Anon man suing Google wants crim conviction to be forgotten

The nameless man suing Google is doing so over a blog post containing details of a criminal court report, making this a Right To Be Forgotten case, The Register can reveal. The man, known only as ABC, has been attempting to force Google to delete references to a Blogspot post since late last year. He began by writing direct to …

[AndyS]

Right to be forgotten

I find myself conflicted in these cases.

In some ways, it is unfair for a conviction to follow people forever, where the courts have stated a limit. Assuming ABC is not convicted with a life sentence, his conviction will be "spent" after a certain period. If old reports are damaging people beyond that period, I have some sympathy.

But then, the whole point of a search engine is to make data more easily available. Court records most certainly are data, and opening them up is a massive benefit to the population as a whole. If his conviction is not spent, and someone merely reported about it... well then, tough luck. That's part of the consequences.

What I don't quite understand is what Google et al are realistically meant to do in order to pre-emptively filter out results, or why they should do so at all. The responsibility surely lies with the people publishing the information, not the company organising it. The librarian isn't responsible for the content of a book you object to.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Court records [..] are data, and opening them up is a massive benefit"

The issue is how search engines work. They actually just rank "pages" using algorithms based on "popularity". That could give an utterly skewed picture of facts. You get court records mingled with news maybe based on fragmentary information (maybe corrected later, but less "popular"), posts by people who may know a lot or very little about what they're talking about, etc. etc.

Is this a "massive benefit"? For those who understand how engine works and how to read the result, probably - but there are many others who blindly believe whatever the search engine returns - "Google can't be wrong", and the benefit looks far less "massive".

Search engines are not designed for returning "faithful" results. They are now designed to sustain ads operations, and we see how the yellow-press like operations can lead to more exposure and more clicks.

So while the availability of data is good, the way they are accessed, aggregated and displayed may be not.

Could we build "social responsibility" inside search engines? Probably not, it would be very difficult. Yet, they can have cascading effects on society, because they are far from being even "neutral".

[tom dial]

Re: "Court records [..] are data, and opening them up is a massive benefit"

Libraries also "are not designed for returning 'faithful' results," and a thorough search of public library resources would turn up court records as well as news reports of varying degrees of accuracy and completeness as well as varying shades of yellow. Should we, then, grant a right to have things removed from library catalogs, or is Google (and presumably Yahoo, Bing, and so on) a target only because their use of technology makes it possible to do the mechanical part of a search in seconds rather than somewhere between minutes and months?

[LucreLout]

Re: Right to be forgotten

In some ways, it is unfair for a conviction to follow people forever, where the courts have stated a limit. Assuming ABC is not convicted with a life sentence, his conviction will be "spent" after a certain period. If old reports are damaging people beyond that period, I have some sympathy.

Save your sympathy for his victims. Criminals are both self selecting and stupid enough to get caught.

I'm all in favour of letting criminals hide their past misdeeds just as soon as society invents a way to remove all adverse affects from the victims first. If society continues to punish someone with a discoverable but otherwise spent conviction, then society has declared that the punishment levied by the courts was insufficient.

I'd be quite happy to do business with someone with a conviction for say weed posession, or drunk & disorderly in their youth. I'd not be happy to do business with a fraudster or violent criminal - if you are dishonest or can't control your base impulses then you're a disaster waiting to happen, and I'd rather not foot the bill when you do.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Criminals are both self selecting and stupid enough to get caught.

That's a bit sweeping. You can get a criminal record for a fairly minor offence. Or keep one after a change in the law (Alan Turing springs to mind).

And society judges people rehabilitated once they have served their sentence or paid their fine, and criminal records in many cases are expunged after a certain time, assuming no new convictions. IANAL so I'm probably wrong on the details here.

Criminal records are public so that it is possible to check them without using a search engine.

That said, this chappy does seem to be on a hiding to nothing and is likely soon to have his name splashed all over the interwebs precisely because he does have something to hide.

[LucreLout]

Re: Right to be forgotten

That's a bit sweeping.

Encompassing as it may be, its completely true. To be convicted you must be caught, and to be caught you must have chosen to commit a crime; thus self selecting and stupid enough to get caught.

And society judges people rehabilitated once they have served their sentence or paid their fine, and criminal records in many cases are expunged after a certain time, assuming no new convictions.

The legal system may very well judge spent convictions to be rehabilitation, but society obviously does not, or so many convicts wouldn't be asking the court to further conceal the evidence of their crimes. The legal system, rather than insisting it is right and society is wrong, should be listening to society and ensuring sufficient punishment for offences and proper rehabilitation; that way people wouldn't care about prior convictions.

Speaking only for myself here, I have zero faith that in the current system, a fraudster is reformed rather than currently undetected. The same goes for a violent offender - are they acutally reformed, or just waiting for an excuse to lose control again? If your view differs, then by all means, go right ahead an employ such folk or otherwise engage them in business. Right now, under the current system, I think I'd prefer to pass, thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"stupid enough to get caught"

While stupid criminals are easier to catch, luckily sometimes even criminals who aren't stupid are caught.... some investigators are not stupid too.

