> Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely. By the same log

> Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely. By the same logic one should also provide a means for people to protest indexes and tables of content in published literature. Opening a prominent business publication's table of contents and seeing a headline "CEO sued" provides no context and social media accounts he owned. However, we would argue freedom of the press and that since it is a print publication its simply recording a matter of public record. You've never been able to hide from your past, good or bad. If someone was motivated they could do the manual labor necessary to dig -- review publications, talk to relatives, visit past schools, talk to the local PD and such. Simply having Google erase its table of contents pointing to an article discussing past indiscretions doesn't make them go away or unrecoverable. What makes people uneasy is the relative ease at which Google et. al. make discovering past indiscretions, lawsuits, and other public information possible. The two questions that really need answering are should the past be easily searchable -- the information itself will never go away -- and how should that past information color the future?