The Right To Be Forgotten On Google
I recently read an article online and as it is Internet related I thought might be of interest to write little post about it as it relates to the right to be forgotten on Google.
What caught my eye about this article what’s the title was the subject of a single person winning a legal court case to have information removed by a global company.
A businessman fighting for the right to be forgotten on Google Yes yo yo read it right he wants to be forgotten by Google.
Yes I know you have read it right he wants to be forgotten by Google.
The businessman was known as NT2 for the sake of his privacy. His application was for a previous crime he had committed to be prevented from coming out in search results.
He applied on the right to be forgotten and his complaint was about his crime which related to 11 sourced publications which the Judge decided in his favour and stated that the appropriate de-listing order should be made.
However it was ruled out that a damages payment should be made as in this situation he had admitted his guilt and also showed remorse for the crime he had committed And served six months in prison for conspiracy to carry out surveillance.
NT2 is now operating a business within a different industry and has nothing to do with his previous business dealings hence his argument that his criminal information should be removed from the search engine Google supplies.
Another man who had a similar case lost his. argument for removal. He was referred to as NT1. The reason for the different outcome is because his situational circumstances were different.
Nt1 lost his hearing as his activities still is retained relevance to present day although It is my understanding that if you commit a criminal offence and that stays on your record for life?
So how did the first man in NT1 obtain a different result and what was the explanation?
NT1 Received a jam sentence of four years this is because he conspired to account for falsely and received a four-year sentence for the “conspiracy to account falsely”.
Addionally He also never showed any remorse for what he had done and he never excepted his guilt and not only did you mislead the court in mislead the public as well the judge went on to explain.
He also remains in business to this day so the information to protect the public is relevant hence the decision went against him.
First Type Of Legal Ruling In England
This High Court ruling delivered a blow to Google and were the first of their kind in English and Welsh Law Courts.
The solicitors who acted for both businessmen explained that the decision was as groundbreaking although Google contested both of the claims however they had separate trials in the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
This High Court ruling delivered a blow to Google and other search engines.
Although both men committed the crimes a long time ago they both argued that the convictions were legally expired. They also went on to say they had both been rehabilitated although the court found insufficient evidence that NT1 had shown remorse as mentioned earlier in this article.
Both convictions were brought under the data protection law for misuse of private information and argued under the term for “the right to be forgotten” and have their criminal information removed by operators such as Google who runs Internet search engines.
The Ruling will almost certainly be referred to in other court hearings regarding similar circumstances and will lead to a change in the Law with regards to information that has legally expired.
What Could It Mean For Law Change?
If you agree or disagree it is food for thought with regards to other criminal convictions, the right to be forgotten on Google and Other search engines is not unheard of and you can request this from a search engine directly with the operator. In the case of these trials the ruling was not satisfactory to the applicants.
Could it mean if you was convicted of drink driving you can now have this removed from the public domain if you have shown remorse and served your punishment?
what about if you are declared Bankrupt?
What are your opinions on this? Comment below to let me know as I think this is a rather interesting court ruling and wonder what implications thee will be for future applications to the Law Courts.
I have read some forums on news agency sites and there are varied opinions on this news and both views for and against make good points.
If you have served your punishment should you be given the chance to rebuild your life or career? Well it all depends on the type of crime you have committed, of course it has to.
Another argument is that if as an adult your criminal record stays with you for life then why should it not be kept public?
The Otherside of the coin:
Where does it stop? is it not a conflict with the freedom of information act? and it is bringing into the argument of Censorship.
Is it ok with minor offences but major offences should still be made available.
This landmark ruling will be put in the Statutes of England and Wales at some point so it will be interesting to see how it is interpreted.
I am sure victims the related crimes will argue against and who can blame them? NT2 has served his crime and got on and is now making a living and rebuilding his life but what about people his crime effected or other victims of fraudulent crimes?
Have they gone on and rebuilt their lifes?
I am sure most have but when it involves monetary fraud I do not believe a person should have that information removed as victims can lose their life savings in some cases and that to me is a large scale crime.
Everyone has a different opinion but perhaps we should listen to the people who have experienced the situation on both sides. Until it happens to you then you do not know how you will feel or react surely?
Thank you for reading this article and I would really like your opinions on this as it will have an effect on us all at some point unfortunately!