Is google evil

Yes!	2 votes - 25 %
Google is my friend!	2 votes - 25 %
Google is Big Brother's funky and intelligent cousin	3 votes - 37 %
Google is one among many. Why you spent time writing a diary abou it, I don't know. Really, don't you have better things to do with your time. I ask you! Brain the size of a planet and they ask me to answer questions like this. I think I'll go put my	0 votes - 0 %
Google Earth, now with space--kewl!	1 vote - 12 %

8 Total Votes

Is Google Evil? | 66 comments (66 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 0)

Craziness!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 24th, 2007 at 07:38:23 PM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 5)

In business school we broke up into groups to plan and market a device for wireless cable TV in the home.
No other stipulations were made and I being the engineer of the group had a plan. Knowing that the technology would soon be here the delivery of TV could also be coupled with the knowledge of who was watching what. By making the system wireless it would be simple to also make it two way. Try as I might some of my team members just didn't grasp the financial ramifications of this knowledge.

So that is how evil is born, none of us are immune.

by Lasthorseman (Lasthorseman@comcast.net) on Mon Sep 24th, 2007 at 08:25:39 PM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 5)

The price of nice is omniscience.

Google plans to keep all search records - web searches, emails, map searches, ad clickthroughs, everything - until at least 2038.

Each of those records is separate, and has your IP number on it.

Politically, Google always picks expediency - sometimes after some good PR, but it always caves in the end.

Google could have stayed out of China, but those billions of Chinese were just too tempting a market.

So out came the censorship routines. (And who's to say there wasn't a deal to pass on search records to the Chinese government?)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 24th, 2007 at 08:53:09 PM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 1)

So...is google evil?

What Info Does Google Keep?

A reader asked me:

Does Google keep logs of searches correlated with IP address or
other personally identifiable information for users who have not
logged in?

I knew it kept parts of this data, but was not sure. So I pinged Google PR, which checked in for me (thanks!). The response was to quote Google's privacy FAQ:

Like most Web sites, our servers automatically record the page
requests made when users visit our sites. These "server logs"
typically include your web request, Internet Protocol address, browser
type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or
more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser.

In other words, yes, Google does record this data. But, does it KEEP that data, I asked? The answer:

Yes, we do.

It's simple to stop this, of course, just set your browser to not accept cookies. But if you do, you lose out on the services that cookies enable. I for one keep my cookies intact. But know that yes, your data is kept by Google and yes, your searches can be correlated to IP data.

I typed in google anonymiser and got this:

Google anonymiser

Google uses a cookie to save your personal settings such as what language you want documents in, how many result you like displayed on the page and what level of filtering on content you think appropriate. This cookie allows Google to recognise you each time you come back.

Google is therefore able to keep a record of every request its users make, and over the years admits to having built up a formidable database of typical user behaviour of its search engine, including their likely names if they' ve googled themselves (and who hasn't?).

Whether or not they have something to hide, a lot of people are concerned about handing over their search habits. The Google Anonymiser can be used to reset the part of the Google cookie that identifies you to a string of zeroes. At http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm you can save a "bookmarklet" that you can click each time you visit Google to reset your cookie. After you've done so, you can enter your search term and Google won' t know anything about who' s making the request.

http://editor.actrix.co.nz/byarticle/0612anonymous.html

For me it's like Spybot--grow enough brain and you can keep yourself to yourself...the price is the growth of the brain.

I also found this among the foremost anonymiser links:

Privacy bodies back Google step

Thursday, 15 March 2007, 14:27 GMT
Privacy bodies have welcomed Google's decision to anonymise personal data it receives from users' web searches.

The firm previously held information about searches for an indefinite period but will now anonymise it after 18 to 24 months.

"This is an extremely positive development," said Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a US-based watchdog.

"It's the type of thing we have been advocating for a number of years."

However, governments could still force Google to hold onto data or hand it over to authorities.

"By anonymising our server logs after 18 to 24 months, we think we're striking the right balance between two goals: continuing to improve Google's services for you, while providing more transparency and certainty about our retention practices," a statement from the search giant said.

