If the entire RTBF tag page has been delisted from Google, then yes that is a clear abuse of the law.
I think that's the point the entire RTBF hasn't been deslisted, the article is a little misleading in its choice of words in places. The first paragraph is slightly better worded:
To be clear, this only applies when someone searches the name in question -- which was not shared with us
So the RTBF posts will appear if anyone searches for anything, with the exception of the individuals name e.g. Joe Bloggs. If the name doesn't appear in the RTBF post, then it shouldn't be appearing as a search result anyway. So it is misleading to think this is a wider scope than normal.
Again, it's the balance neither freedom of information or privacy rights are absolute. You're only thinking about the freedom of people to read, which in many cases are inaccurate or misleading accounts. But you seem to give no thought to the freedom for the individual to make a living and live without fear, due to what can be an unfair article about an event that they may be unfairly implicated in. By denying an individual to simply have web results linked to their name removed which may be inaccuarate or outdated information, you are denying their liberty. It is balancing those competing rights, sometimes obvious and sometimes not so much.
You can't be "all for freedom of information" and also in favor of RTBF
Well, neither right is absolute. RTBF is a test to balance the use of an individuals personal data against the concept of public interest. We all need to ask ourselves if we would be happy if we had been wrongly arrested for say flashing in a public park. Had our picture and address on various websites, probably exaggerated the seriousness. Even if charges were dropped, webmasters refuses to remove article, or even note that charges had been dropped. Would you think that freedom of information was more important than your ability to get a job for the next 20 years, and fear for your safety?
We received notification this week that Google has delisted our entire right to be forgotten tag page, based on (of course) a right to be forgotten request under the GDPR in the EU. To be clear, this only applies when someone searches the name in question -- which was not shared with us
So it makes it clear it is just delisting pages when searched for an individual name, e.g. Joe Bloggs - not blocking the whole RTBF tag.
But at the end it states:
And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don't mention this particular individual at all -- so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted.
If the article doesn't mention say "Joe Bloggs", and delisting only takes place when the name in question is used - what's the problem? There will never be any "blocking" on pages that do not contain the name. So absolutely no difference, a non-issue. You can't block a page from appearing when someone searches on "Joe Bloggs", if "Joe Bloggs" is never mentioned on a page
So no, nothing to do with abusing right to be forgotten
Depends on your definition of "shady criminals". Of course many people using RTBF are people who were found "not guilty", or people who were found guilty, but later had their sentence quashed. So perfectly innocent. But all the public see is the original article, and assume it to be the most current information. Obviously there are lots of "shady criminals" who never get caught, their cases do not make the media, or have such a common name that they never rank very highly in search results anyway. So maybe a web search isn't the best way to know. Relevant employers where disclosure is needed can do criminal records checks, and these will be more accurate and current than a basic web search. The same for relevant bodies were accreditation is needed like in the financial services.
Yes, a lot of the cases are probably people who have a past convictions. In the UK for some crimes your conviction is considered spent after a set period of time, so you legally can say you do not have a criminal record if your conviction is considered spent. But if there is some decades old article mentioning it, then that right is trampled over. Research shows that the chance of someone reoffending after a number of years is no greater than a person who has never been convicted of a criminal offence. This probably varies between certain offences, but I would query whether a persons past is really the best method to rely on. And what about peoples rights to not have a larger tax bill because there are a whole chunk of people who will never get a job because the likes of Google who are more concerned with their advertising revenue. We end up all paying the unemployment benefit, housing benefit etc. because someone can't get a job as the old conviction is mentioned in a web search. Here in the UK the reporting standards of criminal cases is particularly poor, often sensationalised, and some downright lies. And you often see other sites taking the original article and exaggerating further. So I'm sceptical that a web search is really a good way to find out about a persons history, and I would query whether we all need to know such info, and if we do if we need to see it at the top of the search listings 20 years later. RTBF is simply a balancing act, where the question is asked about whether or not there is a public interest in search results coming up for specific names. It takes into account the accuracy of the info, how long ago it took place, the seriousness of the offence, the persons role in public life, as well as whether it is outdated etc.
"And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don't mention this particular individual at all -- so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted."
I'm confused by this. Right to be Forgotten can only be used if a result comes up mentioning a persons name. So pages not mentioning the name cannot be delisted. And they would only be delisted in connection to a name, so the page would still appear if someone searched on "Right to be forgotten", it just wouldn't appear under a search for say "Joe bloggs" or whatever his name is.Is this a mistake in the article?
