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.


Problem with Google removals - IMPORTANT READ!


Problem with Google removals - IMPORTANT READ!

Author
Message
simonUnLCK3837
simonUnLCK3837
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5, Visits: 21
I've had really good success with all search engines over recent months but kept spotting articles seemingly 'reappearing' back in Google's search results.

On further investigation it seems that Google will only remove searches against a name and nothing else.

So for example if I search for Joe Bloggs, the results have been removed. However if I search for Joe Bloggs Glasgow or Joe Bloggs sports coach, the results all still appear. I've queried this with Google who just keep sending back the same auto-response saying the results have been moved when searching for my name.

Anyone else had this issue? Anyone know if there's anything that can be done about it?
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 858, Visits: 5.4K
simonUnLCK3837 - 13 May 22 1:44 PM
I've had really good success with all search engines over recent months but kept spotting articles seemingly 'reappearing' back in Google's search results.

On further investigation it seems that Google will only remove searches against a name and nothing else.

So for example if I search for Joe Bloggs, the results have been removed. However if I search for Joe Bloggs Glasgow or Joe Bloggs sports coach, the results all still appear. I've queried this with Google who just keep sending back the same auto-response saying the results have been moved when searching for my name.

Anyone else had this issue? Anyone know if there's anything that can be done about it?

Well, from what I understand, they ask you to provide URL's, and they then delete the links to those URL's. If they're saying they've removed them from searches from your name, then that is not true, because searching for your name with an extra word or two still brings up what should have been unlisted. If they are still the same URL's but can be found by different search terms, I'd say complain to the Information Commissioner's Office, as they are clear on what needs to be done.

=========================================================================================================

Robert Lightfoot, former head of NASA, said it succinctly in his parting speech in April 2018: Protecting against risk and being safe are not the same thing ... [W]e must move from risk management to risk leadership. From a risk management perspective, the safest place to be is on the ground. From a risk leadership perspective, I believe thats the worst place [we] can be.

khafka
khafka
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 225, Visits: 10K
Yeah, just as AB said - It's an arduous task as you need to basically try cover all possible bases when submitting your Google/search engine removal.

It's not simply a case of telling them to remove searches of the name Joe Bloggs. You need to account for potentially different things that people might search for.
  • Joe Bloggs
  • Joe Bloggs Offence
  • Joe Bloggs Court
  • Joe Bloggs Arrested
  • Joe Bloggs Glasgow
  • Joe Bloggs Sentence
That kind of thing.

Google remove results based on a search string as opposed to a blanket approach. It's a massive pain but sadly that's just the way it is.

Zack
Zack
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 60, Visits: 4.6K
simonUnLCK3837 - 13 May 22 1:44 PM
I've had really good success with all search engines over recent months but kept spotting articles seemingly 'reappearing' back in Google's search results.

On further investigation it seems that Google will only remove searches against a name and nothing else.

So for example if I search for Joe Bloggs, the results have been removed. However if I search for Joe Bloggs Glasgow or Joe Bloggs sports coach, the results all still appear. I've queried this with Google who just keep sending back the same auto-response saying the results have been moved when searching for my name.

Anyone else had this issue? Anyone know if there's anything that can be done about it?

I had assumed that they should delist search results that included the name, as opposed to only the name. You could ask the ICO, or get in touch with a law firm that deals with this sort of thing. The interpretation of the RTBF is changing all the time depending on rulings. A law firm may be able to tell you if you have a case against Google for not removing all results, you can probably email a few for advice. You'll probably get an answer if you have a case.

simonUnLCK3837
simonUnLCK3837
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)Supreme Being (393 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5, Visits: 21
Thanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 858, Visits: 5.4K
simonUnLCK3837 - 16 May 22 4:56 PM
Thanks 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.

=========================================================================================================

Robert Lightfoot, former head of NASA, said it succinctly in his parting speech in April 2018: Protecting against risk and being safe are not the same thing ... [W]e must move from risk management to risk leadership. From a risk management perspective, the safest place to be is on the ground. From a risk leadership perspective, I believe thats the worst place [we] can be.

Zack
Zack
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 60, Visits: 4.6K
AB2014 - 17 May 22 2:34 PM
simonUnLCK3837 - 16 May 22 4:56 PM
Thanks 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.

