Somehow, showing one person that wasn't much harmed by it isn't really much in terms of proving the point -
- Bill Gates rise long predated the kind of easy information retrieval, we have now.
- X people in the US owning guns doesn't detract from the fact, that the US with it's liberal gun laws has the highest relative number of gun related deaths. My guess is, saying my neighbour owns a gun and I'm still alive isn't much consolation to those who have lost loved ones at the Columbine shooting or any other shooting that is.
- "You live with what you've done" - true, no discussion there - but seeing similarly bogus discussions levelled at some politicians for stuff they've said 20 years ago - opinions they have changed _loooooong_ ago - it still makes them targets now; i.e. any good political argument they might bring on a case NOW gets diminished by them having been wrong on an unrelated issue way back when.
- "Allowing people to erase their past" - stupid argument from your side - the EU case says nothing that a "repeat offender" gets their records cleared -- and the guy wouldn't have won the right to have that old story removed from a public search engine's index, if he still had issues about finances.
- "People have a right to evaluate who they are hiring as a camp counselor for girl guides summer camp" - sure, but that is about criminal records, which noone is asking to remove.
- "who they rent an apartment to" - this is probably the crux of it; sure, as a landlord I'd like to know, if a potential tenant can pay his rent. But - should I be allowed to turn down a tenant who has had no financial problems the last 10 years based on him having had them 15 years ago (and repaid everything long ago) - you can bet that the repossession will still show up in the search index, but once you repay a debt, that isn't published - your record may just get removed: And so you're still left with a marker for something that was loooooooooooong ago and completely irrelevant for the current time.
What you want to do is to be allowed to discriminate based on outdated information; which is a perfectly good reason, why someone else might want to have outdated information removed from _search indices_. Not full removal of data - so, if you know specific places where to look, you'll still get the information - and you know the _context_ in which you're getting them, but not in a public search index of everything, where most people don't care about the context and will just see "Repossession? That's bad! I won't do business with him!".
To not allow that would also mean it would be irrelevant to try for social rehabilitation of people in prison - even if you complete your jail term, everyone should be able to discriminate against you for the rest of your life - simply because everyone will just see "gone to prison" (20 years ago) in a public search index of newspaper articles, but not see "released from prison" (19 years ago) as that usually doesn't get published - and the police record that DOES have that kind of information is not easily searchable: with good reason, because that information needs to be seen in context. And if you're still worried - having the criminal record will still ensure that that person shouldn't become a girl scout counselor.