EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case

A top EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".

The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.

The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy.

I have no sympathy for Google whatsoever. Now that they put themselves as censors in chief for all things conservative (from guns to conservative websites), I will not lift a finger to support those bastards even if they are in the right.

In this case, I sympathize with the Spaniard. Regular people should not have their lives destroyed by trouble they had sometimes decades ago. He has not agreed to have his personal data published, and there should be a mechanism to protect oneself from being followed forever by something that puts you in a bad light, but is not even illegal.

I sympathize with the Spaniard. Regular people should not have their lives destroyed by trouble they had sometimes decades ago.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,and (I suspect) other states as well,has a website that contains every single real estate transaction over a certain period (which varies from county to county).Many of these transactions involve deaths,divorces,bankruptcy filings and criminal and civil lawsuits...which can be seen on the website.One of the many important features of any advanced,civilized society,IMO, is "open records".Politicians,for example,*hate* open records...as do criminals.They hate it for very obvious reasons.Think about it....you'll all understand.

With this particular guy I could see why the record should be deleted if it was inaccurate but otherwise....tough luck,Pedro!

One of the many important features of any advanced,civilized society, IMO, is "open records".

Really. I think that such societies tend to have a combination of open and closed, decided at the national or state level and varying from time to time to suit needs.

Lots of records (JFK, for instance) stay closed for a long time and then are opened later. Bankruptcies by law get dropped off of credit reports after a certain amount of time, etc. If the judge ruled on the law as it i written, good on him. If he interpreted the law, and the government of Spain really wants to beat up on Pedro so that Google is not inconvenienced, let them clarify the law.

Google has been a bad player in their shoot first (posting LOTS of scanned copyrighted works) and worrying about the legal consequences later. Some of it, not enough I'm afraid, will stick.

Let’s remember the conditions under which those “open records” rules were written. If I wanted to find out about your real estate history, I had to go down to the court house with your specific information, pore through some microfilm or have somebody do it for me, pay to have it copied, then spend some more money to do with it what I wanted. Now it’s two seconds and free for as many as will fit on your screen. Remember the newspaper that published the addresses of every gun owner in the county? Just that easy.

Really. I think that such societies tend to have a combination of open and closed, decided at the national or state level and varying from time to time to suit needs.

Yes,all nations have at least *some* closed records.East Germany,for example,had many,*many* closed records.But when they were opened up (against the wishes of East German officials) the world learned lots and lots of,shall we say..."interesting"...things about the entire Soviet Bloc.

Can I assume from your post that you're OK with the Former Twelfth Lady refusing to turn over e-mails,etc,that are connected with Benghazi? Can I assume that you're OK with Osama Obama refusing to fully address his claim of having been born in Kenya (as seen on the dust jacket of one of his dozen autobiographies) with his more recent claims of having been born in Hawaii?

They say that sunlight is the great "disinfectant".Dishonest people fear it,respectable people don't.Declaring bankruptcy isn't illegal.Many would argue that t isn't even immoral.But,as I said earlier...the only way I can think of to enforce this is to censor the internet as the Chinese do.Using China as an example...I was in Hong Kong a few months ago.Every time I tried to sign onto google there I got the ".cn" version...".cn" being the domain of Communist China.I tried looking up "Tienanmen Square" on the site.Guess what I did,and didn't,find...I *did* find many beautiful pictures of the area...all featuring that wonderful picture of Chairman Mao.I *didn't* see photos featuring a single drop of blood.Are you starting to catch my drift?

If "Pedro" did *not*,in fact,declare bankruptcy then by all means that stuff should be erased.If he *did*....no sympathy from me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.