Google's downranking of search of sites with DMCA attacks

[solutions]

Google’s New Search Downranking Hits Torrent Sites Hard

excerpt:

Google's previously announced anti-piracy measures have now kicked in and as a result popular "pirate" sites are noticing a massive drop in search traffic. Search results now show less popular torrent sites but not all site owners see this as a problem. In fact, some smaller sites may even be benefiting from it.

In recent years Hollywood and the music industry have taken a rather aggressive approach against Google. The entertainment industry companies have accused the search engine of not doing enough to limit piracy, and demanded more stringent anti-piracy measures.

One of the suggestions often made is the removal or demotion of pirate sites in search results. A lower ranking would lead fewer people to pirate sources and promoting legal sources would have a similar effect, rightsholders argue.

While Google already began changing the ranking of sites based on DMCA complaints in 2012, it announced more far-reaching demotion measures last week. According to Google the new algorithm changes would “visibly” lower the search rankings of the most notorious pirate sites, and they were right.

TorrentFreak has spoken with various torrent site owners who confirm that traffic from Google has been severely impacted by the recent algorithm changes. “Earlier this week all search traffic dropped in half,” the Isohunt.to team told us.

more here:

http://torrentfreak.com/googles-new-downranking-hits-pirate-sites-hard-141023/

[Sideshow Bob]

A problem with other search engines like btmon.com and toorgle.com. Is that they gets on one's nerves. All kind of adds and trickery to lure you into some dodgy offer or what ever you do not want. Of course you learn quite quick to spot the adds. But the old Google was clean without any fuzz.

[solutions]

duckduckgo is not too bad

[mexpcb]

i usually go to last pages of the search result when i know there is some coverage or hiding of information or use some dorks or google operands to search for specific results, you can do this trick, go to the last pages of the search results and start backwards, then a low rank page or those specific ones you are targeting will show you at the end of the list but you will look in to it first like LIFO FIFO when you start programming or learning how memory works ...

regards

[CocaCola]

I usually go to the bottom of the search and look for the omitted search results due to a DMCA complaint...  They allow you to read the full DMCA complaint they received complete with the URLs of the infringing items...  It's like getting verified confirmation the link is the real deal

[Sailor]

@ solutions

I have never tried DDG, but this thread made me start thinking again. I did a quick google for DDG and found this link

http://www.alexanderhanff.com/duckduckgone

I found it interesting (including all the comments at the end), but a small excerpt seems to indicate that ANY US-based (or owned/controlled ??) company is suspect.

Second, DuckDuckGo insist that they cannot be compelled by the courts to provide access to user data which crosses their networks or touches their servers - they even claim they are exempt from Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) - this is misleading. They may be exempt from having to pre-install technologies providing the ability to "wiretap" (intercept) data on their networks but they can still be compelled to do so:

    Notably, a U.S. court can compel any provider to provision a wiretap, even if the provider is exempt from CALEA. But exempt providers need not necessarily adopt tools in advance to meet CALEA's specifications for immediate and unobtrusive interception, with high-quality data streams and without infringing on others' privacy.
    [Source]

Furthermore, they can be compelled to decrypt the encrypted data (HTTPS) since they are the origin of the encryption and have the capability to decrypt it:

    "Covered providers are not required to decrypt communications unless they initially provide the encryption service, and, moreover, have the means to decrypt."
    [Source]

When you understand this and include the fact that in their Privacy Policy, DuckDuckGo state they will comply with law enforcement requests, it becomes pretty clear that their "We don't log anything." statement offers absolutely zero protection and their claims that they are immune to being compelled to intercept and/or log are patently false.

I have better (other?) things to do with my life than succumb to paranoia, but it does start to niggle at me a bit these days...

[CocaCola]

I found it interesting (including all the comments at the end), but a small excerpt seems to indicate that ANY US-based (or owned/controlled ??) company is suspect.

I have been saying this for years about all these 'privacy' sites, if you honestly think the company running any of these 'anonymous' sites is going to fully step up to the plate and put their own neck on the line to protect you when the law comes knocking you are naive...   They might take steps and many do to protect privacy to some extent and might even go to bat for you at first, but at the end of the day when their doors are kicked by law enforcement and the threat of prison times looms if they don't cooperate almost all will roll over and submit like puppy dogs...