Removing messages from Google groups archive

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mister X, Aug 23, 2006.

  1. Mister X

    Mister X Guest

    Daniel <> wrote in
    news:44ecdd18$:

    > Using this form here (I think):-
    > http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/msgs_remove
    >
    > I noticed a certain infamous ng user using it (assuming it is
    > actually him - see below).
    >
    > The main question I have is how does Google know that some
    > malicious user isn't going about requesting the removal of posts
    > that don't belong to them?
    >
    > It seems like a manual process as well (one request per post at
    > a time).


    When I removed one, I had to declare under oath that I was the person
    (using language they provide), and give my physical name and address
    (IIRC).

    (Also, just in case you are not aware, posters can set
    X-No-Archive in their headers, and google will not archive their
    posts; no need for them to have them removed afterwards.)
    Mister X, Aug 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mister X

    Daniel Guest

    Using this form here (I think):-
    http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/msgs_remove

    I noticed a certain infamous ng user using it (assuming it is actually
    him - see below).

    The main question I have is how does Google know that some malicious
    user isn't going about requesting the removal of posts that don't belong
    to them?

    It seems like a manual process as well (one request per post at a time).
    Daniel, Aug 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mister X

    Mister X Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Is it possible to set "X-No-Archive" with OE (using quotefix)?
    > Not that I'm sure I want to do it, mainly curious. Anyone know?


    http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7918

    Oooh...

    | Any post that contains the text "X-No-Archive:" either in the
    | message headers of their post or as the very first text in the
    | first line of the message body will be displayed on Google
    | Groups for only seven days and won’t be searchable after it’s
    | removed.

    So it WILL be displayed for seven days.
    Mister X, Aug 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Mister X

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Mister X wrote:
    > Daniel <> wrote in
    > news:44ecdd18$:
    >
    > > Using this form here (I think):-
    > > http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/msgs_remove
    > >
    > > I noticed a certain infamous ng user using it (assuming it is
    > > actually him - see below).
    > >
    > > The main question I have is how does Google know that some
    > > malicious user isn't going about requesting the removal of posts
    > > that don't belong to them?
    > >
    > > It seems like a manual process as well (one request per post at
    > > a time).

    >
    > When I removed one, I had to declare under oath that I was the person
    > (using language they provide), and give my physical name and address
    > (IIRC).
    >
    > (Also, just in case you are not aware, posters can set
    > X-No-Archive in their headers, and google will not archive their
    > posts; no need for them to have them removed afterwards.)


    Is it possible to set "X-No-Archive" with OE (using quotefix)? Not that I'm
    sure I want to do it, mainly curious. Anyone know?

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Aug 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Mister X

    Daniel Guest

    Mister X wrote:
    >
    > When I removed one, I had to declare under oath that I was the person
    > (using language they provide), and give my physical name and address
    > (IIRC).
    >

    Yeah, I saw the declaration bit. Didn't get as far as the name and
    address stuff.
    However, that being the case I doubt Google will have either the time or
    inclination to actually check those details. My guess is that stuff
    gives them some degree of indemnity against any possible legal fallout
    and maybe then they actually follow up those details.
    So, it does appear that I can remove posts from being "archived" if I so
    choose (whether or not Google completely removes those posts from their
    databases is another question).
    Usenet anonymity has its upsides and downsides.


    > (Also, just in case you are not aware, posters can set
    > X-No-Archive in their headers, and google will not archive their
    > posts; no need for them to have them removed afterwards.)


    Ah, that's good to know.
    Daniel, Aug 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Mister X

    Shane Guest

    Mister X wrote:

    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Is it possible to set "X-No-Archive" with OE (using quotefix)?
    >> Not that I'm sure I want to do it, mainly curious. Anyone know?

    >
    > http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7918
    >
    > Oooh...
    >
    > | Any post that contains the text "X-No-Archive:" either in the
    > | message headers of their post or as the very first text in the
    > | first line of the message body will be displayed on Google
    > | Groups for only seven days and won’t be searchable after it’s
    > | removed.
    >
    > So it WILL be displayed for seven days.



    Remembering of course that the x-no-archive header is a request, and isnt
    complied with by many isp's, nor many people running their own nntp server.
    The posts are still held, intact, and can be fetched should a need arise
    (If, of course, you know what you are doing :))


    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6

    Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
    Shane, Aug 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Mister X

    Matty F Guest

    Daniel wrote:

    > So, it does appear that I can remove posts from being "archived" if I so
    > choose (whether or not Google completely removes those posts from their
    > databases is another question).
    > Usenet anonymity has its upsides and downsides.


    I think that all posts remain in the Google database, for use by US
    authorities. You can tell that because if you search for a mostly
    non-archiving person in date order, there is a long delay before it
    decides to say there are no messages (even when there are a few old
    ones that *are* archived. Searching not in date order brings up the
    archived ones immediately.
    Matty F, Aug 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Mister X

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Mister X wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Is it possible to set "X-No-Archive" with OE (using quotefix)?
    > > Not that I'm sure I want to do it, mainly curious. Anyone know?

