Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results • Hacker News Board

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#121

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #86

crazygringo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not strange since they probably have very low PageRank, visits, etc. On the other hand, the top Google results go to The Guardian, Wikipedia, Time, the BBC, etc., discussing the topic -- hugely popular sites. Google's meant to find popular relevant pages for your search terms. Remember, that's what PageRank was all about. So seems to be working as expected.

This does run into the same problem that Wikipedia runs into, that it insists on using “credible” or “reputable” sources but does not really bother to define that, and it essentially comes down to that sources are not “credible” for disagreeing with their beliefs. Personally, I have yet to see any “credible” news source and the adage remains that every news article about anything I have even the most minor inside kno…

...you don't see anything good coming from Google search results?

...that it's incentivized to return the results that the most people are looking for? As measured by clicks?

If you don't believe the news and you don't find popularity useful either then I honestly can't imagine what you're even looking for then.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#122

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

spondyl wrote: post #113

I'd like to take this opportunity to share some relevant exercepts from In The Plex[^1] about Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google. > One day Denise Griffin got a call from Eric Schmidt’s assistant. “There’s this information about Eric in the indexes,” she told Griffin. “And we want it out.” In Griffin’s recollection, it dealt with donor information from a political campaign, exactly the type of public information that G…

[deleted]

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#123

Post by ipaddr » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

summerlight wrote: post #46

ipaddr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't undo a harm by trying to erase it. If the porn has been created/recorded the ex has a copy and could upload it to non-block chain locations. Once he shares it it has been decentralized. There was never a way to undo porn video you made when you were younger.

But still you can try making it harder to access by cutting the major distribution channels, which perhaps will significantly reduce its propagation velocity. With whatever technologies that refuse to fix this issue, you cannot. This is a critical difference for law enforcement.

You wouldn't stop a torrent. Why should the blockchain be different Discovery still happens elsewhere.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#124

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

kypro wrote: post #66

slg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I seem to lean quite far on the freedom side of most arguments, but I do acknowledge there are times when action may need to be taken in the interest of the public. My objection is that I neither want it to be impossible to take action or for a foreign company to unilaterally decide what action to take. >What we need in situations like this is a legal process. If one doesn't exist, it's not for companies to start de…

Personally I'm not convinced the rewards outweigh the risks in regards to encryption, at least not at this moment in time. But again, I'd much rather issues like these were debated democratically than some tech company deciding one day that they need to view my private messages to "protect the children". But to your point, if the sharing of child porn or other illegal content ever got so bad that something urgently n…

The thing about E2EE is that it's not something that you can meaningfully ban in a non-totalitarian society. RSA boils down to one fairly simple formula, for example, or a Perl one-liner. People who really need it will figure it out.

Besides, there would be quite a few people who'd be actively circumventing any such law if it were enacted, e.g. by hosting the apps in other jurisdictions. And I think that's a good thing! There should be fundamental limits on the power of governance, regardless of how democratic said governance is; and democracies can be no less abusive than other forms when it comes to minorities etc. Or even majorities, when established public mores essentially require widespread hypocrisy - the Prohibition comes to mind. "Think of the children" (or terrorists, or whatever is the go-to political excuse at any particular moment) is not a valid exception.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#125

Post by tick_tock_tick » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

dkokelley wrote: post #55

lozaning wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I freaked a bunch of FBI agents out a while back by Base64 encoding a photo of an FBI logo and writing that to the Eth chain. They have massive concerns around this regarding data exfiltration. The cost of removing the data, once written to a chain, is essentially equal to the market cap of the coin for that chain.

Another thought experiment: What would happen if someone encoded something horrible and illegal like child porn into a blockchain? Is everyone who operates on that chain guilty of possession? Does that make a specific crypto "illegal" if its blockchain contains illegal content?

People already added it into bitcoin if you stretch the definition a bit. As in the bits needed to reconstruct the image exist in the chain.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#126

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

lozaning wrote: post #93

CDRdude wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand. Why did this freak out a bunch of FBI agents?

Because the data is there _forever_ and there's not really anything they can do about it, which stands in stark contrast to how they're used to operating. There is no person they can throw in jail, no corporation that can be sued, no servers that can be seized, domains taken over, etc, that will result in that data no longer being available to those that know where to look for it. The data just remains online until s…

But why would they freak out about a logo?