It's a step forward, but I would like to see them anonymising data in a much shorter period
Richard Clayton, Cambridge University

It added: "Unless we're legally required to retain log data for longer, we will anonymise our server logs after a limited period of time."

Peter Fleischer, Google's privacy counsel for Europe, said the decision has been taken after consulting with privacy bodies in the US and Europe.

He said: "We believe that privacy is one of the cornerstones of trust. We will be retroactively going back into our log database and anonymising all the information there."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6453137.stm

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 24th, 2007 at 09:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 2)

Of course, if the data is handed over to someone else before then, the anonymisation becomes academic.

And the point of Google is that hardly anyone is smart enough to use an anonymiser.

And even if you do, all of your email etc is still held in the database.

Would anyone be happy with a government collecting this information?

Does the fact that it's a corporation and not a MI5 make it okay?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 04:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 3)

Does the fact that it's a corporation and not a MI5 make it okay?

That's why I'm asking. Are any ET users bothered, or is it the price we pay for using the internet?

I'm concerned (in a humorous way) because I keep coming across google in the most unlikely places, but it never asks me for money, and it never shoves an ad in my face (though there are discrete ads in the results of my search--which I ignore.)

And the point of Google is that hardly anyone is smart enough to use an anonymiser.

I don't really understand that. Google is a librarian, bringing the user what they ask for--and lots more. There's nothing complicated about using the google anonymiser--you just click a button. Most people (I think) don't know why they should, or that they could, or...and this is my worry of an evening as my brain sinks towards slackness...the powerful tool I use to stop the other powerful tool is, in fact, an even more powerful tool...indeed, the bright folks have me by the short and curlies--but google seems to give me (working) stuff for free and it has all the info. necessary (access to the info, I mean0 for me to become one of the bright folks...

...and it can make billions of dollars selling advertising to those who don't want to or can't....which is evil, no?

I dunno. Why is it evil? You offer a person the best product at the best price (it's free!), but they don't trust you and so they go with the advertised product (advertised by you, duh!), and you make billions of dollars. Is that evil?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 06:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 5)

It's not the billions of dollars, it's the fact that no one knows what happens to the information.

Google has successfully created a happy smiley brand for itself, and it may be everything it appears to be.

But who knows what happens to the info? Google's record in practice is one of expediency rather than principles.

It's not as evil as Microsoft, which is just plain dysfunctional as a company, and always has been.

But is it enough to say 'Okay, it's happy and smiley, therefore I'm going to trust it with all of my personal information'?

In practice it collects far more information than any spyware program does. Does the fact that it's charming and friendly about it make that any less of an intrusion?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 09:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 0)

Let me flip this round:

I am NOT going to trust google with all of my personal information.

Who CAN I trust? And if I can trust no-one, how do I still get access to the internet (apart from logging on at public site computers)?

I mean: is this a problem with google or with the internet?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:12:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 1)

There are, as with all things advantages and disadvantages with everything. In some ways it's easier to take information from an ISP directly, as Google will only have a subset of your personal information. On the other hand Google has a much broader range of peoples personal information.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 2)

You do have to trust someone with your information, for example your ISP. Of course, being somewhere where it is illegal for your ISP to snoop on you makes it easier to trust them. Then again, they could break the law. But if we continue this road, it is a fundamental problem with the postal service that I do not know for sure if the mailman does not steam open and read my letters...

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 4)

The difference is that steaming a letter open is an active process.

Google and ISPs can harvest information much more easily, and they can do it passively.

What's evil here is that underlying model is the standard corporate one of farming customers. Google users get no access to the information collected about them. They don't get a chance to opt out, make the collection selective, or make it anonymous. Instead Google is collecting more and more detail - first with search records, then with email, then with spreadsheets and presentations, journey plans, GPS tracks from mobiles...

It's a model for a perfect online panopticon, created by stealthy stages, and easily co-opted by any government.

ISPs collecting email and web search records are both more and less evil - more evil because the only possible use for such information is authoritarian, and less evil because they're being forced to do it by governments rather than leveraging it commercially.

