By link - 24 Aug 16 9:45 PM
Hi,
It recently came to my attention that a rather unsavoury website had made reference to my conviction many years after the fact, following this I became aware that information relating to my past had jumped back up the search ranks putting my livelihood and relatively solitary existence at possible risk, the extent to which certain "keywords" seemed to bring up my past was quite alarming so I decided to take the plunge and try and have the links removed...
My application to Google can be summarised as below:
For each URL you provided, please explain:
(1) how the linked URL relates to you (or, if you are submitting this form on behalf of someone else, why the page is about that person); and
(2) why the content on this URL in search results is distributed unlawfully, inaccurate, or outdated.
We may ask you to provide additional documents in support of your request. We will not be able to process your complaint without this information.
The supplied list of URL's include personal details relating to a spent conviction, the provided URL's should not be included in search results as the conviction was spent in XXXX under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA), since the conviction has been wiped out by law and the duration which has elapsed my right to privacy outweighs any public interest. The reporting of a spent conviction (by means of search results or cached content etc.) is an act of defamation, the search results are no longer relevant since the conviction is spent, the search results are outdated by many years and otherwise inappropriate to be displayed as current events. I request that should you approve my application that you do not inform any webmaster(s) of the URLs listed above which would thereby reveal information pertaining to myself.
I represent that the information in this request is accurate and that I am the person affected by the web pages identified, or I am authorized by the person affected to submit this request.
I received a nice response almost instantly...
Hi, Thanks for reaching out to us!
We have received your legal request. Your message is in our queue, and we'll process your request as quickly as our workload permits. We may reach out to you for further information if needed for us to understand and handle your request.
Regards,
The Google Team
Well not surprisingly two weeks later this is the response I get back:
Hi, Thanks for reaching out to us!
With regards to the following URLs:
www.a.n.other.com
It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this/these URLs - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest.
At this time, Google has decided not to take action on these URLs.
You may wish to send your request for removal directly to the webmaster, who controls the site in question. The webmaster has the ability to remove the content in question from the web, or block it from appearing in search engines.
You can visit https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9109 to learn how to contact a site's webmaster.
If outdated content from a site is still appearing in Google Search results, you can ask Google to update or remove the page using our webpage removal request tool at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals.
You may also have the right to raise this issue with your country’s data protection authority if you are unhappy with the decision that Google has taken.
Regards,
The Google Team
Well that's me thoroughly depressed for my efforts... any advice from the new spangled forum?
|
By link - 3 Apr 18 6:09 PM
I had another pop at this recently, given there last response I tried down the route that an image search of *INSERT NAME* without modifiers heralded a picture of me within one page...
The response within 24hrs was blunt, neven gonna happen not now not ever. So sorry to any folk reading this but that CJEU judgement means nothing in the eyes of Google, or the ICO it would seem! 
|
|