Google is a memory prosthesis. The fact that such a thing did not exist until recently, does not mean that there has ever been a right to ban it. We're in a transitional period where people haven't yet learned to adapt to it by properly discounting the importance of long-past events. If we just ban it now, we never will. The damage done by the transitional period is temporary, that caused by continuing to forget as before is not.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

On Earth, maybe. It's not a theoretical limit - the article itself points out that you can put the clocks in space.

The magic phrase is Dividend discount model.

There should be a duress password to indicate coercion.

Yes. Not only that, from the article:

Not only did he pick an arbitrary number, but he believes it should be used as public policy.

One warrant canary conveys 1 bit of data. How many are allowed? Has anyone gotten away with using more than one?

I thought a "cap" is when you were simply cut off over a certain amount of data, and "metering" is when you can use as much as you want, but get charged per byte. By these definitions, Comcast isn't using caps, but metering.

This is the guy who disingenuously said "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls", knowing the monitoring is done by speech recognition and only a tiny fraction needs to be listened to by humans, and who appointed Clapper to establish an NSA review board, knowing he had already lied to Congress to protect the NSA.

They only take people who are willing to give up the right of jury nullification.

Oops - as pointed out above, the correct name of the site is Palomar Mountain, not Mount Palomar. Sorry about that.

Not true - in 1975, BTA-6 in the Soviet Union became the biggest at 236 inches, though it never worked properly.

Since most humans now live in an environment which is much more shielded than what we evolved in, and evolution hasn't had time to catch up, it's plausible that a tradeoff like that might be worthwhile.

TL;DR: To ensure a level playing field between ordinary people and the rich/powerful, information access should be either easy or impossible, and the second option is out.

How can anyone exercise their "right" to "be forgotten" if saving local copies is allowed?

Although this particular legislation doesn't ban that, laws already exist making it illegal to make local copies of certain content. Plugging the "local copy" loophole would be the next step.

You left out the quotes around the word "irrelevant", which were there because it's subjective. Who gets to decide that? Same for "outdated", even there were no quotes in the article.

Even if said person is about to run for public office? (Just one example.)

If the newspaper is allowed to continue publishing the article, then the incident isn't "forgotten". Another loophole. To "protect" people's "right" to be forgotten, it's necessary to ban search engine links to the content, posting the content itself, and the making of local copies of it. If any copies survive, anywhere, the job isn't done. On the other hand, if your belief is that the goal should be to make access not impossible, but merely difficult, that just means that only the rich and/or powerful will be able to find the information. How is that a good thing?