[ExI] phony google
spike at rainier66.com
Wed Aug 7 22:50:29 UTC 2013
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>... "You honor, I'm really not very computer savvy so those searches are
probably just malware activity that I don't know how to fix" ...I'm not sure
how that proves anything...
In court, the prosecution must prove that the defendant did the web search
in question. They had no way to do that in the case where the likely
scenario was that young mother wanted to go out partying but the baby
wouldn't stop crying, so she wanted to chloroform the baby to sleep, perhaps
Googled on chloroform. That particular chemical is not used as anesthetic,
since it is tricky: patients tend to perish, as what may have happened to
the infant in question. Presenting the evidence nearly led to a mistrial,
since the prosecution could not actually prove the young mother was the one
who Googled on chloroform.
I thought it all was fascinating as an insight into how our legal system is
The existence of random search malware would cause all web searches to be
inadmissible evidence in court.
Of course it could still be a major source of embarrassment, such as if
anyone found out about my latex chicken fetish. THEORETICAL fetish of
course, not at all proven or anything.
> If the same websites keep coming up in the top 30 results, we know
> that either we have a bogus Google or that Google has gone over to the
> dark side and has ceased being not evil.
All your efforts to obscure are undone by telling one data nerd to find the
signal among all the noise...
Easy to find, impossible to prove. Important distinction. No one actually
SAW any latex chickens, there is no proof anywhere.
I have just thought of a test for bogus Googles. Stand by for NEWS!
More information about the extropy-chat