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

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

#221

Post by markkanof » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:03 AM UTC

subhro wrote: post #197

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…

On a related note, how do I find a list of electrical codes (or any code for that matter) for my area without going through an expensive subscription?

You can get books that teach all the basics, for example there is one called Wiring A House that is pretty good. Then you can usually contact your local building department for the city where you live to get specific questions answered. Unless you live in a place like Chicago where all wiring needs to be in conduit and then that’s a whole different story.

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

#222

Post by akiselev » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:25 AM UTC

markkanof wrote: post #218

akiselev wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's just for incidental damage and probably legally mandated by your state. If your house burns down to due to DIY wiring, the insurance company won't pay out a dime (if the inspectors discover it). Electricians have liability insurance provided by an organization specializing in policies for practicing tradesmen. If an insurance company fails to disqualify a homeowner's policy and pays out, it will then go af…

There is just no way this is correct. First, most municipalities in America anyway allow a homeowner to do their own electrical work. You are required to get a permit for the work though and then have it inspected by the city inspector to verify the work was done correctly. But second and maybe more importantly how would you ever be able to get insurance on an older house. There may have been dozens of different elec…

> First, most municipalities in America anyway allow a homeowner to do their own electrical work. You are required to get a permit for the work though and then have it inspected by the city inspector to verify the work was done correctly

They allow them to change sockets and light switches. Anything requiring a city inspector is literally the same thing as getting a licensed electrician. Municipalities have a lot more insurance than an electrician does, often unwritten by the same reinsurers as the electricians.

> But second and maybe more importantly how would you ever be able to get insurance on an older house. There may have been dozens of different electricians and homeowners that did work over the years. Who would the insurance company go after if a problem occurred.

The insurance company goes bankrupt and the state bails out the homeowner. That's why we have electrical contractor surety bonds.

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

#223

Post by userbinator » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:31 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #160

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People already added it into bitcoin if you stretch the definition a bit. Which is a fancy way of saying that they haven't. The only images in the bitcoin blockchain are ascii art. There are plenty of hashes of different types of data in the bitcoin blockchain, but hashes are not the hash function's input data. Schneier himself repeated this bogus "there's illegal content in the bitcoin blockchain already!" claim,…

The data may may have been encrypted with a key that only some people know, and to others it's just random noise.

By that definition, however, every file could be transformed into an illegal one through a suitable cipher and key.

Then there's the concept of steganography.

Digital data is interesting for sure.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #2

Couldn't fit the whole tweet, so just to be clear, she's talking about manual, non-legal requests: > One of the surprising things about working on the slander series is how few people in the field, even experts, know that Google voluntarily removes some search results. (No court order needed!) You have to visit this generic url: https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?... Down the thread, she adds…

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by RHSeeger » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #219

version_five wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see those as separate. Paying someone to take on risk I see a clear argument for. Its specifically the "do it this way because insurance wont cover you otherwise" that I'm reacting too, because I think that had caused a lot of damage to society. Effectively nobody is taking on risk under the model insurance companies push - insurance won't let you do anything risky, and won't pay if you do. That's why I say it's a…

> insurance won't let you do anything risky, and won't pay if you do . This is the part that is outright fraud. A legitimate insurance policy is literally a cheque; if something happens, you deposit it in the bank and get you money, and it's the insurance company's responsibility to prove that your claim is not covered by the policy written on the cheque. The insurance company does not make a decision about whether t…

Without trying to sound snarky, I feel like maybe you haven't had to deal with insurance companies for anything substantial. A lot of them go out of their way to say no to as much as they can, and you need to fight with them to get them to change their decision.

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

#226

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #2

Couldn't fit the whole tweet, so just to be clear, she's talking about manual, non-legal requests: > One of the surprising things about working on the slander series is how few people in the field, even experts, know that Google voluntarily removes some search results. (No court order needed!) You have to visit this generic url: https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?... Down the thread, she adds…

[deleted]

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

#227

Post by pininja » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:05 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #220

orangeoxidation wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's when it comes time to pay out. Yup. They know having an electrician do all the work minimizes the risk of you needing to get payed out, so they want it so. But the insurance doesn't care about your additional cost, since it's your cost, not theirs. They don't go "cost of professional 0". Then again, electrical work can be life threatening…

> Then again, electrical work can be life threatening, so the potential damage is rather high. As a DIYer, I was shocked to find what the previously hired professional electrician left for me: a secondary panel for the whole structure that controls exactly one outlet. The sub panel was apparently not fed from the main panel, but rather from a panel in a different building, so simply switching the main breaker of the…

I just ordered a $15 Non Contact Voltage Detector after reading this. Glad you’re ok!

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

#228

Post by ravel-bar-foo » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:11 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #220

orangeoxidation wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's when it comes time to pay out. Yup. They know having an electrician do all the work minimizes the risk of you needing to get payed out, so they want it so. But the insurance doesn't care about your additional cost, since it's your cost, not theirs. They don't go "cost of professional 0". Then again, electrical work can be life threatening…

> Then again, electrical work can be life threatening, so the potential damage is rather high. As a DIYer, I was shocked to find what the previously hired professional electrician left for me: a secondary panel for the whole structure that controls exactly one outlet. The sub panel was apparently not fed from the main panel, but rather from a panel in a different building, so simply switching the main breaker of the…

The GCFI probably saved your life.

This is why you always test an outlet with a lightbulb before doing electrical work.

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

#229

Post by ravel-bar-foo » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

subhro wrote: post #197

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…

On a related note, how do I find a list of electrical codes (or any code for that matter) for my area without going through an expensive subscription?

Usually visiting your place of local government / library and asking for a copy of local building codes will get you a hard copy at not much more than cost to photocopy.

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

#230

Post by rurban » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

Few people know that Google Search also voluntarily censors search results for political reasons. Probably by request of CIA/State department. Such blacklists appeared on wikileaks. Which was esp. ironic that Google employees fought the very same feature on the search product for the Chinese market "Dragonfly" (blacklisting tianmanmen and such)