Spent convictions are not "rehabilitation", still the law states that once a conviction is spent, you have the same rights of the other citizens unless the term of the conviction bans you from some for a number of years. Is it right or wrong? If you think is wrong, the law needs to be changed - but a society can't apply extrajudicial punishment through simple "word of mouth" - just like a "scarlet letter".

I have no sympathy for this person who is probably a bad one, still, law needs to take into account a much broader picture, or we will be back soon to hang people for minor crimes.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Right to be forgotten

The legal system, rather than insisting it is right and society is wrong, should be listening to society and ensuring sufficient punishment for offences and proper rehabilitation

Ah, the court of public opinion. Whip up sufficient frenzy and you can criminalise pretty much everything and imprison anybody, and turn them into proper criminals by doing so. The legal system is far from perfect but keeping it from having to bow directly to public opinion is essential. Tougher sentences invariably means more prisoners, means more prisons and prison officers, which means much higher spending. People might love the idea of tougher sentences, but they're often not so keen on paying for them. Along with 101 on the populist's wishlist.

This notwithstanding: non-violent, so-called white collar crime such as fraud is much less likely to land someone in prison than robbery. There may be good reasons for this or it could just be good old-fashioned class bias: can't have people like Stephen Fry or BoJo or, <insert name here> doing time for a hearty jape now, or can we?

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: Right to be forgotten

can't have people like Stephen Fry or BoJo or, <insert name here> doing time for a hearty jape now, or can we?

You do know that Stephen Fry actually did time in prison for credit card fraud don't you? He doesn't exactly make a secret of it.

[King Jack]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"To be convicted you must be caught, and to be caught you must have chosen to commit a crime."

No, you can be framed by a malicious person. It is easy to do. All that is needed is for a girl to cry rape on you. You get arrested and if your skin colour is wrong you'll end up in court with a good good chance of winding up on the Sex Offenders Register. You have done nothing but your life will be ruined. By the way when this happens even if the girl is proved to be making it up, the police won't do a thing to exonerate you.

Life is not as simple as you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal wants record of crimes expunged so he can continue his criminal ways

That's how I read this. If records of his conviction are "preventing him from setting up an investment business" that sounds like his previous conviction was for some sort of an investment scam. If it was something like drunk driving I can't see why potential investors would consider that disqualifying for an investment advisor.

If anyone is going to suggest that someone convicted of financial fraud should be able to have that record hidden after the conviction is 'spent' or whatever weird term you right ponders use, so that potential future investors can get scammed again, I'm sorry but I will NEVER agree with you on that. Maybe you believe he's benefit of the doubt, but investors need to have ALL the relevant information about anyone they are trusting their finances to - so it should be up to the investors to determine whether they believe he has reformed or not. So YOU can damn well invest with a former felon if you want to support him in his supposed reform!

[Yes Me]

Re: Criminal wants record of crimes expunged so he can continue his criminal ways

An "entrepreneur" wants to conceal his record so that he can gull people into investing, is how I read it.

Here's another problem. http://squaremilenews.blogspot.com/2017/12/ for example is easy to find (thanks to the court case; I'd never heard of it) and it's easy to speculate whether one of the cases they reported in December triggered the lawsuit in January. But that risks even more harm than the original Google result, and the risk applies to every convicted person mentioned recently on the site. So what ABC has done is make things worse for ABC and a bunch of other people.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Criminal wants record of crimes expunged so he can continue his criminal ways

If anyone is going to suggest that someone convicted of financial fraud should be able to have that record hidden

But nobody is suggesting that so you can get off your high horse. Anyway, it's not as if being a serial fraudster is a hindrance to any career in the US, including the presidency,

[Alan Brown]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"The legal system may very well judge spent convictions to be rehabilitation, but society obviously does not, or so many convicts wouldn't be asking the court to further conceal the evidence of their crimes."

There's a reason for that.

Someone I know has 2 convictions for fraud, gained 25 years ago (writing stolen cheques and bogus insurance claims). He's been trying to get those expunged recently, claiming those were the result of a misspent youth.

The problem is that in the intervening 25 years, he's been caught making forgeries trying to hijack people's domain names, attempted postal fraud, illegal lotteries and a bunch of other dodgy shit - and in all cases either the victims have decided they really don't want to go through the expense and hassle of suing him or the police have decided he's not worth prosecuting (for the postal fraud, the local postmaster has it sitting on file, for evidence if it ever happens again - there's no statute of limitations on that one)

Officially, NONE of this other stuff counts. Only the convictions do. What it actually means at a practical is that another prosecution is necessary - simply to prevent him burying his past in order to be able to ramp up his ongoing activities - vs being able to point people to the convictions and a few people he's crossed paths with.

