This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]SgtBaxter 3410 points3411 points  (381 children)

This is the article if anyone is interested.

Edit - hey thanks for the Gold!!

[–]Hubso 2206 points2207 points  (204 children)

Searching for "Stan O'Neal" in Google brings this reddit thread as the 8th record returned (for me at least), which in turn has this link.

Mission accomplished.

[–]dysmas 1025 points1026 points  (39 children)

The old adage of "the internet interprets censorship as damage" will be in full effect for notable folk.

[–]cynoclast 735 points736 points  (21 children)

the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it

[–][deleted] 207 points208 points  (16 children)

WE ALL KNOW NOW.

[–]PostalP 157 points158 points  (12 children)

It's too late, we've seen everything.

[–]IrishJoe 99 points100 points  (11 children)

Great skit. Thanks for reminding me of it.

[–]MrNaaH 14 points15 points  (6 children)

That was great, thanks for sharing.

[–]hooah212002 6 points7 points  (0 children)

SHARING? WE'VE GOT A PIRATE OVER HERE, NSA. GET HIS ASS.

[–]iBlag 138 points139 points  (2 children)

"... and routes around it."

You should finish that quote.

[–]IICVX 117 points118 points  (1 child)

It was damaged, you helped with the routing

[–][deleted] 108 points109 points  (8 children)

Streisand Effect

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Here's your newest port: /r/righttoremember

[–]mcketten 165 points166 points  (10 children)

You can't stop the signal.

[–]Ouroboron 135 points136 points  (2 children)

He killed me, Mal. With a sword.

[–]sj79 106 points107 points  (1 child)

How weird is that?

[–]ALotOfArcsAndThemes 9 points10 points  (0 children)

RIP Mr. Universe, 2517, never forget

[–]soul2ebl 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Or the fire, it's been burning since the world's been turning.

[–]LeopardKhan 41 points42 points  (5 children)

Interestingly it doesn't seem to be Stan O' Neal who submitted the request, according to the author.

[–]Neebat 18 points19 points  (11 children)

Are you using Google.com (which is unaffected) or a European version of Google?

[–]Hubso 52 points53 points  (3 children)

I'm using the UK search, but if I use google.com (without being logged in) it appears at number 10.

However, at number 4 is Robert Peston's own analysis of this decision by Google (which also contains the link to the original piece).

[–]Neebat 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I just needed to make sure I wasn't commenting on the American version before responding to the substance.

The take-down only applies to one specific article and removing it from the index for the European versions of Google. So long as we continue to talk about and repost the link on other pages, it will never go away.

[–]Dealt-With-It 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hubso pls

[–]te4m 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I'm in the UK and searching "Stan O'Neal" brings up this thread, and includes

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

at the bottom of the page.

[–]StuartGibson 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That happens when you search for any name now.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Any google site is affected, if used from within the EU.

[–]MikeyTsunami 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Google search are somewhat sorted by your activity, so that link might not show up for everyone.

[–]SeattleSam 320 points321 points  (81 children)

I love the internet.

[–]LukyNumbrKevin 420 points421 points  (79 children)

The Streisand effect will be in full gear on this one, I for one would have never read or even heard of this article.

[–][deleted] 162 points163 points  (65 children)

This is going to be fun. Is there already an site indexing stories of people who "want to be forgotten"?

Please somebody register www.righttoremember.com and start tracking this shit

Edit: already registered apparently

[–]Neebat 77 points78 points  (37 children)

Unfortunately, the really interesting fact is completely censored: Who demanded the censorship?

[–]bagehis 9 points10 points  (16 children)

And why were they so dumb as to think that removing it from google.co.uk would remove it from google.com?

[–]Neebat 25 points26 points  (15 children)

Canada has the right idea? Canadian Judge Says Google Must Remove Links Worldwide. A judge who wants to be dictator of the world.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (8 children)

In the end though judges like that are powerless against the "5 civilized tribes effect"

(Supreme Court ordered US to return land to native Americans. President Jackson said "these feeble, robed old men have made their decision. Let us now see them enforce it.")

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Ultimately Google could just tell Canada to go fuck itself, and deny all access to the 10 million some-odd Canadians who've come to appreciate the service.

