Remove search results from Google worldwide

So where do Europeans stand in relation to the removal of Google search results worldwide?

Since Google ordered to remove search results worldwide, Europeans are eagerly awaiting the French High Court’s final decision on an appeal.

In May 2015 French data regulator ordered Google  to apply Right to be Forgotten removals of search results not only to the company’s European domains such as or, but to the search engine’s global domain

After Google’s representations were rejected and following its refusal to affect the removal of search results globally, the French regulator issued Google with a penalty of 100,000 Euros. Google appealed to France’s highest court, the Council of State (Conseil d’État). A decision in the case is expected by the end of 2017.

Remove search results from Google worldwide

Google’s position is that it will not delist search results from all its search engine extensions. You can read here Google’s reasons for refusing to remove search results from Google worldwide.

The French data regulator’s position is that Google has come a long way in complying with European data requirements but only a measure that applies to all processing by the search engine, with no distinction between the extensions used and the geographical location of the internet user making a search, is legally adequate to meet the requirement under the Right to be Forgotten.

The position of Cohen Davis solicitors is that any data, which is found to be unlawfully processed anywhere in the EEA and which is resulting in delisting of search results under the Right to be Forgotten, must not then be processed outside of the EEA.

This is because under European data protection laws, any organisation that transfers personal data to a country outside of the EEA, must do so under the same conditions of processing which applies to processing of the same data within the EEA.

If follows that if processing of personal data is unlawful within the EEA, it must also be unlawful outside of the EEA.

You can read the full article here

Removing search results from Google worldwide


I was raped on a film set, London 2017

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the mounting evidence that is arriving at my office in relation to rape through porn.  It seems, in 2017 London, gang rape of vulnerable victims on amateur  adult film sets is far more common than anyone could have ever imagined.

Rape through porn happens when an individual agrees to participate in a pornographic film in circumstances, which give rise to some serious questions about the validity of the consent they gave.

In many instances, the issue of consent comes about as a result of a participant in an adult film, allegedly consenting to be sexually exploited whilst being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I have seen and heard evidence that suggest that some amateur and low budget production companies in and around London, encourage participants to consume alcohol before and during filming.Remove porn video from the internet

I found it impossible to understand why a woman in her early 20s will be willing to have sex with a group of 10 men, picked up from the street, and then have the film posted on hundreds of pornographic websites in return for a payment of £250 or less.

Under English law, a person who is intoxicated or who is under the influence of drugs is not capable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. Strictly speaking, you cannot give consent to some other forms of personal assault either.

Other common circumstances that might invalidate consent are associated with what I would term as “duress of circumstances”, where the individual allegedly consenting to participate in a particularly degrading scene is doing so under so much pressure whether personal, financial or social, which result in a mistaken belief that they have no choice but to agree to participate in that scene.

In circumstances where an individual was paid a sum of money and/or signed a contract of any sort, the payment or the signing of the contract could in fact evident the lack of consent rather than the grant of it.

An example of this might be an individual who is not a professional actor and who agreed to be paid a small sum of money, (commonly few a hundred pounds or dollars) in return for their participation in a hard-core pornographic film, where the amount paid was totally disproportionate to the actions they were required to perform or to be subject to.Often, they tell me, is no way they would have agreed to take part in that scene now, when they are no longer under pressure to do so.

Another example might be where an individual signed a contract or an agreement or a disclaimer, which state that they were consenting to participate in a pornographic film, but it is clear from the circumstances that they had not been given sufficient time to consider the contract, did not understand the contact, had not sought independent legal advice, where unable to read or write, were under group pressure or pressure by the producer or the film maker or where what they had given up in terms of legal rights, was highly disproportionate to the remuneration they actually received. Evidence of this can be found in  buyer’s remorse where very shortly after participating in a sex film, the amateur actor changes his or her mind, but is told that it was no too late.

Whenever consent by an individual to participate in a particular sex scene simply doesn’t make sense, it is likely it was given under questionable circumstances. The usual rules of civil contracts don’t always apply to participation in sex films so a contract might mean absolutely nothing in terms of granting consent. The contract might also be invalid for many other reasons, which I intend to discuss in a separate post.

The type of legal rights, a performer in an amateur adult film is giving away, often go far beyond copyright or other intellectual property rights. They often also give away forever their right to privacy, and their right to not have their personal data used in a degrading manner. Arguably, no one in their right mind would agree to give away so much in return for so little, unless they struggled to think straight at the time, and were unfairly taken advantage of.

In fact, often the issue of consent goes far beyond civil legal rights and straight into the realm of criminal offending. If there are questions regarding consent, then this should give rise to a police investigation and to potential criminal charges of rape, indecent assault and other related offences including conspiracy to commit a variety of criminal offences involving interference with one’s physical being.

All parties involved and present during filming could face criminal charges, including individuals who participate in sexual activities whilst knowing or having reasons to suspect that the person they were indecently touching or penetrating was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

From the growing number of inquiries of this nature this law firm has recently received, it is starting to become clear that there is a huge problem here involving vulnerable victims who had been sexually exploited and who are too afraid and too embarrassed to revisit a dark period in their lives, which they are desperate to put behind. There seem to be zero policing activity and very little awareness of the issue in this country.

