
How companies use fake sites, backdated articles to censor Google results (2017) - rinze
https://www.lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/800
======
dunkelsten
Interestingly enough, this Torrence Boone guy working now at Google seems to
have had lots of success keeping his #1 SERP clean. His LinkedIN tells us he
worked as "Global CEO" at an unnamed agency before, he got zero
recommendations, but is now Vice President at Google.

Now comes the interesting part: Google won't even autocomplete "torrence boone
enfatico" — Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it...

If you've been wondering about the moral decline at Google, this is the kind
of people they hired as top management.

~~~
PeterisP
Is hiring privacy-conscious people a sign of moral decline?

I'd argue that it's a quite good idea to keep your LinkedIn profile looking
exactly like that, unless you've decided that you _need_ a good-looking
profile right now for "advertising" because you're looking for a job, and
you're going to use LinkedIn for that, which many job-seekers won't do.

~~~
dunkelsten
If you'd be working in defence or infosec, I'd be with you about being a
little more diligent about too many details in your employment history.

Then again, it's not like he's shy about clearly lining up all of his jobs
before the Enfatico disaster or his Harvard/Stanford alma maters.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Somebody needs to take a stand against fraudulent DMCA notices. The escape
hatch built into the DMCA to absolve the slimeballs of culpability doesn't
nullify other applicable laws.

It clearly constitutes a form of libel against the victims falsely accused of
a civil violation. The lawyers involved are violating their ethical duty as
court officers and should be charged with barratry. The ACLU/EFF ought to be
pursuing this tack to curb the abuse.

~~~
yoz-y
Indeed. Currently it looks that many of the mechanism originally made for
defense get turned around.

Another example would be reporting content or people for violations they did
not make.

~~~
jacquesm
See: Sony music vs some guy playing piano on youtube.com.

~~~
winkeltripel
I mean, SONY did have a reasonably valid claim to that copyright, even if the
work SONY did to modernize the piece was obvious and trivial.

Copyright terms ought to be much shorter. This is the root of the problem.

------
danielvf
I've had something like this happen to a customer of mine. Some of his content
posts were being copied by random sketchy sites, then backdated by a couple
hours. Google would show the copied content as the main link in Google news,
and his actual article would be buried somewhere under "more like this" link
(or whatever it was called in news).

~~~
timClicks
Really interesting, this behavior implies that Google hasn't figured out a way
to verify what a page states as its creation date.

~~~
IncRnd
Have you figured out a way to verify what a page states as its creation date?

~~~
peteboyd
Inside Webmaster Tools is “Fetch” tool. It allows you to submit any page to
Google. You can then also have Google index the page. When you fetch a time
stamp is recorded and a full HTML copy of the page too.

I am not sure if Google uses this to prove which is the original copy. Most
website owners don’t know this exists. So it’s hard to use it as proof of the
original, because the original creator may not even use the tool.

However, if everyone started to submit key articles, then it theoretically
could compare the two fetches and decide which is earlier. It could be
automated too with sitemap uploads as you post content.

Moreover, you could then use this as evidence in a DMCA take down that your
copy is the earliest. Anyways, there are ways to prove earliest content.

~~~
IncRnd
That's my point. There is no way to verify the date assertion of an arbitrary
page.

The problem is akin to standing in a crowd where some people hold a sign with
their age on it and others do not hold a sign, then trying to verify the age
of an arbitrary people.

------
ohashi
Google is crawling all over the web but cannot detect these as fraudulent
requests? That seems like an easy check. Do we have an index of this domain?
Was this backdated?

But they could be blocking it with robots.txt or some other excuse. It seems
like an incredibly rare exception, what news site would block being crawled
and indexed? They also are archiving domain info I'm sure. If they wanted to
stop this, they have the data.

~~~
Ajedi32
I don't know, is "we've never seen this page on your site before" a valid
defense against a DMCA claim? If I understand DMCA correctly, ignoring the
claim means risking a lawsuit if you're wrong about the content not being
owned by the claimant.

~~~
markdown
I lost a domain a while ago. It was quickly snapped up by a squatter, who
promptly repopulated it with the exact content it previously contained
(harvested from the waybackmachine). They made a single change to the content,
adding a link on the home page to some supplement blog.

So it's my content, on a domain I no longer own or control.

How could I prove to Google that the content is mine?

~~~
slededit
DMCA doesn't require proof. The fact you are attesting under penalty of
perjury is enough. If they contest it then your only remaining remedy is a
court order and that would require proof. The wayback machine may be
sufficient.

------
andybak
The Torrence Boone thing is quite remarkable.

Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm
wrong) then I would have expected Google to have taken some action. A
suspension pending an internal investigation or something similar.

