Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Latest Target In War On Drugs: Google Autocomplete

timothy posted about a year ago | from the wrong-folks-to-micromanage dept.

Google 154

netbuzz writes "The National Association of Attorneys General met in Boston this week and one panel focused on the 'safe harbor' provision of 1996 Communications Decency Act. Within that broader discussion, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood cited the autocomplete feature in Google search as evidence the company has more control over content than it contends. 'We know they manipulate the autocomplete feature,' Hood said, with his point being that there should be more such manipulation, not less. His primary example: a search on 'prescription drugs online' presents an autocomplete suggestion of 'prescription drugs online without a prescription.'"

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FUCK Your WAR. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061553)

I don't give a fuck what kind of war it is.
Buncha war mongering fucks.
Will find ANYTHING to declare war on.
FUCK THE U.S.A.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061587)

...thus began this Anon's War on War

Re:FUCK Your WAR. (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44061701)

Well, I was going to invite you to my annual "worldwide slashdotter tug of war" competition, but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. (3, Funny)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#44061915)

but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

After that guy showed up last year with his "tug-of-war robot overlord", there's really not much point to it. I mean, we could go for a bigger slab of concrete with a bigger nuclear-powered winch, but after a while it's just more work than fun.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44061987)

but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

After that guy showed up last year with his "tug-of-war robot overlord", there's really not much point to it. I mean, we could go for a bigger slab of concrete with a bigger nuclear-powered winch, but after a while it's just more work than fun.

Just imagine a beowulf cluster of those.... You'd have to have some pretty hot grits to go up against that.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062191)

I don't give a fuck what kind of war it is.
Buncha war mongering fucks.
Will find ANYTHING to declare war on.
FUCK THE U.S.A.

So... then make your own search engine in your own country? Nobody is forcing you to use teh U.$.A.'s technology.

Re: FUCK Your WAR. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062297)

I think his comment was about the US warmongering government. Not the warmongering autocomplete or the warmongering Google. I hope you can appreciate the not so subtle difference of the actual meaning of his post.

Re: FUCK Your WAR. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062431)

So some one DOES get it.
Just figured was time to give up any hope of anyone having any idea of what our mentality has turned to.
Thank you.

Re: FUCK Your WAR. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062549)

Yes, somebody gets it, but there are only three of us:(

google this (4, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44061559)

Attorneys are ... :)

Re:google this (0)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#44061739)

I guess Attorneys have so much work that First Amendment Issues are a nuisance?

And while we're on the subject of Attorney's. Given; if client A is in conference with attorney B, and person C comes into the discussion to talk with client A about how to commit an act of fraud. Question; Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"

Re:google this (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#44062235)

I guess Attorneys have so much work that First Amendment Issues are a nuisance?

And while we're on the subject of Attorney's. Given; if client A is in conference with attorney B, and person C comes into the discussion to talk with client A about how to commit an act of fraud. Question; Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"

You forgot to add "asking for a friend" to your question...

Re:google this (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#44062735)

This Economic Hydra Effect is nasty. I'm just trying to figure out how Goldman-Sucks, et.al. got away with things like "robo signing," and "conflict of interest issues." I wonder, "how could a group of people do this, and get away with it?" A possible solution was, "put your attorney in the mix, and all communications are privileged."

Re:google this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062389)

Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"

No.

Re:google this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061927)

Not so. It's just that 96% give the other 4% a bad name.

Re:google this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062159)

See? There is a conspiracy. Obviously lawyers had those results toned down.

Re:google this (2)

fonetik (181656) | about a year ago | (#44062203)

"Politicians are..." yields more accurate results.

Re:google this (3, Insightful)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about a year ago | (#44062315)

Theres my daily dose of laughter and loss of faith in humanity,

One of my suggestions was "attorneys are doctors"!

The funny one was "attorneys aren't us" (a play on alcho annonomous)

Re:google this (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44062467)

Attorneys are ... :)

Welcome to the world of crowd sourced search trends, and self fulfilling prophesies.

