A
Anonymous
Guest
http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=64188&group=webcast
Don't go searching for "president bush allah bomb"...
Don't go searching for "president bush allah bomb"...
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).
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.
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.
Osama Bin Laden Semtex Cocaine
I just illuminated this thread
So, Do any of the MB'ers check out their dates through Google?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.
...
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."
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
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.
Great palliative cliches of the modern era: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?
and you're mocking my post because?Pietro_Mercurios said:Great palliative cliches of the modern era: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?
"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear."
"Nobody move. Nobody get hurt..."
Duh!ghostdog19 said:and you're mocking my post because?Pietro_Mercurios said:Great palliative cliches of the modern era: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?
"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear."
"Nobody move. Nobody get hurt..."
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)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.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?
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?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?
I know. Hence the rather cruel, 'Duh!'ghostdog19 said:...
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.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?
thanks for speaking plainly, Anome, much appreciated.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.
or better yet a stack of condescending emoticons.morningstar667 said:IMO if anyone was collecting data from here all they's see is "Oh boy we got us a skeptic!"