Google Claims Conservative WebSite ‘May Harm

[NL7W]

A funny thing happens if you Google the name of one of America's leading conservative magazines: a warning comes up stating, "This site may harm your computer."

Think I'm kidding?

A screen-capture of the first page of Google web search results for "American Spectator" follows, although readers are strongly encouraged to investigate for themselves (image is blurry due to space constraints):


Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? Think this is just a coincidence, and plenty of top-rated liberal websites have the same warning?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs....omputer (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer)

http://www.google.com/search?....+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+spectator+magazine&btnG=Google+Search)


Google makes me go, "Hmm..."

[NL7W]

I challenge the IT experts here to find on the www.spectator.org site just what the heck Google is concerned about. No supposition please... just facts.

I think it's just plain old bias and deception on their part...

[nz3m]

That's funny. McAfee gives that site a green check mark, which means it's been tested and OK.

Libs do whatever they have to do I guess http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 30 2007,19:01)]That's funny. McAfee gives that site a green check mark, which means it's been tested and OK.

Libs do whatever they have to do I guess http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Right. Whatever it takes...

[K0RGR]

I don't know what they were, but Firefox blocked three popups when I went to the American Expectorater website. This may be what Google thinks is malware. They may just be ads for Rush Laimbrain, which cons would consider a public service and the rest of us would view as malware.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Dec. 30 2007,19:08)]I don't know what they were, but Firefox blocked three popups when I went to the American Expectorater website. This may be what Google thinks is malware. They may just be ads for Rush Laimbrain, which cons would consider a public service and the rest of us would view as malware.
My latest version of Firefox, 2.0.0.11, didn't block anything, including any potential pop-up.

Hmm...

[K0RGR]

That's the version I'm running, too - maybe that Republican malware disabled your popup blocker. Check under Tools...Options...Content.

[n2ize]

The reason is simple and Google explains it. At some point Google found that some portion of the site contains links to malicious software i.e. adware, malware, trojans, etc. Therefore when you access the site it may not cause problems but, if you activate certain links you may have a problem. It is done as a service by Google to help people who may otherwise run unprotected computers, or computers with faulty and insecure Microsoft products, to avoid infection their machines with malicious software.

Don't worry Steve, it's not a plot by the "liberals" at Google to prevent conservatives from accessing more right wing propaganda. Despite what Noel (Alfred E Newman) Shepard might claim.

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 29 2007,21:39)]Don't worry Steve, it's not a plot by the "liberals" at Google to prevent conservatives from accessing more right wing propaganda. Despite what Noel (Alfred E Newman) Shepard might claim.
I use Google ALOT and rarely see that. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing it at all.

I get ton's of warnings from McAfee, but not from the above mentioned site. I have the full McAfee package that updates nearly everyday. It tells me what I'm getting into before I click any link.

If there was anything fishy about this site or it's links, I would see the warning, and especially wouldn't see the "green OK" checkmark.

Dave

[AE6IP]

Google for "zedo popup" and your question will be answered.

spectator.org does, indeed, attempt to install malware on your system.

[KA8NCR]

It may not be that site; there's five third-party javascript routines tied to the home page. Maybe it's one of them.

[N2RJ]

Let me guess - Conservatives are being "persecuted" again?

Give me a break.

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 30 2007,23:50)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 29 2007,21:39)]Don't worry Steve, it's not a plot by the "liberals" at Google to prevent conservatives from accessing more right wing propaganda. Despite what Noel (Alfred E Newman) Shepard might claim.
I use Google ALOT and rarely see that. #Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing it at all. #

I get ton's of warnings from McAfee, but not from the above mentioned site. #I have the full McAfee package that updates nearly everyday. #It tells me what I'm getting into before I click any link.

If there was anything fishy about this site or it's links, I would see the warning, and especially wouldn't see the "green OK" checkmark.

Dave
No, you would only see the warnings about bad links when you click on them.

-gary

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Dec. 29 2007,22:08)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 30 2007,23:50)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 29 2007,21:39)]Don't worry Steve, it's not a plot by the "liberals" at Google to prevent conservatives from accessing more right wing propaganda. Despite what Noel (Alfred E Newman) Shepard might claim.
I use Google ALOT and rarely see that. #Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing it at all. #

I get ton's of warnings from McAfee, but not from the above mentioned site. #I have the full McAfee package that updates nearly everyday. #It tells me what I'm getting into before I click any link.

