注释:

[1]See Google Spain SL v.Agencia Espaola de Protección de Datos (May 13,2014), INFO CURIA-CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&doclang=EN.

[2]任甲玉与北京百度网讯科技有限公司人格权纠纷案，北京市海淀区人民法院民事判决书，（2015）海民初字第17417号。

[3]吴晓灵等：《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法（草案）2017版》，搜狐网2017年11月12日，http://m.sohu.com/a/203902011_500652。

[4]参见杨立新、韩煦：《被遗忘权的中国本土化及法律适用》，《法律适用》2015年第2期，第24-34页。

[5]参见张浩：《“被遗忘”能否成为一项法律权利——兼与杨立新、韩煦教授商榷》，《广西社会科学》2016年第7期，第101-105页。

[6]Google Spain SL,14.

[7]Google Spain SL,15.

[8]Google Spain SL,17.

[9]EC Directive 95/46/EC,§ 2(a).

[10]Directive,§ 2(d).

[11]Directive,§ 2(b).

[12]Directive,§ 12(b).

[13]Directive,§ 6(c).

[14]Directive,§ 6(d).

[15]Google Spain SL,91.

[16]在此案判决的前一年，经常被认为代表欧盟官方法律意见的欧盟法院总法务官（Advocate General）还在此问题上表达了相反的观点。See Opinion of Advocate General Jaaskinen (June 25,2013), Google Spain v.AEPD, Case C-131/12, at 136-137, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=138782&doclang=EN.

[17]这一情形也同时被归入数据主体的反对权（right to object）中，See General Data Protection Regulation (Hereafter GDPR),§ 17(2)。

[18]GDPR,§ 17.

[19]对于个体亦是如此，参见〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格：《删除：大数据取舍之道》，袁杰译，浙江人民出版社2013年，第19页。

[20]同上注，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第21页。

[21]同上注，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第72页。

[22]同上注，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第18页。

[23]例如，舍恩伯格提出，“可以把我们保存在数字化记忆中的信息和一个存储期限相关联，让数字存储设备可以自动删除那些达到或超过存储期限的信息”，同上注，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第207页。

[24]对于信息与数字技术的这一特征，有的学者曾将其称为“数字化红字”。Daniel Solove, THE FUTURE OF REPUTATION: GOSSIP, RUMOR, AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET, Yale University Press, at 11.

[25]See Eric Posner, We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten, Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.html.

[26]Charles Fried, Privacy,77 YALE LAW JOURNAI 475,482(1968).

[27]Alan Westin, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM, Atheneum Press,1967, at 7.

[28]See U.S.Dep’t.of Health, Educ.& Welfare, Sec'y's Advisory Comm. on Automated Personal Data Sys., Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens (1973), http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/datacncl/1973 privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm.

[29]从隐私保护的角度主张隐私权应当从消极性权利演变为积极性权利，参见Charles Fried, Privacy,77 YALE LAW JOURNAL 475,482(1968); Arthur R.Miller, ASSAULT ON PRIVACY: COMPUTERS, DATA BANKS AND DOSSIERS, The University of Michigan Press,1971; W.A.Parent, Recent Work on the Concept of Privacy,20 AM.PHIL.Q.341,346(1983)。

[30]See European Comm’n, Myth-Busting: The Court of Justice of the EU and the “Right to be Forgotten”, at 5, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbu sting _en.pdf.

[31]See GDPR,§ 15-22.其中第17条规定了被遗忘权（擦除权）。

[32]借用霍费尔德（Wesley Hohfeld）的权利理论来说，此类权利意味着个体可以对他者行使“权利主张（claim）”，而他者则有责任（duty）履行此类权利主张。参见Wesley Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning,23 YALE LAW JOURNAL 16(1913)。

[33]Daphne Keller, The “Right to Be Forgotten”, the Right to Be Included, and Global Content Regulation, https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/09/‘right-be-forgotten’-right-be-included-and-global-content-regulation.

[34]Robert G.Larson III, Forgetting the First Amendment: How Obscurity-Based Privacy and a Right To Be Forgotten Are Incompatible with Free Speech,18 COMM.L.& POL’Y 91,119(2013).

[35]See Dawinder Sidhu, We Don’t Need a “Right to Be Forgotten”. We Need a Right to Evolve, THE NEW REPUBLIC.

[36]Jeffrey Rosen, The Right to be Forgotten,64 STAN.L.REV.ONLINE 88(2012).

[37]See David Mitchell, The Right To Be Forgotten Will Turn the Internet into a Work of Fiction, OBSERVER, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/right-to-be-forgotten-internet-work-of-fiction-david-mitchell-eu-google.

[38]See Sidhu, supra note 35.

[39]根据Google的统计，在2014年欧洲承认被遗忘权之后，到2017年初，Google收到了703910项请求，要求将1948737项链接删除，See https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=en。

[40]See Rowena Mason, Right to be Forgotten: Wikipedia Chief Enters Internet Censorship Row, THE GUARDIAN, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/25/right-to-be-forgotten-google-wikipedia-jimmy-wales.

[41]See Gregory Ferenstein, On California’s Bizarre Internet Eraser Law for Teenagers, TECHCRUNCH, http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/24/om-californias-bizarre-internet-eraser-law-for-teenagers/.

[42]David Humphries, U.S.Attitudes Toward the Right to be Forgotten, SOFTWARE ADVICE, http://www.softwareadvice.com/security/industryview/right-to-be-forgotten-2014/.

[43]See Neel McIntosh, List of BBC Web Pages Which have been Removed from Google’s Search Results, BBC INTERNET BLOG, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f32-b110-d02fbf7fd379.

[44]See Hidden from Google, https://web.archive.org/web/20160919031318/http://hiddenfromgoogle.afaqtariq.com/.

[45]See Notices Received from Search Engines, WIKIMEDIA FOUND, https:// wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines; Things That Were Not Meant to Be Forgotten, REDDIT, https://www.reddit.com/r/nevertoforget/.

[46]See McKay Cunningham, Privacy Law That Does Not Protect Privacy, Forgetting the Right to be Forgotten,65 BUFFALO LAW REVIEW.495(2017).

[47]See James Ball, Costeja Gonzalez and a Memorable Fight for the “Right to Be Forgotten”, GUARDIAN, http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2014/may/14/mario-costeja-gonzalez-fight-right-forgotten.

[48]European Union Comm., EU Data Protection Law: A “Right to Be Forgotten”?,2014 HL 40, P 5(UK), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect /ldeucom/40/40.pdf.

[49]Jeffrey Toobin, The Solace of Oblivion, NEW YORKER, http://www.new yorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion.

[50]European Union Comm., supra note 48.

[51]Toobin, supra note 49.

[52]European Comm’n, Myth-Busting: The Court of Justice of the EU and the “Right to be Forgotten”, at 2, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbu sting _en.pdf.

[53]See Martin Redish, Value of Free Speech,130 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 591,591-645(1982); David Strauss, Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression,91 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 334,334-371(1991); Edwin Baker, HUMAN LIBERTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Oxford University Press,1989.

[54]言论自由市场的观点来自霍姆斯法官的反对意见，See Abrams v.United States,250 U.S.616,630(1919); Geoffry R.Stone, Louis Michael Seidman, Cass R.Sunstein, Mark V.Tushnet, and Pamela S.Karlan, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, New York: Aspen Publishers,2008, pp.9-10.

[55]See Alexander Meiklejohn, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, Harper Brothers Publishers,1948; Alexander Meiklejohn, The First Amendment Is an Absolute,1961 SUPREME COURT REVIEW 245(1961).

[56]See Robert Post, Data Privacy and Dignitary Privacy: Google Spain, the Right to Be Forgotten, and the Construction of the Public Sphere (April 15,2017), DUKE LAW JOURNAL, FORTHCOMING; YALE LAW SCHOOL, PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER No.598. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2953468 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2953468.

[57]这四个要素分别为①信息所涉及的数据主体在公共生活中的角色；②信息的性质；③信息来源；④信息所经历的时间。See Luciano Floridi, et al., Report of the Advisory Council to Google on the Right to Be Forgotten, https://buermeyer.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Report-of-the-Advisory-Comm ittee-to-Google-on-the-Right-to-be-Forgotten.pdf.

[58]See Floridi, supra note 57.

[59]同前注[19]，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第201页。

[60]同前注[19]，〔英〕维克托·迈尔舍恩伯格书，第207页。

[61]参见薛亚君：《数字时代个人信息的被遗忘权》，《情报理论与实践》2015年第4期，第61-64页。

[62]参见张恩典：《大数据时代的被遗忘权之争》，《学习与探索》2016年第4期，第67-73页；袁梦倩：《“被遗忘权”之争：大数据时代的数字化记忆与隐私边界》，《学海》2015年第4期，第55-61页。

[63]参见夏燕：《“被遗忘权”之争——基于欧盟个人数据保护立法改革的考察》，《北京理工大学学报》2015年第2期；刘文杰：《被遗忘权：传统元素、新语境与利益衡量》，《法学研究》2018年第2期，第129-135页。

[64]参见张里安、韩旭至：《“被遗忘权”：大数据时代下的新问题》，《北京理工大学学报》2017年第3期，第35-51页。

[65]同前注[4]，杨立新、韩煦文，第24页。

[66]同前注[5]，张浩文，第101页。

[67]参见杨乐、曹建峰：《从欧盟“被遗忘权”看网络治理规则的选择》，《北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年第4期，第58页。

[68]参见梅夏英：《论被遗忘权的法理定位与保护范围之限定》，《法律适用》2017年第16期，第53页。

[69]同前注[4]，杨立新、韩煦文，第27页。

[70]在该案中，原告任甲玉认为，他已经和之前工作的企业结束关系，其之前的经历不应当在网络上广为传播，应当被网络用户所“遗忘”。而且，该企业名声不佳，在百度相关搜索上存留其与该企业的相关信息会形成误导，并造成其在就业、招生等方面困难而产生经济损失。

[71]同前注[2]，任甲玉与北京百度网讯科技有限公司人格权纠纷一、二审民事判决书。

[72]三种分类的方法受到了相关文献的启发，See Michael L.Rustad & Sanna Kulevska, Reconceptualizing the Right to Be Forgotten to Enable Transatlantic Data Flow,28 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY 349(2015).

[73]Peter Fleischer, Foggy Thinking About the Right to Oblivion, PETER FLEISCHER: PRIVACY...?(Mar.9,2011), http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinkingabout-right-to-oblivion.html.

[74]See In re Trade-MarkCases,100 U.S.at 94; Burrow-Giles,11I U.S.at 58; Feist,499 U.S.at 347；韦之：《知识产权论》，知识产权出版社2002年，第49-52页。

[75]事实上，在知识产权领域，很多学者也指出，知识产权应当以促进公众的信息可获取为目标。See William W.Fisher III, Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine,101 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1661(1988); William W.Fisher III, The Implications for Law of User Innovation,94 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW.1417(2010).

[76]更为全面的分析，参见丁晓东：《什么是数据权利?——从欧洲〈一般数据保护条例〉看数据隐私的保护》，《华东政法大学学报》2018年第4期，第39-53页。