In the ideal world a 20 year old drug conviction, wouldn't matter at a job interview. But the reality is many employers are not equipped with the knowledge to assess risk, and will just go for the other candidate who does not have such a past. Indeed, sometimes it is just about concern of reputation with customers. In the UK many convictions are considered spent after a certain period of time, so for most jobs the person doesn't have to declare it (it's different for jobs with children and the vunerable etc). They can legitimately say they do not have any past convictions. The thinking is that you are considered rehabilitated, and it is recognised that having to declare a criminal record means the person is unlikley to secure a job. We know that people who do not find employment after conviction are more likely to reoffend. So there is a public interest in enuring that people who have been rehabilitated can start a more normal life. Many of these cases are about older minor convictions, or cases were the person was found not guilty, or later appealed and the conviction quashed. For people who were convicted, and their conviction is spent. Having the old conviction appear right of the top in a search engine undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, undermining their right not to declare their past spent conviction. This results in more unemployed ex-offenders, effects them and their families financially - meaning a bigger burden on the state. We should also remember that search engines have deisgned their ranking to prioritise their ranking in certain ways, so it's not a case that their is no responsibility on their part. regarding the "recurring pattern of criminal history", it's much less likely that Google/Information commissioner would agree to delist then - as the right is not absolute.
It's not an absolute right. They weigh up a whole range of factors. Rape offenders are almost certainly unlikely to be delisted. Victims of rape, or those accused and who were found not guilty are more likely to benefit. The passage of time is a key indicator, but only in less serious offences. Remember it is only delisting the result in association with a particular name
So basically you have been trying to undermine Right to be forgotten law, by posting the guys name in articles about right to be forgotten. It sounds like they have only unlisted your page in relation to his name, so not really an impact on you at all. Sweden ruled recently that Google shouldn't be notifying webmasters of delisting requests. They gave a number of reasons, and one was that webmasters would do what you did and repost information on another page, and as such undermine the process. But they also noted by informing the webmaster, Google is breaking GDPR by passing on the name (albeit) indirectly about the person making the request. They also noted that webmasters are not in the position to know the details of why legally the search engines should delist. The test for a webmaster to remove an article for GDPR reasons is obviously much different than a test for a search engine to delist results based on a persons name. In most cases, it will not be relevant for the webmaster to know. Indeed often webmasters know very little about the accuracy of their content, they have simply copied it from elsewhere. I'm all for freedom of information, but it's often not in the public interest for web pages to be ranked right at the top against a persons name, when they can provide a legal basis that the information is inaccurate, out of date, and out of proportion. The little guy needs to have some rights to be able to continue with his life, and the RTBF gives some balance to this. Actions like this site, trying to circumvent the law, are likley to just lead to more draconian measures in order to protect peoples rights
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mistake in article?
I think that's the point the entire RTBF hasn't been deslisted, the article is a little misleading in its choice of words in places. The first paragraph is slightly better worded:
So the RTBF posts will appear if anyone searches for anything, with the exception of the individuals name e.g. Joe Bloggs. If the name doesn't appear in the RTBF post, then it shouldn't be appearing as a search result anyway. So it is misleading to think this is a wider scope than normal.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, it's the balance neither freedom of information or privacy rights are absolute. You're only thinking about the freedom of people to read, which in many cases are inaccurate or misleading accounts. But you seem to give no thought to the freedom for the individual to make a living and live without fear, due to what can be an unfair article about an event that they may be unfairly implicated in. By denying an individual to simply have web results linked to their name removed which may be inaccuarate or outdated information, you are denying their liberty. It is balancing those competing rights, sometimes obvious and sometimes not so much.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re:
Well, neither right is absolute. RTBF is a test to balance the use of an individuals personal data against the concept of public interest. We all need to ask ourselves if we would be happy if we had been wrongly arrested for say flashing in a public park. Had our picture and address on various websites, probably exaggerated the seriousness. Even if charges were dropped, webmasters refuses to remove article, or even note that charges had been dropped. Would you think that freedom of information was more important than your ability to get a job for the next 20 years, and fear for your safety?
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Mistake in article?
At the start of the article it states:
So it makes it clear it is just delisting pages when searched for an individual name, e.g. Joe Bloggs - not blocking the whole RTBF tag.
But at the end it states:
If the article doesn't mention say "Joe Bloggs", and delisting only takes place when the name in question is used - what's the problem? There will never be any "blocking" on pages that do not contain the name. So absolutely no difference, a non-issue. You can't block a page from appearing when someone searches on "Joe Bloggs", if "Joe Bloggs" is never mentioned on a page
So no, nothing to do with abusing right to be forgotten
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re:
Depends on your definition of "shady criminals". Of course many people using RTBF are people who were found "not guilty", or people who were found guilty, but later had their sentence quashed. So perfectly innocent. But all the public see is the original article, and assume it to be the most current information. Obviously there are lots of "shady criminals" who never get caught, their cases do not make the media, or have such a common name that they never rank very highly in search results anyway. So maybe a web search isn't the best way to know. Relevant employers where disclosure is needed can do criminal records checks, and these will be more accurate and current than a basic web search. The same for relevant bodies were accreditation is needed like in the financial services.
