Tag: Google effect -

The Google Effect – You can be forgotten!

I’d just started a new relationship when I sat my girlfriend down and disclosed my conviction to her. Out of interest, we decided to check Google to see if we could find out any information about my conviction on there – it was spent so I’d presumed there wouldn’t be anything. Well, imagine my shock and horror when it came up right in front of me.

I’d been looking to start a new business and I was now really really worried that people who I’d be working for would be able to Google me and see everything about my past. How would these people see me now? Would they still want to work with me? How could this be fair? If an employer did a basic criminal record check on me nothing would show up but because of Google, my spent conviction was still splashed all over the web even though I hadn’t legally had to disclose it for about six months.

How would I be able to move on with my life knowing that anybody could see my conviction on the web and then make a judgement about me, even though I was rehabilitated and had moved on with my life?

Luckily I found Unlock. They were really sympathetic and understood the impact of the so-called ‘Google Effect’. They informed me that as my conviction was spent, I should write to Google and request that they remove the link. They even helped me to draft the letter to Google ensuring that it contained the relevant information to back up my request. I set out in my letter that my conviction was spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and that the information held about me was irrelevant, outdated and inappropriate.

I sent a similar letter to the website that the article appeared on.

Imagine my joy when I received replies back from Google and the website stating that they were happy to remove my links from the web. Now when I do a search on my name, nothing comes up. I feel that I can move forward with my life not having to worry.

I would recommend this that anyone who has a spent conviction and is in the same position as I was. Write to Google and request your link is removed. After all, we should all have the right to move on from our past mistakes.

By Julian (name changed to protect identity)

Useful links

Comment – Let us know your thoughts on this post by commenting below
Information – We have practical self-help information on the google-effect for people with convictions on our information hub.
Discuss this issue – There are some interesting discussions related to this from people with convictions on our online forum
Policy work – Read about the policy work Unlock is doing on the google-effect

Success with dealing with the ‘google effect’

I would like to share with readers of theRecord how new rules allowing Google links to be removed (‘The right to be forgotten’) has turned my life around. I really do believe that it can be of use to people with convictions.

Eight years ago I was in a very abusive relationship with a partner who was, in fact, a Police Officer. The relationship had ended although we did still have to live together and unfortunately one evening, an accident at our house caused a serious fire. I ended up in Intensive Care for two days fighting for my life. When I recovered I discovered that I was being taken to court, charged with arson. It was an extremely difficult time which was made worse upon conviction when details of the offence were published in the local newspapers. In court, my ex partner pleaded with the judge not to send me to prison, and I received a two year suspended sentence and 150 hours of community service.

For years I’d been living in the knowledge that anybody could look me up on the internet. I’d searched for myself and found a twisted press story of the event, which even showed where I lived. I knew that I was a good person and this was never going to happen again.

As a result of having a very understanding boss, I had kept my job and just wanted to move on and concentrate on my career so I studied for a Leadership, Management and Business Degree. A fantastic job opportunity came up and I applied. I was totally honest and disclosed my conviction as I knew it was going to show up on my DBS which they requested. I was delighted to get the job and was told it was entirely on merit, references and my drive to do well and succeed. I was over the moon and knew my life was now going in the right direction again and I was never going to look back.

In the meantime I had met a ‘nice’ man and we married. The relationship seemed to be going well, however when I used to come home and say that I had done well at this or that or I had received another pay rise, things started to go wrong. I eventually found out he was leading a double life, one with me and the other with a 24 year old (he was 52). I told him to leave and I moved back in with my parents. I filed for divorce as I felt I couldn’t ever trust this man again and that is when my life came crashing down again.

He suddenly decided that he wanted revenge and told my employer that they were employing a very dangerous person who was a risk to others because of my conviction (a complete lie). He had also printed off the newspaper article he had found on Google about me and said he was going to post it around the city so everyone could read it and destroy me. His attacks on me were malicious and it was terrifying not knowing what this man could do and the lengths that he would go to. I was advised by my solicitor and my employer to file for a Harassment Order and inform the Police of his allegations and intentions. My employer could see what this man was trying to do to me and supported me wholeheartedly. Despite having a spent conviction, that terrible newspaper article was being used against me again. It just wasn’t fair and I felt that enough was enough. I had to fight to get the past ‘put to bed’.