Have they made any public statements on the matter?

~~~
ubernostrum
_Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I
'm wrong)_

The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the
assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on
behalf of the copyright holder.

The infamous _Diebold_ case -- where they did get penalized for a false DMCA
notice -- involved Diebold more or less admitting openly in court "yeah, we
knew it was wrong but we sent a notice anyway". Which means it's extremely
difficult to get someone on a false DMCA notice.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
> The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the
> assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on
> behalf of the copyright holder.

But that's exactly the fradulent claim, and unlike other cases that are
understandable genuine mistakes (even though the mistakes would be avoidable
if the claimants put a reasonable amount of care into checking their claims),
in this case, it's clear that the claimant knew the claim was false, and they
falsified documents to support that claim.

I highly doubt courts would appreciate this sort of behavior, it's just that
the victims of the censorship likely don't know, don't care, don't have the
resources to fight, or don't catch it before the statute of limitations
expires.

Unfortunately, it seems like the _maximum_ penalty for perjury is five years,
and I assume it's rare that anything near that is imposed, so I guess someone
decided it's worth it.

------
petecooper
I saw Scottsdale, Arizona mentioned and straightaway remembered that GoDaddy
is based there. Coincidence?

Edit: actually, answering my own question -- when a domain is reg'd at GoDaddy
and privacy is enabled, it's then "owned" (in the whois sense) by
DomainsByProxy at GoDaddy.

------
stef25
It seems almost impossible to reliably backdate articles, especially if
supposedly original domain name wasn't even registered at the time the
supposed copy was posted.

The only scenario I could think of is claiming Google didn't index the
original because it was blocked by robots.txt. Apart from that, how could
Google not know the original date of publication?

I guess Google doesn't have systems in place to do this verification and they
just remove from the SERPS anything and everything that has a DMCA violation,
just or otherwise.

Another scenario I've witnessed myself is someone using a copyright free image
(Unsplash) and then someone else claims a violation, saying they are the
actual copyright holder and it was fraudulently posted on Unsplash by a third
party. Google removes your homepage from serps, traffic tanks, business ends
and there's no way you can even fight the decision. In the end who knows who's
the actual copyright holder?

~~~
amelius
> The only scenario I could think of is claiming Google didn't index the
> original because it was blocked by robots.txt. Apart from that, how could
> Google not know the original date of publication?

What if the article wasn't even online? I.e., some journalist "wrote" the
article for some local newspaper without internet presence.

------
m-p-3
Would it be possible to content providers to send a URL to Google basically
saying _I made this, here 's a timestamp_ to prove that you actually released
it first, and whoever copies it and backdate it won't have any reliable proof
they actually did publish it first?

Whenever I publish something I made, I submit the URL to the Wayback Machine
so if it gets hugged to death at least there's a public copy somewhere else.

~~~
jcoffland
Yes, but not with Google. This can be done with the Bitcoin blockchain. Before
you groan, hear me out. You can submit a transaction which contains a hash of
your content. Once it's on the blockchain you can prove that the content was
created no later than the date of the transaction.

~~~
cheeze
.. Which does nothing against a backdated article. What stops me from copying
a NYT article and posting it to the blockchain a few hours after, claiming
it's mine?

What makes the bitcoin blockchain good for this? The bitcoin blockchain is
good for posting transactions within the bitcoin network and kind of a shitty
solution for "a generic blockchain"

Why a blockchain at all? Why not just a merkle tree? Surely there is somewhere
better than the bitcoin blockchain for this. CT logging isn't done on the
bitcoin blockchain for a reason.

So sure, you can prove that something wasn't created after the date of the
transaction (assuming you're using a CS hashing function), but for this to
work in this specific context, you'd need every publisher to be posting
transactions to this log.

If I post an article and post a hash to
$genericBlockchainWhichIsReallyJustAMerkleTree, what prevents someone from
copying, backdating, and saying that I copied them? That they didn't post to
the log as well?

~~~
dubhrosa
Agree that bitcoin blockchain is unnecessary, but isn't there some merit in
the idea that all major publishers in a juristiction would opt-in to posting
to a single chain? Given the potential legal cost savings it would seem to be
at least somewhat feasible.

~~~
cheeze
Oh absolutely. But I don't know how much of a "blockchain" that really is
depending on how you define it. When I think blockchain, I think miners/proof
of work/etc.

Is a CT log a blockchain? Because really what we're talking about here is a
signed ledger which may be decentralized but very well may be centralized as
well.

------
Natsu
The space before punctuation thing might simply indicate a European writer.
Several countries in Europe do that deliberately and I notice it with a lot of
my colleagues.

