[bobcostas55]

>and besides, the newspaper morgues are not so forgetful

So how can such a double standard possibly be justified? How can google be forced to delete things from the servers, but newspaper archives can't be forced to burn their material?

[jacquesm]

Newspaper archives do not vacuum up random facts about random citizens, they don't build mile-long profiles, they store articles about events that were considered news-worthy by some newsdesk. Automated collation of data and journalism are not even remotely similar processes.

What I find interesting is how everybody is focusing on Google here, when the real focus should be not on how this system could be abused but why it exists and who it could benefit. And that gives a completely different picture. But it's late here (3 am) and I'm off to bed.

[bobcostas55]

Perhaps you haven't seen how the "right to be forgotten" thing is being used in practice. It's not used to take down "random facts about random citizens". It's used by public figures in positions of authority to hide their wrongdoings.

They're not taking down "automated collections of data", they are taking down links to newspaper articles. The exact same articles that are in the archives.

The focus SHOULD be on how the system IS abused because the costs of the abuse vastly outsize any potential benefits.

[Oletros]

> Newspaper archives do not vacuum up random facts about random citizens, they don't build mile-long profiles, they store articles about events that were considered news-worthy by some newsdesk.

Funny thing is that the case that brought this ruling is about forcing Google to delete any mention to a newspaper article and nothing about the article in itself