Google could easily anomymise the information itself. It would be trivial to do it. It doesn't need to keep the information because it could pick out core patterns immediately.

So why are those records being kept at all?

And if we wanted an alternative, I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to open source it, and build a completely anonymous search engine using an open grid and encrypted traffic transfer.

Personally I assume everything I do online is visible. Since none of what I do online is all that exciting, Google can have my search patterns for now.

But if an open alternative existed and was any good at all, I'd be happy to use it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 01:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 2)

Would anyone be happy with a government collecting this information?
Does the fact that it's a corporation and not a MI5 make it okay?

No and no.

And when the EU Directive 2006/24/EC, on "the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC" is fully implemented, your data will be stored by corporations (ISPs) and availble to the government.

For our danish readers: Denmark has implemented the directive (and more), so your surfing habits, email and such communications wil be stored and availble for police at short notice (ISPs are required to uphold round the clock access to the data for the police). Happy surfing!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:32:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 1)

Heh, you should be writing this diary, not me. I just have this sense that there are potential safeguards but the questions aren't being asked--and you have ze knowledge!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 2)

But not ze time!

But ask away and I will try to answer...

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:19:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But, why did you ask Google if Google was Evil? (4.00 / 3)

You should have gone to the place where questions like that are answered.

9999[9]6

999996 to 999966

Kuai - Break-through (Resoluteness)

The Judgement
Break-through. One must resolutely make the matter known
At the court of the king.
It must be announced truthfully. Danger.
It is necessary to notify one's own city.
It does not further to resort to arms.
It furthers one to undertake something.

The Image
The lake has risen up to heaven:
The image of Break-through.
Thus the superior man
Dispenses riches downward
And refrains from resting on his virtue.

With the image of the changing 5th line of:

Nine in the fifth place means:
In dealing with weeds,
Firm resolution is necessary.
Walking in the middle
Remains free of blame.

Containing the trend to:

Ta Chuang - The Power of the Great

The Judgement
The Power of the Great. Perseverance furthers.

The Image
Thunder in heaven above:
The image of the Power of the Great.
Thus the superior man does not tread upon paths
That do not accord with established order.

The Reading
Its evil if used for evil ends.
The greater danger is being diverted from the path you should be following into a deep study of the Klingon language.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Sep 24th, 2007 at 11:54:43 PM EST

Ker Ching (none / 1)

Of course!

So...google is evil: HIja' or ghobe'?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 04:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But, why did you ask Google if Google was Evil (none / 1)

Hang, on, I thought we officially use the Tarot around here?

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 08:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But, why did you ask Google if Google was Evil (4.00 / 3)

Tarot is the funky yokel cousin to the austere minimalism of the I-Ching.

Which means (if I've understood correctly) that:

The tarot can take the mick, while the I-Ching rises above such childish behaviour

The Tao Te Ching is the I-Ching for those who have smoked

And Astrology is the mad person the other three used to hang around with but maybe pretend not to know so much these days.

Cough cough!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm a visitor from overseas, so I'm not ... (none / 1)

... "from" around here.

Besides, an I Ching casting only needs the four pennies, one bright and three tarnished, or visa versa, while from the little I understand, a Tarot reading needs a Tarot deck.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 08:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a visitor from overseas, so I'm not ... (4.00 / 2)

You'll need a copy of the I-Ching, too, so I think that makes a tarot deck more easily portable ;)

(Though I like both.)

(btw, I thought it was three pennies with yin/yang faces.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Sep 26th, 2007 at 03:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Three pennies gives more changing lines ... (none / 1)

... than casting yarrow stalks does ... substantially more. The method with One bright penny and three tarnished one is to throw the four. If the bright penny is heads, that is a solid line (9), while tails is a dashed line (6). If the other three pennies are the same (all four heads, all four tails), then its a changing line.

The four penny method that I read was three heads gives a changing line, but that just makes no sense ... in the cycle of change, when Yin or Yang reaches its greatest extent, the opposite appears at its heart and then grows from the fringe to become dominant. So obviously its gotta be all four pennies the same.