If there was anything fishy about this site or it's links, I would see the warning, and especially wouldn't see the "green OK" checkmark.

Dave
No, you would only see the warnings about bad links when you click on them.

-gary
No, every link in Google has a tag on it from McAfee.

Dave

[N5ZAP]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,19:56)]A funny thing happens if you Google the name of one of America's leading conservative magazines: a warning comes up stating, "This site may harm your computer."

Think I'm kidding?

A screen-capture of the first page of Google web search results for "American Spectator" follows, although readers are strongly encouraged to investigate for themselves (image is blurry due to space constraints):


Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? Think this is just a coincidence, and plenty of top-rated liberal websites have the same warning?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs....omputer (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer)

http://www.google.com/search?....+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+spectator+magazine&btnG=Google+Search)


Google makes me go, "Hmm..."
I don't care who you are, that's funny! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[nz3m]

Google refuses Conservative ad (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200505%5CSPE20050504a.html)

Google employees give all their money to Dems (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm)

Republicans getting "Google Bombed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html)

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 29 2007,22:59)]Google refuses Conservative ad (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200505%5CSPE20050504a.html)
Both the conservative ad and the liberal ad that was copied were removed.
Quote[/b] ]
Google employees give all their money to Dems (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm)

So what? Educated people are often liberal.

Quote[/b] ]
Republicans getting "Google Bombed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html)


That has nothing to do with Google. The same tactic is open to republicans and can be applied to any search engine. Of course, we can clearly see from this thread that republicans seem to be a bit lacking in the technical capability department.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 29 2007,23:26)]Keep an eye on your tumor, seems to be enlarged.
That's it? That's your rebuttal? And you wonder why you aren't winning at teh internets?

[AE6IP]

I'd have thought the conservatives would be more upset that one of their favorite sites is installing malware tha they seem to be.

Also that they'd be happy that google pointed that out so that they could now go petition the site to fix the problem.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,09:58)]I challenge the IT experts here to find on the www.spectator.org site just what the heck Google is concerned about. #No supposition please... just facts.
My goodness, but it appears that that's all you've received up to this point... tsk, tsk (and tick-tock). #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Dec. 30 2007,23:09)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,09:58)]I challenge the IT experts here to find on the www.spectator.org site just what the heck Google is concerned about. No supposition please... just facts.
My goodness, but it appears that that's all you've received up to this point... tsk, tsk (and tick-tock). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If I'm reading your post correctly, and you're saying that all that has been posted in the thread is suppositions, then you must have missed my post. So I'll spell it out again.

spectator.org has a trigger script that attempts to load the zedo popup malware onto your machine.

I do not suppose this. I asked an independent source to check, and he detected the attempt. I checked myself and detected the attempt, even capturing it using Wireshark.

I have not bothered to decode the trigger script to determine what the trigger is, but I suspect it's something as simple as the presence or absence of a cookie on your machine.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,23:29)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Dec. 30 2007,23:09)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,09:58)]I challenge the IT experts here to find on the www.spectator.org site just what the heck Google is concerned about. No supposition please... just facts.
My goodness, but it appears that that's all you've received up to this point... tsk, tsk (and tick-tock). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If I'm reading your post correctly, and you're saying that all that has been posted in the thread is suppositions, then you must have missed my post. So I'll spell it out again.

spectator.org has a trigger script that attempts to load the zedo popup malware onto your machine.

I do not suppose this. I asked an independent source to check, and he detected the attempt. I checked myself and detected the attempt, even capturing it using Wireshark.

I have not bothered to decode the trigger script to determine what the trigger is, but I suspect it's something as simple as the presence or absence of a cookie on your machine.
The devil is in the details... show us the log and included "malware" action -- whatever it is...

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Dec. 30 2007,21:26)]Keep an eye on your tumor, seems to be enlarged.

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/f/fb/Liberal_Brain.jpg
This liberal-socialist brain is just so special!

73!

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,02:18)][quote=AB3BK,Dec. 30 2007,21:26]
This liberal-socialist brain is just so special!

73!
Brain envy? What next, are you guys going to want a heart as well?

[w4glm]

3BK -

That's the greatest screensaver, I have seen in some time

F A N T A S T I C.....Mac

I will treasure it always

[NL7W]

Since 3BK brought it up...

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Brain_Capitalist_550.gif


Toodles.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,04:39)]
Here, try some reading (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406) on for size, it might help you understand your delusion.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,02:52)]
Here, try some reading (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406) on for size, it might help you understand your delusion.
Gosh... how cute you've become! Your momma would be proud!

