The very notion of privacy—which, as mentioned above, lies at the root of
contemporary rules on individual data protection—is perceived differently in the
American and Continental European legal traditions: whilst the former tends to see it
essentially as an expression of individual liberty, which is primarily threatened by
the Government, the latter conceives it basically as a requirement of personal
dignity, which must be safeguarded above all against the mass media.
183
As such, the different approaches identified in this study do not seem capable of
being easily overcome, as the limited reach of international instruments in this field
clearly illustrates.
This is, in reality, a recurring problem in Internet history, which the well-known
UEJF et Licra c. Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France case already illustrated nearly
20 years ago.
184
Far from being subtracted from State law, the so-called cyberspace still reflects
the often unsurmountable divergences between national legal systems.
References
Carrascosa González J (2015) The Internet – privacy and rights relating to personality. Recueil des
Cours de l’Académie de La Haye de Droit International 378:267 ff.
de Lima Pinheiro L (2015) Direito Internacional Privado, vol II, 4th edn. Almedina Coimbra
de Miguel Asensio P (2015) Derecho Privado de Internet, 5th edn. Madrid
de Miguel Asensio P (2019) Ámbito espacial del derecho al olvido: las conclusiones en el asunto
C-507/17, Google. La Ley Unión Europea 67:1
de Vasconcelos Casimiro S (2014) O direito a ser esquecido pelos motores de busca: o Acórdão
Costeja. Revista de Direito Intelectual 2:307
Dias Oliveira E (2011) Da responsabilidade civil extracontratual por violação de direitos de
personalidade em Direito Internacional Privado. Coimbra
Eberle EJ (2001) The right to information self-determination. Utah Law Rev 965
Edgar TH (2017) Beyond Snowden: privacy, mass surveillance and the struggle to reform the NSA.
Washington
Esplugues C, Iglesias JL, Palao G (2011) Application of foreign law. Munich, Sellier
Fentiman R (2017) Forum non conveniens. In: Encyclopedia of private international law, vol
1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
crucially important each of these objectives is to the wellbeing of the people of Europe. Damage to
the global economy has resulted in very real detriment and hardship to millions of Europeans.
International terrorist atrocities have been and continue to be perpetrated in many Member States of
the European Union. There are many who experienced the corrosive effects of widespread state
surveillance upon their private lives and society in general who regard preservation of the right to
privacy, includ[ing] data protection, as fundamental to a democratic society. In a democratic
society, a balance must be struck between these competing concerns, interests and values. Not
every State will strike the same balance” (see paras. 45–47 of the decision).
183 See, on this, Whitman (2004).
184 See the Ordonnance de référé rendered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris on 22 May
2000, available at http://juriscom.net/2000/05/tgi-paris-refere-22-mai-2000-uejf-et-licra-c-yahooinc-et-yahoo-france/.
Data Protection in the Internet: General Report
43
contemporary rules on individual data protection—is perceived differently in the
American and Continental European legal traditions: whilst the former tends to see it
essentially as an expression of individual liberty, which is primarily threatened by
the Government, the latter conceives it basically as a requirement of personal
dignity, which must be safeguarded above all against the mass media.
183
As such, the different approaches identified in this study do not seem capable of
being easily overcome, as the limited reach of international instruments in this field
clearly illustrates.
This is, in reality, a recurring problem in Internet history, which the well-known
UEJF et Licra c. Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France case already illustrated nearly
20 years ago.
184
Far from being subtracted from State law, the so-called cyberspace still reflects
the often unsurmountable divergences between national legal systems.
References
Carrascosa González J (2015) The Internet – privacy and rights relating to personality. Recueil des
Cours de l’Académie de La Haye de Droit International 378:267 ff.
de Lima Pinheiro L (2015) Direito Internacional Privado, vol II, 4th edn. Almedina Coimbra
de Miguel Asensio P (2015) Derecho Privado de Internet, 5th edn. Madrid
de Miguel Asensio P (2019) Ámbito espacial del derecho al olvido: las conclusiones en el asunto
C-507/17, Google. La Ley Unión Europea 67:1
de Vasconcelos Casimiro S (2014) O direito a ser esquecido pelos motores de busca: o Acórdão
Costeja. Revista de Direito Intelectual 2:307
Dias Oliveira E (2011) Da responsabilidade civil extracontratual por violação de direitos de
personalidade em Direito Internacional Privado. Coimbra
Eberle EJ (2001) The right to information self-determination. Utah Law Rev 965
Edgar TH (2017) Beyond Snowden: privacy, mass surveillance and the struggle to reform the NSA.
Washington
Esplugues C, Iglesias JL, Palao G (2011) Application of foreign law. Munich, Sellier
Fentiman R (2017) Forum non conveniens. In: Encyclopedia of private international law, vol
1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
crucially important each of these objectives is to the wellbeing of the people of Europe. Damage to
the global economy has resulted in very real detriment and hardship to millions of Europeans.
International terrorist atrocities have been and continue to be perpetrated in many Member States of
the European Union. There are many who experienced the corrosive effects of widespread state
surveillance upon their private lives and society in general who regard preservation of the right to
privacy, includ[ing] data protection, as fundamental to a democratic society. In a democratic
society, a balance must be struck between these competing concerns, interests and values. Not
every State will strike the same balance” (see paras. 45–47 of the decision).
183 See, on this, Whitman (2004).
184 See the Ordonnance de référé rendered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris on 22 May
2000, available at http://juriscom.net/2000/05/tgi-paris-refere-22-mai-2000-uejf-et-licra-c-yahooinc-et-yahoo-france/.
Data Protection in the Internet: General Report
43