|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+x+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. I would definitely recommend following that link, as it has useful information for anyone who is starting an application to Google, in terms of what the law says you can expect from them. If they refuse your application, they have to give "compelling legitimate grounds", not just alleged public interest. I would expect that to apply to the ICO as well. In that particular case, it might be that the basic DBS check proved that the conviction was spent, which should carry a lot of weight, even if there is no guarantee. That could be especially useful for khafka, as a basic check from Disclosure Scotland would show that his conviction is spent in Scotland, where he lives.
=========================================================================================================
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: 809,
Visits: 6.2K
|
+x+xThanks 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. One thing i just remembered from reading a solicitor's blog who specialised in "google" removals (and probably profited from it handsomely) is that when writing to Google, a newspaper or whoever, it was good to separate out the risk from the public interest. So, in summary, the ending or revocation early of the SHPO was related to the "risk" (to the public) and clearly that risk was now deemed to be zero/minimal. To counter the "public interest" element he said that showing that someone was still subject to the SOR notifications (perhaps for a few years still) was clear evidence that the public interest was being proportionately served AND managed by the police, so there was no justification for google or any other organisation to use the public interest factor. In other words, take the weblink down, the risk is now satisfied and the police are looking after the public interest (not google). Took me a while to get my head round that but actually makes perfect sense and logic. https://arighttobeforgotten.co.uk/right-to-be-forgotten-example/right-to-be-forgotten-criminal-convictionAs with so many of these things, it can all come down to getting your case heard by someone who is sympathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
Lineofduty
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 69,
Visits: 345
|
+xThanks 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. One thing i just remembered from reading a solicitor's blog who specialised in "google" removals (and probably profited from it handsomely) is that when writing to Google, a newspaper or whoever, it was good to separate out the risk from the public interest. So, in summary, the ending or revocation early of the SHPO was related to the "risk" (to the public) and clearly that risk was now deemed to be zero/minimal. To counter the "public interest" element he said that showing that someone was still subject to the SOR notifications (perhaps for a few years still) was clear evidence that the public interest was being proportionately served AND managed by the police, so there was no justification for google or any other organisation to use the public interest factor. In other words, take the weblink down, the risk is now satisfied and the police are looking after the public interest (not google). Took me a while to get my head round that but actually makes perfect sense and logic.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 334,
Visits: 18K
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 809,
Visits: 6.2K
|
+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"
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+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)
|
|
|
|
|
david123
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+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: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+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: 24,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+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: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+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)
|
|
|
|