The truth is autocomplete isn't manipulated, its crowd sourced in real time. No conspiracy, no secret room full of minions trained to push an agenda. Just statistical weighting of what hundreds of thousands of people are searching for. If you don't like the results blame the users, because, in fact, that is exactly the source.

Why is this so hard for politicians (and anyone else with an ax to grind) to understand. You read about people suing google all over the world for the same thing, (and mostly losing except in France).
.

Re:google this (1)

SJHiIlman (2957043) | about a year ago | (#44062649)

Google tries to blacklist A, B, and C, so clearly they should have to do the same for D, E, F, G, and H! It makes perfect sense!

they're right (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#44062727)

you search "politics" for instance and a million ads for antidepressants come up.

perfect matches.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061571)

I would like to know what kind of drugs he was on when he tried searching for that.

Web Searches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061595)

Are they aware that there is more then one search engine out there?

He's a moron (5, Funny)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year ago | (#44061607)

And so is anyone who accepts the proffered autocomplete options without thinking about what he wants to search for.

On the other hand, here's an opportunity for GoogleClippy. "It looks like you're searching for illegal drugs online. How can I help you with that?"

Yeah, he's an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061645)

Perhaps 'prescription drugs online without a prescription' is a more common search query than 'prescription drugs online' ?

Also, somebody teach this idiot how incredibly difficult it is to adjust data retrieval algorithms is*, especially on Google's scale.

* = while maintaining acceptable performance across a massively distributed engine.

Re:Yeah, he's an idiot. (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44062739)

Also, somebody teach this idiot how incredibly difficult it is to adjust data retrieval algorithms is*, especially on Google's scale.

Actually, the algorithms adjust themselves, in real time, all the time, based on trending searches.

That is why they are so successful. They are crowd sourced.

Everyone thinks they are so unique and individual and different from everybody else. They are totally shocked to find out they have exactly the same thought patterns as a large percentage of other people. I often see something on TV, reach for my tablet and google a couple words, only to have auto complete suggest almost exactly the next few words I was going to enter. 60 million other viewers saw the same thing, and decided to do the same search, and at least half are faster than I am. Its worked this way forever, and without it I'd still be clueless about who Amanda Witherspoon is [ytimg.com] .

Re:He's a moron (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44061749)

At least it sounds like he's focusing on drug abuse that traditionally gets ignored.

"Pot and crack? Yes, lock all of them up, those criminal scum.

Oxycodone and hydrocodone? Hey man, sitting on your fat ass in a chair and blabbing about how liberals are destroying society all day is tough. Rush NEEDS those pain pills. That shouldn't be jail time!"

Re:He's a moron (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44061933)

Prohibition is bad policy. There's no "at least he's" when he's implementing bad policy. The right thing to do is advocate against bad policy. If he can't do that as AG, then he should quit. Keeping his job and implementing bad policy should earn him nothing but contempt.

Re:He's a moron (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year ago | (#44061977)

"Traditionally gets ignored", my butt. There's been a huge push to stop abuse of prescription narcotics, especially the oxy; that stuff is all over the street. It hasn't been the drug of choice for the upper crust for many, many years.

Re:He's a moron (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about a year ago | (#44062343)

I'm assuming you mean HAS been the drug of choice.

Re:He's a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062827)

"Traditionally gets ignored", my butt.

There are lots of things that I want to do to your butt.

Re:He's a moron (0)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44062405)

Thanks for trivializing a sensitive issue by making it hateful and partisan.

Re:He's a moron (1)

ciantic (626550) | about a year ago | (#44061863)

I must be one of these morons. It often happens to me that Google Chrome address-bar (omnibar) throws in the auto-completion just when I'm about to press the enter. Then after looking at results for a while I find out the stuff I typed is appended with crap.

Now that I bothered to write about my stupidity, I'm considering turning the auto-completion off from address-bar.

