Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google told to halt auto-complete

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#31

Post by snnssnns »

I have found one thing disturbing about autocomplete: Suppose I find a new "association" between 2 ideas, one of which is rare. I intend to follow the relationship up as a researcher or a programmer. Because of the rarity of the first topic, it is suggested to anyone who types in the first keyword - (s)he discovers the association for free, courtesy of my flash of inspiration and my carelessness to search it on google.

It is surprising in the history of mathematics how often the same results are proven simultaneously in several places - see for example, the HOMFLY polynomial. It is as though the "result was in the air". Now this is a concrete way of leaking such information so that if any one makes a connection, it "leaks" to others.

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#32

Post by [deleted] »

brk wrote: post #25
mseebach wrote: post #13

Auto-complete is just a subset of search. Why is it more offensive to type "john smith" and get the suggestion "serial killer" than search "john smith" and have the first three results being about John Smith, the serial killer, and only getting to John Smith, the mountaineer and cat lover, in position four?

I think that one valid argument could be if people searching for this guy were commonly using a term like "John Smith Gym Teacher" they would likely never see the results for "John Smith Serial Playground Rapist". Or, at the very least the playground rapist results would be so far down the list that they would naturally be mostly disregarded. But, in this case the fact that "Playground Rapist" results are more common…

[deleted]

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#33

Post by LesZedCB »

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #28
rbarooah wrote: post #6

"Google has responded to the man's complaints by saying that since the results are compiled automatically there is no intrusion of privacy" It's hard to see how this case is about privacy - it seems like it's really about defamation, however the real details aren't disclosed. That said, the argument that because something is done by a machine the operators are not responsible for the consequences needs to be debunked…

Yes. The "nothin' to do with me, guv, it's the algorithm's fault" attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful.

Up until you said that, I assumed that was the general feeling. Though, I've never been in this situation myself. Can you qualify why that attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful?

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#34

Post by bryne »

gradstudent wrote: post #16

I'll go against the popular consensus and argue that Google needs to turn this feature OFF by default. When ON, it's far too easy to assume the auto-complete represents the "right" search terms. IMO, it should be clearer that what it actually represents is similar searches other people have performed.

I think the point is in the overwhelming majority of cases, other searches are the "right" searches.

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#35

Post by LesZedCB »

bryne wrote: post #34
gradstudent wrote: post #16

I'll go against the popular consensus and argue that Google needs to turn this feature OFF by default. When ON, it's far too easy to assume the auto-complete represents the "right" search terms. IMO, it should be clearer that what it actually represents is similar searches other people have performed.

I think the point is in the overwhelming majority of cases, other searches are the "right" searches.

I agree. It's a nice feature. But then as far as features go, isn't it a meta-feature to be able to toggle them on or off?

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#38

Post by jlarocco »

LesZedCB wrote: post #33
AkThhhpppt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The "nothin' to do with me, guv, it's the algorithm's fault" attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful.

Up until you said that, I assumed that was the general feeling. Though, I've never been in this situation myself. Can you qualify why that attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful?

Because algorithms aren't arbitrary physical laws, they're created deliberately by people.

"My spambot sends spam because the algorithms it follows tells it to, so it's out of my hands," wouldn't fly, and I don't think it's an appropriate defense here, either.

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#39

Post by dennisgorelik »

newman314 wrote: post #23
JohnnyFlash wrote: post #9

Did Google even defend against this in the Japanese court? I don't understand how this could get by if they did. The fact is that names are not unique. Would he be complaining if his namesake was a renowned scientist / businessman / whatever? Just because someone with his name is linked to crime does not mean that he is. It simply means that someone with a similar or same name is known for their criminality. I don't…

Your name may not be unique. That's not necessarily true for everyone else. Given the prevalence of search, I would not be surprised at all if employers (more specifically recuriters) did a search and discard. It does not mean it's right or ethnical. But afaik there are no legal ramifications currently. Which is unfortunate.

If you try to forbid every case of stupid behavior in legal system - legal system would be totally unmanageable.

Re: Google told to halt auto-complete

#40

Post by tony_le_montana »

andos wrote: post #21
mseebach wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I get "actress", "quotes" and "imdb".

You missed the last space after her name.

Even i didn't get the 'spoiler' suggestion at first. But i did get it after sometime. No idea how i got it.
Post reply on HN