Keep up the good work, OM... and happy new year!


Toodles.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,05:51)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,02:52)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,04:39)]
Here, try some reading (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406) on for size, it might help you understand your delusion.
Gosh... how cute you've become! #Your momma would be proud!

Keep up the good work, OM... and happy new year!


Toodles.
What a snappy comeback. I think you need to read that article again.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,03:54)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,05:51)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,02:52)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,04:39)]
Here, try some reading (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406) on for size, it might help you understand your delusion.
Gosh... how cute you've become! Your momma would be proud!

Keep up the good work, OM... and happy new year!


Toodles.
What a snappy comeback. I think you need to read that article again.
I'm a speed reader.

BTW, say "howdy" to your Momma for me. Communicate my commendation for raising such a fine young lad.

Now back to writing my affirmation of a friend's proposal to the FCC, RM-11392.


Toodles.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,06:08)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,03:54)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,05:51)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,02:52)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,04:39)]
Here, try some reading (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406) on for size, it might help you understand your delusion.
Gosh... how cute you've become! #Your momma would be proud!

Keep up the good work, OM... and happy new year!


Toodles.
What a snappy comeback. I think you need to read that article again.
I'm a speed reader.
Indeed, the second time is for comprehension.

Quote[/b] ]
BTW, say "howdy" to your Momma for me. #Communicate my commendation for raising such a fine young lad.


You've already used the momma joke. Why don't you search that map of yours and see if you can find some creativity.

Quote[/b] ]
Now back to writing my affirmation of a friend's proposal to the FCC, RM-11392.


Oh my, that sounds like very important work!

Quote[/b] ]
Toodles.


Do all the men in Alaska use that phrase? If so, the situation (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E2D8113AF932A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=travel) up there is much worse than I thought.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 31 2007,06:40)]Do all the men in Alaska use that phrase? If so, the situation (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E2D8113AF932A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=travel) up there is much worse than I thought.
You're not the only one to ask... big boy!

Actually, usage of "Toodles" is my form of sarcastic antithesis used to highlight the folly of such "liberal" folks on this Rag Chew section -- like yourself. The irony of it all...


Toodles.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,01:16)]The devil is in the details... show us the log and included "malware" action -- whatever it is...
Well given that you write "whatever that is", in the face of my twice having described what the malware is, I don't see any value in it.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you demonstrate it to yourself. Get a PC running Wireshark and clear IE's caches, especially the cookie cache. Allow popups. With Wireshark running, go directly to www.spectator.org

What you will see happen is that spectator.org's main page causes a javascript procedure to be loaded which then causes a popup, which if you allow, causes zedo to be loaded onto your machine, without asking your permission.

After you're done, if you can't follow the log in Wireshark, google for zedo and follow the procedure to check if you have it on the machine. If you do it on a completely cleared machine, you'll get 3 attempts to install zedo.

As I said, I asked someone else to check and that's what they verified happens.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,09:40)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,01:16)]The devil is in the details... show us the log and included "malware" action -- whatever it is...
Well given that you write "whatever that is", in the face of my twice having described what the malware is, I don't see any value in it.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you demonstrate it to yourself. Get a PC running Wireshark and clear IE's caches, especially the cookie cache. Allow popups. With Wireshark running, go directly to www.spectator.org

What you will see happen is that spectator.org's main page causes a javascript procedure to be loaded which then causes a popup, which if you allow, causes zedo to be loaded onto your machine, without asking your permission.

After you're done, if you can't follow the log in Wireshark, google for zedo and follow the procedure to check if you have it on the machine. If you do it on a completely cleared machine, you'll get 3 attempts to install zedo.

As I said, I asked someone else to check and that's what they verified happens.
I'm not going to take the time to do this. There are better things to do over the holidays -- like spending time with the kids while they're awake, and affirming RM-11392, like I did, when they were asleep last night.

Anyway, if zedo is all Google has on the American Spectator site, I call their stance flimsy and disingenuous. It certainly serves their own needs. Apparently, this isn't the only "lookup" they've tampered with around election time. Figures...

Moreover, I'm glad IE isn't used on any of my machines; neither does my family us it. Thank God!

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 30 2007,11:59)]I'm not going to take the time to do this. #
WoW! Really? What happened to that big moral part of the brain. You expect others to do what you won't do yourself? So much for the "conservative" example.


