[HN Gopher] Scam Alert: Fake DMCA Takedown for Link Insertion ___________________________________________________________________ Scam Alert: Fake DMCA Takedown for Link Insertion Author : zdw Score : 124 points Date : 2022-01-24 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.fosketts.net) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.fosketts.net) | larwent wrote: | The lawyer profile faces instantly give the site a fake vibe as | they look like those generated by GANS AI. | bt1a wrote: | What characteristics signal this to you? I took a glance at the | lawyers'* photos and can't easily determine that they're AI | generated. I probably wouldn't give it a second thought if I | didn't know ahead of time that they were generated. | Antipode wrote: | Hannah Shields' left (our right) earring is particularly | egregious. | nsp wrote: | I'm not great at this but in general - Eyes exactly centered | in the middle of the photo - Earlobes/ears are different, | e.g. attached vs unattached lobe on either side - Boundaries | of hair are confused/fuzzy | simcop2387 wrote: | Along with that, the single texture background always | blurry, sometimes with discontinuities are usually a good | give away too. | tyingq wrote: | "Kara Morgan" has mismatched earrings. That's typical. | sdflhasjd wrote: | The teeth and lips is an easy one, noticable on the "Brian | Dodd" image. "Chris Donnelly" has weird skin texture around | his mouth. | larwent wrote: | It's the typical GANS face layout, with a blurry background, | eyes centered and cropped to the face. It's certainly | possible those are could be real people, but in my experience | law firms _usually_ have upper-body shots of the lawyers with | their arms folded, or standing together as a team or with a | client. | | I wouldn't catch these at first glance, but the older | gentleman specifically stands out to me with the | | 1. tuft of hair above the right eyebrow | | 2. teeth far offset from center | | 3. soap-bubble colored noise around the hair features | | These aren't unusual on their own (except #3 maybe) but all | together they make the photo seem fake. | hwers wrote: | A really easy clue (as is the case on that site) is if the | location of the eyes are aligned almost perfectly as if to | the pixel. | gruez wrote: | I remember seeing a guide on how to detect generated faces, | and the signs to look for were: | | * glasses looking weird (ie. the inside of the frame not | matching with the rest of the face, or optical effects not | being replicated) | | * hair | | * teeth | | I looked at the pictures and they look reasonably real. Maybe | the neural networks gotten better? | MrStonedOne wrote: | weq wrote: | In each scam group, a member of team specialises in, making | websites, for instance. Others are good at phishing, talking | like a call center worker, and the list goes on. The info on | how todo this is sold on dark web. So those scammers likely | didnt even build these fake websites, they bought the | templates. | sacrosancty wrote: | It really doesn't matter how obvious it is if you follow the | easiest rule of not getting scammed: | | - If anyone initiates contact with you, don't trust any claims | they make about their identity. | | If you only trust real law firms, verify that independently | with whatever authority determines which law firms are real. | People need to stop using "can make a professional-looking | website" as a proxy for "not a scammer". | greenyoda wrote: | You don't even need to look at the faces to see that the site | is fake. Look at the phone number on this page: | https://taylorwilsonsmith.com/contact | | (212) 555-1979 | | The 555 prefix is used for directory assistance or for | fictitious phone numbers (e.g., in movies): | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number) | | When I called the number, I got the expected intercept message: | "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed..." | | It gets even better... If you search for the two phone numbers | on that page together, you'll find them on a whole bunch of | sites, all presumably fake businesses: | | https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=(800)+555-2840&ia=web | DaveExeter wrote: | That's the contact info for Mason Donald King! | | https://www.masondonaldking.com/ | tzs wrote: | It gets even better. On the front page of Taylor Wilson | Smith it says | | > Davis Robbins is a leading independent international law | | When they were making their fake Taylor Wilson Smith site | someone apparently had a copy paste error and included some | text from their fake David Robbins site [1]. | | The fake Taylor Wilson Smith firm and the fake Mason Donald | King firm both say they are at One Penn Plaza, New York, NY | 10119. It is easy to find the tenant list for that building | and there is, or course, no tenants with either of those | names. | | Another thing they botched when making up these firms is | that _none_ of the fake attorneys at Taylor Wilson Smith | are named Taylor, Wilson, or Smith. Similar for the fake | attorneys at Mason Donald King. | | Davis Robbins, which has the same fake phone numbers as the | other two, is at least at a different address, 12 Fremont | Ave, Staten Island, NY 10306. | | That's not even an office. It's a single-family house in a | residential neighborhood. | | Like the other two fake firms, none of their fake attorneys | match the names of the firm. | | [1] https://www.davisrobbins.com/ | acomjean wrote: | Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. | | They have an office in harvard square.. