OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot The Almighty Buck Programming The Courts Slashdot.org Graphics
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Jul 23
(1 recent)

apple
Jul 25
(4 recent)

articles
Jul 25
(35 recent)

askslashdot
Jul 25
(12 recent)

books
Jul 19

bsd
Jul 22

developers
Jul 24
(3 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Jul 22

radio
Jun 29

science
Jul 25
(9 recent)

yro
Jul 25
(7 recent)

NYT Discovers the Panopticon
PrivacyPosted by michael on Thursday July 25, @01:39AM
from the stalker's-delight dept.
Erris writes "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines? This article seeks to blame Google for all privacy loss, as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent. Libraries must really be evil."

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· NYT attacking search engines
· More on Privacy
· Also by michael

<  LWN.net Closing Down | Red Hat Asks for UCITA Reversal  >
NYT Discovers the Panopticon | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 338 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
Would some kind soul post the text? (Score:1, Offtopic)
by Bob_Robertson on Thursday July 25, @01:46AM (#3949632)
(User #454888 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Fair Use and all that. And it will tick them off. I like that.
  Bob-
 
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
First NYT Login Generator Post... (Score:2, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, @01:47AM (#3949635)
NYTimes Login Generator [majcher.com], which I found thanks to Google. How ironic! :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
by RAruler on Thursday July 25, @01:47AM (#3949639)
(User #11862 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
When you run a website you have a variety of optiosn available, most reputable search engines will follow a robots.txt, and if your still paranoid after that you can deny access to the ip range of popular search engines. If you aren't willing to do these rather simple things to protect your 'privacy' you shouldn't post things on a website. Who knows what the teaming hordes of 'internet crazy folk' could do when they find my short story, surely they are all deviants and sexual miscreants. I know, i'll get INTERNATIONAL PRESS COVERAGE to make sure that my Privacy remains safe.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Ugh... by eNonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @02:47AM
    • It's not always that simple... (Score:5, Interesting)
    by nurightshu on Thursday July 25, @04:41AM (#3950030)
    (User #517038 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 28, @10:17AM)

    About two years ago, I read an article from the Washington Post by a Dr. Cindy Williams of MIT, formerly of the Congressional Budget Office, who stated that she felt that military personnel were adequately compensated -- and in many cases overpaid -- for the jobs they do. The Post included her e-mail address, so I decided to write a response to that. At the time, I was in the Air Force myself, and the son of a 26-year Air Force veteran, so what she said understandably got my dander up a bit.

    Since my father forwarded me a copy of the article, I figured I'd send him a copy of my response as well. This was a mistake; he actually liked what I wrote and forwarded it to some of his friends, who sent it to their friends, and so on ad nauseum.

    Now it's been archived on a number of different websites, and I have no control over my own words. There are two glaring changes that have been made to what I wrote, and someone added to the message that Dr. Cindy Williams is the same Cindy Williams from "Laverne and Shirley." That's landed me on all the urban legend websites, like Snopes [snopes.com], About.com [about.com], and Truthminers [truthminers.com]. I don't own those websites, so anyone can go to them and discover that I was dumb enough not to keep my fool mouth shut in spring of 2000.

    If you're really interested in finding the letter (which means you're either mentally ill or have a lot of free time on your hands), do a Google search for "A1C Michael Bragg". Ugh.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Ugh... by cmaroney (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @09:38AM
    • Re:Ugh... by M-G (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @02:19PM
    • Re:Ugh... by RFC959 (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @02:23PM
  • True...but by reallocate (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @10:45AM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
by spookysuicide on Thursday July 25, @01:47AM (#3949640)
(User #560912 Info | http://www.suicidegirls.com/)
Perhaps the New York Times should take their database of archived articles off line, since some of the people depicted in their stories would probably prefer if other people couldn't read about certain things they did.

This is a ridculous way to look at privacy.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Perhaps... by joeykiller (Score:3) Thursday July 25, @04:05AM
      Re:Perhaps... (Score:4, Informative)
      by CoolVibe (coolvibeNO@SPAMhackerheaven.org) on Thursday July 25, @04:09AM (#3949967)
      (User #11466 Info | http://www.hackerheaven.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday March 31, @10:05PM)
      - Do they breach copyright by presenting cached content? (I think they do)

      I doubt it. It presents the information with the owner's names/copyright, and even with an original URL to point to so you can get to the source if it gets back online again.

      - The Google cache is causing publishers to lose control over their material.

