How to make a successful right to be forgotten application
On 12 October 2014, Google reported to have rejected more than two thirds of all the ‘right to be forgotten’ applications they received from UK applicants.
Google’s decision to comply with any such applications is of course at their discretion (albeit in accordance with the landmark court ruling made in Google Spain SL & Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) & Costeja González (“Google Spain”) in May 2014) and there are currently no hard and fast rules which might serve to predict an applicant’s chances of success. Indeed, when comparing some successful applications against those which Google rejected, it becomes quite apparent that (at least on the face of it) even Google does not appear to maintain a consistent approach in how it deals with each right to be forgotten request. Read more 3 steps to a successful Right to be forgotten application.
So where do Europeans stand in relation to the removal of Google search results worldwide? July 2017 update.
From the day Google was told to remove search results worldwide, Europeans residents are eagerly awaiting the French High Court’s decision on an appeal by Google.
In May 2015 French data regulator ordered Google to apply a Right to be Forgotten removal in relation to 21 offending search results to the search engine’s global domain google.com and not only for searches from Europe but from across the globe.
After Google’s representations were rejected and following its refusal to affect the removal of search results globally, the French regulator issued Google with a penalty of 100,000 Euros. Google appealed to France’s highest court, the Council of State (Conseil d’État). A decision in the case is expected by the end of 2017.
Google’s position is that it will not delist search results from all its search engine extensions. You can read here Google’s reasons for refusing to remove search results from Google worldwide.
The French data regulator’s position is that Google has come a long way in complying with European data requirements but only a measure that applies to all processing by the search engine, with no distinction between the extensions used and the geographical location of the internet user making a search, is legally adequate to meet the requirement under the Right to be Forgotten.
The position of Cohen Davis solicitors is that any data, which is found to be unlawfully processed anywhere in the EEA and which is resulting in delisting of search results under the Right to be Forgotten, must not then be processed outside of the EEA.
This is because under European data protection laws, any organisation that transfers personal data to a country outside of the EEA, must do so under the same conditions of processing which applies to processing of the same data within the EEA.
If follows that if processing of personal data is unlawful within the EEA, it must also be unlawful outside of the EEA.
You can read the full article here
USA Internet Law Attorney
If you are looking for a US internet lawyer or an internet law attorney to help you obtain a court order, a disclosure order, a subpoena or an injunction against a USA based website, then we fully sympathise with your natural worries and concerns. We know that for most individuals who, like yourself, have had little dealings with lawyers, finding and actually instructing a new lawyer, particularly in a relatively unfamiliar area of law and in another country, is nerve-racking and even frightening. Read more US Internet Law Attorney
Looking for an internet law attorney in the US to help you get a court order for disclosure? Get in touch with Cohen Davis right now! We guarantee to direct you to the right place in whichever State your desired internet law attorney is located in the US
The UK government is told it would be unlawful to create a law that requests internet service providers to retain user’s data for 12 months across the board. On Wednesday 21 December 2016, the Cour…
The bulk personal datasets collected by British intelligence agencies is reminiscent of dark days and dark regimes, Yair Cohen, of the London-based law firm Cohen Davis Solicitors
About 2 years ago I received a telephone call from an extremely worried mother. She told me that her son, a sixth former who studied at a school near Rochdale, was being falsely accused of some very serious matters on Facebook. I am a lawyer and my speciality is internet law and social media so I am used to receiving telephone calls from people who feel distressed about things that are being said about them on the internet. This telephone call, however, was different because it came not from the person who was being abused online, but from his mother.
It seemed a pupil at the school had created a Facebook Page, which he used for the purpose of posting unpleasant and false commentary about his fellow pupils and about their relationships with one another. Many of the posts were of an abusive and sexual nature and cannot be repeated here for obvious reasons. It was apparent that some of the pupils who became the subject of the abusive commentary were very distressed and a few even posted on the Page, begging the author to stop, but to no avail.
The worried mother told me that she was concerned that if the posts remained on the internet, they could potentially harm her son’s future as when he grows up and applies for jobs, the potential employer might believe those false allegations about him and will not want to employ him as a result. She also told me that her son was too scared to report the abuse to the school so she decided to report it herself, but that the school told her that no school policy was breached because all the abusive posts appear to have been posted after school hours. The school did not feel that it had any responsibility to police or to sanction any action taken by its pupils outside school time. She then asked Facebook to remove the offensive Page but never received a reply. I agreed to take on that case on a voluntary basis and after receiving legal correspondence, Facebook agreed to delete the Page from the internet.
This case taught me a number of valuable lessons. First, that schools must be attentive and sensitive to how the internet is being used by pupils and if online abuse exists, the school must act regardless of whether the abuse was posted on the internet after school hours. Second, that young children don’t always appreciate the long term damage that internet posts can cause to them and to their employment prospects. And third, that every school must have an easily accessible method by which pupils can report online abuse and harassment that affects them or others.
This case also reminded me that the lack of policing of the internet can result in short as well as long term devastating outcomes to some of the most vulnerable member of our society. It made me wonder whether time has now come for us, the adults, to rethink some of the anarchistic idealisms that govern the current use of the internet and introduce at least some basic governing and policing principles similar to the ones already exists in the ‘real world of our thriving offline society.
As with many similar consumer contracts, there is a 21 day cooling off period, which is essentially a grace period in which a consumer has the opportunity to change their mind without incurring a penalty. If your contract has gone beyond the 21 day cooling off period you may be asking, “What can I do?”
Read more: TalkTalk data breach can I leave TalkTalk?
How quickly we can remove defamation from the internet will depend on many factors such as when the defamation was first published , prior to after the 01 of January 2014? How long has the defamatory post been on the internet, for 12 months or longer? The links of the defamatory website to the UK, particularly the server, the poster, the operator and owner of the website and the laws of country where the defamatory website is located.
Take the test and see if you can remove the defamation from the internet. Follow this link: Defamation lawyer legal advice