back to article High Court dismisses nameless Google Right To Be Forgotten sueball man... yes, again

The High Court of Justice in London yesterday dismissed another attempt by an unnamed man, who refuses to identify himself to the UK courts, to take his Right To Be Forgotten legal action to the Court of Appeal. The individual, a litigant in person who is only known to court staff and judges as ABC, had asked that a post on …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

    On one hand, I understand that he wants to keep this under the radar. He wants to get rid of the page and doesn't want anyone to know who he is and what page he wants to kill.

    On the other hand, it is kind of obvious that, if you don't tell the judges who you are and what you want deleted, it will be kind of hard for the judges to decide whether or not the request is justified.

    So ABC really is in a corner of his own painting.

    1. LucreLout Silver badge

      Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

      So ABC really is in a corner of his own painting.

      He is, though I'm wondering how the press haven't outed him yet....

      Can anyone explain to me how he's paying the court application fees? I'm pretty sure you can't use cash, so how is he getting the cases before the beak in the first place? I'd genuinely love to know.

      1. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

        I'm pretty sure you can turn up at the enquiry desk with a sackload of £50s.

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

          Must be able to, requiring a bank account or equivalent would mean the courts are not available to all.

      2. ratfox Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

        Note that there are at least two people who have sued Google in UK under the Right to be forgotten, one has won, the other has lost, and as far as I know their name has been kept out of the media. This was extensively reported on this excellent website:

        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/13/google_right_be_forgotten_trial_nt2_victory_nt1_loss/

        I remember that at the time I did not manage to figure out from tantalising clues the identity of these people, despite spending a couple of hours on the internet. I believe the gag order on their name is still in effect, so even if you know who they are, you are forbidden to reveal it.

      3. 2Fat2Bald

        Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

        I'd imagine he'll be paying them through his solicitor.

        Mind you. Why are we all assuming the male pronoun here? - El Reg used it, but do we know that it is a man?

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: It seems that ABC is well aware of the Streisand effect

      "in a corner of his own painting"

      Well played, sir.

  2. Peter D

    ABC v Alphabet

    How would Google know what to remove from it's search results if ABC won't give his name?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ABC v Alphabet

      I'd guess the reasoning is that Google don't technically need to know his identity unless and until a court decides that the content should be removed. So, if a court is willing/able to decide that all content which matches certain tests should be taken down based on private communication, there would be no need for claiming parties to risk Streisanding themselves in public court.

      There is already some precedent for this, as Google voluntarily doesn't require people to go to court to get "revenge porn" de-listed, for example.

      1. Peter D

        Re: ABC v Alphabet

        Google is entitled to argue a defence of it being in the public interest to keep the search results. What if the spent conviction was for criminal damage but the detail was arson and ABC wanted to start a property disposal firm?

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: ABC v Alphabet

          >Google is entitled to argue a defence of it being in the public interest to keep the search results. What if the spent conviction was for criminal damage but the detail was arson and ABC wanted to start a property disposal firm?

          Yes Google could argue that, however, that also means Google doesn't understand just what "spent" means in this context and I would expect a UK court to throw Google's case out with no leave to appeal.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ABC v Alphabet

            Actually I'm not sure you know what a spent conviction is if you think it immediately applies to Google - unless he is applying for a job with them.

  3. Velv Silver badge
    Boffin

    That ABC is continuing to attempt to keep his name unlinked from criminal activity one can only assume that the new activity he is attempting to undertake could be viewed as criminal.

    If only we knew what he was convicted of doing previously and what he is doing new now could we possibly form a conclusion.

    1. John Sager

      Not necessarily. The knowledge of the spent conviction and its nature may well influence anyone wanting to deal with him as to his trustworthiness even if the transaction wasn't part of a criminal enterprise. In any case he's either an obsessive or his new enterprise is crucially dependent on personal probity, probably the former.

    2. DougS Silver badge

      Perhaps he wants to run for public office?

      And knows his chances of being elected are much lower if people know he's already a criminal before he takes office, instead of learning on the job like most of them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Perhaps he wants to run for public office?

        That is not always true if events in the US are anything to go by..

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If this who

    I think it might be, I am thinking cigarette lighter, 1990's, and Irish booze.

    But am probably wrong.

    I don't normally post as a/c but think I had better do so for obvious reasons...

    1. stiine Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: If this who

      Was it you?

    2. Aqua Marina
      Pint

      Re: If this who

      I tried to google the individual using the above search terms, which led me to this story about The Great Whiskey Fire of Dublin in 1875. According to the story, whiskey in a distillery caught fire, and 13 people died as a result. These 13 people didn't die from flames or smoke inhilation, no, they all died from alcohol poisoning as they drank from a 400 meter long river of flaming whiskey using hats and boots!

      Raised glass cos it's pub-o-clock soon!

