A businessman fighting for the “right to be forgotten” has won a UK High Court action against Google.<\/p>\n
The man, who has not been named due to reporting restrictions surrounding the case, wanted search results about a past crime he had committed removed from the search engine.<\/p>\n
The judge, Mr Justice Mark Warby, ruled in his favour on Friday.<\/p>\n
But he rejected a separate claim made by another businessman who had committed a more serious crime.<\/p>\n
The businessman who won his case was convicted 10 years ago of conspiring to intercept communications. He spent six months in jail.<\/p>\n
The other businessman, who lost his case, was convicted more than 10 years ago of conspiring to account falsely. He spent four years in jail.<\/p>\n
Both had ordered Google to remove search results about their convictions, including links to news articles, stating that they were no longer relevant.<\/p>\n
They took Google to court when it refused to remove the search results.<\/p>\n
Google said it would accept the rulings.<\/p>\n
“We work hard to comply with the right to be forgotten, but we take great care not to remove search results that are in the public interest,” it said in a statement.<\/p>\n
“We are pleased that the Court recognised our efforts in this area, and we will respect the judgements they have made in this case.”<\/p>\n
The right to be forgotten is a legal precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014, following a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez who had asked Google to remove information about his financial history.<\/p>\n
Google says it has removed 800,000 pages from its results following so-called “right to be forgotten” requests. However, search engines can decline to remove pages if they judge them to remain in the public interest.<\/p>\n
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”.<\/p>\n
The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for internet freedoms, said the rulings set a “legal precedent”.<\/p>\n
“The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person,” said Jim Killock, executive director.<\/p>\n
“The Court will have to balance the public’s right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest.”<\/p>\n
Source: bbc.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"