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

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#251

Post by oblio »

kaoD wrote: post #214
kyle-rb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JavaScript date objects are 1 indexed for years and days, but 0 indexed for months. I don't disagree that months should be 1-indexed, but I would not make that assumption solely based on days/years being 1-indexed, since 0-indexing those would be psychotic.

The only reason I can think of to 0-index months is so you can do monthName[date.getMonth()] instead of monthName[date.getMonth() - 1]. I don't think adding counterintuitive behavior to your data to save a "- 1" here and there is a good idea, but I guess this is just legacy from the ancient times.

That would have a better solution in a date.getCurrentMonth(), in my opinion.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#252

Post by jtwaleson »

BartjeD wrote: post #244
jtwaleson wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know there is currently no international alternative authority for this. So definitely not ideal, but better than not having the warnings.

Yes but that's not a legal argument. You're honor, we hurt the plaintiff because it's better than nothing!

True, and agreed that lawsuits are likely. Disagree that it's short-sighted. The legal system hasn't caught up with internet technology and global platforms. Until it does, I think browsers are right to implement this despite legal issues they might face.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#253

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

modzu wrote: post #148
pasteldream wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one thing I never understood about these warnings is how they don't run afoul of libel laws. I’m not a lawyer, but this hasn’t ever been taken to court, has it? It might qualify as libel.

you only sue somebody poorer than you

It depends, if it's a clear-cut case, then in jurisdictions with a functioning legal system it can be feasible to sue.

Likewise, if it's a fuckup that just needs to be put in front of someone who cares, a lawsuit is actually a surprisingly effective way of doing that. This moves your problem from "annoying customer support interaction that's best dealt with by stonewalling" into "legal says we HAVE to fix this".

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#254

Post by close04 »

samplatt wrote: post #204
theendisney wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same outfit is runimg a domain called blogger. Reminds me of MS blocking a website of mine for dangerous script . The offending thing i did was use document.write to put copyright 2025 (with the current year) at the end of static pages.

My work's email filter regularly flags links to JIRA and github as dangerous. It stopped being even ironically amusing after a while.

Microsoft's own Outlook.com flags Windows Insider emails coming from a .microsoft.com domain as junk even after marking the domain as "no junk". They know themselves well.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#255

Post by Vinnl »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #191
pkulak wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh… we are. Servo and Ladybird. It’s a shit tonne of work.

Firefox should be on that list. It's clearly a lot closer in functionality to Chrome/Chromium than Servo or Ladybird, so it's easier to switch to it. I like that Servo and Ladybird exist and are developing well, but there's no need to pretend that they're the only available alternatives.

And also, it's very feasible to contribute to Firefox. And through it, to Zen Browser, Librewolf, etc. as well.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#256

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

kevinsundar wrote: post #4

This may not be a huge issue depending on mitigating controls but are they saying that anyone can submit a PR (containing anything) to Immich, tag the pr with `preview` and have the contents of that PR hosted on https://pr- .preview.internal.immich.cloud? Doesn't that effectively let anyone host anything there?

That was my first thought - have the preview URLs possibly actually been abused through GitHub?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#257

Post by bstsb »

msl wrote: post #243
crazygringo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker". No they're not. The word "scammer" does not appear. They're saying attackers on the site and they use the word "might". This includes third-party hackers who have compromised the site. They never say the owner of the site is the attacker. I'm quite sure their lawyers have vetted the language very carefully.

"The people living at this address might be pedophiles and sexual predators. Not saying that they are, but if your children are in the vicinity, I strongly suggest you get them back to safety." I think that might count as libel.

i think it's more akin to "people may have broken in and taken over this house, and within the house there may be sexual predators"

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#258

Post by alex_duf »

pkulak wrote: post #177

Can I use this space to comment on how amazing Immich is? I self host lots of stuff, and there’s this one tier above everything else that’s currently, and exclusively, held by Home Assistant and Immich. It is actually _better_ than Google photos (if you keep your db and thumbs on ssd, and run the top model for image search). You give up nothing, and own all your data.

yeah same, I'm in the process of migrating so I have both google photo and immich, and honestly immich is just as good.

I actually find the semantic search of immich slightly better.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#259

Post by dspillett »

thayne wrote: post #116
dspillett wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that actually relevant when only images are user content? Yes. For instance in circumstances exactly as described in the thread you are commenting in now and the article it refers to. Services like google's bad site warning system may use it to indicate that it shouldn't consider a whole domain harmful if it considers a small number of its subdomains to be so, where otherwise they would. It is no guarantee, of c…

Well, using the public suffix list _also_ isolates cookies and treats the subdomains as different sites, which may or may not be desirable. For example, if users are supposed to log in on the base account in order to access content on the subdomains, then using the public suffix list would be problematic.

Cross domain identity management is a little extra work, but it's far from a difficult problem. I understand the objection to needing to do it when a shared cookie is so easy, but if you want subdomains to be protected from each other because they do not have shared responsibility for each other then it makes sense in terms of privacy & security that they don't automatically share identity tokens and other client-side data.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#260

Post by LinXitoW »

liquid_thyme wrote: post #64
heavyset_go wrote: post #46

Insane that one company can dictate what websites you're allowed to visit. Telling you what apps you can run wasn't far enough.

I really don't know how they got nerds to think scummy advertising is cool. If you think about it, the thing they make money on - no user actually wants ads or wants to see them, ever. Somehow Google has some sort of nerd cult that people think its cool to join such an unethical company.

It's super simple. Check out all the Fediverse alternatives. How many people that talk a big game actually financially support those services? 2% maybe, on the high end.

Things cost money, and at a large scale, there's either capitalism, or communism.

Post reply on HN