I remembered reading an article about ‘Google’s Right to be Forgotten’ in an Unlock update and decided to contact them. I told them what had happened and they advised me to do two things:-

Firstly – contact the newspaper who had published the original article and ask them to ‘remove the contents’ and,
Secondly – contact Google’s Legal team (through the link that was sent to me by Unlock) and ask them to remove the actual ‘link‘ that had any reference to me.

The staff at Unlock helped me word the email and information I was going to send, stating that I would be sending copies to the Information Commissioner’ Office or ICO (They are the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals).

I emailed the newspaper and explained to them that the information in the article was being used maliciously against me, quoting references from the ICO asking them if they would support me in my attempts to remove the article and its contents due to it being related to a spent conviction. I then completed the online Google form with as much details as possible to try and remove the link and sent that off too.

To my amazement within a day, the newspaper had emailed me back saying that they had removed the article from their site. I quickly went on to their site and, yes, the article had been removed. All that was left was the link on Google. I waited in anticipation and seven days later I received an email from Google saying that all links to me, my name and the offence had been removed.

Well, as you can imagine, it was a joyous day. The dark grey cloud had finally been lifted. I could walk tall again and restart my life.

The reason for this ‘long’ story is for me to reach out to everyone caught up in a similar situation. Is there something out there on Google that could be used against you? Is it being held against you now through a partner, a friend, a work colleague…even your boss? Are your children or family suffering because of it? Because if this is the case you must try and get it removed. If the conviction is spent then that gives them all the more reason to remove it. You will be surprised how helpful people are when you tell them that you made a mistake and how much you have turned your life around, that you are a good person… so get writing! Mine is a success story and so can yours be…just don’t give up. Good Luck!

By Sam (name changed to protect identity)

Counteracting negative ‘Google’ or other internet search results

Introduction

In a perfect world, we’d be able to remove all the unfair, outdated, and negative search results about ourselves. In reality, most content is here to stay except in special circumstances. Remove what you can, but creating your own positive content to suppress the negatives is a practical way to control your image and improve your search results.

If you are looking to disappear from the web, then this isn’t the solution for you. You’ll be creating more content about yourself, but you might be able to tip the balance from negative to positive.

For anybody looking to increase their positive profile on the web then there are a number of steps that you could consider.

Which sites should I create a profile on?

Certain sites consistently appear high in the search results. By simply creating a profile on them with your name and a bit of identifying information, you can suppress negative results. Make sure that you set your privacy settings to be publicly viewed, and only post content that you’re absolutely sure you won’t regret later.

Some sites you could consider posting to include:-

Other sites

You can also use your real name to register on news websites and comment on articles, although these types of posts don’t tend to rank as highly as those on the sites listed above. If you’re prepared for a little self-censorship, posting under your real name can be a smart strategy for selling yourself. Knowing that anything you say online may show up when someone Googles you, use your postings to your advantage: post intelligent, grammatically-correct, spell-checked, well-reasoned content.

Express yourself in the field in which you want to become established. One of the ways that Google determines a site’s rank in search results is by analysing how many times other sites link to it. You can get your content to rise by linking it to itself. For example, create a Twitter account, connect that to your Facebook page, and link to all of them on your Blogger page. Of course, the more you use your accounts and interact with other people, the more likely they are to link to your content, which drives your results even higher.

Is there anything else I need to consider?

If a search for your name is generally positive, but including a particular keyword brings up negative or unwanted results, try to reclaim that term. For example if a search for “John Doe” is positive, but “John Doe” + “College” brings up negative results then John Doe should start including the phrase “College” in his positive content creation in order to associate it with his good reputation.

What else can I do?

On the 13th May 2014, a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that individuals could request that information be removed from Google’s search results. It is unlikely that Google would agree to remove links for anybody with unspent convictions. For further information see here.

For anybody looking for a fresh start and trying to avoid ‘informal’ disclosure, such as articles from newspapers and on-line then it may be worth considering changing your name.

A Past without End, or a Future with Dignity?

At the time of my conviction in 2010, I was a Church of England Minister. I had been going through a marital breakdown, and found myself in court for forgery and fraud against my former wife and her daughter. Upon conviction, I received a Community Order to do unpaid work. There were a small number of press reports. The headlines were the most damning: “Vicar stole from family,” etc. But the content of the reports were broadly accurate and anyone with a modicum of intelligence would see that this was, in essence, a matrimonial matter that had become horribly acrimonious.

The Church of England had to be seen to take action and, although they were aware of the circumstances, I was barred from acting as a clergyman for a year and had to resign my post.

For a number of years I had been looking at joining a different church denomination, one that was more inclusive and liberal. I decided that I would do so once my year’s ban was up, as I didn’t want anyone to read into the situation anything that wasn’t true – namely that I had been kicked out of the C of E. So, I waited until my legal ban was up and I was able to practice again as a minister and advised the C of E that I would not be returning to them.

The archbishop of my new church held extensive interviews with me, required me to obtain 12 references, an enhanced CRB check and trawled through the papers relating to the conviction. After meeting with fellow bishops, I was advised that I could join them and that I would be given a full license to minister.

Shortly after leaving the C of E I volunteered to work with a hospice charity and, after discussing the conviction, I was accepted to work as a bereavement supporter. I also secured work with a homeless charity during the year that I had been unable to minister.

Since then, everything has gone fine. With the exception of a couple of cases (for which I have no hard evidence) of a senior C of E minister bad-mouthing me locally, I have had few problems rebuilding my life, carving out a successful ministry and combining it with my work as a funeral director.

Then, in early 2013, I read an article about a man who wished to travel to Switzerland to end his life, but who had no-one to go with him. This led me to have a strong desire to help people in this predicament – i.e. to accompany them on their last journey when no one else would do so. I wrote to the clinic in Switzerland. They gave me some very helpful information, not least with regard to the legal situation in the UK, where it is illegal to assist with suicide, as it is in Switzerland: the person has to commit the act themselves, but it is not illegal to give them emotional support or to be with them, as long as I gained nothing personally.

During neither conversation was I asked anything about my background, save my ministry and what underpinned that. Neither was I asked to produce any references or undergo and CRB checks. I was invited along to a meeting in London. I went, and it further solidified my desire to give support.

Then, about a month ago, I was asked whether I would be happy to accompany someone to Switzerland. I agreed, and the person was given my name and contact details. Then, the following day, I received a very terse email advising me NOT to contact this person, questioning why I had failed to mention my conviction as detailed on the MailOnline and advising me that I could not accompany anyone to Switzerland because of this. It appears that the person had searched for me on Google and had put two and two together in relation to the fraud and forgery convictions.

What is appalling, in many ways, is that none of the press reports show a photograph of me, and although my own website alludes to having gone through a difficult time, there is no obvious link. There are at least another thee clergy in this country with the same name, so I could have screamed mistaken identity – but I didn’t; I was honest. I advised them that they could have just picked up the phone, that I do not have to disclose spent offences and that I am clear on my CRB to work with vulnerable adults, children etc. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be able to work as a church minister in any capacity. I advised them that it is illegal to discriminate against me because of an irrelevant spent conviction. I told them that I felt a call to accompany people, and that this was my only reason for joining the charity, as a good Samaritan helping those in need. I also told them that, as the charity taken such punitive action, I wanted nothing further to do with them. Needless to say, I have heard nothing since.

I contacted Google and asked them to remove the five reports relating to my case as my conviction is now spent. They have refused to do so, stating that the reports do not breech any data protection laws. So, it looks like I am stuck with this situation.

From the point of view of someone who has devoted their life to helping others, often at considerable personal and emotional cost, I feel very bruised by the way that this organisation has acted, and the fact that my spent convictions are all over the internet for anyone to read and make a judgement based on that information alone. I do understand, in part, the charity’s reservations, but they are completely unfounded, as has been proven by my current work and can be vouched for by those I work for in other capacities.