On the other hand there are convicts who have exemplary records since that point - and my experience is that they're the kind of people who usually don't try to conceal the information.

[veti]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Amateur. The way to be forgotten by Google is to get a gig writing some worthless but opinionated column for a reasonably well known publication. After a few months of this, any old results will be buried below the front page of search results, and we all know who checks those.

Example - try googling Andrew Orlowski, see what youthful misdemeanours you can find...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right to be forgotten

>Example - try googling Andrew Orlowski, see what youthful misdemeanours you can find..

Happily obliging:

http://ktetch.co.uk/2011/05/andrew-orlowski-drunk-unethical-or-just-plain-crap/

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Encompassing as it may be, its completely true. To be convicted you must be caught, and to be caught you must have chosen to commit a crime; thus self selecting and stupid enough to get caught.

And to be wrongfully convicted? Miscarriages of justice can also follow you around for a lifetime.

How about accused but not convicted? Or found 'not proven' in a Scottish court.

There are further subtleties to charges, sentences, etc. where the verdict in court, as reported in the press might not reflect things such as extenuating circumstances, mental state at the time, etc. etc., or may not distinguish between relative seriousness of the crime (especially with things like mandated minimum sentences). Without knowing all the details of a case, well, you don't know all the details.

Here is a fictitious example: How about someone, who on their 18th birthday goes for a drinks with their friends. One friend gives them (foolishly) a set of kitchen knives as a gift. On the way home from the pub, they are stopped and searched by the police, arrested, and subsequently convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Bang, mandatory custodial sentence. How would you distinguish this unlucky individual from the gang member who is caught by the police on the way to stab a rival yob?

On the whole, this is the murkiest of grey areas. Making sweeping pronouncements on it one way or the other only indicates that you maybe haven't thought about it as hard as maybe you should have.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can get a criminal record for a fairly minor offence."

Or because you are in the wrong place in the wrong moment.

A colleague of mine appeared in some court proceedings just because it was listed as the Adminc-C of a domain hosted by his previous employer years ago.

It was surely a mistake to set Admin-C and Tech-C as the same person, and not to the site owner, but I guess it was pretty common back then for hosted domains.

He was never convicted, of course, but still searching his name you found the court records about the indictment and trial. Some employer could wonder if he was part of the crime or not, without knowing is real level of involvement.

You'll never really know what a search engine could return about you....

(That said, how this person is acting doesn't put him or her in a good light...)

[Dazed and Confused]

Re: Right to be forgotten

> Criminal records are public so that it is possible to check them without using a search engine.

Yes, but would the average member of the public know how to do this?

So if search engines such as Google must hide the information then major league investors won't be taken in by previously convicted fraudsters because they can afford to employ legal teams to search things like the court records, but Jo public can be ripped off easily.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Yes, but would the average member of the public know how to do this?

They don't have to. Such company registrations and professions require disclosure and should be checked by the relevant authorities. But there are also some times when the UK's "light touch" regulation doesn't cut it: the building industry springs to mind just as much as the financial services one does.

[Anonymous Coward]

"but Jo public can be ripped off easily"

Joe Public is usually ripped off easily because it's a greedy idiot who believes in pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, crooks know it very well it, and exploit it.

I have some friends who fell into the TelexFree scam. I warned them it was a Ponzi scheme, it was pretty obvious, it smelled like that instantly. Money to post links, especially in some unknown forum where everybody post the same links? Selling a bad VoIP application nobody uses? Recruiting other people to do the same paying a fee in advance while climbing the pyramid and getting a slice? C'mon!!!

But no, they believed it - and filled Facebook and other sites praising it, so its "ranking" increased, they went to the events where one of the crooks showed how it earned enough to buy a Ferrari in one month and a luxury house in three... they were looking for more money - well, their wages were not high but average for IT professionals, they aren't uneducated people - yet they put on blinkers (and maybe the just believed they could scam others, after all) and kept on. And of course they found other greedy Joe Public.

Even if they find the name of one of the crooks in Google, they will fall in the same scheme by the same people as soon as they believe they can make a lot of money with little effort and investment.

[Clunking Fist]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"And society judges people rehabilitated once they have served their sentence or paid their fine"

Arguably, "Society" does not. Bleeding heart left-wing politicians, maybe.

A conviction for fraud, for someone who seeks to raise funds from the public? He can f*ck right off.

[DavCrav]

Re: Right to be forgotten

""And society judges people rehabilitated once they have served their sentence or paid their fine"

Arguably, "Society" does not. Bleeding heart left-wing politicians, maybe.

A conviction for fraud, for someone who seeks to raise funds from the public? He can f*ck right off."

I suggest you look up the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and then come back and apologize.

