3 ms·

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to make those sites that display personal information illegal themselves, rather than make it illegal for Google to index th

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to make those sites that display personal information illegal themselves, rather than make it illegal for Google to index them? Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.

Terretta 3y ago
> Wouldn't it be more straightforward to make those sites that display personal information illegal themselves, rather than make it illegal for Google to index them? Exactly! Same principle as why we should mandate burqas. Just make it illegal to be identifiable in public, instead of illegal for surveillance industry to collect and track identities.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  I have a hard time understanding your point. Are you saying that being a free search engine for webpages makes you part of the surveillance industry, but People Finder et. al., that charge money for the express purpose of letting you snoop on other people aren't? My point isn't that we should make it illegal for people to be identifiable in public. My point is that instead of making it illegal for Google to index People Finder, it would be more logical to make People Finder illegal.
ehnto 3y ago
Since the internet is global, it is very challenging to enforce something like that to a degree where it would be effective. Given a lot of directory sites are themselves low effort scrapers, and automated SEO/adsense plays, it would be a wack-a-mole. That does put Google in a position of power though. Make that kind of site not allowed to participate in adsense and watch them vanish overnight.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  I agree it would be hard to enforce. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it illegal to host the content though. We could make it illegal to host the content and ask Google to delist it. Asking Google to delist it without making the content illegal doesn't make that much sense to me.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Since the internet is global, it is very challenging to enforce something like that to a degree where it would be effective. Is it? There is a solution: bad actors get kicked off the Internet. Russia doesn't do shit about cybercriminals? Block their networks until they comply. China gets caught again and again and again hacking into governments or companies? Just the same. India doesn't rein in their scam callcenters (just watch one of the recent Jim Browning videos)? Kick them off the net, and the same punishment for their VoIP providers that act as accomplices. Domestic providers ignoring countless abuse reports against people who had their routers compromised? Disconnect them until they've cleaned up their act and don't pose a threat any more. The official blathering why this isn't done against other nations is "their population depends on access to the free flow of information" or "it would cost our companies too much money", and that's bullshit. Our enemies don't even need Trojan horses, we directly invite them into our homes. And domestic bad actors hide behind laws limiting their liability. Enough with that. Time to hold malicious, incompetent or greedy actors accountable instead of forcing people to drop unknown calls due to an onslaught of spam or companies to hide behind the protection rackets commonly known as "CDNs" and "botnet protection services".
  - ehnto 3y ago
    Hmm. It is a lot to think about frankly, a very large topic. My gut reaction is no, being a global net is what makes it robust and enables so many positive outcomes. I would say more positive than negative. I also feel as though the expectation that the internet is global is what protects it from nation states themselves. It would start with an obvious win, like banning a country due to cyberattacks, but would it stop there? Would we eventually start disconnecting outselves into dozens of small nets, little bubbles of thought compliant citizens happy on our protected nets, unable to share information across borders except through sanctioned channels? I am just thinking out loud, I don't have the answer and you raise a valid train of thought.

Terretta 3y ago

> Wouldn't it be more straightforward to make those sites that display personal information illegal themselves, rather than make it illegal for Google to index them? Exactly! Same principle as why we should mandate burqas. Just make it illegal to be identifiable in public, instead of illegal for surveillance industry to collect and track identities.

Thorrez 3y ago
I have a hard time understanding your point. Are you saying that being a free search engine for webpages makes you part of the surveillance industry, but People Finder et. al., that charge money for the express purpose of letting you snoop on other people aren't? My point isn't that we should make it illegal for people to be identifiable in public. My point is that instead of making it illegal for Google to index People Finder, it would be more logical to make People Finder illegal.

ehnto 3y ago

Since the internet is global, it is very challenging to enforce something like that to a degree where it would be effective. Given a lot of directory sites are themselves low effort scrapers, and automated SEO/adsense plays, it would be a wack-a-mole. That does put Google in a position of power though. Make that kind of site not allowed to participate in adsense and watch them vanish overnight.

Thorrez 3y ago
I agree it would be hard to enforce. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it illegal to host the content though. We could make it illegal to host the content and ask Google to delist it. Asking Google to delist it without making the content illegal doesn't make that much sense to me.
mschuster91 3y ago
> Since the internet is global, it is very challenging to enforce something like that to a degree where it would be effective. Is it? There is a solution: bad actors get kicked off the Internet. Russia doesn't do shit about cybercriminals? Block their networks until they comply. China gets caught again and again and again hacking into governments or companies? Just the same. India doesn't rein in their scam callcenters (just watch one of the recent Jim Browning videos)? Kick them off the net, and the same punishment for their VoIP providers that act as accomplices. Domestic providers ignoring countless abuse reports against people who had their routers compromised? Disconnect them until they've cleaned up their act and don't pose a threat any more. The official blathering why this isn't done against other nations is "their population depends on access to the free flow of information" or "it would cost our companies too much money", and that's bullshit. Our enemies don't even need Trojan horses, we directly invite them into our homes. And domestic bad actors hide behind laws limiting their liability. Enough with that. Time to hold malicious, incompetent or greedy actors accountable instead of forcing people to drop unknown calls due to an onslaught of spam or companies to hide behind the protection rackets commonly known as "CDNs" and "botnet protection services".
- ehnto 3y ago
  Hmm. It is a lot to think about frankly, a very large topic. My gut reaction is no, being a global net is what makes it robust and enables so many positive outcomes. I would say more positive than negative. I also feel as though the expectation that the internet is global is what protects it from nation states themselves. It would start with an obvious win, like banning a country due to cyberattacks, but would it stop there? Would we eventually start disconnecting outselves into dozens of small nets, little bubbles of thought compliant citizens happy on our protected nets, unable to share information across borders except through sanctioned channels? I am just thinking out loud, I don't have the answer and you raise a valid train of thought.