In today's digital age, the "Right to Be Forgotten" represents a fascinating evolution of personal privacy rights. Once, privacy was as simple as closing a door; now, it has expanded to the idea of "deleting" aspects of oneself from the internet's ever-watchful eye[1]. RTBF is a data protection principle that empowers individuals to request the deletion or de-indexing of their personal data, essentially giving them control over which parts of their past are allowed to persist online. [2]

The journey of RTBF began with a case that put digital privacy in the limelight: Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González (2014)[3]. This landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized RTBF as a crucial component of an individual's data protection rights, enabling people to request the removal of links to outdated or irrelevant information about them from search engines. As a result, RTBF quickly became a cornerstone of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation[4], specifically under Article 17, which codifies the "right to erasure." With its inclusion in the GDPR, Right to be forgotten formally entered the global privacy arena, igniting debates and inspiring similar initiatives worldwide. The premise was simple: people should not be haunted by all aspects of their digital past indefinitely.

Meanwhile, RTBF is being closely scrutinized in India, where privacy concerns have surged following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [5](2017). This pivotal case recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While India has yet to implement a nationwide Right to be forgotten statute like the GDPR. As India progresses toward digitalization, a fine balance must be struck between protecting individuals' rights and preserving access to information, particularly in sectors such as public record-keeping, journalism, and historical archives.

However, just as legal systems began accommodating RTBF, a new contender emerged on the technology front-blockchain. Blockchain, the technology underlying cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, brings an inherent challenge to RTBF: it is designed to be an immutable, decentralized ledger of records. [6]At its core, blockchain operates through a distributed network of participants who maintain a continuously growing chain of "blocks," each containing data and a unique cryptographic hash linking it to the previous block. This interconnected structure ensures that any alteration to a single block would disrupt the entire chain, making data on the blockchain essentially tamper-proof and permanent[7]. In a world where data deletion is central to privacy rights, blockchain's permanence is both a feature and a formidable obstacle.

This tension brings to the fore complex legal and technical questions: Can a technology built on immutability be compatible with a law founded on deletion? Should exceptions be made for blockchain, or should data protection laws evolve to meet the demands of emerging technologies? Addressing these questions is particularly relevant to India as the country seeks to leverage blockchain in public and private sectors.

This article delves into the Right to Be Forgotten and blockchain conundrum through a comprehensive analysis of Indian laws, technological nuances, and international perspectives. Drawing from technical literature, legal commentaries, and case law, this article also examines the potential solutions or frameworks that may bridge the gap between an individual's right to privacy and blockchain's commitment to transparency and immutability. By the end, we aim to offer a nuanced perspective on how the Right to be forgotten can coexist-if at all-with blockchain technology in a manner that respects both personal privacy rights and the integrity of data records.

Blockchain Technology and Data Immutability
Blockchain technology, first conceptualized in the early 2000s and later popularized with the emergence of Bitcoin in 2009, is transforming various sectors by providing a secure, transparent, and decentralized method for recording transactions and storing data. The foundational properties of blockchain-decentralization, transparency, and immutability-make it distinct from traditional data storage systems and enable unique applications across industries.[8] However, these very attributes pose significant legal and ethical challenges, particularly concerning the "Right to Be Forgotten", as blockchain's immutable structure resists modification or deletion of stored data.

1. Basics of Blockchain Technology
   At its core, blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger that records transactions across multiple computers so that the recorded data cannot be altered retroactively. The primary components of a blockchain include blocks, each containing transaction data and a unique identifier called a hash. These blocks are sequentially linked to each other, forming a chain where each block's hash is dependent on the data contained within it as well as the hash of the previous block, thus creating an unbreakable sequence.[9] Any attempt to alter a single block would necessitate altering all subsequent blocks, which would require a consensus from the entire network-a feat virtually impossible due to the distributed nature of blockchain.
   
