First, the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING, not the person whose name is searched for. When Google says it protects its customers information, it is talking about people who sign up with Google for Google services. It's not talking about names it has listed in search results.
Second, Google is only indexing what is SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!!! If you think you have the "right to be forgotten", you need to contact the company / site that has the information and have THEM remove the info from the internet then it will quit being indexed by Google.
Blaming Google for doing exactly what it is there to do seems disingenuous at best.
First off, I don't get the whole "Google is the enemy" position. If you choose to use Google (gmail, search, etc), then you are CHOOSING to use Google. Just because Google managed to make money, doesn't make them evil... just successful.
Second, I haven't seen anyone mention SSL. It would seem that if all websites were 100% SSL (as Google and most security folks recommend), it would make this process a lot harder.
Third, am I the only one that suspects that if the ISPs actually block the Google adds, they will not remove them, but REPLACE them with their own (without payment to the site that generated the traffic)?
When Holder said Rosen "was labeled as a co-conspirator. I mean, you had to do that as a result of the statute", what he could have meant was "for us to prosecute the reporter under this statute, we had to name his as a co-conspirator because we couldn't charge him any other way (and we were bloody well going to charge him)."
His remorse was that he couldn't go after him directly. ;)
They didn't seize the content ABS claims copyright to, they seized the domain names that the site ABSOLUTELY "owns". As such the "owner" does loose control of their property.
Also, your use of "much of the material" implies that you aren't sure that the site is 100% infringing... Yet, 100% of the site is supposed to be blocked. So your implication that "it's clear who owns the rights" is questionable.
Seems like your response is "clearly NOT on point".
It sounds to me like the minister was trying to say "we aren't going to save the URL you visited, just the IP address". While "better", in many instances it's pretty darned close to the same amount of info.