Yes, a lot of the cases are probably people who have a past convictions. In the UK for some crimes your conviction is considered spent after a set period of time, so you legally can say you do not have a criminal record if your conviction is considered spent. But if there is some decades old article mentioning it, then that right is trampled over. Research shows that the chance of someone reoffending after a number of years is no greater than a person who has never been convicted of a criminal offence. This probably varies between certain offences, but I would query whether a persons past is really the best method to rely on. And what about peoples rights to not have a larger tax bill because there are a whole chunk of people who will never get a job because the likes of Google who are more concerned with their advertising revenue. We end up all paying the unemployment benefit, housing benefit etc. because someone can't get a job as the old conviction is mentioned in a web search. Here in the UK the reporting standards of criminal cases is particularly poor, often sensationalised, and some downright lies. And you often see other sites taking the original article and exaggerating further. So I'm sceptical that a web search is really a good way to find out about a persons history, and I would query whether we all need to know such info, and if we do if we need to see it at the top of the search listings 20 years later. RTBF is simply a balancing act, where the question is asked about whether or not there is a public interest in search results coming up for specific names. It takes into account the accuracy of the info, how long ago it took place, the seriousness of the offence, the persons role in public life, as well as whether it is outdated etc.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Mistake in article?
"And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don't mention this particular individual at all -- so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted."
I'm confused by this. Right to be Forgotten can only be used if a result comes up mentioning a persons name. So pages not mentioning the name cannot be delisted. And they would only be delisted in connection to a name, so the page would still appear if someone searched on "Right to be forgotten", it just wouldn't appear under a search for say "Joe bloggs" or whatever his name is.Is this a mistake in the article?
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Re:
In the ideal world a 20 year old drug conviction, wouldn't matter at a job interview. But the reality is many employers are not equipped with the knowledge to assess risk, and will just go for the other candidate who does not have such a past. Indeed, sometimes it is just about concern of reputation with customers. In the UK many convictions are considered spent after a certain period of time, so for most jobs the person doesn't have to declare it (it's different for jobs with children and the vunerable etc). They can legitimately say they do not have any past convictions. The thinking is that you are considered rehabilitated, and it is recognised that having to declare a criminal record means the person is unlikley to secure a job. We know that people who do not find employment after conviction are more likely to reoffend. So there is a public interest in enuring that people who have been rehabilitated can start a more normal life. Many of these cases are about older minor convictions, or cases were the person was found not guilty, or later appealed and the conviction quashed. For people who were convicted, and their conviction is spent. Having the old conviction appear right of the top in a search engine undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, undermining their right not to declare their past spent conviction. This results in more unemployed ex-offenders, effects them and their families financially - meaning a bigger burden on the state. We should also remember that search engines have deisgned their ranking to prioritise their ranking in certain ways, so it's not a case that their is no responsibility on their part. regarding the "recurring pattern of criminal history", it's much less likely that Google/Information commissioner would agree to delist then - as the right is not absolute.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re:
It's not an absolute right. They weigh up a whole range of factors. Rape offenders are almost certainly unlikely to be delisted. Victims of rape, or those accused and who were found not guilty are more likely to benefit. The passage of time is a key indicator, but only in less serious offences. Remember it is only delisting the result in association with a particular name
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
So basically you have been trying to undermine Right to be forgotten law, by posting the guys name in articles about right to be forgotten. It sounds like they have only unlisted your page in relation to his name, so not really an impact on you at all. Sweden ruled recently that Google shouldn't be notifying webmasters of delisting requests. They gave a number of reasons, and one was that webmasters would do what you did and repost information on another page, and as such undermine the process. But they also noted by informing the webmaster, Google is breaking GDPR by passing on the name (albeit) indirectly about the person making the request. They also noted that webmasters are not in the position to know the details of why legally the search engines should delist. The test for a webmaster to remove an article for GDPR reasons is obviously much different than a test for a search engine to delist results based on a persons name. In most cases, it will not be relevant for the webmaster to know. Indeed often webmasters know very little about the accuracy of their content, they have simply copied it from elsewhere. I'm all for freedom of information, but it's often not in the public interest for web pages to be ranked right at the top against a persons name, when they can provide a legal basis that the information is inaccurate, out of date, and out of proportion. The little guy needs to have some rights to be able to continue with his life, and the RTBF gives some balance to this. Actions like this site, trying to circumvent the law, are likley to just lead to more draconian measures in order to protect peoples rights
Next >>