Don't let Google dox me on Lumen Database, nameless man begs A man trying to sue Google is so terrified of being doxed by the ad tech company's Lumen Database that he has managed to hide his name from High Court judges for almost a year. The anonymous claimant, a middle-aged man we can only name as ABC, appeared without a lawyer at London's High Court on Friday (24 August) in an …
"Unless the court, in the round, understands all the circumstances of the case as to the background, as to any risk that actually, of undermining the order, obviously that will defeat the object"
Sorry, downvoters. I re-read this and attempted to diagram it, but it might as well be Furbish.
It's still palpable, ungrammatical blither, brought on by a desire to use twenty words when six will do.
The BBC's Technology + Creativity Blog posts a list of BBC pages that have been removed from Google's search results, here's the lastest post. It can be a most interesting read.
Christmas, the following New Years Day, my birthday, my sisters birthday, her husbands birthday, and my brothers ex wife's birthday, all fall on the same day of the week, all within a couple of months. I'm too scared to ask about my brothers new wife's birthday. The rest of the family, no idea, they had to make theirs hard.
Having been on the end (or more specifically stuck in the middle) of ranting incoherence like this I recognise this pattern of stubborn paranoia.
At work we regularly have these complainants who are effectively regular customers. One weeks it's dog shit, next it's garden waste, then it'll be something else and each and every complaint is taken to the highest level possible i.e the the Prime Minister and and Queen are cc'd into dog shit complaints.
The chap may well have a valid point somewhere in his ramblings but he is incapable of putting this across in meaningful terms and also incapable or seeking the right help in dealing with his issues. He may well have some form of mental illness.
'Querulous complainant's is the term I have learned, in short - I complain therefore I am.
There is a good (and readable) paper on the SPSO website - http://www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/sites/valuingcomplaints/files/resources/Querulous%20Complainants%20WEB.pdf
IMH experience the majority of querulous complainants have an underlying mental or personality disorder. Unfortunately this means that they will often be quite harassing to the people who are trying to help them.
They will often have a very definite idea of the answer they expect to get in response to their complaint and will reject any answer which does not support this already established expectation.
Their belief in conspiracies is often unshakable despite the relit y being that the public sector is just not competent or loyal enough to run a proper conspiracy.
vexatious litigants. There's a sort list who are forbidden to bring actions in court.
A probably larger population have orders that they may only bring an action after first obtaining the permission of a named judge, or their successor.
In respect of one idiot that was very welcome.
There's really no such thing as changing your name by deed poll - you simply take on a new name any time you like. The process of using a solicitor for this is simply to provide a verifiable record of when you did this, but it's absolutely not necessary, I can change my name to Schnicklegruber right now if i so desire as long as that's the only name I use until I decide to change it again.
Hasn't he? He's never dealt with organised crime cases then?
To be fair, it is clear that the complainant does not know how to go about it but then again most of us don't and when we do, we realise how terribly expensive and frustrating the whole process is.
"Hasn't he? He's never dealt with organised crime cases then?"
In those cases, the complainant would be The Crown. Individual witnesses may well be kept anonymous from the defendant and the public record, but will most certainly be known to the court and the prosecution. This guy is currently refusing to even tell the court who he is and the defendant needs to know who he his if they are to take any action in respect of his complaint.
Ps "There are some problems with your post. The title is too long." Looks the Re: took it over the limit.
Yes - it's bad form of El Reg not to mention that Pinsents are media partners/sponcon(?) with El Reg.
Also, considering the reported detail but also the [sic], it seems like The Reg was relying on a source in court who was not a hack but who was keen to name check the barrister and law firm. Who might that have been?
Ye gods. Pinsents haven't been media partners of the Reg for years - nice to see a long term reader commenting, terrible to see you evidently don't read us that often. In fact Pinsents was one of the tiny number of law firms to criticise El Reg's open justice win in the Upper Tribunal earlier this year.
You'll find any good court reporter regularly namechecks barristers and solicitors' firms, mainly because that allows the informed reader to figure out how much money that side is flinging at the case. The lawyers may think it's an ego boost - it reveals just as much as what the complainant was wearing.
As for your "source in court" snark, my name is at the top of the article. Why? Because I sat there in Court 37 watching my Friday beer o'clock go speeding past and wrote down all that was said. If I was cribbing off someone else, I'd have namechecked them and linked to them. Doubtless Google would love to nobble El Reg's coverage of court cases brought against them but they ain't doing it through me.
(psst, Sergey, Larry, double this week's cheque or I spill the beans)
"it reveals just as much as what the complainant was wearing."
I was gonna comment on the descriptions of what the complainant was wearing. Why is that important? What does it reveal? Why are people so fussy about what other people wear? Oh wait, I can answer that last one, it's coz the fashion industry likes to make large profits. Clothes do not make the man, as a descendant of several generations of tailors and dressmakers I can tell you, man (or woman) makes the clothes.
