nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| Too deep
Why would a web designer put any sensitive information out on the web like that? If Google can find it, then I'm sure hackers will be able to find it (with or without Google). Isn't that why we have Intranets? If someone steals info from an Intranet, it's a little different than pulling it off the internet. As long as it is publicly (the internet IS public) available info, why should the search engine be responsible for breaches.
--
"It's your world, babe. I'm just livin' in it." |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Remember. This is a world where 85% percent of users scribble their passwords and bank account numbers on post-its, then stick them to their monitor.
Don't overestimate Humans. 
--
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. |
|
clickhappy
join:2001-02-14
Issaquah, WA
| But...
the only way Google (or any other Search Engine) can crawl this info is to have it linked off of a page somewhere...it doesn't just grab everything out of a directory, so if these things are being searched and/or cataloged, people are for some reason linking this sensitive info... |
|
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
| Why is this article hinting that Google, or any other search engine spiders are going to far? The spider was designed to find the page, it's purpose is to index an entire site and place links in a searchable database. If anyone is at fault it's AOL not Google, Yahoo, Excite...
[text was edited by author 2001-11-26 11:53:31] |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:  
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
Host:
Site Tools
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
|  Is google to blame?
I use google everytime I look for anything. No ads, no popups, no dumb interface, and it gets the job done. Heck, I can type in a quote from my profile and it finds my profile page.. heh heh
Ok, now for my sly comment.
Finding porn links an AOL childrens page? Did it specify if it was an AOL sponsored childrens porn page? That's an entirely different ball park! Do your research CNN! 
--
-Mooooo!!!
We need more cows in the field! Join the DSLR RC5 Team!
[text was edited by author 2001-11-26 11:57:13] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Actually it's not CNN, it's the Washington Post.
And the link was contained within an AOL children's portal site. An AOL sponsored site.
--
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. |
|
HAH
@24.129.x.x
| Am I the only one not seeing a problem here?
Why would anyone get angry at Google for it's spider (which is most excellent) finding private information? Shouldn't they be upset with the company/website that left their information where someone else could find it? It doesn't matter how difficult it is to get, it should be impossible.
However, in the age of greed and stupidity, it comes as no surprise to me that it's happening. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Google innocent, WW23 a mistake.
I wish Google would find the stuff I put up that I DO want it to find.
This is really a complete non-issue. If you put private stuff up in public, you can't reasonably complain when someone or something finds it. I'm surprised the article didn't go into the more serious issues, though, like Google's cache. If Google has cached stuff you have up by accident, it'll still be accessible even after you take it down from your page. I think you can ask them to remove it, though. |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| reply to HAH
Re: Am I the only one not seeing a problem here?
I've maintained a Web site for over 8 years which has about 700 pages. About 200 of those pages are "private" and the URL's to those pages are only given to certain people. There are no links to those pages on any of the "open" pages. I check Google and a couple other search engines on a regular basis -- none has discovered those "private" pages.
If you understand how the Web works, it's no big deal to keep certain pages "private". But then again, I'd never put anything on any Web page that I would never want revealed to the world. Nothing is truly "private" on the Internet.
I don't see a problem here either! |
|
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
·Qwest.net
|  Common problem
One way these supposedly unlinked pages can get linked to is by web servers that provide directory listings for directories with no default page (index.html, etc.). An indexing robot will happily recurse through all of the subdirectories, even if there are no HTML links to the files in them. |
|
anon a mouse
@pacbell.n
| and another thing..
There were many instances where I would be searching for an image using Googles image search, and somehow get access to someones entire ftp via Google. You have to assume that first off, nothing is truely secure on the internet, and if it is personal/private, don't upload it anywhere! At the very least, do some research and educate yourself on how to make things secure. |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| reply to alanhdsl
Re: Common problem
A missing "index.html", especially in sub-directories, is probably the most common mistake I've seen over the years. I run into that almost every day since I’ve always found it interesting "back down" a URL to see what else might be there. It’s amazing to me all the directories that show up and all the "leftovers" that get left in those directories.
One in particular that I find amusing is for a boardwalk camera at a mid-Atlantic resort. Back down the URL to the image directory (which is missing the "index.html" file or default file) and there is a .JPG photo of a guy in his underwear sipping on a cup of coffee.  Wonder if he is the sites creator?
Here again, I think it's simply people not understanding how the Web works. |
|
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| reply to Mike
Re: Is google to blame?
said by Mike:
Did it specify if it was an AOL sponsored childrens porn page?
