Posts by Daggerchild 827 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2013
You would have a point if what you were describing was anything like what actually happened.
It's pretty clear that you have already made up your mind and exonerated the cop before this ever has a chance to go to court.
And us 'Eurotrash' *all* seem to be able to run our countries without turning them into thug-bordered police states with gargantuan and undeniably effective crime-school systems (I think you call them penetentiaries), because maybe we passed *through* your current stage of civilisation a looooooooong time ago. Maybe we even wrote books about it!
Google have to redact now because they are now a Data Controller of stuff in search results, and thus it is the law to do so.
I'm sure Data Controllers also have the duty to ensure personal information they hold is *accurate*.. so.. are they now ordered to clean up who the web thinks you are? It's only the redaction that must occur at *your* prompting.
Are they now obligated to collect more data about you to ensure they *are* accurate now?
Will the EU assist them in this obeying of the law? The EU already have your data, and obviously think Google is worthy of Data Controller status.. *maniacal cackling*
Because typically the only dynamic part is which part of a linear data progression you select, as the answer will in nearly all cases be constant, it being a historical record.
So you'll need some form of nearby storage of a linear constant string of data, probably chopped into manageable chunks, of which only the latest portion is typically hot.
Yes you *could* put it into multiple databases, frontended by multiple application servers.. but there is another hierarchical system with mass low latency access to large datasets and automatic in-memory caching of hot data..
Cloud will make all your problems go away, trust the cloud, no nasty techies who will tell you not to do things. Databases made of candy, worldwide loadbalancing with every bite!
Don't listen to your internal techies. Throw them away! Let go of your clue. Release yourself from responsibility and self-reliance. Open yourself to the freedom of total dependency. If anything ever goes wrong, you can blame us for everything, rant at us, pick up the phone and scream at us, it's all goooood. Come to ussss... come.....
*starts humming Hotel California*
So is this good ejecting bad (meaning sanity may now prevail), bad ejecting good (Execute Order 66), or just random noise messing with us (I like turtles).
WSJ: "Those delays have resulted from internal arguments" - Dangit, where's a mole when you need one. If there's a big internal powergrab going on, we're missing it.
Should put some political/economic students on this to observe this stuff. What's going on here is raw political techtonics. For the first time in ages new territory, with significant power, is breaching the surface and The Powers are all jostling to a) grok b) control this new thing.
I mean, at the bottom of all of this, it's just someone's website, containing their opinions of stuff (in the context in which this particular squabble is taking place). And world governments are fighting over that. That's pretty f**king nuts :) Would our past selves have believed this if we'd told them? :)
Looking at the moves on the board as this one plays out will tell us a lot about how many players there are and what their basic strategies are when moving into unconquered terrain. This will be of use to anyone in future who wishes to be the next Google, or wants to avoid being the next Google.
Hurm. Getting weighted digraph descriptions rejected from routing discussions now. Barely enough text to describe a triangle, never mind break a house rule. Not expected.
Re-iteration of hope for mod-rejection-category or mod-feedback or mod-sanity-check or just a feedback channel that isn't open?
Kip-tin! I bee-weave the inimmy wezzoo is twyink to... twoll us...? Should I infom Mister Scott?
Analysis, Spock?
Captain, it appears to be using a primitive form of psycho-analysis. I recommend we study it further. It may be trying to communicate. I should remind you that the Prime Directive.. oh never mind..
Bah, even with the new pills, what's the point of reformation? There is no redemption. No expiry. No appeal. If you get premod-flagged, you burn the toon and re-roll, because *duh*.
Anyone soldiering on is either too dense to notice or some kind of naive hairshirted rule-abiding do-gooder!! *cough*
Maybe they can be flagged for a redemptive review after 6 months of rejectionless activity? That way there's a point in not playing whackamole re-roll with the mods. If you're good, you can still get the little medals! :)
At the mo I'm growing a linked list of rejections, rejected for mentioning my previous rejection was rejected, rooted in a rejection rejected for quoting someone in context, passing pre-moderation, until re-moderation for casting someone in a negative light :) This will be my latest entry. It's all about the Meta! :)
Is there a way to premoderate me *only* when replying to emotionally negatively-charged Andrew Orlowski articles? :) Can't comment on US journo articles atm without them growing mould first.
Oh, and can we get a Burning Man icon, for willingly standing in the way of a horde of flamers? Owchy, if necessary at times (non-troll variant).
Having moderation rejection reasons might be a balm - unexpected post-facto quiet rejections are paranoia-inducing.
Still not sure why/when I got the eternal mark of Doooooooooooooom, but hey, as long as someone isn't using it for retaliation, I'm cool, if timeshifted :)
And there you have it children. Proof that you *can* grow up and become famous movie makers, because *you* can *already* write better scripts than the crap they're trying to feed you.
Is it my imagination or are comic and cartoon makers making stuff that's more intelligent than Hollywood these days? e.g. http://youtu.be/Xy_Po12VyZw
They'd make a mint if they just manfactured British managers who *didn't* either ignore, disbelieve, sell out, or otherwise completely mismanage existing British R&D resources. Just adding more fuel to the fire may just make bigger craters.
Maybe they could set up a Kite-Mark safety standard for Management Technical Sanity.
"It's generally assumed that it would mean a disaster for the planet if the rainforests of the Amazon were to be replaced with farmland"
Well, yes, it would be - you'd lose a significant percentage of the remaining biodiversity on the planet. Isn't that bad? Have I missed a memo?
"the only person here using the words Google and evil is you"
*blinks* Technically correct... if you don't want to read my paraphrasing as paraphrasing.
"Earlier this week, Google tipped off selected journalists"
so I'll quote your journo instead and ask if that statement is a deliberately negative stance, given that the evidence seems to suggest it isn't actually true. A Google bot is contacting the Google Webmaster Tools admins... automatically...
"No, and it's not hate. It's healthy criticism and scrutiny"
I politely interject that I can roast meat over the current levels of "healthy criticism and scrutiny" from certain quarters :) Was it two or three articles slamming that EVIL toy car? If IBM had made it instead, would you *really* have given it the same reaction?
"Google is the biggest thing on the web; it has near-unlimited power over the day-to-day internet lives of countless millions. Gigantic corporations need to be kept in check, and that's why we keep the screws turning."
This gets an intrinsic autofrown. When is judging someone on their actual actions suddenly not right? At what size do employees become assumed-evil? Why is assuming the worst suddenly the socially responsible thing to do? When did inflicting pain *just in case* become a good thing? S'pose I should direct those question at society itself..
"I want the best match for my search, not the ones that people making broadly similar searches have clicked on before"
Indeed. That would cause a singularity. Averages are inherantly dangerous. The average human is a manwoman, owning half a catdog, living near the centre of the Earth, for instance. The data doesn't lie, and yet it's 100% wrong!?!
What you have to do to avoid that is treat individuals individually, work out what they do and don't like, and give them results popular among other people who do and don't like the same things as you.
Now you see the *deeper* problem. This is *only possible via user tracking*. Equivalent exchange in its most primal form :) You cannot escape the fundamental laws of chaos and order, not even here.
On a purely cultural level it is fascinating watching a small company becoming a large company, becoming a BigBadMonster, and how that affects how the *same* actions with the *same* effects are perceived.
Because bigger things can cause more damage by accident they are instinctively kept under closer watch, especially unpredictable ones like Google which jumps all *over* the place knocking down old walls, stirring pots, scaring the shit out of people and competitors.
Now, as a website funded by clicks, do you play to the cheap seats, or do you tell a story that isn't popular? As a commentard, you can *feel* the primal pull of the righteous horde: "Come to the torchwielding side - fuck cookies, we have spitroast!". It tries to leech into you over time as you slowly marinade in its presence. What must the temptation be like for the journos? :)
"Poor widdle AC, did somebody not like what you like?"
Heh. And that also sums up the whole Googlehate thing in its entirety. "Poor widdle hater. Did somebody not fear/hate something you hate/fear?"
What is Google? A website which expresses an opinion about what it found on the Internet. Why do people use it? Because they choose to. Of. Their. Own. Free. Will.
All these lovely chains and blades people are making to bring Google down could eventually be used against any other site made with the same DNA: i.e. someone's opinion of other people's stuff on the internet... We're going to end up with a global DMCA takedown law for opinions. Because *that's what people wanted*.
Hate. It's the Future.
> Notably they don't mind a visit from the T-X.
"Guys! Guys! There's a robot trying to kill me! Come over quick! It's *fantastic*!"
Skynet eventually went on to wipe out the entire human race with a single fluffy kitten with laser eyes (although it had to be careful not to look at the floor).
Ditto on the old guard responses. This is Unix 101 stuff.
I remember Debian had fun with the /tmp cleanerscript for this reason a decade or so back, although they hated symlink race games more :)
I'm surprised they haven't mentioned putting xterm escape sequences into filenames - that was my personal favourite. Especially the 'print-screen' sequence!
And who can forget that good ol smiley! :(){:|:};:
Good times...
Be careful what you wish for. During the reign of Colin Baker he did have a stab at getting the chamaeleon circuit working again.
He ended up climbing in and out of pianos and things... it's all best left under the carpet.
He did materialise the tardis around a concorde (that wasn't a concorde) once, but I'm not sure that counts. The closest regen it's done I spose is giving itself an external telephone (just to stop Neil Gaiman sniggering), and making its doors flimsy instead of the big meaty space-slabs it had in Peter Davidsons day.
