• https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JasperOldersom/ Jasper Oldersom

    Great Article.

  • Steve H.

    A great help to avoid the exploitation of ignorance. Stand for what you will – never blindly. I thank you Danny Sullivan.

    And, if I may, someone should address why FCC is not treating all traffic equally – doesn’t have the effective power to do so – despite FCC chairman is lobbyist of A or B.

    As you know, the EU parliament voted to protect net neutrality – doing so went against European corporates such a Deutsche Telekom, Orange, and Telefonica, protecting Amazon, Facebook and Google. Why? The right thing to do and, legally, they could.

  • Tim Capper

    The Ruling was based on the EU, Data Protection Act and personal details pertaining to the act, why not mention this, why not give the actual specifics of what is included within the Data Protection Act, that all companies trading in Europe have to abide by.

    The data protection act is very specific about what details can enter the public domain and if they do, time limits imposed on them.

    This will not lead to some mass of removal requests, and if it does, most will be rejected, all cases have to comply with the strict criteria of the data protection act.

  • Doggfather

    The decision creates unfortunately in europe more legal uncertainty than clarity. But it’s an important step to save our privacy rights and to avoid lobbyism. In the second step google and co should also pay their taxes in every single country where they’re active and participate. Also Dublin but not only!
    The European Commission intends also to review Google as a monopoly. After the summer break, the EU competition authority wants to make a decision.

  • Albin

    Very informative. My impression from press is that requests would have to relate to specific URLs, as opposed to “take me off Google Search entirely”. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem logical the complainant should have to prove any harm or injustice, just that the URL comes up when that complainant’s identity is searched and the link is unwanted.

  • http://thenoisychannel.com/ Daniel Tunkelang

    Outstanding and thorough explanation, Danny. That said, it only reinforces my outrage at the European Court of Justice for taking such an irrational approach to suppress the freedom of expression under the guise of protecting privacy. I’m no Google fanboy, but in this case the company has been acting as a voice of reason and sanity against governments that disgracefully haven’t learned that history cannot and should not be forgotten. Not to mention the inconsistency of going after the search engines but not the original publishers. Ah well, let’s see them try to enforce this madness.

  • http://www.TheHangoutHelper.com Ronnie Bincer

    My favorite quote from the entire article…
    “Or perhaps the governmental bodies just don’t know any better”

  • http://www.batchmaster.com/ Shailendra Sial

    IMO, the ruling has made the situation lot more complicated. It has given birth to ‘n’ number of questions. Why not make things simpler by keeping search engines out of all these things? They just crawl and index the content that is already present on some site.

    The whole process of getting the content removed will give undue publicity to the content removal seeker, thereby, defeating the reason for this intricate arrangement.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    When will Google provide a form for “Right to be Forgotten” requests? What is the delay? This corporation is blatantly not sincere about privacy or adhering to the law and will do as little as they can get away with.