Re:He's a moron (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#44062285)

I must be one of these morons. It often happens to me that Google Chrome address-bar (omnibar) throws in the auto-completion just when I'm about to press the enter. Then after looking at results for a while I find out the stuff I typed is appended with crap.

Now that I bothered to write about my stupidity, I'm considering turning the auto-completion off from address-bar.

The chrome address bar autocomplete only fills in more than you type in two cases; if you are typing part of a word that will get turned into a "We think you mean to search for X" anyway, or a search you have already executed that started with the same text. An off-the-cuff search won't use the live suggested search results to autocomplete your search.

Re:He's a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062269)

And so is anyone who accepts the proffered autocomplete options without thinking about what he wants to search for.

You sure? I mean, clearly, google does its mind-reading correctly most of the time [searchenginepeople.com] .

The new front... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061619)

The new front in the war on drugs: minor inconvenience. Take that, drugs!

Danger! (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44061625)

A government official is looking for a moral crusade to fill his time and justify his paycheck. Mississippi Jim, on patrol!

Re:Danger! (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44061745)

Maybe he's angry about his own autocomplete results,

Why is Jim Hood...

Why is Jim Hood still in jail

Why is Jim Hood a democrat

Why is Jim Hood a republican

Re:Danger! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44061975)

that's actually funny.

murders convicted etc.

wasteful (2)

hurwak-feg (2955853) | about a year ago | (#44061629)

Why try to stop people from searching for something they are searching for anyway? The algorithm probably just checks to see what common queries are completed using the text so far. How much time and money is going to be spent on something that isn't going to do anything but annoy Google users and developers? IANAL, but I thought ordering drugs online is legal in the US as long as it is not a controlled substance?

Re:wasteful (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44061687)

Why try to stop people from searching for something they are searching for anyway?

Because they believe that Google should be at the front line of essentially censoring the internet to only return things they feel are 'acceptable'.

The government can't censor you (yet), but if they can strong-arm a company into doing it for them, it must be OK, right?

Re:wasteful (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#44061705)

> Because they believe that Google should be at the front line of essentially censoring the internet to only return things they feel are 'acceptable'.

Which, given that Google has voluntarily taken on this general role, is simply a debate over what the standards for "acceptability" are.

Re:wasteful (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44061969)

The problem is that nobody understands what volunteer means. They chose to do some things without being forced to, so now assholes like Jim Hood think they should be forced to do even more. That's seven kinds of stupid.

Re:wasteful (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44062385)

Google does it for monetary reasons.

The government does it for control reasons.

That's not just a difference of the level of acceptability.

Re:wasteful (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year ago | (#44061991)

Well, that strong-arming thing usually goes both ways between corporations and the government.

Re:wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061955)

This is the USA you're talking about here. You can buy as many guns as you want, and enough ammo to start a small war, no problem; even the most limited regulation is verboten. Want to buy some medicine though, now we have to regulate that shit. Crazy place.

Strange, if you type in "Douchebags" . . . (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44061639)

. . . it auto-completes with "The National Association of Attorneys General" . . .

Strange, if you type in "I am"... (5, Funny)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#44061999)

It auto-completes with "gullible"...

Re:Strange, if you type in "I am"... (1)

dsvick (987919) | about a year ago | (#44062305)

Hey, no it doesn't. It says ...... oh, errr.... nevermind

but...that's...not how it works... (4, Informative)

dAzED1 (33635) | about a year ago | (#44061641)

If a lot of people that started a search with "prescription drugs online" were searching for "prescription drugs online unicorns riding gorillas wearing purple napkin trampoline" then that is what autocomplete would suggest. Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061699)

This is just the thin end of the wedge, they are after the ability to fully control what people do and say on the internet, and they need to be able to be in charge of google et all to do that.

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061755)

However, Google does *prevent* autocomplete from presenting suggestions if your search is leading towards a particular kind of content. Try attempting to search for an adult film actress and autocomplete shuts up fast. That's what is meant by "manipulating" the autocomplete feature. I am not sure technically what determinations Google's system uses to decide to stop showing you any suggestions at all, and considering the top suggestion for "nude" is "nude pumps," what suggestions are filtered out while still showing suggestions -- however, Google does manipulate their autocomplete feature.

