Google Negligence

pro_gnostic_8

Gents, if I may ask ...............
Would you have an opinion as to whether Google Search might have any culpability or liability when they allow a scam website to appear on their search query listings?
Specifically, I am referring to a website that showed up at the top of the first page when I entered a query into Search. Clicking on the result precipitated me being plundered of some of my bitcoin. Not a large amount, admittedly, but dammit it's the principle. In this case it really is !
The page and result ( the top listing) that suckered me is attached.

If would be grateful if any of you nice folk would have any view on this matter.
Thank you in advance for any opinion you may offer.
Regards,
J.

pro_gnostic_8

Actually, I forgot to add that the listing was an advert allowed and prominently displayed by Google.

gctest50

Does it still come up if you search for " yobit " ?

eeguy

I'm sure that the terms and conditions you automatically agree to when you use Google services have a looong list of exclusion clauses.

L1011

The can't - and don't - vet every ad. Impossible to tell what is and isn't a scam with bitcoin either.

pro_gnostic_8

gctest, no it doesn't.
The advert/listing was removed very shortly after I submitted an online report form to Google .......... just after I realised I had been robbed of my bitcoin. Removed about ten minutes after I clicked on it.

gctest50

Some clever computers virus rewrite yer google search results, then silently clean out all your bitcoins/money later on

pro_gnostic_8

eeguy, I accept what you say -- Terms and Conditions and that stuff -- but surely no T & C's can absolve a company of accontability for carrying an advert, displayed prominently, that is designed with the sole purpose of thieving from people? No?

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

The can't - and don't - vet every ad. Impossible to tell what is and isn't a scam with bitcoin either.

In fairness, L1011, it should be said that there is no whiff of Scammery attached to the legitimate Yobit site itself. It is fully legit and sound.

SkinnyBuddha

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

In fairness, L1011, it should be said that there is no whiff of Scammery attached to the legitimate Yobit site itself. It is fully legit and sound.

seriously if you're using bitcoin as a currency and then have to google a website to spend it you should stop and think.

And no google aren't responsible for you losing bitcoins..for a start they would probably use the argrument bitcoin isn't a reall currency and you wouldn't be the first person to be ripped off by a dodgy site served up by their search engine.

Del2005

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

eeguy, I accept what you say -- Terms and Conditions and that stuff -- but surely no T & C's can absolve a company of accontability for carrying an advert, displayed prominently, that is designed with the sole purpose of thieving from people? No?

They took it down after you reported it, you hardly expect a company that posts billions of ads every day to scan them all. In saying that I would bet big money, if I gambled, that the 1st site on Google for a US ESTA is a scam site.

There is also a personal responsibility issue, the only way that the company could of got your money was by you inputting the information. Did you check the site for contact details etc?

pro_gnostic_8

Buddha, it was a a thief-website Advertised by Google ............ not just listed by them. And given high prominence.
I have the sad feeling that you are insinuating that it's my fault that I was robbed. Would you say the same to all victims of online or telephone scams?

In my defence, I'll say that it was laziness that I typed in "Yobit" via the Search Engine rather than typing the whole address URL into the address bar. I've learned my lesson, but I still do feel aggrieved that Google is a medium that apparently does not vet their adverts and consequently facilitates these scam artists that prey on people. Honestly, I don't know of any other mainstream media that would have such a policy or practice enshrined in their business model.

jimmycrackcorm

Google could only be held negligent if they knowingly allowed a false site to be advertised.

I don't think it was google itself that took the bitcoins and given that there are no chargeback facilities then it must be up to the user of the website to verify its authenticity.

pro_gnostic_8

Del2005 wrote: »

you hardly expect a company that posts billions of ads every day to scan them all.

Del, frankly I do? And I would question the quantity of "billions" of adverts every day that you quote.
And if they don't vet their paid-for adverts as it appears they don't, then, the downside of that is that they should be liable for the consequential loss of money suffered by their customers who click on the ads, surely?

