5 ms·

Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported con

Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported content. That they'd be blocked at some point is completely unsurprising. As it is, I have to explain to people regularly that clicking on "sponsored" links, or whatever Google calls them, doesn't work because we have to block "googleadservices.com" due to their hosting of malicious Javascript payloads. Certain very large companies that are very, very privacy and security focused insist on blocking known malicious Javascript hosting services, and Google is no exception.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported content. Honestly I find it incredibly silly companies are still sending out notices to take down copyrighted content. Give up already. The battle is lost and now it's purely a waste of time and money.
- dr_kiszonka 2y ago
  Malicious doesn't mean copyrighted.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    True, but the submission refers to something called 'Piracy Shield', so copyrighted material seems pretty relevant.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  As long as the potential impact exists (and that impact can be huge), they have the time and money to do those takedowns
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    I don't think the impact has ever truly been huge, although it is almost always overstated.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. Overstated or not in public, that's all that matters to a business. I don't know why when it comes to piracy that suddenly we forget that companies have entire wings (or hire entire companies) dedicated to figuring out how much piracy is occurring and what's most profitable. Will it put them out of business to ignore it? Probably not. But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant.Even if "cheaper" means "give executives and shareholders peace of mind so they throw more money at them". And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. A few thousand sales can make or break a decision to keep supporting a small business compared to going back to a normal job. But they lack the funds to fight piracy so it's a damned of you do... Situation for those people.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        > It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. It's not a risk though. Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly. All it is is greed and ignorance. > But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant. This is due to poor decision making, like companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. > And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point that pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly And if they make a million more fighting piracy rather than not then they'll do it. It's a risk to their expenditures. Risk is obviously relative. Hacked movies don't kill anyone, a hacked game server of cheaters can kill the entire game. >companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. Honestly that's such a discussed topic with so much literature that I don't have more to add. It comes down to how fast you think people would forget about coke of they stopped, or how quickly the next generation would pick a new coke. Remeber that advertising includes making sure soda machines have coke on the front, as well as plastic cups with the same label. It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there. >It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point hat pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales. Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0. Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive. And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate. But again. Most small businesses don't have much choice because they can't chase needles in haystacks full time. Giving away your 1.0 for free works at the scale of Microsoft or Adobe where you can reel them in later (by shutting off the very piracy they benefitted from). Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  The pirates lost, I know one other person besides me that collects movies to watch offline outside of subscription services. The legal actions against free streaming sites prevents any serious competitor to Netflix, Disney-Hulu etc, which are hugely valuable properties.
  - dxbednarczyk 2y ago
    >The pirates lost I believe this is not mainly due to big companies and/or governments cracking down on piracy, but a massive loss in knowledge and shift in perspective about piracy, especially in younger generations. It's true that piracy numbers have been declining, but this largely comes as a result of "piracy is dangerous, don't do it! you'll get viruses!!1!"
    - leoedin 2y ago
      I can only speak for myself - but the convenience and relatively low cost of Netflix killed piracy for me. It wasn’t really a moral reason, or a fear of prosecution. But Netflix is truly easy, and the cost isn’t significant. Spotify did the same for music piracy. I just stopped bothering with files. I think as others have said, the increased balkanisation of the tv streaming world might change that.
      - drekipus 2y ago
        Netflix has the worst quality and selection that I've seen. I'm about to pick up piracy again so I can watch good shows that I like
        dylan604 2y ago
        It does now. Back when it was the only streaming service and all of the different studio's content was on it, it was the best fight against piracy. Now that the streaming ecosystem is so fragmented requiring subscription upon subscription, Netflix' selection has atrophied to the realm of mediocrity with the occasional gem like every other studio out there. I can absolutely see where piracy surges again as people fight back against the onslaught of YASS (yet another streaming service).
- LaundroMat 2y ago
  It's also a question of IP valuation. Media companies have IP as an asset on their books. Battling piracy is a means to defend the valuation they attach to that IP.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    It's wasted money though. They're literally just losing more money on whatever money they think they lost due to piracy.
    - smallnix 2y ago
      Depends on where you fight it. Got it removed from most Google page 1's? -> probably worth it Trying to take down all torrents? -> probably not worth it
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        Google's been removing torrent links for years now. People share these links in Discord, Reddit, Telegram etc - companies are not taking them down anytime soon. It's literally an unbeatable hydra.
    - LaundroMat 2y ago
      Well, maybe. You can maintain or increase the value of your IP (and therefore tour company) by _showing_ you're investing in the protection of your IP. After all, the value of IP in your books is subjective. That perceived value increases if you can report you've "removed thousands of links to pirate versions of our content". So in that regard, battling piracy is money well spent.