It is rather ironic that I have had no problems until now, when the conviction is spent. It is also very upsetting that the press reports sit there, often higher up the first page of a Google search than my own website! It all seems very wrong that a charity that didn’t ask the questions can axe someone based simply on a Google search. And I am sure I am not the only one who has fallen foul of this. So I hope some sense can be made of the right to a future, unencumbered by the past, and rules for search engines such as Google can be established.

Kind regards,

Christopher.

Has Google removed any results for people with convictions?

Since the “right to be forgotten” ruling in May 2014, Unlock have been receiving copies of requests that people with convictions have been sending to Google. So far, every single one that they’ve seen has been rejected (unless the facts that have been reported have been inaccurate). However, there was an interesting article in the Telegraph last Friday suggesting that there has been a case relating to someone with a conviction who was successful.

Have you been successful in getting search results (or original content) removed on the basis that it’s “irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate”? We want to hear from you if you have.

We’re actively on the look out for any examples where Google (or another search engine) has agreed to remove information relating to convictions on the basis that it’s now irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate. Please send us the details.

For anybody who has been refused, we’re encouraging people to make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (see Unlock’s self-help information site for more about this).

Public interest, private curiosity and the right to be forgotten

by Andy

I was convicted of a number of internet sex offences in 2010. My case appeared in the local newspaper twice: at committal and the sentencing hearing.

A few days after I was charged my half-sister – Anne – whom I had only met once only a year before – died. Someone found my address on a piece of paper at her house and her solicitor contacted me to give me the funeral arrangements. This was a strange situation for me (and my wife) and left us with a dilemma. Because of the charges I would be facing in court, would it be right, in the circumstances, to attend her funeral, or should I stay away? We decided that, in spite of the fact that I only knew her from a very pleasant day we had with her at her home, it was really important that we should attend.

We had a good day. Her friends were interested to meet us and gave a sympathetic hearing to my story about the way my dad ran off from his wife, setting up with my mother a few years later. By the end of the day, I felt we had made some new friends. She had died intestate and I inherited her estate (another, though less important reason for attending the funeral…’He got all her money and he never even came to the funeral!’). So I had to return to Scotland to clear the house and tie up some legal stuff.

Two of her good friends lived up her street and shortly after we arrived, one came to the door. I expected a few friendly words and perhaps an offer of help. Instead, I was confronted with the statement: ‘People up here know about you’. Apparently, someone had Googled the news item about my committal hearing which, by then, had happened. When we got home, we had an email from someone we met at the funeral who described herself as ‘Anne’s best friend’, berating me for the evil person I was, with the inference that my wife, by supporting me, was as bad.

That was an early lesson about how damning these stories can be. Since then I can think of at least two other occasions when my inclusion in the paper has had an effect on my life. One was the inability to get house insurance (‘Was your case in the paper?’) and, on another occasion, its use to ‘out’ me when I was a member of an adult drama group. The group knew of my convictions and welcomed my participation but, as it turned out, did not possess the courage to allow me to remain a member after the URL of the story about me was circulated on Facebook.

All that said, I know I have been lucky. In lots of ways, my life is the same: my wife stuck with me, my daughters have forgiven me, most people I know are supportive and, luckily, I had retired from work before this all blew up. But there have been several situations where I have given my name to someone I have just met and gone on to think: ‘I wonder if they’ll look me up?’

I like the idea of freedom of the press/information too, but does what has happened to me truly show the value and importance of this? Is the ability of anyone and everyone to look me up on the web a matter of public interest, or merely something of interest to some of the public?

Finally, a lot of people seem to think that having this stuff online protects the public in some way. In the sex offenders’ programme I attended, only 2 or 3 of us out of 12 had had our names in the paper, and one of those said how relieved he was that he had the same name as a film director so he was well down a Google list. I guess that, except for the most heinous of offences inclusion in the local newspaper depends on arbitrary factors such as how much news there is on that particular day, rather than an obligation to include all convictions. To look to search engines in the belief that they will dig out all wrongdoers etc. is a dangerous illusion.

