theForum » Information on the internet » The Google effect » Google De listing

Google De listing

Simon1983 — Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:46:36 GMT

May not be something for this group, but may open decision around the google effect,

as ex offenders google And the ICO drag us through the mill to try and get our information removed, and most times with little success.

yet in the space of 24 hrs this weekend google have removed all reference And picture to Winston Churchill Being the UK prime minster during the 2nd world war

It just don’t add up

RE: Google De listing

Was — Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:46:36 GMT

They report directly to Parliament, usually via the The Digital,Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This means that a complaint about the ICO itself (as opposed to a complaint about a decision by them) will in the first hand be made via your MP, although you could try the chair of the DCMS if you think it is that serious. Ultimately you can request a judicial review of their actions. One person who wanted to go down this path was told they required £75,000 up front and, assuming that that sort of money is not to hand, I suspect a crowdfunded attempt to secure that amount would have some attendant "publicity" issues.

There is also this to bear in mind: https://panopticonblog.com/2015/07/21/right-to-be-forgotten-claim-rejected-by-the-administrative-court/

I have no connection or dealings with that law firm, but they seem to specialise in information law, so you could try contacting them.

RE: Google De listing

Outsourced — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:27:38 GMT

I wonder if you should use the response letter to formally escalate the data breach they made as a tool to get the underlying issue redressed.

The ICO reports to someone.

Policy to beat the policy with. Government at its finest

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:38:19 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 28 Jul 20 5:32 AM[/b]

So thought I'd update this as I've now received a response in regards to my complaint to ICO. They've closed my case against the UK Database as well as marked my complaint as closed/resolved too. They have mentioned they will still be passing on the website for investigation. I won't hear anything back about this as my case is closed but hey-ho.

Here is the email response if you're interested.

[quote]
Dear Mr. [REDACTED]

I am writing further to your service complaint about our handling of your concern held under reference [REDACTED]. This relates to the data protection concern that you reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the UK Database, the Data Controller in this case.

I have attached a leaflet which explains how we handle requests for a case review.

Your concerns

The concern you raise is that you asked us not to disclose your information to the Data Controller, the UK Database , and that despite your request we did so.

I have reviewed the case and can see that unfortunately, we did disclose your name and email address to the Data Controller.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for this oversight on our part which is as a result of human error. Unfortunately, I cannot turn back the clock and amend the error in your case but I will use this error to learn lessons and remind colleagues of the need to ensure that cases do not contain specific requests not to disclose details.

With regard to the concerns you raised about the Data Controller in question, we will now pass these to the relevant department for consideration. This outcome means that your case under the above reference is now closed.

As a responsible regulator, we use the concerns brought to our attention by individuals to inform our decisions as to whether it is appropriate to investigate an organisation’s information rights practices and consider further regulatory action. If we decide to take any action in a case, we do so in line with our Regulatory Action Policy and I have provided a link below.

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/2259467/regulatory-action-policy.pdf

Any action we do take in line with the policy is published on our website.

Once again, may I apologise for the oversight in this case and for any distress caused.

Taking your complaint further

A case review is the final stage of the ICO’s case handling process. Please take this as our final response on this matter.

Should you remain dissatisfied with our review outcome, the attached leaflet outlines the options available to you.

Yours sincerely

[REDACTED NAME]
Team Manager
Information Commissioner’s Office[/quote]

So you can all glean from that what you will.

Unsure if I should just drop it or push a bit more. Not entirely sure what my end goal would be though.

Interesting to see if anything happens to the website. I suspect if any notification or push from ICO to UKD will end up flagging me up again considering how close in time the two situations are.

[/quote]

Hmm - seems a bit of a cop out/pussy footed response especially since you actively called them when they told you that they would be sending your details (after already stating you didn't want that) and tried to get them to stop and were fobbed off by being told you have to speak to the person directly. That's not human error - that's actively going against something you requested not to happen as is your right on more than one occasion.

Like you say though I'm not sure what the end goal would be.

I don't hold much hope of any action given that the website has been reported several times and remains active. Maybe something will happen - I doubt it will be soon if it does given they like to take their time about any action. The latest ICO action published in June this year relates to June 2017-June 2018. So you can probably not worry about it being linked to you if anything does happen.

