back to article Man who gave interviews about his crimes asks court to delete Google results

The Right to be Forgotten trial has heard arguments on whether a man who gave interviews about his criminal past should be able to have those reports, among others, deleted from Google Search. “The claimant in this case is a businessman who more than a decade ago pleaded guilty to an offence of conspiracy to intercept …

  1. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge

    This will be an interesting case.

    And that's all I will say.

    1. rmason

      @Anon SA cow-herd

      Extremely interesting. Especially when one of two available outcomes (a loss) will result in his name being plastered everywhere again, complete WITH references to the history he wishes to edit out.

      In short, it appears the man who gave interviews detailing his crimes, might be a fuckwit.

      1. ratfox

        [...] will result in his name being plastered everywhere again

        Does it? I'm not sure it means that. The injunction could pretty well keep going after the lawsuit is over, even in case of a loss, couldn't it? I'm sure that there are open-ended injunctions.

        The loss only means that you will be able to find those websites on Google by looking for his name, whatever that name is, just like you are able to do it now.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @rmason; "the man [..] might be a fuckwit."

        I don't think you realise, but you've just got El Reg into big, big legal trouble already by giving an obvious clue to this person's identity.

        So I might as well risk getting my account exiled to Iceland as well and post these pictures of the person in question.

        Notes; (a) Probably NSFW- hover to see enough of the URL for the reference to be obvious- and (b) No, not really. Duh. (Unless by horrible coincidence it really does turn out to be him.)

      3. Youngone Silver badge

        In short, it appears the man who gave interviews detailing his crimes, might be a fuckwit.

        I am picturing Douglas Reynholm as we speak.

        No news on his ex-wife though.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      FAIL

      Scary

      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” - George Orwell (From 1984) European Union

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Scary

        > "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” - George Orwell (From 1984) European Union

        I'll nominate this for most inappropriate quote of the month.

        Or do you perhaps believe that offenders, for no matter what offence, should ever be rehabilitated?

        One of the big curses of the modern age is that errors are forever.

        Legislation like the GDPR are exactly what are needed to mitigate that, and to limit Google's power.

        I'm 100% for Brexit but privacy is something that the EU has got the right ideas about.

  2. Blockchain commentard

    Someone should mention archive.org if he really wants to be forgotten :-)

    1. StevenN

      The Right to be Forgotten is a horrible name because it has nothing about deleting a person from the search index just specific events a person does not want in the index. The law should be the Right to Whitewash History and the law is an atrocity of a ruling the EU should be ashamed of.

  3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

    Interesting. I'm all fine with the right to be forgotten for spent convictions. That's the whole bloody point of having a sytem to get rid of them in the first place. I don't see why Google should get to be above the law.

    But I'm not sure the right to be forgotten should cover an interview you yourself chose to give on the matter to a newspaper. In fact, I'm pretty sure it shouldn't. Or at least I think it should probably cover press coverage at the time of the conviction, including if you gave interviews. But shouldn't cover you for stuff you did willingly a few years later.

    1. Stuart Burns

      I disagree. If he was convicted of financial naughtyness and he still involved in the financial sector, it calls into question his character, rehabilitated or not.

      If we do allow all these links to be removed then we are only really getting one side of a story where an individual can effectively "manage the truth",

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        I disagree. If he was convicted of financial naughtyness and he still involved in the financial sector, it calls into question his character, rehabilitated or not.

        Stuart Burns,

        Blokey 1, from last week's testimony, was the one convicted of fraud.

        This is a totally different case. Blokey 2, this week's, was convicted of hiring private investigators to get unauthorised info on people who were criticising him. So it's completely different.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @I ain't Spartacus; Was "Blokey 7" the one involved in that late-70s low-budget BBC unpleasantness in space series?

        2. keithzg

          He wants to make information unauthorized about his unauthorized information?

          Wait, he hired private investigators to get unauthorised info on people who were criticising him? And now wants the information about this suppressed? Somebody call the Irony & Hypocrisy Police . . .

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "manage the truth",

        ...and that, in essence is the art of PR. Or, more accurately 'arranging the truth so that people like you'

        I expect that all the turgid GDPR 'experts' are shuffling their scaremongerdoomdecks right now.

      3. local_man

        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.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "merely trying to allow an individual to be rehabilitated and work back in society."

          If NT1 is who I think he is, there are outstanding investigations in the USA and convictions there which are _NOT_ spent.