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | about a year ago | (#44062067)

manipulating based on particular names is one thing, but is the federal government going to be coming up with the list of phrases (versus names) for which we shouldn't be able to search? I'd love to see that list, and have a conversation with the author thereof about what they think censorship means...

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061757)

Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...

Of course it is. Don't you see? This is the MS AG's scheme to explain to his wife why on some computers Google autocompletes with illicit, fetishistic porn--Google is behind it all and it has nothing to do with user activity.

Disclaimer: Nothing above should be taken seriously, as a disparagement of the man's character, or construed to indicate any knowledge of the AG's web browsing activities. I'm not the NSA. This joke was merely an easy jab which would have been made about anyone, but is especially easy when the target seems to believe Google's algorithms are trying to shill for meds.

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061877)

AGs: "Google, it's come to our attention that you must, in fact, be manipulating the autocomplete feature in your search results."
Google: *exasperated sigh* "Yes. We know. We know this because it's YOUR paranoid law enforcement and antiquated laws that FORCED us to do so! Of COURSE we have to do it! We had to write all this shit because you don't understand BitTorrent, we have to-"
AGs: "Yes, and we'd like you to do more of it. For the kids, you understand."
Google: "I WILL MURDER EACH OF YOU AND EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR WHOEVER PUT YOU IN YOUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES."

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (4, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#44062289)

But "think of the children" ! Oh, and obviously anyone using a search query like that is probably up to no good (probably looking for illicit drugs)...maybe Google should start profiling the people who search with these kinds of queries, and tip off law enforcement, so we can have a safer society and stuff. You know, just send a copy of that person's search history for the last month and GPS location to a nearby police station, and the police will have a look around the premises for anything incriminating. To help bootstrap the process, right? Because that's the society we live...one that's constantly looking for someone to thump, by any means.

Oh, to live on a different plane of existence where stupidity like this does not exist.

Re:but...that's...not how it works... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#44062371)

If a lot of people that started a search with "prescription drugs online" were searching for "prescription drugs online unicorns riding gorillas wearing purple napkin trampoline" then that is what autocomplete would suggest. Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...

Not to mention, there are two features offered by Google: autocomplete (changing the search you are typing without you taking any additional action) is totally different than live suggested search (a list of searches that start the same way that you must choose in order to execute). Autocomplete uses only past searches or dictionary information, not a magic cloud algorithm that can be bent to the will of our overlords.

This is NOT about autocomplete, as autocomplete will NOT change your search for "prescription drugs" to "prescription drugs for free from a crack dealer" plain and simple, unless you searched for that exact phrase in the past. This is about suggested search, which is just a collection of things other people have searched for. Hilariously, "prescription drugs online without prescription" is not there for most users, so did he search for that in the past and have google "remember" it for him?

I wonder which... (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#44061665)

Will this Slashdot discussion focus on Google's responsibility for its autocomplete algorithm, or the ethics of buying drugs/medicine online and the questionable reasons some things require prescriptions at all (basic antibiotics, contact lenses, etc.)

Either way, I hope we see some good car analogies!

Re:I wonder which... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44061741)

and the questionable reasons some things require prescriptions at all (basic antibiotics

Are you mad? We over use antibiotics now, and people don't always take the full dose, which just leads to more resistant strains.

If you could walk into a store and buy an antibiotic, the usefulness of them would probably be wiped out in a few years because people would use them wrong.

Thankfully, you need to be a doctor to write prescriptions for drugs. Though, I'm sure if big pharma had their way, 'consumers' would be free to buy any drug for any disease they think they have, then they could go straight to marketing it and not worrying about anything else (like making sure it's actually safe before releasing it).

Re:I wonder which... (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#44062107)

Oh God, the stupid burns!