    - immibis 2y ago
      There's money and there's "money". You know when a crypto grifter mints a billion tokens, sells a thousand for $1 each and then claims to be a billionaire? Then borrows half a billion from a bank, using his almost-billion "$1" tokens as collateral? This is like that.
- behringer 2y ago
  I get what you're saying but I don't think it's true at all. Except for my tech friends, literally nobody I know is aware of how to pirate content if it isn't on Google or YouTube.
cute_boi 2y ago
well big companies use thousands of virus scanner, so this shouldn't be a big issue.
- hulitu 2y ago
  Those are used for checklist compliance, not to protect from actual viruses.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
They will happily boot legal websites off while defending animal torture and CSAM. I’ve made many reports to Cloudflare, Google, and the FBI when I come across said websites and so far I have yet to see any be even kicked off Google search let alone Cloudflare.
- MacTea 2y ago
  How do you "come across" animal torture and CSAM?
  - gumboshoes 2y ago
    Not the commenter you asked, but for me I often find it in Google alerts, where to legitimize the site they have front-loaded it with real text scraped from legit sites.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    I won’t go too heavily into details, but I’ve had them come up with rather innocuous sets of words, ones that, horrifyingly, a young child would be likely to use. And if you include drawn media alongside photographic abuse material then it can be as simple as looking up characters from a cartoon.
izacus 2y ago
Why do some of you so badly, sickly want companies like Google to be the police and block your content on their whim? This site is full of proof they're biased and incompetent, why are you so prepared to give them rights that belong to governments?
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  There was once a time people were able to host their own content.
  - izacus 2y ago
    Yeah, but HNers now demand that the hosters police and surveil the content of the customers they host for - even if they have no warrant or takedown requests from the governments. Which, obviously, leaves only the largest companies able to play the mercenary police.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      The big companies found a way to centralize the decentralized internet.
- 7bit 2y ago
  If you host a house party, and you invite a guy that sells meth. And someone tells you that one of your guests overdosed in the bathroom and died. Then you let the guest sell more meth, although it was reported to you. Demanding you throw out the meth seller has absolutely nothing to do with "giving them rights that belong to governments". It's your right of house rules to throw him out. And it's your responsibility as the party host. But who am I telling this... A Freedom-troll will never understand...
- johnklos 2y ago
  > rights that belong to governments It's not that at all. If you report phishing / malicious content to them, you have a right to expect them to take action in a reasonable amount of time - not weeks, and certainly not never. This isn't a "right", this is a reasonable way to work on the Internet that's worked since the '80s. Do they have a "right" to just ignore abuse complaints and host whatever they want, even if it's illegal, malicious or that violates someone's copyright, and to ignore all requests to take appropriate action?
SkiFire13 2y ago
I could see your point if the block was after a takedown request and Google did not comply, but this didn't happen. "Piracy Shield" doesn not send out takedown notices, _it just blocks IPs_ reported by a set of _private companies_.
- johnklos 2y ago
  Do you have a source about "Piracy Shield"?
  - Daniel87654 2y ago
    https://www.wired.it/article/piracy-shield-piattaforma-agcom-pezzotto-streaming-illegale/ https://www.wired.it/article/piracy-shield-piattaforma-agcom... the source is in italian, couldn't find one in english that describes how it works but you can just translate it and it's more or less readable, from the source (google translated): "On the platform, those who hold the rights, for example Sky and Dazn for football, upload the IP addresses or the Fully qualified domain name (Fqdn) , i.e. an unambiguous domain name that allows an online resource to be identified without a doubt, pirate sites that are broadcasting content without authorization , together with forensic evidence certifying the violation . Those who make the request have a few minutes to correct any errors, after which Piracy Shield generates a ticket and includes the report in the list of incriminated sites. Telecommunications and network operators draw on this, and have 30 minutes to block them. The process can also be automatic. In the case of the Aiip trial, for example, the association has developed an interface, which it will provide to its members, which connects regularly, with a frequency of 1-2 minutes, to Piracy shield , checks the update of the list of sites to be blocked and, if there are new ones, executes the request. The platform also contains a white list of resources that, on the contrary, must not be reset. Piracy Shield is located on the Microsoft Azure cloud and can be reached by accredited operators only via VPN (virtual private network). At the moment the project aims to tackle piracy of sports content"
bithead 2y ago
I think it's possible they may. I used to get 50 - 150 of those "I hacked the camera on your computers and videoed you wacking. Pay me bitcoins and I won't release it to all your friends". Many come from .kz, .cn, .in, and various others. I'd notify those ISP NOCs that their networks are being used of obvious criminal activity and criminals love to break into servers and networks. I also put in bitcoin abuse reports using the IP addresses that sourced the emails. Google addresses started show up about 4 - 6 months ago; their IPv6 addresses. So I prominently mentioned in those bitcoin abuse reports that google should make any effort at all to secure their servers and notified their NOC/security email addresses. I also mentioned their addresses would appear in those public bitcoin abuse reports. After a couple of months the google addresses stopped appearing as sources. NOTE: I used a honeypot email address to snare these emails.
- behringer 2y ago
  you're the hero we need, but we don't deserve <3

ruthmarx 2y ago

> Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported content. Honestly I find it incredibly silly companies are still sending out notices to take down copyrighted content. Give up already. The battle is lost and now it's purely a waste of time and money.

