Proof a case was stuck out

pillphil

I'm trying to get search results from Google removed for a case where the charges were struck out. The newspaper reported on the case, but didn't report that fact when it ended.

Google want proof the case was stuck out, how do I prove this?

GM228

pillphil wrote: »

I'm trying to get search results from Google removed for a case where the charges were struck out. The newspaper reported on the case, but didn't report that fact when it ended.

Google want proof the case was stuck out, how do I prove this?

You can ask the court clerk to confirm a case was struck out.

That aside, Google does not remove search results, they may remove personal information (or rather the results - they can't remove the content) that creates significant risks of identity theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms, the actual content is the responsibility of whoever published it.

pillphil

GM228 wrote: »

You can ask the court clerk to confirm a case was struck out.

That aside, Google does not remove search results, they may remove personal information (or rather the results - they can't remove the content) that creates significant risks of identity theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms, the actual content is the responsibility of whoever published it.

Thanks. Yeah, aware it's only removed from google and only for EU google domains. Better then nothing though.

GM228

pillphil wrote: »

Thanks. Yeah, aware it's only removed from google and only for EU google domains. Better then nothing though.

Who told you this?

Google will not remove something unless it is personal information and creates significant risks of identity theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms, there are no domain limitations on this and you can only request removal based on breaches of EU DP or GDPR rules.

pioneerpro

GM228 wrote: »

Who told you this?

Google will not remove something unless it is personal information and creates significant risks of identity theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms, there are no domain limitations on this and you can only request removal based on breaches of EU DP or GDPR rules.

Good breakdown of Article 17 of the GDPR - e.g. 'Right to be Forgotten' - in this article.

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/removing-your-information-from-google-search-results-what-is-the-right-to-be-forgotten/




As for Domain Limitations, covered here

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208

The EU's top court has ruled that Google does not have to apply the right to be forgotten globally.

It means the firm only needs to remove links from its search results in Europe - and not elsewhere - after receiving an appropriate request.

GM228

Essentially Article 17 only applies when the information is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant in the light of the purposes for which they were collected and processed.

Contrary to belief it does not remove any information from Google or any search results, what it does allow for is a removal between your name and a particular search result. If there is an article saying "GM228 broke Boards" and I have a successful Article 17 application a search of "GM228" will not return any link to the story, but if I search "Boards" it will.

It does not usually apply when the press has a legitimate right of freedom of expression and information which they generally do when reporting on court cases.

That said it can apply to a court case when information is published concerning an earlier stage of the proceedings and it no longer corresponds to the current situation, whether, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, such as, in particular, the nature and seriousness of the offence in question, the progress and the outcome of the proceedings, the time elapsed, the part played by the person in public life and past conduct, the public’s interest at the time of the request, the content and form of the publication and the consequences of publication for the person, has a right to the information in question no longer, in the present state of things, being linked with your name, but remember, it only applies to removal of the search results obtained via a search of your name, it does not provide a blanket removal or removal of any link to the content from Google.

Coming back to domain limitations, what the ECJ has actually held is that a provider does not have to de-reference "all versions" of it's search engine, but, I took the OP to mean results originating outside the EU, whilst a search performed on a providers search platform that does not correspond to the member state is not covered, a search within the EU of data held around the world would be covered. Once you make a search from anywhere within the EU the content would be blocked irrespective of where the data originated from.

pillphil

Not sure if you're trying to tell me I'm just wasting my time?

In the case of a hypothetical "name from xxxx lunged wildly at the Pope" article. I'd be happy with an outcome of searches for "name from xxxx" on Google not linking to the article in question.

Since they've asked me for proof of the outcome of the court case, they seem to think it's a reasonable request?

Claw Hammer

pillphil wrote: »

Not sure if you're trying to tell me I'm just wasting my time?

In the case of a hypothetical "name from xxxx lunged wildly at the Pope" article. I'd be happy with an outcome of searches for "name from xxxx" on Google not linking to the article in question.

Since they've asked me for proof of the outcome of the court case, they seem to think it's a reasonable request?

You should be able to obtain a copy of the court order from the Court office pertaininmg to the court in which the order was made. There may be a fee.

Lenar3556

GM228 wrote: »

Essentially Article 17 only applies when the information is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant in the light of the purposes for which they were collected and processed.

Contrary to belief it does not remove any information from Google or any search results, what it does allow for is a removal between your name and a particular search result. If there is an article saying "GM228 broke Boards" and I have a successful Article 17 application a search of "GM228" will not return any link to the story, but if I search "Boards" it will.

It does not usually apply when the press has a legitimate right of freedom of expression and information which they generally do when reporting on court cases.

That said it can apply to a court case when information is published concerning an earlier stage of the proceedings and it no longer corresponds to the current situation, whether, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, such as, in particular, the nature and seriousness of the offence in question, the progress and the outcome of the proceedings, the time elapsed, the part played by the person in public life and past conduct, the public’s interest at the time of the request, the content and form of the publication and the consequences of publication for the person, has a right to the information in question no longer, in the present state of things, being linked with your name, but remember, it only applies to removal of the search results obtained via a search of your name, it does not provide a blanket removal or removal of any link to the content from Google.

Coming back to domain limitations, what the ECJ has actually held is that a provider does not have to de-reference "all versions" of it's search engine, but, I took the OP to mean results originating outside the EU, whilst a search performed on a providers search platform that does not correspond to the member state is not covered, a search within the EU of data held around the world would be covered. Once you make a search from anywhere within the EU the content would be blocked irrespective of where the data originated from.

While I don’t doubt any of the above, in the case of one experience I had with google, albeit a number of years ago, they were quite pragmatic in their approach to requests of this nature.

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You should be able to obtain a copy of the court order from the Court office pertaininmg to the court in which the order was made. There may be a fee.

Or in the absence of that, a letter from your solicitor affirming the position may have the same effect.

Claw Hammer

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Or in the absence of that, a letter from your solicitor affirming the position may have the same effect.

It would cost more for a solicitor's letter.

3DataModem

OP: Don't be put off. The Google right to be forgotten is pretty powerful.

I know two people who used it, and significant results relevant to previous prosecutions all vanished more or less overnight (if you were in the EU) with the note "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe."