Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

transparencyreport.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#41

Post by sillystuff »

circuit10 wrote: post #6

Even Firefox blocks it for me, they're using Google Safe Browsing too apparently

You can turn "safe browsing" off in your user.js file. Replacing the urls with "" is unnecessary if the booleans are respected. But, nuking the urls provides an extra layer if Mozilla decides to add a new boolean that defaults to true (they do this with their telemetry settings all the time).

   // dont send urs to whoever to decide if they are "safe"
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.phishing.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_potentially_unwanted", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_uncommon", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_dangerous", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.block_dangerous_host", false);
   
   // disable binaries NOT in local lists being checked by Google (real-time checking)
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.url", "");
   
   // disable reporting URLs/
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.reportURL", "");
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.reportPhishURL", "");
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.reportURL", ""); // (FF50+)
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.reportMalwareMistakeURL", ""); // (FF54+)
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google.reportPhishMistakeURL", ""); // (FF54+)
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.reportMalwareMistakeURL", ""); // (FF54+)
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.provider.google4.reportPhishMistakeURL", ""); // (FF54+)
   // disable Mozilla's blocklist for known Flash tracking/fingerprinting
   user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.blockedURIs.enabled", false);
   user_pref("browser.download.manager.scanWhenDone", false);
   
   // may only affect windows, but disable mircosoft family safety MiTM
   user_pref("security.family_safety.mode", 0);

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#42

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Avamander wrote: post #40
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the thing, the benefits immensely outweigh the small negatives that's the thing: they don't. both co-exist, and you must address the negative externalities individually, vs. saying "well we think we do more good so suck it, too bad" to the people you harm. > You do understand that the alternative would be most phishing sites remaining active for days, if not months, if this service didn't exist? the alternat…

> the alternative could be a meteor hitting the planet, that doesn't justify your creating new negative externalities and unleashing them on the world with no reasonable recourse for the people you harm Either you have no clue how much phish there really is or you know exactly. In both cases it sucks to be you. > you also neglect the many other alternatives, one of which is properly staffing and funding enough humans…

> Sure, you're free to pay for an antivirus product that does the same and you can contact them.

this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent

in any case, thankfully your opinions that the ends justify the means (and also justify easily avoidable negative externalities), and that the lack of recourse available to the people you harm is somehow justified (unspecified how), seems to be the exception among people, rather than the norm

one wishes google actually cared what people thought, rather than professing to know better than them what's best, and directing them through the service without their informed, affirmative consent

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#43

Post by jstarfish »

gmerc wrote: post #7
midenginedcoupe wrote: post #4

This bot's behaviour made me drop all Google products. A few years ago it marked my company's entire domain as unsafe without any reason. Any human would have been able to tell the flag was incorrect, but "algorithm says no". There is no team in Google to escalate to, no team managing this service, and no way to get an incorrect flag lifted in anything like an acceptable timeframe. In the meantime, Gmail just silentl…

This is the thing that needs to be regulated. It will force these companies to spend actual money on stuff. they’ll be still insanely profitable but not able to run quasi monopolies on infrastructure and extract all profits while externalising all the damage.

I agree in principle, and this is a shitty situation for the GP, but Google's "contract" with the public doesn't even comprise a gentlemen's agreement. They don't owe anybody anything, they're just the cool kid at school who won't acknowledge your existence. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) force them to be your friend. You can't claim harm because someone stopped being friends with you either.

There is a question to be asked of where does one draw the line about policing stuff that happens in virtual reality. Are we to start prosecuting people for espionage and insider trading in Eve Online too? Can we punish the church because God isn't answering my prayers in a timely manner?

(I don't think regulation is the answer. They had their 15 minutes of fame; it's time for everybody to form a new clique and cut Google out of it-- just like the Twitter exodus.)

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#44

Post by BizarroLand »

Avamander wrote: post #39
BizarroLand wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. There would be a full investigation as to how and why this happened and someone somewhere would be held accountable. Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable.

