[HN Gopher] Google introducing tool for under-18s to remove imag...
___________________________________________________________________
Google introducing tool for under-18s to remove images of them from
search
Author : donohoe
Score : 177 points
Date : 2021-08-19 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Good for them!
|
| I read and really enjoyed "Permanent Record" by Edward
| Snowden[1]. In it he talked about a time when we didn't use our
| real names, we'd both change identities and did not expect our
| identities to be perfectly congruent with our IRL selves. (an
| element of roleplaying).
|
| I also think that a big part of the problem touches on
| philosophy, politics, and maybe human nature; Part of the issue
| isn't that we have something to hide, but that we've allowed
| people to shame us for things that are ok. We've created a world
| where the fake is more lauded than the real, and so now people
| feel pressured to keep up public images that are inhuman.
|
| [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-
| recor...
| clairity wrote:
| > "...a time when we didn't use our real names, we'd both
| change identities and did not expect our identities to be
| perfectly congruent with our IRL selves."
|
| i've always been struck by the concept of names (formal name,
| pen name, courtesy name, etc) as alternate identities, which is
| prominent in the chinese historical/wuxia dramas i guiltily
| indulge in (e.g., often a character employs a different name,
| and the other characters all the sudden have no idea who this
| character is within the reality of the drama).
|
| it seems like the panopticians are encouraging netizens to
| adopt a similar assortment of names and identities to
| compartmentalize our public and private lives.
| x0x0 wrote:
| Why is it good on google?
|
| Privacy for your children, as long as parents don't mind
| jumping through hoops created by google to fix a problem
| created by google. With I'm sure google-standard support (fuck
| you if it doesn't work and you aren't friends with a senior
| employee) to go along for the ride.
|
| It's the appearance of doing something while leaving 99.999%
| (estimated) of the children's pictures right where they are.
|
| Actual privacy would be proactively removing all images of
| under 18s from search.
| sealeck wrote:
| > Actual privacy would be proactively removing all images of
| under 18s from search.
|
| But there are valid reasons for why you would want
| photographs of u18s in search results (e.g. student athletes,
| etc)
| akomtu wrote:
| And google could get a written permission from those people
| before their pictures show up in search. But that would put
| a huge wrench into the data hoarding business.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| it's a step away from 100% of people having a bad experience,
| I will always laud progress today over permanently delayed
| perfection.
| the-dude wrote:
| Great timing.
| kazinator wrote:
| So you have to be under 18, and prove it, to get help with this
| problem?
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Why limit it only to under-18s?
| FirstLvR wrote:
| this leads to the very same question Rousseau and Maquiavelo made
| a long time ago:
|
| are we inherently evil?
|
| Google is asuming we are, thus making this tool in order to
| "help"
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| "We" are not uniform. Vast majority of people is good, and all
| evil in the world is done by very small share of people.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Hide, not delete!! Google will never truly delete anything, just
| hide it. And then when you're of age, guess what? You're fair
| game now.
| ineedasername wrote:
| _Giving minors more control over their digital footprint_
|
| Soooo.... Why not give everyone the same control over their
| digital footprint? Yes, minors are a protects class not being if
| legal age, but it seems reasonable to allow anyone to opt out
| things like this.
| colechristensen wrote:
| I went through the process of getting something removed from
| Google, they did remove it fairly quickly after my report, but it
| was back in the index about a month later.
| jliptzin wrote:
| Why only under 18? People lose their right to privacy when they
| turn 18?
| akomtu wrote:
| Yes, we do. The law only governs medical data of adults to some
| extent.
| ugjka wrote:
| Google wants no business with drunk and high minors
| JasonFruit wrote:
| > We're committed to building products that are secure by
| default, private by design, and that put people in control.
|
| How can anyone believe this from _any_ of the big tech companies
| at this point? The only way Google "put[s] people in control" is
| to let the public do their customer support for them, the only
| thing private is the details of their CIA connections, and the
| only thing secure is their market position.
| _moof wrote:
| Possibly controversial proposition, which I offer as a discussion
| prompt, not necessarily a position: What if we stopped
| relentlessly cataloging and indexing information about every
| single person on the planet in a way that anyone can search
| instantaneously?
|
| Genuinely interested in what folks think about this, pro or con.
|
| Edited to add: The reason I think this question is interesting is
| because I think it shines a light on some tension between privacy
| rights and freedom of information.
| smoe wrote:
| I think by now the problem is more cultural than technical or
| juridical. I mean many countries have laws in place that would
| allow for picture removal.
|
| I'm really glad, that my teenage years where before social
| media and everyone walking around with internet connected
| cameras on them all the time. All the stupid and embarrassing
| things I did only live in the memories of the people I was with
| and it is fun to talk about every now and then.
|
| But when going out these days, there is an almost constant
| "peer-surveilance" with everyone taking pictures and videos and
| immediately sharing them online without reflecting whether it
| is a good idea and just assuming consent of the others. Then
| when asking people to remove it, the request is often met with
| bewilderment or mockery why you'd want that. And sure, I could
| legally go after the person, but that is not really something
| you'd want to do within a (extended) circle of friends.
|
| I think there are a lot of very cool things that can be done
| these days that weren't possible in my time. But the complete
| disrespect of others peoples privacy and their image is really
| scary to me.
| dheera wrote:
| Also why is this restricted to only under 18? Why can't
| over-18's also remove personal information?
| nitwit005 wrote:
| > What if we stopped relentlessly cataloging and indexing
| information about every single person on the planet in a way
| that anyone can search instantaneously?
|
| It wouldn't eliminate this problem, assuming you consider it a
| problem. A lot of the images floating around aren't tied to a
| name. Anyone can save a file and re-use it in some other
| context.
| ghaff wrote:
| Assuming someone starts covering their online tracks from an
| early age they can probably _largely_ keep their online
| presence at a minimum with some caveats.
|
| - You can't really opt-out of things like credit reporting
|
| - You can't control what other people post about you but for
| the non-famous this is probably a relatively modest presence
|
| - There are certainly situations where many of us have a public
| presence under our real names. If you ever speak at most
| conferences for example or publish an article or paper.
| theptip wrote:
| > You can't control what other people post about you but for
| the non-famous this is probably a relatively modest presence
|
| I don't think this is right, at least not in the context of
| the parent. Perhaps it's true in regards to _public_ posts on
| the internet, but I think it's important to consider private
| photos.
|
| If you upload photos to your private Google Photos account,
| it will ask you "is this FriendA?" and have you train an
| image classifier for all your friends. Even if FriendA is not
| online, as long as FriendB is taking photos of FriendA and
| tagging them (for example, to make it easier for FriendB to
| search their photo album) then Google knows how to recognize
| FriendA.
