Citation needed

Royal Ordnance (now BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions)

Google is not arbitrarily farming personal data, it is providing a link to an item that was in a local paper. The information in the local paper is a matter of public record. As you have stated yourself, local papers should be able to have searchable archives and these archives should exist for eternity in my humble opinion.

I am not of the opinion that people should be screwed forever, but if I vote for someone I definitely want to know his entire history for a lot longer than 6 years. Every side has a chance to mud-sling and it should be easy for people to fact check for themselves. If one side is mud-slinging I want to be able to find out for myself if the mud-slinging has a basis in fact or is an unsubstantiated allegation. There is an equal belief in America that people are allowed to get back on their feet after screwing up - its almost a badge of honour to have a failed business startup and the big question is whether they learned from their mistakes.

From browsing your comments, you seem to take an actively hostile and abusive, ad-hominem line in your arguments when someone has the temerity to disagree. I think this law will gain "mission creep" and is antithetical to the idea of the ability to easily access information that the Internet supports today.

It explains how Han managed to shoot first.

Amusing, but on seeing this news article I can't help but wonder if Slashdot celebrated every 5 year anniversary with such enthusiasm. 95 isn't really a special marker, and this story is a bit of a non-event.

The Gonzales case is exactly about the archives of a local newspaper being referenced by a search engine - it relates to a newspaper reference to a property auction due to Gonzales having financial difficulties in the past. It is basically saying that such archives are no longer searchable or indexable online.

What this can mean is that if you're about to enter politics, you can clean up your record before there is a public interest defence and then enter politics with a shiny clean record.

I think that was the news agency, not the judge.

...it does the job it is supposed to do almost perfectly. It is a device for reading books. If people want all the other stuff, they buy a tablet. Extra features are unlikely to kill a Kindle. The only thing that is likely to do so is when a tablet offers the same features (i.e. long battery life, display you can read in bright sunlight).

No but let us say that said newspaper is electronic in form and those archives are electronically searchable, they're screwed by this made up right. People want past misdeeds to be forgotten about and removed from search engines and if it starts with Google, it will move on to the search engine of the website of your local paper. Where will this mythical right end?

No court ruling has applied this right to the newspaper, but it has certainly been applied to Google which in turn was referencing a website which could be a local paper, a publication of record etc.

If Amazon employs bodies in a physical location then of course it has to follow employment law in that location.

The Right to be Forgotten idea is silly as no local paper will be permitted to have archives any more.

Currently up to

3 tablets, 3 laptops (1 work, 2 family), 4 PCs and need another laptop.

Tablets unfortunately don't supplant laptops and PCs - they're devices for consuming rather than producing.

Neither was Iran's request a covert black ops operation. I'm not claiming countries are running black ops operations to get the accused, I'm stating that all countries are trying to claim the coverage of their national law extends into other countries. Prior to the Mega operation, where a country was based and principly did business was regarded as almost inviolate. Also it was not regarded as "has a nexus", it was "headquartered or controlled from".

Page removed or does not exist... I was so going to "like" it... :-)

The news agency was probably jumping to a conclusion, not the judge. Like reporting over here, the press agency put their own spin on it.

Zuckerberg personally claims to be an atheist, which presumably is not really compatible with being a Zionist. In addition, it seems that he's not too popular in Israel or with US Jews either....

The USA has on a number of occasions extended its own laws to cover interactions with foreigners over the Internet. You only have to look at a certain naturalised New Zealander who the US have tried to extradite (Mega something or other, wasn't it)

The European Union isn't perfect either, as this "Right to Be Forgotten" law also seems to want to establish national law when the dealings are with foriegn companies that essentially only have sub-offices over here. In actual fact, the Iranian allegations of "Invasion of privacy" are fairly similar to the European Union position, which is one reason why I hope that the silly ruling is buried in some manner.