<P> In May 2016, South Korea's Korea Communications Commission (KCC) announced citizens will be able to request search engines and website administrators to restrict their own postings from being publicly accessible . The KCC released "Guidelines on the Right to Request Access Restrictions on Personal Internet Postings", which will take effect in June 2016, which will not apply to third party contents . To the extent that the right to be forgotten concerns a data subject's right to limit the searchability of third party postings about him / her, the Guideline does not constitute a right to be forgotten . Also, as to the right to withdraw one's own posting, critics have noted that people have been able to delete their own postings before the Guideline as long as they have retained their login credentials, and that people who have misplaced their login credentials were permitted to retrieve or receive new ones . The only services significantly affected by the Guideline are Wiki - type services where people's contributions make logical sense only in response to or in conjunction with one another's contributions and therefore the postings are made permanent part of the mass - created content, but KCC made sure that the Guideline applies to these services only when the posting identifies the authors . </P> <P> The guidelines created by the KCC include that data subjects can remove content that includes the URL links, and any evidence consisting of personal information . The commission included different amendments to the guideline . This includes describing the Guidelines as a "minimum" and "preliminary" precaution regarding privacy rights in vague areas of existing laws . The guideline encompasses foreign Internet companies that provide translation services for South Korean consumers . In order to have a person's information "forgotten" he or she has to go through a three step process: the issue posted with the URL, proof of ownership of the post, grounds for the request . There are restrictions on each step . When posting the URL, the web operator has the right to preserve the posting issue . The second being that if the post is relevant to public interest, web operators will process this request on the terms of relevance . </P> <P> A recent court judgement in South Africa forcing a former employee of a company to update his LinkedIn profile also exemplified the question, if companies should have control over what we do on social media . "This was highlighted by the high court in Pretoria yesterday in the case of a city estate agent who was ordered to correct his employment history on professional social media site LinkedIn . The court gave Willem van der Schyff five days within which to remove the details of former employer Daniel Crous Auctioneers from his LinkedIn profile, as it was misleading . </P> <P> In May 2016, Chinese courts in Beijing determined citizens do not have the right to be forgotten when a judge ruled in favor of Baidu in a lawsuit over removing search results . It was the first of such cases to be heard in Chinese court . In the suit, Ren Jiayu sued Chinese search engine Baidu over search results that associated him with a previous employer, Wuxi Taoshi Biotechnology . Ren argued that by posting the search results, Baidu had infringed upon his right of name and right of reputation, both protected under Chinese law . Because of these protections, Ren believed he had a right to be forgotten by removing these search results . The court ruled against Ren, claiming his name is a collection of common characters and as a result the search results were derived from relevant words . </P>

The right to be forgotten is the right to have an imperfect past