right to be forgotten – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "right to be forgotten"

Thanks To Swedish Court Ruling, Google No Longer Notifying Publishers About ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Removals

from the legislate-locally,-enforce-globally dept

The EU’s “right to be forgotten” was always a mess in theory. In practice, it’s even worse.

This extension of EU data privacy laws gives people the power to delist and/or remove content published by others about themselves. Anyone could immediately see how this would be abused. People wishing to remove unflattering content would send Google and others removal requests. Those not confident enough to perform these acts of forgetfulness themselves would pay entities in the “reputation management” business to do this for them. This was on top of the usual tools used to censor negative content, including bogus takedowns backed by intellectual property law.

But this is what the people wanted, apparently, at least according to the EU legislators who represented them. There was really only one way to prevent abuse of this “right.” That was publishers subjected to bogus requests calling them out when they received them — something that has happened at this very site repeatedly.

This form of accountability is no longer an option in the EU. A ruling from a Swedish court that went into effect at the end of last year means Google is no longer letting publishers know if search results have been removed due to “right to be forgotten” requests. Alex Hern has more details at The Guardian:

Google has quietly stopped telling publishers when it has removed websites from its search results under European “right to be forgotten” rules after a ruling in a Swedish court which the search engine is applying globally.

Previously, when an individual applied to have records about them expunged under EU data protection laws, Google would notify the publisher of the original articles.

Media companies, including the Guardian, are largely exempt from the regulations, but links to journalistic content can still be removed from databases including those of search engines.

Now Google only informs publishers of the fact that a URL has been removed, without elaborating on what or why.

Google’s extremely diplomatic statement on this court-enforced change of course informs affected publishers why the change has been made (the court ruling), as well as notes it disagrees with the decision but is, nonetheless, bound by it.

One of the best options for preventing abuse of this “right” has effectively been neutered by this ruling. The naming and shaming of those abusing these requests was one of the only ways to prevent the successful burial of content these abusers simply didn’t want to remain public.

The Guardian, which notes that it is exempt from the regulations (but not the delisting of content by Google), has, itself, already been the target of multiple delisting demands from people who would prefer their vanity searches to say only good things about them.

Within weeks of the original May 2014 court ruling that established that the right to be forgotten applied to Google, six Guardian articles had been removed from European versions of the search engine.

Three related to the now-retired Scottish Premier League referee Dougie McDonald, who in 2010 was found to have lied about his reasons for granting a penalty in a football match. Others included a 2002 article about a solicitor facing a fraud trial and 2011 piece on French office workers making Post-it note art.

Without being able to see why this content had been delisted, journalists may just assume the search engine screwed up. While the notifications do at least inform recipients what’s been delisted, the lack of further context forces those receiving these notices to draw their own conclusions. At worst, it may discourage publishers from digging deeper into the removals and exposing bogus attempts to bury criticism or reports of misconduct.

It can be assumed that was never the intent of the law — to allow people who’ve misbehaved to force Google, et al to participate in a cover-up. But that was always the inevitable outcome. And this ruling — and its subsequent scrubbing of “RTBF” information — only ensures the law will mainly benefit the sort of people who shouldn’t be given a chance to force the internet to forget their misdeeds.

Filed Under: eu, right to be forgotten, sweden, transparency
Companies: google

Techdirt Podcast Episode 317: Algorithmic Destruction

from the data-deletion dept

People often talk about some kind of “right to deletion” as an approach to fixing online privacy issues. This construct can create problems, as we’ve seen with Europe’s version, but newer proposals don’t seem to consider these lessons. A recent paper by law professor Tiffany Li looks at another angle on the issue: how data deletion impacts algorithms and AI-trained models. This week, Tiffany joins us on the podcast to discuss this concept of “algorithmic destruction”, and how policy makers are ignoring it.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Filed Under: algorithms, podcast, privacy, right to be forgotten, Tiffany Li

Once Again, Thomas Goolnik Gets Google To Forget Our Tag About Thomas Goolnik

from the thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik dept

Dear inevitable Google GDPR “right to erasure” specialist: Please skip three paragraphs down to learn why you should not remove this story or tag from search results, and that doing so would violate the limits placed on the right to erasure in the GDPR. Dear Thomas Goolnik: stop trying to hide information on how you have abused the GDPR to hide information about you, because each time we’re going to write about you again.

Thomas Goolnik really doesn’t want you to find his name when you do a search on him — and Google seems happy to help him out, thanks to the GDPR. Perhaps it’s because of something that happened to Thomas Goolnik almost exactly 20 years ago (perhaps he’s feeling nostaligiac). As you may recall, Goolnik faced some legal troubles 20 years ago, but this is not about the fact that he faced legal issues 20 years ago, it’s about the fact that since then, Thomas Goolnik has regularly abused the “right to be forgotten” to make sure no one knows about Thomas Goolnik’s abuse of the right to be forgotten process.

