Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [Article] Google throws out US data demand

  • Subject: Re: [Article] Google throws out US data demand
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:43:08 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <7kqjv1tn4g4tcfqgmc86ga1kl7p7it2eq0@4ax.com> <CLmKf.862$XZ3.85905@news20.bellglobal.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [canadafred] on Monday 20 February 2006 17:12 \__

> "Paul B" <lamewolf2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:7kqjv1tn4g4tcfqgmc86ga1kl7p7it2eq0@xxxxxxxxxx
>> From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4731640.stm

I was going to post that URL myself, but soon changed my mind... *smile*

> Thanks for the article Paul, makes for a good read. Personally, I am on the
> fence with this one. I see the need for the governments to crack down on
> some types of porn, but I don't understand how getting search query results
> will help.

I didn't follow this closely enough, but I believe they sought enough
evidence to suggest children were in risk on the Net. In the past week, I
have come across several articles (well, feeds) that explicitly mentioned
the risk the WWW imposes on youngsters.

I can only imagine that the Government wants to know the aggregated number of
searches for terms like "child porn". They can then pass the figures to the
DoJ and get funding for means of prevention. Google logs are probably where
most of that filthy stuff resides, but they could possible extrapolate the
numbers they already have (AOL, Yahoo, MSN) to get a good estimate, even
without Google.

>> The DoJ has made the request to shore up attempts to show that
>> voluntary regulation is not doing a good enough job of keeping
>> children free of the unsavoury material, largely pornographic, that
>> exists online.
> A person doesn't have to do a porn search to get porn sites. I don't know
> about anyone else but I end up getting some rather unsavoury suggestions
> from "normal" searches. I've tried some filtering systems but the language
> and spelling of "bad" porn changes quickly.

Not everyone uses the Internet in the same way. Believe it or not (I know you
know this, so excuse my phrasing), some people just out their spew out their
minds at the Google search bar, so logs are also valid way or reading
people's mind for subsequent, suitable response.

Person searches for "I want to shoot down USS Cole" and, as the Government
perceives it, it's a darn good reason to chase that IP address. Rumsfeld
expressed dissatisfaction yesterday with the state of IT-'savvyness' among
the government and maybe the military too. I think the US army wants to
enhance the effectiveness spying and... if I recall correctly, the BBC
resported that they want to increase control of the media and use it for
brainwash which annuls that of hate.

> I find Usenet groups worse. I'm forever tweaking my message rules filters
> when I am in Newsgroups to adapt to the ever changing use of the english
> language. One of my newest hobbies is nature photography. I want to find
> out ways to attract rare birds for photography opportunities.
> http://www.bird-watching-canada.com ( still in development ). It may not be
> too difficult to imagine some of the pages that have opened up on my
> monitor lately.

*LOL* This reminds me of a story I can never forgot. Many years ago, when I
was about 14, a ~8-year-old whom I knew told me he had looked for football
Web site. Back then, search engines were not the most valuable, admired and
effective way to reach relevant Web sites. So what did he do? He dug by
domain names, aiming for the word "soccer". I think the poor kid reached
some transsexual content. Oh, dear...

>> The documents go on to say: "Google users trust that when they enter a
>> search query into a Google search box ... that Google will keep
>> private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling
>> reason."
> It's a very competitive keyphrase market. Some of the best SEO techniques
> are deployed in this industry, some of the spammiest too. I do some porn
> searches sometimes, casino sites as well. ( Did I do any in January? )  I
> certainly don't want these searches shared with anybody. Talking about it
> here doesn't help either, I guess. Of course, I keep my search terms within
> "appropriate" limits, but am frequently offered every type of porn
> imaginable.
> Gee, if I checked my Junk mail closely, I am sure it would lead me to some
> of the worse types of web sites. Do we put the blame on Hotmail next? I
> find email porn spammers worse culprits that search queries could ever be.


"Leading the list (of spam domains) are hotmail.com (4.7 million), yahoo.com
(4.2 million), msn.com (2.1 million), cisco.com (1.9 million) and gmail.com
(1.5 million)."

Frankly, I don't believe this means anything. Most spam gets despatched 24/7
and in huge quantities from hijacked Windows machines.

>> In early February at a US Congressional hearing Microsoft, Yahoo,
>> Cisco Systems and Google all faced strong criticism over how they
>> conducted themselves in China.
> Money money money, the heck with doing the right thing anymore.


Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the
U.S. or China.'

Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi
Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  2:15am  up 3 days 14:34,  8 users,  load average: 0.39, 0.31, 0.33
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index