And you can find copies of several I Ching translations online, so you don't actually have to own a copy.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Sep 27th, 2007 at 08:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three pennies gives more changing lines ... (none / 1)

A pack of tarot cards in your pocket--you're mobile. Ditto a copy of the I Ching and some coins. Both are portable (and I suppose an electronic version of each available via GPS or mobile phone...is more ecologically friendly? I dunno...heh! My luddite roots!)

Here's the method I learned (from the back pages of my Wilhelm/Baynes translation *):

Take three coins. Throw them up in the air.

When they land:

If they are all the same--that's a moving line
If two are the same and one is different (the only other alternative)--the line is determined by the single coin, which is called the "little" yin or yang.

So yeah, you throw four stones and use the shiny coin to denote yin or yang, then you'll get less moving lines.

Anyways, here's what my version says:

2. THE COIN ORACLE

In addition to the method of the yarrow-stalk oracle, there is in use a shorter method employing coins: for this as a rule old Chinese bronze coins, with a hole in the middle and an inscription on one side are used. Three coins are taken up and thrown down together, and each throw gives a line.

Reading the THE YARROW STALK ORACLE has me thinking of fields, yarrow stalks, country folks, old time serious divination techniques.

But yeah, four coins means less moving lines, more concentration on the character and changes being more...of note...because they happen less often.

I think that with the three coin, as you usually get at least one moving line there's more a sense of "how many moving lines, and which ones? (The significance of which line moves), so maybe three coins is potentially more superficial, but also brings a dynamism into the system, while four coins has more depth (if one is willing to move into and listen to the symbolic world of the book) but as change is rarer, it is also seen...as more significant...

(As I understand it, no moving lines means: this character is....the response to the question. Moving line(s) mean(s): this is the response up to now, but now we have movement so the second character has a sort of "fortune teller" role....

Bruce, thanks for the reading. Now I will throw my coins. But what be the question?

How to deal with conflict

(Throwing three english pound coins and a euro. I decide that 1 Euro is the yin and "Espana" (plus face of male person) = yang. For the pound coins, the queen's portrait will be yang, and the thistle, leak, and lions--a coin from England, one from Scotland, and one from Wales! Who'd a thunk it?--will be yin.)

Here goes...

45. Ts'ui / Gathering Together [Massing]

above TUI -- THE JOYOUS, LAKE
below K'UN -- THE RECEPTIVE, EARTH

THE JUDGEMENT

GATHERING TOGETHER. Success.
The king approaches his temple.
It furthers one to see the great man.
This brings success. Perseverance furthers.
To bring great offerings creates good fortune.
It furthers one to undertake something.

The gathering together of people in large communities is either a natural occurence, as in the case of the family, or an artificial one, as in the case of the state. The family gathers about the father as its head. The perpetuation of this gathering in groups is achieved through the sacrifice to the ancestors, at which the whole clan is gathered together. Through the collective piety of the living members of the family, the ancestors become so integrated in the spiritual life of the family that it cannot be dispersed or dissolved.

Where men are to be gathered together, religious forces are needed. But there must also be a human leader to serve as the centre of the group. In order to be able to bring others together, this leader must first of all be collected within himself. Only collective moral force can unite the world. Such great times of unification will leave great achievements behind them. This is the significance of the great offerings that are made. In the secular sphere likewise there is need of great deeds in the time of GATHERING TOGETHER.

THE IMAGE

Over the earth, the lake:
The image of GATHERING TOGETHER.
Thus the superior man renews his weapons
In order to meet the unforeseen.

If the water in the lake gathers until it rises above the earth, there is danger of break-through. Precautions must be taken to prevent this. Similarly where men gather together in great numbers, strife is likely to arise; where possessions are collected, robbery is likely to occur. Thus in the time of GATHERING TOGETHER we must arm promptly to ward off the unexpected. Human woes usually come as a result of unexpected events against which we are not forearmed. If we are prepared, they can be prevented.

And no moving lines.