      What about archive.org then? No, publishes don't lose control. The cache gets updated quite frequently.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Perhaps... by 1u3hr (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @04:17AM
      • Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
      by actiondan on Thursday July 25, @07:13AM (#3950280)
      (User #445169 Info)
      The Google cache is causing publishers to lose control over their material.

      In Britain, publishers are required by law to send a copy of everything they publish to the British Library in London. I'm not sure if the USA has anything similar but libraries exist pretty much everywhere.

      Does having these copies available to the public at the British Library cause the publishers to 'lose control over their material'?

      Does someone who puts information out into the public domain have the right to withdraw that information whenever they like? I don't think so.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Perhaps... by bombom (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @09:50AM
    • Re:Perhaps... by Cyclone66 (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @10:23AM
        Re:Perhaps... (Score:4, Informative)
        by jpdbest on Thursday July 25, @10:57AM (#3951189)
        (User #44934 Info)
        I've seen a few pages on google where no cache was available which leads me to think that there's a way to disable caching also.

        There is a way to automatically disable caching pages by Google, not to mention a whole slew of options to prevent or remove indexing and archives. Have a look at this page:

        Remove Content from Google's Index [google.com]

        They give the individual user many options to control what Google can and can't do with their content. If you wish to prevent the Googlebot from archiving/caching a web page, you would use this technique:

        If you want to prevent all robots from archiving content on your site, use the NOARCHIVE meta tag. Place this tag in the <HEAD> section of your documents as follows:

        <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

        If you want to allow other indexing robots to archive your page's content, preventing only Google's robots from caching the page, use the following tag:

        <META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

        You would think that if the author of the NYT article was so horrified about Google indexing and caching pages, they might have given a more informative and _HELPFUL_ solution than:

        Google says its search engine reflects whatever is on the Internet. To remove information about themselves, people have to contact Web site administrators.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Perhaps... by Yosi (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @11:11AM
    • Re:Perhaps... by drix (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @10:49AM
    • Re:Perhaps... by Weasel Boy (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @04:24PM
  • Re:Perhaps... by nomadic (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @04:20AM
  • Re:Perhaps... by Salsaman (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @04:33AM
  • I've long thought by Scratch-O-Matic (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @07:58AM
  • Re:You should bother to read the article. by M-G (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @02:26PM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
OH gee (Score:5, Insightful)
by mizhi on Thursday July 25, @01:49AM (#3949646)
(User #186984 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Let's see, you put your information in a public forum such as the web and you expect it not to be indexed? Gee golly willickers and shucks, Mr. Peabody, people sure are stupid.

You want privacy? Don't put a fucking webpage up. Now the distinction between credit card companies and the rest of the ill-begotten like minded ilk is well taken. I didn't do anything other than purchase somethings using that credit card, and yet, they can sell my information to any Tom Dick and Harry that wants to know my underwear purchasing habits?

Fuck them. NYT has ceased to be an informative source of news for a while. And it has never been a source of unbiasednews.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Google? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Dwedit on Thursday July 25, @01:49AM (#3949647)
(User #232252 Info)
If they think that google caches are bad... The caches go down a while after the website disappears...

Then there's Archive.org... Until a squatter with a robots.txt takes the domain, it's there forever if it's there!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
-1 Flamebait (Score:2)
by Emugamer on Thursday July 25, @01:51AM (#3949654)
(User #143719 Info | http://www.emugaming.com)
Its been said before, it will be said again! The fact that it is posted on NYTimes is mildly amusing (with their registration and all) but really when all is said in done the percentage of things you can find on the net that is not wanted up there by the individual it is about in which the individual or his/her family members did not post is absolutely minute.

Is Privacy a good thing? YES!!! is posting a family website up on the net and being suprised when someone else finds it Hypocritical? YES!!!!

I mean yes there is more to it then that but my 2000 word essay hours are between 9-5

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Its an innocent article (Score:5, Interesting)
by benzapp ([benzapp] [at] [hotmail.com]) on Thursday July 25, @01:53AM (#3949657)
(User #464105 Info)
While I think there is merit to the suggestion that the New York Times has a vested interest in criticizing search engines and internet archives in general, that conclusion cannot be drawn from the article at hand. The article makes a very valid point, that many people unwittingly put a lot of personal information on the net and it ends up being forever available on the internet.

