Slashdot Mirror
Google Warns Users About "Unsafe Sites"
Dynamoo writes "The BBC is reporting that Google will start to warn users about unsafe websites, in particular those that host spyware or have privacy implications. The technology to do this has been developed in partnership with StopBadware, and appears to be an alternative to the popular McAfee SiteAdvisor application. Perhaps this will help curtail slimeware ridden sites from peddling their wares. But it will be interesting to see how Google rates some of its own products, including the potentially risky Google Desktop."
If you thought Google had a lot of lawsuits when altering pageranks of linkfarms, wait until limewire et al start suing Google for "defamation".
In my opinion it's like saying I am a risk because I have arms. Potentially I could strangle someone with them.
Google Desktop isn't unsafe in any way. Google fully discloses the fact that they'll be rooting around in your hard drive and mixing data from there, with data from their servers, for the purposes of providing a local Google search to you on your own machine.
There's nothing wrong with people who are willing to voluntarily give up some measure of their own privacy in exchange for a service provided on that data -- I use Gmail for all of my e-mail, even to the point of forwarding multiple accounts into my gmail inbox, and don't think twice about the fact that somewhere, Google is reading and storing it.
The problem arises when people aren't informed their privacy is being tampered with...malicious web toolbars and cursor packages, Gator, etc. No anti-spyware application I've seen to date has detected Google Desktop (granted, I've only seen 3 machines that actually used GD) but that says something to me.
Or even better still, read the Google cache of the site with all the bad stuff removed. That would be trick!
I'm sure my letter of commendation, along with Google stock options grant, is arriving any moment now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Why not fix the software and/or its default configuration so that it is safe to use?
That doesn't address sites that deliberately link people to executables that they delibrately download and run because they think they're about to see a 3D holographic movie of unicorns actually producing rainbows in the shape of guardian angel puppies protecting endangered species that are making jokes about the president.
The point is that if Google finds sites polluted by such malware - not just some plugin-abusing bit of blinking nonsense - then they're going to give you the heads up on the link. I think it's great - but it will just make the bad guys get involved in another hide-the-malware arms race.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Because google [claims it] doesn't alter search results. Flagging them doesn't technically alter them (it just displays a bit more information), but moving them to the bottom of the pile, so to speak, is.
But what if your site was somehow rated as "spyware-filled", when, in fact, it wasn't? Would you rather be flagged as dangerous, or would you rather be sent to the bottom? At least the flag can be ignored.
If you don't trust Google, then you won't trust their software or malware detection. If you do trust Google, then you will trust both. I don't get the problem.
What is it with the anti-javascript/flash attitude here? Properly managed use of Javascript is fine. Yes, it has more holes than swiss cheese, but it is so easy to disable and manage with firefox and the like; why claim that ANY site using Javascript is a "potential security risk"? The same goes for PHP, Flash, and every other web technology that has potential security holes; surely, nine outta ten times, the benefits outweigh the risks. Yes, AJAX is overhyped, but Javascript is in its name for a good reason.
They'll flag sites that deploy malware, spyware, and other junk. They'll flag sites that use unrestricted javascript and dangeous security workarounds. Not everything. Blanket labelling would only cause annoyance.
The grandparent wasn't trolling. It was satire. Note the non-link to a non-existent, yet parodied sub-pop culture reference for an article about harmful websites. I for one thought it was funny.