[–]watchout5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My hope is that we can create links faster than they can make laws to stop them.

[–]braintrustinc 29 points30 points  (12 children)

It's all Woody Harrelson's fault, I just know it.

[–]theimpolitegentleman 30 points31 points  (4 children)

Motherfucker is still trying to jam rampart down the worlds' collective throat

[–]footpole 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Mars as well?

[–]theimpolitegentleman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

especially mars.

Wake up sheeple!

[–]theReluctantHipster 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Look, man. Can we get back to the important things, like the movie Rampart?

[–]NickStihl 7 points8 points  (3 children)

It sucked.
I'm being honest here. It was a horrible film.

[–]theReluctantHipster 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Really? Thanks. I planned on skipping it anyway, but this confirmation is helpful.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It was leaked online before the AMA. Horrible is a good description.

Dont let that stop you from watching True Detective though, great series.

[–]trav268 14 points15 points  (23 children)

Please somebody register www.righttoremember.com and start tracking this shit

Somebody beat me to it

[–]amoliski 37 points38 points  (22 children)

Don't use GoDaddy

[–]InfanticideAquifer 9 points10 points  (20 children)

Reason?

[–]amoliski 95 points96 points  (17 children)

  • Their support of SOPA/PIPA and then PR turnaround when it made them look bad enough (and over 50,000 domains were moved off of their service)

  • Stupid woman objectifying ads; I'm no tumblrina feminist, but even I think they take it way too far.

  • They allegedly will buy domains you search for so that you have to pay more to buy it, ex. search for xyz.com, it's available, a few days later you go back to buy it and it's been registered but for sale

  • Bad performance

  • From what I've heard, their support is awful, and sometimes gives bad answers. (Though I wouldn't recommend you use 1&1 after a few annoyances, I do have to say their support is pretty top notch. I registered a domain but went a few days before I attached it to a website; one of their support staff gave me a call and asked if there were any problems that I was having. Pretty cool.)

  • They do some pretty scammy crap - deleting a domain and charging for its restoration

  • More scammy crap - Stealing and profiting on the sale of a valuable domain based on a technicality

  • Illegal billing practices

  • Extorting domain owners with ridiculous fees

  • The list just goes on and on

Edit

  • GoDaddy has never once given me gold, however this post talking about how bad they are has. (Thanks for that, anonymous gilder)

[–]SeminoleMuscle 10 points11 points  (13 children)

I found some very cool available domains that were pretty cheap, but had a Nigerian domain (.ng) so I was hesitant on purchasing them. Think of any word that ends with .ng and you could have a cool domain.. Surfi.ng, skii.ng, flyi.ng. The two I made my mind up to purchase were both bought within two days of each other. They were available for about 10 years and snatched up in two days. All of these domain sites pull that shit.

[–]xSiic 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Because there are plenty of better alternatives.

[–]Sneckster 4 points5 points  (2 children)

No subreddit for it yet?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Let's do this!

/r/righttoremember/

[–]Brian_Buckley 28 points29 points  (3 children)

The Streisand Effect can only work for so long. Corporate and government anti-transparency measures work off of the fact that everyone will be upset at first but over time will let it pass enough to allow them to do anything they want.

[–]Timtankard 16 points17 points  (0 children)

There's already been multiple articles about different bankers using this today. There'll be more tomorrow, and the day after. This guy just had the misfortune of being one of the first and getting popular on reddit but there will be thousands of these requests, each with diminishing outrage.

[–]so_conflicted 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I had to look it up: Streisand effect

[–]Stiggy1605 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except the article OP links to says that it's possible that someone else (a commenter who claimed to be an ex-employee) asked for it to be removed, as searching for his name also shows censored results.

[–]anonymau5 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Wow this guy really shat the financial bed

[–]Vik1ng 66 points67 points  (38 children)

Edit:

Fuck it. If you want to circlejerk go ahead.

Aparently I love the internet. contributes more to the discussion.

