|
link
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 147,
Visits: 34
|
I had another pop at this recently, given there last response I tried down the route that an image search of *INSERT NAME* without modifiers heralded a picture of me within one page... The response within 24hrs was blunt, neven gonna happen not now not ever. So sorry to any folk reading this but that CJEU judgement means nothing in the eyes of Google, or the ICO it would seem! 
|
|
|
|
|
pugnator
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1,
Visits: 1
|
Hi all,
New to the forum and these posts ring true with me.
I spent over £3,000 with an internet reputation firm to try and solve this issue with me however it doesnt make much of a difference...what the company provided me was all the leg work that I could've done myself.
Setting up blogs and webpages/ social media pages etc.
thing is; if you're online from a negative way the last thing you want to do is appear online in anyway - I know seeing the links that refer to e are distressing as hell; even after 6 years. My conviction is long spent, however the online presence of the event won't ever disappear. The mighty google decides that as a company they can keep one's reputation destroyed forever if they feel that they want to.
Utter nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
soundstrue
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37,
Visits: 13
|
It seems so incredibly wrong that a non government agency, that is driven by market forces, can be judge and jury in the matter of people's right to a private family life.
|
|
|
|
|
BenS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 301,
Visits: 2.9K
|
Typical how for "one of those" convictions, the ROA doesn't apply in many people's eyes, even officially for ancillary orders etc. that prevent the actual conviction from being spent even after the time has elapsed.
|
|
|
|
|
link
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 147,
Visits: 34
|
Hi RME,
Mine was also one of "those" so I expect you will get a similar if not template reply from the ICO, it took about eight weeks so don't expect a quick reply.
I briefly considered the whole 'no win, no fee' thing but in all honesty any legal avenue lands you back in court and into the public domain... In all honesty I have too much to lose in risking it, the Google effect weighs on my mind more than the reality of it actually occurring and getting it removed from search.co.uk still doesn't absolve the fact it can turn up on othersearch.com etc.
Good luck with your request.
|
|
|
|
|
james gtr manchester
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 36,
Visits: 49
|
+xHi Link, Being in a similar position myself, I know how difficult this must be. If it's any consolation though, it sounds like the link in question doesn't appear very high in the search engine rankings - and I once read that 98% of people don't go past the first page. Of course, it doesn't really help when people add additional search terms to refine what they're looking for - and I'm staggered that this is somehow exempt / overlooked by the CJEU judgement. I actually sent off a request to the ICO today, but despite my conviction having been spent for almost 3 years now, I don't hold out much hope (it's one of "those" offences). If it doesn't work this time, I may well get in touch with Carter Ruck (thanks to Unlock for setting this up btw). If you decide to go down that road, let us know how you get on. I've had similar issues, they make it difficult for you too. Having to list every URL you want removing....
|
|
|
|
|
rme123
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38,
Visits: 1.4K
|
Hi Link,
Being in a similar position myself, I know how difficult this must be. If it's any consolation though, it sounds like the link in question doesn't appear very high in the search engine rankings - and I once read that 98% of people don't go past the first page. Of course, it doesn't really help when people add additional search terms to refine what they're looking for - and I'm staggered that this is somehow exempt / overlooked by the CJEU judgement.
I actually sent off a request to the ICO today, but despite my conviction having been spent for almost 3 years now, I don't hold out much hope (it's one of "those" offences). If it doesn't work this time, I may well get in touch with Carter Ruck (thanks to Unlock for setting this up btw).
If you decide to go down that road, let us know how you get on.
|
|
|
|
|
Debbie Sadler
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 397,
Visits: 5.9K
|
+xI have finally received a response from the ICO... sadly not the one I hoped for, basically unless your very popular by Google standards the ROA and CJEU bear no impact on us normal folk.
I am writing in relation to your concern about Google’s refusal to remove search engine results containing information about you. We are now in a position to provide you with our decision.
You contacted Google to request removal of links resulting from a search on your name. You explained that you wanted these results removed because they relate to a conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974).
Google refused your request on the basis that the information is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing.
We have developed a list of factors we will take into account when considering concerns from individuals whose requests have been refused. Further information about our criteria is available at:
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/online/internet-search-results/
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in May 2014 relates specifically to search results made against an individual’s name. It is our view that if other identifiers need to be added, or if the material can only be accessed by inputting a specific URL, then that does not constitute information generally available to the public by a search on an individual’s name and is therefore not covered by the CJEU judgement.
