Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Google: We won't give into tyranny oh just kidding

  1. Jan 24, 2006 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20060124&ID=5444052&Symbol=US:GOOG

    This of course, within a week of denying the US Government's request for a weeks worth of search results (and not who made those searches).

    From the company that would "do no evil": Business as usual....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 24, 2006 #2

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I thought they were initially asking for more than just a week's worth of results...I thought that was the compromise they were trying to reach. Anyway, do you really think they refused on an ethical basis? I just think whoever asked for those results had absolutely no grasp of the amount of data they were requesting...it would have probably cost quite a bit to provide what they were asking for, not to mention the time to do it. Though, personally, I would have gotten a good laugh if they had granted the government's request...on hardcopies only. :biggrin: :devil: If the government wants to know what's available online, let them google it themselves. :rofl:
     
  4. Jan 24, 2006 #3
    Unless the govt is going to start spending taxes on helping me find porn, then I see no need for them to have those numbers :smile:
     
  5. Jan 24, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think they were requesting what would have turned out to be 10,000,000 keywords (or that's way off and im stuck on 10 million from the last thread i did). Google's AdSense makes sense of the search results everyday so I don't see the problem :rolleyes:
     
  6. Jan 24, 2006 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hee hee. I see it as a collossal waste of money. Even if some whopping high number of google searches resulted in finding links to porn, what would it mean? They have no way to know the age of the person doing the search or if they were intentionally looking for it, or cared that they found it. I think the Congressmen just want to know if there are any free sites they've been missing out on. I wonder who would volunteer to check the validity of all the URLs? I'm sure some young intern will be needed to assist. :rolleyes:
     
  7. Jan 24, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They were searching for child pornography websites... which are illegal... which means once they find it, they get shut down and hopefully arrested.
     
  8. Jan 24, 2006 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My understanding of it, which could be wrong, because it didn't register in my mind as a big enough deal (other than as a waste of government time, money and resources for something so pointless) to go digging into it to verify what I'd heard elsewhere, is that originally, there was no limit on the number of searches...it was something ridiculous, like everything in their databases (it came across sounding like they were almost expecting Google to download the internet for them). They were able to negotiate with Yahoo I think to provide something like 1 million (or maybe your 10 million figure is right) randomly selected search results. MSN supposedly complied, but wouldn't give details of what they agreed to provide. Google has another motivation to refuse...they know people are worried about privacy issues with gmail, so it's in their best interest to sound like they care about these things. It looks better to their shareholders if their hand was forced after they resisted than if they just immediately gave in to the request. Like I said, I don't really believe it had anything to do with any sort of ethics.
     
  9. Jan 24, 2006 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I thought it was just pornography in general. :grumpy: Now I'm going to have to look into this.
     
  10. Jan 24, 2006 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They can't just do a google search?
     
  11. Jan 24, 2006 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Every search engine outside of google already agreed to comply with the US government but I'm not sure on what terms for each. The US Government wanted 1 weeks worth, I think a lot of false reports came out saying the Gov wanted every result pulled up (which is very possible with google's software).

    The REAL reason google doesn't want to do it is because they are concerned their searching methodology and software secrets would be compromised by the government's probe.
     
  12. Jan 24, 2006 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    haha

    "All google's results"

    *I'm feeling lucky*
     
  13. Jan 24, 2006 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here...
    How does knowing how many times pornography comes up in online searches tell you anything about whether those sites make their content accessible to minors?

    It also seems another part of the issue is that the information the government requested also would have involved revealing how google's search engine works, which they fear would reveal trade secrets.

    And other articles on the same issue:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1523227&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11903331_2.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy

    It's not about child pornography, it's about the government trying to limit availability of any pornography on the internet out of fear of children seeing it. It sounds like if what they had been asking for was information specifically about child pornography for the purpose of evidence in filing criminal charges, Google would have agreed to comply.
     
  14. Jan 24, 2006 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess i'm becoming old and losing my reading comprehension. I swore i saw child pornography in some article I read but I guess not...

    Hell why don't they do that too, i'm sure theres a lot out there!
     
  15. Jan 24, 2006 #14
    http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/006603.html
    Story on Google not wanting to give in to the Department of Justice on the subpoena issue.
    It states that it's about child access to porn not access to child porn. And it says nothing what so ever about penguin porn unfortunately.
    Oh and it cites the number at one million random URLs on top of the one week worth of searches.


    This reminds me of Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie and the kid who didn't want his parents to get on the internet.
    "I have a project planned to paint the garage and I was wondering if I could use latex paint on stucco. I was figuring I would search on the internet for oh... I dont know.. latex bondage maybe?"
     
  16. Jan 24, 2006 #15
    Damn I'm slow.
     
  17. Jan 24, 2006 #16

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If they were trying to crack down on child pornography, I wouldn't object at all. This is more of the government trying to pass a law because there are too many parents who don't know how to supervise their children and then cry because the kid saw something they shouldn't have.

    Though, maybe Google should finally comply and submit this week's list of search results where there are probably LOTS of results with the word pornography and government in them; obviously we should ban government. :rofl: (I.e., all the news stories about this.)
     
  18. Jan 24, 2006 #17

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: when you put it that way, maybe im very for googles moves :)
     
  19. Jan 25, 2006 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  20. Jan 25, 2006 #19
    ...............
     
  21. Jan 25, 2006 #20

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: Yes, Rach, people like you are the reason the week's worth of search results would be a complete waste of effort, and an insane amount of data to fish through.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Google: We won't give into tyranny oh just kidding
  1. Google gives 0^0=1 (Replies: 24)

Loading...