Any Googelians able to define the dimensions of this tumour? I notice this Youtube top bod is an ex-Netflix creature. Wonder what the morale readings are in the engine rooms right now.
Now we just need a leak of the terms offered to the big boys for comparison. I suspect they'll be rather chummy if my guess is correct.
Apart from some code, bandwidth and storage, what do you need to startup a video site these days?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/06/17/1230253/canadian-court-orders-google-to-remove-websites-from-its-global-index
Judge: "I will address here Google's submission that this analysis would give every state in the world jurisdiction over Google’s search services. That may be so. But if so, it flows as a natural consequence of Google doing business on a global scale, not from a flaw in the territorial competence analysis."
I thought the *actual* problem was the Government twunt who *gave* her the money. *Everyone* asks for it. It's all gone a bit girl-XBox-player in here.
Besides, receiving Government funds for an overblown project that drains cash and eventually delivers something horrible *is* how most large employers of IT professionals operate, after all, so not sure how many of the Reg crowd are without sin here ;-)
@ ElRegUser007 : You're still using an old version of humanity. You need to upgrade to the latest internet-enabled version where they fixed various bugs like empathy, tolerance and regret. You'll see a remarkable drop in caring! This will free up resources for new features like griefing and trolling. They significantly improve the taste of tears!
There's an outstanding bug in 'survival of the species' now but we don't think it affects any current users. It's a long time since anyone's tested that feature so it may be removed in future releases.
Well I'm not ashamed to say I winced. Not exactly a fair fight this, no matter how bad the site is. I see the griefers love it tho.
Pumping shells into a Government moneyflusher's PR shields? Yeah, sure, pass the popcorn, you go AO! A second armor-piercing shell thru a girl's delirium dream just because she had the temerity to be hurt by the first? I'll pass, El Reg. Bit too much like sniping civilians with a high power rifle. Not nice :(
I keep getting this feeling that if they let *kernel* developers at the tax rules, something interesting might arise. The kind of developers who've stared down the abyss while subsisting just on their own dogfood, in the full knowledge that hell is real and that everyone and everything else is always trying to exploit anything they create.
Code and law must eventually meet and Accountancy speaks both their languages...
"No. If Google just allow anyone's request without complaining that's OK." -- Since this is not only the easiest but the most profitable undeniably legal route, if they fight to avoid taking it, does that therefore logically mean profit isn't their primary driver? ;-)
"The point is that it would be nice if everyone was honest, and called a spade a spade. So Google could say this is bad, it'll hurt our profits" -- I'm having the same reaction as Google, I don't like where these ripples are going, and last time I checked I don't have a financial interest. My spade doesn't seem to be your spade, but does seem to be their spade.
"sock puppets" -- I'll admit here to not knowing which ones you mean. I think I ignored all the wafflers on both sides. I can see Wales, and I can imagine him personally hating this ruling, and I suspect Wikipedia get Google money, so, him? *Might* these be his own opinions tho?
"And they try to claim that somehow the law doesn't apply to them" -- If you mean the geolocation argument, I thought that was a lawyer thing actually - throw everything at it. Whenever I look at a big court cases, you see a kitchen sink fly past at some point. I'd need more datapoints tho to declare it a trait of the *client*.
"<The bit about lawbreaking>" -- Yeah, that's the thing that reaaally bugs me. If you're not handling personal data, you're not a data controller, and those laws don't apply to you, so you aren't a lawbreaker. The court declared Google *was* a data controller - even though it can't in advance identify which data has *made it into* a data controller, nor therefore *control* that data, or refuse to handle it. Would you enjoy suddenly being given *that* job?
"I can't remember him being unfair or inaccurate in any of his articles about them" -- I applaud your success in posting. You've fared much better than I on the same subject. Put it this way, now you know about the Ruling unexpectedly classifying Google as a Data Controller at least. It would have been, in my opinion, unfair, to leave that bit out, as it would mean that Google really weren't breaking any laws until the Court moved Google onto the other side of them.
"But it seems to me that The Register has a balance of writers and opinions on most subjects" -- Oh indeed. But the energy spent destroying can never be undone by the same spent building, and "It will be nice when Google has to lawyer up rather than us, since we did the work of finding and publishing the information in the first place and all they did was put ads next to a clip of it. - Ed" ... *shrug*.
"I'd say the loss of privacy is somewhat worth it for the services provided - and you have a choice to not use Google's services if you don't think so" -- I'm still fuzzy on this 'loss of privacy' thing. As far as I can tell, people are so data-incontinent that every site they visit has their CC+security number, home address, mothers maiden name and IP address. What is it people think Google has they haven't already given to everyone else?
