4 ms·
> There is no ... "right to remember" To quote Article 17.3.d: > for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or
by blowski 9y ago
> There is no ... "right to remember"
To quote Article 17.3.d:
> for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing
In fact the whole of Article 17 contains exceptions to the right to be forgotten.
Meanwhile Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (enacted 2009) is the "right to do business", and some of it conflicts with GDPR.
All legislation is interpreted by the courts. It's very rarely as simple as "the law says X, therefore you are guilty. Case closed." Instead, lawyers argue about conflicting legislation, and previous cases. A judge weighs all those arguments, and gives a decision, which then affects other future cases.
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent quite a bit of time working with lawyers to comply with GDPR. What I have said here interprets their words.
- Certhas 9y agoYes, so there is no "right to remember" and the right to do business is not the "right to make money" doing business. So you're at the very least misquoting your lawyers. 17(3), and in more detail 89(1) closely circumscribes the scope of exceptions. Specifically in the context of the post you replied to: There is obviously no public interest exception that would allow you to keep the data around because a specific technical implementation becomes more convenient/cheaper if you do.
- blowski 9y agoI suspect you're going to be very disappointed by the outcome of the GDPR.
- dahauns 9y ago>A judge weighs all those arguments, and gives a decision, which then affects other future cases. Careful. This is not common law jurisdiction. Case law doesn't apply here, and the ECJ rulings themselves have the primary interpretative function, not the arguments of lawyers.
- blowski 9y agoThank you, I'm out of my depth in explaining the difference.