The judgement recognised the particular impact that an internet search based on an individual’s name can have on his or her respect for private life. However, it is important to note that the judgement only applies to results returned when searching for a name on its own, and not, for example, a name combined with other search terms.
None of the search results you are concerned about appear in the first ten pages of a search on *INSERT NAME* and only two of them appear when adding *INSERT PLACE* to the search term, which in any event does not meet the criteria of the CJEU judgement. In view of this we will not be progressing your concern at this stage.
If you can provide a screen-print showing that the results do in fact appear based on a search on your name, then we could look at the matter again.
However, we would require some evidence that the conviction is actually spent (a news report showing the sentence and date of the sentence would suffice). I should also explain that the fact that a conviction is spent is only one of the criteria we take into consideration. It is also relevant that the information is published in a journalistic context. We recognise the importance of search results in making journalistic content available to the public. We take the importance of journalism and the public’s right to receive and impart information into account when considering complaints about links to journalistic content. We acknowledge that freedom of expression is a fundamental right.
If you disagree with the view we have provided, please note that individuals are entitled to take their own cases to court under section 10 of the DPA, irrespective of our decision. The ICO cannot assist individual court applications, and we recommend that you seek independent legal advice if you pursue this option. Hi Link This is really really disappointing. Not sure if you've seen our post on the Information Hub about the work we're doing with Carter Ruck around the publication of spent convictions but this might be something that could be of interest. I've attached a link to further details here - https://hub.unlock.org.uk/online-spent-legal/. If I were in your shoes I'd really give Carter Ruck a go - they are willing to act on a no win no fee basis and hopefully, the more examples they can demonstrate of this type of thing, the bigger the chance of success. Feel free to give the helpline a ring if you think we can be of any further help with this. Good luck. Debs
Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline
|
|
|
|
|
link
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 147,
Visits: 34
|
I have finally received a response from the ICO... sadly not the one I hoped for, basically unless your very popular by Google standards the ROA and CJEU bear no impact on us normal folk.
I am writing in relation to your concern about Google’s refusal to remove search engine results containing information about you. We are now in a position to provide you with our decision.
You contacted Google to request removal of links resulting from a search on your name. You explained that you wanted these results removed because they relate to a conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974).
Google refused your request on the basis that the information is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing.
We have developed a list of factors we will take into account when considering concerns from individuals whose requests have been refused. Further information about our criteria is available at:
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/online/internet-search-results/
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in May 2014 relates specifically to search results made against an individual’s name. It is our view that if other identifiers need to be added, or if the material can only be accessed by inputting a specific URL, then that does not constitute information generally available to the public by a search on an individual’s name and is therefore not covered by the CJEU judgement.
The judgement recognised the particular impact that an internet search based on an individual’s name can have on his or her respect for private life. However, it is important to note that the judgement only applies to results returned when searching for a name on its own, and not, for example, a name combined with other search terms.
None of the search results you are concerned about appear in the first ten pages of a search on *INSERT NAME* and only two of them appear when adding *INSERT PLACE* to the search term, which in any event does not meet the criteria of the CJEU judgement. In view of this we will not be progressing your concern at this stage.
If you can provide a screen-print showing that the results do in fact appear based on a search on your name, then we could look at the matter again.
However, we would require some evidence that the conviction is actually spent (a news report showing the sentence and date of the sentence would suffice). I should also explain that the fact that a conviction is spent is only one of the criteria we take into consideration. It is also relevant that the information is published in a journalistic context. We recognise the importance of search results in making journalistic content available to the public. We take the importance of journalism and the public’s right to receive and impart information into account when considering complaints about links to journalistic content. We acknowledge that freedom of expression is a fundamental right.
If you disagree with the view we have provided, please note that individuals are entitled to take their own cases to court under section 10 of the DPA, irrespective of our decision. The ICO cannot assist individual court applications, and we recommend that you seek independent legal advice if you pursue this option.
|
|
|
|
|
BenS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 301,
Visits: 2.9K
|
+x'After we removed a news story about a minor crime, the newspaper published a story about the removal action. The Information Commissioner’s Office ordered us to remove the second story from search results for the individual’s name. We removed the page from search results for the individual's name.' Look forward to hearing some great news soon. Debs I saw another one that said: "A man asked that we remove a link to a news summary of a local magistrate’s decisions that included the man’s guilty verdict. Under the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, this conviction has been spent. We have removed the page from search results for his name." This seems no different at all from link's situation (or anyone else on here with a spent conviction) - hopefully it will work out!
|
|
|
|