|
BenS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 302,
Visits: 2.9K
|
+xI know it's been said before, but changing your name is an option to coincide with the date your conviction becomes spent which will at least make google searches on your new name irrelevant. Some ideas i have for a new name are: Ronald McDonald Arnold Schwarzeneger Oscar Wild David Platt Any footballers name Any film stars name Change your last name to google (beat them at their own game) Or you could do a Prince...and change your name to a symbol which you can't type with a keyboard but you might get some funny looks Take a native American Indian name like ..Runs with Buffalo or Weeping Moon or something Some brilliant suggestions there! I am envious of people called John Smith or similar, who have got serious convictions but never need to worry about the Google effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Thorswrath
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 1.4K
|
I know it's been said before, but changing your name is an option to coincide with the date your conviction becomes spent which will at least make google searches on your new name irrelevant. Some ideas i have for a new name are:
Ronald McDonald
Arnold Schwarzeneger
Oscar Wild
David Platt
Any footballers name
Any film stars name
Change your last name to google (beat them at their own game)
Or you could do a Prince...and change your name to a symbol which you can't type with a keyboard but you might get some funny looks
Take a native American Indian name like ..Runs with Buffalo or Weeping Moon or something
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+xIt's a step in the right direction but i feel as if the decision still resides with google as to whether it is 'in the public interest' to retain the information, its not an automatic right inline with the rehabilitation of offenders act, so technically we still don't have the right to be forgotten we only have the right to make a request and google to decide yes or no and if that fails then go to court at your own expense. I don't believe it means that everyone has the right to be forgotten until it is actually enshrined in law. I think that means the ROA will have to be updated to reflect the ruling. What annoys me more than anything (other than the very misleading reports about my case) is that I am not asking to be forgotten because I don't completely agree that all records should be deleted. What I want is for the importance of the results in my case to drop-down the rankings as most historical information does. That isn't happening and that is frustrating. The whole 'spent' offence thing should be across the board in my opinion, and not just in terms of disclosure. I've always felt that as time progresses and the statistical risk of re-offending diminishes the requirements and access to information should also diminish. I see what you mean, but unless you have done something else more newsworthy since then, the problem information is still the most recent against your name, unfortunately. There are some suggestions on the Unlock website here, but no guarantees that it will solve the problem. I suppose it all depends on how determined people are to Google you. If you can get yourself off the first page, that might be enough, and if you get down past the second page, how many people would look any further?
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xHow would you go about getting a request accepted to have your information removed? There is some information about this on the Unlock website here.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
Square
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 85,
Visits: 339
|
+xIt's a step in the right direction but i feel as if the decision still resides with google as to whether it is 'in the public interest' to retain the information, its not an automatic right inline with the rehabilitation of offenders act, so technically we still don't have the right to be forgotten we only have the right to make a request and google to decide yes or no and if that fails then go to court at your own expense. I don't believe it means that everyone has the right to be forgotten until it is actually enshrined in law. I think that means the ROA will have to be updated to reflect the ruling. What annoys me more than anything (other than the very misleading reports about my case) is that I am not asking to be forgotten because I don't completely agree that all records should be deleted. What I want is for the importance of the results in my case to drop-down the rankings as most historical information does. That isn't happening and that is frustrating. The whole 'spent' offence thing should be across the board in my opinion, and not just in terms of disclosure. I've always felt that as time progresses and the statistical risk of re-offending diminishes the requirements and access to information should also diminish.