To answer your second question, yes I entered my username and password when prompted. the form fields were an exact copy of the ones used by the legitimate Yobit website when logging on. (I was transferring some bitcoin in order to buy some Monero -- another cryptocurrency). As soon as I entered detals, the bitcoin was being sent to another wallet. I could see it happening before meh eyes.

pro_gnostic_8

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Google could only be held negligent if they knowingly allowed a false site to be advertised.

Surely they have responsibility for what they advertise -- whether knowingly or not, Jimmy? Christ, if I was the owner of some small-town local rag that advertised scam websites that robbed my readers I would be pulverized in both the courts of law and of public opinion, no?

SkinnyBuddha

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Buddha, it was a a thief-website Advertised by Google ............ not just listed by them. And given high prominence.

buyer beware....there are ways for things to be presented to you...check this forum for the scams on Amazon.

I have the sad feeling that you are insinuating that it's my fault that I was robbed.

yep....you're the one that entered the details....seriously if you have the cop on to use bitcoin wallets and how bitcoins work and their chains etc it was a serious lapse in judgement on your part

Would you say the same to all victims of online or telephone scams?

No but your not an aul wan getting a call from india saying there's a problem with their BB

wrote:

but I still do feel aggrieved that Google is a medium that apparently does not vet their adverts and consequently facilitates these scam artists that prey on people. Honestly, I don't know of any other mainstream media that would have such a policy or practice enshrined in their business model.

Seriously go google why google aren't responsible for you getting conned(yeah I know it's ironic )

eeguy

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Surely they have responsibility for what they advertise -- whether knowingly or not, Jimmy? Christ, if I was the owner of some small-town local rag that advertised scam websites that robbed my readers I would be pulverized in both the courts of law and of public opinion, no?

So long as you took down the ad when someone reported it was a scam then you did all you could do.
Do you think the donedeal or adverts are personally responsible for the ads that are posted on their website?
If I went to buy a car and the seller mugged me, do you think donedeal should be the ones responsible?

pro_gnostic_8

eeguy wrote: »

Do you think the donedeal or adverts are personally responsible for the ads that are posted on their website?

I honestly don't know!
I would imagine that they have some responsibility to their customer base on a moral level at least. Surely companies do not have unfettered freedom to put up all and sundry adverts without at least checking in some small way for validity? Which is something that Google are in a enviable position with their resources very capable of doing.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Surely they have responsibility for what they advertise -- whether knowingly or not, Jimmy? Christ, if I was the owner of some small-town local rag that advertised scam websites that robbed my readers I would be pulverized in both the courts of law and of public opinion, no?

Law? No. No liability. Ditto TV and radio - at most if the ad broke broadcast regulations they might get a slap on the wrist for airing it.

Public opinion? Probably not. Local rag to me carried adverts for a quack doctor who got eventually got found guilty of professional misconduct and stopped, nobody cares.

Papers can't and don't check every advertiser is legit. Neither do radio or TV stations. Nobody has the resources - or the requirement - to do so.

dreamers75

You visited that site "many" times, when did you figure out it was a scam?

SkinnyBuddha

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Surely companies do not have unfettered freedom to put up all and sundry adverts without at least checking in some small way for validity?

they do..they are not responsible for what users post.

Was your post checked by staff at Boards.ie for libel , hate speech , posting child porn ? No.

And if you did , it would be promptly taken down ( like what google did ) and it would be you that is responsiple for what you posted not boards

pro_gnostic_8

Alright folks, I do understand and appreciate that the vast majority of you on here are of the view that Google has no liability in this particular case. I get that.
But, typing my complaint on here has actually made me more angry with Google that I was before I started. And more determined to follow this up. I have now decided to complain to the Advertising Authority for starters. I will post again when and if I get a reply.
I'm so annoyed with Google.
Google -- "Do No Evil" meh bollocks.

Thanks to all for your kind responses.
Regards,
J.

L1011

The ASAI can do nothing more than tell Google not to run the ad again. Google do not even have to obey.

pro_gnostic_8

dreamers75 wrote: »

You visited that site "many" times, when did you figure out it was a scam?

