|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+x+x[quote]Hello. I have been playing 'whack-a-mole' all week finding, almost daily, new listings of my case and then approaching google to get them removed. One set of particularly stubborn URLs relates to an online site called 'madebyredrose'. Totally unlawful and potentially risking people's safety, they list anyone and everyone who has been convicted of any kind of sexual offence. Has anyone had any dealings with this group? Are they deliberately reshuffling URLs to circumvent the 'right to be forgotten' and is there a way to appeal beyond google and actually go after this group itself due to the unlawful nature of what they are doing? It is starting to get me down, to be honest. Having to do a daily trawl of the public reporting of my awful mess when it has been spent for years is a task I can do without. I would be interested to hear anyone's experiences or ideas about possible next steps. Thanks RM I've been caught up with them too. I've spoken about it on this thread here and actually approached Police Scotland about it as the website and the listing for me was set up after I'd been removed from the registry and my sentence became spent. https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic35501-3.aspxThe short answer is: The police didn't care. I don't believe they're intentionally doing it to circumvent anything, without sounding like a bit of a dick - Looking at the rest of the website and the way it is has been setup I don't believe they're smart enough to achieve that and this is all basically just circumstance/accidental of the backend of the CMS system they use. What I have noticed is it is a singular number suffix at the end of the URL which is what causes Google to re-list it. The website is setup using Wordpress and the number suffix is linked to a category, so theoretically they have setup a bunch of categories which are linked using a number ID, I guess it just depends how many categories they have and how many are linked to a specific article. The URLs are all the same except the number at the end, in my case it's like this: https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY-NAME]?category=18 I've had 14 numbers removed so far as well as a base-listing. If it helps, the numbers for me have been: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 - Note that these did not appear in sequential order but I arranged them this way for ease of reading. I also tried to raise the case with Google that given the article URL is still in essence the same could they not just do a wildcard removal like https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY-NAME]?category=* but they never really acknowledged it and just continue to keep removing any URLs I send so not sure about that moving forward. I have just found a new red rose link appear with a new index number so have sent off a request to Google to get it removed. They must re-index the database every so often giving the articles new subject id's Just got to keep checking! Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. As the website is made through Wordpress my theory is the ID corresponds with a tag they assign to the article, for example. #Paedo= ID1, #sexoffender = ID2, #children = ID3 etc. So when they post the article they add in all these hashtags/categories and Google just picks one. Then once one is removed Google indexes another ID and so on. Could be wrong though but having worked with Wordpress sites before it makes sense logically to me. I have been keeping a track of them (and other links), here's the list for me so far if anyone is curious. 
|
|
|
|
|
RunningMan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 58,
Visits: 5.5K
|
A quick update. As previously mentioned, I sent in an original request to google to have some links removed. They replied to that after one month. Further links had popped up in that time so I replied to their original email reply two or three times as more links appeared and they responded immediately by removing them too. It was brilliant. It felt like I was finally making some progress! However, they stopped replying to that original email. Very annoying as there were only a few links left. So I emailed a new request (linked to the reference from the original request I sent) and once again, after 4 weeks they replied. That was Monday this week. As before, I then replied to that response requesting a couple of extra links be removed that had popped up in the meantime. Total. Silence.
I decided to push back - having to put in yet another request and wait yet another 4 weeks is totally unacceptable. So, I replied to the most recent email and challenged them a little bit as to the delay explaining the situation and hinting I would 'escalate it' if this excessive delay continued. I kept it polite but assertive. And sure enough, three hours later I received a reply. Links removed. All of them.
It is definitely worth holding their feet to the fire and not settling for the usual excuses about lack of resources/very high demand for the service blah blah blah - I appreciate they are busy but they need to ensure sufficient staff headcount to meet their legal obligations.