For those who read this site, I am sure no one is going to leave anything important in a directory accessible via http, but it can easily happen. How many ridiculous personal websites are there out there, how many inexperienced folks with frontpage put something stupid on geocities before they figure out what is going on? It can happen so very easily.

Note, I don't think there is a way around this problem. The article almost seems to suggest Google should allow people the opportunity to remove listings from the index. I don't know if that is feasible, but it is a thought. In the end, I think this is something people are going to have to be more aware of... only the ignorant or careless are going to get burned by this.

On a personal level, I have searched for my name in the past, and found some interesting personal files and info... I won't be too specific, but this info was temporarily placed on other machines to access via http as that was the only way I could download anything to certain school machines. The shit was only on those servers for a few days, and it is still in the google cache. Nothing to important, but it has been there for YEARS now.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Et tu, NYT? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Henry V .009 (marstrail@ho[ ]il.com ['tma' in gap]) on Thursday July 25, @01:53AM (#3949660)
(User #518000 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Now, not only does Ms. Crick have all that private information exposed on Google, she also has it all nicely collected in the New York Times. Oops.

I hope the New York Times is advocating that we burn past issues and library microfiches of their papers. Who knows how many private details could be contained inside all that publically published information?

Once something is published, it is published! It is public information. Destruction is no longer possible. Nor should it be.

P.S. Does anybody else hate the word 'Ms.'? Good god, I hate it when a woman introduces herself like that. Telling a man your marital status upon introduction is simply good manners. He can politely conduct the rest of the social exchange in a manner that keeps him out of a fist-fight later on.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Et tu, NYT? by guttentag (Score:3) Thursday July 25, @02:14AM
      Re:Et tu, NYT? (Score:4, Interesting)
      by Henry V .009 (marstrail@ho[ ]il.com ['tma' in gap]) on Thursday July 25, @03:30AM (#3949880)
      (User #518000 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      I think you may wish to take a look at this [weeklystandard.com] article. It took me forever to find it again, even with google.
      But occasionally, when an evil person dies, the Times swoops in and strips them of their honorific. Hitler was once "Mr. Hitler," as were Stalin and Mao. No more. Among the lesser totalitarian butchers, death cost Pol Pot his Times title: After his obit ran on April 16, 1998 he ceased being "Mr. Pol Pot." Serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were demoted as well.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Et tu, NYT? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @02:15AM
  • Re:Et tu, NYT? by geekotourist (Score:3) Thursday July 25, @02:31AM
  • Fistfight? by freeweed (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @12:44PM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
A few observations.. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Da VinMan on Thursday July 25, @01:54AM (#3949661)
(User #7669 Info)
#1 - If you don't want information about yourself to be public, then don't make it public. No I'm not trolling. How difficult can this be? It can't be a violation of your 'privacy' if you don't post the material in question in the first place.

#2 - Google (and others I'm sure) do all of us a great service by caching the last known good copy of a site. Then when we /. (this is the only punctuation-only phrase I would ever use as a verb by the way) the site, we can (usually) still see it. Please consider the value of this service for your sake, and posterity's before you rant about of all the precious privacy we've lost.

#3 - What's in a name anyway? It's just an identifier. We could all just as well be numbered for all the real value that a name contains. What are you without your name? Still you, right? So why do you need a name, other than for identification purposes which is directly tied to our seeming need for ownership of resources? Don't forget, you are not your identifiers, or circumstances. You will always be you no matter the circumstances. At least, that's true until you die... then you are still what you will be. But before you get stressed out by that, I urge you to consider what you were before you were born. Remember that? Me neither. No point in stressing out about it then, eh?

#4 - Do not post to /. after imbibing respectable amounts of alcoholic beverages. Just trust me on that.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
great for interviews (Score:5, Interesting)
by Darth_Burrito on Thursday July 25, @01:55AM (#3949662)
(User #227272 Info | http://jasonlttl.tripod.com/)
Every time I go into an interviewer knowing the name, company, or email address of the interviewer, I will always look them up via google and deja, just to see what turns up. Once I found that the president of the startup company I was interviewing for had built a couple websites on commission and then spammed the hell out of several newsgroups in order to boost hits.
   
  If you put stuff out there on the net, then you're stuck with it out there.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Attacking who? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Robotech_Master (robotech@eyrie.org) on Thursday July 25, @01:55AM (#3949664)
(User #14247 Info | http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/index.html)
It didn't look to me as though they were so much attacking the search engine per se, as they were simply commenting on it. Or that they were "attacking" anything, really--that's just the story submitter's slant.