|
| I have no idea if this training data is used outside of
| FriendB's library, but I'd assume so.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't think we're actually there yet but it's reasonable
| to think that, as time goes on, more and more publicly
| posted photos will be autotagged with the names of people
| in them.
| thomasahle wrote:
| > You can't really opt-out of things like credit reporting
|
| Most countries do fine without mandatory surveillance based
| credit reporting. And banks still gave out loans before
| credit cards.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| How does it work?
| code_duck wrote:
| The newspaper in a town where I went to high school has had
| an two sentence article up in their archive for 15 years
| that, in its vagueness, implies I was a drug addict and high
| school dropout in the 90s when I was 16.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Two sources of personal information leaks that are difficult
| to counteract are voter registration and USPS change of
| address, both of which are publicly available. In the case of
| voter registration, as soon as I updated my phone number last
| year, I went from no spam to getting dozens of SMS spam
| message per day. About 80% of it was political but the other
| 20% is the standard scam spam. The political spam mostly
| ended after the election (there's sometimes fund raising
| pleas) but the scam stuff continues on. The USPS change of
| address information quickly ends up on all of those "Your
| Life" type sites. It's frustrating that such basic government
| functions end up making it easier for others to track and
| prey on you.
| ghaff wrote:
| There are good reasons a lot of things have historically
| been public records. Some of the reasons look less good on
| balance when those records can be instantly copied, data
| mined, and linked to any number of other digital records.
| Sanzig wrote:
| I think one potential solution is to put a small
| financial barrier in the way of access to a public
| record. Say it costs a few bucks to view a record
| (depends on the sensitivity, but maybe $5-10). This won't
| deter people who are doing records searches for
| reasonable purposes (lawyers, journalists, curious
| citizens) since the amount of money to look at a handful
| of records is basically negligible, but for so-called
| "people search" websites having to pay $5 per record
| completely kills the business model.
| mindslight wrote:
| Without a general right to control data about you, this
| just makes things worse. Doing this naively means the
| surveillance companies pay the one time cost of buying
| the records, and then use/copy/propagate them freely. $5
| for everyone in the US is $1.6 billion, which isn't cheap
| but it's also not out of the scope of how surveillance
| companies operate. Also the cost just needs to be paid by
| the industry as a whole rather than each company - data
| brokers would spend $5 on a record, and then turn around
| and sell copies of it for $2 ea to 4 different companies.
| Meanwhile, not being able to see the contents without
| paying keeps the public's own awareness down.
|
| No, the right answer is to give individuals the right to
| control information that is stored about them ala the
| GDPR. Companies should serve us individuals, not vice
| versa. Make it so what the surveillance industry is doing
| is clearly illegal, and force the shady operators to
| retreat to the shadows rather than being respected market
| leaders.
| Sanzig wrote:
| I agree that GDPR-style privacy legislation is the
| ultimate solution, but unfortunately due to the
| international nature of the internet that sort of
| legislation will have difficulties until at least (1) the
| USA passes some sort of GDPR-style federal legislation,
| and possibly (2) GDPR-style privacy protections become
| part of international treaties going forward.
| ghaff wrote:
| That's sort of already the case. $25 or so can give you
| access to a _lot_ more information than you 'll get from
| a casual Google. A lot of this used to be more generally
| available but I think it's mostly behind paywalls at this
| point which I don't think is entirely a bad thing.
|
| But people can reasonably disagree on what should be
| readily available to everyone and what should take some
| more effort/money.
| Sanzig wrote:
| My suggestion is to put the financial barrier at the
| government-industry interface, not at the industry-
| consumer interface. Right now a lot of brokers slurp up
| huge amounts of information from freely-available but
| generally not indexed public government databases (land
| title registries, voter rolls, etc) and collate them.
| They then charge fees to consumers for access.
|
| Requiring anyone who wants a government record to pay a
| small fee to the government for each record would cut
| that business model off at the knees.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| So I am nearly impossible to find. I'm trans and I changed
| both my legal first and last name when I changed my gender
| (and the docket was sealed so there is literally no record
| connecting my current name to my old one). I deleted my
| social media before I transitioned and I only have LinkedIn.
| And my new name is too common to easily find me without a few
| other qualifiers that would require knowing a few things
| about me (like where I work).
|
| Credit reporting is one thing, but my experience is that they
| don't do a great job connecting the dots. I'm still missing
| my student loans on my credit report, despite having not
| missed a payment in the last 8 years.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, if the threat model is not wanting a casual Google
| searcher to look you up and learn things about you, it's
| probably relatively easy for most people to do--so long as
| they don't have a job that basically requires them to have
| their name and face in conference programs, on articles,
| and the like. Or are otherwise in at least a limited public
| eye in real life.
|
| That's obviously a lower bar than preventing a determined
| tracker from learning things about you but it's enough for
| many people who simply don't want to turn up in a random
| Google search.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The situation in the US is much better than it could be.
|
| Yandex has an index of people's faces. You can search pictures
| by face.
|
| And China... you know. It is a surveillance nightmare.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > What if we stopped relentlessly cataloging and indexing
| information about every single person on the planet in a way
| that anyone can search instantaneously?
|
| This would require a cultural shift away from gossip. But
| humans _love_ gossip.
|
| If you can't stop gossip, you can't stop someone from saying
| things they learned about another person, and by extension you
| can't stop it from being automated neither.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It would still be less relentless if common individual
| behavior was to keep personal information private instead of
| posting everything about yourself on social media.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Any child of the Cold War thinks of the "Stasi" as an
| organization dedicated to cataloging every bit of information
| about everyone and using it to harm any detractors of the
| State. Do the same thing and make it publicly available for
| anyone to harm anyone whatsoever, and you have Google.
| titzer wrote:
| It wouldn't have been controversial just one generation in the
| past. For example, prior to the 1990s when this became
| technically feasible, people would have thought this was
| downright creepy and would have clamored to ban the practice
| preemptively.
|
| It snuck up on us, or rather, it was quietly imposed upon us by
| profiteers whose meteoric growth was celebrated by all power
| structures.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I agree with you, but just want to politely add that it
| didn't _really_ sneak up on us, we were warned from the
| beginning, we just ignored it.
|
| It's like in the story about the frog in the pot of hot
| water, if someone keeps telling the frog, "you know, that
| water isn't going to stop getting hotter," and the frog is
| saying "seems fine to me, I think you worry too much."
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The frog just sits around in the pot, but we turn the
| majority of our society into boiling pots; when the frog
| decides it's too warm after all and jumps out, we have
| nowhere to go.
| fakedang wrote:
| On a side note, too bad the frog story is false.
| echelon wrote:
| Many of us who grew up on or before the web think this has
| always been creepy and shudder at each new step we take into
| darkness. Privacy advocates have been screaming into the
| ether since the beginning, and it hasn't done anything to
| stop the erosion of privacy.
|
| A huge percentage of society is willing to accept anything
| Facebook, Google, and Apple throw at them and simply don't
| care about the present and future ramifications. Some think
| about it, others enjoy the convenience or think that there's
| no way it can harm them. Some even drink the cool aid and
| honestly believe surveillance is good for society.
|
| I fully expect to wind up in a future where we're all
| starring in our own versions of the Truman Show. Sensors
| everywhere, constantly streaming our choices and preferences.
| Our health data, associations, and even thoughts and feelings
| used against us.
|
| When everyone is watching everything you do, you're no longer
| free.
| [deleted]
| halfhalycon wrote:
| Agreed. I don't think people realize that privacy
| exploitation for profit is really just a negative externality
| and moves us away further from equilibrium (along with
| environmental negative externalities where corporation x
| pollutes more for short term profits but long term ecological
| degradation)
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > by all power structures
|
| Including one of the largest power structures, "users who
| enjoyed the convenience of finding people."
| drdeca wrote:
| "Eventually, convenience will eat all worldviews." - smbc-
| comics
| glial wrote:
| Voyeurism is a powerful force.
| foobarian wrote:
| Meh, even before 2000 all throughout the 80s and 90s there
| were white pages (that eventually made it to the Internet)
| that listed every telephone user's name and address. Talk
| about creepy! I hated it at the time but AT&T actually
| _charged_ money (like $5 /mo) to keep your name out of the
| directory so I let it slide.
|
| I wonder why white pages fell out of favor. Maybe the global
| access made them a bit too invasive, or people voted with
| their feet. Or switched to mobile phones which did not do
| this.
| ghaff wrote:
| >I wonder why white pages fell out of favor.
|
| People could look up numbers online if they wanted to, so
| there was just no need for a big book any longer. They also
| never had cell numbers so they became less useful in that
| regard. And most people don't just call a person out of the
| blue any longer.
| foobarian wrote:
| I meant more why this kind of directory lost coverage
| overall as cell phones came in. Maybe it was just really
| that unpopular to have the name, address & number be
| public by default.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't know the history of why there was never a
| cellphone directory. There was never a monopoly
| controlling all those numbers for one thing as was
| originally the case with landlines--and regional
| monopolies after the Bell breakup.
|
| I also suspect that by the time cellphones got big, the
| public overall wouldn't have been big on cellphones
| numbers being listed.
| foobarian wrote:
| Around that time frame is also when spamming picked up
| quite a bit, while at the same time early mobile plans
| rarely had unlimited talk time making the spam
| particularly costly.
| ghaff wrote:
| Most people's early mobile plans were very limited, the
| person receiving the call paid for it in the US, and
| costs were even higher for calls that weren't from your
| immediate local area. And, as you say, junk landline
| calls were becoming a bigger deal.
|
| This old article https://slate.com/news-and-
| politics/2001/06/why-isn-t-there-... claims that the
| wireless carriers didn't want to put out a directory
| because consumers would be upset if they had to pay for
| junk calls.
| [deleted]
| pomian wrote:
| It was a useful tool. Still would be. Online searches for
| people are hard now. But note, those were limited
| databases. Phone number and address. No birth dates,
| security numbers, etc. It was a tool, not a weapon.
| foobarian wrote:
| We still have a much different attitude toward that kind
| of data today. If some company leaked all its customers'
| names, addresses and phone numbers it would be considered
| a terrible scandal. In the 80s you would be upset if the
| phone company didn't print out that same data and give it
| to every customer for free.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| The recent tmobile breach?
|
| A database feeds more evil than a printed book could,
| even if scanning/ocr it were feasible.
| ghaff wrote:
| On the other hand, there was a huge outcry at the time
| over Lotus Marketplace
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Marketplace
|
| That sort of information is regularly bought and sold
| today. A breach that's just names, addresses, and phone
| numbers will draw a few headlines, some comments on HN,
| and a bunch of scolding tweets. But I don't imagine
| _most_ people see that as particularly sensitive
| information in most circumstances. (Some exceptions of
| course such as the fact that you 're in a particular
| database is itself sensitive.)
| [deleted]
| dalbasal wrote:
| >> It snuck up on us, or rather, it was quietly imposed upon
| us by profiteers
|
| Into the early 2000s, everyone still knew never to use a real
| name online. Murderers would probably get you or something.
| Don't want randos knowing you you are. Besides, handles were
| cooler. Some well known people had publicly known aliases,
| but aliases were the norm... like on HN.
|
| In my bubble, it was FB that really broke through this. I
| heard about fb as a social network, but with real names. That
| way you could friend people from real life. It was actually
| quite a revelation, like a public address book... very
| useful.
|
| Anyway... Zuck is, IMO, more of an "eye for the tides" guy
| than the tide itself. He realised that " _relentlessly
| cataloging and indexing information about every single person
| on the planet in a way that anyone can search
| instantaneously_ " was happening and he decided to be there
| first.
| OJFord wrote:
| > Into the early 2000s, everyone still knew never to use a
| real name online.
|
| In the mid-2000s I was at school, where we were
| simultaneously being taught (in 'Information and
| Communication Technology' lessons) never to use a real name
| online [0], and signing up to Bebo & MySpace with our real
| names.
|
| It's (there beginning to exist people) growing up with the
| internet that all but killed that, I'm sure of it.
|
| [0] with some limited web ring/social network type site for
| schools, for which we given aliases and then, I don't know,
| wrote BBcode and marquees and stuff about our school-safe
| interests and hobbies
| irrational wrote:
| I've never used my real name online. I still remember my
| shock when google said you had to use your real name for
| Google plus (or was it google wave? I can't remember
| anymore.) I noped right out of there.
| ghaff wrote:
| Anonymity was mixed.
|
| Definitely pretty much everyone was anonymous on warez
| boards and the like. On the other hand, a lot of local BBSs
| actually had something of a local community in real life as
| well. And the people accessing Usenet from corporate and
| academic accounts often used their name and affiliation.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Bezos has said repeatedly that nobody is the tide itself.
| You capture opportunity not by swimming to the tide but by
| getting in place before it comes.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| The real question is how do we know what tides are coming
| in the future so we can position ourselves to be ready.
