That it can and will be abused does not mean that it does not have excellent use cases.
It's broken implementations and guidelines that are the problem, not the basic idea.
My Canadian lawyer once told me an interesting story. He had gone to research his 'roots' on the assumption that he'd find that he descended from English or French nobility, and wouldn't it be nice to have a coat of arms.
Instead, he ended up finding out that his great-great-grandfather had been given the choice of the gallows or the boat.
Of course that was many years ago, but somehow his great-great-grandfather had found a way to start afresh without his past misdeeds following him in too visible a way. And he had done very well for himself. In todays world that man would not have stood a chance of starting over, no matter how far he went from the place of his birth because Google will happily follow you anywhere short of changing your name.
Especially for convicted criminals being google-able can take away their chance to starting again with a clean slate.
Now, you could argue that this is right and that's how it is supposed to work, screw the criminals they should think before they commit their deeds and so on. But there is an element of permanence here that stops those that are capable of changing themselves for the better from being able to outrun their own shadow and in that specific example that is a net-loss to society.
Not that there aren't scenarios where the 'right to be forgotten' isn't a net loss to society, it's just that it is not as clear cut and simple as you make it.
It's broken implementations and guidelines that are the problem, not the basic idea.
My Canadian lawyer once told me an interesting story. He had gone to research his 'roots' on the assumption that he'd find that he descended from English or French nobility, and wouldn't it be nice to have a coat of arms.
Instead, he ended up finding out that his great-great-grandfather had been given the choice of the gallows or the boat.
Of course that was many years ago, but somehow his great-great-grandfather had found a way to start afresh without his past misdeeds following him in too visible a way. And he had done very well for himself. In todays world that man would not have stood a chance of starting over, no matter how far he went from the place of his birth because Google will happily follow you anywhere short of changing your name.
Especially for convicted criminals being google-able can take away their chance to starting again with a clean slate.
Now, you could argue that this is right and that's how it is supposed to work, screw the criminals they should think before they commit their deeds and so on. But there is an element of permanence here that stops those that are capable of changing themselves for the better from being able to outrun their own shadow and in that specific example that is a net-loss to society.
Not that there aren't scenarios where the 'right to be forgotten' isn't a net loss to society, it's just that it is not as clear cut and simple as you make it.