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.
If that were the case, why would they show up in other American search engines? Ever consider that Google is a business and has the right to choose what they want to include themselves?
Well, I've just tried this with each of the listed search engines and it does appear to be correct for the first five pages that Google returns.
That's not good. I don't want a search engine deciding what I have access to. And know doubt this thread will turn into a troll-fest about the American invasion of Iraq and whether people are better off or not under US rule rather than Saddam, but surely neither side of the argument thinks we'll benefit from hiding the truth. That can only benefit those in the US administration.
And you can be sure that this will be picked up by the Arab world and will look bad on the US and Western Europe.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".
Then why do the other search engines still carry it? It seems like Google has something confused and not the government.
Can you imagine if China did this?
You would all be talking about the evil commies and evil chinamens who care not for freedom!
You know, freedom goes both ways - you have the right to see these images, but Google has the right to censor their own content.
"It's good to know that I should use Google's competitors to search for this type of thing, in case Google is holding back relevant results." - That statement makes this seem like a bad business decision.
I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".
Last time I checked, Google was a private company. It's very easy to fling accusations of censorship in a free society, but don't you think you need something more than "a private company wouldn't provide me the information"?
Bye
-- Support a free market in the field of government
"I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable"."
I'm going to play devil's advocate here...if you were those prisoners would you want humiliating images of you readily available to the world? I can't imagine anyone saying "Yea, that would be great! Now the world can see what happened to me!"
I can't speak as to why Google is censoring the images, IF they really are...but I can think of several reasons to do so that have nothing to do with Big Brother conspiracies.
I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".
No, somebody in Google's 'risk management' department probably decided that it would be a prudent step to avoid bad publicity or offending shareholders. The minute Google went public, their primary responsibility became looking after the best interests of their shareholders, not being an impartial index of internet sites.
'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
The sexual sadism of Abu Ghraib is insignificant by comparison and may even be seen as a symptom of the US penal system's standards.
Google is merely trying to keep things in perspective.
Seastead this.
I've found the Google Image Index to be quite old. For instance if you type in 'world series', you get images of 2002 and before. The Red Sox are stilled cursed.
I think it's possible that no images have been indexed of the prisoners over the sensoring theory.
Type in 'abu ghraib images' in the Web search and the first page that comes up is detailed images of the abuse.
Ever consider that Google is a business and has the right to choose what they want to include themselves?
Jup, that's right. But keep in mind that the consumer has also a right: the right to choose. So, if Google does censor its spider index, the consumer has the right to know that and based on that information may choose to continue using Google, or may start using another search engine.
Remember that Google has only admitted censoring its index in the past after someone said 'Hey, I can't find page "blabla" using Google'. It would be better if they announced censoring on the forehand.
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
Google has no right to an implied claim of impartiality if they are censoring results. If they censor results for political or other reasons, that fact should be prominently posted. But it isn't, because they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
While things may or may not appear in a google search, how the heck does that have anything to do with the current administration or national security?
Agreed. If you google for "Miserable Failure" you still get linked to President Bush's official White House page. If there was any sort of political influence on Google that would have been changed.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
...to the fourth reich.
And if you think that's too extreme, do some research into what fascism really means, particularly the level of corporate/gov't ties.
if you want completely uncensored pictures and movies from the atrocities happenening due to poor policymaking of a certain world power you should look at www.ogrish.com. while i have to admit that the framework is rather tasteless, if you really want to get an idea of what atrocoties are (besides the fact of the existence of such webpages) you should definitely have a look. and if you intend to vote for another shrub in the future, you should have a look and think twice...
Hello? Google is an information provider. What they're doing, if they're doing it, is knowingly and willfully blocking access to information, simply because that information happens to be controversial.
Would you like it if your doctor only told you what was right with your body?
Idiot.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Because we've started to see Google as The Best, this is The Best proof of why not to trust a single source.
We all know that Google has a sort of Moral Conduct Policy (like no gun advertising) but maybe they should make it optional like with is the SafeSearch option to limit the exposure to, of all thing, people in their natural state.
At least their wish for Moral Conduct should make them set up an easily accessible list of things they have 'banned', be it on request or following their own standards.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Most likely, Google was trying to make the Abu Gharib images recognized by their "SafeSearch" feature. Which is to say, if you have SafeSearch turned on, those somewhat explicit images wouldn't display (as I'm sure they did before, as none of the normal keywords would have applied).
But somebody screwed up, and now they're blocked even if you have SafeSearch turned off. I'd expect this to be fixed soon.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
How is criticizing the Administration being anti-American?
The situation isn't remotely comparable. Torture by american soldiers in an occupied country, vs. tolerance for rape in US prisons are not in the same ballpark, although they are both bad things.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Perhaps then they should step up their renewal cycle, at least when indexing new pages into their database. With 20/20 hindsight it's an obvious problem.
Shhh.
