For many, Google is a go-to source for fast facts, but its results aren't always reliable — as demonstrated by a search for Southern District of Florida judges. As of Monday afternoon, Chief Judge K. Michael Moore's name is incorrectly attributed to the mug shot of a Canadian defendant convicted of a serious crime.

Moore was a decorated prosecutor before being nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, but a failure in search analytics has linked him with Canadian man Rene Roberge, convicted of sex tourism in Fort Lauderdale.

The photograph that appears among search results for Moore stems from a CBSMiami article about Roberge's trial, which Moore oversaw before handing down a 10-year prison sentence.

Judge K. Michael Moore's name over Canadian defendant Rene Roberge's mugshot. Photo: Catherine Wilson/ALM.

Google did not answer a phone call or reply to an email about the error.

Business and data privacy attorney Luis Salazar of Salazar Law in Miami said that although it's a “quite ironic” problem, it's hard to say what might have caused the mix-up, other than a quirk of search algorithms.

But there's also nothing illegal about it, according to Salazar, unless someone intentionally hacked into the court's website and changed an image, for example.

Moore did not immediately respond to a request for comment, so it's unclear what action the judge might take.

The issue evokes a long-running dispute over individual rights concerning digital information in the public domain. It elicits comparisons to ”right to be forgotten” requests, a data protection regulation that gives anyone the right to have themselves deleted from internet records. It stems from a 2014 case in which the Court of Justice of the European Union ordered Google to delete links to information about a Spanish man's bankruptcy that happened more than 10 years prior. That ruling meant individuals, corporations and government officials could ask for any online information they deem “excessive” or “inaccurate” to be removed. The case has sparked a debate about how far EU privacy laws should stretch, and various media groups have pushed back, worried some people would move to delete accurate and newsworthy information.