If you have been sexually exploited on a film set, please get in touch with us.

Remove porn videos form the intenret

Delete your past from the internet. Social media lawyer Yair Cohen

Social Media Disorder

With the Snooper’s Charter passing into law and potential employers scanning Facebook before they’ve even read your CV, it’s time to start giving serious thought to erasing your online footprint. We called on internet oracle and social media solicitor Yair Cohen ( to offer his foolproof guide to going full Jason Bourne…

Read more

30 Ways To Undo A Decade Of Damage In Days

Are you a victim of internet catfishing?

Is internet catfishing illegal?

Currently internet catfishing is not illegal but there are now calls to outlaw the practice of online catfishing.

Catfishing happens when someone uses false identity to lure you into loving them. They pretend they are the person they believe you want them to be. They make you believe the they are that loving, caring, complementing, appreciating individual you had been waiting to meet all your life. They make you believe they are that prince or princess you always craved for. They often borrow images of somebody else and pretend they are them.

They will send you authentic pictures of their brothers and sisters just to make you believe they are real. They will tell you daily about the daily hardships they experience at work just that you believe they are real authentic.Social media lawyer tv interview

They will make their cover story sound and look so believable that even a very smart person will fall for it. They will make you fall in love with them, online, in the virtual world, believing that one day soon you are both going to meet and live happy ever after.

Then they disappear from your life. Just like that. Leaving you feel sad, lonely, disappointed and a even a bit stupid. For them it’s just a game, for you on the other hand its harsh reality.
People say that catfishing should be made illegal and that people shouldn’t be allowed to go online pretending they are somebody else and then break someone’s heart just because they think its fun. There have been cases where victims of catfishing went to meet that ideal online persona who then went on the rape them and in some cases the meeting even ended up with murder.

Yair Cohen UK social media lawyer interview about catfishingTonight, at 20:00 tune in to Sky channel 212 / Freeview channel 161 where I will be interviewed by TV host Vanessa Cruickshank about catfishing and whether catfishing could or should be made illegal. You must watch tonight’s episode if you have young children who use the internet or if you use the internet for dating. It’s a light, cool and informative TV show with great interviews and live music.

Internet Police – The net is closing. The e-police are here

Yair Cohen’s new controversial book: The Net Is Closing, birth of the e-police. A powerful debate about the future policing of the internet; a platform from which the crying voices of victims of online crime can be loudly and clearly heard.

I celebrate my new book The Net Is Closing: birth of the e-police.

Yair Cohen lawyer and author.

Internet police. Yair Cohen’s  The Net is Closing; birth of the e-police

The net is closing. The e-police are here. That is the controversial debate this book brings to the fore. Telling a painful truth about what really happens online, the net is closing: birth of the e-police calls out internet bullies and online anonymity, and shines a bright light on who (or what) is behind policing our current “virtual” reality.

The book is a polemical work about online safety and policing. It argues for a move away from self-policing and towards a more conventional form of state maintained supervision in the still relatively new sphere of human activity of the internet. The inevitable conclusion, that soon, the internet will become neatly policed, is primarily based on my own extensive experience of working as a lawyer in the field of online defamation, harassment and infringement of privacy.

I deploy this experience, along with my personal observation of the other forces which shape online behaviour, such as the profit motive of large social media businesses, to make a case for an approach to self-expression and anonymity online which is more consistent with the “real-world” already standards applied to offensive conduct by the state.

Through powerful real life stories, addressing the conflict between emotion and logic, I tell the stories of a prominent football coach child abuser who carefully orchestrated sexual assaults on dozens of young victims so that he can freely share the videos of his abuse online, and that of a school teacher whose innocent quest for companionship online turned into a pornographic nightmare involving blackmail and extortion by the Moroccan mafia. I also follow the story of six form pupils from London who whilst studying for their A Level exams were left to fend for themselves after they discovered a Facebook Page, which contained hundreds of commentaries about pupil’s alleged sexual activities. Dozens of pupils and their parents who reported the page to Facebook did not even get a reply, let alone a removal of the shaming information, whilst the Head Teacher claimed that because the activities on the shaming Facebook page were “carried out after school hours,” it had nothing to do with the school. Consequentially, at least one pupil was ready to take his own life.

In my book, I dare asking challenging questions such as, how do we want our online presence to be governed and policed? And, what priority do we give to safety versus freedom of expression?

I cannot promise that you will like what this book says. You may well disagree with my conclusions, or even become angry or scared by some of the things I have to say. But that is what I want. It’s what I believe society needs: a powerful debate about the future policing of the internet; a platform from which the crying voices of victims of online crime can be loudly and clearly heard.

The Net Is Closing: birth of the e-police is now available on Amazon. Enjoy and let me have your  feedback!

Internet police in action: Yahoo scanned emails to help FBI.

The FBI has stepped up its effort to police the internet by requesting Yahoo to assist in developing software to scan emails which were going through YahooMail servers. Yahoo was reported to have agreed but the intrusion did not only affect YahooMail customers but also other email users who happened to communicate with a YahooMail address.

