Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Crime Spam The Internet Technology

Google Blocks co.cc From Search Results 127

Posted by timothy
from the blocking-dot-com-would-be-even-more-thorough dept.
tekgoblin writes "Google has taken the attack on malware into its own hands today as it blocks the entire co.cc subdomain. The block removed about 11 million results from the Google search index which should dramatically clean up much malware in search results."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Blocks co.cc From Search Results

Comments Filter:
  • Wasn't this posted a few days ago?
    • by migla (1099771) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @05:44PM (#36714600)

      Wasn't this posted a few days ago?

      Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.

      • You're doing it wrong, Russell...

      • by formfeed (703859)

        Wasn't this posted a few days ago?

        Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.

        Actually, a few days ago there was another comment that said" First post!". Maybe just naming yours "First response" or "First comment" would help you not to confuse yourself with other people.

    • I don't know about a few days ago, but I've seen "first post" for years, so it wouldn't surprise me.
  • by ZP-Blight (827688) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @05:39PM (#36714556) Homepage

    That wouldn't be cool.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

    • by Anonymous Coward

      When it comes to the justice system, some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's a valid point of view. However, there is no reason to apply similar principle for search engines. When the primary function is to serve the googlers and the quality of results go significantly up when blocking that domain, that's what should be done. I don't even think that there are that big ethical concerns about the si

      • by lucm (889690) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @07:05PM (#36715188)

        > some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that

        If one day you are the one innocent stuck with 100 guilty people maybe you will change your mind. If you want a second opinion on this, ask the mother of Freddy Krueger.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by fyngyrz (762201)

          You're not keeping up. In today's society, it's "fuck them, as long as it isn't fuck me."

          As Pastor Martin Niemöller rightly pointed out (here [wikipedia.org]), eventually it will become "fuck me", but that requires looking ahead further than tomorrow, and again, today's society doesn't encourage that kind of thinking.

          This is a nice, safe way for the authorities (in this case, Google... a self-created and -appointed vector for network search) to do the work and cast a safety net over the incompetent; they are absolutel

        • by sFurbo (1361249) on Monday July 11, 2011 @02:11AM (#36717504)
          Why is 100 the number? Why not 1000? or 10? How many guilty people must we accept go free to make sure that one innocent doesn't get punished?
          If it is infinitely worse to punish one innocent, we should just close down the police and courts, as we can never be 100%, totally, without doubt certain of anybodies guilt.
          If it is zero, we should start putting everybody in prison, to make sure we get everybody who is guilty.

          I think we can agree that none of these scenarios are good societies, so we need to aim for something in between. But what level of doubt should be enough for not punishing a person? Until that question is answered, the phrase about a hundred guilty going free is just words that sounds nice.
          • Well yes, that phrase is just words that sounds nice. You could pick the numbers 10, 1000, or any other and it would work the same. The reason is because the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence. The doctrine itself doesn't aim for any particular ratio of imprisoned innocent to free guilty but the level of doubt required to punish someone has been clearly established as "beyond a reasonable doubt".

            • by sFurbo (1361249) on Monday July 11, 2011 @07:05AM (#36718502)

              [...] the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence.

              But the number IS important, it defines what level of presumption of innocence our judicial system has. This is a fundamental question, and yet is isn't defined anywhere. I would assume that different people found different levels of doubt reasonable, so not defining it just leads to arbitrary justice, depending on what the particular jury or judge finds reasonable.

              • by marnues (906739)
                It really isn't. In scenarios where numbers cannot be obtained, we cannot use numbers to verify the system. And before you think we can quantify this number, remember that if we know how many innocents are imprisoned, than we know who needs to be released right now. There are many systems exactly like this, mostly human related, that we need a different set of analytics to process. That would be called ethics in this case.
                • by sFurbo (1361249)
                  I wasn't talking about verifying the system, I was talking about using the number to decide court cases. About using it to evaluate whether the evidence was heavy enough to warrant punishing somebody. Sure, "is it more likely than X% that this person is guilty?" is a hard question, but today, we have two questions "how much is doubt is reasonable?" and "is it more likely than the answer of the preceding question that this person is guilty". Only the first question we have today is about ethics, the latter i
                  • by Dog-Cow (21281)

                    Figure out a way to quantify doubt. After that, we can talk about adjusting our legal system.

              • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)
                The acceptable number is 0. What is the acceptable number of guilty people going free? Because for every innocent person imprisoned, a guilty person goes free. It is not possible to have one without the other.
          • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)
            So you are philosophically accepting with you personally being accused for any crime, and you receiving punishment for something that you did not do?

            If you are executed wrongfully, your final statement will be "at least I die so that we make sure that someone is punished for every crime". ?

            Your wife, your children - it's all good, so that someone is punished?

            And that is the problem with the idea that it is morally acceptable to punish an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. To hold such

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        I probably shouldn't respond to an AC, but here goes: If this were a few "rogue" sites then yes, your point would be valid. But when you are talking the VAST majority on a domain, something to the tune of over a half a million sites of malware and spam? Then any legitimate company would be wise to head for the hills and should probably thank Google if they didn't already know.

        To complain this might actually hit an innocent is like saying the one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money is

        • by davidwr (791652)

          one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money

          Who is this Nigerian prince of which you speak? I wish to make his acquaintance.

      • People argue over the "acceptable ratio" of "number of guilty people who should be allowed to go free in exchange for not imprisoning one innocent person" but whatever Google's thoughts on what the ratio should be in searches, .co.cc is at least at "N+1:1" and over the limit.

        I for one would be willing to be the one innocent person who went to prison for up to life in exchange for 100,000 actual criminals guilty of a charge similar in severity to the one I'm innocent of NOT going free because the standard of

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by kai_hiwatari (1642285) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @06:19PM (#36714840) Homepage Journal
      .co.cc is not an officially recognized second level domain. It is just sub-domains given out by a Korean company that owns the domain http://co.cc/ [co.cc] So, Google is actually removing just one domain with 11 million sub-domains. (source http://digitizor.com/2011/07/06/google-removes-cc-domains/ [digitizor.com] )
    • Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

      I think this domain was supposed to be for some small island but a Korean company owns it. And no, I don't think any of the 11 million subdomains of garbage spewed out by this Korean spammer is legitimate.

      If there really is someone that ended up doing business with this company putting up a website with this domain they need to find a real ISP.

      • by AlecC (512609)

        .cc is the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. .co.cc is just a single, corporately owned, address within .cc. Any legitimate Cocos Islands company can get a .cc address for themselves; the islands are small enough that it would appear that they have quite reasonably decided they don't need a .co.cc subdomain. Google's action appears to me a reasonable reaction to a significant ill.

    • by 1u3hr (530656)

      Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

      If it bothers them being excluded from Google, they can move to another free domain in 10 minutes. If you use a free domain you ave no security anyway. I've used one for several years for a single-issue website at cjb.net. But now they keep hassling me to reconfirm it every month. If I miss one of those, it's gone.

      • Yes, and irrespective of how questionable you think it is for a business to use a free domain, it might take a bit more than 10 minutes to let everyone you advertised to know what your new website address is.

        Some kind of forewarning would have been nice for those legitimate folks using .co.cc. For example, in South Africa there's what's known as a Closed Corporation which is a juristic entity like a pty (ltd), Inc, LLC, LTD, etc. Some of these businesses are using theirname.co.cc since it's common to use

        • by 1u3hr (530656)

          Yes, and irrespective of how questionable you think it is for a business to use a free domain, it might take a bit more than 10 minutes to let everyone you advertised to know what your new website address is.

          The .co.cc website will still work, any customers who have bookmarked it will still be able to use it. Anyone who sees your ad and types in the address will still get there. The only difference is that it won't appear on Google searches. So you can open a new site and put a notice and redirect at the old one and lose nothing.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Google blocks cock from search results.

  • Now, please do the same for anything on that ripoffreport extortion site. Ooh, and anything ending in ehow.com or answers.yahoo.com or chacha.com or the other endless streams of bullshit content farm crapfests. Those we actually run into all the time, via google. I don't know when the fuck the last time was I ran into a co.cc link of any kind, via google. Probably never.

    • If you make an account and login to google it gives you the option of hiding domains but you have to visit them first for the hide option to show up. Someone also made a handy greasemonkey script if you want to go that route.

      • Re:Continue, please! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Seumas (6865) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @05:54PM (#36714674)

        Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).

        I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Seumas (6865)

          Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.

    • Do it yourself,

      http://www.google.com/reviews/t [google.com]
    • actually y answers is mostly useful.

  • The di.cc sub-domain, as well as the Icelandic pen.is sub-domain.

  • by Shadyman (939863) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @07:53PM (#36715474) Homepage
    co.cc blocked by Google. Ouch.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    co.cc blocked!

  • by Monoman (8745) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @09:00PM (#36715920) Homepage

    Heck setup the safe search options so I can pick which TLDs are in/out of my search results. I'm pretty sure it would be fine to eliminate some TLDs completely and not miss much.

  • From el reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/google_cans_11m_dot_co_dot_cc_sites/):

    Google dumps all 11+ million .co.cc sites from its results By Kevin Murphy Posted in Hosting, 6th July 2011 09:30 GMT
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday July 10, 2011 @10:44PM (#36716570)
    "tekgoblin writes": i.e., plaigiarised from Engadget [engadget.com]. But Engadget plagiarised it from ExtremeTech [extremetech.com].

    The ORIGINAL FUCKING STORY IS ON THE REGISTER [theregister.co.uk]

    For fuck's sake, stop this linking to every scumbag linkspamming plaigiarising blogger who submits his crappy blog to scam some ad hits.

  • Blocking sites from Google search results is about the same thing as shutting them down completely.

    Judging by how well they block spam in GMail, Google should be able to do a pretty good job of blocking bad Web sites.

    I wish they had started blocking malware sites long ago!

  • co.cc (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mpe (36238) on Monday July 11, 2011 @02:24AM (#36717564)
    Interesting that the article says that co.cc is being managed by a company in Korea. When CC is The Cocos Islands and Keeling Islands, a territory of Australia. (Christmas Island, CX is also an Australian territory.)
    co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous part of New Zealand.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Afty0r (263037)

      co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous

      Hunh hunh hunh, you said "semi".

    • by hitmark (640295)

      I guess said Korean company have registered .co.cc with eNIC (a subsidiary of Verisign, afaik) and is then reselling sub-domains of that to anyone interested, without bothering to check who places the order or what it is used for as long as the payments show up on time.

  • .info, and then all the other crap TLDs that ICANN keeps approving.
  • by hh4m (1549861)

    This is BS. g00gle engineers are being lazy. clowns

Memory fault -- brain fried

Working...