...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Sep 27th, 2007 at 09:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three pennies gives more changing lines ... (none / 1)

(Heh...I asked the same question then cut the tarot cards.):

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Sep 27th, 2007 at 09:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, portable in an ownership society sense ... (none / 1)

... but I'd have to have not only the Tarot deck but also a book, so for me, even in the ownership society sense, the I Ching would still be more portable.

Here's the method I learned (from the back pages of my Wilhelm/Baynes translation *):

The critique of the three penny method is that it gives far more likelihood of moving lines than the yarrow stalk method, with the yarrow stalk method is taken to be the primary method, for which the throwing of copper coins is a substitute.

... mind you, in countries without copper coins ... I dunno, for me that would cast doubt on the validity of the reading ...

8-)#

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Sep 29th, 2007 at 03:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, portable in an ownership society sense ... (none / 0)

Best moustache yet!

Z:)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Sep 30th, 2007 at 05:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, portable in an ownership society sense ... (none / 1)

You can't see my moustache, my silly grin obscures it. Let me see if I can keep a straight face long enough for the text picture.

8-{|#

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Sep 30th, 2007 at 02:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 0)

See K. Lenz: google-free zone

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 04:19:24 AM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 0)

The last entry on that list is for 2006. Have google become good people since then? I ask because (as I've mentioned elsewhere in this diary) google has its fingers everywhere and keeps offering me free (working) stuff.

Ach, maybe I'm the only one intrigued...

Are they doing the world good?

(Free information! Free software! As good as the stuff you pay for! Free maps of the skies! Free maps of the world! Etc.!)

Or...are they...evil?

(All that power and money in the hands of very intelligent people...there must be danger ahead, no?)

No?

Ach.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 06:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 2)

I don't think that they have become less evil. I use google (search, mail, documents, used to use blogger and may again) because it's good and easy. There's no better solution out there, as far as I know, and I'm not willing to spend a lot of effort looking for alternatives to things that work well...

Some of what google is doing is good, some is bad. Same with most companies. Whether you think it is good or evil depends how much value you place on individual aspects. If you care a lot about privacy and intellectual property law, as Lenz does, you are bound to find google evil. But you could also be excited about google's solar power plans or whatever on the other hand, or about the potential of their services.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See, this comment is exactly the ... (4.00 / 2)

... same as what the I Ching reading said, although the I Ching said it more elliptically.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 08:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, this comment is exactly the ... (none / 0)

I enjoyed both.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Sep 26th, 2007 at 05:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, this comment is exactly the ... (none / 0)

:{>)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Sep 26th, 2007 at 06:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Profit or Purpose? (4.00 / 5)

It seems to me that an economic entity that purely exists "For Profit" is "evil": and that an entity that is "For Purpose" may be evil if that purpose is evil.

The question is the degree to which an entity proceeds in accordance with Friedman's dictum that the purpose of a Corporation is Profit, and this question is linked with the defective structure of the Corporation as an economic entity, and the nature of the money in which the profit is denominated.

It's when Corporations lose sight of their Purpose that they are turning to the Dark Side.....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 04:27:35 AM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 1)

I love how they have you sign an NDA to have lunch at the Google campus ...

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 08:40:35 AM EST

Yes (4.00 / 3)

Yes, Google is evil. I realize most of this discussion is about privacy, but I have an essay on my web site about another aspect of the Google phenomena - control of access to information.

In the US there are only three real search engines: Google, MS and Yahoo. Most of the material people find these days is via one of these services. So if they don't index a site, or misindex it, then, for all practical purposes, it ceases to exist.

Here's my argument in more detail:
Google and the Dissemination of Knowledge

We can already see this dynamic in action in China where Google has agreed to render material invisible by adjusting its filters.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 09:18:04 AM EST

Re: Yes (none / 1)

I don't find all my links via google, though. I maybe go to wikipedia (is that censored in China? I suppose some pages might be), and then maybe link out and on, and other people send links, so just having them shoved down the pecking order isn't my main worry.