Quote[/b] ]
Anyway, if zedo is all Google has on the American Spectator site, I call their stance flimsy and disingenuous. #It certainly serves their own needs. #Apparently, this isn't the only "lookup" they've tampered with around election time. #Figures...


Are you really that out of touch with web technology? Zedo is a very difficult to remove piece of malware. Obviously you didn't do your homework. Seriously, you sound crazy. Spectator.org is serving malware, the warning is fair and exists to protect people from that crap. There's no conspiracy here.

Quote[/b] ]
Moreover, I'm glad IE isn't used on any of my machines; neither does my family us it. #Thank God!


Because your family is all that's important in the world. Yes, that sounds like one of Jesus' messages. Ta hell with everyone else, it's me and mine that's important.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,10:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,09:40)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,01:16)]The devil is in the details... #show us the log and included "malware" action -- whatever it is...
Well given that you write "whatever that is", in the face of my twice having described what the malware is, I don't see any value in it.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you demonstrate it to yourself. #Get a PC running Wireshark and clear IE's caches, especially the cookie cache. Allow popups. With Wireshark running, go directly to www.spectator.org

What you will see happen is that spectator.org's main page causes a javascript procedure to be loaded which then causes a popup, which if you allow, causes zedo to be loaded onto your machine, without asking your permission.

After you're done, if you can't follow the log in Wireshark, google for zedo and follow the procedure to check if you have it on the machine. #If you do it on a completely cleared machine, you'll get 3 attempts to install zedo.

As I said, I asked someone else to check and that's what they verified happens.
I'm not going to take the time to do this. #There are better things to do over the holidays -- like spending time with the kids while they're awake, and affirming RM-11392, like I did, when they were asleep last night.

Anyway, if zedo is all Google has on the American Spectator site, I call their stance flimsy and disingenuous. #It certainly serves their own needs. #Apparently, this isn't the only "lookup" they've tampered with around election time. #Figures...

Moreover, I'm glad IE isn't used on any of my machines; neither does my family us it. #Thank God!
Quote[/b] ]
I'm not going to take the time to do this. #There are better things to do over the holidays


Over the holidays ? Huh ? It ain't rocket science it's simply launching a packet sniffer and watching what sites spectator.org tries to connect to and what it attempts to download. It should take no more than 5 minutesand in many cases well under 5 minutes.


Quote[/b] ]
Anyway, if zedo is all Google has on the American Spectator site, I call their stance flimsy and disingenuous.


You are telling me that providing a warning against a security threat that actually exists #is "flimsy and disingenuous" ? That's rich. I suppose ot would be more responsible of Google to know about the risk but say nothing.


Quote[/b] ]
#It certainly serves their own needs. #Apparently, this isn't the only "lookup" they've tampered with around election time. #Figures...


The argument being given by Noel (A.E Newman) Sheperd is that the warning message(s) applied to a conservative site is valid evidence of the hypothesis that "Google is deliberately cheating conservative sites".

But this is incorrect reasoning in terms of a logical argument and can be shown to be invalid in terms of a mathematical (probability) argument as well. Matter of fact it is quite similar to several classic student excersize problems dealing with conditional probabilities.

Unless it can be shown that Google's application of the warning messages is inconsistant with normal Google procedure and application then it is mere blind conjecture that Google is cheating the neocons and nothing more.

[NL7W]

I suggest everyone make up their own mind. I call their action unjustified. Could Google be a willing participant of deceptive activities played on conservative sites throughout the Internet? It's looks possible. If it looks and smells like it, well...

Then there's the despicable and disingenuous far-left "Google Bombing" activities. These 50 "Google Bombs" target conservative people and organizations. As quoted in a referenced article below, Google, so conveniently by the way, "condones" bombing activities:

“We don’t condone the practice of Google-bombing,” Marissa Mayer, Google’s director of consumer Web products, wrote at the company’s Web log in September last year, “or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we’re also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up.”

It will be interesting, though, to see what the company’s reaction will be to what’s currently unfolding at left-wing, er, they’d say progressive, havens MyDD.com and DailyKos — where a new, higher-order political Google bomb is being constructed

Chris Bowers at MyDD.com has launched no mere “miserable failure” style prank, but a subtle, three-part plan that seeks to push articles from mainstream publications that detail blemishes, scandals, or other problems facing 70 targeted G.O.P. candidates to the top of Google’s results when those candidates names are queried.

