Election results and the right to be forgotten

[andrewteale]

I have been contacted today by a former local election candidate asking for certain information to be removed from LEAP:

Please be advised your company, via link: [redacted], is displaying some private information about me via search engines. In accordance with Article 12 of the European Union Directive 95/46/EC, I have asked for this information to be removed from the search engines but have been informed that for this to take place you will need to delete this information or delist it from your servers accordingly.

Due to this, I am respectfully asking for this link to be delisted and the content featuring my name be immediately removed. I am no longer associated with the organised featured at said link and did not consent to my private information (name, email address, address or other information therein) to be displayed. Furthermore, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, as the information relate to events that took place a number of years ago I believe the information is out of date and should be removed accordingly.

The "private information" referred to is a copy of the Declaration of Result of Poll, giving the name, party affiliation and number of votes cast.

I have replied to my correspondent declining to remove the information on the grounds that (a) the information is not private because it was obtained from the Returning Officer, who has a duty to publish it; and (b) it is held by me for historical and research purposes.  I am reasonably sure I'm on good legal ground here.

Nonetheless this raises a wider point.  As psephologists, should we be worried about people using the "right to he forgotten" to erase their past electoral history?

[Pete Whitehead]

What a twat. You should name him

[greatkingrat]

A former BNP candidate by any chance?

[afleitch]

Doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's a matter of public record. Standing as a Tory candidate ten years ago results in a few things lobbed my way at social gatherings, but you can't pretend these things didn't happen.

[swanarcadian]

Being an election candidate is just the same as being found guilty of driving without insurance in a magistrate's court - it will be in the public domain whether you like it or not.  The same applies to birth, marriage and death records.  I could fairly easily track down anyone's  birth record in the appropriate indexes on ancestry.co.uk (if they were born in England and Wales), for example.

[peterl]

I don't know exactly what info you have displayed on this chap - he mentions things like email address. If you are including these sorts of details, he might have a case. If its just name, party, number of votes then that is a matter of public record.

[IceAgeComing]

As far as my understand of the whole right to be forgotten thing (had to do a presenting on it at uni in my EU affairs class right after it came in; which means that I'd hardly an expert) its not about removing information about that sort of thing from the internet; but about search engines delisting certain results which people might not want linked to their name - the prime example I saw at the time was people who had been publicly accused of certain types of crime that they did not commit but where the initial accusation remained more prominent than the follow-up and which might cause the person significant grief in the future even though they didn't do anything wrong - in that case; I think that its entirely reasonable for the person to be able to ask to have that sort of thing removed. Standing for election for a certain party doesn't fit that. Also it wasn't about actually removing that sort of thing from the internet entirely: actually removing evidence of someone standing for election from the internet seems incredibly stupid and I'd think that you are on the right legal grounds here. It might be worth speaking to someone about though: certainly if the person wants to take it further.

Nov 18, 2017 13:56:24 GMT greatkingrat said:

A former BNP candidate by any chance?

I'd assume that its someone from the BNP or another fashy organisation who's now trying to stand for someone else and wants their political past hidden away so it can't be mentioned in the campaign. Its the only party that I'd expect someone to go out their way to distance themselves from in that sort of way: other than maybe some Labour Party person who might have spent their youth in some very small fringe Communist Party or something.

[lancastrian]

If it is just the name, party and number of votes they're unhappy with I'm not sure why they would complain about LEAP. I've tried a couple of unsuccessful candidates in Google, both from recently and back in 2002, and Wikipedia, the council and the local paper appear above LEAP for all of them and are unlikely to change their sites.

[greenchristian]

Agreed that it's a bad thing for somebody wanting their name removed from LEAP.

The only way I can think of that the request might possibly be justifiable is if the candidate has a unique name, was standing for the likes of the BNP and no longer believes in their kind of agenda. If they have a common name, however, the request is totally unreasonable. There is no way of telling from LEAP which of the thousands of John Smiths it was standing in a particular ward. With a common name Andrew would have no way of verifying if the person requesting removal is, in fact, the candidate in question.

[greatkingrat]

Is this candidates name still shown on the relevant local council website?

[johnloony]

There is a contradiction between what you say, and what you say he* says.

If you did, as he* claims, publish his* email address and private home address, he* may have a legitimate and reasonable concern which is worth considering.
If you only, as you claim, published his* name, party label and number of votes, then you should tell him* to toss himself into a volcano, and tell us who he* is.