      1. Anomalous Custard
        Pint

        Re: If this who

        And that reminds me of the song Old Dun Cow (Bellowhead version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH1qVQumqKk)

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Blockchain commentard Silver badge

      Re: If this who

      You know you posted this under your user name after posting it anonymously?

      1. Symon Silver badge
        Trollface

        If this who

        I think it might be, I am thinking cigarette lighter, 1990's, and Irish booze.

        But am probably wrong.

        I'm Spartacus

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If this who

        I know. afraid I wrote this in the pub . Early opening on Friday,There has to be a moral somewhere there. But thanks anyway.

        1. sbt Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: If this who

          Not much point deleting the first one if you're going to reply like this.

      3. ratfox Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: If this who

        You know you posted this under your user name after posting it anonymously?

        Shit. I forgot to make the post anonymous. I have deleted it now; thank you for telling me.

        Wait. Is this post anonymous? Shit.

      4. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

        Re: If this who

        All he has to do is make an RTBF claim and it's all good.

    2. Peter D

      Re: If this who

      "I think it might be, I am thinking cigarette lighter, 1990's, and Irish booze."

      There's no injunction on naming this individual so just provide the full details to allow me to create a Wikipedia page.

  6. Blockchain commentard Silver badge

    Does Bing (and other search engines) also get told to forget him, seems he;s only heard of Google. And went to that website, what a bunch of scum they report on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I was wondering that, especially if the details on actual site with his case isn’t removed. I haven’t used Google for searching for several years - I initially went to Bing, but have defaulted to DuckDuckGo for the past few. Seems some people can’t look beyond Google when it comes to the interweb.

  7. MJI Silver badge

    Streisland effect does work

    You can find the unwanted stuff if you use the information released publically by this case.

    I have no interest in knowing who they are, but wanted to test Streisland.

    Streisland effect won.

    1. Alister Silver badge

      Re: Streisland effect does work

      Call me picky, but I would have thought the Streisand effect would have worked better.

  8. Wade Burchette Silver badge

    ABC: "I would like my name removed from Google results."

    Google: "Okay, and what is your name?"

    ABC: "That is for me to know and you to find out. Now remove my name!"

    Google: "We will, if you tell us your name."

    ABC: Oh, so you are breaking the law! See you in court!"

    1. The Nazz Silver badge

      and further

      Google : "But you don't turn up in Court to see us there."

      ABC : "True, but then i don't have to, but you do."

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He has also clearly caused significant costs to be incurred by the defendant.

    defendant being google, that "significant cost" must have been a good few billion quid, AT LEAST. Perhaps this is a path to saving humanity and destroying the Google Monster, mass litigation to make it go bankrupt (for half a day or so)

    1. Richard Jones 1
      WTF?

      Re: He has also clearly caused significant costs to be incurred by the defendant.

      Can Google and the courts apply for their costs against the person?

      They sound increasingly like someone many people would not like to have dealing with any aspect of their affairs.

      I thought that people who acted like this used to be called a vexatious litigant.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He has also clearly caused significant costs to be incurred by the defendant.

        It does seem that Mr ABC has smeared the good name ABC with such a tainted reputation that no future case will be able to use it without prejudice. So next unnamed will be Mr BCD, which will send the readers here off on a merry misdirected chase indeed.

  10. Claverhouse Silver badge

    Same goes for 'Company Directors'...

    Seems unlikely a self-described 'entrepreneur' would be in the least bit dodgy.

    A most respectable body of men.

  11. Velv Silver badge
    Holmes

    ABC should take his case to Judge Rinder under agreement it never gets shown if he wins.

    If he loses however ...

  12. Totally not a Cylon
    Angel

    ABC?

    It normally stands for ArchBishop of Canterbury, here in the UK.

    Pretty sure its not him, though.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ABC = A Born Criminal.

  14. Roger Kynaston
    Pint

    Mr ABC must be loaded

    Even if the defendant is having to bear their costs to date he must be giving shed loads of money to his lawyers. I do hope he gets outed at the end.

    Icon because Friday and lawyers must be able to buy loads of it on the back of this little story.

    1. sbt Silver badge
      Devil

      His client is a fool

      As the saying goes .. he's been representing himself throughout.

  15. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    It would be very simple for Google to settle this. Just tell the court they won't produce any results on searches for "Mr ABC".

  16. JimmyPage Silver badge
    WTF?

    He has also clearly caused significant costs to be incurred by the defendant.

    How ? In the name of all that's holy, how ?

    English law is designed to keep poor people out of the courts as plaintiffs. So how has this character managed to drag one of the worlds biggest companies into court 10 times without having to put up some sort of bond ?

    If you or I tried to sue Google, the very very very first thing that would happen is their brief would simply file a motion asking that the court obtain assurances that we could pay Googles costs if we lost.

    So WTF is going on here ?

  17. earl grey Silver badge
    Trollface

    ABC's real name

    Wankasaurus Rex

  18. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019