theForum » Information on the internet » The Google effect » Applying to have links removed from internet searches » ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:58:33 GMT

Six years ago I was convicted of downloading indecent images and given a 1 year suspended sentence and 10 years SHPO and 10 years on the SOR. This was reported in the local press and was picked up by a couple of vigilante sites who copied and pasted the story along with photos they took from my then Facebook account. Six years on I have managed to get the SHPO dismissed so my offence is now classed as spent. If you Google my name now the original newspaper story no longer appears as it has been archived (yesterdays news) but links to a vigilante site called Track Em Down (TED) do still appear so I put is a request to Google asking for these links to my name to be removed as my conviction was over six years ago and is now spent and my SHPO has been dismissed.
They replied with their standard template rejection letter saying it was still in the public interest for links to this vigilante website to be linked to my name. I then contacted the ICO explaining that my conviction is now sprint and that a crown court judge had dismissed my SHPO five years early having read reports on my rehabilitation from the police and the probation service and that the vigilante site in question encourages vigilante action against people identified on their site so I could be in danger of attack and that I was finding it hard to find employment as most employers these days google the names of applicants to see what kind of social media presence they have and they can find out about my spent conviction which legally they have no right to know about. Three months later I received a reply saying that the ICO agree with Googles decision and are going to take no action. I can only conclude that if you raise a concern with the ICO and you are a SO they don't even bother to look into it (you get everything you deserve)

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:58:33 GMT

[quote]

[b]Viv - 28 Nov 23 5:34 PM[/b]

The ICO is a waste of time. They won't do anything, trust me.

The right to be forgotten is a waste of time too - they will only delist in certain circumstances, and you need to provide every possible search term you can think of linking your name to the articles. Further, it only applies to searches within the EU, so any Tom, Dick or Harry using a VPN or googling you from outside the EU will see your articles.

Your only options are to either convince the source to delete the articles, or change your name.

[/quote]

You don't provide the search terms. You need to provide a list of links to the webpages that name you.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

Lineofduty — Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:36:10 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 24 Mar 23 1:55 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 21 Mar 23 2:08 PM[/b]

Having no luck getting my name unlinked to these vigilante web sites with Google or the ICO i thought I would try a different angle so have just sent this to the ICO
Be interesting to see what their response is if they bother to reply LOL

Hello,
I am contacting you to ask if you are aware of two vigilante websites https://tedteamsite.wordpress.com/& https://uk-database.org/
Under the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 the general public do not have access to the Sexual Offenders Register.
This is restricted the police and the courts although a request can be made under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme but again this is managed by the police.
The two websites above are in fact searchable databases with photos and addresses of people convicted of sexual offences so are in all but name a public sex offenders register but neither comply to any data protection or GDPR rules.
Surly these two websites are breaking the law and should be shutdown.
Please can you let me have the ICO view on these two websites.
Regards

[/quote]

Reply from ICO is pretty dismissive so I wont be holding my breath!

Thank you for your email of 17 March 2023
We will look into this, if we decide to take action then it will be on our website.

[/quote]

I had similar interaction with ICO about the lack of GDPR, Privacy Rights, illegal centralised Register/database. The guy didn't help me personally but took all my info "as part of their wider work (on UK Database)". Some time later it was closed down, only to spring back up as ".org" and not ".net
A bit like hammering the head of a mole who goes back down and re-appears continously.
But, seriously, you are right in all that you say.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:55:14 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 21 Mar 23 2:08 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Reply from ICO is pretty dismissive so I wont be holding my breath!

Thank you for your email of 17 March 2023
We will look into this, if we decide to take action then it will be on our website.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

khafka — Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:16:49 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 21 Mar 23 2:08 PM[/b]

[/quote]

I did a similar thing a couple of years ago and the response from ICO was essentially: "Nothing we can do. If you feel it's breaking the law then report it to the police"

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:08:08 GMT

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

punter99 — Sat, 11 Mar 2023 10:57:43 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 10 Mar 23 2:17 PM[/b]

Unlock do recommend https://www.mycleanslate.co.uk/ they charge a one off fee of £250 to get info on Google removed and an additional £100 each for Bing & Yahoo
I am thinking about using them myself as both Google and the ICO have refused my requests.
I would be interested to hear if anyone else has used them

[/quote]

I don't think these organisations are doing anything that a person couldn't do themselves. It just depends how you set out your arguments. Maybe Google and the ICO just respond to requests when they come from a legal firm, with a fancy letterhead and some legal jargon, because they think the solicitors know something about the law that they don't?