   Three essential characteristics of blockchain technology are decentralization, transparency, and immutability. Unlike centralized databases controlled by a single authority, blockchain is decentralized and operates across a network of nodes, where each participant has an identical copy of the blockchain[10]. This decentralization ensures that no single entity has control over the data, which makes blockchain highly resistant to manipulation and enhances trust among users. Transparency is inherent in blockchain design, as each participant can view and verify transactions, although this transparency varies between public and private blockchains. Immutability-the inability to alter data once added-is the defining feature of blockchain, providing a high level of security and reliability[11] but also introducing significant challenges, especially in cases where data modification or deletion is legally or ethically required, as seen with RTBF.
   
   Blockchain networks are categorized into public and private blockchains, each with distinct implications for data accessibility and control. Public blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open networks where anyone can participate as a node, view the ledger, and access data. [12]The decentralized, permissionless nature of public blockchains contributes to their immutability and transparency but poses challenges for data privacy and erasure, as any data stored on a public blockchain becomes virtually permanent and accessible to all participants.
   
   In contrast, private blockchains are permissioned networks, where access is restricted to authorized users, often implemented by businesses or organizations seeking to leverage blockchain's benefits without sacrificing data control. While private blockchains offer greater flexibility in data management and can incorporate features that allow limited data modification, they are still fundamentally structured around the principles of transparency and immutability[13]. Consequently, the distinction between public and private blockchains impacts the feasibility of RTBF implementation, as public blockchains generally resist any form of data alteration, while private blockchains may allow limited compliance with RTBF under strict controls.
    
2. Data Blocks and Hashing: How Blockchain Data is Stored and Why It's Nearly Impossible to Alter
   Imagine a blockchain as a long, unbreakable chain made of data blocks-each block is like a digital journal page. Every page (or block) contains a record of transactions, a timestamp, and a unique cryptographic signature called a hash-think of it as a fingerprint for that page. When a new page is written, it also includes the fingerprint of the previous page. This creates a continuous chain where each block's identity depends on the one before it.
   
   Now, here's where the magic (and the challenge) happens: The hash acts as a strict guardian of the block's integrity. If even a tiny detail in a block's data is changed, the hash changes completely, like a fingerprint that no longer matches. Because each block's fingerprint is linked to the next, changing one block would break the entire chain. This makes blockchain extremely immutable, meaning that once something is recorded, it's set in stone. You can't just go back and alter it without everyone noticing[14].
   
   But this immutability, while great for securing data, presents a dilemma when it comes to the Right to Be Forgotten-the idea that individuals can request the removal of personal data. In traditional databases, if someone wants their information deleted, they can ask the database admin to remove it. However, in blockchain, this is a tall order. There's no central authority to grant such a request, and since data is stored across many different places (nodes), deleting or modifying it would require agreement from everyone involved-a nearly impossible feat, especially on public blockchains. In short, while blockchain's unchangeable nature is what makes it so secure, it also makes it a bit like an ancient library that once a book is written, can't be taken down-even if the author wants it removed. And that's the challenge when it comes to respecting the Right to Be Forgotten[15]
    
3. Blockchain Applications Impacting RTBF
   One notable application of blockchain that impacts RTBF is smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with terms directly written into code on the blockchain. These contracts automatically execute once specific conditions are met, often involving interactions with personal data that cannot be modified or deleted due to blockchain's immutability. For instance, in a decentralized application (DApp), personal information embedded within a smart contract may remain permanently on the blockchain, posing right to be forgotten compliance issues[16]. Even though smart contracts offer significant advantages in automation and reliability, they complicate RTBF implementation by storing data in a way that defies traditional data protection principles.

Cryptocurrencies are the most well-known blockchain application and highlight the conflict between RTBF and blockchain technology. Cryptocurrency transactions are permanently recorded on the blockchain, making it impossible to delete or modify transaction history. This persistence creates challenges for individuals wishing to erase or anonymize their transaction data, as even pseudonymous transactions can sometimes be traced back to real identities[17].