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:32:03 GMT

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:23:00 GMT

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:10 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 6:49 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

At a guess I’d say that the owner of that site will still not care at that point in time unfortunately. I think it’s a matter of either the ICO shutting them down or someone bringing a legal case that the site can’t afford to bankroll (although not sure what legal basis this would have - it would seem perhaps under the GDPR criminal register but maybe not given the way they try to present as news articles). The first option doesn’t seem likely either given that many have complained in general terms and the site remains. It would also seem that the ICO as shown in your case have the contact details for those behind the site so they know about them (unless they’re simply submitting via the contact form). You would think that the ICO would be a bit careful with such a sensitive subject and given they’re the enforcers of data protection regulations and must know what this site is likely to react with given their past interactions with them.There is a third and fourth possibility - the owner shuts the site down or someone hacks it. Unfortunately both extremely unlikely to in my opinion happen of course.

[/quote]

Well if they are found in breach of GDPR any company can be fined up to 4% or €20 million, whichever is highest. He'd also be forced to take the site down regardless and if he were to set another one would likely be in breach and would get a one way ticket for a wee holiday courtesy of HMP.

He wouldn't have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. Any solicitor moderately interested that doesn't care about how they would be portrayed in the media and with a modicum of sense could rip his arse apart in a court.

His website has been shut down before and with the much, much stricter GDPR rules in place now compared to previously I'd say it is just a matter of time. How long? Who knows. I reckon his own hubris will ultimately be his downfall though.

As for the hacking side. I wouldn't be so sure. It's a Wordpress site, hardly Fort Knox. I dare say you could get into it the admin using Rainbow, Cain and Abel, or John the Ripper... If someone was that way inclined...

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

Nope.

Still waiting on a response.

I tried calling them on Monday but was on hold for nearly an hour waiting to speak to someone so gave up. I did email them initially when this all kicked off on Saturday. If their time frame is anything like the initial complaint I made then I'll update this thread around Christmas when they finally respond...

[/quote]

Wondered if that might be the case. If it was me I'd be chasing them daily as quite frankly it's not acceptable - not that doing so will change the situation but it will certainly raise the seriousness of the issue with them (and potentially in the future any compensation you receive from them - should it go down that route).

[/quote]

Perhaps interestingly - I did get a call from the officer that looks after me and apparently that post with my picture and name stating "make him famous" doesn't count as a (targeted) threat, harassment, or abuse. Seemingly they'd have to explicitly say "I want you all to kick him in the face when you see him" or if they stated they'd do it themselves.

It has to show a statement of intent like "I will hunt down lotsofquer and set fire to his house" which would be the offence, however, if I were to say "Imagine if someone found lotsofquer and burned down his house. Here is what he looks like and his street" that isn't an offence.

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

Perhaps interestingly. I did have a call with the officer than oversees me and I did bring up that post on the our local Guy Fawkes Enthusiast Group and apparently it isn't deemed a concern legally and isn't deemed as (targeted) harassment, bully, incitement, or abuse due to them not specifically stating what should be done.

They posted my name, my picture, my street and stated to "make me famous". This is fine and acceptable. They need to be more definite in what they are stating.

For example:

"I'm going to track down lotsofquer and kick his head in" - This is an offence and I could be spoken to about it.

"Someone should track down lotsofquer and kick his head in. Here's what he looks like, here's a rough approximation of a small street he lives on" - This is not an offence.

I mentioned the UK Database website as essentially the crux of this. He agrees and if you look around the vast majority of police throughout the UK agree this website and "vigilante" groups are a nuisance and cause more harm than good. Then why don't they shut them down? You can point to numerous laws they all break. Most of them are well known by their local police force. They have the power to knock on their door and go "Shut this down now or else you're getting arrested".

My tinfoil hat theory why they don't though is due to the public outcry that would happen: "oH ThEy ArE pAeDo SyMpAtHiSErS!!111OnE!", "HoW WiLl My chIlDrEn bE SaFe noW?!".

I feel that would be more than hassle than it is worth for the police to deal with so when something does happen as a result of one of these groups then they just deal with that on a case-by-case basis. But to me that is a poor attitude as the damage is already done by that point.

You smother a pan fire in your kitchen as soon as you notice it to stop it spreading. You don't chuck a bottle of water on a burning building.

Bit rambly now but I've always felt strongly about this sort of lynch mob justice stuff and could talk for days about it.

[/quote]

Hmm interesting. Did they say anything else - like sorry we gave your details to a group we know do this sort of thing even though you asked us not to and our privacy policy explicatly states we won't do this without asking you first?!

He may be right on the legal bit (from the brief bit I read on the CPS website - although I'm no lawyer). There could be another avenue however and that is facebooks community standards which I've pulled some bits out of below - that you might be able to use to get the facebook posts removed.

https://en-gb.facebook.com/communitystandards/bullying
Bullying and harassment happen in many places and come in many different forms, from making threats to releasing personally identifiable information, to sending threatening messages and making unwanted malicious contact. We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour because it prevents people from feeling safe and respected on Facebook.

