The problem is this: we have a sense of what belongs to us - what is "us" - that comes from 10,000 years or so of civilization in which information is relatively easily forgotten - because people and their memories die, because paper records are hard to access, because old newspapers are lost, because books go out of print. Now we are suddenly (20 years or less) confronted with a world in which every single piece of information is relatively easily digitized, preserved and recalled. The EZ Pass lane you went through at 10:53 a.m. on a Tuesday morning 15 years ago, that horrible college ID photo, your thumbprint (or the algorithm that represents it) and the Google search for kinky porn that you executed two hours ago. The characters I'm typing right now and the coffee I bought at Starbucks a few minutes ago. It can all be recorded and stored, and much of it is. So who has a right to see/use/delete/subpoena/profit from/provide access to all of this? What bothers me about the perspective of this column is what seems to be the implicit answer "everyone". But while we may all agree that privacy and identity and anonymity will be affected in some way by modern technology, we are not ready to relegate every bit and byte of information about ourselves to the status of "facts" that the public has an inherent right to. The phrase "right to be forgotten" is a bit misleading: the real question is who has the moral right to obtain or retain this data. Even if Google has a moral responsibility to display whatever they find (which is not so clear) there is a question of who had the right to put it online in the first place. And surely if someone had no right to put something online, and therefore has a responsibility to remove it, there must be some responsibility for anyone who picked it up from that source to remove it too. So I do not agree that appeals to "facts" and "history" and other such good things automatically entitle search engines to publish every link they have ever found. A more nuanced approach is necessary; whether this new ruling provides that is another question, but since we seem to be at sea with data privacy we have to start somewhere.