<story><title>European Court limits right to be forgotten to E.U.</title><url>http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=218105&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=903295</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>brokenkebab</author><text>The ruling is fair, it would open an international can of worms if EU bodies would start to dictate other countries users what to see on the net.&lt;p&gt;However, it means the real effect of the RtBF law is that it impedes less technically proficient internet users to search other person&amp;#x27;s data, but absolutely doesn&amp;#x27;t achieve stated goals (as nothing is forgotten, and entities which do personal data checks will for sure be able to use non-EU IPs to get unrestricted results). What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that&amp;#x27;s all.&lt;p&gt;Which proves the whole thing was a combination of PR stunt, and incompetence on behalf of wide array of EU politicians, and NGO activists.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>temporalparts</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t understand why it&amp;#x27;s search engine&amp;#x27;s burden to bear for right to be forgotten. Shouldn&amp;#x27;t the takedown notices go to the source materials, eg newspapers, who actually contains the knowledge? Google is simply the references to knowledge that &amp;quot;needs&amp;quot; to be forgotten, and not the knowledge itself?</text></comment>
<story><title>European Court limits right to be forgotten to E.U.</title><url>http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=218105&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=903295</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>brokenkebab</author><text>The ruling is fair, it would open an international can of worms if EU bodies would start to dictate other countries users what to see on the net.&lt;p&gt;However, it means the real effect of the RtBF law is that it impedes less technically proficient internet users to search other person&amp;#x27;s data, but absolutely doesn&amp;#x27;t achieve stated goals (as nothing is forgotten, and entities which do personal data checks will for sure be able to use non-EU IPs to get unrestricted results). What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that&amp;#x27;s all.&lt;p&gt;Which proves the whole thing was a combination of PR stunt, and incompetence on behalf of wide array of EU politicians, and NGO activists.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Vinnl</author><text>&amp;gt; What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that&amp;#x27;s all.&lt;p&gt;That sounds like it&amp;#x27;s still something though. If someone gets falsely accused of e.g. being a pedophile, and their prospective employer does not run into that information when researching them during the interview process, that seems like it achieves one of the goals people had in mind with this legislation.</text></comment>