"Right to be Forgotten," My Ass

Robert Peston, Economics Editor at the BBC, was notified by Google that it was removing one of his blog posts from its European search index in accordance with the European Court of Justice's recent ruling giving people "The Tight to be Forgotten":

This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google:
Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/ robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?

Well it has responded to someone exercising his or her new "right to be forgotten", following a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice that Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

(emphasis original)

The only person mentioned in this article was the disgraced former head of Merrill Lynch, Stan O'Neill, but the Ex-Merrill CEO has denied any knowledge of this request, though this is a kind of non-denial denial, where he might have hired a law form, or someone like Reputation.com to monitor his online presence, and they sent the request at his request.

You will notice that O'Neill did not deny that he had taken action to improve his reputation on the web, only that he lacked specific knowledge of this request.

In an update, Mr. Peston suggests that the request might have come from someone who commented on his post, since a search for Mr. O'Neill still pulls up the post, but I did a search of Google.co.uk for all of the commenter's who left a proper name, and they all came up as well.

The Guardian revealed that they had been notified that 3 sets of articles, about a lying soccer ref, French Post-It^® art, and a lawyer on trial for fraud.

This is, of course, a complete clusterf%$#, as was predicted when this ruling came down.