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey,_Cheatem_%26_Howe | greenyoda wrote: | Also, how many real law firms specialize both in | copyright litigation and divorce? Yet the TWS, MDK and DR | firms all do - and they just happen to have exactly the | same list of six Practice Areas. The three sites were all | hastily cloned from the same template. Not very | convincing at all. | DaveExeter wrote: | Invent your own law firm! | | https://demo.bizbudding.com/achieve-law/ | geocrasher wrote: | I work in hosting. A large number of DMCA requests that I've seen | are very nearly scams. All somebody has to do is not like content | that you host, claim copyright, and issue a DMCA takedown | request. The onus is on the site owner to prove that they own the | material and file a counterclaim. It's often easier for them to | just take the content down, sadly. | hwers wrote: | I wonder how people make money off of this (if they do) | djbusby wrote: | Pay to remove negative SEO crap maybe? | duskwuff wrote: | And pay to remove/deindex pages that rank higher than | yours. | schaefer wrote: | Maybe it's about power. Censorship is a form of power. | geocrasher wrote: | It's about SEO. Taking down competing content. | alisonkisk wrote: | Not true. There is no onus on the site owner or anyone else to | prove they own the material before filing a counterclaim. | | https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take... | hsbauauvhabzb wrote: | Are you referring to scams where they don't hold copywrite? | bhartzer wrote: | To fix this, Google needs to stop relying on links as a search | engine ranking factor--or at least not rely on it as much. | mountainb wrote: | They will never stop doing this. They have stopped relying on | it as much (by changing how sites are scored based on perceived | authority), but it just shifts the manipulation techniques | accordingly. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Google's original creme de la creme is PageRank: the idea that | links to your page have more weight than keyword spam. They | don't seem to want to abandon that idea. | not2b wrote: | They can't; the web is too large to work without it, and it | is (legitimate) links that make it possible to distinguish a | well-known site from a pop-up plagiarist that just copies all | of the text. But for it to work on the modern web you need to | be able to distinguish high-quality links from bogus link- | farm links. | reincarnate0x14 wrote: | It's more that they seem unwillingly to admit that purely | automated methods don't achieve optimal results when | they're being fought by equally automated scams. They could | bump their overall ranking quality significantly by | blacklisting known bad-actors that scrape real sites and | put up hollow shells of barely edited, machine-munged | plagiarism, yet do not. | throwawayboise wrote: | If anyone can combat it, Google can. It doesn't seem that | hard to me to assign low (or negative) weight to links that | suddenly appear on a page that hasn't otherwise changed in | years, for example. Or links to the same site on pages that | otherwise have nothing to do with each other in terms of | content/subject. I'm sure it's harder than that, but all | those engineers ought to be earning their six figure | salaries. | Cymen wrote: | But how do you translate that into (short term) OKRs and | work that engineers can build a career upon as an | achievement (for promotion)? I think there is a cultural | mismatch between how engineers grow and what they work on | at Google versus the quality of the search results. There | seems to be very limit upside and huge potential downside | to working on this at Google. | | That said, I don't work for Google and my conjecture is | based on the hand wavy details (from engineers that | do/have) posted online. | MarcoZavala wrote: | ronsor wrote: | _Because of stuff like this_ Google doesn 't rely on links much | any more, but these scammers and SEO nuts aren't going to stop | because of that fact. To them, they just need more links to | make up for it. | nightpool wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law | | More simply: "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to | collapse once you use it to determine how much money somebody | makes" | notahacker wrote: | Blacklisting everyone who did this from their index would be a | start | | Although I guess then they'd send out fake DMCA takedowns | requesting people put links to their competitors... | dimensi0nal wrote: | The entire shady industry that exists because of Google's search | algorithm always amazes me. It's just layers and layers of | deception (even "normal" SEO, too). | jokethrowaway wrote: | Amazon referrals and reviews exhibit a similar pattern | dylan604 wrote: | As long as there is a game, the players will find a way to | gain advantage. | Larrikin wrote: | I've started noting sites that I trust when looking for | reviews and recommendations and always go there first. If | it's a site I'm unfamiliar with, I glance through the links. | If they are all Amazon links I just move on without bothering | to read any of their justifications. | | Nearly all the time it's just crap talking about a product | the "reviewer" hasn't even used, but has good reviews on | Amazon or some other junk. | | It's not a perfect system, most Serious eats articles would | not make it through, but it's been helpful in avoiding total | crap. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-24 23:02 UTC)