The reason doctors prescribe antibiotics even if the person has a viral illness is because of secondary or opportunistic infections. You only have so many white blood cells at a given moment, and when they are diverted dealing with a viral invader, other, normally not problematic bacteria can advance causing damage.

Think of it being like oral thrush, and AIDS patients -> normally the stuff that causes thrush (a fungus) is held in check by your immune system...it's not a challenge, and your immune system swats it a hundred times a day. Your immune system becomes compromised through HIV, and suddenly thrush, a normally non-existent problem, is eating you from the inside out.

As for superbugs, etc. -> this has more to do with lack of cleanliness about hospitals, and less to do with antibiotics. Bacteria are exposed to ridiculously nasty antibiotics, of all shapes and forms, in their natural environment, all the time; pick up a soil sample, you'll find some superbugs in it that are resistant to every antibiotic we have in every hospital and lab on earth. What keeps them in check? Their own kind -> evolution isn't free. If the bacteria that is immune to every antibiotic in existence is armored like a tank, but has to invest 10 cycles of its metabolism creating that armor, compared to its neighbor which is armorless and invests no cycles, but just breeds...pretty soon there will be 10 armored bacteria and 30 trillion non-armored ones. The non-armored ones will probably be more mobile, and will be able to find food easier; the armored ones are only good in extreme settings...like next to the earth's vent...and definitely not inside a living host organism which has its own evolving defense system (!)...there are more stable places for a bacteria to be.

Hospitals, contrary to their images as clean places, are actually really, really dirty, and it takes a lot of medicine and technology to keep them clean. If it were possible, I'd install UV lamps through-out hospitals to zap any viruses or bacterial or fungal spores floating through the air...but that's an imperfect solution; those lamps can damage the retina, possibly the skin, and so on. But they do tend to destroy DNA pretty quickly.

Re:I wonder which... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062227)

Go back to medical school. You fail at basic pharmacology.

Unless you are immunocompromised, the chances of secondary infection from a bacteria are low. In the event it does happen, you can diagnose it. You don't need to treat viral infections with antibiotics to prevent secondary bacterial infections. In fact, we've shown rather convincingly that it doesn't work (overtreating middle ear infections does not decrease the risk of mastoiditis, a rare infection in the bones behind the ear.

The risk of 'superbugs' is much more complex that you present, but your little diatribe about how carrying antibiotic resistance genes confers a general negative selection on such bugs is wrong and about 15 years out of date. Look up 'cassettes' (not the 8 track type).

If your theory of Evil Hospitals was correct, then you would expect that people that work in them would be signficantly sicker than the rest of the population.

They aren't.

Keep trying.... This one's a miss. Three strikes.

Re:I wonder which... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062853)

Oh God, the stupid burns!

Then, really, stop being so fucking stupid.

Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about [mayoclinic.com] .

Using anti-biotics for the wrong reason, or not taking the full course, is absolutely a huge factor in developing resistant strains.

blame this guy (5, Funny)

Valen1260 (215056) | about a year ago | (#44061677)

Re:blame this guy (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44061855)

Holy shit -- that's actually worth watching. Very clever, very amusing.

Re:blame this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062231)

Someone need to send this video to Mr Hood. He might believe it!

Autocomplete "Jim Hood" (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#44061711)

type "Is Jim Hood" and the second autocomplete result is:

still in jail

coming soon: Pirate Pharmacist (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#44061717)

Pirate Pharmacist: Get all your illicit information on drugs that you could also get from a library or med school.

