On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
accurate public data that happens to be old.
There is nothing in the judgement about erasing "true, acaccurate public
data that happens to be old." The judgement is about collecting,
collating, and processing it, in away that is an invasion of privacy.
There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention at
school for not doing their homework at junior high. There is no public
interest in whether umbilical cord blood was taken from child Y or not.