Even if you can make an argument (and it would be a difficult argument to make) that Thomas Goolnik’s legal problems of twenty years ago should be “forgotten” today, Thomas Goolnik is not just trying to hide what happened 20 years ago, he’s also trying to hide how he has repeatedly used the GDPR’s right to be forgotten to get Google to hide search results about him… abusing the GDPR’s right to be forgotten. In fact, our last few posts about Thomas Goolnik don’t even mention the legal troubles he had two decades ago, but rather focused solely on his repeated attempts (surprisingly successful!) to get Google to hide our posts on him in the EU.

So, again, we’ll first address this to whatever poor soul from Google has to keep reviewing Thomas Goolnik’s takedown complaints: these are not valid removal requests. Under the GDPR’s “right to erasure” (Article 17) standards, the right only applies to the erasure of personal data where “the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed” and the right to erasure does not apply to data that is “in the public interest.” The information here (about Thomas Goolnik’s repeated abuse of the right to erasure for the sake of censoring public information) is still necessary for detailing how Thomas Goolnik abuses this right, and it is in the public interest for people to recognize how the GDPR’s right to erasure is widely abused to censor and hide information — for example, information about how a guy named Thomas Goolnik abuses the GDPR to hide information.

It’s recursive.

But, if we’ve gone this far, we might as well go over all this again:

  1. Twenty years ago Thomas Goolnik got in a spot of legal trouble, which was covered by a variety of news sources, including the NY Times.
  2. In 2014, after the EU Court of Justice approved a version of the right to be forgotten, Thomas Goolnik used that to try to get Google to forget that NY Times article.
  3. In August 2015, Thomas Goolnik used the same (pre-GDPR) right to be forgotten to get Google to forget our article about Thomas Goolnik getting Google to forget the NY Times article.
  4. A month later, in September of 2015, Thomas Goolnik got Google to forget our article about him getting our first article forgotten.
  5. Three years went by, and the GDPR passed, etching the “right to erasure” (i.e., the right to be forgotten) into official EU regulation, and so Thomas Goolnik went back to the well, using the official right under the GDPR to, once again, have Google forget our stories about Thomas Goolnik.
  6. A year later, in early 2019 he again abused the GDPR to convince Google to forget our new story about Thomas Goolnik abusing the GDPR.
  7. And just a month later he again abused the GDPR to get that latest story removed.

And that had been all we heard of Thomas Goolnik in the last three years. But, then, this week, we received another notification from Google that due to a GDPR “data protection law removal” request, Google would “no longer show one or more pages from your site in Google Search results.” That page is the one for our slightly snarky tag: thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas .

Now, I can see no reason that the tag page qualifies for a “right to erasure” request. It reveals nothing personal about Thomas Goolnik, other than that he has a propensity to abuse the GDPR’s right to erasure to try to hide news he apparently doesn’t like about himself. But the one story that shows up under that tag doesn’t even mention the legal mess he was in in 2002, and only talks about his current abuse of the GDPR.

But, at this point, it’s pretty clear that Thomas Goolnik is unlikely to ever stop abusing the GDPR to hide stories about Thomas Goolnik — which is exactly what we warned would happen should the right to be forgotten become encoded into EU law. So it seems pretty damn newsworthy that the GDPR’s right to erasure is being abused right now and not something that Google should be erasing, no matter how many times Thomas Goolnik seeks to hide it.

Filed Under: eu, gdpr, right to be forgotten, right to erasure, rtbf, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas gool, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik
Companies: google

Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name

from the i-wonder-who-that-might-be... dept

We received notification this week that Google has delisted our entire right to be forgotten tag page, based on (of course) a right to be forgotten request under the GDPR in the EU. To be clear, this only applies when someone searches the name in question — which was not shared with us. I am… perplexed about this. I understand that some people may not want us talking about their ongoing efforts to rewrite history and hide their past. However, you would think that if these articles don’t actually talk about their historical scams that are very much a part of the public record, and instead focus on their very current and ongoing abuse of the “right to be forgotten” process, they should be allowed to remain up.

The very fact that the tag being delisted when searching for this unnamed individual is the “right to be forgotten” tag shows that whoever this person is, they recognize that they are not trying to cover up the record of, say, an FTC case against them from… oh, let’s just say 2003… but rather are now trying to cover up their current effort to abuse the right to be forgotten process.

