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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A month later, in September of 2015, Thomas Goolnik got Google to forget our article about him getting our first article forgotten.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Comments on “Once Again, Thomas Goolnik Gets Google To Forget Our Tag About Thomas Goolnik”
Back to the front page with you Goolnik
Attempting to hide ‘inconvenient’ information only to have the attempt draw far more attention to what you’re trying to hide than it would have had if you’d just kept your mouth shut, I wonder if there’s a term for that…
Re:
Could it be the Streisand Effect?
Re: Re:
A recursive Streisand Effect where the subject is trying to hide the Streisand Effect should be known as the Goolnik Effect.
Re: Re: Re:
Streisand Effect: To attempt to hide something only for the attempt to draw even more attention to what you were trying to hide.
Goolnik Effect: To attempt the above and upon seeing it blow up in your face try it again multiple times in the mistaken belief that if you loudly keep telling people ‘Stop looking at me!‘ it will work.
See also: ‘pattern recognition, lack of’.
Re: Re: Re: the Goolnik Effect
Also known as the Right to be Streisanded.
See also, https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/cheesemaking-youtuber-threatened-with-legal-action-by-grana-padano-after-showing-people-how-to-make-similar-cheese/185577?page=3
To paraphrase a certain wit.
It’s only the Goolnik Effect if it comes from the Thomas Goolnik region of France, otherwise it’s just Sparkling Streisands.
Wait, did I real that right?
Thomas Goolnik is abusing GDPR?
Why is Thomas Goolnik is abusing GDPR, to hide stories about how he has abused GDPR?
Well why would Thomas Goolnik be abusing GDPR?
Oh he got into legal trouble??
Perhaps Thomas Goolnik could stop abusing GDPR & just be a better person?
I think someone should tell Thomas Goolnik that everyone has history and that by abusing GDPR it makes it look like he might be trying to be up to no good again & keep people from learning he’s been shady before.
How can anyone trust Thomas Goolnik, when he is abusing GDPR to hide information so no one can know his true history and be informed before deciding to be associated with him?
That seems really abusive of Thomas Goolnik to use the GDPR to try to hide the fact he has misused GDPR repeatedly.
I do hope that Google with look at Thomas Goolnik abusing GDPR, and stop allowing him to abuse the law in this way.
Oh hey… Thomas Goolnik!!
Have a nice day.
Re: So many gems...
I appreciate good content. Con permiso I’ll use your taglines to “salt and pepper” my otherwise unreated posts.
Ehud
P.S.
P.P.S.
The GDPR is not the law in my country. Sorry for Thomas Goolnik and his abuse of third-world law in contravention of the first amendment to the constitution of the United States. The small side of The Pond doesn’t get to dictate anything against my right of expression, which won’t be limited by governments nor by Thomas Goolniks. Also did you know that “Goolnik” is the Polish word for “utter asshole”?
Re: Re:
To clarify:
so… wish granted? Your posts are not taken down, even in the EU. Your content isn’t de-indexed in the US.
However, Google’s speech rights to provide indexes to your speech in the EU, … that’s a different matter. And I expect that if you wanted to litigate in the EU against Goolnik, for abuse of the GDPR, you probably could. Though I’m not sure if the court would let you “have standing”, since it was Google that was targeted.
Re:
I think someone should tell Thomas Goolnik that everyone has history and that by abusing GDPR it makes it look like he might be trying to be up to no good again & keep people from learning he’s been shady before.
Had he just owned his past actions and moved to bury them by doing enough good that they were overshadowed everyone likely would have just moved on, however by repeatedly trying to bury his past actions and his attempts to rewrite history he presents a very strong argument that he learned nothing from being slapped down and is no more trustworthy now than he was then.
Re: Re:
Well sketchy people like Thomas Goolnik are gonna continue to be sketchy.
