|
BeKind
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 116
|
Hi all,
Does anyone have experiences of using the paid for services of companies that provide internet deletion services please?
I’ve attempted removal requests with Google but my success has been limited. I’m curious if these companies might be more effective. Any advice or personal feedback would be greatly appreciated please!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Evan Davis
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 80,
Visits: 2.7K
|
I myself don't have experience of using such a service, but I've spoken to several callers to Unlock's Helpline who have. We do not as a matter of course recommend firms, for obvious reasons. That being said, we are happy to say that we've received (generally) very good feedback from callers about Internet Erasure. ( Internet Erasure - Welcome to Internet Erasure - Right to be Forgotten Service) That being said, I am a firm believer that these companies are no more powerful than you or I. We absolutely can achieve the same results, if we're persistent, ready to put in the research and ready to challenge when necessary. I'd advise having one more read through Unlock's advice & information article on the Google effect before deciding to part with cold, hard cash! The 'google effect', internet search results and the right to be forgotten - Unlock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
I agree with Evan,
These people don't really have any more power or sway than you do, in fact, they arguably have less because they're not advocating for themselves directly.
I managed to get articles removed through Google myself without much fuss - Failed on the first attempt but that was because my sentence wasn't spent. As soon as it became spent there was zero issue and they removed everything I asked and if anything pops up they continue to remove anything I report.
Bing have been a bit of a pain in the arse but I'm currently working with ICO to address that and given Google have already removed stuff works a bit more in my favour as it gives them less "Public interest" wiggle room as it's clearly not.
The biggest thing I've found in my experience and research when it comes to removing stuff is if your offence isn't spent then forget about it until it is, search engines typically won't budge. I'm happy to lend my advice and whatnot with you.
|
|
|
|
|
BeKind
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 116
|
Thanks for your feedback which is very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
O Brown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6,
Visits: 65
|
+xI agree with Evan, These people don't really have any more power or sway than you do, in fact, they arguably have less because they're not advocating for themselves directly. I managed to get articles removed through Google myself without much fuss - Failed on the first attempt but that was because my sentence wasn't spent. As soon as it became spent there was zero issue and they removed everything I asked and if anything pops up they continue to remove anything I report. Bing have been a bit of a pain in the arse but I'm currently working with ICO to address that and given Google have already removed stuff works a bit more in my favour as it gives them less "Public interest" wiggle room as it's clearly not. The biggest thing I've found in my experience and research when it comes to removing stuff is if your offence isn't spent then forget about it until it is, search engines typically won't budge. I'm happy to lend my advice and whatnot with you. Hiya Please let me know the steps you took and if there was anything specific to write down on requests. I have a few local new paper articles which I need removing and my conviction is spent.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xHiya Please let me know the steps you took and if there was anything specific to write down on requests. I have a few local new paper articles which I need removing and my conviction is spent. Hey there, there are a couple of prerequisites to sort first. - Sentence must be spent - You mention yours is, so that's great!
- You can't be a public/famous person - If you're a politician, famous musician, or even a prominent local businessman then you'll likely get rejected
- A list of all the URLs you want removed - Spent a little bit of time Googling yourself under various parameters to make sure you catch everything. "John Smith, John Smith City, John Smith Sentenced, John Smith [CRIME]" you get the ide
After you've gotten that sorted head to their removals form which you can access here: https://reportcontent.google.com/forms/rtbfThe form is fairly self-explanatory and simple enough to navigate. The big thing is the "Reason For Removal" box and what you put in there. For me and my situation I pushed my statement focusing on: - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
- Irrelevance/Outdated
- Inappropriate
- Not in the Public Interest
I have redacted some of the information here (personal info and stuff) but to give you an idea this is what I wrote: I request that the above URL link/s about me, should not be included as a search result for
the following reasons:
Irrelevant - These are referencing a crime that happened nearly half a decade ago. My sentence has long been spent and under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 I am no longer seen as a danger to the public and should be treated as such.
Inappropriate - Some of these links, mainly the [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] ones are the result of harassment. The [REDACTED] account in question has also spent time coming to my home to harrass me as a result of these searches putting myself and loved ones at risk. It is also severely affecting my ability to get back into gainful employment and go back to being a productive member of society.
Not In The Public Interest - I am not a famous or a public figure. As mentioned, this crime was nearly half a decade ago and it has been considered spent for years under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Some of the news sites have long since archived the links due to their irrelevance yet the archives still exist.
I have spoken with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) who have advised to approach you directly first for an amicable solution.
If I do not received a satisfactory response, I will consider taking this matter further with the Information Commissioners Office.