Additionally, digital identity management on blockchain presents further RTBF conflicts. In digital identity systems built on blockchain, personal information such as identification numbers, biometrics, or other sensitive data may be stored or referenced in a blockchain ledger. The permanence of this data directly contradicts RTBF principles, as individuals are unable to remove their personal information once registered on the blockchain[18].

Legal Tensions Between Blockchain and RTBF
The collision between blockchain technology and the Right to Be Forgotten highlights fundamental legal and technological incompatibilities. RTBF, rooted in data protection principles, requires organizations to delete or "forget" an individual's personal information upon request, especially when such data is no longer relevant or necessary. In contrast, blockchain technology is built upon the principle of immutability, where data entered onto a blockchain ledger becomes virtually permanent due to its decentralized structure and cryptographic chaining of blocks. [19]

For example, if a user's personal data is recorded in a transaction on a public blockchain like Ethereum, it becomes accessible to all network participants and remains unalterable. Any attempt to delete or alter one block would require changing all subsequent blocks-a nearly impossible task without consensus from the entire network.

This immutability is both the strength and limitation of blockchain: while it ensures data integrity and security, it contradicts RTBF's emphasis on data erasure. The core legal question here is: Can a technology founded on unchangeable records comply with a law that demands deletion?

Research publications have contributed significantly to the academic discourse surrounding the Right to be forgotten and its compatibility with blockchain. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger's seminal book, "Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age", [20]argues that the ability to forget or erase certain data is essential in the digital era, as it allows individuals to move beyond past mistakes and reinvent themselves. Mayer-Schönberger advocates for RTBF as a necessary counterbalance to the internet's memory, especially as data permanence can unfairly limit opportunities for those seeking a fresh start.

One potential compromise to achieve a "soft" version of Right to be forgotten on blockchain is through encryption and pseudonymization[21]. With encryption, data is scrambled into an unreadable format accessible only by those with a decryption key. In theory, encrypted data could still exist on the blockchain while remaining inaccessible, thus making it effectively "forgotten." However, this method is imperfect, as encrypted data could eventually be decrypted if keys were compromised or advances in technology made decryption feasible.[22]

Pseudonymization-the process of substituting personally identifiable information with unique identifiers-could provide some privacy protections on blockchain without requiring data deletion. For instance, instead of storing a user's real name, a pseudonym or a unique hash representing that user's identity could be recorded[23]. Although this method increases privacy, it does not align fully with RTBF, as pseudonymized data is not erased and could still potentially be re-identified.[24]

Balancing these priorities is challenging because the Right to be forgotten implies a legal right to data deletion, whereas blockchain's transparency demands open and accessible records. For instance, in financial systems, the ability to verify transaction history is essential for preventing fraud, yet individuals may also want their financial records erased from public view.

This raises ethical questions: should the transparency of financial transactions override an individual's right to erase outdated or sensitive information? Consider a blockchain used by a charity to publicly track donations for transparency. If a donor wishes to have their contribution erased for privacy reasons, this request conflicts with the charity's goal of transparent accounting. The charity would face a legal dilemma-erasing the donation record would break the transparency chain, potentially damaging its credibility.

Comparative Analysis with EU GDPR
The EU General Data Protection Regulation, implemented in 2018, is the most comprehensive legal framework addressing the Right to be forgotten. Article 17 of the GDPR[25] defines the "right to erasure" and establishes clear guidelines for compliance, providing individuals with a robust right to request data deletion. However, like the Data Protection Act, the GDPR's Right to erasure provision clashes with blockchain's immutable structure, leading to debates on how RTBF can be meaningfully applied in blockchain contexts.

The GDPR's guidelines emphasize data minimization and privacy by design, encouraging organizations to adopt practices that limit unnecessary data collection and protect personal information[26]. In blockchain systems, these principles are challenging to implement due to the technology's permanent and transparent nature. In response, some EU countries have explored creative interpretations, such as using pseudonymization and off-chain storage to align blockchain projects with GDPR requirements[27].