dr_kiszonka 2y ago
Malicious doesn't mean copyrighted.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  True, but the submission refers to something called 'Piracy Shield', so copyrighted material seems pretty relevant.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
As long as the potential impact exists (and that impact can be huge), they have the time and money to do those takedowns
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  I don't think the impact has ever truly been huge, although it is almost always overstated.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. Overstated or not in public, that's all that matters to a business. I don't know why when it comes to piracy that suddenly we forget that companies have entire wings (or hire entire companies) dedicated to figuring out how much piracy is occurring and what's most profitable. Will it put them out of business to ignore it? Probably not. But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant.Even if "cheaper" means "give executives and shareholders peace of mind so they throw more money at them". And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. A few thousand sales can make or break a decision to keep supporting a small business compared to going back to a normal job. But they lack the funds to fight piracy so it's a damned of you do... Situation for those people.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. It's not a risk though. Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly. All it is is greed and ignorance. > But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant. This is due to poor decision making, like companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. > And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point that pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly And if they make a million more fighting piracy rather than not then they'll do it. It's a risk to their expenditures. Risk is obviously relative. Hacked movies don't kill anyone, a hacked game server of cheaters can kill the entire game. >companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. Honestly that's such a discussed topic with so much literature that I don't have more to add. It comes down to how fast you think people would forget about coke of they stopped, or how quickly the next generation would pick a new coke. Remeber that advertising includes making sure soda machines have coke on the front, as well as plastic cups with the same label. It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there. >It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point hat pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales. Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0. Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive. And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate. But again. Most small businesses don't have much choice because they can't chase needles in haystacks full time. Giving away your 1.0 for free works at the scale of Microsoft or Adobe where you can reel them in later (by shutting off the very piracy they benefitted from). Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
The pirates lost, I know one other person besides me that collects movies to watch offline outside of subscription services. The legal actions against free streaming sites prevents any serious competitor to Netflix, Disney-Hulu etc, which are hugely valuable properties.
- dxbednarczyk 2y ago
  >The pirates lost I believe this is not mainly due to big companies and/or governments cracking down on piracy, but a massive loss in knowledge and shift in perspective about piracy, especially in younger generations. It's true that piracy numbers have been declining, but this largely comes as a result of "piracy is dangerous, don't do it! you'll get viruses!!1!"
  - leoedin 2y ago
    I can only speak for myself - but the convenience and relatively low cost of Netflix killed piracy for me. It wasn’t really a moral reason, or a fear of prosecution. But Netflix is truly easy, and the cost isn’t significant. Spotify did the same for music piracy. I just stopped bothering with files. I think as others have said, the increased balkanisation of the tv streaming world might change that.
    - drekipus 2y ago
      Netflix has the worst quality and selection that I've seen. I'm about to pick up piracy again so I can watch good shows that I like
      - dylan604 2y ago
        It does now. Back when it was the only streaming service and all of the different studio's content was on it, it was the best fight against piracy. Now that the streaming ecosystem is so fragmented requiring subscription upon subscription, Netflix' selection has atrophied to the realm of mediocrity with the occasional gem like every other studio out there. I can absolutely see where piracy surges again as people fight back against the onslaught of YASS (yet another streaming service).
LaundroMat 2y ago
It's also a question of IP valuation. Media companies have IP as an asset on their books. Battling piracy is a means to defend the valuation they attach to that IP.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  It's wasted money though. They're literally just losing more money on whatever money they think they lost due to piracy.
  - smallnix 2y ago
    Depends on where you fight it. Got it removed from most Google page 1's? -> probably worth it Trying to take down all torrents? -> probably not worth it
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      Google's been removing torrent links for years now. People share these links in Discord, Reddit, Telegram etc - companies are not taking them down anytime soon. It's literally an unbeatable hydra.
  - LaundroMat 2y ago
    Well, maybe. You can maintain or increase the value of your IP (and therefore tour company) by _showing_ you're investing in the protection of your IP. After all, the value of IP in your books is subjective. That perceived value increases if you can report you've "removed thousands of links to pirate versions of our content". So in that regard, battling piracy is money well spent.
  - immibis 2y ago
    There's money and there's "money". You know when a crypto grifter mints a billion tokens, sells a thousand for $1 each and then claims to be a billionaire? Then borrows half a billion from a bank, using his almost-billion "$1" tokens as collateral? This is like that.
behringer 2y ago
I get what you're saying but I don't think it's true at all. Except for my tech friends, literally nobody I know is aware of how to pirate content if it isn't on Google or YouTube.

cute_boi 2y ago

well big companies use thousands of virus scanner, so this shouldn't be a big issue.

hulitu 2y ago
Those are used for checklist compliance, not to protect from actual viruses.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

They will happily boot legal websites off while defending animal torture and CSAM. I’ve made many reports to Cloudflare, Google, and the FBI when I come across said websites and so far I have yet to see any be even kicked off Google search let alone Cloudflare.