The site wasn't or isn't a scam, dreamers. The legitimate Yobit site isn't a scam in any shape or form. The top listing on Google was a scam.
On my previous visits, I typed the URL into the address bar; this one time I didn't -- I typed "Yobit" into the search bar. That's what got me robbed.

SkinnyBuddha

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

But, typing my complaint on here has actually made me more angry with Google that I was before I started. And more determined to follow this up. I have now decided to complain to the Advertising Authority for starters.

Good luck with that :rolleyes:

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

Local rag to me carried adverts for a quack doctor who got eventually got found guilty of professional misconduct and stopped,

I gotta say that a thieving-advert placed on a global platform like Google is higher up the scale of reach than a low-circulation local weekly newspaper and a chancer horse-doctor.

pro_gnostic_8

SkinnyBuddha wrote: »

Good luck with that :rolleyes:

Oh you of very little faith ! :pac:
At the very least it will make me feel better. Even if nothing comes from it as most of you predict, it will give me some small satisfaction for doing so.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

I gotta say that a thieving-advert placed on a global platform like Google is higher up the scale of reach than a low-circulation local weekly newspaper and a chancer horse-doctor.

Zero difference in terms of responsibility

In future, make all online payments with a system that has chargebacks and visit sites directly rather than searching for them and hitting the first thing that comes up. A scam site could have reached the first non-sponsored search result just as easily.

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

The ASAI can do nothing more than tell Google not to run the ad again. Google do not even have to obey.

You may well be right, mate.
In other words, a Paper Tiger ............. like every other regulatory body in this poor benighted little country.
Ireland of course, is a "business-friendly" place for large corporations as our dear Taoiseach has said on more than one occasion. Silly, naive me for thinking otherwise.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

You may well be right, mate.
In other words, a Paper Tiger ............. like every other regulatory body in this poor benighted little country.
Ireland of course, is a "business-friendly" place for large corporations as our dear Taoiseach has said on more than one occasion. Silly, naive me for thinking otherwise.

The ASAI is not a regulator or a state body. It is a voluntary organisation paid for by advertisers. Advertising is only regulated here by the BAI for broadcast media.

To be honest, there is a tiny chance you will get a response from the ASAI that isn't "we have no ability to deal with this"

SkinnyBuddha

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Oh you of very little faith ! :pac:

I'm a realist

At the very least it will make me feel better. Even if nothing comes from it as most of you predict, it will give me some small satisfaction for doing so.

you'd be better of mining the bitcoin you lost...just saying;)

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

visit sites directly rather than searching for them and hitting the first thing that comes up.

Very worthy advice, indeed!
It should be writ large as a homepage wallpaper on every user's computer screen.

pro_gnostic_8

SkinnyBuddha wrote: »

you'd be better of mining the bitcoin you lost...just saying;)

I would if the electricity wasn't so expensive in our little country !
Makes mining a zero-sum game for us Pat's.
Best left to the Chinese mining farms.

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

To be honest, there is a tiny chance you will get a response from the ASAI that isn't "we have no ability to deal with this"

Considering that, then, would you see any point in writing a letter of complaint to Google -- a kind of "Letter Before Action" with the innuendo that I would take matters to the Small Claims Court?
(I don't mind shelling out €25 for the cost of same; the one difficulty I foresee might be proving the exact amount of bitcoin that was stolen from me).

pro_gnostic_8

Actually, scrub that last part. I have the address the coin was drained to and the timestamp and tx:id of the transaction on the blackchain. All is okay in proving the amount.
That's the lovely thing about the bitcoin protocol and the Blockchain -- everything is traceable and trackable.

ben.schlomo

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Actually, scrub that last part. I have the address the coin was drained to and the timestamp and tx:id of the transaction on the blackchain. All is okay in proving the amount.
That's the lovely thing about the bitcoin protocol and the Blockchain -- everything is traceable and trackable.

Youre able to do that but you cant avoid an ad on Google, superb.

Samuel T. Cogley

What ever happened to just using a credit card?

pro_gnostic_8

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Youre able to do that but you cant avoid an ad on Google, superb.

