One of best thing happen to a person is that his work or his name is shown on the internet, where Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) lists you as one of the results on its search pages, but unfortunately to draw attention an artist by the name of Dan Roach had submitted a request to Google, asking them to for the “right to be forgotten.”
An odd thing to happen
The most important thing is that the link that comments on the article posted by Roach is neither disparaging nor offensive. The link leads to an article written by renowned journalist Peter John of the Worcester News, where he praises the work of the Roach as “excellent” and “very talented.” Later to prove his point, Roach gave a statement to a Worcester News that the decision he took to remove the link form the Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) is not because of any personal reason, but was a wish to highlight his new work, rather than the old.
“The decision to ask for the link to be removed from Google was based on no more than a wish to highlight my new work, rather than the old,” Roach said.
In a contrary the author of the original piece is little confused about Roach’s decision. He said in a statement “An artist wanting to remove part of his back catalogue did not strike us as the sort of principle that the European court of justice had in mind when it came up with the right to be forgotten ruling. Would Google remove early Hirsts or Monets on request?”
Separately, in a statement to The Guardian, the reporter aggressively called it as the “most absurd and silly piece of censorship.”
More reasons to question the law?
It was for the very same reason that Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) originally opposed the law Google when it was first suggested, but eventually the internet giant had to comply with such request because of the order from the European Commission.
Reportedly, more than 90,000 people have applied for data to be wiped from the search results. On the other hand, critics of the “right to be forgotten,” including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, have quoted that the ruling is open to abuse and could see people hiding information from the public. Also it has been suggested that it is flawed as the people outside of Europe can see the unedited search results.
