I agree with this. how hard is it,2 delete a few search results.

I don't get it. Shouldn't the complaints be leveled at the sites where the content is actually hosted instead of a search engine?

I admit though that they have too the responsibility to remove data that is no longer hosted on a website.

this seems completely at odds with the US's "right to know"

¡Sí señor! Tenía que ser un españolito el que le tocara los huevos a todo internet

Seriously, tho, a law like that should already exist so I'm glad that they are making steps in that direction. I'm sure in a few years, the now-teenagers/early 20s that post some pics on the net will find this law very necessary.

as far as i'm concerned,.. so long as the linked article is actually factual that goes into our living history.  i don't want anyone censoring public records. 

e.g. - should all links to OJ simpsons murder trial be deleted?  he was found not guilty so that entire trial is "no longer relavant"?  should he be able to opt out of those search results?

while the story you paint sounds very different on paper,.. the legalize of it doesn't.

so no.  i don't think that i should have the "right" to remove that.  and i don't think you can't make a clear cut case of what is "public record".  what if that stupid comment was a racist comment about how all black people should yaddy yaddy yadda and then that kid goes on to run for public office.  i want the right to know that.

i suggest you read your own OP.

The decision came after Mario Costeja Gonzalez complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed.

we're not talking about removing a picture from your facebook.  we're talking about taking newspaper articles and censoring them.  you said you can't remove copies of newspapers already in circulation.  tell me why the digital newspapers should be treated differently?

Finally... that one misstep earlier in my life 10 years when she said she was 18 can be erased now..

To me it sounds like the EU is trying to set up a situation where they can collect some fat cash from Google by setting terms really hard for them to comply to.

Like they did Microsoft before them.

I'd disagree on that.

It's public... for one.

Secondly, what if said person becomes a poltician, isn't public interest to know if he said something racist before?  Or something that suggests he has more radical views then he lets on?