Context and intent matter, and we allow people to share and reshare posts if it is clear that something was shared in order to condemn or draw attention to bullying and harassment. In certain instances, we require self-reporting because it helps us understand that the person targeted feels bullied or harassed.

Do not:
Target anyone maliciously by:

Threaten to release an individual's private phone number, residential address or email address

Sending messages that contain the following attacks when aimed at an individual or group of individuals in the thread

Calls for death, serious disease or disability, or physical harm

https://en-gb.facebook.com/communitystandards/violence_criminal_behavior
1. Violence and incitement
We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook. While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and the risks to their physical safety.

Given that it's your personal data they've posted (both photo and address are considered PII - personally identifiable information - especially when posted together in this situation) you could also go down the GDPR route of right of erasure.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1528874672298&uri=CELEX:02016R0679-20160504

Article 17

Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)

The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:
(c) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(2);
(d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed; (e.g. you haven't given them your permission to process your personal data)

Article 21
Right to object

1. The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her which is based on point (e) or (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions. The controller shall no longer process the personal data unless the controller demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

Article 6
Lawfulness of processing
1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
(a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

It looks like the above would come down to legitimate interest however for which the ICO says to apply a test (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/). I personally can't see that facebook could justify legitmate interests but they may be able to with the large legal team I imagine they have.
The bits to point out in the above link if they claim this would be the third test and in particular the below.
Third, do a balancing test. Consider the impact of your processing and whether this overrides the interest you have identified. You might find it helpful to think about the following:

Is any of the data particularly sensitive or private?

Would people expect you to use their data in this way?

What is the possible impact on the individual?

How big an impact might it have on them?

The ICO page also mentions Recital 47 of GDPR which can be found at https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/r47.htm
(47) The legitimate interests of a controller, including those of a controller to which the personal data may be disclosed, or of a third party, may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller.
The interests and fundamental rights of the data subject could in particular override the interest of the data controller where personal data are processed in circumstances where data subjects do not reasonably expect further processing.

[/quote]

Don't know why my post ended up in a bit of a mess there.

But no. So far it has been radio silence from ICO, not heard a single peep from them.

I tried the Facebook route ages ago and they're not even remotely interested a picture, street and where I worked (at the time) wasn't/isn't enough personal information apparently. It was just Madeup Street, City. If it was "123 Madeup Street, City" then it might constitute something. Worth noting that when someone puts in a complaint to Facebook about a post it does notify the account holder which post is the offending one so all that'd do is just poke the fire a bit more and bring me right up on their RADAR. Certainly not something I want.

I'm sure if I lodged some kind of proper legal attack with cease & desist letters etc. then something might happen but I don't have the financial means or mental energy to do it.

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:10:20 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 6:49 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

Threaten to release an individual's private phone number, residential address or email address

Sending messages that contain the following attacks when aimed at an individual or group of individuals in the thread

Calls for death, serious disease or disability, or physical harm

Article 17

Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)

Article 21
Right to object

Is any of the data particularly sensitive or private?

Would people expect you to use their data in this way?

What is the possible impact on the individual?

How big an impact might it have on them?

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:49:03 GMT

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 5:36 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:36:06 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 15 Jul 20 5:28 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:28:14 GMT

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 15 Jul 20 8:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:02:04 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 11:31 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

How did you get on with the ICO? Have they acknowledged that they stuffed up?

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 23:31:09 GMT

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 11:12 PM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 23:12:08 GMT

At a guess I’d say that the owner of that site will still not care at that point in time unfortunately. I think it’s a matter of either the ICO shutting them down or someone bringing a legal case that the site can’t afford to bankroll (although not sure what legal basis this would have - it would seem perhaps under the GDPR criminal register but maybe not given the way they try to present as news articles). The first option doesn’t seem likely either given that many have complained in general terms and the site remains. It would also seem that the ICO as shown in your case have the contact details for those behind the site so they know about them (unless they’re simply submitting via the contact form). You would think that the ICO would be a bit careful with such a sensitive subject and given they’re the enforcers of data protection regulations and must know what this site is likely to react with given their past interactions with them. There is a third and fourth possibility - the owner shuts the site down or someone hacks it. Unfortunately both extremely unlikely to in my opinion happen of course.

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:46:14 GMT

[quote]

[b]lotsofquer - 11 Jul 20 10:23 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 9:17 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 11 Jul 20 3:02 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:55 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

Hey folks.

Submitted a complaint about the UK Database to ICO detailing their GDPR rule breaking among other things and I finally have a response. It is basically a nothing response as anticipated. The wording is slightly concerning though... Looks like they might be sending my contact details to them to try and resolve this issue..?

