|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
If it was on here then I think that might be me you're referencing. I applied to Google to have links taken down about a year or so ago and they said no - I expected that. So I went to ICO and did state to them that due to the nature of some of the websites and the character of their respective owners I didn't want my information passed on or for them to be notified about it from a personal safety point of view. So what actually happened was they basically sent them all notes saying "Joe Bloggs has requested you take down link-x on your website. You can reach him to discuss it by his email address: joebloggs@bloggs.com. His reasons for the request are xyz" Needless to say this went down like a fart in a life to the people running the sites. I did put in a complaint to ICO about their handling of it and the expected outpouring of issues that I anticipated actually happening - Their response was basically "Oh, sorry about that. Okay, complaint closed. We apologised". At the moment I'm not pursuing removal again with them but I know how it comes together now so my report to ICO about Google's second refusal is worded a lot more strongly and laid out better however they have said they're like 5 or 6 months behind as of February I think it was? So I'm not expecting much until maybe June or July.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
So thought I'd post an update as ICO finally got in touch 5 months after my initial request. The outcome was they're not going to do anything and they closed the case an essentially told me to bugger off due to being on the register but if you're curious for the reasons, here is what they said: Your complaintYou contacted Google twice to request removal of links resulting from a search on your name [REDACTED]. You explained to the ICO that you wanted these results removed because the content relates to a spent sentence, and it is causing you issues around employment for example. You also mention physical abuse and assault - please note that if you have concerns over your safety/your family's safety, you may wish to consider reporting those to the emergency services if necessary. Google refused your requests in 2021 and 2022, saying the content is still relevant and in the public interest, and mentioned factors like the offence in question and the time elapsed. I note there are some differences when I compare the links you raised with Google in 2021 against those you raised with Google in 2022, and against those you raised with the ICO in your complaint. We generally expect the precise links being raised with the ICO to have been raised with Google first by the complainant themselves, however in this instance I do not think the differences matter, because I found some of the relevant content/links in Google's results and I feel able to give an outcome. 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/your-data-matters/online/internet-search-results/ OutcomeWe have considered the factors which are relevant to your removal request(s) and we have decided to close your case. We will not be contacting Google about the links. You have told us the content relates to a spent sentence. While you did not tell the ICO exactly what sentence you received or make any reference to the applicable 'rehabilitation period' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (and I can see no evidence you told Google either), it seems that in early 2020 you were placed on a sex offenders register for three years. I think it is still in the public interest that the content remains accessible. Perhaps you mean a community order you received is spent (the rehabilitation period for those is 1 year from the last day on which the order has effect) - but please note that if you are still on the sex offenders register, and subject to supervision, those are strong factors against the removal of the links. The ICO is not required to provide outcomes that complainants agree with or find a solution to each complainant's problem/situation. If you disagree with the view we have provided, please note that individuals are entitled to take their own cases to court, irrespective of our decision. The ICO cannot assist individual court applications. We recommend you seek independent legal advice if you pursue this option. Please note this case is now closed - any further correspondence you send us about it may not be responded to. Yours sincerely, [REDACTED] Lead Case Officer Information Commissioner's Office
The difference in links between the two Google requests is due to ICO making an arse of my initial application which they made a total mess of (which I raised in this recent complaint and appears to have been completely glossed over, no apology or anything).
Overall, disappointed but not surprised to be honest. I've dealt with ICO a couple of times even prior to my conviction and they've always been poor at best. One of my biggest gripes is you have no form of appeal. If they think your case has no merit or the person that picked it up can't be arsed dealing with it then they can close it on a whim and you'll have to go through the whole process again, and given the person is seemingly jumping to some incorrect conclusions and seemingly didn't read the actual report I put in (given they state they couldn't see that I mentioned the Rehab of Offenders Act to Google where I actually mentioned it twice in both my initial requests to them) it leaves you wondering what the point of them is.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 453,
Visits: 5.5K
|
This cannot be fair. Those who appear in Google and got exactly the same sentence as someone who didn't get 'reported' on are facing additional barriers. I think this needs further pushing.
