That's the same "think of the children" kind of logic that governments use to justify PRISM et al.

So the real question is, do we want our private lives permanently documented for all to see; or do we deserve some level of privacy knowing there's a legitimate risk that a very small number of people will abuse those rights?

Personally I have the opinion that bad people will always find ways to do bad things; so I'd rather not punish the majority of good people out there just on the off chance that we can catch a couple of extra bad people.

I agree mostly for the same reasons. I also think it is a pretty pessimistic view on humanity that this ruling will overwhelmingly used for "evil" and not for "good". I'd rather let a few people go undetected, than punish the majority.

It sometimes sounds like in pre-Google time we were living in a dark age of lawlessness where we were not able to scrutinized everyone thanks to the magic panopticon.

I'm fairly sure before the web, everyone lived in squalor while the war lords governing their provinces enjoyed luxury at their subjects expense.

Actually thinking about it, little has changed....

> "… because apparantly that he has a right to prohibit others learning about his wrong-doings."

That's not what the ruling was about. If we are to discuss this ruling it would help if people tried to understand it a little better, rather than claiming 'censorship' at every turn.

I'm not a fan of the ruling, but Given the nature of the ruling, I think it's unlikely that information like this would be removed from Google's index.