Email response: https://i.imgur.com/NT1CSQo.png

[quote]Dear Mr [REDACTED]

Thank you for submitting a complaint about the way The UK Database has processed your personal information.

The ICO’s role
Part of our role is to consider complaints from individuals who believe there has been an infringement of the data protection law.
Your complaint
We have considered the issues that you have raised with us and have written to The UK Database to explain that we expect their organisation to work with you to resolve any outstanding matters.
Next steps
One of the ICO’s strategic goals is to increase the public’s trust and confidence in how personal data is used and made available.
In this case, we expect the organisation to explain to you how they have complied with their obligations under the law as comprehensively as possible, including correcting any issues that they have identified or clarifying any areas of misunderstanding.
However, we are aware that the coronavirus pandemic is putting unprecedented pressure on many organisations. Some organisations have told us that they have had to reduce or suspend elements of their information rights practice due to the need to prioritise resources.
During these unprecedented times we must balance upholding important individual rights and protections granted to people by law, alongside recognising the challenges that many organisations, such as those providing a frontline service, face. As a proportionate regulator we will act in a manner which takes account of these circumstances, including how we approach our work
Although we expect the organisation to review your data protection concern as quickly as possible, we would note that it is possible that this may take them longer than usual because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Yours sincerely
Jordan Wright
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office[/quote]

I've sent a reply expressing my concern for the wording and stating how I don't want the UK Database to get any of my contact information or know that the complaint has come from me (for obvious reasons).

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

They'd argue that the information they're processing is in the public domain anyway. As for the cookies thing etc yeah you might have a point...W/R to the factually incorrect information, have they taken that information from a factually incorrect story in the first place?

Their site is hosted on wordpress, you could try approaching them with a complaint.

[/quote]

They posted the link and then made a bunch of stuff and assumptions up based on that.

Well it all back fired. I'm back trending on the vigilante Facebook as a result. Needless to say they weren't interested in address my complaint.

So where do we go from here?

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I'm in two minds. The wording is technically gaining towards targeted harassment and asking folk to "make me famous".

On one hand I feel I should report them (both, UK Database and my local vigilante group) but I don't feel anything will really happen and will likely end up in an even bigger mess.

On the other hand I'm tempted to just keep my head down and get on with life again. I've been out of he media since February and this has now brought all my anxiety and stress back. I thought I was doing the right thing by going through the right channels and complaining to ICO for them to basically cause this absolute shitshow.

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

[/quote]

Moving is not an option. I can barely afford to live where I do now. The picture they have is about 4 years old and I look vastly different now. The Facebook page has seemingly moved on for now, they've been posting about a bunch of other nonsense since the post they made last night.

Made a complaint to ICO though about their handling of it and now I kind of have proof backing up my initial concerns.

Thinking about making a call to my PPU though, just to gauge his take.

[/quote]

Well done for trying for what you think is right, it’s brave and you’re well within your rights to do so. Helpfully, for the rest of us, we know it’s not going to work if we try the same thing. I know that’s probably not much comfort but we appreciate it.

The thing is with these groups/publications of any sort is that they’re regurgitating what is largely factual (I say largely with caveats of granular detail). Out of the blue I appeared in the press for a second time (that paper that Liverpool hates), I was a small paragraph in a story 15 MONTHS after my court appearance, I hadn’t done anything it just regurgitated what happened to me the previous year. There was nothing I could do because it was factual. Another thing we just have to put up with regardless of the devastating impact it has on our mental health. Cue, again, the Caroline Flack debate…

The fact is our history leaves a scar. My issue, in terms of rehabilitation and disclosure, is that we can’t OWN any of it. For example, if someone who has been in trouble with drugs there can be an air of sympathy to those who speak out and say: “I had a problem with drugs and I’ve overcome it,” that is owning it and creates the reason to support them. We can’t do that, if we say: “I did X and now I’ve stopped,” we’d get told “Well you shouldn’t have done that in the first place!… the victims… crating market… etc etc etc.” Even though, the exact same things apply to ANY crime. And, perhaps, it doesn’t come as a shock that I’m seeing more “breached his SHPO” newspaper stories appearing. Rather than screaming ‘where’s the rehabilitation’ or 'perhaps these don't work? what else can we do?' society just says ‘good, lock him up’.