*or she/her throughout

[greenhert]

Sharing a candidate's name (no middle names either!), party, number of votes, and whether they were elected or not is decisively not covered by the right to be forgotten. You would generally not be able to trace someone personally from that and in any case electoral results must be in the public domain.

[greenhert]

Nov 18, 2017 17:10:49 GMT IceAgeComing said:

As far as my understand of the whole right to be forgotten thing (had to do a presenting on it at uni in my EU affairs class right after it came in; which means that I'd hardly an expert) its not about removing information about that sort of thing from the internet; but about search engines delisting certain results which people might not want linked to their name - the prime example I saw at the time was people who had been publicly accused of certain types of crime that they did not commit but where the initial accusation remained more prominent than the follow-up and which might cause the person significant grief in the future even though they didn't do anything wrong - in that case; I think that its entirely reasonable for the person to be able to ask to have that sort of thing removed. Standing for election for a certain party doesn't fit that. Also it wasn't about actually removing that sort of thing from the internet entirely: actually removing evidence of someone standing for election from the internet seems incredibly stupid and I'd think that you are on the right legal grounds here. It might be worth speaking to someone about though: certainly if the person wants to take it further.

Nov 18, 2017 13:56:24 GMT greatkingrat said:

A former BNP candidate by any chance?

I'd assume that its someone from the BNP or another fashy organisation who's now trying to stand for someone else and wants their political past hidden away so it can't be mentioned in the campaign. Its the only party that I'd expect someone to go out their way to distance themselves from in that sort of way: other than maybe some Labour Party person who might have spent their youth in some very small fringe Communist Party or something.

Reminds me of the fact the Conservatives failed to win marginal Stockton South in 1983 precisely because their candidate, Thomas Finnegan, had been exposed during the campaign as a former National Front candidate (Mr Finnegan stood in Birmingham Erdington in both 1974 elections under that banner). Mr Finnegan lost by only 103 votes to the relatively low profile Ian Wrigglesworth who had defected to the SDP from Labour but was otherwise just another MP.

[andrewteale]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

In answer to queries, the person's name is indeed still shown on the relevant council website. I do not know their home address or telephone number, and I did not know their email address before they got in touch.

My work are very hot on data protection and have given us all workplace training on it. I deal with information at work which is genuinely private and confidential; election results are neither of those things.

I'm not telling you who this is, but what I will say is that none of you have correctly guessed which party was involved.

[Andrew_S]

I assume the person's name will also appear in the relevant edition of the Local Elections Handbook.

[andrewteale]

Nov 18, 2017 21:59:14 GMT Andrew_S said:

I assume the person's name will also appear in the relevant edition of the Local Elections Handbook.

Judging from the reply I've just had, it's a bit more complicated than that. I would be grateful for advice on the inner workings of the Data Protection Act; if anyone's able to do that please send me a PM and I'll put you fully in the picture.

[lancastrian]

For reference for posters contributing to this thread, and andrewteale if he hasn't already read them, here is Directive 95/46/EC:

www.dataprotection.ie/docs/EU-Directive-95-46-EC-Chapter-2/93.htm

It appears the directive has since been repealed and replaced with the following document, including the 'right to be forgotten', article 17

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:119:TOC

And the Information Commissioner's Office guide to it:

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-reform/overview-of-the-gdpr/individuals-rights/the-right-to-erasure/

[greatkingrat]

From the ICO guidance:

When can I refuse to comply with a request for erasure?
You can refuse to comply with a request for erasure where the personal data is processed for the following reasons:
- to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information;
- to comply with a legal obligation or for the performance of a public interest task or exercise of official authority;
- for public health purposes in the public interest;
- archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific research historical research or statistical purposes; or
- the exercise or defence of legal claims.

I think it is fairly clear creating a database of election results would fall under the fourth bullet point, and perhaps the second as well.

[Adrian]

Quite bizarre that he describes such info as "private".

[johnloony]

I am confused about why this is even being discussed or asked about. If it is a historical fact that Ebenezer Crumpleseizure stood as a candidate for the Hippopotamus Revolutionary Party in Lower Dribbling ward of Grimbly District Council in the local elections in 1993 and got 247 votes, and if your website/database/whatever only states those details (without any other identifying details such as address, email address, birth date or shoe size), then why is there even any doubt or discussion about it? Those are publicly available bits of information which have been available and accessible via multiple public sources for many years, and cannot be regarded as in any way sensitive or private, or worthy of being "forgotten".

Perhaps there are other details or complications about the case which you haven't told us about, otherwise you would have told him/her to take a running jump without even needing to ask us about it.