There are few legal doctrines that have garnered more buzz in the tech world than the right to be forgotten. This right was approved in Europe in 2014 despite strong opposition from Google and its users allows people to request the removal of search results related to them. Remove it, and this is important to be precise, from the search results, as linked elements will still be present in their respective origins.

Of course, the right to be forgotten also includes the fact that people who wish to do so can directly contact this website and request, based on this rule, the deletion of those information that they do not wish to be stored on the network. However, in many cases this can be a very complex process, especially if the data originates from a place where the right to be forgotten does not apply. This is why it is most common to resort to Google.

And that’s it If an online resource is no longer indexed by search engines, it loses virtually all of its visibility.. However, there are those who believe that this type of measure is contrary to transparency, that it can be used to hide potentially important information from people, and that search engines should collect all the content that is on the net without being able to do so. limitations in this respect.

Europe is not the only geography in which the right to be forgotten is exercised. In Latin America, it is also present in Argentina, Chile and Mexico, although with varying degrees of implementation. And we saw the clearest example of this in Argentina, as we can read in Clarin, where The country’s highest court agreed with Google in an appeal against Natalia Denegricountry celebrity who requested removal of results related to a scandal that took place in the 1990s.

This was a pretty important case. faced two rights that are difficult to reconcile, information and privacya debate we have already listened to ad nauseam in the early years of the last decade, when the right to be forgotten began to take shape, and in which until now privacy always seemed to win, but on this occasion it faced a profound setback, as the court decided to argue with Google , a participant in the process.

“The Coppola Case” had “great public interest in society, whereby the removal of said content (from internet search engines) would affect freedom of expression and deprive society of access to this information“, we can read in the sentence, which was unanimously signed by the four judges participating in the trial. Could something similar happen in Europe? It doesn’t seem likely at this point, but we can’t rule it out either, especially now, with this precedent.