It seems as though the quest for power is all consuming and knows no bounds with these liberal-socialist-communist fanatics.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006....etroots (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/google-bombing-by-the-netroots/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,18:33)]It seems as though the quest for power is all consuming and knows no bounds with these liberal-socialist-communist fanatics. #

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006....etroots (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/google-bombing-by-the-netroots/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html
Quote[/b] ]
I suggest everyone make up their own mind. #I call their action unjustified.


How is pointing out a security risk unjustified ? Malware and trojans cost business time and MONEY when unsuspecting and naive employees visit sites that load malware onto a users computers. Not only is such a warning not unjustified it is downright responsible and a good move.


Quote[/b] ]
#Could Google be a willing participant of deceptive activities played on conservative sites throughout the Internet? #It's looks possible. #If it looks and smells like it, well...


It doesn't look possible at all because Google hasn't done anything inconsistent with what is normal. The fact that they posted a warning message on a link to a conservative site is not evidence to support the idea of any bias on Googles part.


Quote[/b] ]
Then there's the despicable and disingenuous far-left "Google Bombing" activities. #These 50 "Google Bombs" target conservative people and organizations. #As quoted in a referenced article below, Google, so conveniently by the way, "condones" bombing activities:


Thats why it states clearly in the article that Google not condone google bombing. Somehow you manage to apply the "NOT operator" to "NOT condone" and turn it into "condone" despite the fact that it completely changes the meaning of what was stated and intended. No surprise however, changing the intended meaning of statements seems to be a common tactic among conservatives these days.

Lastly Google has nothing to do with google bombing. Google bombing is a means by which third parties exploit Google's ranking system


Quote[/b] ]
It seems as though the quest for power is all consuming and knows no bounds with these liberal-socialist-communist fanatics. #


There are jerks at every level. Me thinks you are seeing too many commies hiding under yoiur bed and in your closet.

[K1CJS]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 30 2007,22:39)]......It is done as a service by Google to help people who may otherwise run unprotected computers, or computers with faulty and insecure Microsoft products.......
Why not just say 'products by Microsoft'. I have yet to see any Microshaft OS that didn't have so many holes in its security that you could use it as a sieve.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 31 2007,18:15)]There are jerks at every level. Me thinks you are seeing too many commies hiding under yoiur bed and in your closet.
Perhaps these liberal-socialist "jerks" should act in more of a "covert" manner?

Naaah... they're brazen jerks!

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 31 2007,21:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 31 2007,18:15)]There are jerks at every level. Me thinks you are seeing too many commies hiding under yoiur bed and in your closet.
Perhaps these liberal-socialist "jerks" should act in more of a "covert" manner? #

Naaah... they're brazen jerks!
There are plenty of people who are full of themselves in one way or another. Who feel because they have a POV they have a right to exploit whatever loopholes they find to their advantages. Often they make things bad for everyone else including others who may share their POV. They come in all flavors, liberal, conservative, etc.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K1CJS @ Dec. 31 2007,20:03)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 30 2007,22:39)]......It is done as a service by Google to help people who may otherwise run unprotected computers, or computers with faulty and insecure Microsoft products.......
Why not just say 'products by Microsoft'. #I have yet to see any Microshaft OS that didn't have so many holes in its security that you could use it as a sieve.
I didn't want to mention Microsoft explicitly because all operating systems have weaknesses. However, it's true, Microsoft does have some incredibly gaping security holes by default, particularly when running IE.

I try and advise most people to replace Windows with GNU Linux. However, if they do prefer to run Windows avoid using IE and instead use Firefox or Opera.

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Dec. 30 2007,20:08)]I don't know what they were, but Firefox blocked three popups when I went to the American Expectorater website.
same here ... you can see what i saw here (large image stored on my flickr account) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/henare/2154166228/)

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Dec. 31 2007,19:15)]How is pointing out a security risk unjustified ? Malware and trojans cost business time and MONEY when unsuspecting and naive employees visit sites that load malware onto a users computers. Not only is such a warning not unjustified it is downright responsible and a good move.
especially since, in contemporary america, people sue at the drop of a hat ... how is it people can't see lawsuits of the sort "i found that website with google--they should have warned me it was malware!" happening if google didn't do this?

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,01:04)]I'd have thought the conservatives would be more upset that one of their favorite sites is installing malware tha they seem to be.

Also that they'd be happy that google pointed that out so that they could now go petition the site to fix the problem.
No, it's a conspiracy.

Had the same warning from Google appeared under a link to a left-wing site, I can guarantee you, the reaction would be quite different.