The problem is more far-reaching than just search engines, anyway; after all, nobody could find the stuff if all the individual websites didn't have it on-line. Personally, I find it kind of reassuring...if I have descendants, they'll be able to find out all about me long after I'm gone by browing through the old web files, reading my livejournal entries and USENET posts, and so on.

I have always been aware that search engines could turn up things you'd rather not have seen...back when the search engines first came out, a friend of mine was chagrinned to find, when he searched on his own name, the majority of the results related to an old piece of Vampire fanfiction that he'd sent to a mailing list with about four people on it, and had thought to be safely dead and buried--and hardly anything was linked to his more recent, more professional writings. That taught me a valuable object lesson right then and there...if you're going to do something on the 'net that you don't want people linking with your name, do it anonymously. Web email services come in very handy for that sort of thing...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It is 1984 people! (Score:2, Funny)
by wilko11 on Thursday July 25, @01:56AM (#3949668)
(User #452421 Info)
I am shocked. Why wasn't I told that people can read things that I publish on the web!

I think it is time that our legislators dealt with this problem. We need laws that require me to inform myself what information I am storing about myself and how I will use it, because clearly, self-regulation isn't working!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Privacy? (Score:1)
by Quantum Singularity (milkyway65@juno.com) on Thursday July 25, @01:56AM (#3949671)
(User #594841 Info | http://frame25.tripod.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 24, @01:38AM)
I'll give you privacy: Refrain from using the net. Or a less extreme option: Mask your IP. Use fake names and PGP. Go to anonymizer.com. Arm yourself. And for the love of God, don't make a webpage.
Perhaps a lack of privacy is to be expected on the information superhighway.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Sime people are just stupid. (Score:1)
by Holi on Thursday July 25, @01:59AM (#3949678)
(User #250190 Info)
I am not sorry for Mrs. Crick. Jesus you post information on a PUBLIC network and then you are upset because people can look up information about you. JEEEEZUS are people that stupid.

On another note, I did a search on my name with Google and I got tired before I found anything related to me (more then 100 hundred pages and nothing I could link to me.). I guess that it pays not to post perssonal information on the web if you don't want people to look it up.

Yes removing information is hard once it'ts posted, maybe you shouldn't post info you don't want public.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The New York Times isn't attacking search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
by guttentag on Thursday July 25, @01:59AM (#3949680)
(User #313541 Info | Last Journal: Friday July 19, @04:03AM)
It's simply pointing out to its readers -- many of whom may be intelligent and opinionated but not computer literate by slashdot standards -- that when you publish something on the Web, anyone can see it.

This may seem like common sense to you and I, but when Slashdot recently posted a story about groups.google.com, a number of postings were of a "I never thought those postings would come back to haunt me" nature.

Basically, the article says nothing new for us but the submitter of this story appears bent on hyping it up as an "attack" on search engines.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ignornace (Score:2, Interesting)
by Kwikymart on Thursday July 25, @02:00AM (#3949681)
(User #90332 Info | http://www.dma.ca/)
With the progression of technology, why are people so suprised? The Internet has been a complete mess of fragmented information for years and only now has it begun to show signs of unifying. It is narrow minded thinking to say that nobody could find all the information you published on the Internet and link it to you. I think this is more of a problem with people not thinking things through when they release seemingly harmless things that may end up to bite them in the ass later. Privacy, in this case, is the result of the practice of not being a bone-head.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yawn... (Score:3, Informative)
by suss on Thursday July 25, @02:00AM (#3949682)
(User #158993 Info)
How hard is it to use meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" in your page head?
This way search engines should not index you.

PS It's not yelling, it's called HTML, you lame lameness filter.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Yawn... by cafeman (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @05:50AM
    • Re:Yawn... by NachtVorst (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @11:20AM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
I'm safe. (Score:3, Funny)
by Soko on Thursday July 25, @02:02AM (#3949683)
(User #17987 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Searched for my full name on Google and got 6 hits. 2 of them weren't even me.

Then I searched for my nick-name. I think I emptied the whole Google cache on one query - millions of pages dedicated to Soko-ban game, arts stuff and other assorted pages not realted to me at all.

Woo-hoo! I'm safe!!!....

[Thinks for a minute]

*snif* I'm depressed. I'm so un-important that I can't even be found on the web by Google, the great privacy invader...

Soko
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Who's worried? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Restil on Thursday July 25, @02:02AM (#3949685)
(User #31903 Info | http://206.54.177.105/)
The second you put information up on a public site, you can expect that this data will be archived, cached, linked to, and lo and behold, people might actually FIND this information by searching on you.

And google isn't the enemy here. If you don't want your site listed on google, NO PROBLEM. Just place the required information in robots.txt and you'll never hear from them again. And if google accidently links a bunch of your pages you don't want the world finding, a single request to them will remove all references, promptly with no questions asked.

As for privacy, its very simple. If you want people to know something about you, be as public with it as you want. If you don't want people to know something, then by all means, don't put that information on a public website. Are people really so deluded to think that nobody will ever find the information they post publically? Yet people seem more than happy to post intimate details of their lives for the whole world to see. I really don't think they care, and more importantly, I doubt anyone else does either.

-Restil
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Don't forget Usenet... (Score:4, Interesting)
by pycnanthemum on Thursday July 25, @02:02AM (#3949686)
(User #175351 Info)
People post questions in newsgroups all the time and use their real names. Of course now that Google owns the Usenet archives, I guess that is their fault too. :-)

The general public is clueless about the lack of privacy on the internet. I can't even count the number of times I have surprised people by telling them how much information about them is logged by every website they visit, that web browsers keep a history of sites visited, etc.

The issue here is not that the NYT is telling us what we already know, because of course /. users are well-versed in the ways of the internet. If the article builds awareness about invasion of privacy, and makes general computer users more cautious, then it has done us all a service.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
*Snort* (Score:4, Insightful)
by Noryungi on Thursday July 25, @02:03AM (#3949687)
(User #70322 Info | http://www.multimania.com/frenchbsd | Last Journal: Wednesday July 17, @06:51AM)
Why do you think I use a nickname when posting on Slashdot?

Why do you think my "homepage"on Slashdot resolves to a free web page that has not been updated for years? A web page that contains no real tangible personal information whatsoever?

Why do you think my "email address" resolves to a free email address on Yahoo?

Why do you think I do the same for almost every forum I participate in?

Only a few people, using Google or other search engines, would be able to guess who I am -- and these are probably my closest friends. And even them would probably have a hard time guessing it was me.

Come on, people, blaming Google for a lack of privacy is as stupid as saying that Microsoft will save us from wily hackers with Palladium.

No Privacy? No problem. Just maintain a couple of anonymous online clone and post using "their" names. And, yes, I did register with the NYT using the same nickname... =)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Why? by SlideGuitar (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @02:46AM
    • Re:Why? by Noryungi (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @04:48AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:*Snort* by scrm (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @03:31AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:*Snort* by grungie (Score:1) Thursday July 25, @04:33AM
  • Re:*Snort* by commodoresloat (Score:2) Thursday July 25, @05:39AM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Flamebait (Score:1)
by Mad Quacker on Thursday July 25, @02:05AM (#3949692)
(User #3327 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Too bad we can't moderate the whole article as flamebait, as a giant flaming thread is about to ensue, my advise to slashdotters is don't even bother.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
On the Well (Score:2)
by Alien54 on Thursday July 25, @02:08AM (#3949701)
(User #180860 Info | http://radiofreenation.net/)
I remember on guy on the Well went through and destroyed all of his old postings because it had reached this point, that it was no longer restricted to the community, but was now starting to be of a wider import. And because it might be embarrassing in his later career.

it was sad in a way...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Fickle Press (Score:5, Insightful)
by bovril (centreneptune AT yahoo DOT com DOT au) on Thursday July 25, @02:08AM (#3949703)
(User #260284 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I'm sure if Camberley Crick was a teenage starlet, politician or a topless sunbathing member of the Royal Family, this would fall in to the public's right to know category.

