Re: Not buying this "often-cited"
There's an awful lot in all of this that everyone shouldn't be buying.
We're told that the specific case was about Google listing a link to a newspaper article about a 20 year old bankrupcy.
We're told that this was impacting the claimants ability to obtain credit as it was being used by financial institutions to credit score the claimant.
Find me a single financial institution which scores its credit ratings from Google searches.
Find me a single financial institution which doesn't score its credit ratings using credit reference agencies.
We're told that convictions are in the public interest so cannot be removed... then we're told bankrupcy convictions can be struck off of the index. So obviously convictions can be removed from the index.
We're told that the original article is in the Public interest... but it's not in the Public interest for the Public to be able to find it. How the fuck does that logic work?
Now we're being reassured that what you can and can't find will be controlled by unelected officials of the ICO...
I'm still absolutely gobsmacked to keep reading articles by European Journalists who are willing to accept this arbitrary censorship of the index. Who don't have a problem with Public interest article being hidden away from the Public by unelected officials. I wonder if they'd see it as they do if they'd ever lived in a country where censorship was a problem, and if their acceptance of it isn't because they really don't understand the basic freedoms which are being fucked around with?
What's going on here is very, very odd... it's equivilent to someone claiming they can't get car insurance because there's a 20 year old newspaper article reporting the details of a serious car accident they were involved in long ago... it's just not believeable at all.