| Thats where the luck comes into play in my opinion.
| sorry_outta_gas wrote:
| Yeah both FB and Google killed the pseudonym, migrating the
| internet from a cool new place to a cesspool
| floatingatoll wrote:
| We had X-No-Archive: YES throughout the 90s, which thankfully
| DejaNews honored (up until Google purchased them in 2001,
| anyways). Search engines are destroying the social fabric of
| humanity, making it possible for haters to hate with perfect
| precision. We've been on the wrong course ('index everything!
| archive everything!') for thirty years now, and we've earned
| today's toxic and deadly Internet that resulted from it. Oh
| well.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| > ...haters to hate with perfect precision.
|
| Except... not. All too often, we see stuff people did or
| wrote years ago being used against them. Those things may
| not reflect the person they are today, and that's even
| worse than "hat[ing] with perfect precision."
| floatingatoll wrote:
| That's certainly one view, but it's not my view. If
| people don't feel safe participating today on some topic
| that haters have google alerts set up for, then those
| future archives will be heavily biased in favor of
| content that's acceptable to the haters of that time.
| Sounds like a great way to ensure the spread of hate
| across social generations to me.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Searches will always have the problem of the lack of
| context. A song or a literary work can mean totally
| different things if we lack the context or understand the
| years when they were written.
|
| The second and more serious problem is people thinking
| that algorithms are so smart that are infallible. This,
| when a much more sophisticated human brain would have a
| serious trouble trying to navigate the long lists of
| random dictionary words that we enter in a browser.
|
| Netizens in general don't understand, or don't care, and
| just simplify and fill the gaps until they have a
| caricature that can fit in some "well known stereotype"
| slot. The result is that our societies are being more and
| more fractured, radicalized and isolated into different
| groups.
| lstamour wrote:
| In defence of search engines, when content disappears from
| the web, it disappears from the search index within months.
| And robots.txt has been a thing since forever.
|
| But I agree with the overall point, that archiving is
| distinct from indexing, and we need better mechanisms than
| copyright to take down content given many services terms
| allow content to be kept forever and/or make it hard to
| delete content uploaded by others. This might come down to
| free speech vs privacy, though.
| Sanzig wrote:
| > And robots.txt has been a thing since forever.
|
| Unfortunately, both archive.org and the affiliated
| Archive Team now intentionally ignore robots.txt files.
|
| Archive Team, in particular, wrote a very irritating and
| condescending screed called "ROBOTS.TXT IS A SUICIDE
| NOTE" [1]. Apparently, they don't understand that not
| everyone wants their stuff backed up forever and they
| treat anyone who disagrees with them as a moron. And that
| manifesto wasn't written by some random team member, it
| was from Jason Scott himself.
|
| I know that Archive Team isn't officially part of IA, but
| they are tightly integrated with their archiving
| operations. It's a bad look.
|
| [1]
| http://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Robots.txt
| floatingatoll wrote:
| If I ever again post a website, I'm going to post it with
| basic auth, so that search engines won't index it to
| begin with. Exposure doesn't pay the bills, after all.
| clairity wrote:
| > "...the wrong course ('index everything! archive
| everything!') for thirty years now..."
|
| that's overly broad. although i particularly dislike
| dichotomies, we can draw a simple one here for illustrative
| purposes: there's public and private information, and omni-
| indexing/-archiving is the "wrong course" only for private
| information, with private information encompassing more
| than just sensitive data, including any personal
| information a person chooses not to divulge publicly.
|
| humanity has absolutely advanced from indexing all public
| information, even considering the exponential rise of
| disinformation and idle bullshit. instantaneous knowledge
| coalition and mass multiway communication are the two
| astonishing advances stemming from the internet. and now
| we're dealing with the inevitable but unintended negative
| consequences of these amazing advances.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| Your chosen dichotomy is both common and insufficient,
| and I am with you in disliking it. The dichotomy I'm
| considering is threefold instead: Worldwide, Community,
| and Secret.
|
| This is what the classical public/private dichotomy is
| missing: the social information strata of "local
| community only" information that gets lost when we
| convert everything to the Internet. Without a Community
| context, there is no safe place from haters. Searching a
| Community's content should not be possible from a
| Worldwide context.
|
| My comments on HN are Community, not Worldwide, but
| modern search indexing has no grasp of the difference
| between those two, and lumps them both together as
| Worldwide -- what your dichotomy calls "Public". Yes,
| some people will intentionally write content for
| Worldwide consumption, but the vast majority of my
| written words are intended for Community consumption
| only. We see this every day, when some unwitting soul on
| Twitter gets their off-the-cuff Community-context tweet
| selected as Trending and the entirety of Worldwide
| descends upon them. Even celebrities, people who
| specialize their career in producing Worldwide content,
| have started to realize that they, too, need Community-
| context spaces to live and breathe in, and that online
| social media is _not_ a safe Community space for them.
|
| What _is_ an example of a healthy Community space, on
| today 's Internet, that protects against the content
| discovery efforts of Worldwide haters, while still
| allowing new participants to join the space? (Certainly
| it's not HN, which is trying and failing to be a
| Community space operating in Worldwide context.)
|
| ps. I forgot Secrets!
|
| Secrets are mine to divulge in the Worldwide context, and
| no one else's. My biometrics, my medical records, my
| fetishes would all be good examples of what we would
| expect to be kept Secret. I understand and accept that
| some Secrets will be upgraded to Community context in the
| matter of course of human sociology, and I don't expect
| idle gossip to end. But I have every right to expect that
| my Secrets will not be divulged to the world, even if
| they're known to my Community. Unfortunately, due to
| search engines deciding that all Public content is
| therefore Worldwide, all Secrets that are shared within
| any private Community will end up indexed for all the
| haters to find. That's a very lonely way to live, not
| being able to be vulnerable within a Community. No wonder
| people use Facebook; it offers a well-known Community
| context (private groups) that's not searchable from a
| Worldwide context.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| small counter: that's not what google does. How many times has
| anyone clicked on the "next page" when it comes to search
| results? Which is another problem Google refuses to fix: if
| you're not in the top 10, you're not on the internet as far as
| the rest of the internet can tell.
| jollybean wrote:
| My original take on Google when it another search engines were
| starting is that it should be illegal for them to scrape
| businesses without 1) explicit permission and licensing, and
| that 2) doing so across borders should be governed by treaty.
|
| 1 would be easily taken care of because businesses want their
| stuff indexed, but 2 would be quite something i.e. the ascent
| of privacy laws.
|
| I'd also like to see this 'tool' made available to anyone. I'm
| not sure if random photos of people are 'in the public
| interest', or beyond that if we really get some kind of
| transcendent value out of all that 'data'. My bet is that most
| of the power we get from 'sharing' has to do with explicit
| knowledge i.e. news, research, data APIs etc.