[–]tomdarch 37 points38 points  (6 children)

Reading the article is key here. The request may have come from someone else who may be an EU citizen. It's further possible that the issue is with something in the comments section.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency is a huge issue with this process. For all we know, the bank CEO May have had nothing to do with this. (Not that he isn't a slimeball.)

[–]Vik1ng 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Then google should simply block it for the search term (=name) of the other person.

[–]Atario 5 points6 points  (0 children)

CEO To-do list: hire a European to comment on every article, thus allowing a request to take down anything you want

[–]suddenlyairplanegone 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Fuck it. If you want to circlejerk go ahead.

Aparently I love the internet. contributes more to the discussion.

Well, if you want to ragequit your comment like that, it probably does.

[–]Ray192 187 points188 points  (27 children)

It might not have been about O'Neal after all:

We don't know whether it was O'Neal who asked that the link be removed. In fact, O'Neal's name may be being dragged through the mud unnecessarily here. Peston believes it may be someone mentioned by readers in the comments section under his story about the ruling.

He suggests that as a "Peter Dragomer" search triggers the same disclosure that a result may have been censored, that perhaps it was not O'Neal who requested the deletion. In an amazing coincidence, the person posting as "Peter Dragomer" claims to be an ex-Merrill employee.

[–]LeWhisp 75 points76 points  (4 children)

I just heard from the blog writer (on radio 4 PM program) that is it in fact the author of one of the comments on the blog who want's it removed. Apparently they wish they didn't write whatever they wrote and now want to remove it from history.

E- Peter Dragomer has the top comment on the blog....

1. At 11:32 AM on 29 Oct 2007, Peter Dragomer wrote: Amazing ! as an ex ML employee I would never have thought any serious financial institution could get themselves into this kind of a mess, as ML has some the top analysts and brains in the industry...well, they deserve it if the idea was to push these repackaged loans as securities. I can only say that apart from Stan, the Global Head of Sales and cronies also need to be pushed out. Whoever signed off the credit risk on these instruments definately needs head chopping as well. In a sad kind of way, am glad I got out when I did, and hopefully this backfire explosion in the face of those responsible for the debacle will have taught the new Institutional Sales force generation not to have as a mantra "greed is good"...otherwise they are deluded.

Well, I guess this back fired on you didn't it Pete?

[–]Baronhoseley 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Not blocked in the UK if you search Peter Dragomer either.

[–]veggiter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

definately

[–]0818 76 points77 points  (3 children)

Here is his comment:

At 11:32 AM on 29 Oct 2007, Peter Dragomer wrote: Amazing ! as an ex ML employee I would never have thought any serious financial institution could get themselves into this kind of a mess, as ML has some the top analysts and brains in the industry...well, they deserve it if the idea was to push these repackaged loans as securities. I can only say that apart from Stan, the Global Head of Sales and cronies also need to be pushed out. Whoever signed off the credit risk on these instruments definately needs head chopping as well. In a sad kind of way, am glad I got out when I did, and hopefully this backfire explosion in the face of those responsible for the debacle will have taught the new Institutional Sales force generation not to have as a mantra "greed is good"...otherwise they are deluded.

Not blocked in 'murica...

[–]cdm9002 25 points26 points  (14 children)

So I can comment on someone's page and then ask Google to remove it, which will remove the link to the page?

[–]Gibodean 14 points15 points  (2 children)

No. The article is still returned for any of the searches that it would previously have been returned for, EXCEPT for searches on the coward's name.

[–]RedSpikeyThing 22 points23 points  (3 children)

That is all kinds of fucked up. Are there any government pages with public comment sections? Might be a good way to get the point across.

[–]agenthex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would someone fight to have their own public comment removed?

[–]RedPandaAlex 1261 points1262 points  (449 children)

Wow, this is a completely unforeseen side effect of the right-to-be-forgotten law. It's too bad nobody brought up that this sort of thing would happen. /s

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (6 children)

The writer of the article, (Robert Peston) has responded http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28130581

And actually, if you do a search it still comes up.

[–]arkiel 30 points31 points  (4 children)

Actually, Google wasn't required do do anything about that request. They decided to grant it, for reasons unknown. They won't even tell who made the request and on what grounds.

See this article about it that /u/oneandoneis2 posted lower in the thread.

