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

Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 309 posts

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

#111

Post by akiselev »

majormajor wrote: post #53
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…

> 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…

> People often pay electricians even for tasks that are just "flip a switch and turn some screws," after all.

The ultimate reason people pay electricians is liability. Unlicensed work is an easy way to invalidate your homeowner's insurance, lose everything, and get sued for any damage to your neighbors' property (by their insurance company, no less).

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

majormajor wrote: post #78
theli0nheart wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People often pay electricians even for tasks that are just "flip a switch and turn some screws," after all. Not really. People pay electricians for their experience and knowledge that give them the tools to solve complex problems, simply, without messing up your wiring, causing a fire, or blowing something up. Removing a link on Google, on the other hand, involves clicking on a link and filling out a form. You don'…

Let's say someone wants to replace a lightswitch. Google/Youtube will show you how to do that safely in a matter of minutes. People pay because they're afraid of at least one of (a) their ability to be sure they're getting the right instructions, or (b) their ability to execute. In the electrician example, (b) could be substantial if you don't understand electricity. "Electricity can kill you" is basically the home-m…

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by spondyl »

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 Google dedicated itself to making accessible. Griffin explained that it wasn’t Google policy to take things like that out of the index just because people didn’t want it there. Principles always make sense until it’s personal,” she says.

> Then in July 2005, a CNET reporter used Schmidt as an example of how much personal information Google search could expose. Though she used only information that anyone would see if they typed Schmidt’s name into his company’s search box, Schmidt was so furious that he blackballed the news organization for a year.

> “My personal view is that private information that is really private, you should be able to delete from history,” Schmidt once said. But that wasn’t Google’s policy...

I guess they've since changed the policy a bit?

[^1]: https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/14...

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

#114

Post by vitus »

judge2020 wrote: post #49
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…

This might also include what is required to comply with GDPR’s right to be forgotten, if that’s still a thing.

That's a different form!

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-reques...

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

#115

Post by slg »

avianlyric wrote: post #102
slg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You either have strong encryption that works in all scenarios, both good and ill, or you have weak encryption that protects nothing. There unfortunately is no middle ground, and plenty of people and governments have tried. This is always stated as a universal truth of the technology, but this mostly seems like a people and organizational problem. We already have encryption algorithms that can encrypt content for dec…

> 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 to GitHub and grab the source code...

Github is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft won't let you host code that is designed specifically to break the law. That is the point. You would need to jump through a variety of hoops in order to avoid this. It wouldn't be impossible, but it won't be the default and most people won't go through the effort to do it.

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

#116

Post by akiselev »

gambiting wrote: post #103
amalcon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What do you mean electrician's insurance? I do have a so called "DIY insurance" on my home policy - if I damage something while doing a DIY project(drill into a cable or a pipe for instance) my home insurance will cover the repair. Is that not enough?

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 after the electrician and his insurance to recoup their losses. Residential electrical fires are extremely preventable so insurance companies almost universally refuse to insure homes with DIY electrical work because the homeowner is the one liable.

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

#117

Post by Rasta1s »

mike_d wrote: post #96
Rasta1s wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't mugshots public records?

Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee. Mugshots.com was doing exactly this until they got hit with extortion charges: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-mugshot…

" Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee."

I don't believe anyone has an obligation to remove if someone found not guilty. The arrest happened, that's a fact. The information is public was made public by the government, that's also a fact.

From my understanding once something is made public you can't put it back in the bag. The government may do so on their own databases (Ie. Expungement, removal from government databases) but that doesn't apply to the public and especially not to publications who have first amendment right to publish public records.

I looked up the case you mentioned, it's still pending and the arguments made by the government are questionable

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180523/10224639892/calif...

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

#118

Post by IncRnd »

danso wrote: post #48
deertick1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah so thats the thing. You are just immediately assuming that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and a horrible person. Personally, I see people obsessed with gender identity as being wrong, anti-truth, anti science, disingenuous, etc. So thats my point : I don't want google to give me the truth, I want it to give me the internet, warts and all. I don't want google to gatekeep the information I have…

Why did you start using Google in the first place? Their early papers on PageRank/BackRub describes how their algorithm filters for quality, and their most prominent example is explicitly political: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html > As an example which illustrates the use of PageRank, anchor text, and proximity, Figure 4 shows Google's results for a search on "bill clinton". These results demonstrate…

That isn't exactly how Google sorts or filters results today.

"Yes, we do use PageRank internally, among many, many other signals. It's not quite the same as the original paper, there are lots of quirks (eg, disavowed links, ignored links, etc.), and, again, we use a lot of other signals that can be much stronger." [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/1232014208180592641 John Mu, Search Advocate at Google.

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

#119

Post by ipaddr »

afavour wrote: post #40
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.

The internet is incomprehensibly vast. Yes, there might be a copy (or multiple copies) of a video you made in your youth on the internet. But as long as it isn't a) prominently available and b) attached to your name, you might be OK. The situation we have today does allow you to address such a problem: Google can remove search results. It's not possible to do that on the blockchain.

The blockchain is vast and growing. Discovery is difficult.

Google prevents new searches or tries to but if you have the link you can visit without google. Same as the blockchain you would need to know where to look.

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

#120

Post by mattzito »

majormajor wrote: post #53
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…

> 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 would say that the difference between your example and these reputation managers is that they are often themselves directly responsible for the problems they create:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/24/technology/on...

I guess this is more analogous to flipping someone’s breakers in their house and then charging them to flip them back on.

Post reply on HN