Following the report, Yahoo was accused of “selling out its customers base to an out of control, data-hungry Federal government”.

However, despite the obvious intrusion into private emails CybeLawExpert has long campaigned for an increase in police power over internet communications and against the discrepancy and inconsistencies between offline and online policing.

The request of Yahoo by the FBI is not dissimilar to the good old fashion profiling method, used for example in airports across the world, and which is aimed to save lives of tens of thousand of people without the need to intrusively screen each and every passenger.

Yahoo would have filtered all incoming emails but would only pass on the FBI emails that matched specific keywords.

According to the government officials, as reported by the NY Times, Yahoo was served with an individualised court order to look only for code uniquely used by foreign terrorist organizations. It appears Yahoo had adapted an existing scanning systems that it already had in place to comply with that order adding a few modifications.

Bearing in mind that technology companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have been scanning emails for child pornography for many years now, the additional scanning requirement which aims to prevent acts of terrorism represents a natural progress in internet policing.

I spoke to SputnikNews radio back in October 2016 about internet policing  and you can listen to the full interview here:

The big question is of course Do email uses actually care or do we feel this is a price worth paying for added safety and security online?

Read more:


Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo snooping is lawful just because we clicked “yes” to their Terms and Conditions which we never read anyway

7574722_s.jpgThe UK government is told it would be unlawful to create a law that requests internet service providers to retain user’s data for 12 months across the board. On Wednesday 21 December 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that it would be unlawful for the UK to enact laws that “provide for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication” in order to help fight crime.

The court disallowed national laws that compel data preservation, “as a preventive measure” even if the purpose of the law is to fight “serious crime”.

The European court also said that there must be a specific reason for data retention requests and that it was unlawful for the UK to create general data retention laws simply as a preventative measure.

Fortunately, our safety is not entirely in the hands of European judges so this ruling is unlikely to make much of a difference to the high level of government snooping that is going on in this country.

Under the Investigatory Powers Act, UK authorities, such as intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies were authorized to require the help of telecoms companies in tackling serious crime and protecting the UK’s economic interests, among other priorities listed in the legislation.

The Act permitted the security agencies to order internet service providers to retain data, disclose it, intercept communications, or assist with equipment interference. The Act was brought in, in addition to their already existing powers to have a qualified right to obtain personal datasets in bulk for national security reasons under warrants that would be issued by UK ministers.

The Investigatory Powers Act was intended to regulate and place limits on the powers of the UK security agencies and to bring their activities within a closer scrutiny of Parliament.

The ruling by the CJEU, effectively rendered the Investigatory Powers Act unlawful which means that the security agencies will continue to request data retentions and disclosures outside the Act of Parliament and under the qualified right to obtain personal datasets in bulk and other emergency warrants, which means their activities will remain far less accountable.

This of course means less privacy to UK citizens rather than more but who really who cares? After all, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo snooping is lawful just because we clicked “yes” to their Terms and Conditions which we never read. The security services on the other hand don’t have an App or Terms and Conditions in small print but at least their snooping is done for the purpose of keeping us safe and secure. I say, let them do their job and let our Parliament keep them under control.

Bulk Personal Datasets collected by UK government includes solicitor client privileged information



Sextortion and other internet blackmail

A still from the Sextortion (cyber-enabled blackmail) video by NCASextorition has claimed the lives of four men in the UK in the last year after they fell prey to blackmail from criminals, intent on exploiting their money after tricking them into performing sex acts secretly recorded on a webcam.

The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) and the National Police Chief’s Council say the number of so-called sextortion cases where people have reported blackmail by webcam has more than doubled in the past year, from 385 in 2015, to 864 in 2015. In 2011, there were just nine incidents recorded. “We look after dozens of cases a year but I was surprised to hear there were 864 cases reported to the police, I think it is more likely to be two or three thousand people who are affected by this crime,” Yair Cohen, a social media lawyer with Cohen Davis Solicitors told Sputnik. The criminals learn enough personal information

Read more:

Google right to be forgotten to extend to USA

Yair Cohen, UK  lawyer and internet law expert will be presenting at the Internet Law Leadership Summit in Miami California, USA on Friday 09 December 2016.

USA right to be forgotten. Yair Cohen UK internet law expert

Yair Cohen, UK lawyers presenting at Google Campus, London

Why is the right to be forgotten being extended to the USA and what is Google doing about this?

After Google actively encouraged internet uses to use instead of, and other European Google search engines, it was told by French data protection regulator CNIL that it needs to extend de-listing of offending search results to all Google searches regardless of the IP address of the person complaining about the offending searches. The effect of this decision was to extend the doctrine of the right to be forgotten to the USA and effectively to the rest of the world.

Google in turn has appealed and in the past few months has started to remove offending searches under defamation laws rather rather than data protection laws. This for now allows it to circumvent the need to de-list searches from Google search engines outside the specific jurisdiction of the complainant.

Yair Cohen of Cohen Davis Solicitors speaks at the Internet Law Leadership Summit.