Related to this, there was a ruling a couple of years ago from Sweden. They fined Google for a few things, including applying a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing, and for notifying websites about delisting results due to right to be forgotten requests. Whether Google will change it's practices I wouldn't know.
https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-authority-imposes-administrative-fine-google_en

AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 858, Visits: 5.4K
Zack - 17 May 22 5:30 PM
AB2014 - 17 May 22 2:34 PM
simonUnLCK3837 - 16 May 22 4:56 PM
Thanks 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.

Related to this, there was a ruling a couple of years ago from Sweden. They fined Google for a few things, including applying a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing, and for notifying websites about delisting results due to right to be forgotten requests. Whether Google will change it's practices I wouldn't know.
https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-authority-imposes-administrative-fine-google_en

Well, if it was in Sweden, then they might extend that across the EU, or they might wait until they are forced to. As we're not in the EU, I can see Google ignoring it in the UK, again until they are forced to comply by the UK's ICO. Given that the ICO has done exactly what Google were fined for, I wonder if they will fine themselves....

=========================================================================================================

Robert Lightfoot, former head of NASA, said it succinctly in his parting speech in April 2018: Protecting against risk and being safe are not the same thing ... [W]e must move from risk management to risk leadership. From a risk management perspective, the safest place to be is on the ground. From a risk leadership perspective, I believe thats the worst place [we] can be.

Zack
Zack
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)Supreme Being (4.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 60, Visits: 4.6K
AB2014 - 18 May 22 10:18 AM
Zack - 17 May 22 5:30 PM
AB2014 - 17 May 22 2:34 PM
simonUnLCK3837 - 16 May 22 4:56 PM
Thanks 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.

Related to this, there was a ruling a couple of years ago from Sweden. They fined Google for a few things, including applying a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing, and for notifying websites about delisting results due to right to be forgotten requests. Whether Google will change it's practices I wouldn't know.
https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-authority-imposes-administrative-fine-google_en

Well, if it was in Sweden, then they might extend that across the EU, or they might wait until they are forced to. As we're not in the EU, I can see Google ignoring it in the UK, again until they are forced to comply by the UK's ICO. Given that the ICO has done exactly what Google were fined for, I wonder if they will fine themselves....ince

Good point Brexit may give an opportunity for the to at least try to wriggle out of EU rulings, and not apply them to the UK. I wouldn't know. As for ICO, I think I remember a thread on that in the disclosing information about a delisting request, when explicitly asked not to do so. They should have at least investigated the incident: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/

Given it is the ICO I see huge public interest in that being taken forward. I would have thought a solicitor could negotiate anonymity from a judge, just as they do for other cases that involve the invasion of privacy.

AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)Supreme Being (89K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 858, Visits: 5.4K
Zack - 19 May 22 9:13 AM
AB2014 - 18 May 22 10:18 AM
Zack - 17 May 22 5:30 PM
AB2014 - 17 May 22 2:34 PM
simonUnLCK3837 - 16 May 22 4:56 PM
Thanks 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.

Related to this, there was a ruling a couple of years ago from Sweden. They fined Google for a few things, including applying a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing, and for notifying websites about delisting results due to right to be forgotten requests. Whether Google will change it's practices I wouldn't know.
https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-authority-imposes-administrative-fine-google_en

Well, if it was in Sweden, then they might extend that across the EU, or they might wait until they are forced to. As we're not in the EU, I can see Google ignoring it in the UK, again until they are forced to comply by the UK's ICO. Given that the ICO has done exactly what Google were fined for, I wonder if they will fine themselves....ince

Good point Brexit may give an opportunity for the to at least try to wriggle out of EU rulings, and not apply them to the UK. I wouldn't know. As for ICO, I think I remember a thread on that in the disclosing information about a delisting request, when explicitly asked not to do so. They should have at least investigated the incident: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/

Given it is the ICO I see huge public interest in that being taken forward. I would have thought a solicitor could negotiate anonymity from a judge, just as they do for other cases that involve the invasion of privacy.

Well, if it's in the High Court in London, it's not about negotiating, it's about applying for an anonymity order. If the case will involve sensitive information, then I can't see the court saying no, but they have to be asked.

=========================================================================================================

Robert Lightfoot, former head of NASA, said it succinctly in his parting speech in April 2018: Protecting against risk and being safe are not the same thing ... [W]e must move from risk management to risk leadership. From a risk management perspective, the safest place to be is on the ground. From a risk leadership perspective, I believe thats the worst place [we] can be.

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