Comments on: Google Indexes Confidential Data http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/ Technology News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:45:09 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/comment-page-1/#comment-18335 Ryan Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:55:48 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18335 Um, I said it wasn't Google's fault: <blockquote>This is by no means Google’s fault, instead it is obviously the result of poor thinking from the Web coordinator of the sites.</blockquote> Um, I said it wasn’t Google’s fault:

This is by no means Google’s fault, instead it is obviously the result of poor thinking from the Web coordinator of the sites.

]]> By: The Slasher http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/comment-page-1/#comment-18304 The Slasher Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:14:08 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18304 That's not Google's fault? Why have a go at them? What a cheap-shot... That’s not Google’s fault? Why have a go at them? What a cheap-shot…

]]> By: ffextensionguru http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/comment-page-1/#comment-17891 ffextensionguru Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:42:16 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-17891 Well that is rather disturbing. Noticed the bulk of the results though were PDF documents. The non-PDF documents seem to be just items with the term 'confidential' in it, not actually 'confidential' items. Well that is rather disturbing. Noticed the bulk of the results though were PDF documents. The non-PDF documents seem to be just items with the term ‘confidential’ in it, not actually ‘confidential’ items.

]]>