<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Google Indexes Confidential Data</title> <atom:link href="http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/</link> <description>Technology News</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:03:20 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Ryan</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18335</link> <dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:55:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18335</guid> <description>Um, I said it wasn&#039;t Google&#039;s fault: &lt;blockquote&gt;This is by no means Googleâ€™s fault, instead it is obviously the result of poor thinking from the Web coordinator of the sites.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, I said it wasn&#8217;t Google&#8217;s fault:</p><blockquote><p>This is by no means Googleâ€™s fault, instead it is obviously the result of poor thinking from the Web coordinator of the sites.</p></blockquote> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: The Slasher</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18304</link> <dc:creator>The Slasher</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:14:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-18304</guid> <description>That&#039;s not Google&#039;s fault? Why have a go at them? What a cheap-shot...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not Google&#8217;s fault? Why have a go at them? What a cheap-shot&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: ffextensionguru</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-17891</link> <dc:creator>ffextensionguru</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:42:16 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/09/06/google-indexes-confidential-data/#comment-17891</guid> <description>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 &#039;confidential&#039; in it, not actually &#039;confidential&#039; items.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8216;confidential&#8217; in it, not actually &#8216;confidential&#8217; items.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 215/234 objects using disk: basic

Served from: cybernetnews.com @ 2012-02-13 05:47:15 -->
