Google Negligence

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'.

ben.schlomo

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

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

That kind of attitude won't cut the mustard in your court case. I'll look out for it in the courts section.

alb

cloloco wrote: »

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

Bitcoin is still an asset, if you make a capital gain on it you owe tax, if someone steals it from you it's a crime.

However, it's not even clear whether it technically got stolen in this case, it sounds like OP voluntarily sent them his bitcoin, because he thought they were a different website, so I guess the crime here would be fraud - impersonating another website.

Of course google has no liability in this.

OP: using bitcoin requires putting on your big boy pants, before you ever send it anywhere you need to double check that you're sending it to the right place, never casually find websites that you will be sending money to by googling for them - use bookmarks as these are the exact websites that are most likely to be cloned and advertise on google.

You are angry at your loss, and it's not nice to hear the truth at that time, but the truth is you're wasting your time pursuing Google for this. You've learned a valuable lesson for what you say was a small amount. Learn from the lesson and be thankful it wasn't a larger amount and move on. With freedom of money comes personal responsibility for how you secure it and who you send it to.

pro_gnostic_8

alb wrote: »

You are angry at your loss, and it's not nice to hear the truth at that time, but the truth is you're wasting your time pursuing Google for this.

I dunno, alb!
We shall see, although I do accept that I am in a minority of one on here in holding any hope for a satisfactory conclusion.
But if nothing comes from it, I will get some satisfaction at the least for making a stand and being a very small voice saying to the Google behemoth that they shouldn't do this sort of sh1t; that it's wrong.

Regarding your comments re security etc, I have addressed below in following posts.

pro_gnostic_8

cloloco, the two points of your post have to be addressed ................

cloloco wrote: »

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

Neither is gold or silver legal tender for debt. But stealing either is a crime, pure and simple.

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

I am putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the entity that enabled this deception -- Google.
Ever since my path first crossed with bitcoin back in 2011, I have never suffered any loss, none whatsoever until now. Why this happy state of affairs existed was because of my strong diligence and attention to security. My bitcoins are stored in a hardware cold wallet (Trezor); my exchange accounts are under Two Factor Authentication and mosaic floating password protection; my bitcoin transactions are multi-sig and triple-check between sender and addressee. So it comes as a bit of a sickener to to be told by your own good self that I should take responsibility for an issue that is entirely down to Google taking payment for advertising and pumping a criminal-enterprise website.

pro_gnostic_8

ben.schlomo wrote: »

That kind of attitude won't cut the mustard in your court case. I'll look out for it in the courts section.

My attitude was perhaps coloured by your post "Youre able to do that but you cant avoid an ad on Google, superb", which can only be described as confrontational and cantankerous.
I had already admitted to making a mistake by clicking on the fake website; I subsequently merely asked if you yourself had ever made a mistake in your life.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

that I should take responsibility for an issue that is entirely down to Google taking payment for advertising and pumping a criminal-enterprise website.

Its not though. You clicked on that site under your own free will. Its not like you were clickjacked there by an XSS attack now, is it? You bear significant responsibility here - not looking, and using a payment system with no comeback when plenty exist. You rail against the state for not regulating advertisers when you choose to use an unregulated financial system and bypass our extremely strong consumer and financial laws.

Gold and silver are physical items and clearly stealable. Good luck proving to a district court judge as a litigant in person that a bitcoin hash is. Your loss would not cover a solicitor.

pro_gnostic_8

Del2005 wrote: »

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.

Del, this is another level compared to adult chatlines and adverts for feckin' crystal ball gazers. As you have noted, the above are allowed by Comreg. At best these are premium rate ( but legal) operations catering to the peccadilloes of the gullible and insecure; at worst they are sharp practice. The issue at hand regarding Google is an entirely different animal -- it is the advertising and the promotion of criminality. There is a big difference.

pro_gnostic_8

L1011 wrote: »

Its not though. You clicked on that site under your own free will. Its not like you were clickjacked there by an XSS attack now, is it?

Riddle me this, then, L:
What would have happened if Google hadn't displayed (prominently) in their results listings a scam thieving criminal-enterprise website ( that let's not forget they were getting paid for) ?
Exactly! NOTHING. Nada. I would still have my coin and we wouldn't be having this convo.

L1011

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

Riddle me this, then, L:
What would have happened if Google hadn't displayed (prominently) in their results listings a scam thieving criminal-enterprise website ( that let's not forget they were getting paid for) ?
Exactly! NOTHING. Nada. I would still have my coin and we wouldn't be having this convo.

What would have happened if you'd looked at the domain name?

You have responsibility to carry here. You have no recourse to the courts except possible by spending thousands to tens of thousands to get the name and card details - likely stolen anyway - of whoever booked the ad. The ASAI won't do anything. Google have already removed the ad.

Live and learn - particularly about realising that you can't blame other people for everything.

listermint

I'm just shocked someone trading in bitcoin was scammed by a simple scam website.


It may mean you should withdraw from this particular type of income until you have a full grasp of the risks.


To be brutally honest with you.