Google: Under the right to be forgotten, European citizens have the right to request the removal of information about them from search results, in cases where these are out of date or inaccurate. From the beginning, we have publicly expressed our concerns about the decision, however, we have worked hard to comply with it, and we have done so conscientiously and in cooperation with Data Protection Authorities. To date, we have handled requests to delete more than 2 million search results in Europe, and have removed more than 800,000 of them. 
We have also taken great care not to delete results of public interest, as defined by the European Court of Justice. Most Data Protection Authorities have concluded that this approach ensures the appropriate balance.
However, two right-to-be-forgotten currently before the European Court of Justice threaten this balance.
In the first case, four individuals – whose names we cannot mention – make a seemingly simple argument: European law protects sensitive personal data. Sensitive personal data includes information about someone’s political beliefs or criminal record. Therefore, all references to criminal or political connections should be automatically excluded from search results, without any public interest being invoked.
If the Court were to accept this view, it would essentially give a blank check to people who might wish to take advantage of privacy laws to conceal information from the public – such as, for example, the political beliefs of a politician or the criminal activity of a public figure. This would completely deprive the general public of important information, which it has a right to know, about people who represent it in public life or provide it with services.
In the second case, the Court is asked to decide whether Google should enforce the right to be forgotten not only in Europe, but worldwide. We – together with a wide range of human rights and media , as well as others such as Wikimedia – believe that this is contrary to the basic principles of international law, which dictate that no country should have the jurisdiction to impose its laws on citizens of other countries, especially when it concerns linking to perfectly legal content. The adoption of such a regulation would encourage other countries, including less democratic regimes, to try to impose their values on the citizens of another country.
We are actively addressing the issue because denying access to legitimate and useful information is contrary to our mission as a company and prevents us from providing the comprehensive search service that people expect from us.
However, the threat is much greater than that. These cases represent a serious infringement on the public's right to access lawful information.
We will argue in court for a reasonable interpretation of the right to be forgotten and for the ability of states around the world to enact their own laws and not accept the imposition of third-party laws. Until 20 November, countries and institutions across Europe have the opportunity to submit their views to the Court. We encourage everyone interested in public access to information to defend this right and fight for its preservation.
Text edited by Kent Walker, SVP and General Counsel, Google
