theForum » Information on the internet » The Google effect » Applying to have links removed from internet searches » ICO Delisting request

ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:37:09 GMT

Good afternoon,

I recently applied to the ICO to have several links removed from google search results due to the negative impact they are having on my life. To cut a long story short I was a public servant when I was arrested for a criminal offence however after conducting their investigation and providing a full account of myself it was deemed that their was no criminal intent on my behalf and charging standards weren't met in any shape or form. However I was then taken to a misconduct hearing whereby my actions were found to be of gross misconducted due to the nature of the incident and the impact it would have on public trust in the public sector I worked in. As I say I held my hands up, accepted it was a stupid mistake and helped as much as I could throughout the process.

At the time I had no idea the storm I was about to walk into however in hindsight I should of expected it. Due to being a public servant the misconduct hearing was held with the press able to attend. As with most misconduct hearings the facts were presented in a way that was lets say tilted to one side and key elements were left out i.e the reasons for no criminal case, my defence and lack of criminal intent etc and as a result gross misconduct found and I would of been sacked on the spot If I hadn't already resigned my position.

Now 1 person from the media attended and put a very basic release on their webpage however over the following days other media outlets put out news releases which got further from the truth and more towards headline grabbing, clickbaiting and generally nasty comments, keeping in mind no criminal case was being pursued as no criminal offence had been committed yet I was being written about in a manor that a serial offender might find himself being written about.

So after suffering from ill health due to this for a number of years I finally decided enough was enough and I had to do something about this as I can't secure employment and in all intense and purposes I've been bankrupted due to this. So I applied to the ICO to have the links removed and provided my evidence and used several stated cases in my application, After a wait I received notification that the case was now being looked into and I would hear back within a few weeks. I received a reply the other day asking to provide evidence that the links are still visible on google and haven't been de-listed as they could only find 1 on the first 6 pages of the google search.

This got me slightly confused as in my research and everything I've read on the subject at no point does it mention the search results have to be on "x" amount of pages. Has anyone got any better knowledge of this or have had any dealings with this issue and if so what was the outcome. Any help / knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:37:09 GMT

Thank you for your comments I appreciate it. So I’m going to take a few days to think this over before I take my next steps however I don’t feel i can just leave it be and feel the need to ensure others don’t come across this issue. It has to be resolved one way or another and as most solicitors firms are only interested in the pay packet and don’t really care too much about peoples lives it would seem action is required. I do not know how far I will get but I think I owe it to myself and anyone else who is being fobbed off. My guts instinct tells me that although an independent organisation I feel they themselves are stereotyping people and pre judging individuals, I feel they like so many are scared to act and remove things just in case that person goes on to do something bad and the information about a de-listing to come out.

I think my first step will be to speak to a few solicitorfirms to ask what sort of push back they have gotten in relation to this “6 or7” page nonsense. Once I have got an idea from them hopefully this will shed some light and give me a little more understanding but currently, I feel something is not right here and needs exploring.

The funny thing about the whole case is that I don’t / didn’texpect the ICO to agree with me however I did expect a more professional approachand at the very least for them to consider the evidence I provided having spendseveral weeks to produce the 9 page document including case law, judgements, amongst other things. The 1 URL (BBC) that they have provided reasons for not taking action against I fully understand the reasoning so its not as though i am being unreasonable. I just want the other 5 URL's to be looked at and a judgement made and not simply we wont look at them because its outside our guidelines of 6 or 7 pages.

RE: ICO Delisting request

rme123 — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:54:13 GMT

I haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if this has already been covered, but I'm stunned by how clueless the ICO are and would like to add my own experience:

Several years ago I applied for results related to my name to be delisted (a link to a newspaper article about an old conviction). The article appeared on page 1 when I searched for my name AND my current employer, but the ICO refused my request because when they searched for it, they couldn't see the result anywhere. Clearly, they have no idea how a search engine works. The search results will vary significantly depending on a wide range of factors: previous search history, browser, location and time of day amongst others. These are variables in every search algorithm.

My point is: which page a listing appears on in a search shouldn't be a factor in the ICO's decision making process. This is because for some people it will appear on page 1 (maybe because their IP address is local to the newspaper in question), but for others it could be on page 1,000 (because they are searching from the other end of the country). All that matters is if it is listed in major search engines. If anything, it would the ICO's job easier by streamlining the process and making it a more universal rule.