      4. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
        Alert

        @Stuart Burns

        That is why in the US, such convictions usually get you banned for life from those those endeavors. An example would be Michael Milken, who as part of his 1990 securities fraud plea deal, had to accept a lifetime ban from any involvement in the securities industry.

      5. standardraise

        The question is proportion - have you ever made a mistake? We all make mistakes but current legislation allows people to be rehabilitated otherwise we just drag down society.

        Note, that in the case of a regulated profession, an individual would still have to declare this on an application form - and that includes any financial related jobs. However, it is not proportionate to brand someone a lifelong heathen because they made a mistake 15 years ago and because we are all addicted to stalking people on a click-bait search engine like google.

        YOU do not really need to know anything about a person's history if you are not employing them. However, if you are interested in voyeuristic stalking then of course we should let google do whatever it wants. I think though our laws are designed to help people rehabilitate and once again meaningfully contribute to society - if they have paid their debt to society and their convictions are spent, why not let them move on?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "YOU do not really need to know anything about a person's history if you are not employing them."

          You may need to if you're buying some product or service related to past offences from them. You may not wish to hand over sums of money for safekeeping to someone who has a history of embezzlement.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "However, it is not proportionate to brand someone a lifelong heathen because they made a mistake 15 years ago"

          Even when that "mistake" involved over $400 million of fraud in the UK alone (and more in the USA), with the international total coming up around the $1 billion mark?

          And that person is trying to get back into the same business?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, there is a big difference here. These are not crime reports, or news story reports of crime. These are interviews.

      While the person can claim copyright on stories and such, I would assume it was signed over to the papers at the time.

      Thus while the conviction is spent, and all *secular/legal* records of it can be kept private, the public news is not under such a restriction.

      Though forgiveness is very much needed, admittance of past mistakes, is very much part of recovery.

    3. LucreLout

      I'm all fine with the right to be forgotten for spent convictions. That's the whole bloody point of having a sytem to get rid of them in the first place.

      Surely I can't be the only reader finding it such a delicious irony that criminals who willingly broke the law are now complaining to the court that others may not be following the law. Its amazing the kind of Damascene conversion that can take hold of a man when he ceases to be the perpetrator and finds himself the victim.

      I for one hope the judge holds the criminals past conduct foremost in mind when considering judgement.

      I don't see why Google should get to be above the law.

      Me neither, but the question becomes "Whose law?". ROA simply doesn't apply in most of the places Google operate. Any proscription on the pruduction of search results for the .co.uk domain simply don't apply to the .com, rendering the judgement pointless before issue.

      1. Jack_Rainbow

        Yes, agree with your thinking, but looking at such issues as the case of James Damore, the Google employee sacked for being ""Diverse", as Google's own "Diversity" policy committee advocates and taking into consideration the hateful censorship of "hate speech" on social media practised by Google, one can't help feeling any way of hitting back at such a truly monstrous entity must be a good thing.

    4. standardraise

      Broadly agree - it makes sense for Google to take down anything related to spent convictions. The right to be forgotten and Rehabilitation of Offenders act are good ones and if something is clearly outdated and a person has paid their debt to society, they should be allowed a chance to contribute once again. Rehabilitation is generally a good idea as everyone makes mistakes - this is certainly the case when it is a spent conviction.

      With regards to the interviews after the fact - you probably need to put yourself in that man's shoes. He has been branded for life because of a spent conviction and is trying to move on - he is probably distressed and some slimy PR company told him to do an interview. He was probably desperate but the point is he should be able to move on with his life.

      Google should not be able to hang a noose around your neck because of a mistake you made and because it has a click-bait search engine that encourages people to stalk other people online. That is why we have Rehabilitation of offenders and the Right to be forgotten legislation already in place

      1. Tom 38

        he is probably distressed and some slimy PR company told him to do an interview. He was probably desperate but the point is he should be able to move on with his life.

        However the crux of his argument is that he is not a public figure. I'm not sure how that tallies with businessmen being public figures, and this businessman hired a public relations company to help manage his public image.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          He also likely got paid for interviews. He has no right to be forgotten...

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "However the crux of his argument is that he is not a public figure."

          That fails the first hurdle of the RTBF rules - that businessmen by definition ARE public figures.

      2. LucreLout

        He has been branded for life because of a spent conviction and is trying to move on - he is probably distressed

        I view such banalities through the far more important lens: Have his victims been able to move on? If the answer isn't a crystal clear "yes" for each and every one of them, then I fail to see the imperative to allow the criminal to move on.

