I’d be flattered to be able to have the answers for all of these questions. Delivering a workable solution for an enterprise with 4billion approx users and parent worth several US$ trillions though should be trivial. It simply needs to see a benefit in doing so. Reward or penalty or both.
Google, Facebook etc have all seen the pathway to monetising the delivery of their services. They have promoted the benefits and good of doing so, and taken the profits. When it comes to the not so good outcomes why should we consumers take on the responsibility and costs of fixing the bad that comes with what they have created? Credit given where credit is due.
Let’s start with: What exactly would Google be attempting to verify?
That really isn’t something for them to decide. If you are going to use legislation to compel Google (and other providers) to verify something then you need to be able to say what that something is - and in practice you ought to say what is adequate to meet the legal requirements.
Likewise, is it only “promoted” search results or “all” search results or some other set of search results that this applies to? Clearly you don’t want Google deciding that.
Seeing as you are giving no answers … why not go after the company that hosts the web site? Whether you find the web site using Google or via some other mechanism, the web site hosting company is unwittingly profiting from the crimes of the scammer. No web site means basically no scam.
Pretty obviously those 4 billion users are not all in Australia. So if you are going to run the “Google is that big” argument then you are expecting them to solve all the world’s scam web sites. So, yes, Google is big, but so is the challenge. There are a lot of web sites in the world. I dare say that some small fraction of them are scams. Finding the needle in the haystack may not be as trivial as you suggest.
The Australian government already has the legal authority to direct Australian ISPs to block access to web sites (and that will be effective whether Google links to the web site or not). No access to web site more or less means no scam. I mean a customer would have to be quite keen to get scammed in this scenario.
Edit to add: Another thing that can’t be left to Google to decide is: which companies or entities are included within this new regime?
Legislation that targets a single entity (“Get Google”) is usually considered to be bad. So there should be objective criteria for inclusion e.g.
any company that links to another web site (there’s the Australian government attempting to break the web again)
a links service as defined in the Broadcasting Services Act
a company with annual revenues in Australia exceeding $1b
If Google could decide this themselves then they could obviously exclude themselves but, more insidiously, they could alternatively weaponise the legislation i.e. include smaller competitors who will be unable, or less able, to comply in order to eliminate competition.
What accompanies any web page served up by Google and others is up to each service provider. They can add zero content, or bucket loads of adverts, related content, links etc.
In respect of businesses selling products and services. All it requires is a little commitment. Those businesses who are legitimate and want to gain the credit for being legit have the opportunity to partner directly with which ever platforms they choose to use. The platform can go the extra distance to verify the details of the web services, domains and associated business. If both are happy, put a verified tick and Google or other providers verification statement as a header. There is an opportunity for governments to opt in or out as part of the verification process.
Not every business may choose to participate, and the likes of Google and Facebook may need persuading. For consumers it represents a choice. Alternately our own Government could offer a service independently that sits outside all social media. Neither is a perfect solution, but for now no one else is offering up a solution. Although one has a choice to never shop on line and never use Google or Facebook etc, Government Covid safe practices excepted?
Or they could just have a properly resourced police unit dedicated to detecting, warning of and shutting down the bad guys and forget about this long-winded and convoluted certifying everything.
Whether it’s an internet-related company or the government, there should be a requirement for due process.
We shouldn’t have the situation where someone just says “this company is a scam company - we’re cancelling it” and that’s that. That’s one reason why government loves to blame someone else (e.g. Google) - because someone else is more likely to get away with abandoning due process.
There could be - but the trend in recent times has been away from due process.
Your language didn’t suggest that there would be: “police unit dedicated to detecting, warning of and shutting down the bad guys” had the wrong vibe for me but maybe that isn’t what you intended. To me the vibe was “police state”.
Maybe you had in mind: “police unit dedicate to detecting, gathering evidence, presenting it to a court, allowing the other party the right to present counterarguments and to challenge the evidence … and a court might decide against the other party and order it shut down”.
However in the event that “Google” is somehow coerced into “shutting a web site down” there would most likely be no due process. If “Google” is coerced into “verifying” you before doing business with you and “Google” decides that they don’t like you then there may not have been due process, may be no legal requirement for due process and may be no legal recourse (e.g. right of appeal). Your business may suffer reputational and other damage from “Google’s” decision but at the very least it would be impractical to sue for damages.