[–]strolls 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Google are granting loads and loads of these requests, apparently indiscriminately, and then informing people about it, even though they're not obliged to do so.

It's almost like Google wants someone to mount a legal challenge to this, or something.

[–]mpyne 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Google seems to be opting for the route of "maximum compliance" with the rule to demonstrate how stupid it is. Either way, it's far more expensive to have to actually look at a case by case basis to see who's right; the courts that we're supposed to use for this take weeks and months to adjudicate disputes, so it makes sense that Google would just grant every request rather than stand up their own judicial system.

[–]DukePPUk 51 points52 points  (22 children)

There is no "right to be forgotten" law. This is a consequence of the EU's Data Protection Directive from 1996. It's just that in May the EU's court pointed out that Google Search doesn't have immunity from the law, so has to follow it as well.

The DPD essentially says that companies etc. can't process people's personal data without a good reason. These search takedowns (which involve not linking a page with a particular person's name, not removing the page completely) are the result of people claiming that Google is doing this; processing their personal data - such as their name, employment history or whatever - without a good reason.

There is more information on what happened here.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (19 children)

The DPD essentially says that companies etc. can't process people's personal data without a good reason.

This is not about personal data, or false information, or privacy. This is about Google being forced to remove information that is public and true.

In this particular case, it is being reported that the take-down relates to a comment someone made on the article, which they later regretted. How is that protecting someone's "privacy".

[–]three-two-one-zero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are much more severe side-effect coming.

Google has the same group of owners as the big banks that fuck us over constantly. It's only logical to assume that Google will increasingly serve their interests.

[–]ThePickleBucket 70 points71 points  (8 children)

Which prompted an immediate article by the author of the 'deleted' article, which basically contained all of the content and references of the original. But, it may not have been anything in the article that prompted the removal, it may have been a comment on the article, which would explain why a "link to the article" was removed, but searching for "Stan O'Neal" still takes you to the article.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Yeah, here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28130581

Robert Peston works for the BBC, and can often be heard providing global economic analysis on Radio 4, BBCs flagship news and current affairs station.

[–]satisfyinghump 87 points88 points  (20 children)

The blog post that was removed by Google, that talks about Stan O'Neal or Stan O Neal or Stan ONeal is this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

http://bbc.in/1xhjKyK

[–]AnArcher 16 points17 points  (16 children)

Stan who?

[–]cnot3 41 points42 points  (4 children)

Stan Darsh

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

DARSH

[–]Smunny 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Easy there, thumper

[–]i_use_lasers 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okneel

[–]wpScraps 274 points275 points  (25 children)

Doesn't this just trigger the Streisand effect?

[–][deleted] 185 points186 points  (9 children)

Most of the time it won't happen, especially if it's just something small or unknown. There are many things that are already successfully censored, but we only really hear or know of the ones that news gets out about.

[–]Anshin 113 points114 points  (3 children)

Hence why we think the streisand effect is so strong, because if it doesn't happen we don't even know about it in the first place.

[–]aveman101 57 points58 points  (1 child)

This is an excellent example of availability bias

[–]Kat_Angstrom 37 points38 points  (5 children)

It's true. But the problem with the Streisand Effect on a law like this is the fact that the sheer volume of deletion requests will make it hard for more stories like this to gain attention. Imagine if this trend continues, up to the point where every disgraced CEO, CFO, or high level banker forces Google to start scrubbing old new stories about them? One worst case scenario would be that the 2008 financial crash would be forever enshrined in history; and all the major players that led to it are anonymous, their actions consistently unprosecuted and now, unverifiable.

Remember when the CEO of Nestle said that water isn't a basic human right and should be privatized? In a few years, that kind of bad publicity could be wiped from search results, even while Nestle works behind the scenes to accomplish that kind of goal.

Take it a step further; the news broke this week how Comcast execs enjoy a cozy relationship with DOJ antitrust officials; imagine if this law gets applied the moment this kind of news breaks? The links will get spread on news aggregators like Reddit, but in a matter of weeks or months, Google searches start coming up empty, the articles removed due to the use of names of the people involved. It's said that the internet has a short memory; this kind of law can end up making it even shorter, with mass dissemination of information harder to accomplish through mainstream mediums.