I'm worried that there are evil geniuses encouraging me to fill my machine with free (efficient and effective) software--and always it seems that the more I try and learn and understand, the more free and efficient software I get offered, all the way up to uber-anonymisers...and for what? Why all this freeness?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN EVIL MASTER PLAN!

Or else...and this is my other theory...it's because they genuinely think that making people more intelligent in a Montessori style (offer tools designed for levels, stand back, watch, manipulate environment to maximise learning potential)...is...good.

You know how "environmentalism" is so pervasive that it's being called paganism? Something like that.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:24:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

en.wikipedia is blocked in chinese filters (last I heard).

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

LOTS of things are blocked in Chinese filters. But there is also a very active (and surprisingly successful) movement aimed at getting around those filters. I don't know the technical details, but I do know that people set up proxy servers to route around the blocks, and are constantly changing the proxy settings and moving servers to stay one step ahead of the authorities. This article (which I found via Google, incidentally) is a few years old but explains one group's approach.

The question is how motivated users are to actually go through the trouble of getting to blocked sites. For the casual user, blocked is blocked.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

This article (which I found via Google, incidentally)

;)

The question is how motivated users are to actually go through the trouble of getting to blocked sites.

I think this is part of what I'm thinking. I mean, if people don't want to (or can't) learn how the system works, then they are in the system's hands. If the system is google it gives us (free) lots of educational material (I'm assuming google financial fingers across most freeware--they have the cash not to worry...is my thinking...no doubt to be proved wrong); so for the passive user, it isn't aggressive or (it seems) invasive (or no more so than any other software the passive user might use?)

For the active user, the information is out there, and if it's blocked one way then that doesn't stop it moving other ways--I wonder what info about networks is blocked in China, or packet-sharing, or programming languages, etc. I can't imagine how a censor could keep up with all the ways to pass information that--in the right minds--becomes an anti-authoritarian tool.

My lack of imagination, of course, only shows the (limited) size of my imagination

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

I don't think China block so much on technical info, they need programmers both for filtering and for industry. And the article I linked to elsewhere mentions wikipedia going on and off the filters. My impression is not that they really block information, they just tell you which information it will be dangerous to mention or use. Big brother needs to tell people that he is watching, to get the wanted chilling effect.

I don't think (but now I am guessing) that Google finances so much free software. They look pretty happy to lable everything they touch "Google" and cash in the goodwill. Some free software is financed by independantly wealthy programmers who got bought out before the dotcom went bust. Lots of free software is written in collaboration (think the articles on wikipedia), the point of free software being the right to tinker and improve. If you can find their forums and such you can join in the development team.

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:39:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

Do they have a nationwide block on "wikipedia"? I really don't know how in depth the control is--links to more info. would be appreciated.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

While Wikipedia's English site is occasionally available, its Chinese-language sites are almost permanently blocked, although access is sometimes permitted for one or two days at a time.
"Right now there seems to be an intensive government-mandated freeze on the Internet in China, particularly on Web sites with user-generated content," said Jeremy Goldkorn, editor of Danwei.org, a Beijing-based blog that covers China's media. "It seems that the attitude towards Web sites hosted abroad is also hostile right now, which may explain the latest block on Wikipedia."

PC WORLD: Wikipedia Blocked in China Again

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:14:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

As a theoretical...

If someone in China typed in www.eurotrib.com, would they get through to here? It's not the same as wikipedia, but there's lots of information--a "third party" who knows a site that knows a site kind of thing. Or would the Chinese censors scan all data for (e.g.) "wikipedia" and deny access to those pages?

Is there an english-language website (at least partly) dedicated to this kind of thing?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

If someone in China typed in www.eurotrib.com, would they get through to here?

According to this page they would not. Neither could they go to www.piratpartiet.se.

Gotta run now, but I will try to stop by later tonight.

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

Whoa, great site, thanks for that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

Waitaminute... maybe there's something wrong here, but according to that site, China blocks the website of its own embassy in Egypt?

