Technology

The World’s Biggest, But is it Useful

This entry was posted in Google Information Internet Technology on by

The folks at Web’s Biggest say that they are “The World’s Biggest Directory Search Engine.” Last week Internetweek reported that:

A Web search engine that uses the “whois” database said Friday that it searches more Web sites than any other search engine, including Google, which crawls the Web in a different manner for its search results. ….
“Other search engines missed from a third to more than half of the Web sites [included] in the Web’s Biggest search results,” the firm stated.
Always on the outlook for better information sources I headed right over and entered a search that has pointed a few visitors to Modulator: live strong bands. The results were 3 references that appeared to be paid adds and they were preceded by this message:
Important: We suggest you make your search LESS specific. Please remember you are not searching the contents of web pages like you do at Google or Yahoo. You are searching one paragraph website descriptions. Furthermore, you will only find websites that contain EACH of your keywords in their description. Web’s Biggest is designed to find websites devoted to what you are looking for, not web pages that happen to contain those words.
On the other hand a search for Lance Armstrong generated quite a few results.
Want to find the text of the state of the union speech? Well, it is #2 on Google and the Web’s Biggest responds with the above “be less specific” message and no links of any kind. And it was a bit slow doing that.
Lesson: use your preferred traditional search service first. In fact, I’m still puzzling over why I’d use them at all…

Rebelling Against the Future

This entry was posted in Internet Science Technology on by

Not everyone rebels. It is just the vast majority of people who find learning painful.
Marvin Minsky, Closer to Truth # 210: How Does Technology Transform Society?

Closer to Truth is

a new cross-media genre presenting to broad public audiences “Knowledge Affairs” in which the fundamental questions of our times are explored by creative and thoughtful scientists, scholars and artists.

If you have a broadband connection watch Closer to Truth programs online. If not find them periodically on the Research Channel on your local cabel/satellite system.
1Show 210: How Does Technology Transform Society?

(more…)

Acceptable Search?

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Economics Technology on by

I have no objection to private use of GPS technology to track company vehicles, for geocaching, tracking your teenager’s driving, backtracking your hiking trail, etc., as long as everyone know whats happening. Unmonitored use by law enforcement employees is not acceptable:

When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a court order by state police.
Police suspected the lawyer of ties to a local Hells Angels Motorcycle Club that was selling methamphetamine, and they feared undercover officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities. So investigators stuck a GPS, or Global Positioning System, bug on Moran’s car, watched his movements, and arrested him on drug charges a month later.
A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. “Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways,” U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote. “Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway.”
Well, I say BS to Judge Hurd.
Why shouldn’t I or Moran have an expectation of privacy? Especially from public employees. And even more importantly as we move through public spaces which we must do to carry on the basic activities of being human.
Given the rapidly changing tools available to capture information about individuals or groups it is time to expand our view of what is considered acceptable search and surveillance practices. If law enforcement folks are not in hot pursuit of someone who just committed a legitimate1 crime then they should be required to have probable cause approved by an independent judiciary before they are allowed to investigate, let alone surveil, any individual or group for any reason. This should apply whether that individual or group is acting in traditionally private spaces or in what are considered public spaces.
1For the purpose of this post I ignore the question of whether methamphetamine sales is a legitimate crime.
Via Declan McCullagh.