[Andrew Orlowski]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"I don't quite understand is what Google et al are realistically meant to do in order to pre-emptively filter out results, or why they should do so at all. The responsibility surely lies with the people publishing the information"

Yes. That'll be Google. The CJEU had to balance two fundamental rights (privacy, free expression) and in Gonzalez v Google Sp. (2014) determined that Google was effectively publishing (and republishing) private information continually. Google had argued that it was that it was an offshore data processing business, and was not therefore subject to EU privacy rules. The actual computation took place somewhere else, outside the EU. This was rejected.

Of course the publishers have a responsibility and we receive such requests regularly. I'm struggling to see the logic in 2018 that because one publisher takes responsibility, another Google doesn't have to take any at all. Google continually filters Search. That argument has long gone. Is that what you meant?

[Gene Cash]

Re: Right to be forgotten

> Google continually filters Search

Yup. And right there is where they end up on the short end of the stick. Whole hog or none.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right to be forgotten

determined that Google was effectively publishing (and republishing) private information continually.

Since when is a public news report private or the proceeding of court (unless directed by the Judge) ?

Not exactly private medical records is it ?

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: Right to be forgotten

For someone over here, convictions, court records, etc. are all public record and available from the courthouse. So if they are put online, whether by the court or by someone else, there is nothing one can do about it. All putting the records online does in these cases is makes doing due-diligence much easier. One can still visit the courthouse for the records.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Right to be forgotten

'Shirley' these things will all be tested in court. Sadly that means common sense could be lost along the way...

(or did the people writing the laws want to enrich their la[w]yer buddies with the inevitable endless parade of litigation?)

[Alan Brown]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"For someone over here, convictions, court records, etc. are all public record and available from the courthouse."

The issue isn't the fact that they're available from the courthouse (or the newspaper), it's the fact that Google (or other search engines) are indexing the things and making it easy to find them.

[detuur]

Re: Right to be forgotten

The issue is not the availability of the records. Right to be Forgotten does not, as is popularly believed, compel this data to be purged from the internet. It compels that this data is removed from any *profile* that companies hold on you (public or not). Google's search engine and strong capability to summarize information means that when you search for a person's name, you receive a compiled list of information and links that are, taken together, essentially a profile. When the search result includes spent convictions, that's when RTBF springs in action.

According to RTBF, a spent conviction is no-longer-relevant information, unless there is a good reason it isn't. Good reasons could be for example exceptionally notorious, serious or heinous crimes, or crimes committed while in a public office. This is information that people *should* reasonably have access to, even after the conviction is "spent".

But, after such results are expunged as part of RTBF, an important thing to note is that this information stays available. More specifically, a targeted search is allowed to turn up this information with no qualms, as it can no longer be considered a general profile any longer. So "convictions ABC" is a search term that is perfectly allowed to serve these "censored" results. (IANAL so this explanation is a product of my own, limited, understanding of a complex piece of legislation.)

[Steve the Cynic]

Re: Right to be forgotten

The librarian isn't responsible for the content of a book you object to.

No, but the librarian *is* responsible for its presence (or, in the opposite case, its non-presence) in the library.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The librarian isn't responsible for the content of a book you object to"

Still, the librarian has to abide to the law and rules, and it can't enjoy in unlawful behaviors. For example, if a law states it can't lend some books to minors, or if some books are reserved to scholars because they are too frail and precious, and can't be lent to anybody, and he does anyway, he's breaking the law and the rules. You may object about libraries making available books like "Make your own bomb in 24h", "How to poison your wife, 100 simple ways", or at least making them available to everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right to be forgotten

"No, but the librarian *is* responsible for its presence (or, in the opposite case, its non-presence) in the library."

I don't know if this is still the case but there were certain libraries, including that of my old university, which were supposed to get a copy of everything printed and published.

[Steve the Cynic]

Re: Right to be forgotten

I don't know if this is still the case but there were certain libraries, including that of my old university, which were supposed to get a copy of everything printed and published.

Yes, that's a specific obligation that six libraries in the UK have(1), notably the Bodleian in Oxford and the British Library in London. "Legal Depost libraries" is the name. But only six in the UK have this obligation attached to them (and in fact the obligation is on the publisher of the book rather than on the library.

Other libraries have a choice as to which books they have in stock and which of those they put on the shelves, and the librarian (or at least the head librarian - the staff behind the counter probably aren't involved in the decision-making) is responsible for that choice. It's not his fault that the book contains sedition or eroticism or whatever, but it is his choice that does or does not put it in the library's stock and if so, does or does not keep it in a back room so that people who want to borrow it must ask.

And of course those legal deposit libraries have the "shelves or back room" option, just like the ordinary libraries in small towns do.

(1) The same concept exists in other countries.

[Giovani Tapini]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Agreed on conflicted, but only to an extent. A spent conviction should not be taken into account by the third party either. This also has legal force and does not require the deletion of history or public record.

As far as I'm concerned there should only be de-listing attempts in most extreme cases. If the article is entirely incorrect and does not reflect a reasonable version of the truth it should be taken down or corrected at source.