MacTea 2y ago
How do you "come across" animal torture and CSAM?
- gumboshoes 2y ago
  Not the commenter you asked, but for me I often find it in Google alerts, where to legitimize the site they have front-loaded it with real text scraped from legit sites.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  I won’t go too heavily into details, but I’ve had them come up with rather innocuous sets of words, ones that, horrifyingly, a young child would be likely to use. And if you include drawn media alongside photographic abuse material then it can be as simple as looking up characters from a cartoon.

izacus 2y ago

Why do some of you so badly, sickly want companies like Google to be the police and block your content on their whim? This site is full of proof they're biased and incompetent, why are you so prepared to give them rights that belong to governments?

throwaway48476 2y ago
There was once a time people were able to host their own content.
- izacus 2y ago
  Yeah, but HNers now demand that the hosters police and surveil the content of the customers they host for - even if they have no warrant or takedown requests from the governments. Which, obviously, leaves only the largest companies able to play the mercenary police.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    The big companies found a way to centralize the decentralized internet.
7bit 2y ago
If you host a house party, and you invite a guy that sells meth. And someone tells you that one of your guests overdosed in the bathroom and died. Then you let the guest sell more meth, although it was reported to you. Demanding you throw out the meth seller has absolutely nothing to do with "giving them rights that belong to governments". It's your right of house rules to throw him out. And it's your responsibility as the party host. But who am I telling this... A Freedom-troll will never understand...
johnklos 2y ago
> rights that belong to governments It's not that at all. If you report phishing / malicious content to them, you have a right to expect them to take action in a reasonable amount of time - not weeks, and certainly not never. This isn't a "right", this is a reasonable way to work on the Internet that's worked since the '80s. Do they have a "right" to just ignore abuse complaints and host whatever they want, even if it's illegal, malicious or that violates someone's copyright, and to ignore all requests to take appropriate action?

SkiFire13 2y ago

I could see your point if the block was after a takedown request and Google did not comply, but this didn't happen. "Piracy Shield" doesn not send out takedown notices, _it just blocks IPs_ reported by a set of _private companies_.

johnklos 2y ago
Do you have a source about "Piracy Shield"?
- Daniel87654 2y ago
  https://www.wired.it/article/piracy-shield-piattaforma-agcom-pezzotto-streaming-illegale/ https://www.wired.it/article/piracy-shield-piattaforma-agcom... the source is in italian, couldn't find one in english that describes how it works but you can just translate it and it's more or less readable, from the source (google translated): "On the platform, those who hold the rights, for example Sky and Dazn for football, upload the IP addresses or the Fully qualified domain name (Fqdn) , i.e. an unambiguous domain name that allows an online resource to be identified without a doubt, pirate sites that are broadcasting content without authorization , together with forensic evidence certifying the violation . Those who make the request have a few minutes to correct any errors, after which Piracy Shield generates a ticket and includes the report in the list of incriminated sites. Telecommunications and network operators draw on this, and have 30 minutes to block them. The process can also be automatic. In the case of the Aiip trial, for example, the association has developed an interface, which it will provide to its members, which connects regularly, with a frequency of 1-2 minutes, to Piracy shield , checks the update of the list of sites to be blocked and, if there are new ones, executes the request. The platform also contains a white list of resources that, on the contrary, must not be reset. Piracy Shield is located on the Microsoft Azure cloud and can be reached by accredited operators only via VPN (virtual private network). At the moment the project aims to tackle piracy of sports content"

bithead 2y ago

I think it's possible they may. I used to get 50 - 150 of those "I hacked the camera on your computers and videoed you wacking. Pay me bitcoins and I won't release it to all your friends". Many come from .kz, .cn, .in, and various others. I'd notify those ISP NOCs that their networks are being used of obvious criminal activity and criminals love to break into servers and networks. I also put in bitcoin abuse reports using the IP addresses that sourced the emails. Google addresses started show up about 4 - 6 months ago; their IPv6 addresses. So I prominently mentioned in those bitcoin abuse reports that google should make any effort at all to secure their servers and notified their NOC/security email addresses. I also mentioned their addresses would appear in those public bitcoin abuse reports. After a couple of months the google addresses stopped appearing as sources. NOTE: I used a honeypot email address to snare these emails.

behringer 2y ago
you're the hero we need, but we don't deserve <3