That's a very slippery slope...

Who will enforce this, the government? Which government? ** There's more than one you know, and they don't function the same across the globe. Too often, they don't function, at all. And how far will this go, remove stuff that might compromise your safety and that of your family or even stuff "you don't like because". This would just turn into an endless mess. Besides, removing links from Google search results about you doesn't remove any of the actual information from the net. It might keep the noisy neighbor lady from Google stalking you or a lazy Human Resources employee but it won't hide anything from any real threat.
Remember the infamous Mercedes girl, the teenager who drunkenly drove her dad's Mercedes into a concrete pillar, spilling her brains all over the street? Her dad supposedly paid a lot of money to remove the leaked police photos from the net but those photos are still around, impossible to get rid of stuff especially if it's something real nasty that one would want to see removed.

If there's wrong info about you in a contained space, sue for libel / slander if whoever hosts the data doesn't remove it. If the info is true however then tough luck. It shouldn't be any of Google's concern.

** If it's just Google you're concerned about, I guess the US government would be responsible to enforce things. Not sure if you want to task them with this task.

Any employer who is not amused by my stupid pictures is not worth working for. People need to learn how to live and not be stuck uppities seeking approval from others.

@Protoss and this is a very interesting article and topic, thanks for posting.

I think it is a very dangerous problem when you are relying on subjective assessment to make a decision about effective censorship. This almost certainly will be exploited by those with the means to afford strong litigation teams to cover up unfavourable stories that may well be in the public interest. However, a strict, limited scope, mainly objectively stated set of rules may be more acceptable as I feel there are circumstances where things should be 'forgotten'. For example, I do not feel that the Spanish man in this case should continue to be blighted by the financial problems he faced a decade ago.

If you want to see how a law like this can go from a well intentioned piece of legislation to a law that allows you to purchase silence, simply look what is happening in the UK with the Human Rights Act and privacy legislation. Well intentioned, but ultimately hugely abused.

What if you are applying to medical residencies? or Law firm? Vet school? Teaching? These are opportunities that have a small window for getting in and one mistake could cost you your dream.

Edit: and I agree that yes, people should be less uptight, but that's not how the world works unfortunately.

I agree with the EU court. People change over time. Judging someone based on something they wrote or a pic 10 years ago is idiotic and cruel. People deserve a fresh start.

Try saying that where youve been unemployed for an extended amount of time

It's less about you remembering them (I don't regret anything that was, after all, part of what turned me into who I am now, and part of why I can judge things differently now), than about people attaching all of it to your current self. People don't care about timestamps. What is on the internet "is" you. If you're the one who "said" this, you're the one who "say" this. That's what "looking up" means, in practice.

What is the line though? I really hate censorship, but I can understand the want to hide certain d'oh moments in your life that are no longer who you are. Who gets to make this line? How long till this turns into a money can hid everything? People could really get hurt if this law is not held tight by the reigns.

Prior to 9/11 most people in the US didn't really notice Muslims, but after 9/11 there was a ton of bigotry that hasn't completely disappeared.

My main concern here is that there's a ton of data being captured by 3rd parties and put on the net without any consent and then being taken and sliced up to provide a view that nobody can really understand or anticipate. Things like Target knowing about pregnancies before the father in some cases.

That being said, I think it's a bit silly to have a right that's so fundamentally unenforceable.

I was about to say the same. Even worse if you don't find the reason why.

Indeed. The considerable resources it would take to engineer an efficient structure in which way it would work for all sides would likely not be worth it since co-operation is out of the window the second conflict is ensued with multiple parties that have different agenda.

There are services you can pay to scrub you off the internet, of course there's always going to be places where the information may lie but if it affects your life severely enough it might be worth it (along with sueing whoever has control of it).

In all honesty I think this "right to be forgotten" is a futile attempt to address the problems of a new technology with an outdated policy that will be useless in practice.

I agree that there is a problem, and I can see that the policy was enacted with the goal of helping those that suffer under information (often false) that is perpetuated about them over the net. However, the idea that such information, once it's out and known, _could_ be forgotten by decree, is ludicrously naive. It won't happen, and the policy is an ineffective solution.

The solution that will have to be taken, eventually, is a cultural change. In a society were tons of information are permanently available about everyone, our society will have to reach a state where people truly question sources, and where people truly understand that others can develop and grow out of their past. It's either that, or we will degrade into an age of information control, which is an extremely scary thought.

I'm not sure Google tracking minutia and criminal histories need to be swept into the same box. There are very specific laws that dictate what must be stored, by whom, for how long, and who can view what under various circumstances. (at least state side) It's also legal here for anyone to background anyone for any reason. If there is an official record of something it will probably turn up, and if something isn't official, then maybe it's not that great an idea for the public to be using it to sabotage someone's options.

The internet remembering everything you ever said like when you went on a trollish rant about women belonging in the kitchen when you were 12 years old but doesn't reflect your 25 year old self, isn't really the same thing and probably not something that needs preserving.

It isn't valuable history and only serves to satisfy peoples' morbid need to know everything about everyone and everything. Are we really going to sign off on the idea that all people need to be laid bare for the world to see, and that they are to be judged more on their yesterday than their today?

If we get to a point where we do get to know everything about everyone, then we are all going to have to become a lot more forgiving of faults, which I don't think anyone's interested in doing. The Internet is just the biggest gossip on the planet. Everyone tells it everything, and it spreads it all over the water cooler, the school yard, and into every other place people like to whisper about what so and so has been up to.

When it comes to the history angle, how much white noise do we need stuff into "history?" The big stuff isn't going to be forgotten, but I don't need to know someone said something stupid 15 years ago and be tempted to judge them for it. I don't know if people do or do not have the "right to be forgotten," but I do think we should have enough respect, and kindness for our fellow man to be willing to let a person's past stay in the past, and to let our assessment of their value be based on who they are, and not on some random dirt we managed to unearth looking for flaws.

We each choose what kind of world we want to live in by what we accept and allow around us.

People have difficulty between finding where they want to be from where they are, and I'm not talking just in terms of employment/careers. They don't see anything beyond what's around them now. "This is who I have to please, these are who I need to emulate, and this is what I have to do to convince others to let me become what I want to be." - That's not living to me.

If you accept that as 'reality' then you're only putting yourself in a cage, being afraid to be free because you don't know how to get pellets on your own and protect yourself from the birds and cats. Unless you've screwed yourself over with bad investments (mortgages/debts, overhead you can barely meet, not following the right career path to begin with, etc.) or had some bad luck then you're just accepting the status quo because you're afraid to be the game changer.

...While standing on 1 hand upside-down, missing a left pinky toe, and eating 1 pound of broccoli. There's a big difference between being laid off and having no (or poor) direction in life. People make the wrong connections, invested their time into the wrong businesses, and now have to wait in line. Sending in resumes and hoping McDonald's calls isn't getting back on your feet.

And on the other note, if anyone has a problem with my noodz it's only cause they're jelly. B)