• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Google Knows All

1. BS, cookies are just text files, you can delete them.
2. BS, most cookies do that. Plus, see #1.
3, 4. Who cares? They know some search strings you typed in. Big deal. See #1.
5. Wow, paranoid?
6. Thats typical annoying adware behavior. And google doesn't trick you into downloading it, like Gator or the stupid purble gorrila does.
7. Yes, this is pretty annoying.
8. I use Altavista sometimes myself.
9. Search engines have existed since the dawn of the internet. Deal.
 
One thing guaranteed to p*ss people off is #2.

The result is, you get fewer and fewer results until you get nothing whatsoever (this has happened to me with song lyrics).

I clear out my cookies regularly and my temp internet files empties every time I shut down IE, so it looks like you can't stop this happening (unless someone out there knows something I don't, which shouldn't be too difficult).
 
Papa Lazarou said:
The result is, you get fewer and fewer results until you get nothing whatsoever (this has happened to me with song lyrics).

Does that really happen? I'm always looking up song lyrics. I'd hate to think I wouldn't be able to eventually. :(
 
As someone who works with Google on a daily basis I can say that No. 2 is complete garbage. Google DOES NOT tailor results on IP unless regional searches are undertaken, or in the event of location-based Adwords. If you're finding less, you're searching wrong; end of story. And to be clear, I'm no fan of Google, in fact I hate them, but there's plenty to criticise without making stuff up.
 
Desperado said:
As someone who works with Google on a daily basis I can say that No. 2 is complete garbage. Google DOES NOT tailor results on IP unless regional searches are undertaken, or in the event of location-based Adwords. If you're finding less, you're searching wrong; end of story. And to be clear, I'm no fan of Google, in fact I hate them, but there's plenty to criticise without making stuff up.

Excuse me? How can putting a few lyrics or a song title be searching wrong? And I assure you I'm not making it up - once I could get lyrics by typing one or two keywords in, now I get nothing at all more often than not, yet Lycos throws up dozens of hits.

Besides, someone on this very message board threw up the very same explanation when i posted this some time ago (see post 2 by Androman).
 
Papa Lazarou said:
Excuse me? How can putting a few lyrics or a song title be searching wrong? And I assure you I'm not making it up - once I could get lyrics by typing one or two keywords in, now I get nothing at all more often than not, yet Lycos throws up dozens of hits.

Google is constantly changing its directory listings, with a big change at the end of each month (the Google dance). Sites move up and down, in and out, and are indexed for different keywords and phrases. A site that may have ranked well for a keyphrase last week might not rank at all this week.

Lycos has nothing to do with Google. It's like saying because you found an item in Sainsbury's you should be able to find it in Tesco. Some other SEs like Yahoo display Google results, and Google does base itself on other directories such as DMOZ, but at the end of the day all search engines will produce different results, no conspiracy here.

So please, take it from me, search results - other than location-based and some Adwords functions - having nothing to do with your IP address or how often you've searched or ANYTHING other than the current Google site index.

And if you don't believe me, think why would Google stop displaying search results. It would be like a shop refusing to serve their customers. It simply doesn't happen.
 
how many more times?

every electronic communication, web, landline, mobile, text, is monitored by somebody somewhere

Osama Bin Laden Semtex Cocaine

I just illuminated this thread

someone, or some machine will scan it, realise its bollocks (for their purposes) and move on

this is not paranoia, its our technology

of more concern to me is the fact that if I do a search on 16th century Mexican agrarian economics, up pops eBay trying to sell me Mexico
 
This month's WIRED magazine has an article in which
the author spends three 8-hour sessions watching
what comes up in searches at Google Headquarters.

He makes sure he is there in the morning, at noon and overnight, so he can see how search queries from around the world change over the course of a typical day.

It actually gets quite poignant when at around midnight of the final day, there is a search for "what to tell a suicidal friend"
and the ISP is only a few miles from where they sit.

But as the article points out:
there is NOTHING they can do about it.