I guess its like Thomas Goolnik can’t figure out how to be a better person so Thomas Goolnik keeps trying to hide hes an asshole and causing even more attention on himself.
Re: Re: Re:
I guess its like Thomas Goolnik can’t figure out how to be a better person so Thomas Goolnik keeps trying to hide hes an asshole and causing even more attention on himself.
Given he’s been tilting at this particular windmill for years now I suspect it’s less ‘can’t figure out how’ and more ‘has no interest in trying’.
Re: Re: Re:
The resident psychopath must know 😉
Re: Re: Re:2
Sociopath.
Re: Re: Re:3
According to Hintjens, sociopath is the commonly used term, but doesn’t capture the whole image, psychopath is more fitting. The axe-swinging murderers commonly referred to as psychopaths is a malfunctioning subset of Hintjens psychopath.
Wonder
How far can WE push this?
Lets pass the GDPR around to every site, including his own gov.
Lets see if we can get him Un-Birthed. Lets get his mother not to know who he is.
Come on, search engine listings algorithms!
Push this article to the top of the first results page. I believe in you!
Thomas Goolnik, take a break. Treat yourself to ice cream. It’s not every day that a mother gets to see her son become (in)famous for the 17th time in a single lifetime.
why can he erase his data from google.usa, eg web sites outside the eu.every country has a google local website, eg google.uk
eu law should not apply to american websites,
i understand google has to erase his data from eu websites or services in the eu controlled by google
Re:
mmm… perhaps you are simply choosing words poorly.
Google didn’t (and can’t) remove Goolnik’s information from third party websites. That isn’t a thing.
What google is doing, when someone searches for “Goolnik”, is not showing links to third party website pages it’s been told are on the naughty list. And it is only doing that when it determines you’re searching from the EU. Searches from the U.S., Russia, Taiwan, Madagascar, etc are unaffected.
If you know the website that the page is on, you can still go there directly. But given how much of web surfing is based on searches, it is still a big hit.
He has a wiki page
Looks like the Thomas Goolnik wikipedia page will have to be updated with this story, adding to all the others.
Re: Urban Dictionary
I submitted a definition. John Thomas Goolnik – a small British wanker.
Moderation time period starts… now.
Wait….what was this guy’s name again? I might have missed it in article.
Re:
His name is Thomas Goolnik and he is abusing GDPR because he is unhappy about reporting about how he has been abusing GDPR over and over to hide past bad actions and then his attempts to abuse the system to hide the abuses.
Its like Thomas Goolnik doesn’t understand if you keep waving a red cape the bull will charge you each and every time no matter how many times you abuse the law to hide the fact that Thomas Goolnik is abusing GDPR.
Thomas Goolnik
Awww… c’mon Masnick, tell us how you REALL feel…
(snicker, snort, and guffaw)
Maybe we should just call him
Thomas Googlenik. Surely google wouldn’t delist the whole internet, even accidentally just for a short time, would they?
Thomas Goolnik⁶
If Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolniks Thomas Goolnik, does Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik?
Re:
Could be worse. Thomas Goolnik hasn’t sunk to the levels of Milorad Truklja, as in he hasn’t fucked up so bad that John Smith uses him as an example of why Section 230 should die.
He's not an EU person
According to the Times story, Goolnick is British, and as you may have heard, Britain isn’t in the EU any more. The GDPR doesn’t protect non-EU people.
Re:
If that’s an accurate read on things it will make the inevitable Google reviewer’s decision to delist this article(when it happens, not if) all the more boneheaded and stupid.
Re: Some things...
TL;DR – Please go for reading point #3. That’s an opinion. The rest is just factual stuff. Here we go:
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2002/12/tldnetworkstip.pdf
Thomas Goolnik created an alternate domain name system root zone. He sold domain names within this root zones. People who did not use his root servers were unable to access those domain names. Those who did use his root servers were able to access those domain names.
