At last, the European Court of Justice recognizes the right to be forgotten. Nine European agencies and the Canadian agency for the protection of data, as well as many citizens and companies have been waiting for this ruling for four years: the right to be forgotten has reached its jurisprudential recognition through the response of the European Court of Justice to the National High Court's query on the Mario Costeja case. The very important step of its essay final within the new European Regulation on the Protection of Privacy data is still pending.

From now on, Google and search engines are legally responsible for the results they index. Thus, those who wish to have their names, brands, companies, activities disassociated on the Internet from contexts they consider inappropriate ("inappropriate", a whole world), offensive third-party comments, etc. must, in the first place, claim their right before Google or similar. Secondarily, they may request some measure subject to newspapers or official bulletins, original sources from which Google draws all its search potential. It seems logical to think that a newspaper cannot be asked to change a news item it published years ago and that nowadays, with Google's eternal memory capacity, it causes an unfair prejudice to a person. But maybe it does.

One of the solutions being considered to mitigate this harm, while respecting freedom of expression, is to establish a reasonable deadline time frame for universal accessibility, after which two options are possible. First, eliminate those data from the original source , replacing them with initials. Or to propose a double step in the access to information, so that the contents published by the media from a certain date onwards would be included in a fund of periodicals collection not directly accessible to search engines, but it would be necessary to enter the media's website and from there initiate another registration and search process.

The temporality of data versus its permanence on the Internet is one of the most talked about ideas as a means to incorporate the right to be forgotten. But the civil service examination to this temporality of the maintenance of personal data on the Internet also has its raison d'être. One of the most repeated criticisms against the right to be forgotten is that, if applied, it would facilitate a subtle censorship subject , insofar as, if everyone is allowed to delete their personal data as they wish, relevant data would no longer be accessible and, consequently, a falsification of reality could result.