For what it is worth, I cannot see that I should not have the right to be forgotten after my five years on the Sex Offenders’ Register is complete.

The Right to Forget

Editorial

There’s an interesting debate in the air regarding the EU ruling on ‘the right to forget’. The EU has just passed legislation that allows individuals to block access to outdated information and stories.

On one side, individuals who want hide information on the internet about the way they have behaved in the past can write to search engine providers, such as Google, to stop them listing pages containing personal information which is more than 30yrs old.

Some journalists and media academics are claiming this is a dangerous form of censorship, undermines free speech and hobbles journalism. They claim it should only be publishers who have the right to decide if information should or should not be made public. This means that the judgement call on what it is legitimate to publish rests with journalists like Piers Morgan and Rebekah Brookes.

On the other side, people with convictions, and others who wish to bury embarrassing stories about their pasts, are asking for the right for them to be forgotten, as criminal records are under French law.

As James Bell writes in the guardian: “There might be a case for saying some stories should vanish from the archives: what about, say, someone who committed a petty crime at 18, who long since reformed and cleaned up their act? If at the age of 30 they’re finding that their search history is still preventing them getting a job, couldn’t they make the case that it’s time for their record to be forgotten?”

But he also makes the point that “The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.”

You can see more of the debate here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google

If a person is convicted in the UK, then their conviction is a matter of public record, and anyone can research press articles and court records and bring them back to everyone’s attention. But should there not be a time-limit on this, just like the idea of a spent conviction?

We’re very interested to hear what you have to say about this. Please let us know your views – either comment on this article, or send us your thoughts.

A glass ceiling? Good enough for a job, but not for a promotion

by Mary

In November 2009 I was dismissed from the post of a Council Principal Librarian. Although I had had an unblemished professional record since 1975, I became the victim of bullying and harassment by a jealous colleague who was acting up in the role of head of service. I was accused of having books at home that I hadn’t issued – books which I was using for work purposes to prepare for family learning outreach service. The Council took out a private prosecution against me and, on the advice of my solicitor, I fought this unfair prosecution and insisted on fighting it through to Crown Court. But I was convicted of Fraud and Theft in January 2010. I was dismissed from my post two months before this verdict.

I spent 3 years trying to gain employment, but had several offers retracted when the Council sent in a bad, damning reference. I made prospective employers fully aware of my background and the circumstances of my conviction. In the light of my explanation and excellent references from previous employers, and an account of my court case, I was offered my current job as a Librarian by a local Trust in July 2012. I have been praised for my performance in my job and have received straight ‘A’s in my assessments.

About 6 weeks after I started, I received a telephone call from a reporter who told me that they had received an anonymous letter about my conviction. This can only have come from someone at my previous employers, the Council. I know this because the letter contained information that only the Council’s HR Dept. knew. The newspaper published an article, which was an exact reprint of what had appeared in the local press at the time of my conviction and about which I had made my current employer fully aware.

I was mortified by this article but, at the time, my employing Trust were supportive. My boss briefed our Press Office about the issue and gave out a statement saying that they are an equal opportunities employer and had considered all of the facts when they appointed me. They also offered me counselling. The only feedback the paper received about the article was very positive for the council, saying that it was to their credit that they had given me a chance. They could easily have fired me, but they didn’t.

Then, in June 2013, because things seemed to be going so well, I applied for promotion. But my application was rejected outright, without the chance of an interview, purely because my conviction was unspent. I was told by the Chief Executive that my application was by far the best they had received, but I was also told that I would be an embarrassment to the Trust and that I couldn’t be trusted.

I’m an honest and hardworking person, and I have proved it. My conviction, for taking books home to work on, was purely driven by malice. The Police weren’t interested. It was a personal vendetta continued with anonymous letters to the press. As a result, I have a permanent record for dishonesty and have hit a ‘glass ceiling’ where I cannot progress in my career as a result of an unspent conviction.