While these techniques do not offer full RTBF compliance, they mitigate privacy risks and are considered permissible under EU interpretations. The difference between the GDPR and India's data protection act lies in their respective enforcement mechanisms and the scope of RTBF. GDPR allows for substantial fines for non-compliance, creating a strong incentive for blockchain platforms to seek GDPR-friendly adaptations[28]. In India, enforcement mechanisms are still evolving, and the lack of technical specificity around RTBF on blockchain suggests that businesses may struggle to adopt feasible compliance solutions.

As blockchain adoption continues to expand, Indian legal frameworks must address the unique challenges posed by immutable technologies. While encryption, pseudonymization, and off-chain solutions provide partial compliance, these methods fall short of true RTBF adherence, suggesting that existing laws may require rethinking to keep pace with blockchain's growth. Ultimately, striking a balance between privacy rights and the societal benefits of blockchain will require collaborative efforts between legal authorities, technologists, and policymakers.

Case Studies and Jurisprudence Analysis
The evolving jurisprudence surrounding the Right to Be Forgotten reflects the tension between individual privacy rights and the public's right to access information. Landmark cases in both India and international courts have shaped the understanding of the Right to be forgotten, laying the foundations for how it is applied today, particularly in light of blockchain's data permanence.

The Google Spain v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (2014)[29] case is a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that significantly shaped the global understanding of the right to be forgotten. In this case, Costeja González, a Spanish citizen, petitioned Google to remove links to an old newspaper article detailing his past financial difficulties, arguing that it was no longer relevant and infringed upon his privacy rights. The Court ruled in favor of González, establishing that individuals have the right to request the deletion of outdated or irrelevant information, effectively codifying the right to erasure within the European Union.

The Google Spain ruling provided a blueprint for RTBF, serving as a precedent for nations exploring RTBF legislation. While India's legal framework differs from that of the EU, the Google Spain decision highlights RTBF's role in balancing personal privacy with the public's right to information[30]. Additionally, this case illustrates the complexities of enforcing the Right to erasure on platforms with global reach, as requests for deletion in one jurisdiction may not apply in others.

The Vikram v. India Kanoon [31] case is a significant milestone for RTBF in India. In this case, the petitioner, Vikram, requested that an online legal database, India Kanoon, remove records related to a past criminal proceeding in which he had been acquitted. He argued that keeping these records publicly accessible infringed upon his right to privacy, particularly given that the case no longer held any relevance or public interest. Vikram's request was rooted in the desire to avoid potential harm to his reputation and employability, advocating for RTBF as a necessary mechanism to ensure personal dignity.

The Gujarat High Court's ruling in favor of the petitioner underscored that an individual should not be perpetually bound by records of past legal encounters, particularly when they have been acquitted or exonerated. While the court did not explicitly label this right as the right to be forgotten, it recognized an individual's privacy right to request the erasure of certain records[32].

The landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [33] case transformed India's legal landscape regarding privacy. In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, encapsulating the right to life and personal liberty. This recognition has broader implications, laying the groundwork for RTBF by affirming individuals' control over their personal data and reputations.

The Puttaswamy case catalyzed discussions on data protection and RTBF, with the Supreme Court underscoring the need for comprehensive data protection legislation in India. While the ruling did not directly establish RTBF, its emphasis on autonomy, dignity, and personal freedom serves as the philosophical basis for RTBF-related claims. Consequently, as India drafts and enacts data protection laws, the principles laid out in Puttaswamy are expected to shape RTBF provisions and their potential application to emerging technologies like blockchain.[34]

Numerous academic critiques address the feasibility of the right to be forgotten in the blockchain context, with scholars often debating the effectiveness of technical solutions like "data obsolescence.[35]" Data obsolescence refers to the practice of rendering data useless or inaccessible after a certain period without outright deletion. For instance, data stored on a blockchain could be encrypted and then "forgotten" by discarding the decryption keys. However, critics argue that this solution falls short of true data erasure, as the underlying data remains intact, contradicting RTBF's purpose[36].