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's only instantly searchable if it's public. The only place
| you can't control this is when family members or friends take
| pictures and insist on uploading them to Facebook as public
| pictures, when the implication of not taking a picture/imposing
| stipulations are negative.
| [deleted]
| etskinner wrote:
| Looking at the other side of the spectrum, do you think we
| should still have information available online about prominent
| people? Politicians, historical figures, etc.?
|
| If so, where do you draw the line between people whose
| information is useful to the public and people who shouldn't be
| cataloged?
| Hizonner wrote:
| If somebody is seeking a position of power and/or trust from
| the public, then the public should get the same information
| about that person that we'd allow an employer to ask for
| about a prospective employee. So their qualifications for the
| job, how they intend to do the job, how they've done in
| _similar_ jobs before, and how they 've handled _similar_
| types of trust in the past.
|
| Otherwise, frankly, fuck the public.
| _moof wrote:
| Indeed, that's a very difficult line to draw. In the US we
| have the concept of a public figure, and I'll admit I have no
| idea how that's actually defined. That being said I've also
| wondered if it's too blunt a concept. Are public figures
| entitled to _any_ privacy, and if so, where is _that_ line? I
| see celebrities being hounded by paparazzi while trying to go
| about their daily lives, for example, and while I understand
| the principles behind why that 's legal, I have to imagine
| it's a real drag.
| zabatuvajdka wrote:
| .
| ghaff wrote:
| See New York Times v. Sullivan (US SCOTUS)
|
| I haven't checked the exact wording of this definition but,
| as a summary, "The Supreme Court has defined public figures
| as those who hold government office and those who have
| achieved a role of special prominence in the affairs of
| society by reason of notoriety of their achievements or
| vigor and success with which they seek public's attention.
| "
| germanier wrote:
| In Germany we draw the line on what type of information the
| person in question makes public by their own choice. Do you
| invite tabloids for a home story and let them take
| pictures? Then other pictures of your home can be
| published. If you on the other hand never talk about your
| home and family publicly let alone invite media in, that
| can remain private. In addition, if the information is
| relevant to a larger topic (e.g. a corruption scandal
| involving a politician's home) then you can show anything
| relevant to that.
| mc32 wrote:
| I used to think it was very weird for job applicants in Germany
| to have to attach a passport-like photo of themselves to their
| CVs/Resumes... And then! People gladly populate their linked-in
| and other social media not only with their likenesses but
| voluntarily offer their opinions attached to such images and
| real life personae!
|
| So...
| leetcrew wrote:
| I don't actually think having hits for your name through google
| is the most pressing privacy issue we face today. if I can find
| you by searching your name, one of two things is likely true:
| 1) you have opted in to indexing by having a public facebook,
| linkedin, etc., or 2) your name has appeared in a news article.
| the solution to 1) is pretty simple; don't have public profiles
| with your real name if you don't want to be indexed. 2) is a
| more subtle issue, but is more of an issue with news articles
| than google.
| sillystuff wrote:
| 3) Your employer, school, social club, etc. has included you
| in their organization's public directory, and does not offer
| the option to opt out, nor do they protect the directory in
| any way from being indexed / scraped.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I think that can be addressed as a more general case of 2).
| I'm not necessarily saying it's okay that you end up in
| google's results because your name appeared in some random
| news article or because your alma mater has a public,
| scrapeable directory. I'm saying that the responsibility
| lies with the entity that originally makes the info public,
| even if that doesn't leave us with a single entity that's
| easy to pressure.
|
| google ought to respond to reasonable requests to delist,
| but I don't think it's reasonable for it to _guarantee_
| that certain types of information never get indexed.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| I'm not buying it. The problem is something being public
| _and_ easily searchable. One of these things came before
| the other. It 's totally Google's responsibility and a
| problem with Google (or, more generally, information
| aggregators), not these things that existed for literally
| hundreds of years before companies like Google came
| along.
| macksd wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's the most pressing privacy issue, but we
| can collectively focus on more than just a single priority.
| For instance, I wouldn't call someone's medical career
| useless just because they weren't working on reducing heart
| disease.
|
| For a long time the first Google result for me was someone
| from my school posting about work I did. I didn't find their
| comments particularly complimentary. I wasn't wild about the
| idea that someone at a prospective employer would probably
| Google me and see that. I didn't like the idea of harassing
| the site owner into taking it down, but I will say a big
| motivator for me in open-source has been flooding the
| Internet with better reflections of myself to drown out stuff
| like that. Stuff ends up on the Internet without people's
| knowledge or express consent all the time. When I joined
| LinkedIn they already knew a bunch of people I could be
| connected to. I never gave them that info about my
| relationships. Other people did! First thing I got was a
| suggestion to connect with my ex-girlfriend. I hardly think
| I'm an anomaly with stuff like this.
|
| edit: As another datapoint, I have a coworker who is
| fanatical about privacy. Will refuse to stand in group
| photos. Will ask you to delete photos they may appear in if
| they see you taking one. Gives random names on restaurant
| orders. No LinkedIn, no social media. I Googled their name:
| tons of accurate photos, an accurate phone number, school
| history, etc.
| ehsankia wrote:
| This is missing the point though. Let's focus on #1 from
| above; most people who post things online probably want
| Google to index them and even do SEO tricks to get there. I
| post stuff about myself on my website because I want people
| to see it.
|
| The issue comes when I put stuff on my website about
| someone else, as in your example. I want my content to be
| on Google, but you want my content off of Google. At that
| point, there's a conflict and it's not clear to me who
| should be resolving it and what position Google should
| take.
|
| The options are:
|
| 1. No one gets to be indexed, which will hurt the millions
| who want people to discover their content
|
| 2. Google has to manually decide in every single instance
| like the one you mention in your post, that seems
| unrealistic
|
| 3. The status quo, which is that Google indexes what's
| posted publicly.
| macksd wrote:
| Or a 4th option: if, as you say, most people are doing
| SEO tricks to get there, why not just only index stuff
| that has indexing-specific metadata associated with it. I
| don't see why this needs to be so different from an opt-
| in version of robots.txt. IMO this only becomes unclear
| when you're collecting user content en masse from non-
| technical users, say in a case like Facebook, etc. And
| IMO Facebook just shouldn't be passing on user-content
| from individual consumers to be indexed, especially if
| they encourage you to upload data that references other
| people.