EDIT: I've emailled the Ministry of Justice asking this very question (The ICO report to the DCMS but I think this should be a matter for the MoJ to be fair.) They say a reply can take up to four weeks, but I'll let you know when they reply.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
simonUnLCK3837
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6,
Visits: 22
|
+x+xThanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say. I'm just trying to cover all the options here. As I said before, you have to provide the URL's and they then remove the links. If you miss any URL's, they won't remove those, but you can apply again with the URL's you didn't list the first time around. That can happen as often as you need. If you send them the URL from your search results page, they will remove that link but not the links listed on that results page. I'm assuming that isn't what happened, but I'm mentioning it just in case. Either way, let's hope you get it sorted out OK. I should just point out that this doesn't appear to be correct. They don't remove the links - they 'filter' the search requests. The links will still be available on Google! Exactly the same as DBS checks work on spent convictions. The convictions are still there - they're just 'filtered' out when you apply for a Basic check for example. I'm still working with Google to resolve this but not having much luck.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+xThanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say. I'm just trying to cover all the options here. As I said before, you have to provide the URL's and they then remove the links. If you miss any URL's, they won't remove those, but you can apply again with the URL's you didn't list the first time around. That can happen as often as you need. If you send them the URL from your search results page, they will remove that link but not the links listed on that results page. I'm assuming that isn't what happened, but I'm mentioning it just in case. Either way, let's hope you get it sorted out OK. I should just point out that this doesn't appear to be correct. They don't remove the links - they 'filter' the search requests. The links will still be available on Google! Exactly the same as DBS checks work on spent convictions. The convictions are still there - they're just 'filtered' out when you apply for a Basic check for example. I'm still working with Google to resolve this but not having much luck. However you look at it, the links are deleted from search results, so if nobody can see them, they are effectively deleted. The links are effectively not there, as you can no longer reach the online information via those specific links from Google. If you miss some links in your request, they will still be active until you get Google to remove them. Of course it doesn't mean the information is deleted from the original websites - Google may be powerful, but not that powerful! If you know where to look, the information is still there, and I don't see how Google could do any more than they're already doing.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
simonUnLCK3837
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6,
Visits: 22
|
+x+x+x+xThanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say. I'm just trying to cover all the options here. As I said before, you have to provide the URL's and they then remove the links. If you miss any URL's, they won't remove those, but you can apply again with the URL's you didn't list the first time around. That can happen as often as you need. If you send them the URL from your search results page, they will remove that link but not the links listed on that results page. I'm assuming that isn't what happened, but I'm mentioning it just in case. Either way, let's hope you get it sorted out OK. I should just point out that this doesn't appear to be correct. They don't remove the links - they 'filter' the search requests. The links will still be available on Google! Exactly the same as DBS checks work on spent convictions. The convictions are still there - they're just 'filtered' out when you apply for a Basic check for example. I'm still working with Google to resolve this but not having much luck. However you look at it, the links are deleted from search results, so if nobody can see them, they are effectively deleted. The links are effectively not there, as you can no longer reach the online information via those specific links from Google. If you miss some links in your request, they will still be active until you get Google to remove them. Of course it doesn't mean the information is deleted from the original websites - Google may be powerful, but not that powerful! If you know where to look, the information is still there, and I don't see how Google could do any more than they're already doing. No that's not correct! The links are never removed. In the example in my original post, if I ask for the search results to be filtered for Joe Bloggs, they will remove that URL from the search results. But if you then search for 'Joe Bloggs sport coach' for example, the link will then be shown. This is exactly what's happening to me right now and Google are currently ignoring my request to remove these additional search results.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xThanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say. I'm just trying to cover all the options here. As I said before, you have to provide the URL's and they then remove the links. If you miss any URL's, they won't remove those, but you can apply again with the URL's you didn't list the first time around. That can happen as often as you need. If you send them the URL from your search results page, they will remove that link but not the links listed on that results page. I'm assuming that isn't what happened, but I'm mentioning it just in case. Either way, let's hope you get it sorted out OK. I should just point out that this doesn't appear to be correct. They don't remove the links - they 'filter' the search requests. The links will still be available on Google! Exactly the same as DBS checks work on spent convictions. The convictions are still there - they're just 'filtered' out when you apply for a Basic check for example. I'm still working with Google to resolve this but not having much luck. However you look at it, the links are deleted from search results, so if nobody can see them, they are effectively deleted. The links are effectively not there, as you can no longer reach the online information via those specific links from Google. If you miss some links in your request, they will still be active until you get Google to remove them. Of course it doesn't mean the information is deleted from the original websites - Google may be powerful, but not that powerful! If you know where to look, the information is still there, and I don't see how Google could do any more than they're already doing. No that's not correct! The links are never removed. In the example in my original post, if I ask for the search results to be filtered for Joe Bloggs, they will remove that URL from the search results. But if you then search for 'Joe Bloggs sport coach' for example, the link will then be shown. This is exactly what's happening to me right now and Google are currently ignoring my request to remove these additional search results. Well, Google are quite clear that they remove individual URLs from all search results, which is why they ask for them in the first place. If a URL that you included in your application turns up in search results after that, Google haven't done their job properly and they are not upholding your data protection rights. It's not about dealing with the results themselves; it's about removing the links, or there's no point.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 453,
Visits: 5.5K
|
I've just received a reply from the MOJ. My question was about fairness between person A and person B being given the same sentence, but person B's sentence being reported in the press and facing additional barriers which person A doesn't. The reply was over a page of waffle talking about the UK having the most robust system etc. and how ViSOR is called The Dangerous Person Database - (I'll say it again for anyone in doubt, the "sex offender register" does not exist). The only paragraph about employment, and not really answering my question, said: "Regarding barriers to employment, it is important to bear in mind that where an employer is aware of a conviction – spent or unspent – this should not automatically prevent individuals from obtaining employment. A balanced judgment should be exercised, having regard to such factors as the person’s age at the time of the offence, the background circumstances to the case, how long ago the offence took place, whether it was an isolated offence or part of a pattern of offending, the nature of the offence, its relevance to the application or post in question, and what else is known about the person’s conduct before or since the offence." And referred me to NACRO and Unlock. All I can think of to say is... it "should not"... but it does! There was no response about the Google effect, vigilante sites storing information, or ICO not removing links, which was the basis of my correspondence. In other news, this might be of interest to some, she also said: "The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are investing £8.1 million to develop a new multi-agency public protection system (MAPPS) which will enable more effective and automated information sharing, which will in turn improve the risk management of all offenders managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)." Apparently this will stretch to include domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators managed under MAPPA. Arguably a drop in the ocean since they wasted £100 million on some failed tagging system.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|