I’m pretty skeptical of the polling methodology here, at least without explicit disclosure of the questions posed. And their experts are… not exactly high profile :) So I’d take these results with a grain of salt.  That said, there is of course interest in this in the US. It is obvious to anyone who uses the internet, in Europe or the US, that old information on the internet can have an impact on a person’s life/reputation - I got asked basically this question by a reporter for the Wall Street Journal in 2006, so it isn’t a surprising or even very new idea. And academics have been pushing similar ideas for roughly a decade as well. So I think it is not too surprising that there is interest in solving the problem on both sides of the Atlantic. There is probably a deeper EU-US split on *how* to solve it - how to balance speech issues, public interest in various types of knowledge, etc., who should be making that balancing decision, and what sorts of policies/protections should be in place. I think it is pretty clear that the answer set out by the ECJ - making Google the judge and jury, with only one side of the story before it - is not the right answer, especially when it impacts a site (us) that already has arguably the best, and certainly most transparent, policies and processes in place to try and make that balance. Two cents- Luis Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer. On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: