1
   

Google Search Invasion of Privacy

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 05:53 pm
Oh, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it be shut down, sorry. I do wonder what the next step from "it bothers me" is, though.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:03 pm
Well, for this little black duck, it will be checking myself out! I have a silent number, I am not listed on the electoral roll - but I do own a car and property - and my job places me at high risk from these very same stalkers - I do not live in fear, but I am very cautious. It seems this facility is advertised for the US only so far?

If it includes Oz, I will be warning clients and doing a check for them with my office computer.

Sure - some of these people have the skills and resources to find ANYONE. Many do not - but will do so if it is made reasonably accessible for them.

I am now looking after 2 sets of children who had their mummies murdered in front of them.

It can be bad if some people get found.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:05 pm
dlowan wrote:
Hmmm - dare I enter this fray?

If I were to complain about how Google has affected privacy, it would likely be because Google, as the most famous search engine, has allowed many people who would probably not otherwise have known how to do it, to access detailed information about people who are probably not aware enough of what Google does, or what the net does, to know that their info is so readily accessible.

Craven - I do not think it quite fair to use yourself as an example of ease of accessing info - you, and people like you with high grade computer skils, can, of course do things like this very fast sans Google. I would surmise that the average person has not learned to do this.

You could, of course, argue that people OUGHT to know this - but lots of people do not have access to computer and net knowledge.

This kind of very easy, and therefore, I think, newly easy and widely disseminated access to detailed info, worries me because of my knowledge of, for instance, of how many people are being stalked by violent ex-partners. People tend to assume that moving states is reasonably protective - although most are now recognizing that this is not enough. It is easy for people who are neither paper nor computer literate to overlook the ways in which information is available - and now available so easily with little knowledge of how to trace people.

This is certainly not Google's FAULT - but it is out there - and makes life for some even harder than it is. It removes a layer of filtering in people's protective camouflage.


Deb,

What "computer skills" are you talking about? The exact same skills (i.e. pressing keys on a keyboard) one needs to use Google is all that is needed to use any of the many other sites that provide the same service.

More people know about the other services than the Google phone service.

Once again, the paranoid should simply not publically list their information if they are going to complain about it afterward.

For one's info to appear in Google one first has to allow it to be listed in their phone books. This will cause it to be listed in many online directories. Then one has to decide that it's too bothersome to request that Google remove their info.

So if they want to be listed locally but not on Google, they can. If they don't want to be listed anywhere it's their choice.

Once again, are any of the people who are complaining here listed on Google? If so, why don't you have it removed? If not, are you complaining on the behalf of others who do not share your concerns?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:11 pm
Sobering, dlowan.

And I really do know what you mean -- I was in several dicey situations at my center in L.A. (ex-husband of staff member got out of prison [for drug dealing, though he had murdered 3 people as part of gang activity that other people took the fall for] and would lurk across the street -- I met him at the door when he showed up and told him to get lost, I helped her get a restraining order, etc., etc. -- he did not like me one bit).

I expect that there will staggered jumps as protective measures catch up to technology, just as with phone numbers and phone books. It is now widely understood that people can have unlisted phone numbers, and how to do so, and I expect that the ability to request that something be removed from a Google index will become more and more widespread as well.

I just get very nervous about making Google the bad guy. I think it is not only an incredibly useful tool, but an incredibly DEMOCRATIC one, and one that has revolutionized our access to grassroots information. (I am thinking especially of wartime coverage, here.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:12 pm
Craven said: "What "computer skills" are you talking about? The exact same skills (i.e. pressing keys on a keyboard) one needs to use Google is all that is needed to use any of the many other sites that provide the same service.
More people know about the other services than the Google phone service."

The skills I am talking about are basically knowing where to look - or knowing that you CAN look.

I, for instance, am, as you know, a sort of "walking wounded" when it comes to computers. I can get around to some extent, but I am not graceful or fast.

I knew I was listed on Google as dlowan. To my knowledge I am not listed as myself - I am about to check again.

I would have no idea how to begin looking for somebody other than by entering their name into search engines. I have no idea of what other sites you are referring to.

Google is a site well known to just about anybody who uses the net at all. I would suggest that the sites you mention, Craven, are not known to anywhere near as many people.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:16 pm
"understood that people can have unlisted phone numbers, and how to do so, and I expect that the ability to request that something be removed from a Google index will become more and more widespread as well."

I agree, Soze - that would be good - though it would alert people as well. The worry for me, professionally, is that many of the potential targets I am talking about just do not live in a world of info exchange - unless it becomes part of the grass-roots VERBAL info exchange network - which I hope it will, IF there is a threat here.

I LOVE Google, by the way!!!

