Slashdot Mirror


Google Wipes 786 Pirate Sites From Search Results (torrentfreak.com)

Google and several leading Russian search engines have completely wiped 786 "pirate" sites from their search results. That's according to telecoms watch Rozcomnadzor, which reports that the search providers delisted the sites after ISPs were ordered by a Moscow court to permanently block them. TorrentFreak reports: Late July, President Vladimir Putin signed a new law which requires local telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor to maintain a list of banned domains while identifying sites, services, and software that provide access to them. [...] Nevertheless, on October 1 the new law ("On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection") came into effect and it appears that Russia's major search engines have been very busy in its wake. According to a report from Rozcomnadzor, search providers Google, Yandex, Mail.ru, Rambler, and Sputnik have stopped presenting information in results for sites that have been permanently blocked by ISPs following a decision by the Moscow City Court. "To date, search engines have stopped access to 786 pirate sites listed in the register of Internet resources which contain content distributed in violation of intellectual property rights," the watchdog reports. The domains aren't being named by Rozcomnadzor or the search engines but are almost definitely those sites that have had complaints filed against them at the City Court on multiple occasions but have failed to take remedial action. Also included will be mirror and proxy sites which either replicate or facilitate access to these blocked and apparently defiant domains.

83 comments

  1. I should remove these from my index too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I should remove these from my index too. I need a list of the sites I have to remove.

    1. Re:I should remove these from my index too by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I do a naughty search on google, I get:

      we have removed 6 results from this page.
        If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org

      followed by a bunch of links to pages at Lumen, full of pirate URLs . What a resource! They should call it PirateDatabase.org.
      Thanks Warner Bros etc for doing the hard work of finding the good pirate sites for me.

      Somebody should write a simple search engine that just returns links from DMCA complaints within LumenDatabase.org

    2. Re:I should remove these from my index too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naughty search = normal search - safesearch?
      Would return only results declared "unsafe".

      I have wished for such service for long.
      An add-on to lmgtfy maybe?

    3. Re:I should remove these from my index too by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      You have to be registered Russian ISP or something alike (Google seems to qualify), and have electronic signature certificate, issued by Russian Goverment CA (of course it would be GOST R 34.10 algorithm, so you'll need appropriate software to sign request) to be able to download RosKomNadzor blacklist database legally. Ordinary people only have access to interface, which allows to check whether URL is blocked one URL at time.

      Fortunately there are some guerilliers, who maintain site https://rublacklist.net/ where they publish this classified information they somehow obtain.

    4. Re: I should remove these from my index too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a faggot.

    5. Re: I should remove these from my index too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wasn't sure what to search for. Then I thought "how stupid could they be?"

      Search on '.com' :-) page after page of pirate goodness.

  2. Helpless Without Google by FrankHaynes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was amused to learn a while back that some people simply are incapable of typing a domain name into a browser's URL field. They only know how to search for everything via Google.

    I was at a friend's house one day talking about going to a baseball game. I told him to go to nationals.com to see where good seats remained. He dutifully opened up google.com and typed "nationals.com" into the search bar. No, I am not kidding.

    So this kind of restriction actually has much greater impact than it first might seem.

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
    1. Re:Helpless Without Google by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I laugh at people for that, but occasionally do it myself.

      Mostly because it can actually be faster when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox. And Google can handle spelling mistakes.

      Of course, then I have to click on a search result...

    2. Re:Helpless Without Google by crow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup. Also, it saves you from going to the wrong site if your typing is less than perfect. Google is usually smart enough to find the site you wanted despite most common typos instead of taking you to some typo squatter site.

    3. Re: Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Next time don't look so hideous. No wonder you need people with poor eyesight.

    4. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Google or Bing when going to a website, even when I know the address, most times. The simple reason is that it helps in three ways, typo-squatting or wrong TLD, compromised website detection, and there are the examples of when I am just plain wrong (thetenderloins vs. tenderloins).

    5. Re:Helpless Without Google by Boronx · · Score: 2

      Hmm, I've seen a guy google bing so that he could bing his search.

    6. Re:Helpless Without Google by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I LOVE to do that, because you know somewhere they're tracking that - "Hey, people using us to find Bing instead are up 5% today!" OK, they're probably just laughing instead of seeing it as an indication of a problem with their service, but whatever.