> If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. A more apt comparison would be with seatbelts or airbags. > Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable. The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too…

>The market forces are sufficient

Try explaining that to people who lost tens of thousands of dollars or more in missed transactions due to Google's fuckups. I'm sure they will be consoled that one day if the right fairy farts in the right direction google will stop screwing people over in this particular way.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#45

Post by Avamander »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #42
Avamander wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the alternative could be a meteor hitting the planet, that doesn't justify your creating new negative externalities and unleashing them on the world with no reasonable recourse for the people you harm Either you have no clue how much phish there really is or you know exactly. In both cases it sucks to be you. > you also neglect the many other alternatives, one of which is properly staffing and funding enough humans…

> Sure, you're free to pay for an antivirus product that does the same and you can contact them. this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent in any case, thankfully your opinions that the ends justify the means (and also justify easily avoidable negative externaliti…

> this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent

No amount of Google will stop an antivirus from doing the same without your consent. What's your point? Anti-phish solutions must have the site owners' consent? Don't be ridiculous.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#46

Post by Avamander »

BizarroLand wrote: post #44
Avamander wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. A more apt comparison would be with seatbelts or airbags. > Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable. The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too…

>The market forces are sufficient Try explaining that to people who lost tens of thousands of dollars or more in missed transactions due to Google's fuckups. I'm sure they will be consoled that one day if the right fairy farts in the right direction google will stop screwing people over in this particular way.

That's a business risk alright. Some other AV vendor or RBL might list you as well.

Inevitably anti-phish solutions end up with false positives, but it's utterly out of the question and silly to ask everyone to stand down defenceless.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#47

Post by wnoise »

mike_d wrote: post #36
retrac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer and not legal advice, but isn't labelling something malware -- that isn't malware -- libel? I'm wondering if you could sue them for defamation.

No. This all got hashed out in the early 2000s when spammers tried to sue organizations that blacklisted them using everything from libel to contract interference. One of too many to list: https://archive.is/jvJhl

The spammers were actually spammers though.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#48

Post by BizarroLand »

Avamander wrote: post #46
BizarroLand wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The market forces are sufficient Try explaining that to people who lost tens of thousands of dollars or more in missed transactions due to Google's fuckups. I'm sure they will be consoled that one day if the right fairy farts in the right direction google will stop screwing people over in this particular way.

That's a business risk alright. Some other AV vendor or RBL might list you as well. Inevitably anti-phish solutions end up with false positives, but it's utterly out of the question and silly to ask everyone to stand down defenceless.

I get that you're deadset on defending googoo no matter what, but surely you have to agree that the fact that they made browsers block access to your site AND that you have no ability to do anything about it short of filing a lawsuit or waiting for them to get around to fixing it if they ever do is unconscionable, right?

I get that it's a service.

I don't get how not having human intervention available to fix it when it goes wrong is defendable business practices.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#49

Post by paulryanrogers »

jstarfish wrote: post #43
gmerc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing that needs to be regulated. It will force these companies to spend actual money on stuff. they’ll be still insanely profitable but not able to run quasi monopolies on infrastructure and extract all profits while externalising all the damage.

I agree in principle, and this is a shitty situation for the GP, but Google's "contract" with the public doesn't even comprise a gentlemen's agreement. They don't owe anybody anything, they're just the cool kid at school who won't acknowledge your existence. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) force them to be your friend. You can't claim harm because someone stopped being friends with you either. There is a questio…

In practice Google is more like the security guard at the school entrance, who decides you can't come in and won't tell you why. Not just a popular kid who ignores you.

Re: Google marked https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/ as unsafe

#50

Post by Modified3019 »

midenginedcoupe wrote: post #4

This bot's behaviour made me drop all Google products. A few years ago it marked my company's entire domain as unsafe without any reason. Any human would have been able to tell the flag was incorrect, but "algorithm says no". There is no team in Google to escalate to, no team managing this service, and no way to get an incorrect flag lifted in anything like an acceptable timeframe. In the meantime, Gmail just silentl…

Something similar happened to Gnif. Google’s bot decided it hated his lookingglass project.

And since that was attached to his business domain, it fucked with his business website too.

https://forum.level1techs.com/t/google-now-considers-looking...

Post reply on HN