|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
So yeah, bit disheartened to be honest. I sent them a pretty snotty reply about it and I've just sent off a form to ICO so we'll see what they say.
For what it's worth - I did a request to Bing and stuff was removed in about 2 days so it's clearly not a 'public interest' thing as Google state. It's clearly a Google thing.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xWell, an update. They've refused me again. Supposedly it's still in the public interest... Load of shite. Going to speak to ICO and see what they say. Hello, Thanks for reaching out to us. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] - Facebook URL [REDACTED] - Facebook URL Google Search ranks the results displayed to each user differently, depending on hundreds of variables. A Search results page displayed to one user in response to a particular query may be different from the Search results page displayed to another user for the exact same query. Furthermore, there may be hundreds of thousands of results, or more, many of which may not be of concern to you. In order to ensure that we review the same URLs that you see in your Search results page, please send us the actual URLs of the content that is the subject of your complaint, in plain-text, soft-copy form. To find a website’s URL on a desktop computer: Type your query into the search box on Google.com & click Google Search. Right-click the title of the site in question & click Copy Link Address. Paste the copied URL into your reply to this email. Please note that we cannot accept URLs that begin with https://www.google.com/search?To find an image’s URL on a desktop computer Click the image in the search results Click the three dot share icon In the popup window, click the text that says “Click to copy link” In your email reply to us, right-click & then click "Paste" to add the URL to the email Please note that for images, the URL should begin with https://images.app.goo.gl/ or https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl.Without specific URLs, we cannot consider your request. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] We've decided not to delist this content. In the light of all the circumstances of the case we are aware of, the information about you on these pages is still relevant to the public interest, so it will stay in our search results. We have based our decision on factors like the nature and seriousness of the offence in question, the progress and the outcome of the proceedings, the time elapsed, your part played in public life and past conduct, the form of the publication and the consequences of publication. Based on the information available to us at this time, Google LLC has decided not to take action on these URLs. You could send your removal request straight to the site's webmaster. The webmaster controls the site, so they can remove the content in question, and block it from appearing in search engines. Take a look at the Google Search Help to learn how to contact a site's webmaster. If you can still see in Google Search results old content from a site that has been modified or removed by the webmaster, please use this tool to update Google Search results. For more information, please visit this page. You may also have the right to raise this issue with your country’s data protection authority or seek a judicial remedy if you are unhappy with the decision that Google LLC has taken at this time. However if you have any additional information you would like evaluated as part of your request, please consider providing it to us first by responding to this message. In the communication with the data protection authority, you may wish to include the reference number of [REDACTED] and a copy of your form submission confirmation for this request to Google LLC. For more information about how Google LLC makes these decisions, you can visit the Transparency Report Help Center. The Help Center has information about how we delist URLs under European data protection law, including the key factors in making these decisions. Regards, The Google Team Well, at least you can show the ICO that you have done what you need to do before escalating it to them. I've been trying to find the blog post about this by the last Information Commissioner, but when I tried the link from Unlock's web page, the blog seems to have disappeared. Maybe it was deleted when the old commissioner left.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+x+xWell, an update. They've refused me again. Supposedly it's still in the public interest... Load of shite. Going to speak to ICO and see what they say. Hello, Thanks for reaching out to us. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] - Facebook URL [REDACTED] - Facebook URL Google Search ranks the results displayed to each user differently, depending on hundreds of variables. A Search results page displayed to one user in response to a particular query may be different from the Search results page displayed to another user for the exact same query. Furthermore, there may be hundreds of thousands of results, or more, many of which may not be of concern to you. In order to ensure that we review the same URLs that you see in your Search results page, please send us the actual URLs of the content that is the subject of your complaint, in plain-text, soft-copy form. To find a website’s URL on a desktop computer: Type your query into the search box on Google.com & click Google Search. Right-click the title of the site in question & click Copy Link Address. Paste the copied URL into your reply to this email. Please note that we cannot accept URLs that begin with https://www.google.com/search?To find an image’s URL on a desktop computer Click the image in the search results Click the three dot share icon In the popup window, click the text that says “Click to copy link” In your email reply to us, right-click & then click "Paste" to add the URL to the email Please note that for images, the URL should begin with https://images.app.goo.gl/ or https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl.Without specific URLs, we cannot consider your request. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] We've decided not to delist this content. In the light of all the circumstances of the case we are aware of, the information about you on these pages is still relevant to the public interest, so it will stay in our search results. We have based our decision on factors like the nature and seriousness of the offence in question, the progress and the outcome of the proceedings, the time elapsed, your part played in public life and past conduct, the form of the publication and the consequences of publication. Based on the information available to us at this time, Google LLC has decided not to take action on these URLs. You could send your removal request straight to the site's webmaster. The webmaster controls the site, so they can remove the content in question, and block it from appearing in search engines. Take a look at the Google Search Help to learn how to contact a site's webmaster. If you can still see in Google Search results old content from a site that has been modified or removed by the webmaster, please use this tool to update Google Search results. For more information, please visit this page. You may also have the right to raise this issue with your country’s data protection authority or seek a judicial remedy if you are unhappy with the decision that Google LLC has taken at this time. However if you have any additional information you would like evaluated as part of your request, please consider providing it to us first by responding to this message. In the communication with the data protection authority, you may wish to include the reference number of [REDACTED] and a copy of your form submission confirmation for this request to Google LLC. For more information about how Google LLC makes these decisions, you can visit the Transparency Report Help Center. The Help Center has information about how we delist URLs under European data protection law, including the key factors in making these decisions. Regards, The Google Team Well, at least you can show the ICO that you have done what you need to do before escalating it to them. I've been trying to find the blog post about this by the last Information Commissioner, but when I tried the link from Unlock's web page, the blog seems to have disappeared. Maybe it was deleted when the old commissioner left. Yeah, I had a look too and the link was gone. I actually went to ICO initially once my conviction was spent and Google initially refused. One of the strict stipulations was that I didn't want my details passed on to some of the parties involved (Facebook hunter groups and the like, for obvious reasons) but needless to see within 48hrs those groups had my full address, email, and mobile number which an ICO agent gave to them so we could discuss the issue. Needless to say I was absolutely livid. I raised a complaint with ICO which basically went nowhere aside from a "we're sorry!". Luckily nothing happened but the amount of danger that could've potentially put me is unthinkable. So I did reference that in my ICO form today that they've made an arse of this in the past so here is a decent chance to make amends. If ICO say no then I don't really know where I go from here. I certainly can't afford to bring it to court due to struggling to get employment as a result of Google.
|
|
|
|
|
Zack
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 60,
Visits: 4.6K
|
+x+x+xWell, an update. They've refused me again. Supposedly it's still in the public interest... Load of shite. Going to speak to ICO and see what they say. Hello, Thanks for reaching out to us. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] - Facebook URL [REDACTED] - Facebook URL Google Search ranks the results displayed to each user differently, depending on hundreds of variables. A Search results page displayed to one user in response to a particular query may be different from the Search results page displayed to another user for the exact same query. Furthermore, there may be hundreds of thousands of results, or more, many of which may not be of concern to you. In order to ensure that we review the same URLs that you see in your Search results page, please send us the actual URLs of the content that is the subject of your complaint, in plain-text, soft-copy form. To find a website’s URL on a desktop computer: Type your query into the search box on Google.com & click Google Search. Right-click the title of the site in question & click Copy Link Address. Paste the copied URL into your reply to this email. Please note that we cannot accept URLs that begin with https://www.google.com/search?To find an image’s URL on a desktop computer Click the image in the search results Click the three dot share icon In the popup window, click the text that says “Click to copy link” In your email reply to us, right-click & then click "Paste" to add the URL to the email Please note that for images, the URL should begin with https://images.app.goo.gl/ or https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl.Without specific URLs, we cannot consider your request. We had a look at these URLs: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] We've decided not to delist this content. In the light of all the circumstances of the case we are aware of, the information about you on these pages is still relevant to the public interest, so it will stay in our search results. We have based our decision on factors like the nature and seriousness of the offence in question, the progress and the outcome of the proceedings, the time elapsed, your part played in public life and past conduct, the form of the publication and the consequences of publication. Based on the information available to us at this time, Google LLC has decided not to take action on these URLs. You could send your removal request straight to the site's webmaster. The webmaster controls the site, so they can remove the content in question, and block it from appearing in search engines. Take a look at the Google Search Help to learn how to contact a site's webmaster. If you can still see in Google Search results old content from a site that has been modified or removed by the webmaster, please use this tool to update Google Search results. For more information, please visit this page. You may also have the right to raise this issue with your country’s data protection authority or seek a judicial remedy if you are unhappy with the decision that Google LLC has taken at this time. However if you have any additional information you would like evaluated as part of your request, please consider providing it to us first by responding to this message. In the communication with the data protection authority, you may wish to include the reference number of [REDACTED] and a copy of your form submission confirmation for this request to Google LLC. For more information about how Google LLC makes these decisions, you can visit the Transparency Report Help Center. The Help Center has information about how we delist URLs under European data protection law, including the key factors in making these decisions. Regards, The Google Team Well, at least you can show the ICO that you have done what you need to do before