Going to the whole “encryption is numbers” and “you algorithms are math” and “you can’t patent numbers or algorithms”… well…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC
[sorry – no link because … um… private DNS resolvers 😉 ]
If you know of one… please cite it. Keep in mind that no parties to the original issue admitted guilt or were found guilty of committing any crime.
I’m not sure Thomas Golnik who paid a fine to the feds for his alleged misdeeds (to which he did not admit) and seeks to remove his reputation from the Internet gets either the Streisand Effect* or the Golnik Effect**.
Well, point 3 was really the part where I have a problem with his ORIGINAL issue. I absolutely abhor his abuse of the GDRP and RTBF to remove any discussion of it from anywhere, and don’t want that mistaken to be my opinion.
Ehud
—the rest for entertainment purposes—
* Fun note. Barbra Streisand sued my friend Ken, the helicopter owner and pilot — who happened to include pics of her home in his effort to document how rich people “build up” the beaches.
He has documented the California coastline buildup at a great personal expense ($600/hr for his aircraft, and the time he and his wife Gabrielle have spent, let alone thousands of dollars in camera equipment now likely obsolete). He has also documented the lawsuit from Barb, including the check he received when he won. Good reading:
https://www.californiacoastline.org/
(Ken, thank you for letting me fly your helicopter, as well as your other aircraft! That’s my only 0.1 flying a private jet 🙂
** This phrase was coined above and I’m sure it will be improved and tightened in time. I think the more of us leave our breadcrumbs in as many sites as possible… the better off we will be to getting Thomas Goolnik the British Wanker’s name out there.
Re: Re:
“How is this different than Karl Auerbach’s AlterNIC?”
AlterNIC didn’t spam millions of people pretending their domains would resolve on the main internet.
People who signed up with AlterNIC were aware they would have to use other DNS servers to access the sites.
Thomas Goolnik scammed at least a million dollars by selling “patriotic” domains never revealing you’d need a different DNS server… that no one was running.
Re: Re: Re: AlterNIC... and stuff
Thanks for that input. Of course now you’ve dated yourself 😉
I’m not sure why Thomas Goolnik possibly defrauded people into thinking their domains WOULD resolve on “The Internet” but never provided those resolving root nameservers. How did that work?
I suspect the wikipedia page has been cleaned up. The FTC complaint certainly lacks technical details.
Re: Re: Re:2
Carbon 14 can’t date me.
Immortal around since the beginning of time.
My information was from a few google searches for data, cause while he thinks its all scrubbed… other words work.
Re: Re: Re:3
Moderation here I come…
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2002/12/bogus-domain-name-seller-settles-ftc-charges
No ones ever seen Thomas Goolnik and Jhon Smith in the same room at the same time…
Hi guys
Right now here in Germany, this post is the 4th search result.
Cheers, oliver
Re:
Well we obviously haven’t been doing enough to raise the profile of the underhanded way Thomas Goolnik is abusing GDPR to hide his abuse of GDPR to hide legal problems he had when he defrauded a bunch of people.
I would think that someone found guilty of scamming people wouldn’t be able to demand that stories about what he had done be hidden from view, but then here is Thomas Goolnik abusing GDPR to hide those & then to hide coverage of him using GDPR to hide the stories of how he scammed all of those people.
Why oh why do they keep letting Thomas Goolnik abuse GDPR in this way?
Don’t they care about others who might do business with a known scammer not being able to discover he is a convicted scammer because the scammer, Thomas Goolnik, abused GDPR to hide is past crimes from view.
Thomas Goolnik is the poster child for why GDPR was a really bad idea, if a scammer like Thomas Goolnik can hide stories about his scam, what other criminals like Thomas Goolnik can hide their past crimes & find new victims?
Re: Re:
Apparently he wasn’t found guilty. There was a settlement.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/ftc-settles-domain-name-suit/
Goolnick effect
“When your abuse of legal process causes recursive coverage that is so vague about your prior bad acts (I assume to avoid a legitimizing pretext for his claims, though in techdirt’s case I assume it’s because it’s just not as relevant anymore) that the reader just assumes you’re an associate of Jeffrey Epstein.
