A time when my name was gouglara (no comment), one of the first results was a blog post that blamed me for a strange "turn-over" in my animal reports.
Although I had responded to the author himself and, say, the misunderstanding had been solved, the linkage remained for years hanging high on my search for it Google. Fortunately today is somewhat lost (I refuse to look for it) behind other reporting results, but I could ask the search engine to remove it as defamatory, a claim that would probably be accepted.
Since last May, when the European Court of Justice ruling has come into force according to which each of us, under certain conditions, has the right to require search engines to remove specific results, more than half a million Europeans have flooded Google with requests. Only in the first month of the ruling, more than 70.000 users rushed to ask Google to delete specific links to them, judging that the information contained in them "is inappropriate, has ceased to exist or is excessive". Now, the company has made available to users a relevant online form, which anyone can fill in to submit a link removal request.
According to information, hundreds are the Greeks who have also invoked the "right to oblivion". Last example, the actress Argyris Angelos, typing the name of which on Google was automatically completing the word "gay". The actor asked the company to delete the specific results by completing the relevant form, while appealing against it and court (lost the case after it was judged that the issue had already been resolved through the online process).
It is worth noting that ever since, searching for information through Google for Mr. Angelos, there is a footnote that "some results may have been abolished under the new European data protection law". There are already pressures on the company not to display this information on the "items" to which links have been removed based on the judgment of the European Court of Justice. It is clarified, however, that search engines have an obligation to delete only the relevant results, not their source. The defamatory texts continue to be online, they simply do not come up with a simple search. This was Google's first line of defense that it is not itself responsible for the personal data that appears on its pages.
Although evolution has been enthusiastically welcomed by a large part of the population who saw a victory of the movement in favor of the protection of personal data on the Internet, there have been doubts as to whether such intervention is ultimately in our interest. "Is that how we" retouch "the past to such an extent that we will rewrite history?", Is the question that arises.
In any case, the debate lurks, with the defenders of the right to oblivion on the one hand and those of the right to information and expression on the other. Reactions are already reported by journalists who no longer find their articles on searches, the BBC's most famous financial writer, who saw their former article on former Merrill Lynch's president, Stan O'Neil, disappear.