

Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor. - LachlanArthur
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.google.com

======
runn1ng
What IS interesting is that you can actually put in any other domain and find
the results of malware diagnostics.

[http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://ww...](http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.facebook.com)

[http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://te...](http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://techcrunch.com)

[http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://ok...](http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://okoun.cz)
(one Czech discussion server I visit time from time)

and so on.

~~~
revorad
That can't be working right. It doesn't even check if the site parameter is
actually a site -
[http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=gobbledyg...](http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=gobbledygook)

~~~
pja
Smells like...a bloomier filter!

------
sirclueless
The alternative, Google turning a blind eye to its own domain, would be far
worse.

------
kdommeyer
©2008 Google

Forgive my ignorance, but why don't companies program the copyright year to
automatically update?

~~~
ars
The year is supposed to be the first year the work was created. You can do
2008-2012 if you want though (and let the end year automatically update). But
since that's the assumption if you don't include the end year, there isn't any
reason to do it.

~~~
kdommeyer
Facebook © 2012

The content of Facebook wasn't first created in 2012, so I'm not sure if
you're correct. In fact, I've noticed that the majority of sites don't include
a date-range. Regardless, thanks for the info.

~~~
GreekOphion
Didn't Facebook just update their website thus having a new copy write?

~~~
ars
No, it's a mistake, they should have left the original date. If you update it
you are supposed to do year, year, year or a range.

See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice>

~~~
kdommeyer
I still doubt that Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. are all mistaken
in listing the current year in their copyright. That seems implausible.

~~~
phillmv
Things aren't as cut and dry with legal traditions. I'm sure there are tons of
scraps of legal language that remain in use only because it's traditional and
few people know any better. Like some kind of legal shibboleth.

Like coderdude said above[1], whenever you see "All Rights Reserved"[2] you're
seeing it in action.

1\. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3541501> 2\.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved>

------
akash2005
its actually different for www.google.com and google.com. Any googlers care to
explain why?

~~~
zrgiu_
is it possible that google.com also includes subdomains like plus.google.com?

------
kenrik
Don't be evil.

~~~
SquareWheel
Don't be a jackass.

------
b0o
interesting.

~~~
b0o
well sorry for it not being as interesting as i thought...

~~~
scott_s
A post that just says "interesting" is noise, so people will downvote it.

~~~
b0o
damn, and here i thought i was "safe".

but apparently someone said its a repeat, and a fake, and yet offers no
explanation why. Do you know why?

------
daniellockard
Heh, working as intended I suppose.

------
selvakn
Repeat: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934669>

~~~
Groxx
Not really - that's about Google listing Dropbox.com as suspicious. This is
about Google listing _Google_ as being a source / intermediary for malware.

------
cicloid
Don't be evil?

So, this is the final proof that the mantra has been forgotten and Google has
move to the dark side… Is it?

~~~
Drakim
No, it shows exactly the opposite. Google doesn't except it's own servers from
the malware search.