| ehsankia wrote:
| That doesn't solve the majority of issues brought up
| here. Just like it wouldn't solve all the things you
| mentioned about your colleague posting things you aren't
| happy about.
| c22 wrote:
| Or 3) you've ever used a phone, paid a bill, or given your
| contact information to any business, in which case there will
| also be several "teaser" results likely containing your name,
| age, birthdate, current and previous addresses, and phone
| number hosted by third party services who will happily
| include more information for $20 or 30 bucks.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| The solution to both is actually to have such a common name
| that you get lost in the noise. If your first + last gives
| seven digits of google search results, you have to put in
| some serious SEO work to appear on even the first ten pages,
| rendering this vector private by default.
| toast0 wrote:
| Personally, someone with my name won a Pullitzer, so I'm
| never going to be on the top page.
|
| Even name + (previous) employers barely finds me, because
| it's all about using those employers' services in relation
| to the books. Name + location is about book signings.
|
| The only downside is when my namesake was interviewed on
| the radio and a) I kind of freaked out a bit when they said
| Terry Gross was going to talk to me later in the day, and I
| was totally unprepared, b) it was really weird listening to
| her introduce me incorrectly, I didn't grow up where she
| said or anything. Also, people send me pictures of 'my'
| books when they see them, which is a lot.
|
| I love the relative anonyminity though.
| surfpel wrote:
| > you have opted in to indexing
|
| Most people outside tech won't know that they're opting into
| this or what the consequences could be. Children especially
| can't be expected to understand that giving away all that
| personal data could have serious consequences in their
| future.
| leetcrew wrote:
| maybe true ten years ago, but I really feel that you would
| have been living under a rock to not understand that at
| this point.
|
| take linkedin for example. what could possibly be the point
| of making a linkedin account other than to have people you
| don't/barely know message you about jobs, or vice versa? or
| look at how people use instagram. the whole point of using
| the platform seems (to me) to be to accumulate as many
| follows as possible.
|
| I do think there's at least an argument to be made about
| reasonable defaults. unless it's overwhelmingly clear that
| a person would want their profile to be public, it should
| be private by default. perhaps private should be the only
| option for minors.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Or you own a house. Property records are public. If you
| search my name you can find my home address because of this.
|
| Some search engines also index WHOIS data. So if you don't
| use privacy options then you may be searchable via that too.
| babuskov wrote:
| > Some search engines also index WHOIS data. So if you
| don't use privacy options then you may be searchable via
| that too.
|
| Most registrars have started to hide the real info because
| of GDPR. I live outside of EU, but my registrar stopped
| showing my name and address in WHOIS queries without having
| to opt into their privacy options.
| Retric wrote:
| There are many ways your photo can be made public that have
| nothing to do with either of those. For example a company you
| worked for might publish a photo of you without asking you
| etc.
|
| What's more interesting is how inaccurate a lot of this data
| is. Spokeo for example seems to think I am related to someone
| because they share a last name and we lived in the same
| apartment building at some point. Google's approach of simply
| collecting third party information simply isn't reliable.
| ehsankia wrote:
| So should Google be the moderator of the entire WWW and
| resolve every single dispute on any websites posting
| information about someone who doesn't want their
| information there? Or should no one ever have their website
| searchable because a small handful of websites post content
| which 100% of the people in the content don't agree with?
| And what if I post about someone who assaulted me, and the
| criminal wants my content off my website? These are not
| easy problems and "let's throw it all out" doesn't seem
| like a solution.
| Retric wrote:
| Publishing accurate information is already difficult and
| their trying to automated it. Having Google post your
| information is concerning, having them potentially
| confuse the victim with the perpetrators is a whole other
| issue.
|
| Which isn't a problem for Google because their standards
| seem to be good enough to target advertising, but it is a
| problem for everyone else.
| ProAm wrote:
| A better way to phrase that question is: Do you like the
| ability to print money while others feed the money machine for
| you?
|
| This will never go away without regulatory intervention. Too
| much money in it, too much control, and control leads to power.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| You're already arguing that it is desirable to stop this
| indexation : it's far from obvious, and the question from OP
| is precisely whether we should try to make it go away or not,
| not whether it's possible.
| ProAm wrote:
| It's not possible.
| ciguy wrote:
| While Google does this publicly, there are tons of private
| indexes doing the same thing for marketing, intelligence and
| other purposes. As long as people keep posting things online
| someone will be collecting that info and trying to make money
| off of it.
| lettergram wrote:
| I have done everything in my power to keep my kids off the
| internet. I tell family members not to take photos, I don't
| send them through email, I won't take photos with phones that
| are cloud connected, etc etc.
|
| The reality is, I walk in and still see a grandma who doesn't
| respect the wishes of my wife and I and are adding filters to
| my kids faces. Now Instagram has their photos. No consent
| given. I don't think she posted, but clearly her phone gave
| Instagram access.
|
| Imo we need laws forbidding image indexing or collection of
| images. We also need some serious protections around data. The
| reality is Google, Microsoft, Apple, Chinese communist party,
| zoom, etc all have too much data and own everyone. Literally, I
| can't imagine the government taking any action at all because
| of their influence.
|
| So I think we are done, frankly.
| extropy wrote:
| Another angle: there is a huge non-public industry of
| cataloging all the public and not so public information.
| Available to whoever is ready to pay.
|
| Public indexes is just the surface of the iceberg. And
| regulating them down would just be more profit for the pay-to-
| play.
| fzzzy wrote:
| We could do this by shifting the bulk of online communication
| to private/ephemeral spaces. The stuff that wants to be
| cataloged and searched would just be whatever is left in
| public. I am pro.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| What does it mean specifically if we "stopped relentlessly
| cataloging and indexing information about every single person
| on the planet in a way that anyone can search instantaneously",
| making it illegal to catalogue all of this information?
| Imposing a tax? Requiring permission of those involved?
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > In the coming weeks, we'll introduce a new policy that enables
| anyone under the age of 18, or their parent or guardian, to
| request the removal of their images from Google Image results.
|
| OK, how? This blog post has a lot of posturing about how Google
| is doing this-and-that, but I see no actual instructions or links
| to how to do this removal process. Where is the actual process
| for how to request removal?
| mmmBacon wrote:
| Why should this be limited to under 18?
