No re-writing history?
"All this talk about rewriting history and airbrushing embarrassing bits from your past - this is nonsense, that's not going to happen."
Except that the specific case the ECJ made this decision upon is exactly that.
This whole thing is insane:
1. Google is a search engine, not a data host. If the data were removed from the data host, it would not show up in Google searches. The ECJ saying that the newspaper can leave the data up, while saying that Google must not link to it, is incomprehensible.
2. Once some thing is posted on the internet, it's over. You could fine the company, but keeping a lid on the information is pretty much a moot point, especially if you draw attention to it by requesting that it be removed.
3. Links that are "old" or "out of date" can be very useful. If there is bad information about something or someone, and I am searching the web for information about it to decide if I want to interact with it, past transgressions are absolutely relevant, even if the actual issue has been resolved, or perhaps exactly because the issue was resolved. And if a link is "irrelevant" or "not of the public interest" then by definition, people will not search for the info, so there is no need to bother.
4. Google is not going to be able to adequately process all of these requests, especially given how unclear and subjective the criteria are.
Last, it's clearly time we looked at what data it is acceptable to publish without someone's permission and hold data hosts accountable to that. This will be an important right in the future, and one I wish existed right now. Going after a search engine like this has probably set the cause of privacy back a bit.