        The victims needs must always outweigh those of the criminal, because the criminal chose to make them both occupy their respective roles.

        Criminals all choose their path knowing that actions have consequences. That they perhaps did not envisage google being created and their self inflicted problems (criminal convictions) coming back to haunt them, is of no more consequence than a rapist from the 80s who failed to envisage DNA testing.

        1. Stork Silver badge

          spending convictions

          I can see your argument, but generally speaking a fair number of men do criminal stuff in their teens and 20es and then stop.

          For society it is a huge gain if as many of these as possible make this move - punishing forever is likely to restrict their economic activities to the alternative ones.

          Check reoffending rates between "harsh countries" (US, UK?) and lenient ones (Scandinavia?). As a prison director said, prisons are an expensive way to make bad people worse.

          1. bitten

            Re: spending convictions

            As a victim, there are situations where only 5% of the complaints lead to a conviction. Before the conviction there is the presumption of innocence and after that the right to be forgotten. Meanwhile you're fair game to anything the defense lawyer can say, insinuate or complain about you.

            1. lucki bstard

              Re: spending convictions

              And your point is?

              Your'd rather have a presumption of guilt?

              Your a victim of crime, most people on El Reg probably are, you can only be a victim so long before you realize that being a victim is not helping you. I'm not talking about the 'man up' rubbish I'm talking about that sooner or later you'll have to choose if you wish to remain a victim or if you don't. If you don't then get the assistance that is available, if you do wish to remain a victim well enjoy yourself but don't drag others down with you.

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: spending convictions

            "generally speaking a fair number of men do criminal stuff in their teens and 20es and then stop."

            Indeed.

            But everything points to NT1 and NT2 not being part of this demographic.

            Nor are they the demographic of "Jose Bloggs was declared bankrupt 10 years ago", which is what the original right to be forgotten case was about.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: spending convictions

              "generally speaking a fair number of men do criminal stuff in their teens and 20es and then stop."

              I suspect it also down to criminalising a lot of things that should never have been criminalised.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Google is NOT the source of this

        If people want to be "forgotten" they should be required to go after the sites that Google is indexing. Google isn't storing information themselves, so if t here are sites that maintain past criminal records, old news articles or whatever say is "DougS was convicted of murder in 1998 and sentenced to 20 years" I should have to go after them. Why should I be involved Google when all they are doing is indexing pages owned by someone else?

        It is pointless to even involve Google in this - if it becomes commonplace that people use this invented "right to be forgotten" then people who want to search someone's history will take to doing it on Bing, DuckDuckGo and every other search engine that has its own crawler. The "crime" here, if there is one, is on the sites that have this "offending" content available - especially when some people seem to be of the crazy belief it should be expunged from Google worldwide, instead of just in that country!

        What happens if another country passes anti-censorship laws saying that search results of past criminal behavior cannot be expunged - which country's laws take precedence?

  4. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    It'll be interesting...

    It'll be interesting as I don't believe Google in any way should be labelled as a "journalistic enterprise" in the same way that the good ship El Reg or the Sunday Times is; so I do kind of think that anyone should have the to right for any aggregated links to be removed from their search engine. As long as the original published source material stays intact so I can go search for any particular reportage should I have the burning desire to do so.

    The danger is that this precedent is extended to the actual publishers of those articles having to remove them from their editorial history (not that this case is actually trying to achieve that).

    Trying to erasing history from the record is dangerous thing.

    1. Len

      Re: It'll be interesting...

      The RTBF does not apply to publishers and couldn't apply to publishers as it would interfere with a lot of their rights. It would be an entirely different area of law that would fall under, and one I don't see happening any time soon. Even the UK, with it strong libel laws, doesn't ban publishers from publishing certain things.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: It'll be interesting...

      "The danger is that this precedent is extended to the actual publishers of those articles having to remove them from their editorial history "

      This much is already legally protected.

      NT1 tried that first (and got slapped down) before going through Goo's removal process and being denied.

      NT2 didn't bother and went straight for the legal jugular (which reading between the lines appears to be par for the course for this individual)

      RTBF was never intended for these kinds of criminal convictions, but the law is not about justice, it's about who has the deepest pockets and can find the loopholes.