Anyway, in theory (purely in theory, of course) if someone in the EU searched for the name of anyone, it might be helpful to know if the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection once called him a “spam scammer” who “conned consumers in two ways.” But, apparently, in the EU, that sort of information is no longer useful. And you also can’t find out that he’s been using the right to be forgotten process to further cover his tracks. That seems unfortunate, and entirely against the supposed principle behind the “right to be forgotten.” No one is trying to violate anyone’s “privacy” here. We’re talking about public court records, and an FTC complaint and later settlement on a fairly serious crime that took place not all that long ago. That ain’t private information. And, even more to the point, the much more recent efforts by that individual to then hide all the details of this public record.

And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don’t mention this particular individual at all — so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted. Just the fact that the tag itself was around “right to be forgotten” probably should have tipped off the Google reviewer that perhaps this was not a legit request, but hey, the EU’s gotta EU and I won’t goolnick around and complain about whatever decisions the company makes.

Filed Under: censorship, eu, free speech, gdpr, right to be forgotten, search

How A Right To Be Forgotten Stifles A Free Press And Free Expression

from the it's-not-like-we-didn't-warn-you dept

Thankfully, recently, the EU’s Court of Justice, has limited the scope of the “right to be forgotten,” so that sites can’t be forced to censor content outside of the EU. However, it still does apply within the EU, and that has real and significant consequences.

Just last week we received yet another notification from Google that one of our articles had been removed from certain (unrevealed) search results in Europe, due to a successful “right to be forgotten” petition. This is hardly the first time this has happened, though at least this time it’s not about the one guy who has sent a new RTBF demand every time we write about him. We’re still trying to figure out what to do with the latest one, which appears (like so many) to be someone who was convicted of a crime (in this particular case, counterfeiting) who is apparently upset that his name and past crimes come up in a search.

We had warned about this years ago, highlighting how a short-sighted attempt to deal with “privacy” would collide head on with free speech and a free press — and for the most part we were ignored. However, the NY Times has a fairly astounding story about how a RTBF demand from a guy who stabbed his own brother and wanted to hide the resulting press stories more or less bankrupted the publication that had the story:

One of those demands was from Vittorio Pecoraro, now in his 80s, who was stabbed by his brother, Umberto, in the 2008 seaside restaurant brawl. The brothers were arrested after the fight. Assault-related charges against Vittorio Pecoraro were effectively dropped when the authorities did not pursue them.

Vittorio Pecoraro sued Mr. Biancardi, citing the right to be forgotten. Mr. Biancardi refused to remove the article. The story had been based on information from the police, he said. Nothing was factually wrong.

But Vittorio Pecoraro argued that his privacy had been violated. The article was easily available and searchable online, and he had not been convicted of a crime. Yet because of PrimaDaNoi, what he considered a humiliating family argument had become the first thing that many people knew about him and his pizza and seafood restaurant, he said.

?I have a reputation, I have been here for 50 years, I am known all over,? Mr. Pecoraro said in an interview at the restaurant, Positano, where the 2008 fight had occurred.

As the article notes, a court ruled that the site, PrimaDaNoi, had to delete the stabbing story (this is pre-GDPR, under the older concept of the Right to be Forgotten in the EU). The author/publisher was also told to pay €10,000 for “harming the reputation” of Mr. Pecoraro. Biancardi appealed, but lost.

The article notes that this and some of Biancardi’s other attempts to fight off RTBF requests only seemed to attract more demands and more lawsuits. And it basically destroyed him and his news site:

By last year, Mr. Biancardi stopped fighting the takedown requests. The cost wasn?t worth it, he decided, and he deleted almost every article that people demanded. He lost weight and wasn?t sleeping.

Last September, exactly 13 years after starting PrimaDaNoi, he shut down the site.

Having faced tons of legal threats (and one very long and exhausting legal dispute ourselves) I can empathize with Biancardi. At times, the stress, annoyance and costs just don’t seem worth it. But, of course, in such situations, it means that those who want to censor negative press about themselves will succeed in their ultimate goal: to suppress information. And that’s a very troubling scenario as well.

The article quotes Daphne Keller, who we’ve quoted many times here at Techdirt, and whose been on our podcast frequently as well, calling this “mission creep”:

?There has been real mission creep with the right to be forgotten,? said Daphne Keller, a lawyer at Stanford University?s Center for Internet and Society. ?First it was supposed to be about information found using search engines, but now we see it affecting news reporting.?