[bjr]

Re: Right to be forgotten

If you've been convicted of a crime it's a matter of public record, why should if ever be forgotten? The nature of your crime matters, a teenage joyride isn't likely to effect your future career prospects but a conviction for fraud should and will. Assuming that ABCs crime is something that will interfere with his ability to setup an investment firm, then don't his future customers have a right to know if he has a history of securities fraud? I'm pretty sure his conviction wasn't for public urination, it was for somethihg serious, if it wasn't why would he be putting up such a fuss? The public has a right to know, the "right to be forgotten" is a piece of EU nonsense.

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

Re: Right to be forgotten

Court records are public records.

Suppression of "public records" is not what free societies do. The EU can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want, and it's always going to remain a pig.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Right to be forgotten

The EU can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want, and it's always going to remain a pig.

The EU is not trying to suppress the public availability of criminal records, the judgement objected to them being found when not being specifically searched for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right to be forgotten

>I find myself conflicted in these cases.

Given the electronic age is now supplanting the written word on paper, is this not a deletion of the electronic word of fact in the public view as would be a newspaper ?

Just because we can now store and index large volumes of data it gives me great concern that articles of fact are expunged from the public record especially by recidivists wishing to cover their tracks, don't assume crims are honest as you and me.

If it's libellous or untrue then it deserves to be erased.

Erasing the truth worries me far more as it's only the beginning.

[Richard Tobin]

Let me get this straight...

A man who wants to set up an investment business wants to prevent potential clients from knowing that he has a criminal conviction? How can anyone think this is reasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Let me get this straight...

and why does he think that it's easier to change (or cover up) history rather than going the deed poll route and changing his name so that the search results are irrelevant??

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Let me get this straight...

Society breaks down if you don't have rehabilitation because anyone convicted of a crime will continue to break the law.

Every case should be taken on it's own merits and while I agree they shouldn't be setting up an investment business that depends on what they were convicted for in the first place.

[JohnG]

Re: Let me get this straight...

"Every case should be taken on it's own merits and while I agree they shouldn't be setting up an investment business that depends on what they were convicted for in the first place."

Sunlight is a good disinfectant. Let investors have the facts and decide for themselves whether someone's conviction is relevant. If I were an investor with this guy, I would be more worried that he has represented himself in court and managed to accuse the wrong company, using a defunct company name. He seems to be out to prove the quote: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client".

[katrinab]

Re: Let me get this straight...

If the conviction is "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, then yes, I do think it is reasonable to ask for it to be removed from search results.

[officedog]

Re: Let me get this straight...

I believe that in the case of FCA approval, even spent convictions can be a factor in the application process;

"We take all criminal convictions seriously. However, crimes where the individual has acted with

dishonesty are of particular concern, even when the convictions are ‘spent’. This is because we

must assess whether to approve someone to perform a controlled function(s) relating to other

people’s finances. Parliament has recognised this by giving us a specific exemption to the

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/fsa-factsheet-approval.pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Let me get this straight...

If the conviction is "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, then yes, I do think it is reasonable to ask for it to be removed from search results.

There is no "spent conviction" in an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service. Everything gets dredged up for the employer to make an informed decision about whether the individual may be a danger to vulnerable people.

The same should be true for making an informed decision about whether someone can be trusted with your life savings. Even if the investor doesn't make the decision, then someone, somewhere should be vetting people setting up investment and similar companies.

[GruntyMcPugh]

Re: Let me get this straight...

@Smooth Newt "There is no "spent conviction" in an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service."

Indeed, I need such for my IT position, and previouisly I've held Full SC.

Personally, I think we shouldn't have such a thing as a 'spent conviction', as it's stigmatizing convictions, by saying they are something that need sweeping under the rug. We should have a warts and all view of our society, not some blinkered view. I recall articles about the creation of the CRB (as it was before it was called DBS) citign stats that about 30% of men will have a criminal record of some sort by age 30. We should accept this is part of our society, and get used to it. And yeah, I'd want to know before trusting an employee, or someone who has access to my house (builder, plumber etc). A conviction for smoking a bit of weed isn't going to bother me, but someone who has committed fraud would.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Let me get this straight...

but investors might find out about that conviction during due diligence and be reluctant to give ABC more money and he might really really want their money...

IT'S JUST NOT FAIR, OK?

[bombastic bob]

Re: Let me get this straight...

"How can anyone think this is reasonable?"

you are confusing 'reason' with what happens in a court room. oops.

[supposedly this is why we have judges and juries]

[Old Used Programmer]

Re: Let me get this straight...

I suspect the real issue here is: What was his conviction FOR? If it was, say, drunk driving, that might (or might not) be a problem. If it was for financial crimes, that would be a really big red flag. The former could be ignored as a case of bad judgement. The later implies that you shouldn't trust him with your money without a LOT of evidence that he is truly reformed and regrets his past actions.