|
|
|
|
|
Thorswrath
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 1.4K
|
It's a step in the right direction but i feel as if the decision still resides with google as to whether it is 'in the public interest' to retain the information, its not an automatic right inline with the rehabilitation of offenders act, so technically we still don't have the right to be forgotten we only have the right to make a request and google to decide yes or no and if that fails then go to court at your own expense. I don't believe it means that everyone has the right to be forgotten until it is actually enshrined in law. I think that means the ROA will have to be updated to reflect the ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
link
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 147,
Visits: 34
|
My experience of right you be forgotten is that it's a farce, Google don't comply, the ICO don't comply, unless you're prepared to go to court (which most people can't risk) you can't win. The two articles mention relatively minor offences, only one of which succeeded so what hope does anyone else by have? What would make for interesting reading is an FOI request to Google and the ICO as to how many requests for right to be forgotten under x, y, z offences have been made, and how many were successful. I'm betting it's next to none for anything with real relevance. Unlock, you have been tasked 
|
|
|
|
|
Square
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 85,
Visits: 339
|
+xHow would you go about getting a request accepted to have your information removed? https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?hl=en-GB&ref_topic=3285072It may be wise to leave it a few weeks until the recent judgement has been fully interpreted.
|
|
|
|
|
big bird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 4
|
How would you go about getting a request accepted to have your information removed?
|
|
|
|
|
big bird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 4
|
+xhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43211897A businessman has taken Google to the High Court in London in what is being seen as a landmark case over "the right to be forgotten". He is challenging Google's decision not to remove a criminal conviction he has from the 1990s from search results. People can ask for online information to be removed from searches if they feel it is outdated or irrelevant. Google said it would "defend the public's right to access lawful information". "We work hard to comply with the right to be forgotten, but we take great care not to remove search results that are clearly in the public interest and will defend the public's right to access lawful information," the firm said in a statement. The search giant has been asked to delist nearly two million search results in Europe, and has removed more than 800,000 of them. The right to be forgotten is a legal precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014, following a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez, asking Google to remove information about his financial history. The UK case revolves around a businessman who wants Google to delete links to a criminal conviction for false accounting in the late 1990s. His conviction is deemed spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The man cannot be named due to reporting restrictions surrounding the case. The man is being represented by law firm Carter-Ruck, which has yet to respond to requests for comment. The General Data Protection Regulation, a sweeping change of EU data rules, is due to come into force in May and aims to extend the law to make it easier for citizens to have content removed. The current case is being heard by Mr Justice Warby and is expected to last several days. A similar case is due to be heard next month.
|
|
|
|
|
Normallife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 17,
Visits: 20
|
This is encouraging, but I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to challenge Google on this issue. Clearly, if a conviction is spent- then it should not be publicly available for anyone to just see. Exactly how is it fair for someone who has by law been rehabilitated to still have their information freely available at the click of a button? How are you supposed to move on without fear of being exposed in the future? Furthermore, say someone gets a job without needing to declare their spent conviction, what if Google is used to obtain the information regarding that spent conviction? It really is an issue that needs sorting out ASAP. I hope the courts side with the person appealing otherwise it undermines the legitimacy of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Square
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 85,
Visits: 339
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43211897A businessman has taken Google to the High Court in London in what is being seen as a landmark case over "the right to be forgotten". He is challenging Google's decision not to remove a criminal conviction he has from the 1990s from search results. People can ask for online information to be removed from searches if they feel it is outdated or irrelevant. Google said it would "defend the public's right to access lawful information". "We work hard to comply with the right to be forgotten, but we take great care not to remove search results that are clearly in the public interest and will defend the public's right to access lawful information," the firm said in a statement. The search giant has been asked to delist nearly two million search results in Europe, and has removed more than 800,000 of them. The right to be forgotten is a legal precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014, following a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez, asking Google to remove information about his financial history. The UK case revolves around a businessman who wants Google to delete links to a criminal conviction for false accounting in the late 1990s. His conviction is deemed spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The man cannot be named due to reporting restrictions surrounding the case. The man is being represented by law firm Carter-Ruck, which has yet to respond to requests for comment. The General Data Protection Regulation, a sweeping change of EU data rules, is due to come into force in May and aims to extend the law to make it easier for citizens to have content removed. The current case is being heard by Mr Justice Warby and is expected to last several days. A similar case is due to be heard next month.
|
|
|
|