There are a lot of porn links on AOL and elsewhere disguised as other files. When Yahoo and MSN cut back on adult clubs, they looked for storage elsewhere. People who don't want their kids seeing pornography shouldn't foist responsibility on others. They can talk to their kids, watch them every minute, or pull the plug. Sexuality is part of life, even to religious fundamentalists. |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| said by pupowski:
People who don't want their kids seeing pornography shouldn't foist responsibility on others. They can talk to their kids, watch them every minute, or pull the plug. Sexuality is part of life, even to religious fundamentalists.
Can I get an AMEN!
The way I have always explained it to people who wanted to know how to keep their kids out of the porn or trouble on the net is this.
View the internet as the worlds largest Barnes and Noble with an adult bookstore in the back and no restrictions on who goes where. Its your job if you don't want them in the back room to keep them out. If you cant do that then don't take them to the store... Just remember like any public place there are all kinds of people there and you never know when one of them may take a interest in you or your child.
If you follow that analogy and treat the internet as a wonderful tool then you cant go wrong. The internet is the worlds largest information store and as such needs a little respect.
--
The difference between foresight and hindsight is only a matter of when you bother to think things through. |
|
billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| Just for disclosure's sake, I consider myself a "religious fundamentalist" and I have a few problems with this line of thinking.
1. Yes, sexuality is part of life. I just hope that you're not equating what passes for porn on the net with normal sexuality. Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
2. Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying. The "adult" section in the bookstore is protected from minors or the owner is liable. Anybody who exposes minors to porn on the net by posting links in an AOL children’s section should be just as liable. Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
3. I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. Currently it's a choice of a) not allowing any access, b)constantly monitor, or c) risk exposure to bad stuff. A and B aren’t really practical. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web? |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| said by billsweat:
1. Yes, sexuality is part of life. I just hope that you're not equating what passes for porn on the net with normal sexuality. Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
No, I don’t equate that myself. However some do and that’s their choice and hopefully in some way they will have to answer for that one day.
said by billsweat:
2. Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying. The "adult" section in the bookstore is protected from minors or the owner is liable. Anybody who exposes minors to porn on the net by posting links in an AOL children’s section should be just as liable. Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
I agree with the pedophiles being jailed. No argument on posting porn links in a children’s forum being wrong. However the lines we have now we once did cross as a society. What’s acceptable now wasn’t acceptable then and vice versa.
said by billsweat:
3. I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. Currently it's a choice of a) not allowing any access, b)constantly monitor, or c) risk exposure to bad stuff. A and B aren’t really practical. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web?
Because with proper supervision the web isn’t inherently dangerous or evil, its just information, be it writing, photos, whatever its all 1's and 0's. I don’t have a problem with you protecting your children. That’s great, just don’t wipe things out because you don’t agree with them. If I want to go to a porn site and give them a credit card number that they may lose to a hacker that’s my business.
As for B&N a quick one word search shows they carry books on bestiality I bet and they have been in the news plenty of times fighting over picture books of young children... The point of the B&N image is also that kids get snatched at stores, and through contact with someone on the internet they can get snatched as well.
Just be careful is the best advice, and expect to occasionally run into a problem. Just playing devils advocate.
--
The difference between foresight and hindsight is only a matter of when you bother to think things through.
[text was edited by author 2001-11-27 16:25:28] |
|
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| reply to billsweat
Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...
said by billsweat:
Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
Thanks for the revelation, most people are revolted by the thought of sex with children or animals. Sex with sheep is not unknown in church going anti-porn rural America, but they don't like anybody watching, so they can deny it like the numerous TV evangelists caught with their pants down. said by billsweat:
Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying.
Nice cliche, but laced with deception, like the failed war on drugs that has filled Americas prisons to gain moral majority votes for right wing opportunists. The US constitution allows for States to make different decisions on such matters, like Nevada does with Prostitution, and Utah with Alcohol. "Our children" is often grandiose hypocrisy that really means "your children".God and country are smoke-screens scoundrels use frequently these days to stifle debate and impose their values beyond societal norms. That's no different than the Talliban or Khoumheini's fanatics. Freedom of religion is one thing, imposing it's values without a public vote is another. Abortion is a classic example. Assisted suicide is another, and one that directly impacts me professionally. I'm opposed to both, but I don't want anybody forcing others to follow in the name of righteous indignation. Those are states rights issues as well, and should be voted upon.
said by billsweat:
Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
I'm with you 100% on that, but the definition isn't the same in every country. Remember that Bible Belt States like Florida have allowed 12 year old girls to marry, raising serious questions about who is and isn't a child. Young teenage girls get married frequently where my family came from, and neither they nor I see a problem with it. American yuppie parents pretend everybody should go to college, and own an SUV first, but they are out of touch, like some fundamentalists. In nations where war and disease decimate families, young marriages and large families are about survival.
said by billsweat:
I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web?