Google is getting very big, and they just became a publicly traded company. That means it's becoming fashionable (on Slashdot) to lambast Google based on whatever the conspiracy theory of the day is. Obivously they're censoring, and we should all complain about how news sources have a responsibility to report unbiased versions of the news and both sides of the story. Never mind that Google doesn't really produce news reports, and that there's no such thing as an unbiased news source that reports all sides of the story, and that there's probably a reasonable explanation besides censorship in this case.
Please, let's not let logic enter into this. Groupthink and alarmism is much easier, and more accepted around here.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
...Not to start a political flame fest, but if we voted for another 4 years of this, then we deserve whatever we fucking get.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
They own stock in the tinfoil hat companies. Remember the time they were upset because Google... had web logs?! OH NO!!!! Just like 99.9% of other websites, Google was keeping logs. And then Google... used cookies!!!! OH DEAR LORD! Not the cookies... that you can block with your browser. Bunch of maroons.
War is not about killing your enemies, every strategist from Sun Tsu to Carl von Clausewitz to the modern Pentagon made, and makes, that point. War is about convincing your enemies to surrender. Cowing them through sheer military might is not enough, that's what people mean when they talk about "winning the peace". Ask yourself why the guerillas in Iraq have so much support, then look at the US shutting down a newspaper, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, etc. I think its pretty damn important that we not look bad to the Arab world.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
But too many people these days are just making shit up out of the vacuum, and stuff that is so obviously stupid you can't help but start to question their motives and, in some cases, their sanity. This applies equally to the woo-woos who think Bush planned 9/11 and the hoo-hahs who think Clinton had dozens of people whacked in Arkansas.
Personally, I think they are just trapped in ideological singularities that they have constructed in their minds as an alternative to dealing wth the true complexity of the world, but, hey, that's just me.
Ideology and politics. It's easier than thinking.
--- Ban humanity.
Hmm. But if you search for barack obama you do get hits. Including his pic at the Illinois state senate web site, which must have only been updated a few days ago.
Every military, every time.
Not excusing it, or saying 'that's ok, no harm done'. But, unfortunately, it does happen. A tiny segment of humanity is ready, willing, and able to do crap like this. Some of them gravitate to their countries' military or police forces. And given the chance, they do it.
There is constant talk in slashdot stories and posts about how the media gets things wrong and are irresponsible. **NEWS FLASH** SLASHDOT IS PART OF THE MEDIA AS WELL. Should the editors not hold themselves to the same standards they would like to hold to all the major news networks?
This story for example, was posted without any story verification or critical thought. It is simply FUD.
I remember reading a post showing that the rate of posts on Slashdot is declining (it was a post showing when all the important 10^n posts happened). At the time I thought to myself, "huh, that's weird", but not much of it. Now it seems painfully obvious that Slashdot is losing viewership because it doesn't take news reporting seriously. Slashdot could be perhaps the biggest internet community by now (its not) if it would take the "News for Nerds" seriously. The editors remind me of eternal critics who always want to find flaws in everyone else but never realize their own hypocrisy.
I guess a simpler to put it for the editors is such:
Step 1. Better reporting
Step 2. Higher viewership
Step 3: More ad $$!
What part of "Google used to be able to find them" don't you understand?
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Is this the next step in the war on terror? Deny EVERYTHING you do wrong? I remember when they claimed there was WMDs, but there wasn't. I remember when they said they wanted to make the world a safer place, but it isn't! We're taking bullshit from a monkey and a big eared twat and now they want to hide as much of it as they can.
Bush needs to learn people understand war is harsh and no one wants it, but hiding what it is does no one ANY good. I don't want to see my troops or anyone elses die in a complete farse of bullying (Hey we have tech they have pitch forks and minor explosives.. do the math). But this is just stupid.
In todays world you cannot censor most things, the internet has enough loop holes and back doors for you to find anything from the latest football results to pictures of a guy with his head cut off by these kidnappers.
If we can't find it at google we'll go else where and see how "evil" google truely was all along.
I like muppets.
Horrifying conditions in prisons are not the government's fault. Its the people's fault. People are always howling for stricter punishments for crimes. You need look no further than slashdot to see it. Watch how people react whenever there is a virus or a spammer story.
It's easy to point the finger. It's harder to point that finger right up our collective ass.
You asked for it remember? The last elections... doesn't ring a bell, you guys chose the man who thinks freedom is a barrier to freedom, the man who thinks your security is so important that locking you in a cage is for your own good (of course you'll have the right to have your AK-47, don't worry, they will respect you constitution given right to kill people, we know how important violence is to you so...).
;)) )
/rant over
Anyways one little word of wisdom to all americans BLUE and RED. That won't work this time, Bush hasn't stolen the election he won them, wether by your actions or inactions, I know that all american travelling outside will tell us that THEY voted Kerry and they have nothing to do with it, actually all americans to which we will speak will try that bullshit but welcome to the very nature of democracy: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. You are your government, you chose the guy who is bent on the destruction of every living soul that do not bow before you. LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE, next asshole who plunge into your buildings won't make us cry, you expressedly asked for it, you cannot menace the entire planet and expect to get friends. So starting for this day on, you guys might want to believe Echelon and Carnivore aren't real, you might convince yourself that you are free, you might try to pose as guardians of morality I don't give a shit and about anyone I know either, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT, you are as good of a target then any governement member or military personnel, because you are your governement, this my friends is called democracy, live with it, and in the meantime try to get some education cause according to your own Ben Franklin, democracy is impossible without eductation, result: Bush, and it's your fault.
