|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 728,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent. This is my take. Whilst my conviction is unspent, regardless of how badly it impacts me, I still have to inform employers, insurance companies and letting agencies. Without a (unlikely) change in the law it's public information. Unfortunately my name is rather unique and I did had a pre-conviction public profile. I've not goggled my name for 5 years. who knows what horrors are out there for me to confront!
However, once my conviction is spent, I will make an effort to get links removed.
Technically, you have to inform employers, insurers and letting agencies if you are asked. Insurers often hide question among the assumptions in their policy documents or other paperwork, so you can't assume that they don't want to know. Unless you are subject to direction from probation or the police, there is no obligation on you to disclose voluntarily. Once your conviction is spent, you should be able to get links removed, if you fill in the forms correctly and spoon-feed them the information. That might include proof that your conviction is actually spent, as one of our regulars has been finding out by applying to the ICO with a spent conviction. My offence was a none contact downloading offence for which I was given a 12 month suspended sentence 7 years ago. After five years I managed to get my SHPO discharged and my conviction is now legally spent but still Google refuses to remove links to my name to two grubby vigilante sites as "Its in the public interest". I complained to the ICO attaching a copy of my SHPO discharge notice from the court but still they backed Google's decision so I just think the ICO has no interest if you are a convicted SO My offence was also a download-based one (images). It does appear that Google and ICO really aren't interested if you're an SO unless it's a really old one like 20+ years. The "public interest" thing feels like a load of nonsense easy excuse too as there doesn't seem to be any real set standard for what constitutes "public interest". For example, I applied to Bing and to get results about me removed, they removed them the first time I asked and they were gone in about 3 days from their confirmation. Google says it is still in the public interest. What metric are they running to back that up? Is it a case of XX amount of people still searching for me and my offence every day? Because I refuse to believe people are still searching about me years on from when I was last reported about at sentencing. I posted in another thread about my efforts with ICO and they're just being quite dickish about it, to be honest and you have no way to appeal ICO's decision either. My latest effort I took nearly 6 months (due to their backlog) from my initial application, after 6 months of nothing I basically got "we're not going to speak to Google, piss off". So if I want to combat that I'd need to submit a new enquiry and go to the back of the queue, I can't just reply saying I disagree because XYZ or whatever - It's an utterly ludicrous system. I reckon the only real way to get any proper movement on Google removals at the moment if you're an SO is a legal-based route. By that I mean getting an actual solicitor involved saying "You need to remove these links because Law-X, you're infringing this because Law-Y, failure to comply will result in blahblahblah". Having just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? According to Unlock's website, you would have to approach them via Unlock. There is a questionnaire that they pass on. I'm guessing that if you contact them directly, you'll have to talk money first. It's the same law firm that famous people use, to sue magazines like private eye, for libel. Probably not cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with the idea behind this article, but don't forget that the last Information Commissioner said that they wouldn't help in cases where the conviction is unspent. This is my take. Whilst my conviction is unspent, regardless of how badly it impacts me, I still have to inform employers, insurance companies and letting agencies. Without a (unlikely) change in the law it's public information. Unfortunately my name is rather unique and I did had a pre-conviction public profile. I've not goggled my name for 5 years. who knows what horrors are out there for me to confront!
However, once my conviction is spent, I will make an effort to get links removed.
Technically, you have to inform employers, insurers and letting agencies if you are asked. Insurers often hide question among the assumptions in their policy documents or other paperwork, so you can't assume that they don't want to know. Unless you are subject to direction from probation or the police, there is no obligation on you to disclose voluntarily. Once your conviction is spent, you should be able to get links removed, if you fill in the forms correctly and spoon-feed them the information. That might include proof that your conviction is actually spent, as one of our regulars has been finding out by applying to the ICO with a spent conviction. My offence was a none contact downloading offence for which I was given a 12 month suspended sentence 7 years ago. After five years I managed to get my SHPO discharged and my conviction is now legally spent but still Google refuses to remove links to my name to two grubby vigilante sites as "Its in the public interest". I complained to the ICO attaching a copy of my SHPO discharge notice from the court but still they backed Google's decision so I just think the ICO has no interest if you are a convicted SO My offence was also a download-based one (images). It does appear that Google and ICO really aren't interested if you're an SO unless it's a really old one like 20+ years. The "public interest" thing feels like a load of nonsense easy excuse too as there doesn't seem to be any real set standard for what constitutes "public interest". For example, I applied to Bing and to get results about me removed, they removed them the first time I asked and they were gone in about 3 days from their confirmation. Google says it is still in the public interest. What metric are they running to back that up? Is it a case of XX amount of people still searching for me and my offence every day? Because I refuse to believe people are still searching about me years on from when I was last reported about at sentencing. I posted in another thread about my efforts with ICO and they're just being quite dickish about it, to be honest and you have no way to appeal ICO's decision either. My latest effort I took nearly 6 months (due to their backlog) from my initial application, after 6 months of nothing I basically got "we're not going to speak to Google, piss off". So if I want to combat that I'd need to submit a new enquiry and go to the back of the queue, I can't just reply saying I disagree because XYZ or whatever - It's an utterly ludicrous system. I reckon the only real way to get any proper movement on Google removals at the moment if you're an SO is a legal-based route. By that I mean getting an actual solicitor involved saying "You need to remove these links because Law-X, you're infringing this because Law-Y, failure to comply will result in blahblahblah". Having just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? According to Unlock's website, you would have to approach them via Unlock. There is a questionnaire that they pass on. I'm guessing that if you contact them directly, you'll have to talk money first. It's the same law firm that famous people use, to sue magazines like private eye, for libel. Probably not cheap. Well, some people prefer to use Mishcon de Reya, but it's the same principle. They can outspend you on legal costs, so do you want to risk it? If you can show you're telling the truth, that should be good enough in most cases, but it might still be a risk if there's a jury involved, and having to pay those legal costs would be a real problem in most cases. Except where both parties are celebrities, of course....
