A business man won a lawsuit filed against Google to remove the search results in a case involving him. His case with Google “The Right to Forget” had wide implications. Judge Justick Warbay issued a verdict on Friday in London, while a similar case was rejected by another businessman who had been convicted in the case More dangerous. The plaintiff who lost the case, Mr. N1, was accused of fraud in his accounts in the late 1990s. The plaintiff who won, N2, was convicted for more than 10 years in the case of intercepting some communications. The first was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, He was imprisoned for only 6 months. Because the N1 has the right to appeal, the judge added: “There are likely to be more of these cases, and the N2 victory will reinforce that.” Both men had asked Google to survey the search results for the two cases in which they were convicted , Which includes any links to Internet pages published by the national press or any other media, but Google rejected their request addressed the two men to the Supreme Court. The judge said that the prosecutor did not confess his guilt and misled the public and the court and showed no improvement since he was released from prison The verdict for N2 would have a significant impact on many convicts who wanted to erase their embarrassing stories from the Internet, but the judge did not judge any compensation for the plaintiff, explaining the reasons for his ruling; the judge said N1 continued to mislead the public while N2 “He regretted doing it, and the” N2 “issue had nothing to do with consumers, customers or investors, but only concerned with violating third-party privacy. “There is absolutely no indication that there is a risk that the plaintiff will repeat the act, and there is no information to indicate his integration into any similar activities. The information of the crime and its penalty is very old and has nothing to do with any legitimate issues that concern Google users,” he said. Its presence in the search engines is not justified. ” In the case of the “N1” case, the judge said that the prosecutor did not confess his guilt and misled the public and the court and showed no improvement since his release from prison. “He continued to practice the same mistake, so the presence of this information in front of people reduces the risk of continuing to mislead him To the public, and deleting the information would not mean deleting it from the entire records but making it difficult to access. ” The European Supreme Court has ruled that all data not related to the public interest should be surveyed and outdated as soon as it is requested In 2014, the European Supreme Court ruled that all data not related to the public interest should be erased as soon as it was requested. Since then, Google has received a request for the removal of at least 2.4 million links from search results. In the public interest and that the interest of access exceeds the right to privacy. At the Supreme Court hearing in February, the plaintiff’s representative, N-1, said the presence of articles on search engines was causing discomfort to his client. Tomlinson was also head of the Hacked Off campaign group and said his client was a businessman rather than a public figure. “He said:” In these days before anyone meets one of them, he searches for it on Google first, and there are many people who make mistakes in their youth, if these errors continue to be presented to everyone in spite of the passage of time will be for this It has negative effects. ” Tomellinson said Mr. N1 had served his sentence and the law allowed him to be reintegrated into normal life. But Anthony White, Google’s representative, said the court’s “right to forget” law did not mean the right to rewrite history or detail the past, To do, White said, counterfeiting and commercial practices that the plaintiff was imprisoned for are still serious and persistent. The Office of the British Information Affairs Office should reassess its approach to reviewing deletion requests from the search list In a separate hearing, N2 said he had served his sentence legally and had the right to be forgotten, but Google refused to remove links to articles about his case, including his financial affairs and interviews he had conducted several years ago explaining the circumstances of his case and the circumstances that led to it. “We are working hard to comply with the Right to Forget Act, but we are very concerned about not removing the results of public interest research and defending the public’s right to access legal information,” said a spokesman for Google. “We thank the court for recognizing our efforts in this respect. In that case. ” While the spokesman for the company “Carter-Ruck” legal counsel working in the cases that they have more customers who filed complaints to remove them from the search lists, and added: “The decision must include the obligation to Google to commit to develop the process of reviewing requests for removal, The British Information Affairs Commission to reassess its approach to reviewing deletion requests from the search list. ” Source: The Guardian News Google loses the cause of “right to forget” – You can see the source of the original news from the following link: The Nile The site of the unit disclaims its full responsibility for the contents of any news, but the responsibility rests with the original publisher of the news.