月。
熊愛卿,網際網路個人資料保護之研究,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文,2000年。
劉靜怡,不算進步的立法:「個人資料保護法」初步評析,月旦法學雜誌,第183期,頁147-164,2010年8月。
劉靜怡,社群網路時代的隱私困境:以Facebook為討論對象,臺大法學論叢,第41卷第1期,頁1-70,2012年3月。
劉靜怡,媒體是亂源?─新聞採訪自由與隱私保護,月旦法學雜誌,第205期,頁238-246,2012年6月。
劉晏齊,為什麼要保護未成年人?兒少福利、法律與歷史的分析,政大法學評論,第147期,頁83-157,2016年12月。
蔡蕙芳,從美國隱私權法論刑法第三一五條之一與相關各構成要件,月旦釋讀文摘,第4期,頁45-47,2011年2月。
蘇柏毓,104年之個人資料保護法修正簡評,科技法律透析,第28卷第4期,頁 13-17,2016年4月。

2.外文文獻
Ambrose, Meg Leta, Nicole Friess & Jill Van Matre, Seeking Digital Redemption: The Future of Forgiveness in the Internet Age, 29 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L. J. 99-163 (2012).
Ambrose, Meg Leta & Jef Ausloos, The Right to be Forgotten Across the Pond, 3 J. OF INFORMATION POLICY 1-23 (2013).
Ambrose, Meg Leta, It′s About Time: Privacy, Information Life Cycles, and the Right to Be Forgotten, 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 101-154 (2013).
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 1/2008 on data protection issues related to search engines, Apr. 4, 2008, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2008/wp148_en.pdf
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking, Jun.12, 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2009/wp163_en.pdf
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos and Mario Costeja Gonzalez” C-131/12, Nov. 26, 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf
Bernal, Paul A., A Right to Delete?, 2 EUROPEAN J. OF L. AND TECH. (2011), available at http://ejlt.org/article/view/75/144#_edn5
Bennett, Steven C., The ”Right to Be Forgotten”: Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 161-195 (2012).
Burkell, Jacquelyn Ann, Remembering Me: Big Data, Individual Identity, and the Psychological Necessity of Forgetting, 18.1 ETHICS AND INFORMATION TECH. 17-23 (2016).
Byrum, Kristie, The European Right to be Forgotten: A challenge to the United States Constitution’s First Amendment and to Professional Public Relations Ethics, 43.1 PUBLIC RELATIONS REV. 102-111 (2016).
CATE, FRED H., PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE (Booking Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1997).
Connerton, Paul, Seven Types of Forgetting, 1.1 MEMORY STUDIES 59-71 (2008).
Carr, Nicholas, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, 107.2 YEARBOOK OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATION 89-94 (2008).
Chelaru, Eugen & Marius Chelaru, Right to be forgotten, ANALES UNIVERSITATIS APULENSIS SERIES JURISPRUDENTIA 16-23 (2013).
Directive, E. U. (1995). 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, Nov. 23, 1995, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML
Determann, Lothar, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 7-10 (2012).
De Andrade, Norberto Nuno Gomes, Oblivion: the Right to be Different… From Oneself: Re-proposing the Right to be Forgotten, VII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNET, L. & POLITICS. NET NEUTRALITY AND OTHER CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET, IDP. REVISTA DE INTERNET, 13 DERECHO Y POLITICA., 122-137 (2014).
Daniela De Pasquale, Italy circulates proposed draft: Declaration of Internet Rights, 12 E-COMMERCE LAW & POLICY (Dec. 2014), available at http://www.cecileparkmedia.com/digital-business-lawyer/article_template.asp?Contents=Yes&from=eclp&ID=2296
De Baets, Antoon, A Historian′s View on the Right to be Forgotten, 30 INT’L L. REV., COMPUTERS & TECH. 57-66 (2016).