At the moment, as an organisation the ICO are really not fit for purpose. I'll end with one last example to demonstrate this. When I first made my application (this was several years back) it took them several months and several reminder emails to get back to me. They declined the application on the grounds that I didn't supply the required information. They didn't tell me any more than that. For some reason, they returned my original documentation in an email and when I checked this, I noticed that the PDF form had cut off a huge chunk of the information I had supplied. I checked the original document I had sent them which didn't have this issue - so somewhere, at some point, they messed something up in the formatting and just decided to dismiss the application (after months of waiting). They didn't even let me send them the original form, and told me I had to start the application from scratch.

Apologies for the long rant, but it's helpful to know what we're working with here!

RE: ICO Delisting request

Zack — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:50:09 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 27 Aug 20 8:14 PM[/b]

So having emailed the ICO to seek further clarification onthe matter I received a reply which stated

“More prominent – or more meaningful results - tend to be returned in the first six pages of a search on an individual’s name using the Google search facility. Searching for results can be time-consuming and wetherefore generally limit searches to six or seven pages of results. These areinternal guidelines. To my knowledge, not all our guidelines are included inour published casework process.”

My mind boggles… So now its six or seven pages of results. It seems as though this guideline changes whenever its suits ! I just find this truly shocking behaviour. Utter shameful.

[/quote]

Hmmm, if the case worker considers it too "time consuming" to click to page 6 or 7 to simply confirm the results appear, then it doesn't give me much faith that she/he will actually do the work necessary to determine whether or not you're results should be delisted. It would have taken less amount of time to do the search than write the email. So I don't think this case worker is acting in good faith. "page 6 or 7" is a fairly vague guideline, when do they decide whether or not they click on page 7, and again "generally limit" - when do they divert from the "generally"? Of course the reality is the ranking of search results changes, so a result on page 6 today, could be on page 4 tomorrow. Indeed if you were successful in getting the higher ranking results delisted, then it is likely that the lower ranking results would just move up the ranking. Obviously the fact you and others are aware that Google is ranking these results means it is prominent, and the word "meaningful" is rather strange. Surely, the reason you are trying to delist them is because you don't think the results are meaningful, and paint an unfair picture of yourself.
You need to make the job easy for this caseworker, send a list of all the URLs, with screendumps of them circled. That will be all the evidence they should need to know they exist, they shouldn't even need to do the search themself then. I would probably spend some time for each result listing the arguments in favour of delisting.
If this is a true guideline and one of the purposes is to save time, it would be logical to have that published online, that would discourage people from contacting them. You could go down the twitter route if you want to shame them: https://twitter.com/iconews?lang=en
An FOI request might be a good idea, I would certainly like to see their guidelines. It is likely to annoy them.

RE: ICO Delisting request

lotsofquer — Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:30:00 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 27 Aug 20 8:14 PM[/b]

My mind boggles… So now its six or seven pages of results. It seems as though this guideline changes whenever its suits ! I just find this truly shocking behaviour. Utter shameful.

[/quote]

Sounds like potentially these internal guidelines don't exist or aren't official if the definition isn't set in stone and is changing. If it were me I'd be asking for the section within the GDPR regulations that specifically state erasure is only limited to the first 'six or seven pages' of data and all other data can be retained by the data controller regardless. I'd also be asking for a copy of the internal guidelines and if (when) they don't provide these I'd be asking (them) how I make a FOI request to obtain said guidelines.

I'd also try to bring those links to within their guidelines of six or seven pages - not by trying to get them to move up the ranks but trying to search for them from different locations or adding keywords such as the town/city or street name etc (something relevant to a search someone would do that brings higher up the pages). Although it would be an interesting exercise to see if you could bring them up the ranks enough to met their criteria and then see how they handle the request.

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:14:45 GMT

My mind boggles… So now its six or seven pages of results. It seems as though this guideline changes whenever its suits ! I just find this truly shocking behaviour. Utter shameful.

RE: ICO Delisting request

Was — Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:50:10 GMT

Now I could be wrong on this and I'm happy to be corrected but my understanding of the right to be forgotten legislation is not that there is a blanket ban on searching for a name, is that if you enter a name and a page comes up you can ask for that specific page to be removed from the search results.

