Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Censors Abu Ghraib Images [updated]

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the smell-the-scent-of-karl-rove dept.

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.

12 of 731 comments (clear)

  1. I'm certainly a tinfoil hat wearer but... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Is this the work of Bush? by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Is this the work of Bush? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google is publically traded and in a position of trust. They're free to edit their results, but such editing should be done in an environment of full disclosure. Instead, they're acting as 1984's Ministry of Truth, making information disappear for a large segment of the population that isn't savvy enough to look for it elsewhere.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  3. Images Index Old by christowang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. A consumer may choose. by rastakid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  5. -1, Idiotic. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
  6. Re:You're guessing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The have the right to choose what they want and what they don't want showing up in their search engine.
    Yes, but if they start getting a reputation for filtering certain subjects, some people are going to start switching to other search engines. I don't think anyone said they don't have a right, only that its not a good idea.
  7. Re:You're guessing? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Google is playing the game safer than most of the internet

    The implication of what you've just said is that it would be risky for Google to help people find this information. And the implication of THAT is that if you criticise the Government you're going to get stomped.

    The number of people who read the parent post and didn't think there was something inherantly flawed in the reasoning shows how generally accepted this viewpoint is.

    And of course, they may well be right, but how far has society fallen if they are?

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  8. Re:You're guessing? by wertarbyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they owe to their clients (the public) unfiltered and uncensored results.

    You are not the client. You are the product. Clients are the people that place ads via google.

    --
    Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
  9. Re:You're guessing? by paganizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then don't use it.
    If enough people don't use it, they will probably change the way they do things.
    I had a similar rant happen to me about one of the websites I run; I just sort of check in on things every once in a while, and if I see something that really bugs me has been posted, i'll delete it. If you don't like me editing the things I don't like from my system, don't use it.
    go away.
    find something you like better.
    It's what made america great.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  10. Worse than that. This isn't criticism. It's fact. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And the implication of THAT is that if you criticise the Government you're going to get stomped.
    This isn't criticism of the government. This is about actual pictures taken of actual events.

    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.
  11. Re:Official Respons from Google. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.