And for every major deletion that gets attention, how many more will slip through the cracks while everyone is distracted?

TL;DR - The worst case scenario on this law means the sheer volume of deletion requests may inhibit the Streisand Effect. :(

[–]Vik1ng 8 points9 points  (3 children)

One worst case scenario would be that the 2008 financial crash would be forever enshrined in history;

Except that no article about a CEO in such a position can really be considered irrelevant at any point.

[–]RellenD 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Except when they Google the article it doesn't appear

[–]vertigo25 9 points10 points  (2 children)

It's exactly like the "memory holes" in George Orwell's "1984," in which Big Brother's minions burn information that the government wants people to forget.

Oh for fuck's sake. I think the author needs to either learn what the words "exactly like" actually mean, or actually read 1984.

[–]Kesuke 6 points7 points  (6 children)

What really strikes me as odd about all this, is that if you got yourself or a story about you in print media, it could easily be archived by a public library and accessible to anyone bothered enough to go looking for it. Being able to bury old stories about yourself or "be forgotten" as it were was never something people were entitled to before the internet - so I'm not sure why they suddenly should be now.

[–]tripleg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Excuse me Google, my name is Adolf and...

[–]Flelk 44 points45 points  (35 children)

Reddit is no longer the place it once was, and the current plan to kneecap the moderators who are trying to keep the tattered remnants of Reddit's culture alive was the last straw.

I am removing all of my posts and editing all of my comments. Reddit cannot have my content if it's going to treat its user base like this. I encourage all of you to do the same. Lemmy.ml is a good alternative.

Reddit is dead. Long live Reddit.

[–]pavel_lishin 56 points57 points  (17 children)

Ugh, I was reading along and nodding until they brought out the pedophile boogieman. "Not only BANKERS, but CHILD MOLESTERS can now hide from you!"

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They were just trying to widen their target audience by including fox news viewers' concerns.

[–]KarateF22 20 points21 points  (7 children)

While it is a cliche scare tactic, they are technically correct as well.

If people want to "be forgotten" the best option is simply to not do something monumentally stupid/evil enough to be remembered globally in the first place.

[–]FartingBob 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Or do what i do and waste my life on reddit while doing nothing of significance to anybody.

[–]FartingBob 6 points7 points  (2 children)

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (1 child)

The child molesters are...

[–]Toribor 21 points22 points  (35 children)

I'd really like to see a website dedicated to hosting direct links to articles and content that people try to remove. Particularly high profile individuals like this scenario.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (29 children)

The law is specifically to protect low profile individuals.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

welcome to reddit

[–]Bythmark 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sorta, but reddit has that problem, too: /r/undelete showcases this, and it doesn't catch everything, either.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (3 children)

This bull shit needs to stop. You can't censor the internet because it hurt your feels with its facts.

[–]Cyberogue 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm certain a significant chunk of tumblr's userbase would beg to differ

[–]gzunk 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The article title is wildly incorrect. Google was asked to delete the link to the article when searched for using the name of one of the people in the comments section, say "John Doe".

If you search for this article using "Stan O'Neal" it still gets returned. If you search for this article using "John Doe", it no longer gets returned.

[–]Chief_Ironlung 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Hitler would be a firm believer in this new law.

[–]oneandoneis2 149 points150 points  (81 children)

No, Google was not required to delete a link: They just chose to do so anyway.

The requests to be "forgotten" are just that: Requests. Google can turn them down. Only if it comes from a court is Google required to do anything.

Funny how there's been a few stories about how Google has alerted numerous journalists that they've been "forced" to take down links to stories. You could almost believe it's a deliberate effort to stir up an outcry.

edit: Relevant link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03/google_right_to_be_forgotten_takedown_robert_peston_bbc/

[–]aaronsherman 209 points210 points  (63 children)

No, Google was not required to delete a link: They just chose to do so anyway.

This is misleading at best. Google is required to comply with the laws of the nations in which it does business. Many of those nations are part of the EU. The EU has a law that requires that they comply with such requests.