[quote]To exercise the right to be forgotten and request removal from a search engine, one must complete a form through the search engine's website. Google's removal request process requires the applicant to identify their country of residence, personal information, a list of the's removal request process requires the applicant to identify their country of residence, personal information, a list of the URLsto be removed along with a short description of each one, and attachment of legal identification. to be removed along with a short description of each one, and attachment of legal identification. The applicant receives an email from Google confirming the request but the request must be assessed before it is approved for removal. If the request is approved, searches using the individual's name will no longer result in the content appearing in search results. The content remains online and is not erased. The applicant receives an email from Google confirming the request but the request must be assessed before it is approved for removal. If the request is approved, searches using the individual's name will no longer result in the content appearing in search results. The content remains online and is not erased.[/quote]

The organisation/media outlet will be informed that their page is being removed. They may or may not make a point about it being removed which they are entitled to do.

[quote]Google notifies websites that have URLs delinked, and various news organizations, such as BBC, have published lists of delinked articles.[/quote]

But there is not a generic all search request are removed right.

RE: ICO Delisting request

Zack — Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:38:08 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 20 Aug 20 6:45 PM[/b]

So I got a reply from the ICO who stated "Other results are returned, but not within the first six pages, which is our usual search parameter." I find this very odd that this parameter isn't mentioned in any of the ICO owns delisting criteria or anywhere that I have found. Appears to me that the ICO move the goalposts when they see fit, totally shocking behaviour from an "independent authority"

[/quote]

You could reply and ask them if they could amend their "usual search parameter" in this instance, pointing out that this is not mentioned in their guidance on their website, and that it is causing you problems. You could also ask to provide their criteria for how they decide to support or not delisting - perhaps under freedom of information. If they persist in not considering looking at the matter, then you could ask when they started limiting to the first 6 pages, if this includes all delisting requests or just certain types, and the rational behind it. This is still a very new area, and things are likely to change a lot due to cases being brought to court. I'm guessing they want to limit their involvement where possible.

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Wed, 26 Aug 2020 10:39:22 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 15 Aug 20 12:41 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 10:32 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

My understanding is that you have to request the individual search engines to de-list you under the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling. If they don't, then that is when you make a complaint to the ICO.

Happy to be corrected as I'm hoping to make a similar request in a year and a half.

[/quote]

Indeed it is. I have spoken to google previously and they gave a very generic response which again was part of my argument. I have made the complaint to the ICO already and it is being looked into, As I say they emailed asking for evidence of the search results listed as a search of my name only got back 1 result in the first 6 pages (the other results are on pages from 8/9/10) and I was confused as to why it matters what page they are on. As I say I cant find any information or case studies relating to the relevance of what page the results are listen on.

[/quote]

I'm not sure the answer. You could send them a screendump with the offending articles circled. Where results appear in the list changes all the time, indeed it is affected by where you are located and if you are logged in. If you are in a particular city results about that city may rank higher. For those reasons I don't think they should discard the seriousness of how low the results are ranking, as that can easily change. And that is something you could point out to them. However, they may argue that most people do not go past the first few pages, so it is less serious. I don't know, that is just a guess of their mindset, or they are simply too lazy to click through the results and evaluate your case properly. It may be that the results rank much higher if someone searches on your name and the city where you live. I'm not sure if they can or do take that into account though?

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

[/quote]

As I say I've completed the process and the complaint is currently with ICO. My question is around the ICO's question to me about the search results only returning 1 result in the first 6 pages and the rest being over pages 8/9/10 and its relevance i.e why it would matter what page the results were on and any case law around this.

[/quote]

I guess what they're saying is that they can never get rid of them, and most people would stop clicking through at pages 8,9,10.

If this is the case - its daft

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:45:12 GMT

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 20:34:20 GMT

[quote]

[b]Was - 15 Aug 20 6:36 PM[/b]

Whilst I empathise with your situation, any delisting also involves them notifying the original web page owner that the page is being delisted. I know some local papers who have made the delisting request the subject of a new news story. That is beyond the right to be forgotten legislation and they are legally within their rights to do so.

The story that a search on my name leads to is wrong. It is wrong on a factual basis and wrong on a journalistic basis. However, I took the decision to avoid the Streisand Effect. Others are obviously entitled to fight their own corner in whichever way they see fit, but collateral damage from being "right" isn't always a price worth paying.

