[Linux-aus] Google Linux OS coming..

Bret Busby bret at busby.net
Tue Jul 14 17:41:45 EST 2009

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Mark Walkom wrote:

> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:31:14 +1000
> From: Mark Walkom <markwalkom at gmail.com>
> To: Linux Australia List <linux-aus at linux.org.au>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Google Linux OS coming..
> Righto Bret,
> Can you back your claims up.

I am a webmaster for an organisation (one of the web sites that I 

A couple of weeks ago, google decided to blacklist the web site.

google declared the web site to be an attack web site, and blocked 
access to the web site.

In going through the required google process to eliminate google 
blocking all access to the web site, the first requirement specified by 
google, was that a victim webmaster had to sign up with google; open a 
google account, to access google's "webmaster tools".

Then, a victim webmaster was required to insert code from google, in the 
code of the victim web site.

It is google operating a protection racket - coming around to the door 
with a baseball bat, and saying "join us, or we will break every bone in 
your body". Except, google does not give any warning - it just starts 
the attack, without warning, and, then, when you try to ask why, it says 
"join us, and we'll stop, or, we'll continue, until total destruction 
is achieved".

Except, also, importantly, google conspicuously prevents contact by 
email, regarding its actions.

google, significantly, does not provide an email address "if you are the 
webmaster for this site, send us an email at this email address, 
explaining why the site should not be blocked by us", or, "If you are 
the webmaster for this site, and want to ask why we have blocked access 
to this web site, send us an email at this address, and we will send you 
a detailed explanation of why we have blocked access to your web site.

google, instead, just goes around with the baseball bats, breaking 
bones,requiring its victims to join google, and, requiring its victims to 
install google code on their web sites, for it to stop breaking their 

mafia protection racket - "Submit to us - do what we want, while we are 
breaking your bones, or, we will keep breaking your bones into smaller 
pieces, until there is nothing left and destruction is complete". That 
is google.

Now, with this, a number of things are of note.

The first, is that the malicious accusation by google, about the web 
site being an attack web site, related to a version of the web site, 
that had been removed for a number of weeks, when the blocking of access 
to the web site, occurred, and so, the accusation did not apply to the 
web site, at the time that google instituted the blocking of the web 

Oh, and, I have a copy of the previous web site. The only dicey thing 
with it, was that it was written in javascript, rather than pure HTML. 
But, there is nothing malicious in that - it just doesn't work so well, 
or, equally with all browsers and versions.

In fact, google's search results, are out of date, as google, in taking 
such offensive action, does not bother to check whether the web site is 
the same as the web site that it alleges is an attack web site. The 
directory structure and the file name extensions that I instituted, as 
the way that I design the web sites that I develop, are not of the 
design of the web site that google falsely alleged to be malicious.

Trying to go to the web pages of the particular web site that google 
(still) returns in its search results, return an "Error 404 - Not 
Found", but, google is not concerned with accuracy in either its search 
results, or, in its spurious, malicious, accusations against innoccuous 
web sites.

And, no means is apparent, for search results to be updated, to refer to 
current web sites, rather than to obsolete  and non-existent web sites.

The second thing, is that google apparently has a history of such 
unfounded malicious actions, and, apparently, earlier this year, tried 
to declare the whole of the Internet, as malicious, not doubt as a test 
of its self-appraised, absolute power over everything.

See the results of a google search on the string "this site may harm 
your computer". Especially, relating to 31 January 2009, when google 
tried to shut down the Internet.

If google so blocks a web site, as happened with the web site that I had 
redeveloped, there are two direct results; the first is that, from the 
search results that return the "this site may harm your computer" nasty, 
access to the web site, is completely blocked - despite the option 
"ignore this warning and go there anyway", google does not allow 
clicking on that option, to go to the web page/site listed, and, the 
second is that, depending on the web browser set up (Firefox has a 
configuration option, something like "Block access to reported attack 
sites"), entering the URL for the web site, in the URL box at the top of 
the browser window, returns something like the big brown blob, which 
equally, totally blocks access to the web site. The safest thing, 
unfortunately, due to google's actions, is to deselect that option, in 
the web browser configuration.

Now, if google was acting in good faith, it would involve a number of 
processes, in its action.

The first, is natural justice.

For those of you who do not know, "there are two pillars of natural 
justice". One is the freedom from bias; "whoever makes a decision, 
should be free from bias". The second, is the principle of "audi alteram 
partem"; that every party who is affected by a decision, has a right to 
be heard, BEFORE the decision is made.

What that means, in this particular case, is that google, before going 
around with baseball bats and breaking bones without warning, should be 
contacting webmasters of sites that it intends to block, and advising of 
the problem(s) found, and, advising that it intends to institute a block 
on the web site, and, either suggesting that, to avoid the block, the 
problem(s) need to be fixed, or, asking why otherwise the block should 
not be instituted. In this case, the problem could have been simply 
avoided, if google was genuine and had acted in good faith, by 
re-examining the site, which would have shown that the web 
site with which google had an alleged problem, no longer existed.

But, google is not interested in fairness, or, legality, only in 
protection racketeering.

The second, is that, as mentioned above, google should provide email 
addresses for contact, for blocked web sites; one for "why was my 
website blocked (which needs to have a response with the particular 
details that apply to the particular web site), and, one for "the 
blocking of my web site should be lifted, because...", and, google 
should guarantee a response to such email messages, within 24 hours, due 
to the impact of a web site being blocked.

The third thing, is that this "If you want us to stop breaking your 
bones, then join us", should be eliminated.

To coerce membership in such a way, is purely malicious, and, IS 
protection racketeering.

If an entity blocks access to any facility, whether it is sending 
thugs to stand outside a business or a non-profit organisation meeting 
place or a public library, to prevent access, until the blocked entity 
joins the organisation that sent the thugs and blocked the access, that 
IS protection racketeering.

It is much worse than "If you want to have a personal computer then you 
must also have MSDOS or Windows or Internet Explorer".

Microsoft, in its previous monopolies and coercion, has nothing on this 
malicious activity by google.

The fourth thing, is that the "If you want us to stop blocking access to 
your web site, you have to install our code on your web site", has to be 

There is no justifiable need for such code to be installed on a web 
site, and, to require the installation of foreign code on a web site, 
under clear duress, is purely malicious, and, is protection 
racketeering, and, such code can only be rightly described as malware, 
its installation being forced on victims.

If you install AVG, which is recognised as being pretty good, it manages 
to scan web pages before they are visited (opened in a web browser 
window), and can provide security, by scanning the web pages for 
malicious code, then returning a check result.

No foreign code is needed to be inserted in a web site, for AVG to 
institute such a check.

The requirement to install google code on a web site, to stop a google 
block of the web site, is simply the coerced installation of malware, 
required as part of a protection racket.

Thus is google best described as malware, probably, trojan horse 
malware, and, I would not want to install an operating system, from such 
an evil entity as google, that is trojan horse malware, involved in 
protection racketeering.

Bret Busby
West Australia

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
  you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
   Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
   "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
   A Trilogy In Four Parts",
   written by Douglas Adams,
   published by Pan Books, 1992


More information about the linux-aus mailing list