Of course, some will argue that there’s no mission creep at all here. Many insisted that this was really about privacy and search engines and “data protection.” But plenty of people had to know how this would turn out in the end, with news stories being disappeared. Indeed, folks like Daphne were among the leading voices warning EU policy makers of this kind of result. But it didn’t work. And now we have this terrible situation that doesn’t actually protect “privacy” at all — but does mean that a free press is regularly stifled.

Filed Under: eu, free speech, privacy, right to be forgotten, rtbf
Companies: primadanoi

from the must-carry dept

While most of the attention today was focused on the CJEU “right to be forgotten” ruling concerning global censorship, the court actually released another ruling concerning the right to be forgotten, again around disagreement between French regulators and Google. And, as intermediary liability expert Daphne Keller notes, this ruling may turn out to be more interesting in the long run.

This case involved how Google should deal with “sensitive data,” when it’s a part of a RTBF request. The court does decide that a “notice and takedown” regime makes sense for such sensitive content, which is better than the possible alternative advanced by some: that the law requires Google to pro-actively stop the indexing of such sensitive information (or even to first get consent). The court points out that this wouldn’t make any sense at all, given how search engines work:

In practice, it is scarcely conceivable ? nor, moreover, does it appear from the documents before the Court ? that the operator of a search engine will seek the express consent of data subjects before processing personal data concerning them for the purposes of his referencing activity.

But what really stands out is what appears to be a totally uncalled for random aside by the court towards the end of the ruling:

It must, however, be added that, even if the operator of a search engine were to find that that is not the case because the inclusion of the link in question is strictly necessary for reconciling the data subject?s rights to privacy and protection of personal data with the freedom of information of potentially interested internet users, the operator is in any event required, at the latest on the occasion of the request for de-referencing, to adjust the list of results in such a way that the overall picture it gives the internet user reflects the current legal position, which means in particular that links to web pages containing information on that point must appear in first place on the list.

This seems like it could be a very big deal. It’s the court saying that Google is required to make sure that top search results “reflects the current legal position.” In other words, if someone was exonerated after being accused of a crime, that must now be the top link. As Keller notes, this is going to have some strange consequences that probably won’t be very good:

– If the top results on searches for the data subject's name would otherwise not be about the criminal case, this creates a serious Streisand effect.
– This invites all kinds of abuse by SEOs and reputation management companies.

— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) September 24, 2019

Having a court come in and tell a search engine what is “required” to be the top search result, tossed off without much detail or thought in a world where getting certain links to certain places on search engines is literally an entire industry, is going to have pretty significant consequences — nearly all of them I can guarantee you the court did not even begin to think about.

Filed Under: cjeu, cnil, eu, links, must carry, right to be forgotten, rtbf, search engines, search results, seo
Companies: google

Phew: EU Court Of Justice Says Right To Be Forgotten Is Not A Global Censorship Tool (Just An EU One)

from the dodged-a-bullet dept

Over the past few years, an important legal battle has been playing out concerning the jurisdictional reach of the EU’s terrible “right to be forgotten” laws. France decided that Google needed to not just block such content within the EU, but globally. In response, Google pointed out that French regulators shouldn’t be able to censor the global internet. The question made it to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) last year, and the ruling has finally come down saying that Google was right after all. The right to be forgotten may exist in the EU, but that does not mean it can be applied globally.

For once, the CJEU actually seemed to recognize that the RTBF and freedom of expression are often in conflict — and that different countries may want to set the “balance” (if you can call it that) between the two in different places:

… the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world.

Indeed, the ruling notes that data protection is not an “absolute right.”

The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

Of course, I have a bit of trouble with the idea of things that are considered fundamental rights — such as freedom of expression — being “balanced” against things that are not fundamental rights, like “protection of personal data.” It seems like the fundamental right should always win out in such circumstances. In the US, for the most part, we’ve decided that the 1st Amendment doesn’t have a “balancing” test.

Still, it’s good to see the CJEU at least put some limits on the right to be forgotten and the ability of it to be used elsewhere against perfectly legal, truthful speech. It still sucks for people in the EU, but at least they can’t fully export their censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, cjeu, cnil, eu, france, free speech, global censorship, jurisdiction, right to be forgotten, rtbf
Companies: cnil, google

Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?

from the difficult-questions dept

It should be no secret that I’m not at all a fan of the right to be forgotten, which is a European concept, as currently employed, that allows people to get old news stories about them removed from search engines (there’s more to it than that, but that’s the basic explanation). To me, it seems like an attempt to bury history and facts, and that’s dangerous. We’ve also seen too many cases of people trying to abuse it to hide spotty historical records that deserve to remain public. However, the excellent Radiolab podcast a few weeks back had a fascinating episode exploring the idea of the news media voluntarily agreeing to “forget” certain stories. More specifically, last year, Cleveland.com adopted a policy that would let people apply to be “forgotten” by the online news publication. They invited Radiolab folks to be present for one of the meetings where the staff debates applications.