Potential Solutions and Legal Reconciliation
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) and blockchain technology embody two conflicting paradigms-one focused on individual data privacy and deletion, and the other on decentralized transparency and immutability[37]. The tension between blockchain's immutable structure and the Right to Be Forgotten presents both a legal and technological dilemma. Reconciling these two forces requires innovative approaches that respect the integrity of blockchain while also allowing individuals greater control over their personal data.

Data Minimization and On-Chain/Off-Chain Solutions
Data minimization is a foundational principle in privacy law that restricts the collection and storage of personal information to what is strictly necessary. Applying data minimization to blockchain would involve storing only essential information on-chain, while more sensitive or identifiable data is stored off-chain in a centralized or hybrid database[38]. By limiting the amount of personal data directly stored on the blockchain, this approach can help achieve some degree of RTBF compliance.

For example, a reference link or hash could be stored on-chain, pointing to off-chain data, which can be erased or modified without disrupting the blockchain's integrity. This off-chain approach also provides flexibility, as sensitive data can be modified or deleted without altering the blockchain. However, this solution comes with its own limitations, such as reduced decentralization, potential security risks, and reliance on third-party storage providers[39].

Smart Contract Design for Privacy
Smart contracts are programmable codes on blockchain that execute automatically when specific conditions are met. Privacy-focused smart contract design can incorporate RTBF-friendly clauses, allowing users to have greater control over their data. [40]For example, a smart contract could be programmed to include an expiration clause where personal data is removed or anonymized after a specified period or user-defined trigger.

Another approach is to design smart contracts that store only pseudonymous data on-chain, with a system that allows data owners to control the visibility or lifespan of their data through additional conditions. While smart contract privacy mechanisms may enhance RTBF compliance, they still face the challenge of blockchain immutability, as modifying or deleting data would still conflict with the fundamental design of most blockchains[41]. Despite this limitation, the ability to automate data anonymization or control access provides an alternative path for privacy-conscious applications.

Regulatory Sandboxes
Regulatory sandboxes offer a testing ground for blockchain projects to explore RTBF compliance mechanisms in a controlled environment. By creating a sandbox, regulators can support companies experimenting with privacy-centric blockchain designs, providing them with temporary exemptions from RTBF requirements while they develop innovative solutions. [42]This framework allows regulators to collaborate with technologists and privacy experts to better understand blockchain's limitations and develop new compliance standards that could eventually be incorporated into legislation. For example, a sandbox initiative could allow financial services companies to trial anonymization techniques or explore hybrid storage models that limit personal data on-chain. Through such projects, the Indian government can gain insight into how RTBF might be enforced practically without stifling innovation.

Homomorphic Encryption and Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Homomorphic encryption allows data to be processed without decrypting it, thus preserving privacy while enabling calculations on encrypted data. This technology could enable users to interact with data on a blockchain without exposing their identity or personal details, offering an alternative form of privacy without requiring data erasure. [43]For instance, a user's identity could be verified through homomorphic encryption without revealing the actual identity, potentially making certain blockchain applications compliant with RTBF requirements by ensuring that personal data remains inaccessible even though it's stored on-chain.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) are another cryptographic method that enables one party to prove knowledge of certain information without revealing the information itself. ZKPs could support RTBF by verifying user identities or credentials without storing personal data on the blockchain[44]. However, these advanced cryptographic techniques are still evolving and may not be feasible for all blockchain applications due to high computational demands and cost.

Pseudonymization Techniques
Pseudonymization involves replacing identifiable information with pseudonyms, allowing data to be stored and processed without linking it directly to an individual. In blockchain contexts, pseudonymization could support RTBF compliance by obfuscating personal data without altering the blockchain structure.[45] For instance, a user's identity could be represented by an anonymous identifier or a cryptographic hash, thus limiting the amount of identifiable information stored directly on-chain. Although pseudonymization does not equate to full data deletion, it reduces privacy risks and can act as a viable compliance solution, especially in public blockchain networks where complete erasure is impractical.

