Journals / Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

The Rights to Rectification and Erasure of Data in the Context of Blockchain Immutability: An Analysis of Migration Governance

Blokzincirin Değiştirilemezliği Karşısında Veriyi Düzeltme ve Silme Hakları: Göç Yönetişimi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Şevval Nur Acuner(YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0000-7928-5018
Pages
93–106
Publication Date
2026-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the study emphasizes that for blockchain to be positioned as a fair tool in migration management, the technology must be designed not merely with operational efficiency in mind, but with an auditable and modifiable flexibility that protects the legal rights of asylum seekers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the structural conflict between the core characteristic of blockchain technology, namely immutability, and the rights to rectification and erasure (right to be forgotten) mandated by data protection regulations (GDPR/KVKK), specifically within the context of migration governance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the use of blockchain in digital identity and humanitarian aid processes offers significant advantages such as data security and fraud prevention, the “immutable” nature of the technology carries the risk of perpetuating erroneous data.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the study emphasizes that for blockchain to be positioned as a fair tool in migration management, the technology must be designed not merely with operational efficiency in mind, but with an auditable and modifiable flexibility that protects the legal rights of asylum seekers.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kişisel Verilerin Korunması · Göç Yönetişimi · Algoritmik Yanlılık

Abstract

This study examines the structural conflict between the core characteristic of blockchain technology, namely immutability, and the rights to rectification and erasure (right to be forgotten) mandated by data protection regulations (GDPR/KVKK), specifically within the context of migration governance. While the use of blockchain in digital identity and humanitarian aid processes offers significant advantages such as data security and fraud prevention, the “immutable” nature of the technology carries the risk of perpetuating erroneous data. In particular, the high error rates of data-providing algorithms (such as facial recognition and dialect analysis) across different demographic groups lead to these incorrect records -once rendered permanent by the blockchain- evolving into a form of “digital stigmatization” against refugees. It should not be overlooked that technical errors, which are difficult to rectify even in centralized systems, may lead to consequences as severe as the deprivation of citizenship rights when coupled with the inflexible structure of blockchain. Furthermore, the study analyzes the commercialization of data resulting from the involvement of private sector actors in blockchain systems, and the motivation to retain refugee data as an “economic asset” in relation to the right to be forgotten. Innovative technical solutions have been evaluated to address these structural and ethical challenges. It has been determined that these methods offer a technical equivalence to the legal obligations of rectification and erasure by providing opportunities for restricted access or controlled updates without compromising data integrity. In conclusion, the study emphasizes that for blockchain to be positioned as a fair tool in migration management, the technology must be designed not merely with operational efficiency in mind, but with an auditable and modifiable flexibility that protects the legal rights of asylum seekers.

Özet

Bu çalışma, blokzincir teknolojisinin temel karakteristiği olan değiştirilemezlik (immutability) ilkesi ile kişisel verilerin korunması mevzuatının (GDPR/KVKK) öngördüğü düzeltme ve silme hakları arasındaki yapısal çatışmayı göç yönetişimi özelinde incelemektedir. Dijital kimlik ve insani yardım süreçlerinde blokzincir kullanımı, veri güvenliği ve sahteciliğin önlenmesi gibi önemli avantajlar sunsa da teknolojinin “değiştirilemez” kayıt yapısı, hatalı verilerin kalıcılaşması riskini beraberinde getirmektedir. Özellikle sisteme veri sağlayan algoritmaların (yüz tanıma ve dil analizi) demografik gruplar üzerindeki yüksek hata payları, blokzincir tarafından kalıcı hale getirilen bu yanlış kayıtların sığınma arayan bireyler aleyhine dijital bir damgalamaya dönüşmesine yol açmaktadır. Merkezi sistemlerde dahi telafisi güç olan teknik hataların, blokzincirin esnek olmayan yapısıyla birleştiğinde bireyleri vatandaşlık haklarından mahrum bırakabilecek kadar ağır sonuçlar doğurabileceği ihtimali göz ardı edilmemelidir. Çalışmada ayrıca, blokzincir sistemlerine özel sektör aktörlerinin dahil olmasıyla verinin ticarileşmesi ve kişilerin verisinin bir ekonomik varlık olarak saklanma motivasyonu, unutulma hakkı bağlamında analiz edilmiştir. Bu yapısal ve etik sorunların aşılması noktasında yenilikçi teknik çözümler değerlendirilmiştir. Bu yöntemlerin, verinin bütünlüğünü bozmadan erişimi kısıtlama veya kontrollü güncelleme imkânı sunarak mevzuatta yer alan düzeltme ve silme yükümlülüklerine teknik bir eşdeğerlik sağladığı saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, blokzincirin göç yönetiminde adil bir araç olarak konumlandırılabilmesi için teknolojinin sadece operasyonel verimlilik odaklı değil, sığınmacıların hukuki haklarını koruyan denetlenebilir ve değiştirilebilir bir esneklikte kurgulanması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Acuner, Ş. N. (2026). The Rights to Rectification and Erasure of Data in the Context of Blockchain Immutability: An Analysis of Migration Governance. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 93–106. https://ajindex.com/articles/1520696