  5. I Am Spartacus
    Coat

    Win for the Lawyers

    So, we have two QC's in this:

    For NT2 - Hugh Tomlinson QC of Matrix Chambers

    For Google - Antony White QC, also of Matrix Chambers

    The cynic in me suggest that this whole thing is a put up job by Matrix to keep two QC's in a high profile case employed. And it is definitely heads-I-win-tails-you-lose. Which ever way you cut it, Matrix is in it for the win.

    Mine's the one with the no internal compete clause in the pocket

    1. Paul 25

      Re: Win for the Lawyers

      From what I understand (I'm sure a lawyer can correct), barristers are all independent of one another. I think chambers are a more like a barbers shop where the barbers all pay rent on a chair and get to use the facilities, but don't actually work for the shop.

      1. monty75

        Re: Win for the Lawyers

        The difference is that barbers don't usually try to cut their own clients and bleed them dry.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Win for the Lawyers

          @monty75; Usually. Not a lot of people know that Sweeney Todd had a law degree on the side.

        2. hplasm
          Holmes

          Re: Win for the Lawyers

          "The difference is that barbers don't usually try to cut their own clients and bleed them dry."

          ...any more.

        3. x 7

          Re: Win for the Lawyers

          T"he difference is that barbers don't usually try to cut their own clients and bleed them dry."

          I always thought barristers and Sweeny Todd had a lot in common

        4. Ray Merrall

          Re: Win for the Lawyers

          Believe it or not, the alliteration is correct. The reason surgeons are referred to as Mr. (and Mrs) rather than Dr. is because surgery was originally done by Barbers. Doctors received training and passed exams. While barbers had sharp blades and razors, and were more used to spilling blood in attempting not to...

        5. lucki bstard
          Joke

          Re: Win for the Lawyers

          Its a bit like giving blood, they won't take it all in one go, they just take enough that it can regularly be given and be more over time. Bit like shearing sheep.

  6. Len
    Meh

    Good luck to him

    He can, of course, give it a shot but it may not be all that successful, even if he can get the courts to force Google to play ball.

    The general rule of thumb with the Right To Be Forgotten is that it doesn't work if you are someone who could realistically have a Wikipedia entry about them. Even a slight amount of notoriety or celebrity means that RTBF will not help getting people to forget about you as getting your name removed from a search database is not enough. Even more, there is a risk of the Streisand Effect.

    The RTBF can work wonders for the average Joe, victims of stalkers or cyber bullies etc. Big men and women, not so much.

    1. 's water music

      Re: Good luck to him

      The general rule of thumb with the Right To Be Forgotten is that it doesn't work if you are someone who could realistically have a Wikipedia entry about them.

      Well a goog search for NT2's name returns NT2's wiki page as the the top result. Details of his crime and conviction comprise a substantial proportion of the page content though so I am not sure how that affects the result of your test.

      It's also hard to see how NT2 could expect anyone with a reason to care about his history (such as a professional relationship) not to know about it. Perhaps bringing the case is simply part of a personal PR strategy of some sort

  7. alain williams Silver badge

    So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

    in a few years time, in spite of having done a search to try to determine if he is an honourable character - which draws a blank because he has been 'forgotten'. Can I seek compensation from google/etc or the courts or ... ?

    Right to be forgotten should be about personal things (affairs, etc) and for those under 25; not those who have indulged in criminal activity.

    .

    Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      not those who have indulged in criminal activity.

      Agree. This should be handled elsewhere. Discriminating against anyone based on presence of spent convictions should be made part of the general discrimination legislation on par with race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

        "Discriminating against anyone based on presence of spent convictions should be made part of the general discrimination legislation on par with race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation.

        I think it already is: "The ROA makes it unlawful for an individual to be excluded from any job (other than those not covered by the ROA) on the basis of them having a spent conviction."

        But my point is that most characteristics such as race, gender etc are visible. But it's illegal to discriminate on the base of them. So why shouldn't it be acceptable for 'spent' convictions to remain visible - but ignored, in the same way as gender etc.

        The ROA allows for certain jobs to be exempt anyway, but there is a case that other jobs may well justify discrimination - e.g. someone who did 12 months for stealing from the till applies for a job running an all-night petrol station or as a security van driver.

        Very tricky writing laws to cover complex area like this.

      2. James 139

        Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

        But how can you tell you've been discriminated against if someone decides to not use your services without you knowing?

        You go searching for, lets say for arguments sake, an accountant.

        You check them out on Google, so you get some idea if they are any good.

        You find an old report about how they were accused, and may or may not have been convicted, of defrauding customers a long while ago.