[/quote]

Thanks, Yes I read about this but its like being dammed if you do and dammed if you don't and its almost a no win situation. Sadly I don't know what other option I have / had to be quite honest. I can't secure work and have been out of work since the incident, I've been offered jobs only for the offer to be withdrawn once a google search was conducted so I see no other way. I fully believe in the freedoms we have in the UK and I would fight tooth and nail for them however with these freedoms comes a responsibility to ensure what is being said is factual, relevant and balanced however sadly all too often factual and balanced are left in the gutter to sell a headline or make a penny.

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 19:13:50 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 15 Aug 20 4:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 4:33 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 15 Aug 20 12:41 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 10:32 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

[/quote]

When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me.

[/quote]

I did yes and they said "Having assessed the balance of relevant rights and interests relating to the content in question, including factors such as its relevance to your professional life, Google has decided not to block this content" which is total nonsense. So when I got that response I then replied and said thanks for the email and update however can you provide me with further reasoning as the reason provided is generic and shows very little if any consideration has been applied. I then got back a email which said "We have received and reviewed your complaint. At this time, Google has decided not to take action based on our policies concerning content removal. As always, we encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the owner of the website in question."

I don't believe for one minute google looks into these cases properly and assess each one of their merits. The very generic replies say it all in my eyes its just a shame no legal firm or budding young solicitor picks this issue up and runs with it as I really believe given a little time and effort a very strong case could be brought against google (and others search engines). They seem to hide behind the public interest or public safety catch all cover time and time again.

[/quote]

Wow! I need to reread, but from what I understand you can't even appeal it!? How is that even right?

You could also apply to the data controller of the website holding the data, but that is so wrong! I dont care what you did, the way i see it is if you want it removing then you have every right to have it removed.

RE: ICO Delisting request

Was — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 18:36:23 GMT

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:54:15 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 4:33 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 15 Aug 20 12:41 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 10:32 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

[/quote]

When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me.

[/quote]

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:33:19 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 15 Aug 20 12:41 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 10:32 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

[/quote]

When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me.

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:56:58 GMT

Maybe I've not been clear. I've submitted the request to google and they told me to jog on basically. I've also filed a complaint with the ICO who are currently looking into the matter however I received an email with the follow statement...

"I have carried out a Google search and the first six pages return only the following result:

http:/website address

Please can you confirm if the remaining URLs have now been delisted? If so, can you provide us with a copy of some of the correspondencethat confirms this, perhaps from the site x or site y, for example."

Its the "I have carried out a Google search and the first six pages return only the following result:" part that I am talking about as when I done my research and read up on this subject at no point did I come across any material that stated the search result had to be in any amount of pages. So it got me wondering if I've missing anything that any person can throw some light on this issue prior to receiving further correspondence from the ICO.

I have already replied to the email with screen shots of each relevant page for their information so it is purely the comment about the first six pages that has got me thinking / worried.

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:41:09 GMT

[quote]

[b]jcdmcr - 15 Aug 20 10:32 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

[/quote]

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:32:20 GMT

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:32:03 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

RE: ICO Delisting request

Was — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 18:48:42 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 4:48 PM[/b]

I accept what I done was stupid and should never of taken place however it's not criminal.

[/quote]

Forget criminality. Because I had a bit of "notoriety" before my conviction, there were a few newspaper articles on me about some inappropriate tweets I had made. In context there was nothing wrong with them, but some people took offence hence the news items. They caused me to lose several job applications, so nothing to do with spent convictions. That is the world we live in now.

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:48:44 GMT

[quote]

[b]Zack - 14 Aug 20 3:59 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Thanks for the reply. I just find it very odd that they would mention the "first 6 pages". Maybe I am over thinking it however this incident has in all intense and purposes ruined a life I spent years building and in the blink of an eye it's gone. I accept what I done was stupid and should never of taken place however it's not criminal. It's funny I spent years dealing with people with convictions from murder all the way down to petty theft but I always made a point of dealing with them how I found them not on their past mistakes or circumstances and here I am asking an organisation to help me not be judged on a past mistake.

RE: ICO Delisting request

Zack — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:59:04 GMT

[quote]

[b]LostSole - 14 Aug 20 3:25 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO Delisting request

LostSole — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:25:16 GMT

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO Delisting request

jcdmcr — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:22:28 GMT

[quote]

[b]Was - 14 Aug 20 3:20 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Hi,

Thats correct this form: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

for google needs to be completed.

RE: ICO Delisting request

Was — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:20:00 GMT