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Balatska, V., Poberezhnyk, V., & Opirskyy, I. (2025). Method for ensuring the reliability and security of personal data in blockchain systems of state registers. CPITS 2025: Workshop on Cybersecurity Providing in Information and Telecommunication Systems (ss. 293-306). Kiev, Ukrayna: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
  2. BENJAMIN, Ruha (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity.
  3. Bither, J., & Ziebarth, A. (2021). Automating decision-making in migration policy: A navigation guide. Berlin: Migration Strategy Group. Erişim adresi: https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/2021-11/Automating%20Decision-Making%20in%20Migration%20Policy_Bither%20and%20Ziebarth.pdf
  4. Blockchain Türkiye Platformu. (2019). Kişisel verilerin korunması hukuku ve blokzinciri teknolojisi raporu. İstanbul: Türkiye Bilişim Vakfı. Erişim adresi: https://bctr.org/dokumanlar/KVKK_ve_Blokzincir_Teknolojisi.pdf
  5. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15. Erişim adresi: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf
  6. Camenisch, J., Derler, D., Krenn, S., Pöhls, H. C., Samelin, K., & Slamanig, D. (2017). Chameleon-hashes with ephemeral trapdoors and applications to invisible sanitizable signatures. Public-Key Cryptography – PKC 2017 içinde (ss. 152-182). Amsterdam, Hollanda: Springer, Cham. Erişim adresi: https://henrich.poehls.com/papers/2017_CDKPSS_chamhash_with_ephemeral_trapdoors_PKC-eprint.pdf
  7. DİRİ, Nurcan-YALÇINKAYA, Bahattin (2022). Blokzincir uygulamalarında kişisel veri problemi: Depolama riskleri ve öneriler. Bilgi Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(1), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1000702 Amend, J., Feulner, S., Rieger, A., Roth, T., Fridgen, G., & Guggenberger, T. (2025). How Germany successfully implemented its intergovernmental FLORA system. MIS Quarterly Executive, 24(1), 67-78. Erişim adresi: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol24/iss1/8/
  8. Dumbrava, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence in asylum procedures in the EU (EPRS Briefing PE 775.861). Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service. Erişim adresi:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/775861/EPRS_BRI(2025)775861_EN.pdf
  9. European Data Protection Board. (2025, April 8). Guidelines 02/2025 on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies (Version 1.1). European Data Protection Board. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-04/edpb_guidelines_202502_blockchain_en.pdf
  10. FORTI, Mirko (2021). Blockchain-driven identification procedures in the migration context: regulatory challenges and fundamental rights issues. Dirittifondamentali.it, 2021(2), 145-169. Erişim adresi: https://dirittifondamentali.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Forti-Blockchain-driven-identification-procedures-in-the-migration-context.pdf
  11. Grother, P., Ngan, M., & Hanaoka, K. (2019). Face recognition vendor test (FRVT) part 3: Demographic effects (NISTIR 8280). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Erişim adresi: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/nist.ir.8280.pdf
  12. GÜLDEN, Fadime (2026). Merkeziyetsiz adalet sistemlerinin usûl hukuku bakımından değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Erciyes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kayseri.
  13. Godyn, M., Kedziora, M., Ren, Y., Liu, Y., & Song, H. H. (2022). Analysis of solutions for a blockchain compliance with GDPR. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 15021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19341-y
  14. Jia, M., Chen, J., He, K., Du, R., Zheng, L., Lai, M.,. Liu, F. (2022). Redactable blockchain from decentralized chameleon hash functions. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 17, 2771-2784. DOI:10.1109/TIFS.2022.3192716
  15. Khade, P. S., Gode, A. S., & Sambhe, R. U. (2025). Blockchain as a backbone for cybersecurity: From data integrity to decentralized trust. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 28(1), 2014 -2023. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.1.3215