escalating it to them. I've been trying to find the blog post about this by the last Information Commissioner, but when I tried the link from Unlock's web page, the blog seems to have disappeared. Maybe it was deleted when the old commissioner left. Yeah, I had a look too and the link was gone. I actually went to ICO initially once my conviction was spent and Google initially refused. One of the strict stipulations was that I didn't want my details passed on to some of the parties involved (Facebook hunter groups and the like, for obvious reasons) but needless to see within 48hrs those groups had my full address, email, and mobile number which an ICO agent gave to them so we could discuss the issue. Needless to say I was absolutely livid. I raised a complaint with ICO which basically went nowhere aside from a "we're sorry!". Luckily nothing happened but the amount of danger that could've potentially put me is unthinkable. So I did reference that in my ICO form today that they've made an arse of this in the past so here is a decent chance to make amends. If ICO say no then I don't really know where I go from here. I certainly can't afford to bring it to court due to struggling to get employment as a result of Google. That's potentially a serious breach of data protection, the ICO should know better. They should not be passing on personal info like that to vigilante sites, it's exactly these sort of breaches the ICO is supposed to prevent. You could try a solicitor, and sue them. But obviously you have to factor in if that would cause publicity. The threat of legal action, may be a way to make the ICO actually support your case though.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+x But obviously you have to factor in if that would cause publicity. That is precisely why I just left it and also didn't want my details shared with them. I wanted to try and do it in the background because I knew what the fall out would be - and I was proven right. This all happened a couple of years ago now so the damage that can be done has effectively been done. We'll see how it goes. In my snotty reply to Google I did request them to specify which element(s) are still in the public interest and what evidence they have to back up the claim. I don't think I'll get much out of it though. Needless to say, I'm pretty dis-heartened after that reply.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x But obviously you have to factor in if that would cause publicity. That is precisely why I just left it and also didn't want my details shared with them. I wanted to try and do it in the background because I knew what the fall out would be - and I was proven right. This all happened a couple of years ago now so the damage that can be done has effectively been done. We'll see how it goes. In my snotty reply to Google I did request them to specify which element(s) are still in the public interest and what evidence they have to back up the claim. I don't think I'll get much out of it though. Needless to say, I'm pretty dis-heartened after that reply. Well, it might be that they have a preference for not removing links to information on that category of offence. Or they might not understand the differences between the disclosure law in England & Wales and the law in Scotland. Their office may well be in London, or at least in England, and you know how Anglo-centric some English people can be. Even my wife was Anglo-centric, and she's a Scot!
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+x+x+x But obviously you have to factor in if that would cause publicity. That is precisely why I just left it and also didn't want my details shared with them. I wanted to try and do it in the background because I knew what the fall out would be - and I was proven right. This all happened a couple of years ago now so the damage that can be done has effectively been done. We'll see how it goes. In my snotty reply to Google I did request them to specify which element(s) are still in the public interest and what evidence they have to back up the claim. I don't think I'll get much out of it though. Needless to say, I'm pretty dis-heartened after that reply. Well, it might be that they have a preference for not removing links to information on that category of offence. Or they might not understand the differences between the disclosure law in England & Wales and the law in Scotland. Their office may well be in London, or at least in England, and you know how Anglo-centric some English people can be. Even my wife was Anglo-centric, and she's a Scot! Yeah, my gut feeling is it is just due to the nature of the offence which was an images offence in case anyone wasn't aware. But alas, we'll see what ICO say.
|
|
|
|
|
Lineofduty
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 69,
Visits: 345
|
+x+x+xICO is relevant up here too. I tried them initially and it ended up causing a bunch of further issues as they ended up actually contacting one of the database websites and told them I want my stuff removed from their site which led to the aforementioned website further posting stuff about me online saying how I wanted to be removed etc. I put in a complaint to ICO as I did explicitly state I didn't want this to happen as I had a feeling something similar would happen. They send a stock sorry email and closed the complaint so I was pretty deflated and upset about my experience with them to be honest. That's appalling, not only by the ICO but that company posting new stuff regurgitating your past. Really sorry to hear that, you didn't deserve it. "Company" is a rather diplomatic way of putting it haha. I can't remember the guy's name, it's Chris Whitwer or something like that. He had a database website before and was taken to court over it and was ordered to take it down, he's since built a new one however that ended up riddled with malware and now seems to be private so that's a good start... "Official" outlets I wouldn't mind too much about them reaching out such as actual newspapers and the like as they're theoretically governed correctly and there is a proper chain of authority I can go through as opposed to some random dude in his bedroom with a Wordpress site and a Facebook page. Hey! I was interested to read these posts as I have been looking into a few things around this content for a while. I firstly started to review things when a private photo of me appeared on a vigilante website. Given only my wife and the Govt had access to it I think there's a good chance to the former supplied it !! But up it went on their site some 12 months after my conviction along with the obligatory plageurised media article and, lo and behold, the naming of my