Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows. A Critical Analysis Of The “Right To Be Forgotten” In Big Data Practice
Open accessAbstract
The so-called “right to be forgotten” has been put firmly on the agenda, both of academia and of policy. Although the idea is intuitive and appealing, the legal form and practical implications of a right to be forgotten have hardly been analysed so far. This contribution aims to critically assess what a right to be forgotten could or should entail in practice. It outlines the current socio-technical context as one of Big Data, in which massive data collections are created and mined for many purposes. Big Data involves not only individuals’ digital footprints (data they themselves leave behind) but, perhaps more importantly, also individuals’ data shadows (information about them generated by others). And contrary to physical footprints and shadows, their digital counterparts are not ephemeral but persistent. This presents particular challenges for the right to be forgotten, which are discussed in the form of three key questions. Against whom can the right be invoked? When and why can the right be invoked? And how can the right be effected? Advocates of a right to be forgotten must clarify which conceptualisation of such a right they favour – a comprehensive, usercontrol-based right to have data deleted in due time, or a narrower, context-specific right to a “clean slate” – and how they think the considerable obstacles presented in this paper can be overcome, if people are really to be enabled to have their digital footprints forgotten and to shun their data shadows.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The increased density of recorded life events could undermine the adaptive function of forgetting.
“the increased density of recorded life events could undermine the adaptive function of forgetting (Heersmink, 2017;Heersmink & Carter, 2020;Koops, 2011;Jacquemard et al., 2014;Mayer-Sch€ onberger, 2009;Storm & Soares, in press;van House & Churchill, 2008).”
From Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model (2024) · cites this paper as Koops, 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions
Politou, E., Alepis, E., & Patsakis, C. (2018) · Journal of Cybersecurity · doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyy001 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Algorithmic memory and the right to be forgotten on the web
Esposito, E. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717703996 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Remembering me: big data, individual identity, and the psychological necessity of forgetting
Burkell, J. A. (2016) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9393-1 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model
Hutmacher, F., Appel, M., & Schwan, S. (2024) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2024.2384125 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koops, B.-J.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Koops, Bert-Jaap
- ORCID
- Koops, Bert-Jaap
- Venue
- SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology & Society
- Publisher
- University of Edinburgh
- Published
- 2011-12-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 229-256
- ISSN
- 1744-2567 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108830329
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 113.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- SCRIPTed A Journal of Law Technology & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- right to be forgotten, big data, digital footprint, data deletion, personal data protection, clean slate, user control, data persistence, privacy law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review