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. Plus, you asked for it...
Feel safer?
(man I can feel my karma burning already!
you know what? That felt good..
That would explain EXACTLY the reason the prison images were available when the scandal was covered heavily in the news. Images was simply returning results from the News section which had them in the index. Now they've expired from the news index and won't reappear in the image index until their infrequent update.
The fact of the matter is that sexual abuse is contageous -- and the hysterical attitudes of many people toward sexual sadism in prison is in the mode of the abused becoming the abuser. You can't live in a society like the US is, particularly if you are a white-collar, white-bread, non-gang affiliated male, and experience the government in a way that isn't abusive. Eventually you either identify with the abuser, and become a jingoistic government lacky, or you decide that just about any means are justified against just about anyone or anything identified with the government's power.
Seastead this.
No, really. The right wing tried to blame Abu Ghraib on pornography and women's lib.
I think these factors contributed far more:
Did you actually look at the images or just notice that images were returned?
A search on google.co.uk does not return any of the torture photos.
I see many posts saying it's probably as a result of an outdated index. It's not! Proof?
Some of the images that they do have are from articles of recent as June.
Just look at the article dates. Some are really old, but some are rather "recent". Some of the articles where the pictures are found are even talking about the scandal!
The phrase: "Do no evil..." needs to be appended added with following "...and do not bite any Government's ass..."
Imagine if India flexes it's muscle and demands google remove all references to "occupied Kashmir"...
The first censored post, the first stopped mail, the first "missing" image is the first step we take towards losing our hard-earned freedom and liberty.
"Give me liberty or...uh how about a million dollars..."
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Everytime I hear an American say something like "Send 'im to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" I shudder. If extra-judicial and indiscriminate RAPE has become a socially tolerated and even *expected* method of punishment, something is really, really fucked up.
Google is now self-censoring factual information.
Not someone's opinion or belief or criticism. Factual information.
I could, possibly, understand self-censoring opinion and criticism if based upon your beliefs. Why rely upon google to index people's insane rants and conspiracy theories?
But when it comes to self-censoring links to actual pictures of actual events, particularly ones that are of such political significance, that's way over the line.
If you do a blanket image search from a given website on Google you will quickly find that all of the images the engine finds are very out of date.
This points to Google just having a weak image search update frequency as others have pointed out earlier, providing direct proof.
For example, search for WoW on www.battle.net using Google (advanced tools). You'll find no images or very few, because it's a relatively new game.
-Foo
On one hand there is a known problem with consistency and accuracy with Google's image search. On the other hand, there is a possible massive government conspiracy to repress images on only one search engine. Take your meds and get a reality check.
For those who know how to use Google advanced search, instead of relying on Google Images, the photos are simple to find. Google has simply chosen not to promote them by serving them up in Google Images, which has always been a very small subset of the photos indexed by Google.
Just use "abu ghraib" in the "exact phrase" (string) field, and "image photo gif jpeg picture" in the "at least one of the words" (boolean OR) field. All of the top sites listed have the photos available (until Slashdotted in 10...9...8...7...6...)
Information just wants to be free.
That seems a VERY unlikely explanation as they WERE available. That and the story is QUITE OLD.
Yea, right, sure.
Up to date is one thing. Having ALL the more famous photos in question NOT show up in a search is another.
Try again.
To not have a single listing on the index because it is "out of date" is frankly unbelievable.
I dont think its a "technical issue aka sorry we cant do it", but a willingful decision of delay to not let "critical material" of any kind spread as fast over the number one info-pool as it otherwise really could
Stop and think about this for a minute.
Do you have any idea how _huge_ an amount of effort it would take to screen images indexed and search terms and tweak them so that no images "harmful to the administration" came up?
When it takes this much effort, and there's nobody holding a gun to their head, and they have competitors gaining mindshare, why the _hell_ would Google bother with this? Their primary purpose is to make money, not please Republicans, and they're going to be around a lot longer than Bush will be in power!
The line is that their "news" images cycle out of the index quickly, and I can certainly believe this - after all, if I'm searching for newsfeed images, chances are I'm asking about something that happened recently.
Trying to stage a cover-up of the type suggested would be very expensive and not a good business strategy.
What does the spelling suggestion prove? Searching for misspilling asfasfasf returns zero results, but suggests a search for misspelling asfasfasf - which curiously also returns zero images.
Oh no! Censorship!
Simple. Not finding information on a subject does not mean none exists.
Christ people, just because Google is Good(TM) doesn't mean you should forget how to lookup information using other sources!
Hey, they're not perfect! Go figure!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
As an aside... what always bothers me with this kind of footage is the fact that these photos are only of what they (the soldiers) were prepared to photograph in the name of "fun". The mind boggles at what might have been going on that didn't qualify as a happy-snap !