[Adrian 4]

blogsite

What is this site ? 'Squaremilenews' sounds like it ought to have some sort of financial information but it actually seems to be full of the prurient clickbait beloved by the Daily Wail.

I don't have much time for finance types especially if they want to conceal previous misdeeds from prospective clients. But squaremilenews doesn't seem like something I'd want to defend either.

[Adrian 4]

Google

I'm not terribly impressed by Google's argument either. If they use the same name in a bunch of places they should have a responsibility to redirect contacts appropriately, not expect the litigant to understand their arcane responsibility-dodging company structure.

[Spanners]

Re: Google

It's not necessarily responsibility they want to dodge. Like many large corporations, especially ones from the USA, they see it as their moral duty to pay as little tax as possible and act accordingly.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Google

"they see it as their moral duty to pay as little tax as possible and act accordingly."

Morality has nothing to do with it.

It's their LEGAL duty to pay as little tax as possible - part of the "maximising value for the shareholders" directive.

Companies don't have morality and "corporate personhood" is somewhat of a sick joke when the identity, awareness level and memory is more akin to an amoeba than anything else.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Google

not expect the litigant to understand their Tax and responsibility-dodging company structure

There fixed it for you.

When Google wins, his name will be made to go viral. How dare some crim challenge the right of the almighty Google to make it impossible for him to get a job even cleaning sewage pipes in the future.

I pity anyone on this planet with the same name as this man. The laws of unintended consequences may come to haunt them for the rest of their lives if not beyond.

I'm not forgiving the man for his past crimes but if the law says it is spent then that's how it should be.

[gazthejourno]

Re: blogsite

You say 'prurient clickbait', I say 'surprisingly well-written news reports obviously produced by someone with a background in criminal court reporting for a news agency'.

Either that or it's entirely fictional, hard to tell with it being anonymous.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: blogsite

"You say 'prurient clickbait', I say 'surprisingly well-written news reports obviously produced by someone with a background in criminal court reporting for a news agency'.

Either that or it's entirely fictional, hard to tell with it being anonymous."

Hmmmm, are you admitting to a bit of blogging on the side? !

[DJ Smiley]

Well, that's now gone to archive.org

You're welcome.

And I'm not talking the standard crawling by archive.org, but the creation of a warc file by our friendly archivebot we have on IRC, who crawls sites on demand and submits them as part of archive team.

https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveBot

[officedog]

Surely, it's the fact he committed the crime and not the article about it that would cause any issues setting up an investment company. Removing the document does not change the fact he did commit the crime.

[Adam 1]

> The Particulars [case papers] complain that the continued publication by the Defendant of the news report referring to his conviction has prevented him from pursuing his ventures, causing him and his businesses to suffer substantial losses,

No. The loss was caused by the crime that this man committed. As long as the reporting doesn't imply that it is a more recent offense than it was, then what exactly is the complaint?

I can well appreciate that someone who was reported to be "charged" with an offence may want the record set straight if they were found not guilty but an old article implies a cloud over them. Doesn't seem like the case here though.

[Tigra 07]

Fair play to him for trying, but I wouldn't want to invest with someone with a dodgy background...They're supposed to be trustworthy...All depends on what he did to get his criminal record i guess

[Flocke Kroes]

Doesn't matter what his crime was

Would you really want to lend money to a man who will try to pay it into the account of a non-existent American company by using a the wrong account number for a company with a similar name in London?

[JimmyPage]

But even before the first transistor was invented ...

and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or not, there has always been an option to scour national and local newspaper archives and ferret out the recorded news - with names - from the original conviction.

So in one respect, nothing has changed.

Yes, Google, etc make it *easier*. But it was possible before.

Even if Google didn't exist, it's pretty likely that local and national newspapers would have digitised and monetised their archives anyway. The only difference being you might have had to pay to see the results.

All of that said, I agree with the concept of rehabilitation. Otherwise you may as well lock someone up for life for any criminal offence.

(Part of the issue here, is the enormous amount of "crimes" that successive governments manage to invent. But that's a seperate debate).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But even before the first transistor was invented ...

The thing is that even if someone gets google to remove it from search you can just go on the news websites and search by name.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But even before the first transistor was invented ...

Yet, the difference is you need to know where to search, and spend some money. Search engines could make it far too easier.

Think if traffic violations data were freely available, and you can easily match people with plate numbers, for free.

[bombastic bob]

Re: But even before the first transistor was invented ...

"Think if traffic violations data were freely available, and you can easily match people with plate numbers, for free."

oh you just gave me *SO* many *EVIL* ideas... !

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But even before the first transistor was invented ...

I'm not at all familiar with what can be turned up in the UK, but it's really very interesting what you can turn up here in the States for free with the proper application of various techniques to known datasets. OSINT is a thang and not just for those that work in IT security. True, the methods are generally known but a good search engine and the right keywords get you pretty far. Or you could just listen to practitioners in that particular niche. They like to teach, too.

