Nameless Right To Be Forgotten Google sueball man tries Court of Appeal – yet again A man who has refused to identify himself to Google or the UK courts but is still trying to drag the ad tech company through a Right To Be Forgotten legal action last week had his second attempt to take it to the Court of Appeal* in London denied by a senior British judge. The man, who is only known to court staff and judges …
"We know where to look him up now."
Quite. Together with the information about him seeking VC funding, it's pretty easy to zero in on him.
Just a reminder to El Reg that "To protect ABC's identity, the court has already made an anonymity order so reports of his case cannot name him or indirectly identify him."
/ Don't end up on the naughty step
Suffice it to say, you won't find ABC by searching for 'venture capital' on that blog. I've tried and the results do not come up with him.
Let there be no more guessing of his identity or of ways to work it out. Anyone doing so will have their comments deleted.
" Let there be no more guessing of his identity or of ways to work it out. Anyone doing so will have their comments deleted."
I suppose the downvotes are because El reg are going to censor posts, but the fact is El reg do moderate posts so are responsible for every post. Because there is a order preventing publication the naming of the person, if someone on the comments name him, El Reg are responsible.
.... and is apparently doing quite well without them, considering.
Assuming of course that he doesn't eventually lose and get gifted a truly whopping legal bill from the other side.
If you want to get rich or stay rich, there are two types of people you need to minimise contact with - the taxman, and lawyers.
A man who has refused to identify himself to Google or the UK courts but is still trying to drag the ad tech company through a Right To Be Forgotten legal action...
A man with no name, a long drawn out legal battle, a secret history of crime...
Sounds like somebody's found a new Dickens novel to me...
They probably could, but it might well be more satisfying to simply kick this current case into the long grass, and make a court order stating that he cannot make another attempt without identifying himself.
Judges are human too, they might as well get some satisfaction from their job!
Judges are human too, they might as well get some satisfaction from their job!
They could, you know, always try and do it properly instead of being quite so soft on recidivist offenders. Crazy talk for sure, but professions are often held to the respect the people working within them are due, which is why nobody likes lawyers.
"The Register has found that normally helpful and talkative official sources simply ignore routine requests for information about this particular case,"
Sorry, you want info about a case concerning who exactly?
Might end up being a curious form of Streisand Effect, so much noise being made about this that someone's gonna figure out who this person is by putting the clues together, then publish the details.
"If they do, then they'd better not do so in the UK or set foot in the country afterwards."
I remember the famous case of Colonel B, who could not be named in the British press. A newsagent in Hampstead obviously put in a bulk order for the Herald Tribune and displayed it prominently for those who wished to find out who he was. The HT wasn't banned for some reason.
The obvious conclusion is that if part of the US media choose to out him, the British government and legal system won't even murmur.
The obvious conclusion is that if part of the US media choose to out him, the British government and legal system won't even murmur.
Technology, distribution of data, and the world generally has moved so much faster than our legal system is capable of, partly no doubt, because they insist on having the office junior wheel boxes of paper around after them in the street. Might be quicker to send an IM/email/something chaps.
I used to be friends with a guy who got into a horribly involved case with a bank about a piece of land he as going to build on - and he represented himself.
What's the saying, "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
One of his letters to the Lord Chancellor began something like, "dear sir, you are the head of the most corrupt organisation in England..." - and then asked for a sympathetic viewing of his case. I don't think that letter went down too well, to be honest.
I represented myself once in a traffic offence case. I proved in court that I would have to have been doing 100mph to have done what I had been accused of. This was odd because the policeman in the witness box had just agreed that I had been driving at 50mph. I got banned from driving and 5 points on my licence. By happenchance I had learned that the policeman was emigrating at the end of the month so while I was still in the court I asked for an appeal. The police prosecutor had a whisper with the magistrate who then informed me that I had to fill out the papers and hand them in before I left the courthouse.
No! No! No!
The papers stated that they had to be submitted within 21 days.
I waited 18 days and sent them in. I had to go to the Crown court to be told that there now was no evidence so my ban was negated. I asked for costs and was told to fuck off!
British justice at its best /s
Then Google could figure out his identity if he's carried his phone with him to all court proceedings.
Likewise the courts could figure it out by London's ubiquitous CCTV cameras to track him to his car and/or residence.
I would be highly amused if either or both do it, and out the lunatic.
He posts here as an "anonymous coward".
I wonder if when he shows up in court, somebody just follows him out the door to where he lives, or the vehicle he drives. Sounds like a job for a bailiff or something.
Somehow I suspect that somebody does KNOW who he is.
You are Number 6. Who is number 1? You are[,] number 6. And so it goes.
What law is being broken by ABC refusing to identify himself when bringing a case? and should a judge be allowed to refuse to do their job if they cannot find a law to support their refusal
You can bet that if the law against anonymity did actually exist then they would just throw the case out rather than mess the guy around.
That they are messing him around suggests, to me, that the law is not being followed in this case, only the whim of some wig wearing prima donna
@"You may be confusing law with process"
Nope, I fully understand that process is not law and therefore optional in a court of law.
Whilst the convention may have been that anonymity is given up within a hearing, unless there is a law to support the process then it is not compulsary.
That the case has gone as far as it has suggests that the court also know this.
Not met many senior lawyers, have you?
Put it like this: first, I think the judges in the case have all been male so it's primo buffo not prima donna (it helps to know a little about opera before using technical terms); and secondly, if there is a prima donna/primo buffo in this case, it seems to be the plaintiff rather than the judge.
@ Voyna i Mor
Why not look up the defintition of "Prima Donna" and try the one not relating directly to opera
As to the plaintiff he is paying for the priviledge, as did all the other plaintiffs in the high court gagging cases.
Is there actually a law that says you must identify yourself in order to seek justice?
Surely anyone defending an action has a right to know their accuser? How could you properly prepare a defence without knowing of what you are accused and by whom?
I hate lawyers, I really do, but in this case, it's hard to see what the legal establishment are doing wrong, rather than simply holding him in contempt - eventually you need to minimise the other guys legal costs too, if only a moral duty.
one High Court clerk who would only identify himself as "E Phillips"* citing entirely fictional "data protection" rules while refusing to say if the case had ended or not
Looks like anonymity and the right to forget or not be bothered to give out any info unless poked with a sharp stick has taken on the qualities of an airborne virus.
How soon before shop assistants try to outstare you with insolent taciturn glares when you enquire about the price of a piece of merchandise?
* "E Phillips"??? - I haven't seen 'im on telly in a while (but then I don't watch telly anymore).
He should lose anyway IMO, a 'spent conviction' is still an conviction, would you want a former bank robber running your bank just because he hasn't been caught for X years, I doubt it.
It maybe legally spent but in my opinion this is valid public information and useful at that.
I seem to remember reading that it was a previous fraud conviction but maybe wrong, if not though I can't really see how this isn't information which should remain public!
Not looked for any particular things but that site is full of people being convicted. Some are very funny.
Some are very horrible.
I would recommend that ABC stops trying to get it removed as everyone will wonder if they are a drunk driver, or a play with self in court, or a prolific Sperm Donor.
If ABC is reading, search for Streisland effect.
"ABC has refused to identify himself to Google, court staff and even judges"
"To protect ABC's identity, the court has already made an anonymity order so reports of his case cannot name him or indirectly identify him."
If he refuses to identify himself to the court, how would they know if anyone names him?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