        Do you still use them? or do you pass them over without ever having spoken to them?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      "Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?"

      Well played, sir.

    3. Len

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      Going after publications is outside of the scope of the RTBF and, more importantly, an entirely different legal field. You stray into censorship and defamation territory, very far removed from the RTBF.

    4. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?

      How many times does this have to be said...

      The law on spent convictions doesn't force papers to shred their archives. Or even change old articles posted on their websites. It doesn't censor history. What it stops them doing is putting a headline on their front page now mentioning that so-and-so has a spent conviction.

      And means that said people don't have to disclose spent convictions to employers.

      If you don't like that, campaign to get the law changed.

      The right to be forgotten attempts to force Google to comply with laws that everyone else already mostly complied with.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

        ...The right to be forgotten attempts to force Google to comply with laws that everyone else already mostly complied with....

        Not exactly. As you said, a conviction is a matter of history, and should be readily available from court records or newspaper reports from that period. Any attempte to ban access to these would be censorship of history.

        The search engines are simply labour-saving methods of accessing such items as old newspaper articles without having to search through archives. But they are no different in principle from doing that. Stopping them will result in the odd result that access to this historical infomation is perfectly open, but we will artificially make it hard to find in practice by banning modern technology.

        This is completely different from banning a newspaper from reprinting a story about an earlier criminal conviction 20 years after the event. It has odd implications. For instance, if I go to a newspaper web site that may well have an archive search facility which gives automated search access to stories 20 years old. Is this to be banned in the same way as a Google search?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?

      cos they have the most money!

      1. 's water music
        WTF?

        Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

        >>Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?

        cos they have the most money!

        Wait, what? Newspapers are beating Google at business?

    6. local_man

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      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.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

        ...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....

        Er... the good old hard copy will be archived using technology. If I go to a library and ask for an old story the librarian will use their archive search engine to find it for me. What you have proposed is that hard copy archives should not be loaded onto modern technology at all - and that all historians should be deprived of the ability to use it.....

        1. local_man

          Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

          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.

    7. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: So if I fall prey to NT2 ...

      "Anyway: why go after search engines, surely the newspapers, etc, are the right targets ?"

      This was previously covered.

      NT1 and NT2 both tried to go after the newspapers and got thoroughly slapped down by the courts.

      This is their Hail Mary pass (and they both have Wikipedia entries. NT1's has been heavily edited)

  8. rmason

    Wrong approach.

    The correct approach here would be a few hundred/thousand quid to a web dev firm to make enough (tiny and crap) web pages about him, and SEO them above the news stories.

    Granted the scope was smaller (local news not national) but someone in my area caught growing a specific plant did exactly this.

    Tried to get the local rags etc to take down the story after a few years and failed. So he simply SEO'd enough website about himself to ensure nothing nasty came up on pages 1 or 2 of google (the entirety of the internet as far as many or even most are concerned).

    Simple, effective (to a point) and cheaper.

    I know he got a job again the year he did this.

    By the time you get past the facebook,twitter,pinternest et al accounts you create and name yourself in you're halfway down page one. Then follow the phony pages about your passion for home brewing, then the one about how much you love origami, then the one with your endless (stamped out and content heavy) blogs about music or cars or whatever on etc etc etc.

    Pretty soon anyone googling your name (if you're famous enough or it's unique enough) or something like your name+home town will be presented with 1-3 pages of google results about your knitting blog and flower arranging business etc.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Wrong approach.

      "So he simply SEO'd enough website about himself to ensure nothing nasty came up on pages 1 or 2 of google"

      And _this_ is exactly what "reputation management companies" do - for a fee.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is one big problem with this 'Right to be Forgotten' EU ruling - Editing History.

    If it is taken to its logical conclusion it means that all local libraries, newspaper offices and any other place where 5any sort of record is kept will have to edit their records to comply - just the sort of thing a police state will love, the ability to edit history to fit their political agenda.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      That's not what it does, that's not what spent convictions mean, that's not how it works. Google are simply being asked to comply with laws newspapers already have to. You don't have to delete spent convictions, you just can't keep mentioning them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's not a "logical conclusion"; that's a stupid extreme. All sensible people are agreed that we don't want to take this data protection business to a stupid extreme in either direction. There will, unavoidably, be discussions about exactly where the line should be drawn.

      Destroying paper newspaper archives in the British Library: stupid.

      Allowing any private company to collect any personal information about any person and republish it against the will of the data subject: stupid.