And it was a lot more interesting and challenging than I initially thought. Indeed, it brought back the conundrum I faced a few years ago, in which we weren’t sure how to deal with someone who made a very compelling case why we should delete a story about them. We refused, and were also troubled by the fact that that story involved a federal court case that was then disappeared by the court itself. Courts shouldn’t be disappearing public dockets like that. But, in reporting on that, given the compelling argument that had been made to us, we didn’t highlight what the original story was or who the person was — because of an inherent recognition that this person didn’t deserve any more trouble.

I’m still quite uncomfortable with the idea that a media organization would agree to go back and change stories to remove names (or, in some cases, to delete entire stories), as that is (again) a rewriting of history. Because that can certainly cause lots of other problems down the road as well. But the Radiolab episode is still worth listening to, as it does a really good job of laying out the difficult choices and tradeoffs, and the challenges that Cleveland.com takes on in making those decisions — weighing a bunch of different factors.

In many ways, it’s another side of the whole “content moderation” debate, and how various platforms should make decisions on moderation. There are many, many difficult choices and no easy answers. I still find the overall concept of the Right to Be Forgotten quite troubling — especially when it’s enforced by the government. However, it’s interesting and informative to learn about Cleveland.com’s thoughtful approach to the matter, even if I’d probably come down in a different end position.

Filed Under: history, journalism, memory, permanent record, right to be forgotten
Companies: cleveland.com

That Was Quick: Thomas Goolnik Already Gets Google To Forget Our Latest Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Stories About Thomas Goolnik

from the thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik dept

Okay, let’s start with this even higher up this time:

  1. Dear Google RTBF reviewer (who I’m sure will be reading this soon): Under the terms of the GDPR, you are only supposed to agree to a content removal if what we are publishing is “personal data” that is no longer necessary, and (importantly, please read this, guys) that is not “for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information” or “for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes….” This post, like the last few, are news stories that are in the public interest, specifically about how someone is abusing the GDPR’s “right to erasure” process to delete news reports about his abuse of the GDPR “right to erasure” process. This story is not about anything earlier that Thomas Goolnik may or may not have done. It is about what he did within the last few days. It is not old. It is not no longer relevant. It is directly relevant, and this post should not be subject to any GDPR right to erasure claims.
  2. Dear Thomas Goolnik: Seriously dude? How much longer is this going to go on? It is legal for a news report to mention your name. We’re not even talking about the original thing you want forgotten. We’re talking about what you’ve been up to the past few years trying to get everyone to forget the thing you want forgotten. Maybe let it go.

Right. So if the rest of you hadn’t guessed by now, Thomas Goolnik has, once again, successfully convinced Google to “erase” our most recent article about Thomas Goolnik getting Google to delete a previous article about Thomas Goolnik getting Google to delete a previous article about Thomas Goolnik getting Google to delete a previous article from its search results on the name Thomas Goolnik in the EU.

Even if one were to agree that the original articles he wanted delisted from searches under his name (which began with a NY Times article from 2002, which we don’t believe should have been delisted under the RTBF guidelines in the EU), the fact that Goolnik continues to get more modern articles about his abuse of the RTBF process delisted seems problematic. It seems like the sort of thing that is very much in the public interest to monitor and report on, seeing as many supporters of the GDPR insist that the RTBF process would not, in fact, be used to censor news stories. It is being used to do exactly that.

Filed Under: eu, right to be forgotten, rtbf, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas
Companies: google

Thomas Goolnik Again Convinces Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik

from the i-sense-a-pattern dept

Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn’t think you should. But let’s start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we’ll get into some more details:

  1. Dear Thomas Goolnik: I’m assuming you’re reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it’s perfectly legal to mention your name. We won’t even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
  2. Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik’s past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik’s past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.

With that out of the way, if you haven’t guessed, Thomas Goolnik has once again sent a Right to be Forgotten request to Google over our earlier articles about Thomas Goolnik and his use of the Right to be Forgotten system to try to delete previous articles about Thomas Goolnik abusing the Right to be Forgotten system to… you get the picture.

Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable. Some of us find this to be an affront to free speech and an abuse of legal process to suppress information that, potentially, may be embarrassing to someone like Thomas Goolnik. But others — such as Thomas Goolnik — appear to have a different opinion. Thomas Goolnik is, of course, free to express his own opinion on his own site, but apparently feels the need to make sure that others who express their opinions should be silenced. We disagree.

Filed Under: gdpr, right to be forgotten, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas gool
Companies: google