By: Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — The federal privacy commissioner says individuals have the right to have some information de-listed from search engine results but Google is refusing to comply.
The commissioner’s office says Google won’t implement a recommendation to de-list specific articles in the search results for an individual’s name.
The federal privacy commissioner recommended Google de-list articles about a criminal charge that was dropped.
The individual says the articles caused direct harm, including social stigma, lost job opportunities, and physical assault.
The case first began in 2017, with Google challenging the application of federal privacy law to its search engine.
The privacy commissioner asked the courts to weigh in and in 2023 the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Google’s appeal and the decision marked a victory for people seeking a digital “right to be forgotten” in Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 27, 2025.
Read more: Vancouver International Airport reports delays, cites staffing issues with NAV CANADA
The right to be forgotten limits the understanding of a true thorough ability to fact check anyone person on this planet and leaves a seriously distorted view of history. If one is allowed to have previously posted commentary regardless of written or done by video the right to be forgotten leaves fact checking at a serious disadvantage when trying to capture written history already posted to the greater internet of things. Use your name wisely and with caution and you will find the need to be forgotten will change to where you will want to be remembered for your thinking. And if I might add the right to be forgotten does not help in the general premise being discussed by America to provide 5 years of social media that was and is being contemplated with the goal of spotting potential threats by those wanting to immigrate into the United States from this point forward if America is going to check the social accounts or statements made to the greater internet by citizens from other countries it must from this point moving forward never allow for anyone person or statement to be de indexed from the system . The Americans if they are to take this stance of schrolling the social activity of immigrants and those visiting the United States ignorer to weed out potential threats must totally refuse google the ability to be forgotten and the Americans must actively limit Googles ability to do so. They need Google with the help of the CIA and intelligence community to go even further by finding all deleted information as well. If what the Americans are trying to do comes to fruition it helps force out ones true self making an easy decision for immigration and also for the greater understanding of human nature and a greater discourse . It is going to really push the limits and force a great deal of peoples written content to the forefront of public visibility.
To be de indexed at this time in human history has similarities in principal to book burning . And it would be negligence on behalf of Google to participate in doing so. “They are the Gate keepers of history” and everyone on this planet goes to them to learn about one and other . Why would Google participate in this ? I believe Google under no circumstances should allow any person to be forgotten and now under the new general understanding being discussed by the American government to go back 5 years only will make Google liable for not providing all past delisted commentary from countries who fight google on this issue for the right to be forgotten. If the Americans force Google under the guise and general premise that under an American owned corporation it must work with the American government to produce everything only then do they know who they are dealing with but they must go back over 20 years to really make it effective
If I might try to clarify to the greater internet of things that my original post to this site was done under the understanding that I was responding to The Canadian Press .
The originating interest in this storey by myself was by reading The Canadian Press article, as I live in Ontario and am not a BC Resident.
It is just an observation ! I don’t mind it just intrigues me ,I find it interesting .
Have a great day !
The Case for the Right to be Remembered: A Synopsis
By Edward HC Graydon
I. The Thesis: The Written Word as Human Evidence
My core argument is that the written word—whether a formal article, a public letter, or a high-engagement comment on a news platform—constitutes a permanent thread in the fabric of social history. To delete, “deactivate,” or allow these records to vanish due to corporate technical updates or platform migrations is not merely a loss of data; it is a form of systemic historical revisionism. I contend that the Right to be Remembered is a superior moral and civic standard to the “Right to be Forgotten” because truth and accountability require a complete, unedited record of human thought.
II. The “Vanishing Act” and the Loss of Social Proof
My findings are rooted in the reality of a “digital dark age.” Twenty years ago, I contributed a piece to The Globe and Mail that resonated deeply with the public, garnering over a hundred interactions. This was a moment of social proof—concrete evidence that an idea had captured the public imagination and sparked a genuine community conversation.
The Problem: Today, that record is largely inaccessible. Despite the internet being marketed as “forever,” corporate “housecleaning” and database shifts at major outlets like the Globe have effectively erased significant portions of my intellectual footprint.
The Consequence: When we lose these records, we lose the ability to prove that certain conversations ever happened. We lose the benchmarks of how we once thought, argued, and agreed as a society.
III. Why “Remembered” Outranks “Forgotten”
While the “Right to be Forgotten” is often framed as a tool for privacy, in the context of the written word, it acts as a tool for historical evasion.
Individual Accountability: If a person’s written history is preserved, they remain tethered to the standard of their own words. The “Right to be Remembered” allows for a true assessment of an individual’s character, consistency, and evolution over time.
Intellectual Integrity: To “forget” or delete past writings allows for the grooming of a sanitized public image. I believe the public has a right to the original, raw history of discourse, not a curated, “safe” version of the past designed to protect reputations.
The Flaw of Deactivation: Currently, platforms “deactivate” or archive-out content to save costs or avoid controversy. I view this as a “serious flaw” in human communication that treats public thought as a disposable commodity rather than a permanent historical asset.
IV. Precision of Scope: The Written Word vs. Private Data
It is important to be precise: my advocacy for the Right to be Remembered focuses specifically on text and the written word. While there are sensitive personal data points or private images that individuals may wish to protect, the publicly shared word belongs to the public record. Once a thought is released into the “online battlefield” of ideas, it becomes part of our collective memory. To erase it is to rob future generations of the context they need to understand the present.
V. Conclusion: A Call for a Permanent Archive
I conclude that we are currently living through a period of unintended censorship. By failing to mandate the preservation of online commentary and public writing, we allow the “gatekeepers”—media corporations and tech platforms—to decide which parts of our history are worth keeping and which are to be discarded.
For a society to be healthy, it must be brave enough to look at its own past, unedited and in full. We must protect the right of every citizen to have their contributions to the public record remembered—not because every word is perfect, but because every word is true to its time.