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| My thoughts too. I don't want to show up in googles indexes for
| literally everything I do.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Because Google estimates that the profit impact of pretending
| to care about The Children is positive, whereas the profit
| impact of actually caring about anybody would be negative.
| donohoe wrote:
| Damn. That's harsh...
|
| But I can't argue against your logic.
| dleslie wrote:
| Almost certainly for some form of legal compliance. It looks
| like Google is doing the bare minimum.
| g_p wrote:
| GDPR in Europe makes a number of provisions for under-18s,
| including data removal I believe. This is likely an attempt
| to get ahead of enforcement of those rules by privacy groups.
| [deleted]
| giantg2 wrote:
| "We're committed to building products that are secure by default,
| private by design, and that put people in control."
|
| So why is tool just for under 18s?
| nend wrote:
| The fact this tool even exists is damning to google. "We
| automatically index and show people pictures of minors. Now
| we've fixed this by allowing minors to tell us!"
|
| Pick one:
|
| Private by design
|
| Make it easier for strangers to track you with out you knowing
| 8note wrote:
| Im not sure it's damning to google as much as to the rest of
| the internet.
|
| It's indexed by Google; somebody else hosted it publicly
| true_religion wrote:
| Why is it damning? It's not obvious to me, apologies.
| skytreader wrote:
| I'm not the guy you're asking but what jumped out to me is
| that this change creates a database of images of minors and
| the damning/ironic part is that _these are images of people
| who don 't want to be easily searchable to begin with_.
| Imagine the damage if this somehow leaks.
|
| If my wording above sounds convoluted then let me
| paraphrase: a blacklist is a database too. Google's
| blacklist will contain assured images of minors because the
| minors/guardians reported them as such.
|
| Sure it can be hashed/MLed/Bloomfiltered instead of a
| tabular listing but someone with enough patience and
| resources can probably make something out of it. (To be
| honest I don't want to peddle FUD and I'm speaking out of
| my depth here so I'd be glad to hear an assessment from
| someone with qualified experience in this area.)
|
| This would be greatly alleviated if everyone was allowed to
| remove their images in search. I can't help but think it
| would help https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28216733 .
| sealeck wrote:
| To privacy or not to privacy is not the question; the
| question is privacy _for whom_.
| handrous wrote:
| Broad swaths of behavior by the spying tech giants just needs
| to be outlawed. Discussions about how to mitigate the harm
| aren't going to fix much. The harmful behavior should be
| outright banned. "Google and Facebook just _have to_ creepily
| spy on people, force some workers to look at horrible images,
| et c., to operate ". OK, cool--sounds like they _shouldn 't
| operate_, then, if that's true.
| [deleted]
| jacobsievers wrote:
| I think I might be missing something. I don't see any mention
| in the post regarding a tool being "introduced."
| jjulius wrote:
| Click link, ctrl+f "introduce"
|
| >In the coming weeks, we'll introduce a new policy that
| enables anyone under the age of 18, or their parent or
| guardian, to request the removal of their images from Google
| Image results.
| summerlight wrote:
| Because many criminals, businessmen and politicians will find
| this tool very useful for them?
| skytreader wrote:
| But it just removes photos _from image search_ ; AFAICT text
| search results are unaltered. Perhaps I would no longer see
| Boris Johnson failing to comb his hair in Google Images but I
| can still read articles about it and they will still have
| accompanying photos.
| noway421 wrote:
| Politicians can already use it with the right-to-be-
| forgotten-style national policies
| sirmoveon wrote:
| It wouldn't be a web search but a web index by then.
| pomian wrote:
| I think I have an answer. All photos of under 18's left in the
| database, will be used by Apple(and others), for their hashes.
| jagan120 wrote:
| Exactly, why only for under 18s? This should be available for
| everybody.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I am playing devils advocate here, but if you are the solider
| in Abu Gharaib torture photos, I am not sure you should have
| a right to purge the internet search of those photos.
|
| So there had to be a middle ground between freedom to find
| information and an individual's privacy. Do you want Google
| drawing that line?
| skytreader wrote:
| But it's just an internet search of photos isn't it? You'll
| still get links to news articles and write-ups and anyone
| reading about Abu Gharaib tortures will still see these
| _and the accompanying photos_. A prospective employer
| googles your name, it could still come up, just not the
| photos.
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| They have already drawn that line, or at least the EU right
| to be forgotten has. All sorts of results are missing when
| searching from an EU member state (or the UK). I'm not sure
| I agree with it, but we seem we'll past the line already...
| oaiey wrote:
| That is a difference in the European understanding of
| punishment and especially redemption. After your
| punishment was served, what redemption is possible when
| your acts cannot be forgotten?
|
| The dignity of the human being is untouchable (paragraph
| 1 of the German constitution). What dignity can you
| expect when a nude picture of you exist online. Or of a
| stupid speech you gave. Or of your childhood carneval
| costume as a Nazi. Or when mug shot of DUI incident is
| online. Or when your stupid, disgusting, humiliating
| behavior as a soldier in Iraq is documented everywhere
| after you served for your war crime. When you have the
| concept of redemption in your society, than it needs to
| be feasible to be redeemed.
|
| Yes I understand that there are extreme examples but it
| falls in the same category if you consider the dignity of
| the human being as the most precious thing.
|
| So a consequence, the right to be forgotten exists.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| If you are the soldier in Abu Ghraib torture photos, you
| should be judged by the court of law, not bullied by
| neighbours and online mob who make mistakes too often.
|
| > Do you want Google drawing that line?
|
| Yes, this is the correct question.
| SerLava wrote:
| Yeah this is probably why. If this was accessible to you
| and me, it would be accessible to every ghoul in the public
| eye. Kids are the only group that can unambiguously be
| granted unconditional total privacy.
| samvega_ wrote:
| Probably because of GDPR, and similar laws coming into place.
| You cannot actually automatically hold people under 18 to
| whatever terms they've consented to on Facebook etc. like you
| an for adults. You'd actually be required to get their parents
| consent, which obviously they don't.
| villgax wrote:
| Wow, way to go Google! Shift the onus to the people who have not
| authorised you in the first place.
| perihelions wrote:
| All EU residents have this ability due to the GDPR. Here's what
| the request form looks like:
|
| https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-reques...
| dheera wrote:
| This is neat, maybe if I need data to be removed I can just
| take a vacation to Europe and fill out the form from there,
| that makes me protected under EU law for the duration of my
| stay.
| dleslie wrote:
| It's a shame that this is only for minors.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| When you were a kid you had to fake that you are above 18 to get
| access to something you want, now you have to fake that you are
| under 18 to get access to something you want...
| darwingr wrote:
| This is my favourite take on this, honestly.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Good. Their search engine.
| not2b wrote:
| One difficulty with this is the number of teens with social media
| accounts that have a false age. Most of our friends' kids and
| many of my nieces and nephews fall into that category, some
| because they got an account before age 13 and lied, or were older
| than that and lied to have access to some forums, or just because
| they just wanted to pretend to be older (my own daughter is an
| introvert with good sense and isn't on social media). I suspect
| that Google and Facebook are well aware of this internally.
| [deleted]
| poopypoopington wrote:
| Would love this, am over 18
| clircle wrote:
| > we will block ad targeting based on the age, gender, or
| interests of people under 18
|
| Sounds like I should adjust the age on my Google profile.