I guess you never made a mistake in your life.
You must be wonderful; I do so envy you.

jimmycrackcorm

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

Del, frankly I do? And I would question the quantity of "billions" of adverts every day that you quote. And if they don't vet their paid-for adverts as it appears they don't, then, the downside of that is that they should be liable for the consequential loss of money suffered by their customers who click on the ads, surely?

I don't think you understand google or how it works. The volume of data they process makes it impossible to catch scams.

Google is a search engine, not a provider of access to financial transaction services.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

To answer your second question, yes I entered my username and password when prompted. the form fields were an exact copy of the ones used by the legitimate Yobit website when logging on. (I was transferring some bitcoin in order to buy some Monero -- another cryptocurrency). As soon as I entered detals, the bitcoin was being sent to another wallet. I could see it happening before meh eyes.

I'm at a loss to understand how someone who is trading in digital currency didn't even take any precautions to verify the authenticity of the site they are using.

You've just clearly specified that you performed this transaction on a site that was not google and somehow are trying to blame them.

If you saw a car advertised for sale in your local paper, would you expect the paper to undertake a cartell search or should that not be the responsibility of the prospective purchaser?

eeguy

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Considering that, then, would you see any point in writing a letter of complaint to Google -- a kind of "Letter Before Action" with the innuendo that I would take matters to the Small Claims Court?
(I don't mind shelling out €25 for the cost of same; the one difficulty I foresee might be proving the exact amount of bitcoin that was stolen from me).

While I think you'll get absolutely no where with that it seems a court in Oz won a case against Google for misleading advertising.
http://searchengineland.com/australian-court-finds-google-responsible-for-misleading-ads-placed-by-its-advertisers-117256

This is in the Irish terms and conditions too:

the customer “is solely responsible for all: (a) ad targeting options and keywords (collectively “Targets”) and all ad content, ad information, and ad URLs (“Creative”), whether generated by or for Customer…”

pro_gnostic_8

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You've just clearly specified that you performed this transaction on a site that was not google and somehow are trying to blame them.

Not "trying to blame them" ................ I AM blaming them !
They misdirected me through subterfuge and misrepresentation to a Thief-Website that they were advertising for monetary gain.

Basically, what all you guys are saying on here is that Google are blameless in all of this; that it is acceptable that Google advertise scam-websites and to do so without penalty or retribution.
What kind of a world is this becoming? Fake News, fake advertised websites, fake and fraud becoming mainstream.
Nah, I'm gonna chase Google for my loss. Feck 'em, and feck their phony advertised scam-sites.

pro_gnostic_8

Cheers eeguy, that Oz link is most interesting !

And btw., here's a little something that I do know ..............
A company, any company, can place whatever Terms and Conditions they damn well like but it counts for SFA in a court of law if those terms are deemed anti-regulatory or unfair.

eeguy

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Not "trying to blame them" ................ I AM blaming them !
They misdirected me through subterfuge and misrepresentation to a Thief-Website that they were advertising for monetary gain.

Basically, what all you guys are saying on here is that Google are blameless in all of this; that it is acceptable that Google advertise scam-websites and to do so without penalty or retribution.
What kind of a world is this becoming? Fake News, fake advertised websites, fake and fraud becoming mainstream.
Nah, I'm gonna chase Google for my loss. Feck 'em, and feck their phony advertised scam-sites.

The issue is that Google isn't a human. It's a program that analyses your search patterns and tries to match you with ads.
you like bitcoin, so it advertised a bitcoin website. The system doesn't know anything about the site, only that the keywords match what you are looking for.
You're arguing that Google did this maliciously for some reason.

I'd also expect that they've changed their legal stuff on the back of that courts ruling, to stop anyone else getting them for the same reason.

