Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor. (google.com)
112 points by LachlanArthur 5258 days ago
9 comments

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://te...

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

and so on.

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...
Smells like...a bloomier filter!
The alternative, Google turning a blind eye to its own domain, would be far worse.
©2008 Google

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

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.
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.

The page you're looking at was just created.
Didn't Facebook just update their website thus having a new copy write?
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

I still doubt that Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. are all mistaken in listing the current year in their copyright. That seems implausible.
I don't know. They might have; but I doubt Microsoft, Yahoo, and Twitter did as well.

© 2012 Microsoft

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc.

© 2012 Twitter

I quote the US government: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

"and the year of first publication"

with the way copyright works, is the notice necessary at all? if you put the wrong date at the bottom of your website, it doesn't invalidate your copyright. i could put © 2047 at the bottom of my site if i wanted to.
It isn’t. Copyright is automatic.
Copyright is automatic where it is automatic. In the United States you don't need a copyright statement. Also, no matter where you're from, "all rights reserved" is meaningless (post-Berne Convention).
It's (as I understand it) legally meaningless, but it's not "meaningless": it's a socially acceptable way to express the sentiment of "this is not open source or in any way something I am sharing with the public". Avoiding confusion is a good thing. It's like the opposite of a GPL COPYING file.
Because that would basically make the year meaningless.
its actually different for www.google.com and google.com. Any googlers care to explain why?
is it possible that google.com also includes subdomains like plus.google.com?
Don't be evil.
Don't be a jackass.
interesting.
well sorry for it not being as interesting as i thought...
A post that just says "interesting" is noise, so people will downvote it.
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?

Heh, working as intended I suppose.
Not really - that's about Google listing Dropbox.com as suspicious. This is about Google listing Google as being a source / intermediary for malware.
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?

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