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

141–150 of 309 posts

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

#141

Post by lozaning »

int_19h wrote: post #126
lozaning wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Well I don't have any actual secret bunker blueprints or nuclear submarine specs or w/e. It was an extremely simple PoC where I gave them them an Eth txID and a link to a site like https://base64.guru/converter/decode/image/jpg

The point wasnt that I put their logo on a chain, its that I could put a photo online that the states monopoly on violence was entirely incapable of removing.

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

#142

Post by dkokelley »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #125
dkokelley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? That’s very sad, but I’m not too surprised.

(Unless you’re saying that the bits 0 and 1 already exist in the blockchain, which is reaaaaallllyyy stretching the definition.)

There’s the concept of “illegal numbers”, which means that there are technically numeric representations of images or copyrighted material that you can’t know/possess without breaking a law. But the law is subjective which is why we have judges and juries to apply judgement to whether having a large number written on a piece of paper is equivalent to possessing illegal material.

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

#143

Post by CapitalistCartr »

version_five wrote: post #135
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 think you meant that although it's easy to trivialize what an electrician does, in practice there's actually a lot of skill and experience in it. (I could be wrong, although it's always funny to see how what was probably an off-hand comment causes people to go down such a rabbit hole).

Yeah, there is a lot of skill, much of which is knowing what we're looking at and what not to do. An attempt to read the codebook is enlightening.

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

#144

Post by dkokelley »

lostmsu wrote: post #79
dkokelley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you extend it wide enough, one should ban natural numbers because some of them in binary form are identical to child pornography video files.

Take a look at “illegal numbers” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

Copied from another comment:

=======

There’s the concept of “illegal numbers”, which means that there are technically numeric representations of images or copyrighted material that you can’t know/possess without breaking a law. But the law is subjective which is why we have judges and juries to apply judgement to whether having a large number written on a piece of paper is equivalent to possessions illegal material.

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

#145

Post by swayvil »

One might even say that they filter their results in order to promote a preferred ideology. To propagandize us, even.

Search any modern hot topic on Google. Do the same on one of the various alternative search engines (duckduckgo, for example). Compare the results. It's educational.

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

#146

Post by barbacoa »

akiselev wrote: post #116
gambiting wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 af…

What exactly is diy electrical work? Many states let you file a homestead permit to do your own non-trivial electrical work.

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

#147

Post by JadeNB »

version_five wrote: post #138
akiselev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

My view is that if the only reason you are doing something is because of the insurance implications, then you've surely made the wrong decision. Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's. There are lots of legitimate reasons to hire an electrician, but making decisions solely based on what someone who wants you to perpetually give them money whole finding reasons to never give it b…

> My view is that if the only reason you are doing something is because of the insurance implications, then you've surely made the wrong decision.

In this situation, I am paying someone else to assume risk for me. That is, I suppose, a type of insurance, in a very broad sense.

However, I am not in any way relying on my interests and the other person's to be aligned, except in the sense of performing the work they are legally contracted to perform. All I am doing is asking this person to assume some risk for me, in exchange for which I provide them a fee.

Short of "take on all the risk yourself", which, even if perhaps desirable (I'm not sure …), is often not feasible, what is a better approach here?

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

#148

Post by slg »

avianlyric wrote: post #128
slg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 10…

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

Then let's as an industry try to think through ways to fix these impractical problems. My original goal was not for you and me to design the perfect system in a quick HN conversation. I was instead pointing out that the tech community too often treats this issue as a mathematical impossibility and refuses to engage anyone who pushes back on that. Admitting that something is not impossible but rather so impractical as to be essentially impossible is the first step in figuring out a solution. It is unlike the tech community to see an extremely difficult problem and just refuse any attempt to solve it because of the difficulty.

>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?

I am repeating myself here, but the goal isn't 100% compliance. No law can achieve that and I don't know you you are projecting that expectation on this conversation. The goal is to address most occurrences.

>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?

People want to engage in vices. I'm not convinced that people have nearly as strong of a desire for complete privacy as evident by all the behavior we have seen over the last few decades in responses to how governments and corporations invade privacy. It is a popular conspiracy theory that Facebook is secretly recording audio on your phone 24/7 and uses conversations it hears to better target ads. I have multiple friends who genuinely believe this. This belief isn't enough to get them to uninstall Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp from their phones. Some people will certainly be willing to go the extra mile for privacy, but most people won't.

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

#150

Post by version_five »

JadeNB wrote: post #147
version_five wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view is that if the only reason you are doing something is because of the insurance implications, then you've surely made the wrong decision. Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's. There are lots of legitimate reasons to hire an electrician, but making decisions solely based on what someone who wants you to perpetually give them money whole finding reasons to never give it b…

> My view is that if the only reason you are doing something is because of the insurance implications, then you've surely made the wrong decision. In this situation, I am paying someone else to assume risk for me. That is, I suppose, a type of insurance, in a very broad sense. However, I am not in any way relying on my interests and the other person's to be aligned, except in the sense of performing the work they are…

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 losing proposition to have your behavior dictated by an insurer. (Probably a prisoner's dilemma really, because inevitably some group gives in, then makes to worse for everyone)

Post reply on HN