[/quote]

To be honest, it was a bit of a stupid venture and I could see the outcome from a mile away if I'm being honest so not really sure why I did it, maybe to make me feel better? I'm still going to pursue a complaint with ICO themselves in how they handled it though. EDL member and also a convicted criminal like us, Chris Wittwer, is hardly known for his poise and tact. It's interesting how people of his ilk feel they can pick and choose what crimes are "acceptable" and people can be rehabilitated from despite only knowing the bare minimum of the case.

[/quote]

Just some information for your complaint in case you haven't seen it already.
https://ico.org.uk/global/privacy-notice/making-a-complaint/ which says
If you don’t want information that identifies you to be shared with the organisation you want to complain about, we’ll try to respect that. However, it is not always possible to handle a complaint on an anonymous basis so we’ll contact you to discuss this.

Clearly a breach of their own privacy notice!

[/quote]

Yeah, I sent that to them in my complaint. They're closed over the weekend so won't be able to speak to them until Monday. We'll see what they come out with.

I've given up with the UK Database thing for now. Maybe once I come off the register which going by the dates I have is in about 2 years. More reason to fight it then.

RE: Google De listing

lotsofquer — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:23:45 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 9:17 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 11 Jul 20 3:02 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:55 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 21:17:40 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 11 Jul 20 3:02 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:55 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

Mr W — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:02:28 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:55 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

[/quote]

The thing is with these groups/publications of any sort is that they’re regurgitating what is largely factual (I say largely with caveats of granular detail). Out of the blue, I appeared in the press for a second time (the paper that Liverpool hates), I was a small paragraph in a story 15 MONTHS after my court appearance, I hadn’t done anything it just regurgitated what happened to me the previous year. There was nothing I could do because it was factual. Another thing we just have to put up with regardless of the devastating impact it has on our mental health. Cue, again, the Caroline Flack debate…

The fact is our history leaves a scar. My issue, in terms of rehabilitation and disclosure, is that we can’t OWN any of it. For example, if someone who has been in trouble with drugs there can be an air of sympathy to those who speak out and say: “I had a problem with drugs and I’ve overcome it,” that is owning it and creates the reason to support them. We can’t do that, if we say: “I did X and now I’ve stopped,” we’d get told “Well you shouldn’t have done that in the first place!… the victims… creating market… etc etc etc.” Even though, the exact same things apply to ANY crime. And, perhaps, it doesn’t come as a shock that I’m seeing more “breached his SHPO” newspaper stories appearing. Rather than screaming ‘where’s the rehabilitation?’ or 'perhaps these don't work? what else can we do?' society just says ‘good, lock him up and throw away the key’.

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:58:50 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:55 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

jcdmcr — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:55:24 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:53 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

I think your last paragraph makes more sense - move area, also look at changing your appearance once you get there

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:53:52 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 10:46 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

jcdmcr — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:46:29 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 11 Jul 20 10:42 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

You could try reporting it as a crime through your offender manager?

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:42:44 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 11 Jul 20 9:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

jcdmcr — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 09:58:36 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

I can't remember the full wording of the complaint off the top of my head but the main ones that jump are:

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

RE: Google De listing

Zack — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 09:55:32 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 4:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

I can't remember the full wording of the complaint off the top of my head but the main ones that jump are:

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.

[/quote]

That is concerning. Under GDPR they are supposed to have consent before they pass on your personal details to another organisation. If you clearly stated that you wanted to remain anonymous, then they did not have consent. The ICO should know better, it's literally their job to promote fair data protection. I can understand if they felt they couldn't progress the complaint without the other party being aware of who made the complaint. If that was the case then they should have told you, and gave you the option to either consent to your name being passed on, or have the complaint dropped. That might be a valid stance concerning the information specifically about yourself, depending on the exact details. However, as you note, you were also complaining about more general violations, such as them making a criminal database. So your identity wasn't valid for those parts of the complaint, and I can't see any reason why the website would need to know who made the complaint.
By passing on peoples identity the ICO is essentially undermining the ability of people to make complaints against organistations misusing personal data. It should be obvious to them that a vigilante type website is likely to misuse data.

RE: Google De listing

khafka — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:16:09 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 10 Jul 20 4:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 10 Jul 20 2:53 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Also what rule do you think they've broken - this is a summary:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimisation
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

[/quote]

I can't remember the full wording of the complaint off the top of my head but the main ones that jump are:

No available GDPR information on the website to show how they process information
No cookie/tracking notification (applicable with the above)
No recognised data controller who is responsible for ensuring their compliance with GDPR
The factually incorrect information they posted about myself - Despite the correct information being listed on the website they linked to
No response to my subject access request despite waiting 3 months and following up with an email after each month (supposed to be about a month)
Creating an open publicly accessible criminal database which is illegal in the UK

There was a bit more but that should be more than enough.