But because she writes educational games (2 words that should never be seen together) it's an invasion of privacy story.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Information better than privacy (Score:1)
by TheCyko1 on Thursday July 25, @02:09AM (#3949709)
(User #568452 Info)
If search engines are used for the retreaval and spreading of informatin at the cost of privacy, then I'm all for it. Sure privacy is great and all, but you take that with you to the grave. Information, on the other hand, can still live on and spread to others through search engines. What's better in the long run? Information, of course. Don't get me wrong, i still like my privacy, since i materbate ritualisticly (*cough*) but i wouldn't be able to find my porn sites if it wasn't for google.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
my girlfriend almost left me... (Score:2, Funny)
by patrickoehlinger (patrickoehlinger@gmx.net) on Thursday July 25, @02:10AM (#3949712)
(User #445411 Info | http://www.derbaum.com/)
This reminds me about my girlfriend, she searched her name on the web and found p0rn.
Since I write web pages too, she immediately assumed that I made this page with here name between all the naked girls. She almost left me and it took some time until she understood what happened.
Now I need to be aware that she will find this post, and will be angry again because I blamed her at /.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
you may already be a luser... (Score:2)
by rodentia on Thursday July 25, @02:14AM (#3949718)
(User #102779 Info)
Whenever was the Web an *innocent place*? 1995: already gilded by time.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The article doesn't blame Google... (Score:1)
by alister (alister.air@nOSpAM.uts.edu.au) on Thursday July 25, @02:17AM (#3949727)
(User #60389 Info | Last Journal: Thursday March 14, @02:52AM)
I don't think the article is "blaming" anyone for the loss of privacy. I think it's reflecting on something that's just happening due to the interconnectedness of information these days. With a name as unusual as mine, I'm completely screwed... anything you find with my name will proably be me.

I don't limit my political views... I'll probably just end up unemployable :-)

Alister
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
In the beginning... (Score:2, Insightful)
by syd02 on Thursday July 25, @02:18AM (#3949728)
(User #595787 Info)
it seems like geeks built an internet that reflected their values and needs, then they showed other people what it was and what it could become.

Everybody was excited...wow, an information revolution.

It seems like the people who always tend to get what they want are beginning to decide that they never really wanted an information revolution, and now we're seeing the counter-revolution.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Uh Oh (Score:1)
by SlideGuitar on Thursday July 25, @02:18AM (#3949731)
(User #445691 Info | http://www.documentedlife.com/)
I hope nobody finds out about me.

www.documentedlife.com
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
New verb - to 'Google' ? (Score:2, Interesting)
by tinrobot on Thursday July 25, @02:18AM (#3949732)
(User #314936 Info)
It's very common to 'google' someone, and the phrase seems to have fallen into general use - particularly among the e-dating crowds. I have a few friends who date over the net and it's very common practice to type a potential date's name into Google to see what pops up.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
NYT discovers me? (Score:1)
by panopticon on Thursday July 25, @02:23AM (#3949746)
(User #147224 Info)
I was worried there for a second.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NYTimes irony... (Score:1)
by tq_at_sju on Thursday July 25, @02:27AM (#3949760)
(User #218880 Info | http://www.goodtimetickets.com/)
Isn't it ironic that the newspaper that asks you for your name and email everytime you just want to read an article is whining about google's invasions of privacy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NYT unmasks Beth Werbick (Score:2)
by hysterion on Thursday July 25, @02:31AM (#3949768)
(User #231229 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Indeed, a generic name is what Beth Roberts, 29, was seeking when she changed back from her married name, Werbick, after a divorce. A Google search on "Beth Werbick" returns results only about her. But a search for "Beth Roberts" returns thousands upon thousands of Web pages. "I would have plausible deniability if someone wanted to attribute something to me," said Ms. Roberts, who lives in Austin, Tex.
Now, of course, the next thing lil' Beth does is trumpet her clever change of personality in the NEW YORK TIMES.

Sometimes you gotta wonder, really...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Michael discovers Bentham (Score:3, Funny)
by nosferatu-man on Thursday July 25, @02:31AM (#3949769)
(User #13652 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
What's next? Pudge on John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty"? CmdrTaco dissecting "A History Of Sexuality"? The intersection of academe and Slashdot is too terrible to imagine ...

'jfb
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I have had enough..... (Score:2)
by H3XA on Thursday July 25, @02:32AM (#3949772)
(User #590662 Info)
I am going to start boycotting NYT by refusing to visit their site and bad mouthing them at every opportunity..... oh wait..... I already do that......

- HeXa
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
robots.txt (Score:1)
by JebusIsLord on Thursday July 25, @02:41AM (#3949785)
(User #566856 Info | http://www.autobotcity.net/)
Geez people, its called robots.txt, just drop it in your web root:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

if you don't want to be indexed, for chrissake don't be.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This article=A bunch of recent Harvard Grads (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, @02:58AM (#3949816)
Author is Harvard 1999. Ms. Crick Harvard 2000, Fahmawi Harvard 2000.