I'm in the middle of three weeks of jury duty. Last week I turned up wearing no footwear, and despite the fact there was no mention anywhere of what to wear on your feet, I was turned away from performing my duty. Why is what I'm wearing on my feet important, when they only need my mind to perform my jury duty?
Anyone can wear a business suit and a fake Rolex watch, it means nothing. "Dressed in mismatched jacket and trousers" may just mean he is colour blind. "gold-coloured watch below his cuff-linked sleeve" means he begged, borrowed, stole, or actually owns a watch and cufflinks, that he decided to wear that day. Still doesn't say anything about the actual person wearing them. The worlds worst scum, and the worlds most saintly person, can both wear the same clothes. No one makes you sit a six week morals course when you buy clothes, they only care that you can pay for them.
"I was gonna comment on the descriptions of what the complainant was wearing."
I wondered about that. I assume we are supposed to draw some insight from the fact the guy was wearing "mismatched jacket and trousers", but I'm at a loss to what it is. Apart from anything else "mismatched" is a matter of opinion, and I don't read El Reg for the fashion.
And now for the sequel to my jury duty adventures.
I turned up for jury duty again today. This time I was wearing footwear. I got into the jury assembly area, where I sat for almost an hour watching the news on the big screens. Coz I was a bit early, and they where running late. Eventually they got around to telling me that because I had been excused the previous time for being barefoot, I am now excused for the rest of my three week jury duty period, no matter what I wear.
Foolish footwear fashion following fuckers don't forgive or forget, I'm flabbergasted.
Wow. I hope you still get paid whatever compensation you would normally get paid.
Anyway, a handy tip for avoiding jury service in the future!
As an aside, in my clubbing days, there was this really cooled chilled out nightclub in Mumbles village, that sorta had an "inverse dress code" - well, not literally, but generally most guys were there in casual jeans, or even shorts and sandals (me!) .
In the clubs in nearby Swansea city, you invariably had the groups of people "smartly dressed" who invariably started fights... The sort who's only other chance to wear a suit is at their court hearing :-)
If they had been kicked out of too many clubs they'd often 'spill over' to Mumbles, and would be refused entry because they were most likely the "smartly dressed thugs".
I was working in London shortly afterwards, and I told a mate there, who didn't believe me.. We visited back home once, and went down Mumbles, and even his casual clothes appeared too formal, and he was only allowed in after I vouched for him!
"Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that ABC must provide his name and address to the ad tech company and the court within seven days, ... "
Why do google need to know his name and address? Certainly he needs to identify himself to the court to the court's satisfaction, but why do Google need to know where he lives?
This is a plaintiff. They are applying to have the court order someone to do something. That's implicitly using the government to force something to happen.
Views differ on what level of privacy you should be entitled. But few would expect that you should have the government do something on your behalf while remaining anonymous.
"Orders of the court are not matters that you are free to decide when and if you will comply with them. When a court orders - makes an order like this, you comply with it," said Mr Justice Nicklin.
If only Mr Justice Nicklin would only transfer to the Family Division.
There must be thousands, tens of thousands, of court orders made there and totally ignored by obstructive parents, by far the majority being mothers, with total impunity.
There is some merit in the persons actions. We now live in a world in which search engines are judge, jury and executioner in that accusations are taken as evidence of a crime having been committed! If you are accused of anything then "of course it's true" even if it isn't. There is no such thing as unbiased justice. Ultimately it is down to a group of people deciding whether or not a person has committed a crime. That's fine if there is physical evidence (like DNA traces or a gun) but what if somebody has been accused of a historical crime and there is no evidence, no witnesses and it's all down to one person's story vs another? That's when you get trial by media. Look what happened to Cliff Richard for instance. What about malicious aggegations?
...but the other way around.
There are two fundamental items of information any defendant requires to defend themselves from a legal charge - what am I charged with, and ***WHO*** is charging me.
There are arguments for and against as to whether the public should have access to this information before, during, or after a trail, but *within* a trial it is fundamental.
This complainant is making an argument that is without merit. Strip away all the nonsense, and it seems fairly simple - ABC doesn't want to identify himself for fear of his identity being published. But there's already an anonymity order in place, so the court has already used its powers to prevent ABC's identity being revealed. There's no good reason for ABC not to identify themselves to the court and the defendant.
"I'd like the court to make Google remove all mention from their databases of John Charles of Epping who was in front of a judge last year for defrauding lots of old people because it's stopping me setting up a series of totally legitimate businesses where OAPs give me money to invest in pyramid schemes."
I'm really puzzled as to how he has managed to pay for any of this anonymously. Getting a judge and lawyers into a court room is a lengthy and expensive process, has he just been dropping bundles of cash off in the admin office?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