I wish I knew somebody in China I could ask to check this out.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:59:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

OK, I've tried a bunch of other sites, and some surprising stuff is coming up blocked, including the China National Tourist Office and Xinhua, the official state-run Chinese news agency. That made me think that maybe the site was just listing everything as blocked... But no, the English version of the official Chinese government website is shown as available, so something else is going on. Weird.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

if they know the machines from inside that are being used for monitoring, it would be relatively trivial to mess with them, and so stop the scan from providing any meaningful data.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

That's sort of what I suspected.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

(OT--stormy, how did you embed that screen print?)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

I took a screen shot (alt + print screen on a PC, not sure how to do it on my new Mac) and pasted it (ctrl-C) into MSPaint (I know, I know, but it's what I've got), cropped out the extraneous stuff, saved it as a jpeg, uploaded it to photobucket and then posted it here just like any other picture.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 12:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

alt and print screen does the whole screen, ctrl and print screen does just the current window.

Occasionally usefull if you have a window that dosn't open to a full screen.

isn't it ctrl+v to paste and ctrl+c to copy?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 0)

Dur, yes. My brain is just not working right today, complete disconnect with Ye Olde Fingers.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 05:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

Equally theoretical, there are several ways of doing this. firstly, and the most blunt instrument method, is to put a high powered packet filter on the edge of your network, which all packets have to pass through to get to the outside. and simply route any packets that should be heading to Wikipedias servers to a bin so anything being routed to 66.230.200.100 (and other associated addresses) instead of being routed properly gets routed to a local server which can either just record the attempt or you can just forward the packet to a null address. this will deal with all of the direct traffic. the next step is to deal with all indirect routes. Beyond that the next thing that you need to block are the caches on search engines, although you'd have to then be filtering on web addresses rather than just IP addresses, which makes the search that bit more hardware intensive.

beyond that you can run filter boxes that will remove any page with any mention of Wikipedia, but assuming that it isn't just wikipedia that you want to ban, then the search of each passing page will be pretty processor heavy to hunt for any possible combination of banned text in a page.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

imperfectly so (none / 0)

it's really more of a panopticon than a great firewall. there are ways fo working around everything.

by wu ming on Sun Sep 30th, 2007 at 04:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 2)

i assume google is both good and evil, like anything else...

i also assume, (probably like most here!), that if anyone here had anything to say that was truly incendiary and said it here, a cousin of dkos, that that wouldn't be the end of the line...

if i were a snoop for an all powerful gvt, i would start by co-opting all the anonymiser and crypto software makers, by force and threats of national security, etc.

once achieved, that would permit one to go harvest in pre-located nexuses conveniently, with minimum effort.

if i wanted to get a message through the filters, the best way would be disguise it in spam.

dante's room 101, tenth circle, having to snoop daily through billions of spambytes looking for sedition....

job turnover rate....rapid!

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

For the record, there are other search options. But, uh, it's owned by these guys, (shady!) and says this:

InfoSpace collects some anonymous information each time you visit an InfoSpace Site so we can improve the overall quality of your online experience. We collect your IP address, referral data, and browser and platform type. You do not have to register with InfoSpace before we can collect this anonymous information.
The InfoSpace Sites do not require you to share information that identifies you personally, such as your name or email address, in order for you to use the InfoSpace Sites. The InfoSpace Sites assign an anonymous ID number to your requests and links the following additional data to that number: the date and time you visited the InfoSpace Site, your search terms, and the links upon which you choose to click. Like most standard Web site servers, we use log files to collect and store this anonymous user information. InfoSpace analyzes the information to examine trends, administer the site, track user's movement in the aggregate, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use.

... etc.

I suspect that most anybody who is (or possibly will ever be) involved in the search-engine business is likely to collect the same kind of info that Google does. What that means, I'm not sure.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (none / 1)

There is stuff like Scroogle - the Google scraper that just piggybacks on google while not granting it information.

Then again, can you trust the people behind Scroogle?

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (4.00 / 4)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 3)

I don't know anything about principles of indexing by search engines but suspect that it is not in Google interest to censure its listing of indexed sites according to political considerations - any time new more powerful and unbiased search engines will appear and Messiers Brin and Page virtual empire will disintegrate in eye blink.

by FarEasterner on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:20:17 AM EST

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 3)

They do censor today (differently in different languages), but they probably try to stay below the threshold were their customers start migrating.