TVgeek
 
there used to be a site linked to one of the early search engines (Webcrawler?) which would pop up random searches as they came in

about 6-8 years ago I think
 
Osama Bin Laden Semtex Cocaine

I just illuminated this thread

I doubt it. :p Even if routine scanning of all information was undertaken, which it isn't, these words would not trigger a thing. One of the most basic concepts of communications between criminal entities is that incriminating words or phrases are never, EVER used, under ANY circumstances. You will NEVER hear a drug dealer talk of "drugs", or an arms dealer talk of "guns", or a terrorist talk of "bombs". To suggest they do simply shows a lack of knowledge about the criminal world.

But you're right that this site is being scanned. It is being scanned by Google bots at least once a day in order to rank it within their results according to relevency. It will also be scanned by other SEs and directories, but that's about it.

There is a site that you can monitor Google searches yourself but I forget the IP address. Some amazing things appear...
 
Web Surveillence

Pscyhological insights of Web searches

If there was a computer that knew psychology, could it monitor (to use this example) Google searches, and build up a picture of the e-zeitgeist, or e-mindset, and work out what people are thinking.

An example:

You have 100 users, and five websites, one each representing far-left, left, centrist, right, far-right political views.

Each of the five sites receives a steady level of visitors: FL- 5, L - 25, C- 30, R- 5 and FR- 5.

And in this 100-user world you have three external events- a war, an (unrelated!) humanitarian crisis, and an asylum crisis..

If, when the war came, public opinion shifted to the right- all for war. Then, when the humanitarian crisis came, a shift to the left, with want to aid. Then, with the ayslum crisis, stuttering between left and right...you could gauge the opinion of this 100-user world.

Of course, this is a very simple example- it doesn't account for the psychology you would probably need, and it assumes most of us are regular, dedicated webusers...

But still, They could manage it...if only by monitoring conspiracy forums like this:

Conspiracist 1: ''There's an awful lot of talk about our black helicopters- sightings more regular now, from dependable witnesses...'
Conspiractist 2: ''Okay, we'll steadily cut back on the helicopters. Use cars for a while, instead..''

If they know our plans, they can account for them, and if they know our plan of attack, they can arrange their defence accordingly...

''Knowledge is power'' as Bacon mused.
 
BBC News Online: Google date test 'nets US fugitive'Friday, 30 January, 2004

A suspected US fraudster on the run for a year has reportedly been caught after a woman checked his name on the Google website before meeting him for a date.

LaShawn Pettus-Brown was wanted in Ohio for allegedly siphoning off city funds from restoration projects.

The woman found his name on an FBI arrest warrant after using the Google search engine and contacted authorities, local media reported.

Analysts say using web engines to check people's credentials is now common.

...
So, Do any of the MB'ers check out their dates through Google? :p
 
Androman: As far as I'm aware the concept of Googling someone before going out with them is so widespread the word will be in vaious dictionaries next time ;)

I noticed this about David Kelly in an article on things that came up in in Hutton Inquiry that won't be in the report:

Google has transformed the pace of journalism.
Lord Hutton diverged sharply from judicial stereotype when he chose to publish the inquiry's full transcripts and documentary evidence daily on the web. But it was the Guardian's own security affairs editor, Richard Norton-Taylor, who revealed in his testimony how far the internet, and specifically its most popular search engine, may have accelerated the revelation of Kelly's name. As soon as the MoD disclosed that Gilligan's source had been an Unscom inspector, Norton-Taylor said, "I went to the internet and searched through Google and I pressed a couple of words in. I typed in the search engine something like 'Britain' plus 'Unscom' plus maybe one other word. About the first or second item on that list that came up on Google was a lecture David Kelly had given, I think in America, and it said that he was a former British Unscom inspector."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1132596,00.html

Emps
 
Looks like the Desktop search raises serious security issues:

Google Copies Your Hard Drive - Government Smiles in Anticipation

Consumers Should Not Use New Google Desktop

San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers" feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google's own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user's computers. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.

"Coming on the heels of serious consumer concern about government snooping into Google's search logs, it's shocking that Google expects its users to now trust it with the contents of their personal computers," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "If you use the Search Across Computers feature and don't configure Google Desktop very carefully—and most people won't—Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index. The government could then demand these personal files with only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you wouldn't even be notified in time to challenge it. Other litigants—your spouse, your business partners or rivals, whoever—could also try to cut out the middleman (you) and subpoena Google for your files."

