Removing Court Case from Google Search

[single317dad]

The likely effect of a landmark case which would set precedent for future cases on "the right to be forgotten" in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The resulting coverage would be more public than the original bankruptcy record could hope to be. This would have the same effect as discussed previously (saturating the search results), bumping the original bankruptcy record down in favor of news coverage of the case to remove said record from Google's (and Yahoo's, and Bing's, and Duckduckgo's, and Gigablast's, and Yandex') indices.

Be cautious how hard you fight to hide information online; the hive mind tends not only to remember, but also to mock and ridicule. Prime examples are those embarrassing photos of celebrities, when the subjects promise to sue anyone who posts them. The immediate result is millions of people posting said photos.

Lil' Blue's vaccines should be updated before visiting Cambodia.

 

[quincy]

The likely effect of a landmark case which would set precedent for future cases on "the right to be forgotten" in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The resulting coverage would be more public than the original bankruptcy record could hope to be. This would have the same effect as discussed previously (saturating the search results), bumping the original bankruptcy record down in favor of news coverage of the case to remove said record from Google's (and Yahoo's, and Bing's, and Duckduckgo's, and Gigablast's, and Yandex') indices.

Be cautious how hard you fight to hide information online; the hive mind tends not only to remember, but also to mock and ridicule. Prime examples are those embarrassing photos of celebrities, when the subjects promise to sue anyone who posts them. The immediate result is millions of people posting said photos.

Lil' Blue's vaccines should be updated before visiting Cambodia.

For the US, rather than a "right to be forgotten" law with a potential resulting Streisand effect, I see a change in how bankruptcy filings are handled, with Congress deciding these documents should be private, with the same restrictions placed on public access as are placed on tax records. The US came close to making this change in 2000 ... but didn't.

As a note on the previous posts and Mark Anderson, and then I will let this rest: Although Anderson's legal action against Joe Gallant is a bit puzzling, Google still has several Anderson links, with one notable SEC v. Terax Energy, Inc., et al civil action from 2007 where Anderson was named a defendant. Perhaps there are two Anderson's and the wrong one was named in the Gallant material Google was ordered to remove? Whatever reason for the court order to Google, nothing that susannaCO has said indicates her bankruptcy case from 34 years ago has similar facts that would allow for a Google-link removal. Possible, but not probable.

 

[susannaCO]

Thanks single317dad and quincy for weighing in! Appreciate all your good thoughts & advice.

Quincy said:
For the US, rather than a "right to be forgotten" law with a potential resulting Streisand effect, I see a change in how bankruptcy filings are handled, with Congress deciding these documents should be private, with the same restrictions placed on public access as are placed on tax records. The US came close to making this change in 2000 ... but didn't.

Well, that makes perfect sense--BK having same restrictions as tax records. Wonder if the legislation has totally disappeared...

As a non-lawyer, I can see how being successful with even my local court could result in even more google attention to my BK case. But, I also see Google acting like a credit reporting agency without being regulated like one. Makes no sense to me that my BK was removed from my credit report over 20 years ago per FCRA rules, yet Google is still "reporting" it. The fresh start principal is moot in this digital age. My BK is available for anyone to see and to use against me. Congress and/or the courts need to catch up with the special privacy challenges of the internet age.

So, I wonder, what consumer group ( & their lobbyists) should take on this issue with legislators?

 

[quincy]

Thanks single317dad and quincy for weighing in! Appreciate all your good thoughts & advice.

Quincy said:
For the US, rather than a "right to be forgotten" law with a potential resulting Streisand effect, I see a change in how bankruptcy filings are handled, with Congress deciding these documents should be private, with the same restrictions placed on public access as are placed on tax records. The US came close to making this change in 2000 ... but didn't.

Well, that makes perfect sense--BK having same restrictions as tax records. Wonder if the legislation has totally disappeared...

As a non-lawyer, I can see how being successful with even my local court could result in even more google attention to my BK case. But, I also see Google acting like a credit reporting agency without being regulated like one. Makes no sense to me that my BK was removed from my credit report over 20 years ago per FCRA rules, yet Google is still "reporting" it. The fresh start principal is moot in this digital age. My BK is available for anyone to see and to use against me. Congress and/or the courts need to catch up with the special privacy challenges of the internet age.

So, I wonder, what consumer group ( & their lobbyists) should take on this issue with legislators?

Congress works slow (when they work at all ) and internet technology has developed rapidly. There are a lot of challenges in trying to pass laws that can address all of the problems (in privacy areas, defamation areas, infringement areas ... the list goes on) while preserving the rights guaranteed by our constitution.

And I do not think it is necessarily wrong to take it slow. We do not want to risk sacrificing our country's vital rights in the name of privacy alone. I think the best consumers can do is to work with their legislators to facilitate change - but that means your court case might not be removed from public view for another 34 years.

 

[susannaCO]

That's pretty depressing, quincy, but I see your point. I thought after the EU's "right to be forgotten" law passed, the US would start to consider at least restricting the Google search engines from picking up cases, like a BK. BK's should be protected & governed by the FCRA. Cases beyond that--like convicted pedophiles, e.g, should remain, because it's in the public interest to do so. I know there's a lot of chatter about it online and eventually a landmark case will set this right. At least, that's my hope.

So, sounds like checking with a local attorney is really a waste of time? Or, is there a chance a judge will order a redaction of my name? Do the courts have leeway on something like that?

For now, I had to remove my name from an application to refinance our home, just in case. There is no such thing as a fresh start with BK. All my SEO attempts to move down the leagle.com link have been futile. If leagle.com would just prevent the google search engines from picking the case up, it would remain in PACER, but not on the front page of my google results. They tell me I need a court order. Wish there was something I could do to convince them to add the txt file like their competitors do.

 

[quincy]

That's pretty depressing, quincy, but I see your point. I thought after the EU's "right to be forgotten" law passed, the US would start to consider at least restricting the Google search engines from picking up cases, like a BK. BK's should be protected & governed by the FCRA. Cases beyond that--like convicted pedophiles, e.g, should remain, because it's in the public interest to do so. I know there's a lot of chatter about it online and eventually a landmark case will set this right. At least, that's my hope.

So, sounds like checking with a local attorney is really a waste of time? Or, is there a chance a judge will order a redaction of my name? Do the courts have leeway on something like that?

For now, I had to remove my name from an application to refinance our home, just in case. There is no such thing as a fresh start with BK. All my SEO attempts to move down the leagle.com link have been futile. If leagle.com would just prevent the google search engines from picking the case up, it would remain in PACER, but not on the front page of my google results. They tell me I need a court order. Wish there was something I could do to convince them to add the txt file like their competitors do.

I guess it is a little depressing when you are anxious for change.

Perhaps I am naïve in thinking this but I don't believe a 34-year-old bankruptcy filing should be an issue when applying for a loan or refinancing a home.

Consulting with an attorney in your area could be a waste of your time and money. I don't know. There are definitely privacy issues with the online publication of bankruptcy documents, and I can see how having your name redacted from such documents might be possible. I just cannot tell you how likely it is that you will be successful should you pursue this.

I wish you luck, though, in whatever it is you decide to do.

 

[susannaCO]

Thanks, quincy. I have one more question...should I be consulting with a BK lawyer or a lawyer with another specialty?

 

[quincy]

Thanks, quincy. I have one more question...should I be consulting with a BK lawyer or a lawyer with another specialty?

Not a bankruptcy lawyer. Consulting with a lawyer well-versed in privacy laws would probably be a good place to start.