Slashdot Mirror


Google Censors Abu Ghraib Images [updated]

Mihg writes "Try searching Google Images for abu ghraib, lynndie england, or Lynndie's boyfriend charles graner and note how you don't get any pictures of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners of war. Now try it with some of their competitors, like AltaVista, Lycos, or Yahoo!. Google used to be able to find them, as is discussed in this AnandTech forum thread." I'm guessing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable". Update: 11/07 20:18 GMT by P : Google has a reasonable explanation.

10 of 731 comments (clear)

  1. Disagree with an editor = Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Yup, that's the new Slashdot. It's legitimate question. CmdrTaco inserted his political beliefs into the story without any basis in fact (you know, how "journalists" are supposed to behave.) If he has something to back this up, present it, otherwise his theory is as valid as any other. Mine? I think the Martians did it.

  2. Great censoring by hotdot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wow, now the united states are getting more like china ...

  3. Re:Google's just trying to keep perspective by vjzuylen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did it ever occur to you that this goes beyond the US or its penal system? Non-US Google users couldn't care less about the racist sexual sadism in US prisons, so why would Google be "trying to keep things in perspective" for them as well?

    --

    Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
  4. Re:Google just sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Do you see at the top of Google where it says "IMAGES?" Click there, you stupid fuck, and you'll find no links. The parent's point was that Google doesn't crawl for images nearly as often as it does for text, so if you have something relatively new you won't find it. Learn how to read you fucking twat.

  5. Re:About your freedoms, the elections and this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    you'll have the right to have your AK-47

    As provided by the same document that gives the right to the freedom of speech. The law of the land, fuck-o.

    according to your own Ben Franklin, democracy is impossible without eductation,

    Franklin also claimed those that would give up rights (like the ownership of firearms) for security (the idea that gun bans make you safer) deserve neither freedom nor security.

    As for this other episode of your liberties get corrupted get use to it and stop crying cause crying doesn't solve problems, actions do.

    Googles decision to block these images is not the corruption of a freedom but rather the exercise of a freedom. Google has the right to block anything they choose. Just like all those who claim that it's your right to turn off the radio if you don't like what's playing it's also ones right to not play what they feel is offensive reguardless if the content is legal.

    Feel safer?

    I'd rather feel free than safe and yes, I do feel free

    (man I can feel my karma burning already! ;)) )

    Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Your post is neither original nor correct. What you've done is not new or inventive.

  6. Re:Tried it and it's true. by raju1kabir · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If you don't want a search engine to decide what you have access to, you have all the freedom on the Internet to conduct your search elsewhere. Just because Google is one of the most popular search engines doesn't mean you have to use it, and it doesn't mean Google has to provide free access to information.

    No shit. But the point of this whole discussion, if it proves to be true (and not just an artifact of some equal-opportunity problem at Google) is to give people a heads-up that Google is not the place to conduct a politically-unfiltered search. That's pretty big news, and enough to stop me from using them.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  7. Re:Google just sucks by Alsee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What part of "Google used to be able to find them" don't you understand?

    The part where you personally attacked him.

    Our beloved leader is trying to protect us. We must all stand in unity and support to defend ourselves. An attack on Bush weakens and endangers us all. It is a personal attack on each and every one of us.

    So naturally his reaction was to counter attack the claim, in self defence.

    P.S.
    See sig for my personal oppinion.


    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. Re:Official Respons from Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I'm gonna be honest with you; this is an outrage and it makes me quite mad.
    It's just NOT a coincidence that ALL of the controversial Abu Gra(h)ib suddenly disapeared from Google Images. This my friends, is called censorship.
    These abuse photos were spread to sites all over the Net. There must be hundreds/thousands of copies of these pictures on sites/blogs/etc. And now they're gone from Google's image index. How strange.
    And as far as I know, the images are cached and stored on Google's servers. Where are the cached images? Gone.

  9. Does this mean that we can expect an apology by artemis67 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    from Cmdr Taco for accusing the Bush administration of performing a cover-up?

  10. Re:Official Respons from Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google, stInc, has a larger market cap than General Motors but doesnt produce nearly as much.

    You guys sit there furrowing your brow with your arms dug into your thrones of intellect giving out GLAT tests to people. But you CENSOR people who try to sell guns and ammunition from advertising placements. Sergey is a Russian Communist who believes that Americans should be DISARMED and you pulled wool over Wall St. with that IPO like the Bolsheviks pulled wool over the Russian public.