I wonder if the Citizens Advice Bureau could offer free advice on how to draft a letter to the ICO for example?

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:17:59 GMT

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

punter99 — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 11:00:14 GMT

I'm slightly confused. The company says that they can help people with spent convictions, but from reading your story, it sounds as though yours isn't spent at the moment?

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

Lineofduty — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 16:30:47 GMT

[quote]

[b]elpres - 8 Mar 23 3:55 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 8 Jul 22 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 8 Jul 22 12:13 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 3:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 20 Jun 22 2:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 12:08 PM[/b]

I agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent.

[/quote]

This is my take. Whilst my conviction is unspent, regardless of how badly it impacts me, I still have to inform employers, insurance companies and letting agencies. Without a (unlikely) change in the law it's public information.

Unfortunately my name is rather unique and I did had a pre-conviction public profile. I've not goggled my name for 5 years. who knows what horrors are out there for me to confront!

However, once my conviction is spent, I will make an effort to get links removed.

[/quote]

Technically, you have to inform employers, insurers and letting agencies if you are asked. Insurers often hide question among the assumptions in their policy documents or other paperwork, so you can't assume that they don't want to know. Unless you are subject to direction from probation or the police, there is no obligation on you to disclose voluntarily. Once your conviction is spent, you should be able to get links removed, if you fill in the forms correctly and spoon-feed them the information. That might include proof that your conviction is actually spent, as one of our regulars has been finding out by applying to the ICO with a spent conviction.

[/quote]

My offence was a none contact downloading offence for which I was given a 12 month suspended sentence 7 years ago. After five years I managed to get my SHPO discharged and my conviction is now legally spent but still Google refuses to remove links to my name to two grubby vigilante sites as "Its in the public interest". I complained to the ICO attaching a copy of my SHPO discharge notice from the court but still they backed Google's decision so I just think the ICO has no interest if you are a convicted SO

[/quote]

My offence was also a download-based one (images). It does appear that Google and ICO really aren't interested if you're an SO unless it's a really old one like 20+ years.

The "public interest" thing feels like a load of nonsense easy excuse too as there doesn't seem to be any real set standard for what constitutes "public interest". For example, I applied to Bing and to get results about me removed, they removed them the first time I asked and they were gone in about 3 days from their confirmation.

Google says it is still in the public interest. What metric are they running to back that up? Is it a case of XX amount of people still searching for me and my offence every day? Because I refuse to believe people are still searching about me years on from when I was last reported about at sentencing.

I posted in another thread about my efforts with ICO and they're just being quite dickish about it, to be honest and you have no way to appeal ICO's decision either. My latest effort I took nearly 6 months (due to their backlog) from my initial application, after 6 months of nothing I basically got "we're not going to speak to Google, piss off". So if I want to combat that I'd need to submit a new enquiry and go to the back of the queue, I can't just reply saying I disagree because XYZ or whatever - It's an utterly ludicrous system.

I reckon the only real way to get any proper movement on Google removals at the moment if you're an SO is a legal-based route. By that I mean getting an actual solicitor involved saying "You need to remove these links because Law-X, you're infringing this because Law-Y, failure to comply will result in blahblahblah".

[/quote]

Having just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor?