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| This is a right move by Google.
|
| - Even for adults, ad targeting based on gender or age (or
| race) seems... wrong?
|
| - Would like them to come out and assume all personalization
| and recommendation systems they have also waive this for
| children. E.g.: YouTube recommendations are based solely on
| similar videos versus profile, location, viewing habits,
| whatever other magic they probably do.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| > Even for adults, ad targeting based on gender or age (or
| race) seems... wrong?
|
| Wrong how?
|
| I don't mind ads target based on my gender (e.g. male suits,
| not cocktail dresses), age (no teenager sneakers), race
| (probably not interested in Diwali party).
|
| But practically it doesn't matter anyway. The neural network
| will learn my gender, age and race based on my previous
| behavior. It will be encoded in trained data, but not
| explicitly visible. And because of that modern ads developers
| don't actually need sex, age and race parameters, it won't
| make targeting better.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Depends on how much data they have on each person but
| typically adding variables that can be mostly inferred
| still usually improve model behavior by a little bit
| overall.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Honestly disabling all ad targeting has been the best thing
| I've done.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| Is your browsing experience better now? Or you think it
| makes world a better place?
|
| I like certain ads. For example, I often click of property
| ads just to learn what they are building in the city I
| live, what is the price range etc. Because one day I'm
| going to buy.
|
| Of course I'd prefer no ads, but better this than random
| junk IMO.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I would argue my browsing experience is better ~ I do
| enjoy seeing the random junk because that also doesn't
| make my brain think about "hmm maybe I would like to buy
| that". Even if I actively avoid thinking about an ad I
| saw, it still impacts my psyche.
| toast0 wrote:
| Google has been prompting me for the past several months to add
| my birthday. Leaving it in doubt seems to be the best way
| forward.
| smt88 wrote:
| Unfortunately the price you might pay for this is getting
| locked out of your account. It happened to my brother. One
| verification step was supposed to be birthday.
| rand0mx1 wrote:
| Then many youtube videos will be inaccessible.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Dummy account for YouTube access (or rather, YouTube-dl
| scraping).
| teddyh wrote:
| youtube-dl can't download age-restricted videos from
| YouTube anymore.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27359561
| FeistySkink wrote:
| You still need to be able to see them in the first place.
| That is prove your age to Google.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Hence the dummy account to segregate your day to day
| Google activities from your YouTube retrieval activities
| with a cookie piped into ytdl.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Take a youtube url and put 9xbud.com/ in front of it.
| Works like a charm for me.
|
| e.g. https://9xbud.com/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2
| eXs4pCs3... (A video of guys smoking weed)
|
| This actually works for most sites with embedded videos.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| No, it does not: $ youtube-dl -f18 https:
| //9xbud.com/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k
| [generic] watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k: Requesting header
| [redirect] Following redirect to https://9xbuddy.com/proc
| ess?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k
| [generic] watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k: Requesting header
| WARNING: Could not send HEAD request to https://9xbuddy.c
| om/process?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3
| k: HTTP Error 404: Not Found [generic]
| watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k: Downloading webpage WARNING:
| Falling back on generic information extractor.
| [generic] watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k: Extracting information
| ERROR: Unsupported URL: https://9xbuddy.com/process?url=h
| ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2eXs4pCs3k
| [deleted]
| ModernMech wrote:
| Don't use youtube-dl. Just go to that url in your browser
| and download from there. I'm sure a script to leverage
| this wouldn't be too hard to write.
| sam_goody wrote:
| Actually, Google collects MUCH more data (I know that doesn't
| sound possible) from children under 18.
|
| Open the Family filter and look at what they colect. It is
| like, everywhere you go, every page you open, every image you
| look at etc. - Becuase, you know, "think of the kids".
|
| And yes, they may be collecting too much about every one, but
| this is just another level. And then, for the tiny fraction of
| kids that opt oout, they have a HUGE data point about them that
| can be combined with future actions to later build an even more
| powerful profile.
| stephenhuey wrote:
| Considering how many parents I know who post public photos of
| their children on social media, it'd be great for other services
| to provide such tools as well.
| Cipater wrote:
| There is barely any popular sentiment behind keeping any age
| group's images off the internet. Quite the opposite actually,
| people want their images online and they'll gladly and
| enthusiastically hand them over if you give them a platform to do
| it.
|
| The journey we're on with our lax attitudes towards privacy will
| finally be complete when Big Tech truly sinks its teeth into
| health/biology.
|
| We will give them real time access to data on our bodies, our
| health and our diets and mint the first trillionaires in the
| process.
|
| Interesting times are coming.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > There is barely any popular sentiment behind keeping any age
| group's images off the internet
|
| Depends on the group. People victimized by LEO's lustly
| pleasure for posting mugshots - they'd be interested.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| I'm not sure it's just lustly pleasure. It might be in the
| public best interest to know who are these people committing
| crime. E.g. are they skinheads or hipsters?
|
| In the UK (AFAIK) law enforcement (and probably even
| newspapers) are not allowed to share photos (or any personal
| details) until people are prosecuted.
|
| And after people are prosecuted, I wouldn't call prosecuted
| people "victimized".
|
| Don't know how it works in the US though.
| ajay-b wrote:
| How about over-18 too?
| Minor49er wrote:
| What, no concern for those who are exactly 18? :P
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm curious how they enforce rules here. It has to be pretty
| messy trying to only remove images of people from when they
| were < 18.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Especially over-18 that gradce pictures online from when they
| were under 18.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Why only under 18s?
|
| Everyone should have a right to remove data from search. Most
| data Google indexed without consent.
| distancelight wrote:
| Over 18 are also children, just trapped in older bodies.
| https://imgflip.com/i/5k4b3w
| flowerlad wrote:
| This is an improvement over their previous stance, which was that
| young people should change their name upon reaching adulthood
| [1]. This doesn't go far enough though, because just removing
| photos isn't enough.
|
| [1]
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-19 23:02 UTC)