    >
    > http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7918


    Thanks. I knew I could manually (or otherwise) put it as the first line in
    the body of the post. However, I know that some newsreader clients have the
    option to insert it into the headers (so it's not in your face when you read
    the post) and I wondered if OE was compliant in this respect.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Aug 25, 2006
    #8
  9. In message <44ecdac9$0$15875$-secrets.com>, Mister X
    wrote:

    > (Also, just in case you are not aware, posters can set
    > X-No-Archive in their headers, and google will not archive their
    > posts; no need for them to have them removed afterwards.)


    Which is very simple for somebody else to defeat. I have seen certain
    regular noisegroup trolls try to use X-No-Archive to try to keep their
    traces from coming back to haunt them later, and what others do is simply
    quote those postings in their entirety.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Mister X

    Matty F Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <44ecdac9$0$15875$-secrets.com>, Mister X
    > wrote:
    >
    > > (Also, just in case you are not aware, posters can set
    > > X-No-Archive in their headers, and google will not archive their
    > > posts; no need for them to have them removed afterwards.)

    >
    > Which is very simple for somebody else to defeat. I have seen certain
    > regular noisegroup trolls try to use X-No-Archive to try to keep their
    > traces from coming back to haunt them later, and what others do is simply
    > quote those postings in their entirety.


    And these are a few of the archives that completely ignore X-No-Archive
    and show posts that Google pretends to not keep:

    http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/talk-religion-christian/msg00030.html
    http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.religion.christian/msg00025.html
    http://www.usenetarchive.org/dir29/File779.html
    http://www6.allusenet.org/pages/8538.html
    http://www4.all-usenet-archive.com/File.asp?service=166
    http://usenet.best-buy-online.com/Dir10/File437.html
    Matty F, Aug 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Mister X

    Bryce Utting Guest

    Matty F <> wrote:
    > I think that all posts remain in the Google database, for use by US

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > authorities.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^

    that's, uh, quite a giant leap there...

    (note: I'm not about to offer arguments in the reverse direction.
    sure, of search houses Google scream the loudest at the suggestion of
    governmental supervision, but "do no evil" is to benefit
    *shareholders* first and foremost...)


    butting

    --
    I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable
    then it's because I am.
    -- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
    Bryce Utting, Aug 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Mister X

    Matty F Guest

    Bryce Utting wrote:
    > Matty F <> wrote:
    > > I think that all posts remain in the Google database, for use by US

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > authorities.

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > that's, uh, quite a giant leap there...


    What other reason would Google have for keeping the "non-archived"
    posts?
    You do accept that they keep them don't you? There are several ways to
    prove that.
    1. There's the long time it takes to skip over them when searching.
    2. When a search result says there are 6 messages but when you click on
    the thread there are only 5 there.
    3. A search result actually shows part of a "non-archived" post which
    is then missing when you click on that message.

    Do you really think Google runs through their database deleting
    "non-archived" posts after exactly 7 days? No, the display program
    simply checks that the 7 days is up and doesn't display them, for you
    and me.
    Matty F, Aug 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Mister X

    Bryce Utting Guest

    Matty F <> wrote:
    > Bryce Utting wrote:
    >> Matty F <> wrote:
    >> > I think that all posts remain in the Google database, for use by US

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> > authorities.

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >> that's, uh, quite a giant leap there...

    >
    > What other reason would Google have for keeping the "non-archived"
    > posts?


    errr: you're the one making the allegation, YOU back it up!

    > Do you really think Google runs through their database deleting
    > "non-archived" posts after exactly 7 days? No, the display program
    > simply checks that the 7 days is up and doesn't display them, for you
    > and me.


    which is trivially obvious. Google's reasons -aren't-.

    (well, all right then: talk in places like comp.risks frequently
    covers the trade secrets knowable simply from the forms archived data
    is stored in. the larger the archive -- whether the entirity of that
    archive is publically accessible or not -- the better-tuned those same
    secrets are. Google make their money from matching [posts|pages]
    against ads, and so the more [posts|pages] they have archived the
    better their matching gets. [from the shareholders' perspective, that
    is, not necessarily the users'.] and filtering the results of user
    requests against their database, as you've pointed out, is a HELL of a
    lot easier than continually walking the database to clean it up.
    there we go, reason offered, no conspiracy invoked. bloody Dan Brown
    readers; go fetch some Eco or Pynchon, willya?)


    butting

    --
    I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable
    then it's because I am.
    -- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
    Bryce Utting, Aug 27, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pauline Johnson

    Google groups posting newsgroups messages problem

    Pauline Johnson, Dec 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    534
    Pauline Johnson
    Dec 13, 2003
  2. FGH4

    Removing post from Google's archive

    FGH4, Nov 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    766
  3. ml2mst
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    550
    Vanguard
    Feb 18, 2007
  4. Midex
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    778
    Muze Groops
    Dec 22, 2007
  5. Kevin C Baer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,090
Loading...

Share This Page