IIRC it was a private person who wanted to remove an article about his house being foreclosed due to his debts. His request to remove the article was not granted since the article was lawful, but the court agreed that google should stop pointing to that article since it was like 15-20 years old and the man had paid of his dept and his house was no longer foreclosed.

What do you find villainous about that?

> Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.

The right to be forgotten has nothing to do with publishing records of something. It is about search engines not pointing to something published in the past that can have an adverse effect on somebody today while the published information is irrelevant to anybody today ...

Publishing Names and Addresses of accused persons and their Mugshots is a great example. Publishing that information is relevant since the person is being accused at the time of publishing. A years later the person is found innocent. It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine but can have an adverse affect on the individual if he is looking for a job or whatever.

For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society. The point is that people make mistakes and there is no good reason (in the very wast majority of cases) that those mistakes should follow them their whole lives. The point is rehabilitation not eternal punishment. That is a reason why the right to be forgotten exists.