theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Google effect


Google effect

Author
Message
Derek Arnold
Derek Arnold
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 22, Visits: 49
AB2014 - 13 Mar 18 11:36 AM
Diogenese - 10 Mar 18 12:06 PM
Yankee - 8 Mar 17 5:28 PM
I posted in the google forum that the right to be forgotten comes from the EU privacy laws, not UK specific laws.

We should lobby that any review of the ROA should also include privacy extensions for spent convictions to ensure it is fit for purpose post Brexit

If the rich and famous can benefit from this, why not the ordinary person?

I certainly agree that we should lobby for change to the ROA, it strikes me as simply a money spinner for the Treasury and a burden on the employer. The current legislation is an example of institutional discrimination. How does disclosure help an employer decide on your skills and capabilities for a job? All it does it set up barriers from the offset resulting in being refused the job or being forever viewed with caution and suspicion and no matter how hard you work or how efficient you may be, there will always be those who tiptoe around expecting ... well, I don't quite know what ... for someone to burst into spontaneous criminality, I suppose.

There's some stuff on the Unlock section of Scoop.it here that shows that the courts are having to deal with this stuff, so the judgements could create useful case law precedents. Meanwhile, I agree that removing spent convictions should be mandatory, whether for media outlets or social media. Otherwise, rehabilitation means nothing. The ROA wasn't written with the internet in mind, and the changes in 2013 only updated the rehabilitation periods. BTW, it's not just for the rich and famous - it can also be used by the poor and infamous, according to Unlock's information here.

You're quite right about it being available to the common herd but it's my experience that far too few people are able to understand or get to grips with the process. Due to the restrictions on internet access within a prison, it's not even an easy lesson to teach to others.
Debbie Sadler
Debbie Sadler
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)Supreme Being (87K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 405, Visits: 5.2K
Thought this was quite an interesting article looking at how Google handles Right to be Forgotten Requests - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/19/google_right_to_be_forgotten_request_process/

Debs

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline
BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)Supreme Being (47K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
There was a segment about this on the Now Show (current affairs comedy satire show on Radio 4, a bit like Have I Got News For You but for radio). It's a brilliant show and very obviously liberal-leaning in narrative, but sadly they took the stance that people shouldn't be allowed to be forgotten for past mistakes. They compared it to someone with embarrassing images on Facebook wanting to get rid of them. Clearly no equivalent though, as you can delete social media pictures, or if they're not on your account, you simply untag them so that your name isn't associated with the picture so you don't come up in any searches, while you can't just delete outdated newspaper articles about yourself.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 641, Visits: 4.1K
Yankee - 14 Mar 18 12:59 PM
The second court case started yesterday. See this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/12/right-to-be-forgotten-high-court-hears-second-google-case

It's fair to say that the right to be forgotten principle has been established in EU law. The issue at stake is that both this law and the upcoming GDPR regulations provide various get-outs to media organisations. The most common is 'in the public interest'

This means today that Google themselves are acting as the arbiter of whether something is in the public interest. So far, they have tended to argue that any previous fraud-related convictions need to remain online.

Interestingly, the judge commented that he would make a decision in the 2 cases before him but he 'wasn't minded' to make broad decisions with GDPR coming into effect in May.  That sounds like a get out - he will give the two appellants a decision based on their unique situation and case facts but will most likely resist from saying anything that sets a wider precedent

To be fair, it was never an absolute right to be forgotten, but I do agree that spent convictions should be removed immediately on application. There is no justification for fraud convictions remaining online. Even the finance industry's own database, Cifas, only keeps information for six years. Let's not forget that Google claims not to be profitable, for tax purposes, so maybe they can't afford the resources needed to do their job effectively?Wink

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 958
The second court case started yesterday. See this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/12/right-to-be-forgotten-high-court-hears-second-google-case

It's fair to say that the right to be forgotten principle has been established in EU law. The issue at stake is that both this law and the upcoming GDPR regulations provide various get-outs to media organisations. The most common is 'in the public interest'

This means today that Google themselves are acting as the arbiter of whether something is in the public interest. So far, they have tended to argue that any previous fraud-related convictions need to remain online.

Interestingly, the judge commented that he would make a decision in the 2 cases before him but he 'wasn't minded' to make broad decisions with GDPR coming into effect in May.  That sounds like a get out - he will give the two appellants a decision based on their unique situation and case facts but will most likely resist from saying anything that sets a wider precedent
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)Supreme Being (61K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 641, Visits: 4.1K
Diogenese - 10 Mar 18 12:06 PM
Yankee - 8 Mar 17 5:28 PM
I posted in the google forum that the right to be forgotten comes from the EU privacy laws, not UK specific laws.

We should lobby that any review of the ROA should also include privacy extensions for spent convictions to ensure it is fit for purpose post Brexit

If the rich and famous can benefit from this, why not the ordinary person?

I certainly agree that we should lobby for change to the ROA, it strikes me as simply a money spinner for the Treasury and a burden on the employer. The current legislation is an example of institutional discrimination. How does disclosure help an employer decide on your skills and capabilities for a job? All it does it set up barriers from the offset resulting in being refused the job or being forever viewed with caution and suspicion and no matter how hard you work or how efficient you may be, there will always be those who tiptoe around expecting ... well, I don't quite know what ... for someone to burst into spontaneous criminality, I suppose.

There's some stuff on the Unlock section of Scoop.it here that shows that the courts are having to deal with this stuff, so the judgements could create useful case law precedents. Meanwhile, I agree that removing spent convictions should be mandatory, whether for media outlets or social media. Otherwise, rehabilitation means nothing. The ROA wasn't written with the internet in mind, and the changes in 2013 only updated the rehabilitation periods. BTW, it's not just for the rich and famous - it can also be used by the poor and infamous, according to Unlock's information here.

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Derek Arnold
Derek Arnold
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)Supreme Being (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 22, Visits: 49
Yankee - 8 Mar 17 5:28 PM
I posted in the google forum that the right to be forgotten comes from the EU privacy laws, not UK specific laws.

We should lobby that any review of the ROA should also include privacy extensions for spent convictions to ensure it is fit for purpose post Brexit

If the rich and famous can benefit from this, why not the ordinary person?

I certainly agree that we should lobby for change to the ROA, it strikes me as simply a money spinner for the Treasury and a burden on the employer. The current legislation is an example of institutional discrimination. How does disclosure help an employer decide on your skills and capabilities for a job? All it does it set up barriers from the offset resulting in being refused the job or being forever viewed with caution and suspicion and no matter how hard you work or how efficient you may be, there will always be those who tiptoe around expecting ... well, I don't quite know what ... for someone to burst into spontaneous criminality, I suppose.
Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)Supreme Being (29K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 958
I posted in the google forum that the right to be forgotten comes from the EU privacy laws, not UK specific laws.

We should lobby that any review of the ROA should also include privacy extensions for spent convictions to ensure it is fit for purpose post Brexit
GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search