No just using the current system with the name “police” but getting it to do more work in this particular area. The need to express this in a longer way with all the implied checks and balances being made explicit seems to be a need in your mind. I assumed that readers would understand what I mean by police and not jump to the conclusion that I was dog whistling something else.
But we have been through this before in the the thread about a federal ICAC where you refused to contemplate such a thing on the grounds (as I understood you) of personal freedom and rights whereas others see that the absence of any accountability at all is a worse societal failing and does more harm.
I think it is possible to create institutions that are not inherently corrupt and serve the greater good of society not just the whims of the ruling junta. It will never be perfect because it is run by fallible humans but, like the current police, it can do more good than harm. If you don’t accept that as being possible let us save a whole lot of electrons being inconvenienced and agree to disagree.
I am one of the lucky ones. I got done by jge. The bank involved deposited the money back into our account a couple of days ago. It took some time, but I am soooo happy. Never thought I would see it again.
The ABC has penned an article about the increasing prevalence of scam websites, especially ones selling equipment such as tractors. It also contains some simple ways to check if it is a scam, some measures of which have been covered in the community.
I have found another scammer , as mentioned above , cheap machinery, cheap freight. cant view the machine. customer 15 day onsite warranty customer protection program, anyone can say that. model number but no serial number given,pictures were from an Auction site. escrow payment going through after the onsite warranty expires. Saying they are agents for financial institutions and banks and sell on their behalf. from experience repossessed vehicles go to auction for the bank / financial institutions to recover debt!. Now a BANK / FI , would require a serial number to release money to purchase , and or to REPOSSESS said vehicle. NONE GIVEN on the purchase order. they wont let me fly to Sydney to view the vehicle. website went off line and came back online with similar name. suss website. https://sons-machinery.com/ . most likely same person. after they get someone, do the change . the office is unmanned , they supposedly have a team of engineers and workshop. I am engineer and the person didnt know much about machines , the alledged sales manager. was indian guy. number now disconnected. hopes this helps, if its too good to be true , it probably is. best of luck.
alledged address is 8 Monford Pl, Cremorne NSW 2090. a company of this size would also have a manned phone.
an email , snippet
As we’ve mentioned before our role is to connect institutional sellers with private buyers. WE DO NOT HOLD A PHYSICAL STOCK - WE ACT AS FACILITATORS. We are agents for major banks, finance houses and leasing companies and contracted by them to dispose of the repossessed vehicles.
These machines are scattered all over Australia and this makes it impossible for us to organise viewings for each buyer individually. Also our asset providers (banks and leasing firms) are unable to welcome visitors for the obvious reason that they are not a shop for second-hand machinery nor do they want to become a public fair.
You can test the machine at your groundwork/worksite for 15 days. Attached you can find information regarding the Buyer Protection Program (Test, Return And Refund Warranty - Guarantee). This clause is stipulated black on white in the Sales Contract and it binds us legally to make sure that any machine you purchase is in good working condition, fully functional with no hidden defects.
Hi @Bazza. An interesting find.
Plenty of red flags especially to anyone with experience with plant and equipment.
Have you considered reporting it to ScamWatch?
The website is registered to Eranet which is a domain bureau which carefully obscures the real owners. It is hosted in Russia and was created 24 days ago.
There is no ABN or indication of ownership.
The address exists on street maps but does not actually exist. From Google Earth
The brick building on the left that looks like flats is #6, it says so on the door, the modern building on the right is Redlands School. The given address #8 is in between according to Whereis mapping. Across the street #7 on the map has also disappeared off the earth. It looks to me that #7 and #8 at the end of the cul-de-sac were absorbed by the new school and the map never updated.
In any case why would you have an office that can hold at least nine people in a high rent residential area, if it keeps no stock it could be in a much cheaper industrial area out of the way.
The principals of the business cannot be found on an image search.
The look and feel and method of operation of the website is exactly the same as previous scammers.
I am going to stop now. Every flag so far is red. Yes you have found another.
In searching for Sons Machinery other than the web site there are no hits, this seems to be early in the life of the scam. Does anybody have any thoughts on how to publicise this more widely?
LOL, quite a few of them are pictured outside of the same building!
Overall, It sure looks similar to the original amyvalequipment I posted about at the top of this thread, although the prices have gone up a bit.
Perhaps a call to The Land, as they had an article about 2nd hand machinery scams a couple of years ago. I don’t get The Land, so not sure if they have had any other coverage.