A couple weeks ago Lee sent an email to a Harvard recent grad list-serv asking for examples of this sort of thing. Kind of sad to see such narrow perspectives in the national media... I guess the article was bound to be anecdotal, but still.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
And then there's chaff... (Score:2)
by tlambert on Thursday July 25, @03:01AM (#3949825)
(User #566799 Info)
But beware of date and relevency ordered search results... ;^).

Try searching for "terry lambert" on google. You will find ~17,600 entries.

My God! What happened to the other 4/5ths?!?

Actually, fully 5% of that is probably some other "Terry Lambert", and not me... 8-).

As a general rule to live by, never send a "letter to the editor", never send an email, never keep (or even *create* in the first place) a file, never make a posting to a news group or a message board, never post your resume, never post your job history, never criticise the company you work for or your managers, never put useless or derogatory comments in your source code, never ... etc. etc. ...unless you want it to become a matter of public record.

If you are a jerk in private email, but nice in public email, expect that people will eventually know your true face, even if no one every intentionally "violates nettiquite".

-- Terry
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
That article raises valid points, but (Score:2)
by Edmund Blackadder on Thursday July 25, @03:06AM (#3949834)
(User #559735 Info)
The article raises valid points about the lack of privacy on the net. Yet it is technicaly lacking. It should inform people that it is possible to be annonymous on the net. It is also possible with the help of public key encryption to make sure that nobody can impersonate you, while being completely annonymous.

What i dont like about the article is that it scares people with technology without telling them that the technology does offer a way to solve their problems.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why the hostility to these people's paranoia? (Score:2, Funny)
by pandaba on Thursday July 25, @03:07AM (#3949838)
(User #38513 Info)
A couple of weeks ago I entered my name on google and found that it accurately noted my current address, current telephone, and listed things such as my obnoxiously pretentious postings to a cyberpunk mailing list in the early 90's, advice on how to properly use cu-seeme for an early porn reflector, a couple of rather graphically violent short stories published in someone else's zine, and the random, near-libelous kvetching of an ex who thought of many interesting and practical uses for my still twitching corpse. A couple of small and slightly embarrassing appearances I made in the national media were also noted.

I really have no control over the appearance of any of the above. My name is relatively unique and therefore almost everything from google was definitely originating from me or was about me; my mailing list postings which can be definitely tracked were from my uni days when I was required to have my real name on the net account.

I'm not necessarily bothered by the presence of any of this data. I've asked that my address be removed and it seems as if it has. Any employer or potential partner, who is going to hold my ten year old musings against me, can kindly piss off and I hope they will enjoy an early demise. However, I can certainly understand how some of the article's subjects would feel a great fear and paranoia, especially when they have no control over their appearance on random petitions or various articles.

Google is a double-edged sword and I certainly don't hold their unease against them. Life has certainly been made much easier for stalkers and your office's gossip and that is not necessarily a good thing, despite all the other extraordinary benefits of Google.

I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite; I confess I used Google to verify that my current gf wasn't Republican, a copyright lawyer, or an escaped ax murderer. Two out of three wasn't a bad result even though the chainsaws have to be kept under lock and key at all times.
   
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
good grief (Score:5, Insightful)
by nomadic (nomadicworld@hotmai l . c om) on Thursday July 25, @03:11AM (#3949845)
(User #141991 Info | http://nomadic.simspace.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 23, @09:53AM)
It was an article pointing out the fact that a lot of personal data has entered the web, and it's hard to erase. What the hell is the matter with you people? Can't you tell the difference between a news or feature article and an editorial? And what's with the mindlessly combative tone? "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines?" When has the NYT come out against search engines? This makes absolutely no sense.

as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent

Where does it say that the examples the article cites are WORSE than credit card purchase databases, phone records, or credit records?

The way this story submission was phrased made no sense whatsoever.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Random login not working? (Score:2)
by karlm on Thursday July 25, @03:13AM (#3949851)
(User #158591 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Hmm... they're ones to complain about privacy... Here's the story [majcher.com] via The NYT Random Login Generator [majcher.com]

It doesn't work for me in Konq, so I log in as 10101/10101. Does it work for anyone else, or did the NYT catch on?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
A suprise? (Score:2, Insightful)
by jokerghost on Thursday July 25, @03:19AM (#3949862)
(User #467848 Info)
Why should this come as a shock to anyone? The information that was posted, was posted by the author in a public domain.

