Posts by local_man 14 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Mar 2018
This is not about deleting the historical (of the record) facts of the story.
This is about allowing an individual who has a conviction (that was reported about at the time) which is now spent the ability to get on with his/her life without a prospective employer being able to easily search for past stories on them.
No index tag on the story upon request is all it would take.
If you recruit someone in the Financial sector you apply for an enhanced DBS on that individual - even spent convictions show up on an Enhanced DBS therefore, you would be able to see the convictions and then able to make a decision based on that.
That is the whole point of the DBS system.
Google/Bing and all of the other search engines are not and should not be an alternative for the DBS.
**NB DBS was formerly known as the CRB for those oldies out there.
This will be more about the fact that a butler comes into contact with potentially vulnerable adults and also children.
Any job that could come into contact with children needs an enhanced DBS check - that shows up all convictions regardless of whether they are spent or not.
Completely agree.
If we, as a society continue to allow everything about a person to be searchable and online then how are those individuals ever going to stand a chance at being rehabilitated.
Here is a sober and sad thought which is actually true. A person took their own life because although their conviction was spent, they were forever under the Google effect. They had failed to get a number of jobs due to search engine impact (the original crime was a news story some years ago) and when then did get a job, their new employer randomly Googled them and then dismissed them based on what they had found on Google.
The conviction was spent (sentence less than a year) and it didn't have to be disclosed upon application. They didn't need a DBS check and job was not working in an industry which required one nor related to the conviction.
Had the person had the ability to request de-listing from search engine indexes - who knows, maybe they would still be alive.
Surely, these people deserve a chance?
That is what the DBS check is for - the official source (as declared in the new GDPR) for any employer who needs a prospective employee.
By removing the index links will prevent the employer discriminating on them because of their conviction.
The same applies to any protected characteristic - they can (and will) always be discriminated once they have attended the interview - you will never stop that but by removing links to articles about people with spent convictions (upon request) - we will at least be moving more towards an equal society.
Isnt this just about ensuring that when a person has a conviction that is spent under the RoO Act then they can also apply to the newspapers that carry the story to get them to put a "no-index" tag in the metadata of the story so that it is no longer indexed by ANY search engine.
still exists on the newspaper website but protects that persons attempts for rehabilitation.
Would work perfectly and still preserves historical fact.
Not at all - the local librarian archive would be archiving hard copy versions for use in the library and by any historians that wanted to search them - in the library.
This is about allowing individuals the right to get on with their lives (depending on the crime and sentence of course) without the risk of termination/impact by search engines.
As I have said previously, employers can use the official source (DBS) if they need to carry out checks and it is down the individual to ensure they answer questions honestly about spent crimes.
One solution is that when a request is made to a newspaper, the newspaper can enter the appropriate syntax in the robots.txt file so that the news story is not indexed by any of the search engines worldwide.
This is done by an individual making a RTBF to any news outlet that carried the original story.
Can all be handled by the official source of data - the DBS - mandatory for those working in finance and would show to any new manager/organisation the criminal record of those individuals.
This is not managing the truth- merely trying to allow an individual to be rehabilitated and work back in society.
The newspapers always have an exemption under section 32 of the DPA to be able to publish at the time.
The rehabilitation of offenders act allows for certain offences and sentences to be spent after a specified length of time - that is to say that apart from some jobs, the crime doesnt have to be disclosed.
for those working in some jobs, they will have a DBS which will show certain crimes due to the nature of the offence - for example, sexual offences will certainly show for someone applying for a job working in a school.
The thing here is that although the conviction is spent and doesnt have to be disclosed - the Google effect means that it is never really spent as it is always searchable online.
The RTBF should be made to align with the RoO Act so that anyone whose crime is spent can apply to have themselves made anonymous in the press / search engines. the good old hard copy will still have the story so it still exists in the press - you have to go old-school and search it out at the local library like in the good ol' days.
That person could then carry on with their lives knowing that their new employer etc. cannot pull up the story and take action against that person even though the conviction is spent.
DBS is Basic, Standard and Enhanced - Standard and Enhanced also show unspent convictions and when you apply for a job in say Finance, Legal, Education etc. you may need an enhanced check.
They show spent convictions as well as unspent.
The problem with employers these days is that Google is a free DBS and is being used for that purpose - individuals are not allowed the ability to be rehabilitated.
Unfortunately, more and more employers are doing just that...
They advertise a position and as part of the overall sifting / interview - they are performing their own DBS checks by using internet search engines and then not shortlisting or even worse - retracting job offers / ending employment in probation period due to what they have found on the internet.
The RoO Act therefore is pointless unless individuals are allowed to request internet search engines remove links to align with the requirements of the RoO Act
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was brought in back in 1974 to ensure that people who had a conviction that was spent would not have to declare it unless they were working in a particular field - that is where the DBS service comes into play.
They can provide Basic, Standard and Enhanced for anyone working say with children, finance or certain other employments.
What the RoO Act cannot and does not prevent is where a prospective employer can Google/Bing an individual and therefore finds out about a conviction that is spent but is online in a local rag and then makes a decision not to employ them - in those circumstances, the RoO Act is worthless and we are not allowing people the opportunity to get on with their lives - the internet search engine effect is preventing rehabilitation and therefore goes against everything that the RoO Act was designed to introduce.
This is not preventing the newspaper from reporting the story initially and the RoO Act allows for the most serious of crimes never to be spent but with the Right to Be Forgotten - especially in the context of the GDPR and the new Data Protection Bill 2018 - if an individual who has a conviction that is spent, requests that the news story is either anonymised, or deleted and that the search engines also reflect that in the indexing.
Surely, that protects freedom of speech (the story still exists in the local hard copy paper) and also ensures that those members of society who want to get on with their lives, can do so and are adequately protected from the negativity that search engines can inflict. Society is also aware about those criminals with serious convictions - they are never spent.
Just on a separate point - I am aware that the Lords and Commons are trying to strengthen the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by allowing individuals the ability to remove the search engine links to them where appropriate.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
