[k-mcgrady]

>> "If something was published, then it should be in the index."

We already make exceptions for certain things (illegal content). Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere - it's just a matter of where we draw it.

>> "We, the users, are missing out on the completeness of our search results."

With this law AFAIK content cannot be removed if that would be against the public good. So, for example, a politician can't have an article that makes the look bad but is true removed. Technically, although no longer 'complete', the quality of your search results should not be hit. The only results being removed are ones which are incorrect and damaging to someone.

>> "If you don't like it, take it up with the publisher."

AFAIK with this law the publisher has to remove it too. Google is involved because they cache pages which can include deleted content.

[seren]

Actually, it was not removed from the newspaper archive, because the article referring Mr. Gonzalez was published under a judicial injunction. And so his request was rejected by the Spanish court of data protection. But the case was upheld against Google.

Full EU court ruling in the following link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

I think the case make a distinction between a newspaper publication that is rather ephemeral and spatially located vs a search engine that plays a big part in disseminating information or any other "data processor" that can potentially expose the information for ever.

The crux of the argument seems to be that even if you are only indexing, by definition, you are managing/duplicating data, and in some case, they are private data so you have a responsibility before the person being identified (the "data subject").