I wonder when google.com will be flagged with all the phishing happening on sites.google.com.
Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
461–470 of 713 posts
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In what country hasn't the legal system caught up? The point I raise is that the internet is international. There are N legal systems that are going to deal with this. And in 99% of them this isn't going to end well for Google if plaintiff can show there are damages to a reasonable degree. It's bonkers in terms of risk management. If you want to make this a workable system you have to make it very clear this isn't ne…
I meant that there is no global authority for saying which websites are OK and which ones are not. So not really that the legal system in specific countries have not caught up.
Lacking a global authority, Google is right to implement a filter themselves. Most people are really really dumb online and if not as clearly "DO NOT ENTER" as now, I don't think the warnings will work. I agree that from a legal standpoint it's super dangerous. Content moderation (which is basically what this is) is an insanely difficult problem for any platform.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
A safe browsing service is not a terrible idea (which is why both Safari & Firefox use Google for this) & while I hate that Google has a monopoly here, I do think a safe browsing service should absolutely block your preview environments if those environments have potential dangers for visitors to them & are accessible to the public.
However, why does it work in such a way that it blocks the whole domain and not just the subdomains? Is it far fetched that the people controlling a subdomain may not be the same that control the domain?
That’s what the Public Suffix List is for
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ol…
Everybody wants to dominate others using their strongest ability: smart, rich, strong, popular, fast, etc.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#465If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....
I think it's somewhat tribal webdev knowledge that if you host user generated content you need to be on the PSL otherwise you'll eventually end up where Immich is now. I'm not sure how people not already having hit this very issue before is supposed to know about it beforehand though, one of those things that you don't really come across until you're hit by it.
[flagged]
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#466Happened 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.
I've been thinking for a while that a coordinated and massive action against a specific company by people all claiming damages in small claims court would be a very effective way of bringing that company to heel.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
We need to fix the jurisprudence around anti-trust.
> No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
Taken at face value, that would forbid companies from buying any large competitors unless the competitor is already failing. Somehow that got watered down into almost nothing.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think google is crumbling under the weight of their size. They are no longer able to process the requested commercials with due diligence.
They can afford to hire thousands of people to swiftly identify scams and take punitive action. And pay them well.
Use their Recaptcha to let users identify scam ads instead of cars and traffic lights.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#469If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....
In the past, browsers used an algorithm which only denied setting wide-ranging cookies for top-level domains with no dots (e.g. com or org). However, this did not work for top-level domains where only third-level registrations are allowed (e.g. co.uk). In these cases, websites could set a cookie for .co.uk which would be passed onto every website registered under co.uk. Since there was and remains no algorithmic meth…
I'm not sure I'm following what inherent flaw you are suggesting browsers had that the public suffix list originators knew they had.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#470Happened 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.
It would be glorious if everybody unjustly screwed by Google did that. Barring antitrust enforcement, this may be the only way to force them to behave.