[Pascal Monett]

How is it Google's fault ?

"ABC wants to remove public references from Google to a criminal conviction that are apparently stopping him from setting up an investment business"

I'm sorry, but a country with a registry of companies should have its own access to police records, and should definitely be capable of deciding whether or not to grant a license to someone without using Google.

In Luxembourg I can tell you that if you have a criminal record, you will not be setting up a company, nor will you have manager status in any company - and Google has nothing to do with it.

If this ABC thinks Google is keeping him from becoming CEO, well that says a lot about his level of intelligence.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: How is it Google's fault ?

In Luxembourg I can tell you that if you have a criminal record, you will not be setting up a company

Luxembourg has more than enough wheezes for financial companies including the new "freeport" thingy, which is a classic "don't ask, don't tell" wheeze.

[ratfox]

Re: How is it Google's fault ?

I think you are mistaken about this being Google's "fault". This is less about being Google's fault, than forcing Google to do something they don't want to do.

This is like you wanting your neighbour to cut down his tree that is encroaching on your garden. First, you ask the neighbour directly (like ABC probably asked Google through a RTBF request), and when they say no, you call your lawyer, get in front of the court, and try to force them to cut down the tree.

Your neighbour did not break the law, and neither did Google; but both can still be targeted by a lawsuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Luxembourg I can tell you that if you have a criminal record,"

Actually, I believed in Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. was exactly the other way around, if you don't have a good criminal record and enough money to launder, they won't allow you to operate....

[Spanners]

Due Dilligence

If someone is about to invest money, they are supposed to check up on things. Removal of such information from view stops this. If Google UK becomes unreliable because of this "right to be forgotten" people will have to check somewhere else.

Also, someone who is rehabilitated should not go back to the same area. For example if they were done for biting someones ear off during a rugby match, they should keep away from rugby pitches. Similarly, if they were done for dodgy financial activities, they should keep away from that line of work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If Google UK becomes unreliable

If ?

If ??

If ???

[The First Dave]

Re: Due Dilligence

Which is why there has been an official court record for centuries - hence the long-standing rule that an accurate record of court proceedings cannot be libelous/slanderous

[EnviableOne]

Re: Due Dilligence

if your doing due dilligence, google is the last place to look. have you not seen the discalimer at the bottom of seaches: Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

Dun and Bradstreet, Companies house, FCA, Prudential Regulation authority, etc. would be my calls for Dilligence.

INAL but :

Under GDPR Article 10 and the ROA the spent conviction is no longer relevant information.

Under the EUCJ rulling (AEPD vs Google Sp.) Google/Alphabet are a data controller and subject to Local Data protection law and Google UK Ltd. and Google LLC/ Alphabet Inc. are intrinsically linked entities. So the ruling states a test of need to know vs privacy must apply.

However this is also complicated by the fact that Google LLC own the site in question and can therefore be classed as a publisher

this is further con

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm missing the point here I think. Surely it's the fact that he committed the crime that is stopping him from doing business, not the fact that it's available on the Internet.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime..... or something like that.

[Elmer Phud]

Yeah, well . . .

"“as an entrepreneur who is involved in business, investment and civil society ventures in the UK and overseas”, stating that “he intends to raise venture funds by equity offerings.”"

As someone who is capable of understanding politician's doublespeak -- this sounds a bit 'Trotter-ish' to me. The last bit is wonderfully iffy.

[Tom 38]

Re: Yeah, well . . .

It's how most VC works though isn't it, people invest in a VC fund, they get a part-ownership of the venture, and consequently of the things the venture invests in.

[Nick Kew]

Re: Yeah, well . . .

It's how most VC works though isn't it, people invest in a VC fund, they get a part-ownership

That applies to any investment fund - VC or otherwise.

I have quite a lot of my net worth invested in VC. Naturally some investments are doing better than others.

I can shrug off a good-faith investment that loses money, but losing it to a scam is a whole nother story.

If google will tell me that someone's last venture was storage pods or airport parking that were never going to make a return for suckers investors, then google has done me good service by warning me off.

[andy 103]

Complete failure of understanding how search engines work

"block access to a post on squaremilenews.blogspot.com"

Sorry but this isn't how search engines work.

In what way is "blocking access" the responsibility of Google, or any search engine? The only people who can "block access" to a website (make it inaccessible, take it offline, all links 404'd) are the administrators of said website.

The only role Google - or any other search engine - has, is indexing content. If the website is offline (see previous paragraph) it can't index it. Furthermore the way Google search works means that if a website was offline for an extended period, any results would be removed from their index automatically due to being inaccessible.

In addition to this, just because a website isn't in a search engines index doesn't mean someone can't access it directory by it's URL, if they know it, or it's been posted elsewhere in a place they come across.

