Absolutely. Sometimes people get known, against their will, for events beyond their control. There is an example that comes to mind of a crime being interrupted

Absolutely. Sometimes people get known, against their will, for events beyond their control. There is an example that comes to mind of a crime being interrupted by a member of the community. The criminal was not named but the person who thwarted the crime was. They perceive this as having had a negative influence on their career search, as the first thing that appears when searching their name on mainstream search engines is "Person from X city, apprehended during Y crime". Is this okay? Should this person have a right to "be forgotten"? Even if we assume this person could somehow articulate a manner, method and value of negative impact this association has caused, is there a correct avenue to address this? - The news outlets are not doing anything wrong, they largely have reported only facts. They're precluded from mentioning the perpetrator by name, and the good Samaritan is reported by name as having intervened in the crime and preventing it from escalating; these are indisputable facts. - Is the person reviewing job applicants to blame for possibly not going past the title of an article when searching a prospect's name and city? Unfortunately as reality here has shown, there is no correct way forward. Legislatively, the USA does not hold the rights of the good Samaritan above the Constitutional rights of the press and witnesses. Imagine the feelings that develop in the good Samaritan in realizing they're powerless against the public record while having done nothing wrong and being accused of no crime.