De Hert, Paul & Vagelis Papakonstantinou, The New General Data Protection Regulation: Still a Sound System for the Protection of Individuals?, 32 COMPUTER L. & SECURITY REV. 179-194 (2016).
Eltis, Karen, Breaking Through the Tower of Babel: A Right to be Forgotten and how Trans-systemic Thinking can Help Re-conceptualize Privacy Harm in the Age of Analytics, 22 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L. J. 69-95 (2011).
Fleischer, Peter, Foggy Thinking About the Right to Oblivion, PETER FLEISCHER : PRIVACY . . . ? (Mar. 9, 2011), http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html
Fazlioglu, Muge, Forget Me Not: the Clash of the Right to be Forgotten and Freedom of Expression on the Internet, INT’L DATA PRIVACY L. 149-157 (2013).
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, C-131/12 (European Court of Justice 2014).
Google Advisory Council, The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten (Feb. 6, 2015), available at https://buermeyer.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Report-of-the-Advisory-Committee-to-Google-on-the-Right-to-be-Forgotten.pdf
House of Lords, European Union Committee - Second Report of Session 2014-2015- EU Data Protection law: a ′right to be forgotten′? (Jul. 23, 2014), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/40/4002.htm
ICO, The Information Commissioner’s (United Kingdom) response to A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union A Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 4 November 2010 (Jan. 14, 2011), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/ico_infocommoffice_en.pdf
ICO, Data Protection Act 1998 Supervisory Power of Information Commissioner Enforcement Notices (Aug. 18, 2015), available at https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/enforcement-notices/1560072/google-inc-enforcement-notice-102015.pdf
Italian Republic Chamber of Deputies, Declaration of Internet Rights (Jul. 28, 2015), available at http://www.camera.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/commissione_internet/testo_definitivo_inglese.pdf
IDC, Executive Summary: Data Growth, Business Opportunities, and the IT Imperatives, IDC ANALYZE THE FUTURE (Apr. 2014), http://www.emc.com/leadership/digital-universe/2014iview/executive-summary.htm
Koops, Bert-Jaap, Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the “Right to be Forgotten” in Big Data Practice, 8 SCRIPTED 229-256 (2011).
Kuner, Christopher, Fred H. Cate, Christopher Millard & Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, The Challenge of ‘Big Data’ for Data Protection, 2.2 INT’L DATA PRIVACY L. 47-49 (2012).
Korenhof, Paulan, Forgetting Bits and Pieces: An Exploration of the “Right to be Forgotten” as Implementation of “Forgetting” in Online Memory Process, 4 TILT L. & TECH. WORKING PAPER, 114-127 (2013).
Korenhof, Paulan, Jef Ausloos, Ivan Szekely, Meg Ambrose, Giovanni Sartor & Ronald Leenes,, Timing the Right to Be Forgotten: A Study into “Time” as a Factor in Deciding About Retention or Erasure of Data, REFORMING EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION L.171-201 (2015).
Kodde, Claudia, Germany′s ‘Right to be forgotten’–Between the Freedom of Expression and the Right to Informational Self-determination, 30 INT’L L. REV., COMPUTERS & TECH. 17-31 (2016).
LESSIG, LAWRENCE, CODE 2.0 (A Member of the Perseus Books Group, New York City, 2006).
Lessig, Lawrence, The Internet Under Siege, FOREIGN POLICY, Nov.-Dec. 2001, available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/16/the-internet-under-siege/
MAYER-SCHONBERGER, VIKTOR, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, U.S.A., 2009).
Ministry of Justice, UK response to the Commission’s consultation on ‘a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union’ (Jan. 14, 2011), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/minjust_uk_en.pdf
Ministry of Justice, Government response to Committee′s report on EU Data Protection law: a ′right to be forgotten′? (Oct. 2014), available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-sub-com-f/righttobeforgotten/government-response-right-to-be-forgotten.pdf
Mifsud Bonnici, Jeanne Pia & Albert J. Verheij, On Forgetting, Deleting, De-listing and Starting Afresh!, 30 INT’L L. REV., COMPUTERS & TECH. 1-4 (2016).