The internet, in it's current incarnation, was created to be a public domain of knowledge, freely accessable by anyone who had the will to retrieve the data. She willingly put up her 5th grade story of the turtle, as well as a slew of other data. Why, then, does she have the right to complain when someone does a simple search and retrieves it? Should I complain if I put a billboard advertising my name, along with my resume, and a short story I wrote, and someone happens to actually read it? This is simply ludicrious. The argument attempting to be made is, if a person willingly posts something using their name, in a public domain, they should still have complete anonyminity. This, I find rediculous... As an aside, geneology records have been freely available for decades. Just ask the Latter Day Saints, who happen to have the largest collection of geneological records (not just of LDS people, either) in the country. The fact that someone simply added functionality by placing the database on the web does not mean that searching it was wrong.

The second issue raised, however, is perhaps the more important one. If a person deletes content, for fear of repraisal, etc, then that content should be deleted. I belive this applies only to the individual, and his/her personally controlled sites, however... For example, if I post my resume online, then recieve a slew of calls from unsavory characters, then remove the resume, the resume should no longer exist on the internet. Google shouldn't be caching personal webpages like that.... However, we must also realize that once something is posted on the internet, it is, more or less, in the public domain. What the public chooses to do with the information posted is up to the public. Ergo, if I post my resume, and some schmuck copies it a thousand times and disseminates it to all of his buddies, too bad for me. I posted in a public forum.

The main thing for us to remember, though, is that we live in a society where the notion of property rights of the individual vs the benefit gained by the community is being raised and challenged. In my huble opinion, if the rights of the individual don't cause harm to the community and benefit the individual, we should side with the individual (removal of a resume for instance)-- all other instances, we should side with the benefit of the community.

-jokerghost
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Random Login Generator blocked via referer (Score:3, Interesting)
by JohnA (johna@irev.nope.com) on Thursday July 25, @03:22AM (#3949866)
(User #131062 Info | http://www.analystscan.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 22, @09:31PM)
As many have noted, the Random NYT Login Generator [majcher.com] is not working. The block they seem to have implemented is based on the referer (yes, I know the right spelling. Trying looking at the HTTP header).

To get around this problem, simply save the page to your hard drive, and open it from there. Your referer will now be some file:// URL, and it will work.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
by jsse on Thursday July 25, @03:32AM (#3949885)
(User #254124 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 13, @09:42AM)
"You can't remove pieces of yourself from the Web," Ms. Crick said.

You can always request to remove index and cache from Google [google.com], provided that you owned the original.

But it's already too late, in a brief moment after you chose to feature your shiny story in NYT, cool dudes around the world has already mirrored [slashdot.org] everything about you. Sweetie.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I know this.. (Score:2)
by AftanGustur on Thursday July 25, @03:32AM (#3949887)
(User #7715 Info | http://slashdot.org/)


Of my name, there exist several variations, and few have the same as I. My last name is also not common.

I come from a *realy* small country (less that 1/2 million people) and one letter in my first name only exists in my native language..

Needless to say, I am the only person in the world that has this combination of first/last name..

And yes, Google serves as my diary ;-)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NYT archives (Score:2, Insightful)
by BinBoy on Thursday July 25, @03:35AM (#3949894)
(User #164798 Info | http://www.binaryboy.com/)

Doesn't the NYT report on everything from births to marriages to arrests and don't they have archives going back decades? Seems a bit hypocritical.

How to download music, movies and pictures while you sleep. [binaryboy.com]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Google cache *does* break copyright (Score:1)
by wiresquire on Thursday July 25, @03:41AM (#3949906)
(User #457486 Info)
OK IANAL, but I was working on some similar technology at one stage....

Let's see if I can summarize (sorry I don't have the specific links/cases anymore):

  • in many countries, pretty much everything is copyrighted even if I don't put all the (C), all rights reserved, yada yada. By default all websites are copyrighted.
  • Claiming anything on the internet is 'public use' or the like is total crap. It does not absolve you of copyright law breaches.
  • keeping copies of copyrighted things is a Bad Thingtm to do
  • If you sell technology that does keep copy of stuff, as well as going after your customers, they can go after you.

Sure, the google cache is useful. I use it myself. It's always amazed me that it is that useful, because the only reason they have anything in the cache is due almost entirely to the good will of anyone who owns that content.

There's some good sites around, including UK gov't [patent.gov.uk], Stanford [stanford.edu] and the copyright website [benedict.com]. I'm not affiliated with any of them...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 17 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  Ahhhhhh... the smell of cuprinol and mahogany. It excites me to... acts of passion... acts of... ineptitude.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]