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Lineofduty
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 69,
Visits: 345
|
+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
david123
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 1.8K
|
+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago. My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
david123
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 1.8K
|
+x+x+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago. My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already. Hi, Yes, the ICO know my offence is spent and I even sent them a copy of my SHPO discharge order from two years ago. I think their attitude is if your offence is of a sexual nature then they don't want to know spent or not!
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago. My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already. Hi, Yes, the ICO know my offence is spent and I even sent them a copy of my SHPO discharge order from two years ago. I think their attitude is if your offence is of a sexual nature then they don't want to know spent or not! It might seem that way, but they have acted in the past to overrule Google regarding spent convictions for sexual offences. In the cases I've seen on here recently, it could be explained by a failure to understand that a conviction is actually spent before they expect it to be. Maybe the ICO should contact Unlock for advice if there is any doubt....
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 728,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago. My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already. Hi, Yes, the ICO know my offence is spent and I even sent them a copy of my SHPO discharge order from two years ago. I think their attitude is if your offence is of a sexual nature then they don't want to know spent or not! This story from the Unlock website, demonstrates how the ICO can be persuaded to change their mind, if you are persistent enough. https://unlock.org.uk/personal_story/i-got-the-link-to-my-sexual-offence-conviction-removed-from-a-search-engine/"As a last throw of the dice, I applied to the ICO for a managerial review and to cut a long story short, I was eventually able to get the ICO to acknowledge the relevant evidence provided"
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 17K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHaving just tried again to get details of my spent conviction on a couple of vigilante sites removed from search results on my name and given the same 'still in the public interest' refusal reason by Google and the ICO I am thinking of taking legal advice. has anyone used Carter-Ruck law the firm recommended by Unlock? Or has anyone had any success getting information on spent convictions removed using a solicitor? Hi David Last year I successfully managed to get the online local newpaper article de-listed from a general Google search, and also the Google link to the well known vigilante website blocked**. My SHPO was only at 4 years (out of 7) and so I was very thankful. Google was my main concern and i thought maybe Yahoo would follow. How wrong was I. Even though i contested it with the ICO they agreed on "public interest" even though I used the same submission as I had with Google. But my circumstances are possibly unique and involve a third party and I was able to use them I think to convince Google. I still had to use and quote the ICO principles and tailor them to my circumstances. ** As has been covered on here previously the vigilante website is operated by a individual with 3 criminal convictions for violence and who blatantly operates his website with links and kick backs to "sell a story" merchants. Plus he operates in contravention of ICO rules as only governement agencies can run "centralised registers of individuals". Neither does his site comply with GDPR requirements for 3rd party privacy rights. I wrote to the ICO with certain evidence and they said they were looking at the site "as part of their wider investigations". It followed that the site was shut down and yet within a short space of time he was back up with a new URL. Simple as that. However, one tip is that if your photograph (or anyone's reading this) on that site was actually taken by you personally then you own the copyright and can ask for the photo (and try the article too?) to be removed under copyright rules. Maybe contact them and give it a go? If his webmaster (based in California, what a surprise) receive multiple requests in a short space of time from individuals to take down photographs under copyright law, then they will automatically suspend the site until such time he can prove that the photos are on there legally, which he's not going to do because that would mean revealing his contact details. I think the problem in this case is that the conviction is still unspent. You persuaded Google to do something they didn't have to do, but Yahoo wouldn't do it, and the ICO generally won't touch unspent convictions. Once your SHPO ends, your conviction will be spent and there should be no argument about it, but the ICO should then take your side if they have to get involved. Long wait, though. ☹️ My conviction is spent and my SHPO discharged five years early but Google still says that links to these vigilante websites is 'In the public interest' and the ICO have agreed with them! The original newspaper report no longer appears as it was archived years ago. My reply was actually to the post by Lineofduty, whose details are different to yours. I can only guess that the ICO is saying that being on the SOR keeps your case in the public interest, even though the previous commissioner only mentioned unspent convictions. Do they understand that your conviction is spent even though you are on the SOR? If not, maybe a basic DBS check would persuade them, if you haven't tried that already. Hi, Yes, the ICO know my offence is spent and I even sent them a copy of my SHPO discharge order from two years ago. I think their attitude is if your offence is of a sexual nature then they don't want to know spent or not! This story from the Unlock website, demonstrates how the ICO can be persuaded to change their mind, if you are persistent enough. https://unlock.org.uk/personal_story/i-got-the-link-to-my-sexual-offence-conviction-removed-from-a-search-engine/"As a last throw of the dice, I applied to the ICO for a managerial review and to cut a long story short, I was eventually able to get the ICO to acknowledge the relevant evidence provided" Thanks for the link, Punter! This is something I think I will be looking into again this year as I'm now officially a 'free' man as it were as I came off the register on Friday. If you trawl through this thread you'll see I've not had much luck with it in the past including going to ICO as they seem to just default to this "public interest" but seemingly there is no real quantifying measure for that which I feel there should be. When I had last tried I even referenced Google's own search metrics in regards to my name and searches relating to my name and case which showed zero interest. But alas... I'm interested in how they went about the managerial review though as any correspondence I have received from ICO relating to this advises there is no option to appeal and what they say is final.
|
|
|
|