I guess every silver lining has a cloud, and vice versa, though.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:30 pm
dlowan wrote:

The skills I am talking about are basically knowing where to look - or knowing that you CAN look.

Google is a site well known to just about anybody who uses the net at all. I would suggest that the sites you mention, Craven, are not known to anywhere near as many people.


Deb,

The other sites that I mentioned are better known than google for this purpose.

The overwhlming majority of Google users do not know of, or use, this service. The other sites that are solely dedicated for these services are widly used for this purpose.

The fact that many users know Google for unrelated web searches is exactly that. UNRELATED and an irrelevant argument.

No Deb, your number is not listed in Google. And if you'd paid attention to the issue you are commenting on you'd know that.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:35 pm
'Twasn't MY number I was most concerned about, as it happens.

'Tis good to know that Google is not widely known for this purpose.

I wonder if this will remain so?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:38 pm
Er...this seems to be a very hot button topic for people.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:45 pm
So was the issue about cameras taking away their life.

and an ajustment in a calendar taking away their days.

That unsubstantiated paranoia is prevalent is historically indicative of nothing other than human ignorance.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:49 pm
Well, at least you didn't use underlines at me this time. I should have been forced to respond in upper case letters if you had.

I see your point....... but also mine.
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 06:53 pm
Thanks for writing Huggie Bunnie! LOL!

As it happens, this afternoon I chanced upon a man I've known as a casual acquaintence for 30 years - at the local library book sale. Since I knew that he was an avid member of the ACLU, I told him of the Google search facility and he was completely astonished. I ended up having to take him to the public computer lab area of the library and show him his own information on the Net. Since he has never used a computer or the Internet in his life (a retired man of 55), he was stonkered. BOTH his homes and both his phone numbers were there and there were TWO links to your choice of maps directly to each of his homes.

Since there seems to be a divide that has something to do with use of a feature that allows one to remove one's information from such a listing, I am thinking that it would be best that the search of this sort be highly publicized OFF the NET as well as online. As dlowan says, there are many, many folks "out there" who have no concept of such invasions to privacy by dissemination to parties of unknown intent.

There are a number of Net resources besides Google that will return similar findings, but generally not to the extent and ease that Google does. For instance, telephone number redirectors only allow the reverse search through the phone number. National phone directories may publish those with listed phone numbers. Folks that do knowingly put their residential addresses and phone numbers out for the public are not the folks that are going to be concerned. Folks that are most protective of privacy will go to great lengths to see that is maintained, only to find the resources online that will destroy their sanctuary. And, the burden shall be on THEM to search out each resource just to remove their name?

No one has commented within this forum about the risks to any person who perhaps unknowingly raises the interest or ire of persons unknown. I bet that the radical folks that target who they perceive as supporters of abortion will be quite happy to have this Google facilitation. Perhaps I'd be happier if Google would put a notice on it's site home page where the usual searches are entered. Again, I don't know why posters feel I am just out to "blame" Google - it really is a broader topic, as williamhenry writes.

Another item of note: take a look at the percentages of those who have voted in the poll attached to this thread. While the number of votes is small, this may provide an indication of how it does "hit" people as dlowan says - an emotional issue, to be sure.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:07 pm
Shocked

Huggy Bunny? I am a mean and vicious Bunny.

Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:12 pm
Quick note about the poll:

I actually came here because I saw the poll and found no choice that would fit. I do think it is a little slanted. To use the camera example, if what if I were to post a poll that said:

Cameras steal soul

-I don't worry about my soul being stolen
-I have no soul to be stolen
-I don't mind if other people's souls are stolen, but keep well away from my soul, shutterbug
-I'm neutral about stolen souls

Yes, I'm exaggerating. But my point is that my answer for this poll is something like, "I have no problem with Google. I am concerned about proliferation of private information. I do not think that is Google's problem."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:12 pm
Deb,

What IS your point? I ask because i did not see anything resembling one and your posts usually don't have that result.


cobalt wrote:

There are a number of Net resources besides Google that will return similar findings, but generally not to the extent and ease that Google does. For instance, telephone number redirectors only allow the reverse search through the phone number. National phone directories may publish those with listed phone numbers.


False. I would provide links but don't want to give more targets for frivolous complaint.


cobalt wrote:

Folks that are most protective of privacy will go to great lengths to see that is maintained, only to find the resources online that will destroy their sanctuary. And, the burden shall be on THEM to search out each resource just to remove their name?


Only people who DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to act on their privacy concerns will be listed. Are folks that are "protective of their privacy" people who knowingly allow their information to be published and then complain when one particular enity links to the data?

Anyone who cares about their privacy has an unlisted number, anyone who has an unlisted number is also not listed in Google.

Anyone who wants to publically list their info locally but not in Google can do so as well.