      Current case: not clear, which is why it's going to court.

    3. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."

      Personally, though i think you're exaggerating Ivan. The "Right to be forgotten" laws specifically exclude basically all of the examples you gave. So publications are free from editorial as are archives and record offices. It's the reason why, as it states in the article, he's not going after the publishers that first ran the stories.

      Google is in a way an easy target, it's already got a lot of bad press, and it tends to be a bit stupid on these things (trying to pass themselves off under the journalism exemption is just stupid and likely to annoy the judge). Simply put the public interest defence would certainly seem to be the best course here. He commited crimes whilst acting as director of a financial services firm and now he is working again in the financial services industry, that makes it public interest. If he was working as a janitor, or sewerage plant work then he would have a much stronger case of it no longer being in the public interest.

      Also the fact that he gave interviews about his crimes should basically put an end to this whole discussion. He obviously had no interest in letting his crimes be forgotten, so neither should anyone else.

      1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

        Small point - both NT1 and NT2 did approach the papers asking for deletion. Both got told 'no' and neither pursued the news media after that.

    4. fruitoftheloon
      WTF?

      @Ivan 4

      Ivan 4,

      heaven help any poor bar steward who is due to be judged by their peers and you are part of the jury...

      Jay

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Ivan 4

        May I ask why?

        All I did was to try and look at this case from the point of view of those going after Google - they apparently want to rewrite history in their favour or failing that they are looking for a very large wodge of cash from Google.

        1. lucki bstard

          Re: @Ivan 4

          'All I did was to try and look at this case from the point of view of those going after Google' - There's your problem. You looked at it without looking at the facts and then get upset when you're presented facts. Find out the facts rather than navel gazing.

    5. Stork Silver badge

      The right to be forgotten is about search engines, as several others have been pointing out, not original sources.

      The origin of the law was (AFAIR) a French lawyer who after a dispute found himself accused of terrorist links on a number of websites, and that filled the top links of google. Even if he managed to get the original sources taken down (libel methinks) it was still on top of google which I think he found unreasonable.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "Even if he managed to get the original sources taken down (libel methinks) it was still on top of google "

        This wouldn't happen. Shortly after the offending pages went down, the google entries would expire too.

  10. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    ...The man himself wore a neat dark suit, his greying hair swept back from his temples. He had loosened his top button, letting his dark, patterned tie hang slightly limp around his collar, although Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice was slightly above room temperature....Under the strain of cross-examination by a top barrister, NT2 showed visible signs of stress, turning pink in the face and becoming fidgety.

    One of your journalists fancies himself as an author, I see.....

    1. Dabooka

      Somewhere, an owl hooted...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Journalism is in the details.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Journalism is in the details.

        Like this you mean?

        ...

        The grizzled old hack pulled his notepad and pen from his dirty trenchcoat and took his seat in Courtroom 13 - Old Bailey. "Unlucky for some", he thought. He listened to a few minutes of the testimony, making copious notes for his piece. Then took a thoughtful pull from the hipflask in his other pocket.

        Hmm, he thought. "What angle to take?" Precisely what snark to info ratio would his readers' like today?

        He made a note to himself in his excellent shorthand to check the Official El Reg Grump-o-Meter[TM] when returning to the office. This was the Vulture's secret weapon. Their secret script that hijacked readers webcams and microphones and monitored such metrics as their mouse-click speed, typing accuracy and average/current reading speed of articles. This gave El Reg an unrivalled knowledge of its user base, and their average state of inebriation, mental state, grumpiness and despair. It was the secret to their success.

        He took another swig from his hipflask, remembering that cold, rainy day in August when he'd helped the Register team fight off the FSB snatch-squad, trying to capture the machine for Russia's own nefarious purposes...

        The words, "naked kangaroos covered in whipped cream m'lud", awoke him from his dark reverie. Bringing his mind back to the case in hand...

        1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

          You angling for my job?

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
            Happy

            You angling for my job?

            Oooh is your job going? I can't do shorthand, but I can stay upright with half a bottle of single malt inside me. Which of those is more important?

          2. PNGuinn
            Coat

            @Gaz

            "You angling for my job?"

            Nah - he's just fishing ....

            >> Thanks - it's the one the one with the bait, pin and bit of bent string in the pocketses ...

        2. Teiwaz

          Some Interesting Ideas there.

          Should the reg ever decide to do a day of writing in the Noir style....