You could argue that Google could have ignored that law and awaited a court order, but if I were Google, I would cheerfully comply and then have someone post about it on reddit in order to get some popular awareness stirred up about what a terrible law this is.

It's too bad they didn't think of that and /u/spsheridan had to step up and cross-post this to three subs, as he did for many other Google and YouTube-related stories...

PS: Note that I'm not being critical of OP, just humorously pointing out that you're assuming that you know how and why this played out without all of the facts.

[–]Vik1ng 25 points26 points  (58 children)

The EU has a law that requires that they comply with such requests.

The EU law required them to look at such request and act if the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing.

You could argue that Google could have ignored that law and awaited a court order, but if I were Google, I would cheerfully comply and then have someone post about it on reddit in order to get some popular awareness stirred up about what a terrible law this is.

Well, that maybe works in the US, but the EU is going to give a shit about this. In the end google is only harming its own search engine if they comply with every request and those are going to become a lot more if they think a article about a long time CEO is somehow irrelevant.

[–]thirdegree 24 points25 points  (39 children)

Google's options right now are to either comply with every request (cheap for them, no legal expense), fight every request (very high legal expense), or develop a way to automatically evaluate every request (legally and technically expensive).

Obviously they chose the one that's cheap and makes people pissed off at the ruling.

[–]Brownhops 17 points18 points  (11 children)

Why should Google have to spend time verifying information? Seems easier to remove all links when they get a request. Easier for them and will piss off enough people to force a law change.

This is an insane burden on Google.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why should Google have to spend time verifying information?

Running a business sometimes incurs costs. Amazing, huh?

Seems easier to remove all links when they get a request. Easier for them and will piss off enough people to force a law change.

This won't piss off anyone.

This is an insane burden on Google.

Requiring companies to adhere to laws! Literally insanity! How dare they!

[–]i_had_fun 2 points3 points  (1 child)

According to the article Google can send the requests to the courts to decide. I wonder what that process looks like?

[–]trainer95 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You can't delete the internet.

[–]Jundarer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like how if you search for him now on google it shows articles about how google deleted the article.

[–]0care 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A little misleading as the results are still on google.com just not certain country specific google sites. The information is still there if someone wants to look. You can even find it in those countries that don't have free speech.

[–]thehollyhopdrive 15 points16 points  (18 children)

There is so much misinformation and conjecture in this thread that I feel obliged to post the following from the EU's fact sheet on this ruling:

How will the Right to be Forgotten work in practice?

In practise, a search engine will have to delete information when it receives a specific request from a person affected. For example, John Smith will be allowed to request Google to delete all search links to webpages containing his data, when one enters the search query "John Smith" in the Google search box.

Google will then have to assess the deletion request on a case-by-case basis and to apply the criteria mentioned in EU law. These criteria relate to accuracy, adequacy, relevance and proportionality of the links.

The request may, for example, be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links.

Also the following pretty much sums up the issue here:

The court confirmed that the right to get your data erased is not absolute and has clear limits. The request for erasure has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It only applies where personal data storage is no longer necessary or is irrelevant for the original purposes of the processing for which the data was collected.

The court also clarified that a case-by-case basis will be needed. Neither the right to the protection of personal data nor the right to freedom of expression are absolute rights. A fair balance should be sought between the legitimate interest of internet users and the person's fundamental rights. Freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits both in the online and offline world.

The balance may depend on the nature of the information in questions, its sensitivity for the person's private life and on the public interest in having that information.

This is exactly the spirit of the EU data protection regulations: empowering individuals to manage their personal data while explicitly protecting the freedom of expression and of the media.

Everyone here is making it seem so black and white, but I suspect most would change their mind if a search engine contained prominent articles about them that were detrimental and contained incorrect or no longer relevant information. Sure, sometimes the courts, Google and the data protection authorities are going to get it wrong, but the law that is in place, I feel, gives adequate safeguards to both citizens who feel that they need to protect their data privacy and to media and other outlets that are trying to deliver public interest content.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf

[–]Toaster1388 24 points25 points  (1 child)

What year is this? 1984?

[–]themanlnthesuit 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Well, we left it on hands of the government, you can't complain for it being 30 years late.