The privacy problem arises because the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986, or ECPA, gives only limited privacy protection to emails and other files that are stored with online service providers—much less privacy than the legal protections for the same information when it's on your computer at home. And even that lower level of legal protection could disappear if Google uses your data for marketing purposes. Google says it is not yet scanning the files it copies from your hard drive in order to serve targeted advertising, but it hasn't ruled out the possibility, and Google's current privacy policy appears to allow it.

"This Google product highlights a key privacy problem in the digital age," said Cindy Cohn, EFF's Legal Director. "Many Internet innovations involve storing personal files on a service provider's computer, but under outdated laws, consumers who want to use these new technologies have to surrender their privacy rights. If Google wants consumers to trust it to store copies of personal computer files, emails, search histories and chat logs, and still 'not be evil,' it should stand with EFF and demand that Congress update the privacy laws to better reflect life in the wired world."

For more on Google's data collection:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+When+Google+is+ ... tml?tag=nl http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ls_the_web http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... GPHA61.DTL http://news.com.com/%20Bill+would+force ... 36951.html

www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_02.php#004400
 
well i must say if this is true good luck to them lol
as they would have the biggest pile of meaninless durge in the history of mankind
just what good whould it do them?think of the numbers involved they would be absolutly VAST

if any important detail could be gleened from it this in itself would be a hurculean feat
mr x from texas lookin for train tickets
miss b from bromwhich needin goosberry pie recipies
child z from who care typing a whole load of drivel untill the late hours
but times the WHOLE world
and then theres the non belevers who dare i say it "dont use google"
 
I think we once had a thread on googling on your own name, but this was the nearest I could find.

It's a fascinating exercise that I try every six months or so. One of my namesakes is a prolific session musician. And another new one has popped up, who is big in the limestone industry!

And there are links to other stuff I've put on the web, some of which bring up a 404 now, and other stuff that's outdated but which I can no longer access to change or remove.

Another new link is the results of a big sailing race I took part in over 20 years ago! (I've saved that one.)

You'll probably get different results depending on how you search - you might try eg:
Fred Smith, Frederick Smith, F.J.Smith, etc.
 
I thought we had a thread about weird search-engine requests. Perhaps it was in Chat and slipped off the edge.

Anyway this site has a list of the things that Google might be recording.

Supposing you now try, "Tony Blair caught cottaging" it gets one hit - the above list of demented search strings.

But now I have written this, it may get two hits, if Google can get into the FT site without a Masonic handshake. This could be the start of something big. :evil:
 
I really think this sort of thing should only worry pedos and terrorists and if you're neither of those why the heck would you care?
 
JamesWhitehead said:
I thought we had a thread about weird search-engine requests. Perhaps it was in Chat and slipped off the edge.

Anyway this site has a list of the things that Google might be recording.

Supposing you now try, "Tony Blair caught cottaging" it gets one hit - the above list of demented search strings.

But now I have written this, it may get two hits, if Google can get into the FT site without a Masonic handshake. This could be the start of something big. :evil:

I've seen FT posts listed in searches on Google, so I presume that they have everything in here indexed.

I used to work for a search engine company (now sadly dead, because of the dot com collapse), and we had a weekly league table of the most bizarre search terms that people were using. Highly amusing sometimes. Also, we found out the most common searches.
Through the use of cookies, we tracked people's preferences through the search terms they were entering, and were able to work out trends in searching. This helped us to tailor our indexing activities to suit the demand. Note that we deliberately didn't track any aspect of an individual's personal details, as that would have been morally questionable. Other companies are less high-minded these days.
 
ghostdog19 said:
I really think this sort of thing should only worry pedos and terrorists and if you're neither of those why the heck would you care?
Great palliative cliches of the modern era:

"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear."

"Nobody move. Nobody get hurt..."


:roll:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ghostdog19 said:
I really think this sort of thing should only worry pedos and terrorists and if you're neither of those why the heck would you care?
Great palliative cliches of the modern era:

"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear."