Yours faithfully,
NAME Took about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 8.3K
|
+x+xHiya Please let me know the steps you took and if there was anything specific to write down on requests. I have a few local new paper articles which I need removing and my conviction is spent. Hey there, there are a couple of prerequisites to sort first. - Sentence must be spent - You mention yours is, so that's great!
- You can't be a public/famous person - If you're a politician, famous musician, or even a prominent local businessman then you'll likely get rejected
- A list of all the URLs you want removed - Spent a little bit of time Googling yourself under various parameters to make sure you catch everything. "John Smith, John Smith City, John Smith Sentenced, John Smith [CRIME]" you get the ide
After you've gotten that sorted head to their removals form which you can access here: https://reportcontent.google.com/forms/rtbfThe form is fairly self-explanatory and simple enough to navigate. - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
- Irrelevance/Outdated
- Inappropriate
- Not in the Public Interest
I have redacted some of the information here (personal info and stuff) but to give you an idea this is what I wrote: I request that the above URL link/s about me, should not be included as a search result for
the following reasons:
Irrelevant - These are referencing a crime that happened nearly half a decade ago. My sentence has long been spent and under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 I am no longer seen as a danger to the public and should be treated as such.
Inappropriate - Some of these links, mainly the [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] ones are the result of harassment. The [REDACTED] account in question has also spent time coming to my home to harrass me as a result of these searches putting myself and loved ones at risk. It is also severely affecting my ability to get back into gainful employment and go back to being a productive member of society.
Not In The Public Interest - I am not a famous or a public figure. As mentioned, this crime was nearly half a decade ago and it has been considered spent for years under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Some of the news sites have long since archived the links due to their irrelevance yet the archives still exist.
I have spoken with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) who have advised to approach you directly first for an amicable solution.
If I do not received a satisfactory response, I will consider taking this matter further with the Information Commissioners Office.
Yours faithfully,
NAME Took about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Hope this helps! If you want any further support with this, you can contact the Unlock helpline if you want to discuss it, or you can read through their information and advice about this.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
O Brown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6,
Visits: 65
|
+x+xHiya Please let me know the steps you took and if there was anything specific to write down on requests. I have a few local new paper articles which I need removing and my conviction is spent. Hey there, there are a couple of prerequisites to sort first. - Sentence must be spent - You mention yours is, so that's great!
- You can't be a public/famous person - If you're a politician, famous musician, or even a prominent local businessman then you'll likely get rejected
- A list of all the URLs you want removed - Spent a little bit of time Googling yourself under various parameters to make sure you catch everything. "John Smith, John Smith City, John Smith Sentenced, John Smith [CRIME]" you get the ide
After you've gotten that sorted head to their removals form which you can access here: https://reportcontent.google.com/forms/rtbfThe form is fairly self-explanatory and simple enough to navigate. - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
- Irrelevance/Outdated
- Inappropriate
- Not in the Public Interest
I have redacted some of the information here (personal info and stuff) but to give you an idea this is what I wrote: I request that the above URL link/s about me, should not be included as a search result for
the following reasons:
Irrelevant - These are referencing a crime that happened nearly half a decade ago. My sentence has long been spent and under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 I am no longer seen as a danger to the public and should be treated as such.
Inappropriate - Some of these links, mainly the [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] ones are the result of harassment. The [REDACTED] account in question has also spent time coming to my home to harrass me as a result of these searches putting myself and loved ones at risk. It is also severely affecting my ability to get back into gainful employment and go back to being a productive member of society.
Not In The Public Interest - I am not a famous or a public figure. As mentioned, this crime was nearly half a decade ago and it has been considered spent for years under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Some of the news sites have long since archived the links due to their irrelevance yet the archives still exist.
I have spoken with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) who have advised to approach you directly first for an amicable solution.
If I do not received a satisfactory response, I will consider taking this matter further with the Information Commissioners Office.
Yours faithfully,
NAME Took about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Hope this helps! Many Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
tedstriker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 58,
Visits: 3.1K
|
+xTook about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Have you done the additional ones recently? I had a few links removed from my initial request then any subsequent ones that popped up were removed simply by replying to the original email. I noticed a new one the other day (same source, an archive page with a slight mention) so emailed but i've heard nothing back in nearly two weeks, despite chasing.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+xTook about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Have you done the additional ones recently? I had a few links removed from my initial request then any subsequent ones that popped up were removed simply by replying to the original email. I noticed a new one the other day (same source, an archive page with a slight mention) so emailed but i've heard nothing back in nearly two weeks, despite chasing. Not super recently, thankfully I wasn't reported on too much so it limits the potential for the spread. Most recent I flagged up on the 11th of April (2025) and got a reply on the 18th of April that it have been removed, which is definitely longer than usual.
|
|
|
|