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#127

Post by InvertedRhodium » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #83

majormajor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because so few people know about it, "reputation managers" are charging people like $500 a pop to "remove damaging information from Google results." And ALL THEY DO is fill out that form for free. Someone tried to hawk this service to my husband after he came under attack. While that sounds like a high price, and you usually don't want to just hire the first person you see advertise a service, the concept of specia…

I'm pretty good with electrical diagrams and such, and I know exactly what one needs to do to stay about as safe as one can. I've fished (ethernet) wires before. I still hire electricians, because it's the only practical way to buy electrician's insurance for a project. I know a retired electrician. He hires electricians for anything nontrivial, for the insurance. That said your broader point has a lot of merit. I hi…

Here in NZ, a lot of work on your own property is legal - even some relatively complicated stuff - but the catch is that you need to find a qualified inspector to sign off on it.

The reality is that unless someone knows you and your work personally (friend, relative, w/e) it can be really difficult to find an inspector who is willing to sign off on some random persons work as there is a liability component (nowhere near as large as there is in the US, we have publicly funded "accident insurance" called ACC) in doing so.

That being said, anything I can legally do myself I do and I am sure to maintain good relationships with the inspectors I know.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#128

Post by avianlyric » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #115

avianlyric wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why couldn't we fragment and distribute one set of those keys among multiple legal entities? There would be thousands if not millions of legitimate decryptions every year. At each instance all of the fragments will need to be put together, creating an opportunity for the data to be exfiltrated. Additionally your making the assumption that legal agencies will be able to securely store these keys long term (I.e forev…

Your first three paragraphs are all focusing on structural flaws with my suggestion and not technical limitations of encryption itself. The debate has already moved from this is impossible to this is impractical. We can fix impractical. For example, we can design a way for content to be reencrypted with new keys if anything ever leaks. >You will 100% be able to roll your own, and trivially too. You’ll just need to go…

> Your first three paragraphs are all focusing on structural flaws with my suggestion and not technical limitations of encryption itself. The debate has already moved from this is impossible to this is impractical.

I think the flaws are so large, and fixing them so impractical (especially anything involving direct human involvement), that the problem is essentially impossible.

In theory traffic laws should prevent 100% of car accidents. Yet people die every day in traffic accidents.

In theory the judicial system should never execute an innocent person. Yet the US sends people later proven innocent to the electric chair on a semi regular basis.

In theory everyone should have a strong interest is keeping planet earth healthy enough to support human life, yet we’re on a course to cataclysmic climate change.

Alcohol addiction should have ended during prohibition, and weed should be impossible to buy in the US. Yet neither is true.

What on earth makes you think we’ll solve the structural issues with government key escrow for all encryption, when all the evidence suggest that we’re unable to perfectly solve these issues as a species?

> Github is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft won't let you host code that is designed specifically to break the law.

Cool we’ll host it on Gitlab then, or one of many no US hosting providers. We can’t even stop people pirating movies despite the media industry throwing billions at the problem. Do you honestly think we’ll have better luck with crypto?

You wanna see how this story ends? Read up on prohibition America, or just the war on drugs. We’ve been down this road many times, with many different vices, it’s ends the same way every time. Normal people get criminalised, illicit behaviour continues regardless. Organised crime profits from facilitating illicit behaviour. Please explain why you thing crypto is going to be the exception?

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#129

Post by gjs278 » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #97

kortilla wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why couldn't we fragment and distribute one set of those keys among multiple legal entities? Because crypto is implemented in software and it’s trivial to remove the part that encrypts for the government’s key.

You completely ignored the last paragraph of my comment where I addressed this type of concern.

stop posting. you’re wrong and your idea sucks. there’s nothing else to say.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#130

Post by amelius » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

sombremesa wrote: post #67

majormajor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because so few people know about it, "reputation managers" are charging people like $500 a pop to "remove damaging information from Google results." And ALL THEY DO is fill out that form for free. Someone tried to hawk this service to my husband after he came under attack. While that sounds like a high price, and you usually don't want to just hire the first person you see advertise a service, the concept of specia…

Electricity can kill you. Doesn't seem like a good comparison.

Ending up in a Google search result can too, I suppose, in some indirect way.