[/quote]

Hi

Brand new user here with some experience of this so I thought I'd post it.
I am on a 10 year SHPO for downloading/making indecent images. Suspended sentence would have been spent now if it weren't for the SHPO. Ex wife clubbed together with an obsessive vigilante type who sent his wife to all my court appearances, wrote an article on me, complete with stolen photo from social media, hosted in the States so no chance of removing it (haven't got the original photo so I can't prove copyright either).
I had a pretty unusual surname which means it was easy to find me. I moved, changed my name and unfortunately someone still connected it to my new name via the photo, as by terrible luck they saw me in the street, circulated it on facebook and someone in my 'new life' in a hobby forum recognised me. I've now left social media and not seeing any of those people any more so hopefully that 'link' isn't too polluted. However, I work as an IT contractor and am now in that limbo where my references are under my old name. Although the references know my new name, I recently failed an application because the client I applied to noticed my name change (I guess they saw it on the references) and googled me. So the contract fell through.

I applied to Google to remove them - no. Went to the ICO. ICO ruled with google for ridiculous reasons of a) it's a blog so just opinion (actually the fact it's in 'blog format' doesn't make it 'a blog') and b) in your name change you said you'd revoked your previous name so it doesn't fall under GDPR as it mentions a name you don't go by now. The last point is too ridiculous to even discuss!

I came across these people: interneterasure.co.uk. They have loads of 5 star reviews on trustpilot and I messaged them with a potted history. They replied within the hour with a detailed response. They had even found the link without my help, and pointed out that in fact the article didn't appear on the first page of search results, but more worryingly, Google had added a search suggestion: "Other people search for John Smith Scunthorpe" (name and town where I lived when I was convicted changed). Thanks, Google.

Interestingly, they also worked out when my offence would be spent - my PPO is pretty rubbish, hardly ever sees me, and when I asked him to confirm when my offence would be spent he completely ignored the SHPO! They corrected that! And all of this before I engaged them.

I've signed up with them. Their fees are a one-off initial payment of £249 then five payments of £100. This covers them working on the case ***until all results are de-indexed in UK and EU from all search engines***.

If anyone's interested I will post on here as things develop but I was very impressed not just by their reviews but also by how much info they gave me free of charge. The company appears to be run by the wife of an ex-convict who has gone on to write books about getting jobs, rebuilding your life etc and also appears on TV.

I am not connected in any way with this site! Just wanted to point it out as, if they do what they say, I will feel like I can breathe again.

[/quote]

Good luck. Keep us posted. The proof is in the pudding as you say.

Most folk on here will be worried about the final cost as much as the firm's success I would suspect.

Go for it !!

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

elpres — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:55:23 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 8 Jul 22 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 8 Jul 22 12:13 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 3:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 20 Jun 22 2:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 12:08 PM[/b]

I agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent.

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:01:34 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 13 Feb 23 4:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 23 11:44 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 13 Feb 23 10:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 23 10:15 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

Hi David
Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances.

** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights.
I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that.
However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go?
If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details.

[/quote]

I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️

[/quote]

My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago.

[/quote]

My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already.

[/quote]

Hi,
Yes, the ICO know my offence is spent and I even sent them a copy of my SHPO discharge order from two years ago. I think their attitude is if your offence is of a sexual nature then they don't want to know spent or not!

[/quote]

This story from the Unlock website, demonstrates how the ICO can be persuaded to change their mind, if you are persistent enough.

https://unlock.org.uk/personal_story/i-got-the-link-to-my-sexual-offence-conviction-removed-from-a-search-engine/

"As a last throw of the dice, I applied to the ICO for a managerial review and to cut a long story short, I was eventually able to get the ICO to acknowledge the relevant evidence provided"

[/quote]

Thanks for the link, Punter!

This is something I think I will be looking into again this year as I'm now officially a 'free' man as it were as I came off the register on Friday. If you trawl through this thread you'll see I've not had much luck with it in the past including going to ICO as they seem to just default to this "public interest" but seemingly there is no real quantifying measure for that which I feel there should be. When I had last tried I even referenced Google's own search metrics in regards to my name and searches relating to my name and case which showed zero interest. But alas...

I'm interested in how they went about the managerial review though as any correspondence I have received from ICO relating to this advises there is no option to appeal and what they say is final.