      I do have to be in the right mood so that the amusement is worth the delay.

    7. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so smart, why are your friends so stupid?

    8. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were smart, I'd be the stupid one!

    9. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, and even the smartest of us often do this because the "address bar" also acts an search field into the default search engine.

      For a small handful of sites, eg gmail, slashdot, fark, etc, I know the url off hand. But most of the content sites (eg comics, news) I'll just type the name of the comic into the address bar, without the .com or whatever and let google find it.

      Sometimes I remember a partial name from years ago and then go check and discover that the site is gone, or destroyed/abandoned from hacking. So sometimes that is the only way to find unauthorized mirrors.

      Quite frankly I'm surprised that number didn't have two 0's at the end of it. Nearly all of them are behind cloudflare.

    10. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oddly enough, the number one thing searched for at Yahoo! before they switched to Bing was google.com. More people searched on yahoo.com's search for google than anything else.

    11. Re:Helpless Without Google by omnichad · · Score: 1, Informative

      when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox.

      CTRL+T, then CTRL+L. I don't know what this homepage thing is you speak of. But I think I saw one when I first installed my browser. Now it's just my current tabs.

      And I already have my address bar set up to query Google, so I usually don't have to type the whole thing or worry about spelling.

    12. Re:Helpless Without Google by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Actually, CTRL+T already puts the cursor in the right place. CTRL+L is only when you're wanting to use an existing tab.

    13. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, CTRL+T already puts the cursor in the right place.

      In every browser? Best to use CTRL+L as well to be sure.

    14. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my dad talks about google, he could be talking about Windows, the internet generally, internet explorer, or the google search engine. I've tried to explain, I really have.

    15. Re:Helpless Without Google by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

      . . . . and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox.

      People still do that? I just use the Command + L (Mac) or Alt + D (Windows) keyboard shortcut to highlight/move cursor to address bar.

    16. Re: Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucked my dead mom? If she screamed that must be pent up decomposing gas or whatever.

    17. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame he doesn't have a son with sufficient compassion, or understanding, to explain it to him.

    18. Re:Helpless Without Google by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Mostly because it can actually be faster when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox.

      My home page is quick dial, and the cursor is already in the address bar. If I want to search, it's just a single tab away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Helpless Without Google by Xest · · Score: 1

      Honestly I think you can blame Google themselves for that, since browsers started blurring the line between the search bar and the URL bar making them basically the exact same thing people have been forced into this paradigm.

      It's one thing I hate about most modern browsers, I liked explicit separation of the two, but you don't really get that now. If you mis-type a URL in what used to be the URL bar it often ends up in a Google search anyway.

      So I really don't blame end users for that at all, it's not really their fault, it's a paradigm everyone is forced into.

    20. Re:Helpless Without Google by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Just had one of those sorts of incidents, generically referring e.g. bing, google, firefox without specifically indicating if they're referring to a browser or a site, but fortunately with enough context to easily understand. As far as people ever learning this shit, I've become convinced that it's not going to happen in my lifespan. To cope, I just come up with a very short and simple batch of prerequisite knowledge (difficulty is striking a balance between talking over someone head vs. condescension) and one or two questions; this usually puts the issue to bed, and the positive effects seem to last for a few days. Positive reinforcement therapy also helps.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    21. Re:Helpless Without Google by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It gets worse. Current browsers support this bad habit by blurring the difference between URL and search field.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Helpless Without Google by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...or the other way around, if the site you are trying to get to isn't THAT big a site (or, for good reason, a bit obscure and lesser well known...) and the typosquatter managed to have more (landing) pages link to his typosquatted domain.

      Now try to get your browser (and the inevitably attached search engine) to believe you that you did NOT want the typosquatted domain and that you're an adult fully capable of using a keyboard sensibly enough to type the URL correctly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re: Helpless Without Google by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Really? Poor you, can't find any living chicks that hold still for the couple seconds you need?

      Now, pull that femur out of your ass and close the grave, will ya? And for fuck's sake, stop screaming, you're in a graveyard!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Helpless Without Google by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Same reason women have fat friends, so they're the skinny one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Helpless Without Google by houghi · · Score: 1

      Try this over the phone and point them to a site that has robots.txt

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re: Helpless Without Google by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      There's an art to being an asshole...