You're right about the Ts and Cs, but you'll have to convince the judge that Google set out to do you harm either intentionally or through negligence that should have been avoidable.
Here's donedeals Ts and Cs. Something similar here:

You are solely responsible for your advertisements listed on the Website. You understand that all information publicly posted or privately transmitted through the Website is the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated and that we will not be liable for any errors or omissions in any content or as a result of any user’s use of the Website. You understand that we cannot guarantee the identity of any other users with whom you may interact in the course of using the DoneDeal Service. Additionally, we cannot guarantee the authenticity of any data which users may provide about themselves or relationships they may describe.

pro_gnostic_8

eeguy wrote: »

The issue is that Google isn't a human. It's a program that analyses your search patterns and tries to match you with ads.

eeguy, respectfully, that's not strictly correct if you don't mind me saying so.
I typed a very specific request of only one single word -- Yobit -- into the Search, and Google came back with a robbery-website that mirrored the legitimate site. And displayed it at the top of Page1 of their results. And they were getting paid advertising revenue for this.

Now, reading through the Oz court case judgement it seems to me that I can at the very least demand that Google release the details -- name, ISP, residency etc etc -- of the person or outfit that placed and paid for the advert.
But, quite honestly, my intent and expectation goes further than this. I want to be re-imbursed for my loss by Google. And am prepared to go down fighting -- during the course of this thread I've persuaded myself that I have to go through with it. Okay, €25 outlay for the Smalls Claim Court but I can swallow that in the context of the 0.75 bitcoin that was lost which converts to approx €630 at current rates.

pro_gnostic_8

eeguy wrote: »

you'll have to convince the judge that Google set out to do you harm either intentionally or through negligence that should have been avoidable.

Heh heh, there it is -- that word negligence. The word and deed that I am accusing them of. It's in the thread title too ! :P

eeguy

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

eeguy, respectfully, that's not strictly correct if you don't mind me saying so.
I typed a very specific request of only one single word -- Yobit -- into the Search, and Google came back with a robbery-website that mirrored the legitimate site. And displayed it at the top of Page1 of their results. And they were getting paid advertising revenue for this.

Now, reading through the Oz court case judgement it seems to me that I can at the very least demand that Google release the details -- name, ISP, residency etc etc -- of the person or outfit that placed and paid for the advert.
But, quite honestly, my intent and expectation goes further than this. I want to be re-imbursed for my loss by Google. And am prepared to go down fighting -- during the course of this thread I've persuaded myself that I have to go through with it. Okay, €25 outlay for the Smalls Claim Court but I can swallow that in the context of the 0.75 bitcoin that was lost which converts to approx €630 at current rates.

I wish you the very best of luck with your case. Please post here when you've gotten a response.

guil

Would it even be eligible for the SCC? You didn't buy goods or services from anyone.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Heh heh, there it is -- that word negligence. The word and deed that I am accusing them of. It's in the thread title too ! :P

You were negligent in your result selection.

The case will not be valid for small claims - you were not buying a service off Google and regardless Bitcoin has no provable value. If you get any reply to a letter it'll be a copy of the T&Cs

A court order to reveal details will cost you thousands. Your bitcoin is gone - the blockchain doesn't have consumer protection the way payment cards do and you definitely knew that. If you use real money on conventional cards you have fantastic protection in Ireland.

AndyBoBandy

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

I typed a very specific request of only one single word -- Yobit -- into the Search, and Google came back with a robbery-website that mirrored the legitimate site.

Type Ryanair into google and report back on what the first result is.

Clue: it's an ad, but it's not Ryanair


Also, would you not have just saved the official Yobit website as a favourite in your web browser? That's what I do with most of the sites I visit regularly.
Problem solved.

Del2005

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Del, frankly I do? And I would question the quantity of "billions" of adverts every day that you quote.
And if they don't vet their paid-for adverts as it appears they don't, then, the downside of that is that they should be liable for the consequential loss of money suffered by their customers who click on the ads, surely?
(

Every time you search on Google they put up ads, there are several billions internet connections and since Google is the default for most they will be putting up several ads for every search.

I can pick up the any newspaper and find scam ads, they are the ones for physics and adult chat lines. They are allowed charge premium rate for the calls, which is authorised by comreg, and no one ever gets money back from the newspaper when they call them.

cloloco

Bitcoin is not a legal currency so technically there has been no 'loss' here to even argue.

Never ceases to amaze me how people don't accept responsibilty for themselves, always looking to put the blame elsewhere.

You won't get anything out of this, I think you'll be lucky to get any response outside of 'tough luck'.