You have the tools, use them!The Web is outside of your family sphere of influence, so is censorship and thought control. Sometimes the "solution" is a greater danger than the problem. Very few groups have done more harm to Americans than the fanatics who call themselves the "Christian right". To a real Christian there is no such thing as "my children", since all are God's children, and we are merely custodians. Cynical "Christian right" zealots are steeped in such hypocrisy, as they claim to be pro life yet have an insatiable blood lust for the death penalty and vengeance via unjust prison sentences with no rehabilitation. Christ's example was tolerance and forgiveness. Jesus wants people to open their hearts, not close their minds!
The "Christian right" would probably arrest Jesus for vagrancy if John Ashcroft wasn't already holding him without charges as a terrorist suspect.
They also claim to care about children and morality, but support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess.This quote is attributed to Jesus Christ, but many "fundamentalists" prefer to ignore it.
"Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's."
[text was edited by author 2001-11-28 00:09:49] |
|
dslreader$
join:2001-11-22
|  AOL and Google
As some spokesperson for Google said: "We define public as anything placed on the public Internet and not blocked to search engines in any way. The primary burden falls to the people who are incorrectly exposing this information."
He is absolutely correct as far as the statement goes. There is of course other issues involving other parties besides the search engine in question.
I hate to say anything good about AOL but if as a parent you take the time to learn how AOL can work it does offer the best protection to children from porn or other "bad" stuff. I used to work for EarthLink both in tech support and sales. It was not uncommon to get calls from people new to the Internet looking for an ISP and concerned about their kids. If they were receptive and wanted to I would give them a heart to heart and frankly tell them on that single issue AOL was better, but there were things with a direct access ISP they could do to insure their kids didn't go where they shouldn't. One of the best was to not "save" their ISP log on password. Consequently the kids could only get online if Mom or Dad logged them in and therefore anyplace they wanted to go would potentially be in front of the parents. But, of course, these issues are a personal and family matter. |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
|  Private information on the Internet
I am a former prosecutor, investigator, and intelligence analyst. In my experience it is quite common for people to do the following:
Post disinformation onto the Internet
Obtain private information and post in on the Internet
Obtain both private and public information and post on the Internet but out of context
That is all you need to get the ball rolling. The search engine makes no distinction between any of the above and the completely legitimate stuff in its search. It just produces information that is there. It doesn't have a conscious or values. It is just a "machine". |
|
billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| reply to pupowski$
Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...
Wow! You so misunderstand my point of view that I'm not sure how to respond but here goes.
1. Surely there are people who profess to be religious that do bad things. I'm not here to defend them. That's their problem. Likewise, I don't care much if you visit porn sites, have sex with animals, use drugs, etc. That's not the point. What I do object to is that I and my kids constantly receive unsolicited spam depicting explicit sexual (often what I would consider deviant) activity. Where else in normal society is that true?
2. I agree that we are a nation of laws. The problem with your examples is that they apply to adults. Nevada doesn't allow children to become prostitutes. In every state supplying alcohol to a minor is a felony. The problem with the web is that the technology is ahead of the laws. It would be against the law for someone to walk up to a child and hand them pornography. Why is it all right to email it to them?
3. What does 12 year olds getting married have to do with pedophiles who stalk 12 year olds, pretending to be 12 year old boys? I'm pretty sure that, even in Florida, a 12 year old would need their parents written permission to get married. I don't suspect that many 12 year olds are getting married in today's U.S. society.
4. Your views on the "Christian Right" show your hypocrisy. The "zealots" that I know don't knowingly "support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess". If I made such a stereotypical statement, you'd be the first to label me a bigot.
5. Yes, Christ's example was forgiveness. What has that to do with being against porn being distributed to minors? What do you think Jesus’ attitude would be on this issue? Willing to forgive is not the same as acceptance.
6. You're taking the "Give unto Caesar" quote out of context. In the U.S., there is no Caesar. Our government is "by the people". I certainly have the right to lobby for laws that reflect my morality, as do you. There is really no serious public debate if porn, alcohol, etc. should be available to children. It's already been decided that they should not be. That same logic should apply to the web. |
|