India's privacy laws can be amended to better address the challenges posed by blockchain technology. Legislative amendments could include specific provisions for decentralized technologies, allowing for exemptions where strict RTBF compliance is technically impossible or would compromise blockchain's core benefits. For instance, lawmakers could define "effective erasure" in a way that includes pseudonymization or encryption techniques that render data inaccessible without requiring deletion.

Additionally, the right to be forgotten requests in blockchain contexts could be limited to cases where data has significant implications on individual reputation or employability, aligning with India's broader legal principles. Such adjustments would help bridge the gap between the rights enshrined in RTBF and the technical realities of blockchain.

Further research is needed to assess the technical feasibility and scalability of cryptographic techniques like homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs within blockchain systems. As these technologies mature, they may become essential tools for balancing privacy with transparency, especially for industries that require data permanence, such as healthcare and finance. [46]Additionally, the effectiveness of off-chain storage models, regulatory sandboxes, and hybrid blockchain structures should be studied to understand their potential in achieving RTBF compliance without undermining the security and decentralization of blockchain networks.

On the legislative front, lawmakers must develop a nuanced understanding of blockchain's capabilities and limitations to create realistic and enforceable privacy standards. As India finalizes its Data Protection Bill, there is an urgent need to clarify RTBF's applicability to blockchain-based applications and to consider exemptions or alternative standards for decentralized platforms. Such legislative adjustments are essential to foster blockchain innovation while respecting individual privacy rights.

The Right to be forgotten and blockchain debate highlights the challenges of applying traditional data protection principles to emerging technologies. A balanced approach is essential, one that respects privacy rights without stifling the transformative potential of blockchain. Through technological innovation, legislative foresight, and collaborative regulatory experimentation, it is possible to chart a path that harmonizes RTBF with blockchain. This balance will ultimately enable individuals to retain control over their personal data while benefiting from the transparency, security, and trust that blockchain offers. As blockchain continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that govern it, ensuring that innovation and privacy are upheld as complementary rather than opposing principles.

End Notes:

1. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press.
2. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
3. Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González, Case C-131/12, [2014] ECR I-317.
4. European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1
6. Supra note 1
7. Supra note 2
8. Antonopoulos, A. M. (2017). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O'Reilly Media.
9. ibid
10. Bashir, I. (2017). Mastering Blockchain: Unlocking the Power of Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts, and Decentralized Applications. Packt Publishing.
11. Supra note 10
12. Supra note 8
13. ibid
14. Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. SSRN Electronic Journal
15. Zyskind, G., & Nathan, O. (2015). Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops.
16. Supra note 10
17. Supra note 14
18. Finck, M. (2018). Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation: Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law? European Parliamentary Research Service.
19. Supra note 15
20. Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, 2009
21. Smith, John. Balancing Privacy and Immutability: A 'Soft' Right to be Forgotten on Blockchain. Journal of Blockchain Research, vol. 12, no. 3, 2023, pp. 45-63.
22. ibid
23. ibid
24. Supra note 18
25. European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
26. ibid
27. Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia, SSRN Electronic Journal
28. Fairfield, J. A. T. (2015). BitProperty: Blockchains and Private Law in the Digital Age, Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper.
29. Supra note 3
30. ibid
31. Vikram Singh v. India Kanoon and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 7399.
32. ibid
33. Supra note 5
34. Supra note 5
35. Supra note 27
36. Supra note 10
37. Supra note 18
38. ibid
39. supra note 14
40. Smart Contract Design for Privacy Protection in Blockchain Networks. Blockchain and Privacy Law Review, vol. 3, no. 4, 2020, pp. 201-218
41. ibid
42. Supra note 10
43. Homomorphic Encryption as a Tool for Data Privacy in Cloud Computing. Journal of Cryptographic Research, vol. 29, no. 6, 2021, pp. 542-560.
44. ibid
45. Exploring Pseudonymization Techniques for Privacy in Digital Data Processing. Journal of Data Privacy and Protection, vol. 15, no. 2, 2022, pp. 120-135.
46. ibid