NISSENBAUM, HELEN, PRIVACY IN CONTEXT: TECHNOLOGY, POLICY, AND THE INTEGRITY OF SOCIAL LIFE (Stanford University Press, California, 2009).
Opinion of Advocate General JAASKINEN, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, C-131/12 (Jun. 25, 2013).
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), 2012/0011(COD) 11 final, Jan. 25, 2012, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0011:FIN:EN:PDF
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) - Preparation of a general approach, Jun. 11, 2015, available at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9565-2015-INIT/en/pdf
Powles, Julia & Enrique Chaparro, How Google determined our right to be forgotten, THE GUARDIAN (Feb. 18, 2015), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/the-right-be-forgotten-google-search
Rosen, Jeffrey, The Web Means the End of Forgetting, NEW YORK TIMES (Jul. 21, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Rosen, Jeffrey, Free Speech, Privacy, and the Web That Never Forgets, 9 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 345-356 (2011).
Rosen, Jeffrey, The Right to Be Forgotten, 64 STAN. L. REV. 88-92 (2011).
Reding, Viviane, The EU Data Protection Reform 2012: Making Europe the Standard Setter for Modern Data Protection Rules in the Digital Age, 22 INNOVATION CONFERENCE DIGITAL, LIFE, DESIGN MUNICH 1-6 (2012).
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/files/regulation_oj_en.pdf
SOLOVE, DANIEL J., THE FUTURE OF REPUTATION: GOSSIP, RUMOR, AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET (Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2007).
SUNSTEIN, CASS R., REPUBLIC.COM 2.0 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007).
Shoor, Emily, Narrowing the Right to Be Forgotten: Why the European Union Needs to Amend the Proposed Data Protection Regulation, 39 BROOK. J. INT′L L. 389-519 (2014).
Stupariu, Ioana, Defining the Right to Be Forgotten: A Comparative Analysis between the EU and the US, Central European University LL.M. Short Thesis (2015).
Tassis, Spiros & Margarita Peristeraki, The Extraterritorial Scope of the “Right to Be Forgotten” and How This Affects Obligations of Search Engine Operators Located Outside the EU, 2 EUR. NETWORKS L. & REG. Q. 244-252 (2014).
Tamo, Aurelia & Damian George, Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age, 5 J. INTELL PROP., INFORMATION TECH. & E-COMMERCE L. 71-87 (2014).
Toobin, Jeffrey, The Solace of Oblivion: In Europe, the right to be forgotten trumps the Internet , THE NEW YORKER (Sep. 29, 2014), http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion
Van Hoboken, Joris, The Proposed Right to be Forgotten Seen from the Perspective of Our Right to Remember, Freedom of Expression Safeguards in a Converging Information Environment, NYU LAW (Jun. 25, 2013), http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/VanHoboken_RightTo%20Be%20Forgotten_Manuscript_2013.pdf
Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, HARV. L. REV. 193-220 (1890).
Werro, Franz, The Right to Inform v. the Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash, 2 GEO. PUB. L. RESEARCH PAPER 287-300 (2009).
Wang, Ming-Li, Information Privacy in a Network Society: Decision Making Amidst Constant Change, 5 NTU L. REV. 127-154 (2010).
Weber, Rolf H., The Right to be Forgotten: More Than a Pandora′s Box?, 2 J. INTELL PROP., INFORMATION TECH. & E-COMMERCE L. 120-130 (2011).
Xue, Minhui, Gabriel Magno, Evandro Cunha, Virgilio Almeida & Keith W. Ross, The Right to be Forgotten in the Media: A Data-Driven Study, 4 PROCEEDINGS ON PRIVACY ENHANCING TECH. 389-402 (2016).
Zittrain, Jonathan, Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’, NEW YORK TIMES (May. 14, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html?_r=0
指導教授 王明禮(Ming-Li Wang) 審核日期 2017-8-24
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明