
This document is confidential  - ssclafani
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype:rtf+|+filetype:ppt+|+filetype:pptx+|+filetype:csv+|+filetype:xls+|+filetype:xlsx+|+filetype:docx+|+filetype:doc+|+filetype:pdf+%22this+document+is+confidential%22+site:gov&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
======
Anechoic
This really isn't that big of a deal. If you look through some of the results,
you see things like blank forms (where "Confidential" refers to the
information filled in by the applicant), boilerplate, attachments as part of
public filings (where the document may have been confidential but came out in
a trial) etc.

In one case, the "this document is confidential" is a phrase taken from the
sentence " _nothing in_ this document is confidential." I'm working on a
"confidential" document right now, but it's intended for litigation and will
likely show up in a records search in a year or two.

There may be something juicy in here, but you're gonna have to go through a
whole bunch of the mundane to find it.

------
InfinityX0
So much confidentiality, yet so little desire to actually read any of these
documents. I hear Area 51 is cool, though.

Public is the new private - if you're hiding something, I'm not interested. If
it's in plain view, I feel especially cool for seeing it.

------
SandB0x
Changing it to site:gov.uk doubles the number of results.

~~~
iuguy
Replace confidential with one of:

PROTECT COMMERCIAL, PROTECT PERSONAL, RESTRICTED

You have to sort through a bit, but there's plenty there.

------
tshtf
If you think this search gets plenty of results, try searching for "XYZ
Confidential", where XYZ is a Fortune 500 corporation.

~~~
timr
[https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Ar...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Artf+|+filetype%3Appt+|+filetype%3Apptx+|+filetype%3Acsv+|+filetype%3Axls+|+filetype%3Axlsx+|+filetype%3Adocx+|+filetype%3Adoc+|+filetype%3Apdf+%22google+confidential%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Nobody's perfect, I guess.

~~~
jyothi
Most of these "confidential" documents are presentations made by google
employees to other companies to sell adwords.

A peep into the documents reveal the huge investment Google does into Product
Marketing Managers who do industry analysis, sell products predominantly
adwords

[http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.co.uk/en/uk/intl/en/adtoolkit/pdfs/insights/comscore_google_ukretailstudy_summary.pdf)

[http://google.inxshare.de/01_Automotive/Google_AutomotiveMar...](http://google.inxshare.de/01_Automotive/Google_AutomotiveMarketInsights_2010.pdf)

[http://www.in.gov/tourism/pdfs/Compete-
Google_Travel_Economy...](http://www.in.gov/tourism/pdfs/Compete-
Google_Travel_Economy_Study-Jan_2009.pdf)

[http://www.mednet-
tech.com/pdf/MedNet%20Webinar_11%2018%2020...](http://www.mednet-
tech.com/pdf/MedNet%20Webinar_11%2018%202009.pdf)

------
tomjen3
Ha, you get even more interesting results if you change the domain to .mil.

------
bruceboughton
What's the significance of "<https://encrypted.google.com>?

~~~
ElbertF
It's a feature they added not long ago:
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/search-more-
securely-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/search-more-securely-
with-encrypted.html)

------
aquateen
I haven't browsed it in about five years, but the Google Hack Database
(<http://www.hackersforcharity.org/ghdb/>) had a lot of these kind of things.

------
webgambit
What did surprise me was that when I changed it from gov to mil there were
only 7 results. Expected more from the military. ;)

~~~
wheaties
Please don't confuse the US military with the US government. In the military
if you can't do the job you're assigned, you get reassigned. If it doesn't do
what it's supposed to do it gets axed. In the government...

~~~
jcuppett
... the FBI will accidentally declassify military communique on the
reproduction of Tesla's experiments: <http://bit.ly/aT5AZ0>

~~~
jerf
Well, _that_ was a waste of time.

------
jbz
Title of this item should be changed to "Eternal September has arrived."

------
billmcneale
Apple and Google turn up nothing, but Microsoft...

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Ar...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Artf+|+filetype%3Appt+|+filetype%3Apptx+|+filetype%3Acsv+|+filetype%3Axls+|+filetype%3Axlsx+|+filetype%3Adocx+|+filetype%3Adoc+|+filetype%3Apdf+%22this+document+is+confidential%22+site%3Amicrosoft.com)

------
sabj
See also:

?intitle:index.of? mp3

# -FrontPage-" inurl:service.pwd

intitle:"Index of" config.php

Not to mention the credit card number hacks... :)

~~~
16s
They will CAPTCHA you if you go too far with SSN/CCN regexes.

~~~
chronomex
Or just about anything involving complicated number-range searches. I got bot-
blocked while looking for something a month or two ago.

------
zyglobe
Haha. Who needs wikileaks?

~~~
petercooper
Anyone who wants to read stuff more interesting than water permits being
issued in Montana or business fluff like "Developing a Transparent Business
Case that builds true Accountability" :-)

------
dylancm
oh noes, you must be a hacker!

On a different note, this is not surprising in the least (although quite
clever ;).

~~~
ssclafani
Credit goes to Dan Crowley:
<http://twitter.com/dan_crowley/status/21426534709>

~~~
msredmond
Really interesting stuff -- thanks for reposting here.

------
GBond
And this is data that managed to seeped through the cracks of Google's
scrubbing. I would imagine the raw index from spiders are far more
interesting.

------
onewland
It sounds asinine since it requires the creator of documents to make the
mistake in the first place, but is there possibly a useful service to be made
for detecting sensitive documents of a company in a public location (public
URI location, not physical location)? Is there nothing more useful than a
google search? Just brainstorming.

------
peterwwillis
take out 'this document is confidential', add SSN. a lot of false hits, but
some genuine government employee records too. also the bush era whitehouse
visitors logs which are just kinda interesting to skim through

------
flipbrad
are there any search engines out there that ignore robots.txt, that this could
be done with?

------
jacquesm
Drop the site:gov from the query for some more interesting results.

------
Marticus
...What's Wikileaks, again?

------
mkramlich
this of course led me to search for TOP SECRET:

[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=filetype%3A...](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=filetype%3Artf+%7C+filetype%3Appt+%7C+filetype%3Apptx+%7C+filetype%3Acsv+%7C+filetype%3Axls+%7C+filetype%3Axlsx+%7C+filetype%3Adocx+%7C+filetype%3Adoc+%7C+filetype%3Apdf+%22TOP+SECRET%22+site%3Agov&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=c56ed3f460fe1172)

~~~
kefs
which of course led me to a search for "EYES ONLY"

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&sa...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=filetype%3Artf+|+filetype%3Appt+|+filetype%3Apptx+|+filetype%3Acsv+|+filetype%3Axls+|+filetype%3Axlsx+|+filetype%3Adocx+|+filetype%3Adoc+|+filetype%3Apdf+%22eyes+only%22+site%3Agov&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

~~~
flipbrad
you could try NOFORN