    27. Re:Helpless Without Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be faster to type it in the Google search field than in the URL field?

  3. I'm guessing / hoping that by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    Google's only removing this for results served up via Google.ru, right?

    Anyway, the better way to do this (for the evil government) would not be to depend on the foreign search engine, but to mandate ISPs have transparent proxies that will filter pages on the fly. And also (not coincidentally) MitM your SSL for the police and intelligence agencies to be able to access all your traffic.

    Remove the links not just from Google, but from anything served up to a Russian-connected computer from any source.

    1. Re:I'm guessing / hoping that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the headline "McDonald's removes beef from its menu", leaving us to guess that they're probably talking about the menu in a small town in India. You can recognize shady news sources as the ones that try to maximize outrage. As long as their headline is technically correct from some particular point of view, they're safe from libel lawsuits.

    2. Re: I'm guessing / hoping that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What else could you say? Everyone is gay...

    3. Re: I'm guessing / hoping that by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Really? Taken or single?

      Hey, I'd finally have a boyfriend who has all the latest games and videos!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: I'm guessing / hoping that by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with being gay, so I assume you think there is nothing wrong with piracy.

  4. To the plank, me maties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So no more talk like a Pirate Day? Arrrrrrr!

  5. Duckduckgo by CyberRacer · · Score: 2

    Nuff said.

  6. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pirates can register and provision dozens or hundreds of sites in an evening. It takes too long to get a court order that lists specific ones.

    For example, google "Led Zeppelin free mp3". The very first three hits I get are from mp3goo.io, freedownloadmp3.net, and mp3guild.com. There's also mp3pn.info on the first results page. Are these legit sites or pirates? So Google has self-driving cars, but no technology that's capable of distinguishing a pirate site (or at least suspicious enough to banish from the first 30 search result pages or so), even after the copyright holder complains to them in writing?

    1. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps google is merely rolling their eyes and patiently nodding while courts whack-a-mole in obedience to the media companies, which in turn are probably being led on by advisors/consultants who pocket money while pretending to be accomplishing a lot re: the courts.

      It's concerning that courts obediently demand that google must spray shark repellant. It's depressing that paying consumers ultimately fund the process.

  7. Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is what net neutrality protects us against right?

    Odd, they seem to have done it anyway.

    1. Re:Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Search engine results have absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

      I'd call you a shill, but that would be insulting to actual paid shills who at least know the definition of what they're talking about.

    2. Re:Net Neutrality by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Google "Pirate Bay" or one of the other websites, and if you aren't in Russia, you'll get results.

      Fucking moron.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. Well that's it they no longer exist by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    piracy is over lol.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Well that's it they no longer exist by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's it. No more free movies or songs, and we all have to buy them now. Nobody can evade the MAFIAA anymore.

      (please let them believe it, please let them believe it, please let them believe it, ...)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. It also sets a dngerous precedent by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google removing domains from search results can and will be a tool of other kinds of legal censorship, including political censorship. "Pirate sites" is not necessarily a well defined term. Is some of the material on those sites content that engages in satire, or other forms of fair use? Or has there been a rubber stamp of "piracy" for hosting content that is, even on casual review legal? Will a government or private "anti-piracy" agency review sites, hunt for a captured or quoted article, and get it pulled from Google search results under the guise of "anti-piracy"

    Such censorship has certainly occurred on Youtube, which Google owns, and for Google mentioned search results. I'm concerned that Google is losing, if it ever had, the ability to refuse censorship requests.

    1. Re:It also sets a dngerous precedent by greenwow · · Score: 0

      Google has already punished CONservative sites, so this is a good thing.

    2. Re:It also sets a dngerous precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Legal orders by a countries authorities are not "requests" and google has been censoring and obeying such demands for years now all across the world.

    3. Re:It also sets a dngerous precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A precedent would imply that this was anything new.

      For example if you search for porn sites like Pornhub or xhamster in Germany you won't find them. To make matters worse, top results are often impersonators that try to push ad-ware or some other shady crap.

      Google has also ventured into the area of political censorship by pushing sites it agrees with over news sites it disagrees with.

      It's just business as usual over at Google.

    4. Re:It also sets a dngerous precedent by houghi · · Score: 1

      Apparently they never heard of TPB or that is not a torrent site.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. It's spelled Roskomnadzor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should know that by now after months of Russia bashing to the point it has become nauseating.

