Re: Forgotten?
The point is about whether what is found is still relevant. Imagine that a teenager you received coverage in the local paper for a bit of horseplay that resulted in a broken window in someone's house; your parents paid for the repairs, the police were happy to let you go with a verbal warning, but still it got reported in the local paper.
Now imagine 40 years later when you are going for that CIO job you've always wanted and your prospective employer Googles your name (especially if you have an unusual name). Is it really fair that the first thing that comes up on the list is that local paper report?
Similarly if I filed for bankruptcy 20 years ago, since when I have built up a multi-million pound company, that the bankruptcy case in The Times is the first thing that Google returns?
In both cases the source was news reported at the time and as such should not be erased (starting down that road is a very dangerous path indeed), and it should be avaialble to someone doing an in-depth investigation into my/your past, who can give the information the priority it deserves, not have it leap out them as the top search result.
One has to balance the age of the data, the seriousness of what's being reported, and whether it has any bearing on the purpose for which the search is being conducted; an automated search engine is not capable of doing this, so a way of doing it has to be devised.
Of course, the real danger is that by the time you realise that the ancient piece of news has been resurrected by Google, it is probably too late, the employer has already passed you by....