I'm sorry but your latest tactic is Blatant censorship

Hands Off! (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year ago | (#44061761)

So the guy who hasn't got the faintest idea how autocompletions are generated is now the self-appointed policeman trying to save us all from it's evil clutches. The US legal system that allows prosecutors to decide you're guilty of something that's not even illegal and then side-step, tap-dance and threaten their convoluted way through the court system to make sure you get punished for it while leaving a trail of collateral damage longer and wider than Godzilla's last walk to the park to exercise his Labradoodle is about to be fired up for yet another nuclear strike against a nut that has the audacity not to leap out of it's shell upon psychic command. I do hope Google figure out how to limit the inevitable fall-out on a national level, I don't want 'Murica's laws imposed on my UK web habits.

end rambling rant

Oh, BTW, ability to manipulate != manually approving every combination

They should know by now (5, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44061775)

When you do something small and nice for a group of assholes, be it the government or the RIAA or whomever, then you set the expectation for that as the bare minimum across the board. There's no gratitude, they'll only say that you aren't doing enough. The second they started censoring autocomplete, it was an inevitability that crap like this would happen.

Re:They should know by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062165)

danegeld?

Re:They should know by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062831)

It's like the old joke about the guy that offers a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. When she says yes, he tries to reduce the price. She asks him what kind of woman he thinks she is, and he responds that he already established that and is just negotiating the price.

"What kind of search engine do you think we are?" is going to get Google nowhere now that it's already been established. Now they're just negotiating the censored content.

This is the exact reason people talk about "the slippery slope" here on Slashdot.

Drugs will... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#44061777)

Drugs will fuck up your life kid, so if we ever catch you using, buying and selling them we'll kidnap you and throw you in a cage and fuck up you and your family's lives.

Typical politics.

Re:Drugs will... (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#44061873)

Unless you operate a Compounding Pharmacy?

Re:Drugs will... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44061963)

Either Google Autocomplete or the War on Drugs has to go.

I don't see any Constitutional issue with or State referenda against Google Autocomplete.

Re:Drugs will... (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44062037)

Either Google Autocomplete or the War on Drugs has to go.

Only one company profits from the former, but numerous companies and politicians profit from the latter.

why am i so terrified of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061785)

chinese people

The war on drugs is a waste of time and money. (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44061795)

Let's end it along with the prescription system. Much like prohibition, the war on drugs only empowers cartels and drug companies. Not that there's really a difference between the two groups.

Re:The war on drugs is a waste of time and money. (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about a year ago | (#44062021)

Doctor, my rheumatism has really been acting up lately. Can you prescribe me some crack cocaine for that?

The Gift of Pride (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#44061797)

One would think that when discussing the acts of constitutional illegality, that the speakers would try to at least not grin when purgering themselves.

Jim Hood is a stupid hick from a hick state. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061799)

Idiots like this make the world a less pleasant place to live.

Fortunately, Mississippi is a shithole that those who are
intelligent don't need to visit, so the influence of human waste
like Jim Hood won't reach very far.

down the rabbit hole we go (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44061805)

other nefarious and dastardly plots these brave attorneys have uncovered:
1. an image search for 'boobies' using google image search can and will display, actual breasts.
2. Google translate can and will translate nearly a dozen highly offensive english words into any of more than 20 different languages.
3. a youtube search for 'collateral murder' will produce a video of american soldiers murdering journalists in iraq.
4. Google searches for the phrases "edward snowden" or "Julian Assange" provides shockingly inappropriate, unbiased information pertaining to united states foreign and domestic policy.
5. despite dire and repeated warnings by their trustworthy IT staff, google will in fact let you google the word 'google' without any safeguard for the catastrophic consequences that ensue.
6. despite providing readily available search results for filthy pill junkies, google search raises the ire of attorneys around the globe as it fails to provide a reliable and affordable source of high quality pure columbian cocaine for todays savvy litigators and high powered firms.

Google's self censorship .. slippery slope? (2)

jbohumil (517473) | about a year ago | (#44061945)

I was surprised. Yesterday I wanted to play John Lennon's song "Woman is the nigger of the world" for a friend who had never heard it. Google autocomplete shut off at the "n" and wouldn't show the song's title. Google has made their own bed here by manipulating their autocomplete for a variety of reasons already. They certainly can't complain that they can't do it, or that it is too hard. They are doing it, and for fairly trivial situations such as avoiding presenting a disturbing word to a search engine user. This opens up the door for all kinds of requests for censorship, whether the politically correct ones like preventing the dread "n word" from appearing without someone actually typing it, or this idea that people can be prevented from visiting questionably legal sites by manipulation of autocomplete.