I went to school with this guy. I just happened to google his name today with the expectation of stories about him being a fraudster. My only surprise is that he’s not in jail.
I’m not clear on how he has “abused” the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)? He has the right to request that certain search results do not appear when someone types his name into a search engine. But it’s not an absolute right, the likes of Google have broad rights to reject such a request if they do not agree, and they must consider completing rights too. They tend to reject unless the case is very strong. The Information Commissioner or the courts may be involved if there is a disagreement, and either side wishes to take it further.
Perhaps you are assuming that because your story focuses on his use of the RTBF as opposed to the details of the alleged crime, that his RTBF request was not valid? That’s not a real argument in my view. It fails for a few reasons, namely:
I think you are trying to claim there is a loophole that has never existed, laws are usually designed to take into account of people maliciously trying to circumvent them. What should never happen in a democratic society, is that a person who exercises their rights are somehow punished for doing so.
Quite frankly your actions are likely to lead to more calls for wider RTBF action. If you are against RTBF you are shooting yourself in the foot. I can see additional protections being demanded, such as when a site chooses to just recreate the content on a different URL after a delist request, that whole site should never appear associated with the individual name in a Google search result. Instead of the person having to manually check and complain each time. Personally I would support that, and I’m surprised they have not done that already.
Twenty years is a long time, so it’s not surprising that his RTBF requests have been successful. What did surprise me when I looked at this case, is that guy wasn’t even convicted. They settled instead. If his actions are considered so serious that he never gained a criminal conviction for them, then I struggle to see 20 years down the line you think it is serious enough to carry on this campaign. Google would find it hard to justify not delisting if there never was a successful conviction, especially so after two decades. If you disagree with the settlement, then journalistically the story is more about the people who agreed to it. That’s the real story allowing certain people to settle and others who have no resources to often languish in prison.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/ftc-settles-domain-name-suit/
Re:
I’m not clear on how he has “abused” the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)?
Really? You think the RTBF is supposed to be used to get the world to ignore a news article about how the RTBF has been abused?
That’s… impressively stupid.
Quite frankly your actions are likely to lead to more calls for wider RTBF action. If you are against RTBF you are shooting yourself in the foot. I can see additional protections being demanded, such as when a site chooses to just recreate the content on a different URL after a delist request, that whole site should never appear associated with the individual name in a Google search result
So rather than highlight how the RTBF is censorial nonsense, I should bite my tongue, lest idiot regulators make it worse?
Sorry, no.
Re: Re:
No, that’s a gross misrepresentation of my comment and how RTBF works. The article would not be ignored by the World. If someone types in RTBF your article will come up. It won’t come up if a person types in the individual’s name (e.g. Joe Bloggs) if they have successfully had certain results delisted, but it will appear for any other relevant search term. And that should not be surprising. His use of RTBF is DIRECTLY related to the original incident. It’s not a real argument to call that “abuse”. You’re trying to circumvent the delisting, and provide a link so people can find out about what this guy did 20 years ago. If there is any abuse, it is from you trying to undermine/punish people using RTBF. Rights gained democratically.
Think of it like a rape victim who has the right to testify anonymously. No one would think that someone creating a page about her, mentioning her my name, talking about how she asserted her right to anonymity in the court, but not mentioning the actual rape was acceptable and not breaking the anonymity she was given. It’s a ridiculous stance, and to use your words:
I think you are letting your dislike for RTBF to cloud your judgement.
No, not at all write away. It’s a topic I’m interested in. Just keep it objective and fact based. And don’t have a hissy fit and call it “abuse” if someone asserts their democratic right to use RTBF.