RM
|
|
|
|
|
marcovanba
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 33,
Visits: 2K
|
Having a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo
They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google
I have to restart every single time
Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 8.3K
|
+xHaving a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google I have to restart every single time Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this? Thanks in advance! Well, if you have it in writing that they will remove the links but then they don't remove them, I'd suggest giving them one last reminder, backed up by the written evidence. Allow a reasonable time, maybe 14 or 28 days, and if they still haven't done it, complain to the ICO. After all, you're not asking the ICO to decide whether the information should be deleted, you're asking them to enforce the deletion that was promised in writing. It will take a while, obviously, but waiting for Bing & Yahoo to fulfill their promises would probably take much longer.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
marcovanba
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 33,
Visits: 2K
|
+x+xHaving a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google I have to restart every single time Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this? Thanks in advance! Well, if you have it in writing that they will remove the links but then they don't remove them, I'd suggest giving them one last reminder, backed up by the written evidence. Allow a reasonable time, maybe 14 or 28 days, and if they still haven't done it, complain to the ICO. After all, you're not asking the ICO to decide whether the information should be deleted, you're asking them to enforce the deletion that was promised in writing. It will take a while, obviously, but waiting for Bing & Yahoo to fulfill their promises would probably take much longer. Thank you for taking the time to reply.... I will give that a try
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+x+xHaving a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google I have to restart every single time Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this? Thanks in advance! Well, if you have it in writing that they will remove the links but then they don't remove them, I'd suggest giving them one last reminder, backed up by the written evidence. Allow a reasonable time, maybe 14 or 28 days, and if they still haven't done it, complain to the ICO. After all, you're not asking the ICO to decide whether the information should be deleted, you're asking them to enforce the deletion that was promised in writing. It will take a while, obviously, but waiting for Bing & Yahoo to fulfill their promises would probably take much longer. Thank you for taking the time to reply.... I will give that a try What I will say is there is a long backlog with ICO at the moment. I submitted a case with them about Bing (funnily enough!) around mid-April and it still hasn't been picked up yet. I checked in on it around I think it was June or July and they advised they were just getting round to January's requests. So if you do take it to ICO just be aware you may have at least a 6 month wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom111
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4,
Visits: 45
|
Hi, I’m new to the forum and have just come across this post. I’m also having some concerns around this red rose site. Abit of back story. My conviction happened 23 years ago, there was only one small story on the internet about this when it all happened. I’ve not been in trouble with the law since. I had the original story delisted by Google as my conviction became spent a long time ago. However red rose have somehow come across the story and re posted the article on there site back in May. Since then I’ve had the posts de listed by Google and removed whenever they pop up. However my concern is that even though the results for me are not showing up, when you google my name it comes up with other links to red roses site for other people and then if people click that link they can access the link about me.
Has anyone ever managed to sort this out?
Personally I feel like red rose are surely breaking some law posting my conviction 23 years later?
Any help or advice would be appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xHi, I’m new to the forum and have just come across this post. I’m also having some concerns around this red rose site. Abit of back story. My conviction happened 23 years ago, there was only one small story on the internet about this when it all happened. I’ve not been in trouble with the law since. I had the original story delisted by Google as my conviction became spent a long time ago. However red rose have somehow come across the story and re posted the article on there site back in May. Since then I’ve had the posts de listed by Google and removed whenever they pop up. However my concern is that even though the results for me are not showing up, when you google my name it comes up with other links to red roses site for other people and then if people click that link they can access the link about me.Has anyone ever managed to sort this out?Personally I feel like red rose are surely breaking some law posting my conviction 23 years later?Any help or advice would be appreciated Hey there, Basically there's little you can do on that front. You can try your luck with Google and point them that you are mentioned on the page but I've found it very hit or miss, sometimes they seemed to be okay removing it and other times they refused. I'm also battling with a weird Facebook one at the moment where when you search for my name you'll see the link header for someone else but the short description Google shows is about me but when you click on the link I get a page that says: This content isn't available at the moment
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people or changed who can see it, or it's been deleted. So no idea, I don't have Facebook so I can't go in and check either.
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom111
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4,
Visits: 45
|
It’s a nightmare isn’t it!!
All this lately has been taking over my life a little!
I’m sure this red rose sight is breaking GDPR rules posting spent convictions. I’ve thought about going to the ICO about the site and seeing what happens however worried it’ll just draw more attention to a 23 year old conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xIt’s a nightmare isn’t it!! All this lately has been taking over my life a little!I’m sure this red rose sight is breaking GDPR rules posting spent convictions. I’ve thought about going to the ICO about the site and seeing what happens however worried it’ll just draw more attention to a 23 year old conviction. Aye! I'm honestly not sure where the GDPR law lies with this, I'm sure it'll be allowed due to some 'Freedom of the Press' something of that ilk. As for going to ICO about the site in general - I'd advise extreme caution with this! I went to ICO about a similar site years ago when my stuff all kicked off (I was younger and naive and was still trying to navigate all this). The end result was ICO effectively doxxing me. They reached out to the website admin basically saying "Hey, John Doe wants you to remove the posts about him. If you wish to speak with him here's his email address". Suffice to say this went down like a fart in a lift. The result being they plastered me even more as I was trying to "hide" from it all and some other Facebook groups joined in to, and I quote, "make him famous". I got in touch with the police about the harassment and such but they said there's nothing wrong, unless someone actually takes action off the back of the post they can't do anything - I've since learned that is a load of shite and I was basically fobbed off. Now with everything spent I've just been focusing on getting the results removed from Google/Bing etc. - Unless you know the direct URL of the newspaper post or want to trek back through years of Facebook posts including a main page that no longer exists then I think it's generally the best outcome I can get for now. EDIT:Google's ears must have been burning! haha Just got an email back about those two Facebook URL results I mentioned and it looks like they'll be removing them? So if it helps you here is what I sent to them: Good morning,
There's two new posts popping up which clearly show my name but as I don't have a Facebook page I can't see the full article. I have attached a screenshot to prove my name shows up. Good morning,
There's two new posts popping up which clearly show my name but as I don't have a Facebook page I can't see the full article. I have attached a screenshot to prove my name shows up.
[URL 1]
[URL 2]
Thank you for your time.
[Attached a screenshot of the Google results showing my name]
|
|
|
|