Google in 'Right to be forgotten' court case

[Dos_Box]

I was going to put this in General Chat, but given the subject matter thought it would be best in here - Google in historic 'right to be forgotten' challenge - BBC News

 

A businessman has taken Google to the High Court in London in what is being seen as a landmark case over "the right to be forgotten".

 

He is challenging Google's decision not to remove a criminal conviction he has from the 1990s from search results.

 

People can ask for online information to be removed from searches if they feel it is outdated or irrelevant.

 

Google said it would "defend the public's right to access lawful information".

 

"We work hard to comply with the right to be forgotten, but we take great care not to remove search results that are clearly in the public interest and will defend the public's right to access lawful information," the firm said in a statement.

 

This could get interesting.

[enjay]

Should he not have waited until GDPR was in force, as that has better RTBF rules?

 

People have taken similar action against newspapers for information printed in archived publications too.

[MrWrighty]

I would have thought that in this case it was in the public interest to keep the information available, however I also think it depends on the severity of the criminal conviction.

[Dos_Box]

I would have thought that in this case it was in the public interest to keep the information available, however I also think it depends on the severity of the criminal conviction.

 

Indeed, I think this will have to have quite a lot of thought put into it by the powers that be.

Is it in the public interest that someone had a stupid shoplifting conviction at 18 following them around at age 30, or that someone was convicted of fraud?

What if an applicant has all traces of past crimes removed and then lies on job applications about them only to be caught doing the same thing again?

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case and the judges decision.

[enjay]

Is it in the public interest that someone had a stupid shoplifting conviction at 18 following them around at age 30, or that someone was convicted of fraud?

 

Hmm. Childhood shoplifting, probably not. Fraud, yes.

 

What if an applicant has all traces of past crimes removed and then lies on job applications about them only to be caught doing the same thing again?

Arguably, the employer should have run DBS checks on their staff.

[rom1984]

No idea which way this is going to go! From what I've read I think he is using the right to be forgotten but also the principle that data must be relevant and up to date. Because the conviction is spent the argument is it is no longer relevant and he should be able to get on with his life as a rehabilitated person without the crime effecting his current life.

[MrWrighty]

Hmm. Childhood shoplifting, probably not. Fraud, yes.

 

 

Arguably, the employer should have run DBS checks on their staff.

 

Just found this regarding DBS:-

 

[h=1]Will employers be able to carry out criminal records checks under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)?[/h]Under the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679 EU) (GDPR), personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences can be processed only:

 

• under the control of official authority; or
  
• when it is authorised by law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.
  

On the face of it, this means that it would not be lawful for employers to carry out criminal records checks as a matter of course, unless they are recruiting for a role for which checks are authorised by law, for example roles involving work with vulnerable adults or children where a Disclosure and Barring Service check is required.

However, the Government intends to legislate to authorise the use of criminal records checks by organisations other than those vested with official authority (the GDPR includes a derogation to allow such legislation). The Government published the Data Protection Bill on 13 September 2017, which will supplement the GDPR. The Bill includes provision for authorising the processing of criminal convictions data where necessary for the purposes of performing or exercising employment law obligations or rights. To carry out such processing, an employer would have to have in place a policy that explains its procedures for securing compliance with the principles of the GDPR in relation to the processing of the criminal records data, and that explains its policies on erasure and retention of the data. The Bill also authorises processing criminal records data in other circumstances, including where the subject has given his or her consent. This would allow employers to request a criminal records check where the prospective employee agrees to this, provided that the consent meets the specific requirements under the GDPR.

The GDPR will come into effect on 25 May 2018. It is not yet known when the Data Protection Bill will come into force.

[enjay]

So a company can't currently run a DBS to see if applicants for their finance manager job have fraud convictions? That's odd, glad that is being changed!

[MrWrighty]

So a company can't currently run a DBS to see if applicants for their finance manager job have fraud convictions? That's odd, glad that is being changed!

 

Is it though. The reasons for requesting a DBS check will still be under strict guidelines and not necessarily open to all.

[enjay]

Is it though. The reasons for requesting a DBS check will still be under strict guidelines and not necessarily open to all.

 

I'm all for control of them, but still think they should be permitted. Using my example, an employer shouldn't be able to run a DBS on a prospective receptionist but should be able to on a prospective finance manager. Maybe it should be possible to do limited DBS searches, so you can only find out about relevant convictions.

[MrWrighty]

I'm all for control of them, but still think they should be permitted. Using my example, an employer shouldn't be able to run a DBS on a prospective receptionist but should be able to on a prospective finance manager. Maybe it should be possible to do limited DBS searches, so you can only find out about relevant convictions.

 

Agree, that would be a good solution. Be interesting to follow the developments of this.

[Dos_Box]

And the result is out - Google loses 'right to be forgotten' case - BBC News

Google was faced by two separate cases, one for a person accused of 'conspiring to intercept communications' which was went against them them, but the one where the claimant was jailed previously for 'conspiring to account falsely' was rejected by the court.

 

Explaining the decisions made on Friday, the judge said one of the men had continued to "mislead the public" while the other had "shown remorse".

 

This goes to show that each case will still be judged on it's merits rather than the 'right to be forgotten' being a given I think.

Edited April 14, 2018 by elsiegee40

[elsiegee40]

I foresee an appeal on the one Google lost