You shouldn't assume that because Google has removed a record that someone has a legal right to be forgotten.
No one has a right to be forgotten. Doing so requires stifling the speech of those who remember you. Although I guess you could fix that by erasing their memories.
Google is intentionally fucking around with removals because it's pissed off at the court ruling, so it's trying to make as much of a mockery as it can without falling foul of the law.
Can you blame them? The "right to be forgotten" is ridiculous in the first place and it is creating hundreds of thousands of requests that Google is required to process at a significant expense.
Which is one of the reasons having market monopolies is bad. Because Google has a search engine monopoly it can fuck around with results to suit it's political agenda. In a truly competitive market this would hurt it because other engines would keep the public interest stuff and only remove the legit stuff.
Oh yeah, Google has such a monopoly! There aren't any other search engines for people to use.
Given this, I would suggest that rather than going to
.com instead of .co.uk you just go to a different search engine altogether - one that doesn't manipulate results to suit it's political agenda which is exactly what Google is doing here.
They're "manipulating results" because there is a ridiculous law on the books that requires significant effort and expense on their part to uphold. Anyone with half of a brain can see how this will play out. Since Google is the primary target of this law, people will begin using a different search engine to find the results that Google is legally required to "forget". The new search engine will become the new primary target of the law, will be forced to adhere to it at significant expense to the company, and the people will move on to the next search engine. We've already seen this a million times with P2P clients as well as torrent sites.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this law is pure censorship. The internet is about making information available and it is highly effective at circumventing censorship. Not only is this law completely ridiculous, it is almost impossible to effectively enforce. But I'm sure that won't stop you from trying.
Seems to me, barring common carrier or another path to true net neutrality, both sides have more to gain by colluding than by fighting.
No, the ISPs have a lot to gain by blocking video traffic. They make tons of money on their television services and paid video-on-demand services. Every second that you're watching Hulu, YouTube, or Netflix is a second that you're not watching their paid services. They're terrified that their customer might find that they can get most of their entertainment from online sources and cut the cord from the ISP's highly-lucrative television services. Add in the fact that these third-party video services create congestion on the ISP's networks and could require them to upgrade their infrastructure and you can begin to understand why the ISPs are motivated to throttling other provider's content.
In addition to that, the ISPs have more leverage in negotiations with third-party content providers because many of the ISP's customers have little to no choice for an alternative provider. Therefore, the third-party content providers need to pay the extortion fees to the ISPs in order to continue reaching their customers. This situation is not going to change unless serious competition or regulation is introduced.
Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks.
I wonder if that would work for me. "Your honor, I had to rob all of those banks because I could not afford the Lambos and prostitutes that I seek."
Of course the government would have to eliminate such a program that gathers what it seeks... because what it seeks is unconstitutional!!! How the fuck did they write a 191-page report and completely miss that point?! I'm sure there would be a ton of people ready to cite Hanlon's Razor, but nobody is that dumb. If you still don't buy into that, then let me introduce Organgtool's Razor: In a world where everyone buys into Hanlon's Razor, all it takes for evil to triumph is for it to wear a veil of stupidity.
I'm always looking for a new idea that will be more productive than its cost. -- David Rockefeller