As soon as they deciding to do all kinds of manipulation they left themselves open to this kind of thing, and it seems like they pretty much have to go along with it, don't they? I mean, do they really want to make the case that showing someone an offensive word is worse than letting people see dangerous and questionably legal activities?

How much protection do Google users need from the horrors of the raw unfiltered internet? Gradually this will reduce the effectiveness of their search engine.

Yes! (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44061967)

I have always suspected that Google autocomplete was on drugs.

Autocomplete this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061983)

"why does my girlfriend smell" ....

Autostop reading (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44062003)

I got as far as "Mississippi Attorney General" and stopped reading, because I knew what followed would simultaneously knock points off my IQ and make me weep for the lost potential of a once-sentient species.

Don't bang illiterates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062007)

Lessons from Google Autocomplete:

Try "how do u"
Then try other variants like "how does someone", "how does an individual", "how do I".

Conclusion: It's mostly illiterate people who get venereal disease. Stay away from them.

Four words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062041)

First Amendment Protected Speech.

Ah, Mississippi (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#44062119)

That shining beacon of Justice for All.

It works as designed, which is quite good. (1)

astro (20275) | about a year ago | (#44062221)

As far as I understand it, query autocomplete is mostly, but not entirely, social in nature - which turns out to be a pretty good predictor. It is quite likely that I will be looking for the same thing as millions of other people. I think autocomplete is probably a combination of social and algorithmic, And for me, even for technical queries, it works so well that sometimes I am astounded - or disappointed that I was not the first to have a brilliant idea.

Re:It works as designed, which is quite good. (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44062681)

I dunno, often I type something like "26", and it autocompletes to "26 weeks pregnant" (basically, any small two-digit number autocompletes to "XX weeks preggers"), when all I really wanted to do was a little math in Google Calculator.

Mr. Reynholm? Is that you? (1)

waspleg (316038) | about a year ago | (#44062273)

I didn't know there were Brits in Congress...

Re:Mr. Reynholm? Is that you? (1)

waspleg (316038) | about a year ago | (#44062283)

Oh AG, not senator, my fault.

Cool (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44062329)

Other suggestions:

"how to reduce my carbon footprint" --- "and not seem smug and think I actually make a difference"
"why is the earth warming" --- "when the sun shines hotter and brighter"
"Apple is the greatest" --- "manipulator of marketing towards stupid people"
"when did the dinosaurs exist" --- "in the figment of a heathen's imagination"
"what is evolution" --- "but a plot to educate Christians"
"how to overthrow the US government" --- "and throw them a great party"

Also cool is the auto-complete will change based on whether you have a left wing or right wing (or right right wing) Congress.

"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "in a striking gorgeous taffeta suit" (Democrats)
"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "to a woman" (Republicans)
"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "and the authorities are already on their way to lock you freaks up, resistance is futile" (Tea Party)

Re:Cool (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44062523)

You have no idea what the Tea Party is.

Monkeys (1)

subanark (937286) | about a year ago | (#44062399)

See no evil
Hear no evil
Speak no evil
Think no evil

These are what the 3 monkeys advice. There are only 3 monkeys.

Translation... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44062599)

The National Association of Attorneys General

In English this means "National Association for the removal and criminalization of the 1st amendment and other pesky rights"

These Men and Women are the single most evil people out there in the USA, They enjoy destroying people's lives to further their own careers.

F-tard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062793)

What a complete self righteous moron. Doesn't he take into a account that autocomplete could also be based on popular searchs. So if one searches for prescriptions drugs without a prescription doesn't that tell you there's a big demand for it. Now if google popped something up and said "Use Tor and Silk Road to get your stuff, online pharmicies are a scam. Please don't send money to anyone in Cammeroon thank you." then I'd think there would be a case.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>