  16. MENDİ, Arif Furkan (2021). Blokzincir mimarisi ve getirdiği fırsatlar. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (29), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1009655
  17. Metin, B., Erkan, S., Atasu, İ. ve Yılmaz, E., (2019). Privacy Impact Assessment as a Tool for GDPR Compliance Preparation, Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi. 1(2), 75-86. https://izlik.org/JA29EJ83HC
  18. Molnar, P. (2020). Technological testing grounds: Migration management experiments and reflections from the ground up (S. Chander, Ed.). Brüksel: European Digital Rights (EDRi). Erişim adresi: https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Technological-Testing-Grounds.pdf
  19. ÖKSÜZOĞLU, Hilal Tuğba (2019). 6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu ve Avrupa Birliği hukukunda kişisel verilerin silinmesi ve düzeltilmesi. Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi, 2019(2), 185-242.
  20. Pisa, M., & Juden, M. (2017). Blockchain and economic development: Hype vs. reality (CGD Working Paper No. 461). Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Erişim adresi: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/blockchain-and-economic-development-hype-vs-reality_0.pdf
  21. Sarridis, I., Koutlis, C., Papadopoulos, S., & Diou, C. (2023). Towards fair face verification: An in-depth analysis of demographic biases.
  22. SPÄTH, Elisabeth (2025). AI use in the asylum procedure in Germany: Exploring perspectives with refugees and supporters. M. C. Kettemann & E. Schulz (Ed.), The digital transformation of human rights (ss. 120-146). Berlin, Almanya: Springer.
  23. STATHAKIS, Ioannis (2019). Critical perspectives on blockchain for humanitarian aid: How does the technology impact procedural fairness and beneficiary data protection? (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Tilburg Üniversitesi, Tilburg, Hollanda.
  24. Perosa, T., Tsui, Q., & Singler, S. (2023). Biometrics in the humanitarian sector: A current look at risks, benefits and organisational policies. New York, NY: The Engine Room. Erişim adresi: https://www.theengineroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/TER-Biometrics-Humanitarian-Sector.pdf
  25. VASSELIN, Françoise (2024). Blockchain for migrants: Promoting self-sovereign identity and financial inclusion. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202412.0295.v1
  26. Wang, C., Chen, Y., & Jia, W. (2022). Constraints-based and one-time modification redactable blockchain. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 25(6), 1437-1447.
  27. World Economic Forum. (2022). A policy framework for responsible limits on facial recognition use case: Law enforcement investigations (Insight Report). Cenevre, İsviçre: Yazar. Erişim adresi: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Facial_Recognition_for_Law_Enforcement_Investigations_2022.pdf
  28. World Food Programme USA. (2020). How blockchain technology is helping refugees grocery shop in conflict zones. https://wfpusa.org/news/blockchain-tech-helps-refugees-grocery-shop-in-conflict-zones/
  29. Yıldız, A.-Açar, D. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence and migration governance: Navigating cooperation and complexity in European Union-Türkiye relations. METU Studies in Development, 51(Aralık), 191-209.
  30. Zafar, A. (2025). Reconciling blockchain technology and data protection laws: regulatory challenges, technical solutions, and practical pathways. Journal of Cybersecurity, 11(1), tyaf002. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyaf002
  31. Zanger-Tishler, M., Nyarko, J., & Goel, S. (2023). Risk scores, label bias, and everything but the kitchen sink. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.12638
  32. FORTI, Mirko (2021). Blockchain-driven identification procedures in the migration context: regulatory challenges and fundamental rights issues. Dirittifondamentali.it, 2021(2), 145-169. Erişim adresi: https://dirittifondamentali.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Forti-Blockchain-driven-identification-procedures-in-the-migration-context.pdf
  33. Jia, M., Chen, J., He, K., Du, R., Zheng, L., Lai, M.,. Liu, F. (2022). Redactable blockchain from decentralized chameleon hash functions. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 17, 2771-2784. DOI:10.1109/TIFS.2022.3192716