town even though the news article didn't mention it. The site aka "a database" in question is probably known to most on here. Now there are a number of anomalies to their now former (more on that below) website but some the salient ones being; no compliance with UK GDPR or data processing in general. For those who have looked they only have a Contact Us section if you want to contact them. They also claim to be part of the ICO and that their data processing is legal. Laughable really, but according to the ICO they have a live case on this website and their "wider work" is looking at it. Fast forward and it appears that the "old " website has been taken down. Now the reason for this could be a number of issues but quite possibly the ICO have finally tackled them, or they are facing legal action, or they might just have tarted up their website to comply. So the bad news is that another website is on the way it seems "database" Watch this space. It's going to be interesting to see whether it's a new "compliant" all singing dancing version... According to ICO for what's its worth, the keeping of a centralised database is only allowed by public authorities in the main and anyone else who for example are trying to claim an exemption such as "child safety or safeguarding" or "public interest" or "prevention of crime". For such data controllers they have to have a comprehensive Impact Assessment form under which the ICO can prosecute if they have not. It would appear that none of the vigilante websites can justify the keeping of such a centralised database especially when it's clear that it's used for harrassment and malicious activity. The sordid email address for the website in question kind of gives it away to the ICO of what their intentions are. No wonder they only had a Contact Us page which of course they then used to maliciously and illegally re-produce requests to take down material. Now turning back to a related subject; photos. Long story short, if any of you guys out there are unfortunate enough to have a photo of you on one of these malicious websites there maybe someting you can do about the photo (appearing on Google etc) even if you can't get content/text removed (subject to your own case/circumstances). IF the photo displayed has been taken by you then YOU own the copyright. Even if you told someone to take it for you with your camera or phone or even if you pushed the button in a photobooth. IF you have not given any person or organisation permission to use or re-produce that image, then any use of it is copyright infringement and you can issue a Google (or other) DMCA takedown notice to have it removed. The other side, have 10 days to object and counter, after which the image will be gone. If they counter, just to be awkward or think they can roll you over, then they take the risk that you take legal action against them which means that they are almost certain to have to provide their name and address - think they would? I doubt it. Do faceless bullies ever want naming... Just a PS to that last paragraph. The "database" in question hides (no surprise) behind a domain registration provider in the US who legally have to address "abuse" claims of copyright infringement or indeed non-compliance with Data Protection. So they provide a generic email to intercept such claims but you can contact them with a claim. Now interestingly (and this might be worth seeing if this affects a lot of you guys out there), the website domain operator's T&C's mean that if a website owner or operator receives such an infringement claim they mark it as a "strike". After a number of strikes (they won't say how many for obvious reason of misuse) they will automatically suspend the website pending further enquiries or take it down permanently. So, if enough of you guys out there have a relevant photo on this or any other dodgy site it might be worth "crowding" and synchronising a number of strikes simultaneously to have a greater impact ... especially when the new site gets up and running >>>  Oh, and I forgot to say that the website is/was linked to Sell Your Stories and so anyone with a story to "tell" about you guys gets linked back to your content on said website. Of course, operating a centralised database without an ICO Impact Assessment and profiteering from third parties when they front-out as a non-profit organsation AND appeal for donations to keep "Sarah" going..... Well, I never....who would have thought they could get away with that  PPS. Would be nice if Unlock and maybe Ruckers offered more support on his kind of thing. Doesn't this come under "Change" after all and I suspect most if not all on here feel the heat from vigilante websites acutely at some stage post-conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
Yeah, it's something that has been discussed at length on this forum a few times. Most on here are well aware who runs it (at least I am) and know that the actual existence of it is actually illegal to operate and have available in the UK and the owner was previously taken to court about it a few years ago and was forced to shut it down, which he did, he then proclaimed he'd just start another one - Why this wasn't followed up by the police/courts is a bit of a disgrace to be honest. I'm sure after our convictions if we stated we'd breach our conditions within 24hrs our arses wouldn't hit the floor but here we are. It's neither here nor there but perhaps worth mentioning the owner who has multiple previous criminal convictions, mainly for violence so he's a repeat offender.
I've reported the site initially to ICO and all it got me was this goon and some of his wee pals harassing me as ICO made a mess of it. I have absolutely zero faith the police or ICO would actually deal with the website.
So the police are aware of it, ICO are aware of it and it's still been up for years so they're clearly not interested in it.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
I thought I'd just post an update I got today from ICO which might be of use to others thinking of using them.
As mentioned earlier in the thread I sent off an updated case to ICO to get stuff removed from Google. Aside from an automated response confirming receipt of my complaint it has been radio silence for a month.
So today I just went onto the online chat and have been advised there is around a 4 month waiting list for stuff to be picked up. At present they're working on things from the 7th of December last year and they work in date order so I should expect to be contacted around the end of May.
Seems their cases are stacking up quite heavily - When I initially tried this back in 2020 I got a response in about a week.
|
|
|
|