Avrupa Birliği ve Tayvan’da Yapay Zekâ Tabanlı Veri Toplama Bağlamında Unutulma Hakkı

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 53 - 61, 30.06.2025

Ihsan Yilmaz

https://izlik.org/JA78YY28JK

Öz

Bu makale, yapay zekâ (YZ) veri işleme bağlamında unutulma hakkının (RTBF) gelişen hukuki yapısını inceleyerek, Avrupa Birliği (AB) ile Tayvan arasındaki karşılaştırmalı bir analiz sunmaktadır. Gizlilik ve kişisel verilerin korunması hukukuna dayanan bu hak, bireylerin özellikle arama motorları ve sosyal medya platformları aracılığıyla kolayca erişilebilen, güncelliğini yitirmiş veya ilgisiz kişisel bilgilerinin yayılmasını kontrol etme yetkisini güçlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, AB'nin GDPR’nin 17. Maddesi kapsamında unutulma hakkına ilişkin güçlü bir yasal zemin oluşturduğu ve Google Spain gibi emsal kararlarla bu hakkın yorumunun şekillendiği vurgulanmaktadır. Tayvan'da ise bu hak, 603 No’lu Anayasa Yorumu gibi anayasal yorumlar ve Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Yasası (PDPA) kapsamında düzenlenmektedir; ancak unutulma hakkı açıkça kanunlaştırılmamıştır. Makale, ayrıca YZ'nin uzun süreli veri saklama, otomatik işleme ve silinme tekniklerinin uygulanabilirliği gibi alanlarda ortaya çıkardığı zorluklara dikkat çekmekte ve RTBF ilkeleriyle teknolojik gerçekliklerin uyumlaştırılması için gelecekte yasal netliğin sağlanması gerektiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Unutulma Hakkı , Yapay Zekâ , Veri Gizliliği , GDPR , Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Yasası (Tayvan) , AB Hukuku , Tayvan Hukuku , Veri Silme , Arama Motorları , Hukuki Uyum

The Right to be Forgotten Regarding AI Data Collection in the European Union and Taiwan

https://izlik.org/JA78YY28JK

Öz

This paper explores the evolving legal landscape of the right to be forgotten (RTBF) in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) data processing, focusing on a comparative analysis between the European Union (EU) and Taiwan. As a concept rooted in privacy and data protection law, RTBF seeks to empower individuals to control the dissemination of outdated or irrelevant personal information—especially in a digital environment where such data is readily accessible through search engines and social media platforms. The study highlights how the EU has implemented a robust legal foundation for RTBF, particularly under Article 17 of the GDPR, and how landmark decisions such as Google Spain have shaped its interpretation. In contrast, Taiwan's approach is shaped by constitutional interpretations, such as Judicial Interpretation No. 603, and statutory provisions within the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), albeit without explicit codification of RTBF. The manuscript also addresses the challenges posed by AI, particularly regarding long-term data retention, automated processing, and the technical feasibility of erasure, concluding that future legislative clarity is necessary for harmonizing the principles of RTBF with technological realities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Right to be Forgotten , Artificial Intelligence , Data Privacy , GDPR , Personal Data Protection Act (Taiwan) , EU Law , Taiwan Law , Data Erasure , Search Engines , Legal Harmonization

Kaynakça

• Atata, B. B. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the Right to be Forgotten. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(8), 4300-4310. doi:10.55248/gengpi.5.0824.2310
• Ausloos, J. (2012). The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Worth remembering? Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 143-152. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2012.01.006
• Chen, C.-L. (2010). Interpreting No. 603 of Taiwan's Constitutional Court as a Guide. Ind. Int'l Comp. L. Rev., 20, 21. Chiou, W.-T. (2020). Limits and Prospects of the Right to Be Forgotten in Taiwan (Vol. 40).
• Choi, Y. H. (2023). Wang Meng (ca. 1308–1385) and the Visualization of Sacred Landscapes: University of California, Los Angeles.
• Dalberg, W. (2023). The Right to Be Forgotten: A critical assessment on the possibilities of effective enforcement. In (pp. 1-38).
• Determann, L., & Sprague, R. (2011). Intrusive monitoring: Employee privacy expectations are reasonable in Europe, destroyed in the United States. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 26, 979-999.
• Eberle, E. J. (1997). Human dignity, privacy, and personality in German and American constitutional law. Utah L. Rev., 963-985.
• Fabbrini, F., & Celeste, E. (2020). The Right to Be Forgotten in the Digital Age: The Challenges of Data Protection Beyond Borders. German Law Journal, 21(S1), 55-65. doi:10.1017/glj.2020.14
• Francesca, C., Fabrizio, M., & Lorenzo, S. (2022). What People Leave Behind.
• Geraldine, O. M. (2022). Data privacy and the right to be forgotten. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 16(2), 1216-1232. doi:10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.2.1079
• Guo, H., Liang, H., Zhao, M., Xiao, Y., Wu, T., Xue, J., & Zhu, L. (2023). Privacy-Preserving Fine-Grained Redaction with Policy Fuzzy Matching in Blockchain-Based Mobile Crowdsensing. Electronics, 12(16). doi:10.3390/electronics12163416
• Kocharyan, H., Vardanyan, L., Hamuľák, O., & Kerikmäe, T. (2021). Critical Views on the Right to Be Forgotten After the Entry Into Force of the GDPR: Is it Able to Effectively Ensure Our Privacy? International and Comparative Law Review, 21(2), 96-115. doi:10.2478/iclr-2021-0015
• Kung-Chung, L. (2017). Annotated leading patent cases in major Asian jurisdictions: City University of HK Press. Mantelero, A. (2013). The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’. Computer Law Security Review, 29(3), 229-235.
• Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The smart court-a new pathway to justice in china? Paper presented at the IJCA.
• Upton, J. C. (2022). From thin to thick justice and beyond: Access to justice and legal pluralism in Indigenous Taiwan. Law Social Inquiry, 47(3), 996-1025.
• Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law Security Review, 34(2), 304-313.
• Wiedemann, K. (2020). A Matter of Choice: The German Federal Supreme Court’s Interim Decision in the Abuse-of-Dominance Proceedings Bundeskartellamt v. Facebook (Case KVR 69/19). IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(9), 1168-1181. doi:10.1007/s40319-020-00990-3.