It's interesting to note also how they appear to use the Fox News trademark
while having no apparent affiliation. Also, although I don't know suite
numbers, it's interesting that the address on the domain registration looks to
be very close to a UPS store.

~~~
DeusExMachina
Are you sure about that space thing?

I live in Europe and I have been browsing the Internet for 20 years now, and
this is the first time I hear about it.

Also, I visit plenty of Eropean news sites, and none does that.

~~~
Natsu
It seems to be pretty common among the French at least. I haven't seen it in
print media, only from individuals.

~~~
tajen
In French, no space before a comma or a period (unless want to explicitly
communicate your disdain for computery things or you’re above 60) but we do
put a space before : ? !

Example: « Pas de palais : pas de palais ! »

(^Quote from the Asterix movie that will be way more useful to you for making
French friends in a bar than saying « I can’t speak French » in French)

~~~
ChristianBundy
This is actually a really interesting example of the "space before
punctuation" thing rather than " space before punctuation ".

Also: it looks like we're using colons differently, is that right?

~~~
tajen
We use colons for the same reason as in English, but there is a space before
colons in French (Microsoft Word inserts it automatically for you in French),
and no uppercase after the colon.

------
coldtea
> _Businesses have become increasingly creative in their attempts to misuse
> the DMCA to remove negative reviews from the Internet. They have gone to
> great lengths to falsely claim copyright infringement with the intent of
> taking down content from Google’s search results and review sites._

I dream of a world where companies doing any consciously shady shit like that
are automatically slapped with a huge (1/2 their annual revenue would be a
good start) fine, even if it's nominally legal, as long as a jury of experts
decides their actions were harmful to society/transparency/the
environment/etc.

~~~
amadeuspagel
Why have laws at all. Why not just let a "jury of experts" punish anyone in
anyway they please. /s

~~~
coldtea
Laws already codify experts' opinion of what should be punishable and how
(both legal and domain experts).

The "jury of experts" role wouldn't be to punish "anyway they please" but to
what is implied by their choice and description (as experts): to rule in
accordance with their domain knowledge. And of course their job would be
judged in turn.

If a society can't trust a jury of experts on a domain to clearly and
effectively judge issues related to their expertise, then it has bigger
problems, and laws wouldn't save it from them.

------
ezoe
Any settlement without first going to the court will be abused and exploited.
DMCA is a just bad law.

------
kanyethegreat
Practically all the links (e.g. the ones that were allegedly restored like the
Adweek article on Torrence Boone) were still removed.

------
dschuetz
Similar thing seems to be going on on Youtube.

------
oliwarner
A lot of the direct DMCA problems come from improper use needing to be
demonstrably wilful in application. When algorithms send out these notices,
you get some plausible deniability.

But setting up a news site to inject a backdated and infringing article would
seem to be several, moderately serious criminal offenses.

If someone does this to you, push back hard. They're facing prison and fines.

~~~
michaelmrose
The DMCA has been abused quite a lot. How many people in history have been
sent to prison? Can you find one?

The laws in the US are laws to control the behavior of the weak not the
strong.

~~~
oliwarner
My point was this is very far beyond the typical takedown abuse.

Creating (itself infringing) content on a for-purpose site ticks the "wilful"
requirement of the DMCA's defined requirements for perjury.

------
mathattack
Links in the article are broken. Also DMCA takedown related?

------
meshr
It happens because doing fakes is free but struggling with them costs money.
This problem can be solved if Google search result would be driven by
rules/smart contracts but not by the income of Google's shareholders.

~~~
winkeltripel
> This problem can be solved if Google search result would be driven by
> rules/smart contracts

How would that fix the issue? It wouldn't change legal obligations, AFAIK.
Confused.

~~~
meshr
Yes, introducing SERP rules intends obligations. The obligations could be
enforced by legals or by union of “angry” users who will stop fighting with
each other for SERP but start fighting with Google instead who treats them as
useful idiots.

------
speeder
To be honest I believe DCMA is a entirely negative law. Even the legitimate
strike claims were used in ways that help noone, sometimes hurting even the
person doing the claim in first place, for example Nintendo been so agressive
on YouTube, taking down for example videos of conventions that happened to
have a Nintendo trailer or game playing somewhere on camera, that journalist
stopped covering Nintendo because doing do cause strikes against you.

~~~
sneak
DMCA notices are required to be sworn statements under penalty of perjury. It
sounds like that that isn’t being enforced at all by DoJ.

Just another example of how a corrupt government can selectively enforce laws
to give its crony friends a leg up.

~~~
codedokode
What if the company that have sent the notice is outside of US?

~~~
reaperducer
In my experience, what happens is the company hires a representative inside
the United States to file on their behalf.

There is an organization inside Belgium that hired a law firm in New York to
file claims against a web site I once owned in Texas to remove people’s
vacation photographs taken in Belgium, under threat of legal action.

(This was pre-DMCA. The web site was sold long ago and is now defunct.)