Re: Re: Re:
His use of RTBF is DIRECTLY related to the original incident. It’s not a real argument to call that “abuse”. You’re trying to circumvent the delisting, and provide a link so people can find out about what this guy did 20 years ago. If there is any abuse, it is from you trying to undermine/punish people using RTBF. Rights gained democratically.
This is incorrect. He has REPEATEDLY used the RTBF process to delist my articles about the RTBF. In many of them I directly avoided even mentioning the original scam accusations. That didn’t work, so we’re back to mentioning them again.
Also, it’s news. Making news disappear should be seen as offensive to anyone who believes in free speech. I get that you don’t, but he’s still abusing the RTBF process, which is not supposed to be used against information in the public interest. This is very much in the public interest.
Think of it like a rape victim who has the right to testify anonymously. No one would think that someone creating a page about her, mentioning her my name, talking about how she asserted her right to anonymity in the court, but not mentioning the actual rape was acceptable and not breaking the anonymity she was given.
This takes the cake. Comparing a guy who was credibly accused of running a con to a rape victim.
Incredible. Truly.
Goolnik was not a rape victim.
Just keep it objective and fact based.
This is my site. You don’t get to tell me how to write.
Re: Re: Re:2
I covered this in my original comment, reread if you wish to learn. You’re only mentioning the RTBF because he used it to delist a result, and you want to publicise the original incident from 20 years ago. They are one and same thing, directly related. It’s obvious from what you write. If the original incident is judged to be delisted, it’s natural to assume that the RTBF which followed are to be delisted too. There is a chain of events, the link is crystal clear to all, accept to those who wish to circumvent the delisting. His actions are not “abuse”, that is ludicrous in my opinion.
If you were talking about the guy and his favourite film, that would be fine. No delisting would take place, but you have chosen to write an article about him using RTBF, as you are aware that links him to the event 20 years ago.
When you say delist your articles, you should make it very clear that if Google agrees Google has decided to ONLY delist the articles if a person searched for that individual. It is very limited. Google results will only be restricted when a person searches for e.g. “Joe Bloggs”. They will appear for everything else, including his old company name.
Sure, well of course you don’t have to keep it objective or fact based.
This is worth a read:
https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/11/sweden-fines-google-8-million-for-right-to-be-forgotten-violations-and-demands-it-keep-websites-in-the-dark/
Sweden requiring Google not to notify web site owners of delist requests. I’m unsure if there have developments since. My view on this would be that it would very much depend on the reason for delisting. I imagine in most cases it would not be appropriate to notify, but there will likely be exceptions.
Articles like the present one which seek to circumvent a delisting request, makes it more likely that other countries will take a similar view.
They note:
I see no evidence from this article that RTBF has been “abused” though. Just that the author is not happy that someone is exercising that right and that Google is agreeing. It feels very much like a bullying campaign in order to undermine the RTBF, or punish someone for using it.
There will be differing opinions on the RTBF as a concept, but there should be a respect that other countries take a proportionate view on the balance of competing rights, and respect their laws and courts which give in limited circumstances the chance to have results delisted related to their name.
Re:
My view on this would be that it would very much depend on the reason for delisting.
Your view on it is that it is okay for the rich and powerful to stifle criticism by law. You are fundamentally against free speech.
Re: Re:
Hmm, no, that’s not at all what I think. Quite the opposite of that.
As for being against freedom of speech. Nope, I’m all for it, but I’m proportionate and appreciate that other rights exists too. And when there is a conflict between these rights, something like RTBF is needed to balance these rights.
Google is not the “ministry of truth”, and it should be possible to ask it to review how it chooses to rank information concerning an individual. Requiring it to consider both the public interest and the privacy rights of an individual.
Re: Re: Re:
As for being against freedom of speech. Nope, I’m all for it, but I’m proportionate and appreciate that other rights exists too. And when there is a conflict between these rights, something like RTBF is needed to balance these rights.
What “right” is RTBF balancing against free speech? Be specific.