The Super Right to be forgotten?

The Super Right to be forgotten?

The ICO has issued an enforcement notice requiring Google to delist several listings which were returned when a search was made against an individual’s name.

The web pages listed were reporting on a previous successful application to delist sites which referred to a minor criminal conviction against the individual received around 10 years ago.

As these reports themselves also included details of that conviction, it is not surprising that the ICO has ruled in the manner it did, but it also raises the question of whether the ‘right to be forgotten’ should also include the fact that you made an application in the first place.

Presumably, if someone wanted the fact the an individual has made an application to also be forgotten, then the criteria would have to be re-applied against those facts. In this decision the ICO accepted that journalistic reporting of recent decisions to delist search results may be newsworthy and in the public interest so may be justified. In any event, would the fact that a individual had made such an application constitute sensitive personal data? It is certainly not in the same realm as a criminal conviction.

However, should the principles to be applied be different to those that apply to a super injunction, where newspapers are prevented from not only reporting on a story, but also from reporting on the fact of the injunction itself?

Google Inc has been ordered to remove nine search results after the ICO ruled that they linked to information about a person that was no longer relevant.

The ICO ruling concerns nine links that are part of the list of results displayed when a search is made by entering the individual’s name