"Nobody move. Nobody get hurt..."


:roll:
and you're mocking my post because?
 
ghostdog19 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ghostdog19 said:
I really think this sort of thing should only worry pedos and terrorists and if you're neither of those why the heck would you care?
Great palliative cliches of the modern era:

"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear."

"Nobody move. Nobody get hurt..."


:roll:
and you're mocking my post because?
Duh! :roll:

...

To be fair.

Think of all things you, or any other FTMB member might have 'Googled™', in an idle moment, following some outlandish claim, or other. Fixed in an ever growing database and cross referenced against other searches. Gradually building a comprehensive personal profile of that person. 8)

Claims about it only worrying the likes of modern day, 'bête noire', like 'pedos and terrorists', might just be a foot in the door, don't you think?

Intended to sooth our fears and dull our senses. ;)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
To be fair.

Think of all things you, or any other FTMB member might have 'Googled™', in an idle moment, following some outlandish claim, or other. Fixed in an ever growing database and cross referenced against other searches. Gradually building a comprehensive personal profile of that person. 8)

You can pretty much seee how this sort of thing works when you log into Amazon if you have an account there and they make recommendations etc. Market research and government regional statistics, everything is subcatagorised in this so called enlightened age of information untill we're narrowed down to little statistical boxes we'd not recognise for our own, but reflected of our credit card bills, phone calls and preferred tv stations. The cars we buy to the food we eat.

Wasn't there a claim that the FEDS checked lending lists at libraries? Or was that just in a movie called Se7en?
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Claims about it only worrying the likes of modern day, 'bête noire', like 'pedos and terrorists', might just be a foot in the door, don't you think?

;)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.
 
ghostdog19 said:
I really think this sort of thing should only worry pedos and terrorists and if you're neither of those why the heck would you care?
Because the erosion of our rights is not something to be taken lightly. I am neither a terrorist or a paedophile, and I do not want anybody to listen to my private conversations or look at my internet cache. Who determines what is of interest to the authorities? How do we know they won't suddenly decide to flag people who are reading the FTMB, as it contains information about global conspiracies, and political discussion on the Gulf situation?

It's easy to tell the people who've never had a problem with the law. They're the ones who think they have nothing to fear.
 
ghostdog19 said:
...

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Claims about it only worrying the likes of modern day, 'bête noire', like 'pedos and terrorists', might just be a foot in the door, don't you think?

;)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.
I know. Hence the rather cruel, 'Duh!'

More Modern day cliches:

"Knowledge is Power."

"Know thine enemy."

"Cradle to grave."


Some links to mull over (Searched from Google):
http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3305
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2006/gb20060330_385311.htm
http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm
 
I googled morningstar667 and got 71 hits all relating to posts on here. Not surprised. The interesting or uninteresting thing is it didn't show all of my posts (129). Ask.com came up blank. Yahoo came up with 45. Curious.
Anyone else tried it?

IMO if anyone was collecting data from here all they's see is "Oh boy we got us a skeptic!" :lol:
 
Anome_ said:
It's easy to tell the people who've never had a problem with the law. They're the ones who think they have nothing to fear.
thanks for speaking plainly, Anome, much appreciated.

I mentioned earlier that marketing selects things statistically. there are parties that already know what car you buy what food you eat what general preferences you have. the government currently statistically group neighbourhoods (or boroughs) according to post codes. so though you may live at said post code you may be surprised by who the government supposes you are. Your post code reflects the number of children you are likely to have (four apparently) even if you don't have any... it is even reflective of the sort of name you're likely to have. Be it Keith or Charles, your postcode says your name is more likely to be "Brian". Point being, they're already listening in. surely with more information they can only get you correct, therefore the old cliche 'if you've done nothing wrong...'

So we're already subject to catagorisation that on reflection we'd argue doesn't suit us. I don't know how the government then uses this information, likely it's used to aid local council spending. But I see your concerns for being labelled for the wrong thing now you've pointed those out.
 
morningstar667 said:
IMO if anyone was collecting data from here all they's see is "Oh boy we got us a skeptic!"
or better yet a stack of condescending emoticons.
 
Back
Top