I think such private information should be removed on request. But on the other hand that would immediately lead to the removal of inconvenient information of all kind. Just as we saw with the removal of polarizing people like Alex Jones, it did not stop there. And who should hide the information? Google? There are still other crawlers around. There could be third parties with an interest in that person for any reason whatsoever. Should a name be blacklisted for a long time?

It's a complex case, because the main event was a fake accusation made by the police.

Autotranaltion of https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_C%C3%B3ppola#Problem...

> It was proven that the judge "armed" the case together with his secretary, Roberto Schlagel, and three federal police officers.¨

I'm not sure if "armed" is the correct translation. Simplifying, the police put the drug in the home of someone.

Anyway, it's probably too weird to forget it.

I think a memory of even private information belongs to the rememberer, not the remembered, and that the dangers and damages of remembering are mild compared to those of forgetting.

I agree. It is still not really fair that such info can haunt you the rest of your life. Looking up such information is quite easy now. This article ironically makes it worse.

Not only do Google results already look like ads, they probably already de-index politically inconvenient messages. Or at least bury those behind "reputable" sources that lie their asses off as their main occupation. This at least would have some justification. But in the end I agree that it isn't feasible.

Definitely agree with the notion that "your debt to society has been paid". Right to be forgotten also seems appropriate here.

So what happens when Prince Andrew asks Google to forget the pedophile allegations, and links to Epstein?