What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
24 Comments
- seweso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11this article is not about privacy
- theredbicycle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@Grimdotdotdot: And they have a copy of all my web sites on their server without my permission
Are you going to sue/be angry with your three whole visitors that have cached your site on their computer as well? - WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4By that logic/fear.... you should just not use the internet.
- seweso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You just answered your own question. This is news because google is wrapped up in all those senseless lawsuits. And google is the only company which speaks out this way.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally, a good use for "The Internets" that doesn't involve pornography. But isn't this exactly the kind of thing that private enterprises should be doing in the "conservative" model? Oh wait, they were and it wasn't flattering to the Republican-run administration and legislature...
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"And trying to get *your own site* removed from Google's cahce is next to impossible."
It's very easy to get your site never indexed in the first place (robots.txt, look it up). Getting it removed is not so bad either:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35301&topic=8459 - dewfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Four Score and Seven years ago.......
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Since when is a mission statement from a company "news" ?
"Hi, we're Google, and all those stories you've read about half the publishers in the world suing us for infringement, well, we're really NICE people and would never intentionally rip anyone's content off.. Except when we can profit from it."
And I love that bunch of ***** about saying they will willingly honor requests from any newspaper that doesnt want their site indexed onto news.google.com. *****! Google just lost several cases in Europe where newspapers wanted out, and Google refused. Google has lost EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CASES. And in each one, their official policy is "***** you, we'll index your news content if we feel like it." - irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@spyrochaete
i wouldn't have that much faith in google's adherence to optional directives. my del.icio.us page has noarchive and noindex meta tags, yet it comes up in a google search and is cached as recently as last wednesday. - Philipp_Lenssen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Google republishes full pages as Google cache, how is that fair use under copyright laws (not that I mind, I like the feature)?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Call me crazy, but shouldn't site owners, by default, have the option to allow thier sites to be indexed, rather than having to create files on the site telling bots to NOT index them? This is akin to somebody going through a neighborhood mapping out everybody's house right down to what is on the dresser and then saying "Oh, if you don't want me to come in, lock the door, otherwise I assume you want me to do it."
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@grimdotdotdot
Google "robots.txt" and "ROBOTS NO ARCHIVE". robots.txt is optional to add to a website and optional for search engines to obey, but Google obeys it religiously.
You might want to turn your guns on archive.org as well since they're probably caching you too, albeit with timestamped dates. - cr8dle2grave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's called fair use. Publisher's don't now nor have they ever had the right to exclude their published content from being indexed. Contrary to the fantasies of publishing houses, the RIAA , and the MPAA, once you publish something you lose some degree of control over your content. If you don't like the balance struck by copyright law, then don't publish your content.
- -dXs-, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If something is NOT ILLEGAL, would you not fight for your right and for the greater knowledge of the people to do it?
Let me guess, you also don't believe in net neutrality. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ha ha ha, that is absolutely hilarious.
"Protecting content owners ’ rights, respecting their wishes, helping to reward them for their creative endeavors"
That certainly didn't apply when Google started scanning in printed works without permission from authors or publishing companies when they implemented a printed work search engine. Then when they complained to Google, Google kept on going saying it was for their own good and benefit.
The only people that believe in Google's mission statements are Google. I honestly don't believe they are a company that is doing no evil. When you have so much influence and control over a market, its hard not to start to impose your own way rather then respecting others, especially when you start to imply that your only doing it for THEIR OWN GOOD. I mean, history is ripe with dictators (ahem, I mean leaders) that have made this statement before and we all know what happens to them.
Besides, tell me a company making billions and billions of dollars in advertising is doing it for the benefit of mankind, Bullsh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - cr8dle2grave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@chriskzoo
"This is akin to somebody going through a neighborhood mapping out everybody's house right down to what is on the dresser and then saying 'Oh, if you don't want me to come in, lock the door, otherwise I assume you want me to do it.'"
Nonsense. And utter assinine rubbish to boot. The situation is more like:
This is akin to somebody going through a neighborhood where all the houses have big signs out front asking everyone to "Please come in, make yourselves at home, and take a look around", then mapping out everybody's house right down to what is on the dresser and then saying "Oh, if you don't want me to come in, just please state "No bots allowed" on your sign welcoming everyone to come in, which I will happily comply with, otherwise I'll reasonably assume I'm included in your invitation.
If you don't want your precious little content being read by all and sundry, then don't friggin' publish it without any protections in an open medium. - moore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Exactly. Google's current policy is to violate the law as much as possible, but give content owners a seperate opt-out mechanism for every different product they have that does this.
"Oh, you DIDN'T want us to duplicate all the copyrighted information on your site, save it all to our servers, provide it free to the public directly from Google, all in an easily searchable database without your permission? Okay, just go do X Y and Z, then call us back, and we'll take a look at it in 3-5 working days."
Real moral high ground there, guys. - -dXs-, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1illynova, do you really see yourself as being that important that Google keeps logs about YOU the individual? No.
It's been said time and again, YOUR information is anonymous. The "search logs" are to tweak the Google engine by watching anonymous user behavior so the engine yields the more relevent results at the top of the page.
Please don't hi-jack the article thread, this is about how and why Google collects content which does seem fair to the majority, of course, they'll be stepping on a few toes but it serves a greater purpose. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"they'll be stepping on a few toes but it serves a greater purpose."
Greater purpose? Good one. Let's just slaughter everyone with a genetic illness while we're at it, shall we?
Think before you type. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Content owners give up their rights when they disseminate. After that, the right of individuals to do what they please with information that comes their way trumps all. It's not protection when you have massive intrusion of government at every level to ensure the profitability of content distribution schemes. It is called running a racket. This other stuff like 'intellectual property' and 'incentive' are just red herrings to distract from the fact that these are really information controls.
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2RedBike: I'm not bothered if my visitors cache the site, as they don't make it availible to other people when they do.
It's not the caching that bothers me, it's the fact that if I change something on my site, the Google cache happily displays innacurate and out of date information for everyone to see.
And trying to get *your own site* removed from Google's cahce is next to impossible. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2And they have a copy of all my web sites on their server without my permission.
- mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2OOPS. digg me down.
- illynova, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2You know, google can say all they want about privacy. In fact, I even believe they have my best wishes at heart.
However, that doesn't change the fact that they still have ALL of my search logs, email.... etc. What happens when there is a security breach? Or the FBI comes knocking?
Not much google can do.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is