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

441–450 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#441

Post by jmuguy »

yabones wrote: post #422

This is another case where it's highly important to "plant your flag" [1] and set up all those services like Search Console, even if you don't plan to use them. Not only can this sort of thing happen, but bad-guys can find crafty ways of hijacking your search console account if you're not super vigilant. Google Postmaster Console [2] is another one everybody should set up on every domain, even if you don't use gmail.…

It does seem kind of stupid to (apparently) not have google search console, or even a google account according to them, for your business. I don't like Google being in control of so much of the internet - but they are, and it won't do us any good to shout into the void about it when our domain and livelihood is on the line.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#442

Post by lucideer »

lucideer wrote: post #308
david_van_loon wrote: post #85

I'm fighting this right now on my own domain. Google marked my family Immich instance as dangerous, essentially blocking access from Chrome to all services hosted on the same domain. I know that I can bypass the warning, but the photo album I sent to my mother-in-law is now effectively inaccessible.

Unless I missed something in the article this seems like a different issue. The article is specifically about the domain "immich.cloud". If you're using your own domain, I'd check to ensure it hasn't been actually compromised by a bonnet or similar in some way you haven't noticed. It may well be a false positive of Google's heuristics but home server security can be challenging - I would look at ruling out the possib…

*botnet

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#443

Post by conartist6 »

kossTKR wrote: post #300
dmoreno wrote: post #288

Happened to me last week. One morning we wake up and the whole company website does not work. Not advice with some time to fix any possible problem, just blocked. We gave very bad image to our clients and users, and had to give explanations of a false positive from google detection. The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). After just moving…

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

I'm not sure, but it's on my mind.

I own what I think are the key protocols for the future of browsers and the web, and nobody knows it yet. I'm not committed to forking the web by any means, but I do think I have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake the system if I were determined to and knew how to remake it into something better.

If you want to talk more, reach out!

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#444

Post by AtlasBarfed »

StilesCrisis wrote: post #421
bloomingeek wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we need a different "type" of internet. I don't have the expertise to even explain what this would look like, but I know that if politics, religion, junk science and a hundred other influences have anything to do with it, it will eventually become too stupid to use.

Making a "smart person only" Internet is a social problem, not a technology problem.

Smart people want to dominate the stupids.

For some group of smart people, there will be a group of smarter people who want to dominate the The people they designate "the stupids".

The internet was a technological solution to a social problem. It introduced other social problems, although arguably these to your point are old social problems in a new arena.

But there may be yet another technological solution to the old social problems of monopolism, despotic centralized control, and fraud.

.... I did say "may".

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#445

Post by daoboy »

conartist6 wrote: post #443
kossTKR wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

I'm not sure, but it's on my mind. I own what I think are the key protocols for the future of browsers and the web, and nobody knows it yet. I'm not committed to forking the web by any means, but I do think I have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake the system if I were determined to and knew how to remake it into something better. If you want to talk more, reach out!

Intriguing comment, but your username does not inspire confidence.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#446

Post by chuckadams »

kossTKR wrote: post #300
dmoreno wrote: post #288

Happened to me last week. One morning we wake up and the whole company website does not work. Not advice with some time to fix any possible problem, just blocked. We gave very bad image to our clients and users, and had to give explanations of a false positive from google detection. The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). After just moving…

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

IPFS has been doing some great work around decentralization that actually scales (Netflix uses it internally to speed up container delivery), but a) it's only good for static content, b) things still need friendly URLs, and c) once it becomes the mainstream, bad actors will find a way to ruin it anyway.

These apply to a lot of other decentralized systems too.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#447

Post by dymk »

MrDarcy wrote: post #415
dmoreno wrote: post #288

Happened to me last week. One morning we wake up and the whole company website does not work. Not advice with some time to fix any possible problem, just blocked. We gave very bad image to our clients and users, and had to give explanations of a false positive from google detection. The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). After just moving…

File a small claim for damages up to 10,000 to 20,000 USD depending on your local statues. It’s actually pretty quick and easy. They cannot defend themselves with lawyers, so a director usually has to show up.

And now your Gmail account has been deleted as well as any other accounts you had with Google

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#448

Post by JeffMcCune »

voxic11 wrote: post #434
MrDarcy wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File a small claim for damages up to 10,000 to 20,000 USD depending on your local statues. It’s actually pretty quick and easy. They cannot defend themselves with lawyers, so a director usually has to show up.

In all US states corporations may be represented by lawyers in small claims cases. The actual difference is that in higher courts corporations usually must be represented by lawyers whereas many states allow normal employees to represent corporations when defending small claims cases, but none require it.

This is not accurate. I filed a claim against Bungalow in Oregon. They petitioned the judge to allow their in house attorney I was dealing with to represent them. The judge denied the request citing the Oregon statute that attorneys may not participate in small claims proceedings. Bungalow flew out their director of some division who was ill prepared.

Slam dunk. took all of 6-8 hours of my time end to end. The claim was a single page document. Got the max award allowable. Would have got more had it been California.

55.090 Appearance by parties and attorneys; witnesses. (1) Except as may otherwise be provided by ORS 55.040, no attorney at law nor any person other than the plaintiff and defendant shall become involved in or in any manner interfere with the prosecution or defense of the litigation in the department without the consent of the justice of the justice court, nor shall it be necessary to summon witnesses.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#449

Post by lucideer »

Gormo wrote: post #401
lucideer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I cannot believe the rest of the comments on this are seemingly completely missing the problem here & kneejerk-blaming Google for being an evil corp. This is a real issue & I don't feel like the article from the Immich team acknowledges it. Far too much passing the buck, not enough taking ownership.

It's true that putting locks on your front door will reduce the chance of your house getting robbed, but if you do get robbed, the fact that your front door wasn't locked does not in any way absolve the thief for his conduct. Similarly, if an organization deploys a public system that engages in libel and tortious interference, the fact that jumping through technical hoops might make it less likely to be affected by t…

> mitigating false positives

First & foremost I really need to emphasise that, despite the misleading article title, this was not a false positive. Google flagged this domain for legitimate reasons.

I think there's likely a conversation to be had about messaging - Chrome's warning page seems a little scarier than it should be, Firefox's is more measured in its messaging. But in terms of the API service Google are providing here this is absolutely not a false positive.

The rest of your comment seems to be an analoy about people not being responsible for protecting their home or something, I'm not quite sure. If you leave your apartment unlocked when you go out & a thief steals your housemate's laptop, is your housemate required to exclusively focus on the thief or should they be permitted to request you to be more diligent about locking doors?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#450

Post by RajT88 »

0_____0 wrote: post #436
nucleative wrote: post #424

We really need an internet Bill of Rights. Google has too much power to delete your company from existence with no due process or recourse. If any company controls some (high) percentage of a particular market, say web browsers, search, or e-commerce, or social media, the public's equal access should start to look more like a right and less like an at-will contract. 30 years ago, if a shop had a falling out with the…

Force interoperability. In 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? I suspect the EU will be the first region to push the big tech companies on this.

Or enforce antitrust.

As firearm enthusiasts like to say, "Enforce the laws we already have".

Post reply on HN