It really fucks me off the way people fail to understand the most basic things about how it works. See also: the government asking people to research how to "remove a photo from the Internet", ignoring the fact it could be screenshotted, reposted, modified by 1 pixel to make a hash different, etc etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Complete failure of understanding how search engines work

Complete failure of understanding how the law works...

[andy 103]

Re: Complete failure of understanding how search engines work

Complete failure of understanding how the law works...

Go on then, explain yourself. Furthermore explain how it's within Google's remit or feasibility to take offline websites which they have no direct control over? As I said, all they can do is remove results from their index.

If HTTP, web servers, and direct URL access work in a different way for you compared to everyone else in the world, we'd love to hear about that. These things have nothing to do with the law - and that's exactly the point. In this case Google can't do very much and ultimately it's up to the website owners to take down the offending content.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Go on then, explain yourself"

First, Google is not asked to take down any website. It's exactly asked by the law to stop linking to data which are deemed now irrelevant, no longer accurate, etc. etc. for specific searches.

You may want, for example, to read the EUCJ sentence pointed by the Orlowski post. Google tweaks its result as it see fits, for example promoting illicit drugs if it increase its revenues, so it's well within its capabilities.

Second, it's exactly deleting data that were accurate and relevant in a past point in time that would be censorship, and could hinder historical researches. Just, they may no longer need to be the first result in a a simple search, as the law states. People who needs those data will still find them in the relevant databases. But it looks there are many Peeping Toms who wish to find any data easily. It won't make the world safer, it will just make the world uglier.

Third, Google doesn't set the rules, although it believes it could by its sheer size. It's really time to get it to understand it.

Fourth, I don't really understand Google worshipers, unless they work for Google and fear to lose their job. Megacorps without accountability acting whatever they like are one of the biggest threats to society in the XXI century. Do some people wish to sell themselves fully for a free email address and a data hoarding mobile OS???

[Mr Humbug]

Except this doesn't seem to be about the Google search engine. The post is on blogspot, which is owned by Google, so Google is quite capable of removing the post or the whole blog if it wants to.

Whether it should remove the post is another question entirely

[Benchops]

ABC is taking on Alphabet Inc?

[anothergoogleuser]

Let's just tar and feather them then

A spent conviction is just that spent. In the eyes of the law it is finished.

Yes anyone would make different choices if they had all the information about a person including conviction data however.

Where is the rehabilitation?

Where is the reintegration to contribute to society in a positive way?

Where is the redemption?

Where is the forgiveness?

Where is the moving on for ex-offender and victim/s?

The law demands a price be paid and it is paid in full. Certain violent crimes will keep people monitored for life. What more should be done?

We all too easily create this "other" "untouchable" "tainted" but it's this attitude that contributes to the problem.

So as I understand it we might as well build wall, island or whatever else keeps undesirables away forever. Better yet let's tar and feather them, tattoo/scar them or even chop their hand/head off.

Google is the librarian argument doesn't stand. As the world's largest search engine they have inadvertently put themselves in a position of social responsibility having to tackle issues of online abuse, fake news and data protection to name a few.

Let's also not forget that this person's human rights are being abused as ABC has a right to private life.

As it is the law determines a price for a set amount of time but Google search engine is imposing an all of life sentence for ABC.

The right to be forgotten is not and should not be a haven for every criminal in the UK but when a reasonable request has been made particularly for spent convictions Google has to step up or the law will change around them.

[Rod 6]

So in summary ABC is suing alphabet?

[Hoe]

So what you are basically saying is that "ABC" should be sueing Alphabet Corp lol.

Almost sounds like Little Toe sueing Person for damages after being stubbed!

[Mystic Megabyte]

Obvious solution

ABC should change his/her name to something synonymous with honesty, Trump! I would definitely give money to "Trump Investments Ltd.", er wait....

[Mark 85]

Just an observation..

A person who represents them self in court has a fool for a lawyer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just an observation..

Even if he is a lawyer. And lawyers say that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just an observation..

It's perfectly reasonable to represent yourself in civil proceedings, particularly if smallish sums of money are involved and you have the appropriate experience. Better to do it yourself than pay for a crap lawyer; 90% of everything is crap, and that includes lawyers. However, it's not usually a good idea to represent yourself if you're the defendant in a criminal case even if you're a brilliant criminal defence lawyer. I think one of the reasons is that a representative can undermine the prosecutor's case by suggesting all sorts of alternative accounts of what might have happened, including what the defendant "might have" done, which the defendant themself could not reasonably do without seeming very dodgy. For the same reason, I can't imagine it works very well for the defence lawyer to also be a witness.

[2Fat2Bald]

I think it's up the other people to decide if someone's "spent" conviction is important, or not. Clearly they do think it's important (or ABC anticipates that they will), since he's fussed about getting it removed.

[John Shearing]

The Barbara Steisand effect...

Is strong on this one.

[Aladdin Sane]

Seems this guy

might be on a hiding to nothing.