[/quote]

I would definitely recommend following that link, as it has useful information for anyone who is starting an application to Google, in terms of what the law says you can expect from them. If they refuse your application, they have to give "compelling legitimate grounds", not just alleged public interest. I would expect that to apply to the ICO as well. In that particular case, it might be that the basic DBS check proved that the conviction was spent, which should carry a lot of weight, even if there is no guarantee. That could be especially useful for khafka, as a basic check from Disclosure Scotland would show that his conviction is spent in Scotland, where he lives.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

punter99 — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:59:00 GMT

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 14 Feb 23 11:24 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 13 Feb 23 4:56 PM[/b]

[/quote]

One thing i just remembered from reading a solicitor's blog who specialised in "google" removals (and probably profited from it handsomely) is that when writing to Google, a newspaper or whoever, it was good to separate out the risk from the public interest. So, in summary, the ending or revocation early of the SHPO was related to the "risk" (to the public) and clearly that risk was now deemed to be zero/minimal.
To counter the "public interest" element he said that showing that someone was still subject to the SOR notifications (perhaps for a few years still) was clear evidence that the public interest was being proportionately served AND managed by the police, so there was no justification for google or any other organisation to use the public interest factor. In other words, take the weblink down, the risk is now satisfied and the police are looking after the public interest (not google).
Took me a while to get my head round that but actually makes perfect sense and logic.

[/quote]

https://arighttobeforgotten.co.uk/right-to-be-forgotten-example/right-to-be-forgotten-criminal-conviction

As with so many of these things, it can all come down to getting your case heard by someone who is sympathetic.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

Lineofduty — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:24:15 GMT

[quote]

[b]khafka - 13 Feb 23 4:56 PM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

khafka — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:56:15 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 23 11:44 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 13 Feb 23 10:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 23 10:15 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

punter99 — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:44:11 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 13 Feb 23 10:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 23 10:15 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:35:30 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 13 Feb 23 10:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 23 10:15 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

It might seem that way, but they have acted in the past to overrule Google regarding spent convictions for sexual offences. In the cases I've seen on here recently, it could be explained by a failure to understand that a conviction is actually spent before they expect it to be. Maybe the ICO should contact Unlock for advice if there is any doubt....

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:27:09 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 23 10:15 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:15:12 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 12 Feb 23 9:50 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

david123 — Sun, 12 Feb 2023 09:50:01 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 9 Feb 23 3:42 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:42:55 GMT

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 9 Feb 23 3:09 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

Lineofduty — Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:09:49 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:12:41 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 23 3:02 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Feb 23 11:28 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 8 Jul 22 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 8 Jul 22 12:13 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 3:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 20 Jun 22 2:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 12:08 PM[/b]

I agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent.

[/quote]

According to Unlock's website, you would have to approach them via Unlock. There is a questionnaire that they pass on. I'm guessing that if you contact them directly, you'll have to talk money first.

[/quote]

It's the same law firm that famous people use, to sue magazines like private eye, for libel. Probably not cheap.

[/quote]

Well, some people prefer to use Mishcon de Reya, but it's the same principle. They can outspend you on legal costs, so do you want to risk it? If you can show you're telling the truth, that should be good enough in most cases, but it might still be a risk if there's a jury involved, and having to pay those legal costs would be a real problem in most cases. Except where both parties are celebrities, of course....

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

punter99 — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:02:42 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Feb 23 11:28 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 8 Jul 22 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 8 Jul 22 12:13 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 3:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 20 Jun 22 2:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 12:08 PM[/b]

I agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent.

[/quote]

According to Unlock's website, you would have to approach them via Unlock. There is a questionnaire that they pass on. I'm guessing that if you contact them directly, you'll have to talk money first.

[/quote]

It's the same law firm that famous people use, to sue magazines like private eye, for libel. Probably not cheap.

RE: ICO refusal to ask Google to remove links

AB2014 — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 11:28:51 GMT

[quote]

[b]david123 - 7 Feb 23 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]khafka - 8 Jul 22 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]david123 - 8 Jul 22 12:13 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 3:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Was - 20 Jun 22 2:56 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 20 Jun 22 12:08 PM[/b]

I agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent.

[/quote]

According to Unlock's website, you would have to approach them via Unlock. There is a questionnaire that they pass on. I'm guessing that if you contact them directly, you'll have to talk money first.