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (4.00 / 3)

So they will try to curb criticism and highlighting this issue in media. Nothing new, but it's not easy task. Better for Google not to raise public suspicions and be mindful of their vulnerable status. Internet is all about reputation after all. Once it's gone, it's gone.

by FarEasterner on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:51:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 1)

I think Google is not evil, in fact I think it's the best thing that has happened to the Internet in many years. However, it's become too big for everyone's good, for themselves and for us, and it needs to be regulated at the very least on the privacy issues.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 at 07:38:13 AM EST

Scroogled (4.00 / 4)

Figure this fits here:

Scroogled
Google controls your e-mail, your videos, your calendar, your searches… What if it controlled your life?
By Cory Doctorow
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." —Cardinal Richelieu
"We don't know enough about you." —Google CEO Eric Schmidt

The rest of the story

Good piece of SF.

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 at 09:12:29 AM EST

Re: Scroogled (none / 1)

Time to scroogle

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 at 09:57:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Google Evil? (none / 0)

Months ago when "the hatter sites" reported about the evil intentions of Google the article made reference to Google's "committee of 300", a deliberate code word indicating their allegance to the New World Order.

Like most things of this nature these type of memes are designed/socially engineered to become institutionalized well before the Charolette Iserbyt Dumbed Down populace is allowed to become aware of the slightest hint of it.

Have you not played SimCity? Well imagine what they could do with a Cray!

by Lasthorseman (Lasthorseman@comcast.net) on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 at 09:02:40 PM EST

Is Google Evil? | 66 comments (66 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Recommended Diaries

Half Time Diary from Tehran
by ChrisCook - Oct 15
20 comments

The Organic Silver BB?
by a siegel - Oct 15
3 comments

A shift of the frame
by DoDo - Oct 15
58 comments

Dow in the Tank-Pump in more $ fast
by NearlyNormal - Oct 15
4 comments

Canadian Federal Election of 2008
by Gary J - Oct 15
12 comments

Gabriele Pauli and the Free Voters
by nanne - Oct 14
38 comments

Global Human Protein Deficit
by SacredCowTipper - Oct 14
8 comments

Who is it that the UK and Spain intend to invade?
by BruceMcF - Oct 14
92 comments

Recent Diaries

George Schultz on Energy at MIT
by gmoke - Oct 15

Dow in the Tank-Pump in more $ fast
by NearlyNormal - Oct 15
4 comments

The Organic Silver BB?
by a siegel - Oct 15
3 comments

Medical mission denied entry into Gaza
by shergald - Oct 15

Half Time Diary from Tehran
by ChrisCook - Oct 15
10 comments

Canadian Federal Election of 2008
by Gary J - Oct 15
6 comments

Economic Crisis Bingo
by JakeS - Oct 15
14 comments

A shift of the frame
by DoDo - Oct 15
29 comments

Gabriele Pauli and the Free Voters
by nanne - Oct 14
19 comments

Global Warming denialism ... from a "D" Senate...
by a siegel - Oct 14
1 comment

Who is it that the UK and Spain intend to invade?
by BruceMcF - Oct 14
92 comments

McCain and Little Dorrit - ironies of history
by Ted Welch - Oct 14
9 comments

The Blow-out continues...
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 14
98 comments

Global Human Protein Deficit
by SacredCowTipper - Oct 14
8 comments

Paul Krugman live blogging at ET: Tuesday Edition
by THE Twank - Oct 14
13 comments

42 days is dead
by IdiotSavant - Oct 14
12 comments

Dead Cat Bounce
by rdf - Oct 13

Newest Nobel Prize Winner: "Republicans ... Party of...
by a siegel - Oct 13
2 comments

Paul Krugman live blogging at ET: Monday Edition
by THE Twank - Oct 13
12 comments

VLQD: Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics
by Melanchthon - Oct 13
2 comments

More Diaries...

Debates

Campaigns

Occasional Series