Grey, AiK, прокомментируете?

Я понимаю, конечно, что это из очень старого серченжинвотча. Но боюсь, что не все это читали

Думаю, что многим будет интересно, первый судебный процесс как-никак.

FTC Steps In To Stop Spamming

There's a new sheriff in town, with the initials FTC. In September, the

US Federal Trade Commission made a landmark move in establishing some

jurisdiction over search engine results.

By now, you may have seen the headlines of how the FTC stopped an

alleged scheme to mislead consumers to porn sites via search engines.

That's a big deal, which we'll look at below, but the real story is that

this is the first time a government agency has ever asserted regulatory

authority over search engine listings.

"This is definitely a case of the FTC stepping in to take control," said

Stephen Cohen, lead attorney on the recent case.

It's a good move. For too long, there's been an almost "anything goes"

attitude when it comes to manipulating search engines. While the

services themselves do much to combat spam, I still receive constant

complaints from readers that see it get through, even after contacting

the search engines about it.

The FTC's action is a big deterrent against the worst type of spam, that

which attempts to mislead users. Those contemplating this type of

behavior can no longer assume they'll get away with it because the

search engines are too busy to care, or because victimized site owners

can't undertake expensive copyright or trademark infringement lawsuits.

The FTC cares, and it has now shown a willingness to take action on

behalf of consumers.

In this case, the FTC accuses Portugal resident Carlos Pereira of

misdirecting consumers to porn sites when they instead expected to reach

sites about recipes, movies, children's songs, automobiles and many

other non-sexual topics. Also named was the company running the sites

that received traffic from Pereira's work, WTFRC.

The FTC says that Pereira would make copies of other people's web pages,

submit them to the search engines, then benefit if these pages ranked

well for particular search terms. For instance, the case cites an

example where the top ranked site for "kids Internet games" at AltaVista

appeared to be a page from the Mining Company (now About.com). Selecting

this page instead took users to an adult web site. Additionally, using

the browser's Back button or trying to close the browser caused new

windows to open displaying additional porn sites, something the FTC has

labeled "mouse trapping."

The FTC has also labeled the act of taking someone else's web pages in

the manner described above as "pagejacking." It's been a fairly common

brute-force method used by spammers for some time. They find a page that

ranks well, make a copy, then place the copy on their own servers. By

adding meta refresh tags or using JavaScript, they may also jump

visitors who select the page to other pages. Using cloaking software,

spammers can even prevent visitors from seeing that they are using

someone else's pages.

Ironically, it's a tactic that's losing value as search engines continue

to apply other criteria for ranking pages beyond the words that appear

on the page itself. Taking a high-ranking page and putting it on another

server is no guarantee of gaining the same positioning. Nevertheless,

use enough pages, and you'll generate some traffic and maybe even gain

some key spots. And according to the FTC, the number of pages estimated

involved in this case was huge: 25 million.

Some press reports have given the impression that the victimized web

sites were "hacked" and "hijacked" so that anyone trying to reach them

was automatically redirected to a porn site. That's not the case. The

victimized sites continued to operate as exactly before. No one hacked

into them or the search engines. Instead, pagejackers hope to capture

visitors by misleading them into thinking they are getting something

they want. This only happens if the visitors take the bait planted in

the search engine results.

It's all the more reason for search engine users who wish to protect

themselves to look closely at the URLs listed for each result. For

instance, here's one of the pagejacking examples from AltaVista cited in

the case:

Kids Internet Games - Home Page

THE starting place for exploring Kids Internet Games, from your Mining

Co....

URL: http://www.tabooanal.com/c_141.htm

Notice the term "anal" used in the URL. That's a dead giveaway that this

is a site that has nothing to do with kids. Also, spammers often use

numbers for their pages, such as 141 in this case. Or course, perfectly

legitimate sites also use numbers. Nevertheless, by looking at the URL

in addition to the page title and description, you may protect yourself

from unpleasant surprises.

This isn't the first legal action involving search engine results, just

the first filed by a government agency. Most search engine related suits

have involved companies upset with others for using their trademarks.

Similarly, the victimized sites in this case could have filed their own

lawsuits claiming copyright infringement, since their pages have

apparently been used without permission.

In contrast, the FTC suit seeks to protect consumers, not intellectual

property rights. That fits in with its charter. Those concerned about

possible trademark or copyright infringement relating to search engines

shouldn't expect the FTC to step in on their behalf, Cohen said. Nor is

the FTC planning to police all types of spam.

"We have no intention of regulating content. That's not was this case

was about. This case was about lying to consumers about what you were

selling. People thought they were going to pie recipes, movie reviews,

folk songs," Cohen said. "That was the misrepresentation, and when

consumers clicked on that, they were taken to an adult site, not what

they intended. This is where the unfairness comes in. People couldn't

get out."

Cohen said that FTC does want to hear from consumers who feel mislead by

listings in search engines, especially in cases similar to this one.

However, he said consumers should first try contacting the search

engines, to get them to take action.

The search engines themselves also need to step up responsiveness, in

this area. Cohen said one of the victimized parties involved in the suit

complained about AltaVista's slow response in the matter, and I know

from the feedback I receive that this is fairly typical for the industry

as a whole.

"I think the search engines really need to help. We can't police all

this ourselves," Cohen said.

In turn, AltaVista marketing director Tracy Roberts said the FTC action

will help her service better deal with spam.

"With the FTC drawing a line in the sand about what is acceptable and

what's not, that gives us a way to push back," Roberts said. "We spend a

lot of time and energy and resources combating spam. This is a big draw

on our resources, and I'm really happy there are deterrents."

The FTC case was filed on Sept. 13, and the US District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia granted a restraining order against the

defendants a week later. That gave the FTC the ability to close the

defendants' web sites by getting their domain names suspended. In what

appears to be a first, the court allowed the restraining order to be

served via email. The case is also notable for crossing national

boundaries. Authorities in Australia and Portugal worked with the United

States to take action.

Португалия конечно это не Россия. А Альтависта не Яндекс. Тем не менее, что скажете, ребята?

Илья Сегалович,

Яндекс