[DanBC]

We didn't destroy the book! We just ruled you can't keep it on a shelf under the name of one of the reviewers - but everywhere else you want to keep it is fine.

[Kalium]

As I said - a place where it's topical and someone might find it.

[barsoap]

Yes, it might be topical, and I have a strong inkling that says that it's a case google shouldn't have accepted. They seem to be taking more down than is required of them.

But it's also a far cry from "banker censors report about his malpractice": The banker most definitely would not be allowed to do that under the law in question.

[Kalium]

We're talking about a law that has had misuse baked into it from its very inception.

So far, I've yet to see anything to convince me that there are any valid uses of this law. Just censorship.

[barsoap]

The original case was a 16-year old newspaper article about a bankruptcy (but no fraud or such) that showed up as first result on a google search for a Spaniard's name, which impacted his employment prospects and such.

Hence why it's called "right to forget". People didn't have easy access to such data ten years ago, either, and the world provably didn't collapse. What this is battling is a new thing: The eternal online pillory, knowing neither restraint, remorse, nor forgiveness... nor research costs.

[Kalium]

Ah, "right to forget". How lovely and Orwellian. Instead of "right to censor", which is what it is.

What this is battling is people who can't cope with the world changing. Too bad for them. No sympathy here.

[barsoap]

Oh, I'm sure the guy could cope with the world changing. But can his future boss? You're acting as if that were in his control.