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. LucreLout
        Joke

        Journalism is in the details.

        I thought it was in other peoples voicemails and garbage bags?

    3. disgruntled yank

      neat dark suit

      Actually, I came to the comments to say that the description inclines me to let El Reg off easy for the fitbit-guy story illustrated by the picture of the fetching young woman. Journalists used to give one pages about what this or that woman wore. (Though admittedly, by the tenth male senator wearing a dark suit with an American flag lapel pin one might give up on the men.)

      However, how exactly does a room come to be slightly above room temperature?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Don't shoot the messenger!

    "He is suing Google for infringing his data protection and privacy rights, demanding the deletion of 13 results that come up when one searches for his name."

    So what about all those websites which still host pages containing his name and describing the stuff he did? Does he really think that forcing Google to remove the stuff from their current collection would change anything?

    See: those same pages are most likely also indexed by Microsoft's Bing. So what to do about that?

    Why don't these people clue up and contact the actual sources of this information: the websites running these stories?

    My take? Because if he did that then he'd risk getting laughed out of court because there's also something as the freedom of information and freedom of speech. And they're also not lying or anything: he actually did commit those crimes. So we'll just target Google (and conveniently ignore Bing) because "the big bad search engine company is out to get me".

    1. matjaggard

      Re: Don't shoot the messenger!

      No-one uses Bing.

    2. standardraise

      Re: Don't shoot the messenger!

      The fundamental difference is that google does not let you move on. These links probably rank very highly in a person's google search which leads a disproportionate representation of that person. The idea of rehabilitation of offenders and the right to be forgotten is that individuals are unable to move on with their lives in a sensible way. This is not about freedom of information but rather the disproportionate effect of the google search and the laws that encourage people to move on.

      Freedom is speech is not relevant because speech is not being curbed - this is about rehabilitation - which we already legislate for so that people can positively contribute to society.

  12. Aitor 1

    Easy one

    Ok, this one I knew without searching. At that absolutely defeats his argument of "not a public figure". If I can know who he is, he is a public figure.

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Easy one

      For the avoidance of doubt, anyone directly speculating about either NT1 or NT2's identity will have their comments deleted. Pre-moderation is active on this article.

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        Re: Easy one

        Do I get moderated for speculating that NT1 is not Lord Lucan ?

        1. PNGuinn
          Go

          Re: Do I get moderated for speculating that NT1 is not Lord Lucan ?

          OK, that post has appeared. Sooo, we know that XXX is not not YYY.

        2. Pen-y-gors

          Re: Easy one

          Nope, so we just need to post every name in the phone book as an individual post and wait for one to be moderated. Then we tick off the names that have got through and bingo.

      2. Alistair
        Windows

        Re: Easy one

        @gaz

        Being the cynical, cranky bastard that I am, pre-moderation on the comments was a given.

        I'm pretty sure I know who *both* these two are, and *why* they want to alter history. And (given I've the right culprits) it is very much that they wish to alter history. At least, for the next 5 or 6 years they need to alter history. Once they've lined pocket appropriately, they'll wander off to a quiet little island somewhere and vanish.

        And at least one of them can afford several Matrix legal begals. For quite some time.

        1. Pen-y-gors

          Re: Easy one

          If he/she is the person I think, then I get a lot more than 13 results on Google.

    2. Pen-y-gors

      Re: Easy one

      The 'public figure' point is interesting. Obviously dodgy celebs are public figures, but I would argue that anyone who offers their services to the public is a public figure, albeit a minor one. But the public, the person's potential customers, who may be considering entering into a contractual relationship with the person, based on an element of trust, surely have a right to the information on which to base their decision.

      In a decent society we wouldn't need RTBF - all people would make fair judgements based on the circs. Employing a builder, a childminder or even a financial advisor wouldn't be affected by the fact that they got done for dope possession or drunk and disorderly 20 years ago, when they were a student at Uni. (Do people get done for drunk and disorderly any more? Judging by most town centres on a Friday night, the police don't care these days)

  13. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    WTF?

    "not a high profile"

    And he can afford Carter-Ruck and a QC from Matrix Chambers?

    Hmm.

    1. a pressbutton

      Re: "not a high profile"

      Are you sure he/she is paying the bill and not possibly some organisation he/she works/worked for?

    2. matjaggard

      Re: "not a high profile"

      You seem to have mistyped the name of the lawyer. It has a F after the hyphen, not an R.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why don't they just change their names? NT1 and NT2 do have quite a nice ring to them.