    Ros = Russian
    Kom = Communication
    Nadzor = Oversight

    Therefore the Russian Telecommunications Regulatory Agency, (communications oversight)

    Durak.

    1. Re:It's spelled Roskomnadzor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nauseating - an excellent description of Slashdot these days.
      Where's the technical articles? Not here.

    2. Re: It's spelled Roskomnadzor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russkies bring clicks.

  11. Remember when search engines were just that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss the days when all Google did was scrape the web and try to return the most relevant results to my query. Those were the days I used Google.

    1. Re:Remember when search engines were just that? by ewibble · · Score: 2

      That is why I have started to use duckduckgo a bit less advertising, a bit less filtering. The google search engine is only useful to me as long as it returns the sights I am after. If it does not I use another search engine.

  12. You are a Pirate Site if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a Pirate Site if we don't like your politics.

    1. Re:You are a Pirate Site if ... by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      No. you are extremist site, if they don't like your politics. It is much worse to be extremist, than to be just pirate.

  13. Re:fuck niggers by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    While we're busy making rap music illegal, can we also add western music and country music to that list?

    Thanks.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  14. Lazy slashdot summary, as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A half-decent reporting would have a link to the list of 786 affected URL, so readers can verify themshelves if they are indeed unnaccessible through google.

  15. Apparently only in Russia by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

    There isn't much information, but it seems quite clear that all this is only applicable to Russia. I am currently testing yandex.com to see what it can do and, although the results are a bit different and kind of Russian-sites prone, it should be quite independent from yandex.ru (a quite random guess anyway, as far as I don't speak Russian and cannot really test it). In any case, these news shouldn't affect yandex.com or other international versions of Russian sites.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  16. Where did all the Russian trolls go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only yesterday we had hundreds of posts saying how bad Google were for lowering the search ranking of RT. Now we have Putin ordering websites removed, genuine censorship, not a peep out of them. I guess censorship is fine if its in Russia's interests, otherwise its bad.

  17. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally a good enough reason to start using Bing!

  18. List of those 786 sites??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody have a list?

    Asking for a friend to.. uhh... make sure he does not visit any of those bad BAD sites

    :P

  19. not free by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    The faces of censorship

  20. The list of websites blocked in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current list of websites blocked in Russia can be viewed here: https://antizapret.info/info.php
    They have an API, too. The resource doesn't seem to be translated to English, so if your Russian is rusty, you'll have to rely on Google Translate.

  21. In other words by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    if you want to operate a pirate site in Russia, Vlad must get paid.

  22. filetype:torrent still works by houghi · · Score: 1

    Some random words placed in the right order to show it still works. Good way to learn about other torrent sites.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. It's Parasites All The Way Down by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Perhaps google is merely rolling their eyes and patiently nodding while courts whack-a-mole in obedience to the media companies, which in turn are probably being led on by advisors/consultants who pocket money while pretending to be accomplishing a lot re: the courts.

    Based on my experience of humanity, this view is most likely correct. The problem is insoluble, barring some kind of absurd digital panopticon, so executives are making a public show of taking action for their shareholders, consultants are making big drama out of little, and in the meantime, everyone is sharing torrent links through Discord.

  24. Google barely works anymore by decipher_saint · · Score: 2

    It tries to guess what you want instead of searching for what you want. I try and exclude pinterest from image search results and I get nothing but pinterest links. Instead of one or two sponsored links per page I get 5 or more (at LEAST they still identify them as sponsored links) beyond the obvious ones there are certainly companies that game the result system clogging up legit things I'm looking for with snake oil sales (for example "calm clinic" which is a book selling scheme that preys on people who have questions about anxiety symptoms)

    If Google can't deliver good search results then I have no use for it, DuckDuckGo ain't perfect but its becoming more and more useful...

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  25. is there an actual search engine left anywhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that actually indexes the internet and returns results based on what i actually typed?

  26. 786 down by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    786 down, only 3357629438144072 to go.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  27. Re:fuck niggers by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'm white, I hate rap music but I also hate country and western music. I figured that while we were banning some kinds of music, we might as well get rid of all the crappy music.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  28. Net neutrality for me, but not for thee by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    Google is a raging hypocrite. Well, tens of thousands of raging hypocrites.