Loathe as I am to go near this subject again lest I lose more of my posting history, it seems you're interested in setting up Google to be hated no matter what they do.
If they accede to demands without sending them to court, Google are pro censorship, and their previous freedom posturing is exposed as lies!
And if Google send things to the courts, then Google are arrogantly attempting to defy their obligations under EU law!
And if Google do both, well, they're doing BOTH! DoubleHate!
The devices may not need to always be in range of something. The mobile ones may just need to chirp an update when they get a chance. This tilts the amount of coverage needed.
These devices may not be trackable by cellular networks if they don't talk unless they need to.
You might be able to do it with low power mesh networks and a courier, who drives thru the area, 'picking up deliveries', then rolling into range of something it can upload to. It can roll back later with the ACKs. Yes it'd need cryptography.
> sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause
Oh great - damage or 'damage'? - never mind, rhetorical question.
So someone walks past a defective defence and the owners poop themselves, call in consultants, wipe servers, damage databases, and otherwise slapstick fall over their own feet in panic and *those* will be the 'damages' that the 'hacker' pays for then.
Your crime is exposing incompetance. Your sentence will be proportional to the magnitude of the incompetance exposed.
What will Europe do if any of these blocks fail? (apart from try and extract lots of money from Google).
If an intermediary blocks a link, but the source changes form, and evades the linkblock, who is a) checking, b) liable and c) what's the punishment?
Will Google have to patrol the blocks, eternally?
I'm also curious what happens if blanked data comes into the public interest.
To summarise the ruling:
- The source will not redact. It's protected by media archive law (and wants to remain indexed by Google)
- The source can remain Googleable.
- The user can remain Googleable.
- Except that, when you Google that user, *that* source may not appear in *those* results. It *can* appear in *other* results.
> "How it obtains the data does not make it any less of a data processor than the credit reference agencies"
And that's the really really worrying bit. Credit reference agencies consciously collect and process identities. Google collects data. Text. Scribbles. Bytes, bits, flotsam and jetsam. And now some of those bytes are legally actionable. And they won't know in advance which ones, as there is no HTML markup for 'this text is a *particular* human identity legally actionable in *particular* legislations'.
If you collect human-sourced data, process it and present it with a search function, in a field in which an individual has a reputation they wish to protect, the individual may have a case that you must remove something that causes them reputational harm if it, in their opinion, fulfills the adjudged criteria.
It's not the size of the search engine that brought the ruling, it's the size of the effect on the individual. Specialist fields may have similarly sized effects in smaller engines.
Frankly, it should be illegal to use your real identity on the Internet :)
The whole project can be summed up by "Would that work? Uncertain. Let's find out!". Just like Glass.
And just like Glass, it'll eventually run into reality and die its inevitable death. Everyone will learn things they didn't know before, fragments will survive in other more viable technologies and life will go on.
Get the popcorn, place bets on the hurdle it falls at, and just *chill*, sheesh. Who *seriously* thinks this is going to fly? Even Google don't or they wouldn't have made it look like.. *that*.. ugh.
I wonder if they'll ever have the balls to reboot Episodes 1-3 ? Disney is already running franchises that have profitted from admitting that the previous manifestations were bantha poodoo.
Ditto JJ Abrams. I'm resigned to Tatooine being destroyed or midichlorian injections giving people powers.
And why isn't Genndy Tartakovsky in the list? Behold his Awesomisation! http://youtu.be/Xy_Po12VyZw. Christopher Lee actually sounds like he's enjoying his lines :)
"By that definition removing spammy links is also "collateral damage". I'm not sure who you're trying to convince"
Since I wasn't talking about spammy links, and I was *obviously* talking about the potential for *involuntary* collateral damage, which the spammy links *still* aren't, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, again. Also, my point was *not specific to Google* no matter how much you want it to be.
"But for context:"
*smokebomb*
"You joined The Register forums quite recently to defend Google"
False. Proveably false. And my reply to this and your other accusations got rightly blocked by the moderator.
The Source page is :
- protected by a different law - it won't go down - it's an official news archive.
- in the Judges opinion a smaller problem than Google rebroadcasting it.
- unlikely to block Google from their pages (as non-searchable archives aren't useful)
The Judges:
- haven't asked for the Source page to be removed from Google
- haven't asked for the Name to be Ungoogleable
- only ordered that that Source must NOT appear in that Name's list of results.
You *can* obey the ruling by deleting the Source from the spiderlist, *or* by refusing to display results for the Name. This causes collateral damage, as noted. Doing it in a way that *only* affects results where *both* factors intersect requires a *third* redaction layer in a different place in the engine.
If you do not have this third filter, you can only comply by causing collateral damage.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