    Seriously though, this has come about because of the emergence of search capabilities and the internet, where previously you would have to go to the library it's now only a click away. I'm actually surprised it's taken this long.

    The only way I think you could fix it would be for news websites to use an archive flag in articles so they are de-indexed by search engines on a specific date when a conviction is spent. They would still be searchable on the news websites and if you really wanted to search about someone then you only need to perform a few extra searches.

    I think they will win this because it's an easy way out but it doesn't solve the overall problem. That's going to need legislation.

    1. a pressbutton

      Re: The future...

      I would wait for nt4 before putting much faith in any court case.

  15. Valeyard

    Pot meet kettle

    He is suing Google for infringing his data protection and privacy rights,

    LOL. I have my own theories on who this is, so in my head they must have been biting their tongues when they wrote their case

  16. pxd

    Objection!

    "although Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice was slightly above room temperature." With all due respect, I suggest that Court 13 was by definition at room temperature, it being a room . . . I'll get my coat. pxd

  17. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge
    Trollface

    Poor Windows NT Workstation...

    ...oh, wait...

    1. PNGuinn
      Joke

      "Poor Windows NT Workstation..."

      Which goes to prove conclusively that NT1 and NT2 are honest, decent, law abiding BSODS.

      Now if they had been called systemd1 and systemd2 ....

      Pitchforks! Ducking Stools! Stake! Fire!

  18. tiggity Silver badge

    Going pink in the face

    How much leeway on identity hiding is there in reporting?

    Mention of grey hair - gives some pointer to minimum age (within error bounds)

    If face can be seen to go pink, then gives hint of skin "colour" / "race" (again within error bounds)

    Just wondered where the boundaries are.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Going pink in the face

      "Mention of grey hair - gives some pointer to minimum age"

      Unless you're like my brother who started going significantly grey in his early twenties...

    2. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Going pink in the face

      The fact that he headed a presumably established business 10 years ago also gives a pointer to minimum age.

    3. Pen-y-gors

      Re: Going pink in the face

      @tiggity

      "He used the hook that now replaced his left hand to rub his greying hair as if to ease the pain from when he'd hit his head on the top of the door as he entered the court, and the spectators were clearly entranced by the intermittent pad-tap-pad-tap as his wooden leg echoed on the floorboards. He eased himself into a seat, after first checking that it would be strong enough to take his corpulence. Once seated he took out his gold-lame crocodile-skin wallet and opened it as if to count his money. The heart of the grizzled old hack from El Reg seated behind him leapt - yes - he could see his driving licence - his name was really...."

      sadly at that point the manuscript tailed off into an unreadable scrawl, with the ink spreading out in the stains of drool and cheap whiskey.

  19. pAnoNymous

    Oh no he didn't

    Man convicted of "offence of conspiracy to intercept communications" claims privacy rights.

    The irony is strong with this one.

  20. Matt Judge

    Sorry mods, but thanks for confirming it.

    I had forgotten all about him until this fiasco. And I thought I was the stupid one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It doesn't actually confirm your suspicion as it is contempt of court to name anyone.

  21. BugabooSue

    What this did

    Was Make me go straight out and google who the fudger was - way to go Mr Streisand.

    I get that this is not what the petitioner may be concerned about as being still somewhat flush for cash, he is worrying about future business marks partners’ impressions of him.

    In any case, thanks for the reminder who you are.

  22. Uberior

    Limited court reporting is usually a bit of a farce.

    It's like the celebs who go to extreme lengths to limit publition of their naughtiness. Only to find that the court order only covers England and it's business as usual in the Scottish Press.

  23. Twilight

    I often like EU law but the whole RTBF is ridiculous. If the original sources exist then it makes absolutely no sense to force Google to remove links to them (for many reasons). If the original sources were taken down or edited and Google still linked them then there would certainly be a case against Google. RTBF is absolutely editing history.

    Also, curious, a lot of websites use Google search internally. Would RTBF ruling against Google mean that these sites would not even be able to return results for articles on their own site (assuming they are in the EU)?

  24. Archangel_

    "The man himself wore a neat dark suit, his greying hair swept back from his temples. He had loosened his top button, letting his dark, patterned tie hang slightly limp around his collar..."

    Am I reading a Catherine Cookson novel?

  25. x 7

    Whats the news on these - who won? Can they be identified?

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

Other stories you might like