In short you have absolute control of your privacy in this case.

cobalt wrote:

Perhaps I'd be happier if Google would put a notice on it's site home page where the usual searches are entered.



I'd be happier if Google would place links on their home page to my online businesses. But for some reason they think that they can't comply with requests to alter their home page (sparese for a reason) and consider this unreasonable.

cobalt wrote:

Again, I don't know why posters feel I am just out to "blame" Google - it really is a broader topic, as williamhenry writes.


The privacy paranoias are often well placed and ill directed. The broader issue is a reasonable concern, the unfounded complaints do little to help the overall cause and only serve to make the cause on the whole unreasonable.

cobalt wrote:

Another item of note: take a look at the percentages of those who have voted in the poll attached to this thread. While the number of votes is small, this may provide an indication of how it does "hit" people as dlowan says - an emotional issue, to be sure.


Like I said, the prevalence of ignorance is never justification of anything other than an assertion that ignorance is prevalent. You posted this without knowing how Google's service works and many voted based on the incomplete information you gave.

Once again, are you listed in Google? And if not, is Google violating your privacy in any way?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:14 pm
I agree with Sozobe. I think the private info is being shared and made available all over, google is just one of many places you can look me up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2003 07:46 pm
Ooh, I just thought of a better analogy:

Libraries!

I was talking to E.G. about how to explain this, and he brought up that the Chicago Public Library has current phone books of every major city, and maps too. Various libraries have varied amounts of information. But the information has to be published before the library can do anything with it.

So imagine if this poll were entitled, "Libraries Invade Privacy: Does it bother you having libraries provide personal information?" Does that cast more light on our objections?
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2003 12:19 am
There are some technical problems with the access that such services as Google provides: a random number generating program will return a complete phone or mail list of thousands of verified potential targets in a flash. This contrasts with all the trouble it would take to mechanically (sorry, can't think of a better term at present) track down all the component pieces of information for one very particular target of search at a time.

I wish someone would comment on the risks of use by those who would visit harm on others - particularly those such as are subject to hate crime harassment and targeting by extremist groups. Because the information is available and CAN be disseminated does not make it morally right or neutral in role.

As to the functioning of Google, I did my research at Google, from the information Google and Google Labs provide. I beta test four programs for them. Certainly I did not think I was with-holding or ill-representing what Google acknowledges. And, why would I wish to splash computerese geek 'stuff' over a general thread? I too could supply lots of links as Craven can, but that is not the point. Google is to searches what Xerox was to photocopies as Kleenex was to tissue. That is why I used Google, in addition to the fact that it has almost taken over what the majority of the public uses commonly for searches.

I read and correspond in many many tech, IT, librarian and similar newsletters and webrings - none of this that I do would mean a great deal to most of the posters I "know" so far in this forum. So? It did not occur to me to put more info into the beginning of the thread. I don't think I hold myself out as an expert, but I do have an informed opinion even though others may not agree.

As to the wording of the poll, perhaps if I had spent more time, I could have suggested a few additional selections. But if you look to the wording, my choice was "Does it bother you..." Why would a person vote at all in such a poll if one could not find a choice appropriate? I may look at the whole thing differently than others. My choice would be to not vote and then come into the thread right away and voice my concern about the choices. (Just look at the Fairy Tale thread Oldnknew has and you'll see that is my usual MO, lol).

I am fortunate for I am not one whose residence and phone number will return in these types of searches. Since I am more knowledgeable than some of my family and friends, I've felt obligated to make them aware of this type of information access and then I can feel that I've shared a concern and they may or may not view it as a concern as well. My own small base of friends is not good for "sampling" or "statistical" conjecture: it happens that ALL of those personal friends and family I contacted removed their information as best they could. But all now realize that cached info and web "snapshots" do exist and can be easily retrieved. At least one can take steps to stem this where one knows to look.

Anyway, I did not set out to cast ill will towards anyone here. I'm sorry that some see it this way, and defensive slams ensue. There must be more to the rancour than I can see - so I must be blindered somehow, I'll grant. If one doesn't agree or tolerate what my contribution is - so be it. I don't take it personally when I disagree or am frustrated by some responses in threads in general. For instance, even the memorable Zinger did not earn return attacks from me, ha ha! But, I do thank all for posting and am glad the subject was allowed to air.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2003 03:11 am
I do not equate dissent with ill will. I really am not personally moved by anyone's opinion of google and would have no reason for ill will based on such a non-issue. But since you feel that way I'll not comment further on this.

BTW, there is no cache or "snapshot" of Google's phone search, one less thing to worry about.
0 Replies
 
TechnoGuyRob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2003 10:06 am
oh, I LOVE google! I don't care if it has my name and ...
What is a friend wants to find me?
It's a great search machine, and boy, I like it Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 01:20:02