Online ‘Reputation Management’ Company Brags About Abusing Copyright Law To Take Down Bad Reviews | Techdirt

There are three ways to effectively remove a Ripoff report:

Method 1. Take legal action and sue the offender. Then once you have won the lawsuit you go here and submit it to Google. https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_courtorder?product=websearch&vid=nullThey may or may not remove the Ripoff report within a few months. This approach is very expensive and time consuming with no guaranteed outcome. We do not use it or recommend it.

Method 2. Bury the Ripoff report from off of the top pages by using a variety of website, links, blogs etc… that go above the Ripoff report and push it off of the front pages so no one will see it.

Method 3. This involves a legal method that the US congress signed up to in 1988 and many people are unaware that this provision exists and how effective it is. It can remove a Ripoff report from the search engines permanently.

We use methods 2 and 3 together and can have your Ripoff report neutralized and removed effectively at a fraction of the cost of going to court!​

Source: Online ‘Reputation Management’ Company Brags About Abusing Copyright Law To Take Down Bad Reviews | Techdirt

After pushing addictive OxyContin, Purdue now pursuing overdose antidote | Ars Technica

Notorious OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma—which has been widely criticized for deceptively marketing its highly addictive painkiller and for its role in spurring the current nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse and overdose deaths—is moving ahead with a new, potent drug, one said to be an antidote to opioid overdoses.

Source: After pushing addictive OxyContin, Purdue now pursuing overdose antidote | Ars Technica

“Yelp, but for MAGA” turns red over security disclosure, threatens researcher | Ars Technica

Wallace had left his username, email, and a plaintext password in the code—twice.
There is no authentication for any of the application programming interface calls, so someone could spoof any user—essentially giving them administrative access to the API.
All of the APIs are clearly defined as URLs in the source code.
By using the “Get user by ID” API call, someone could retrieve the user name, email, ban status, and other details on each user account.
Passwords were not in this data, but the entire user database could be retrieved by iterating through all the possible first letters or digits of an account ID.
Any user could be blocked using an HTTP Post to the “block” API.

Source: “Yelp, but for MAGA” turns red over security disclosure, threatens researcher | Ars Technica

Auto Finance Company Sues Massachusetts City Over Its Unconstitutional Sale Of Seized Vehicles | Techdirt

The complaint makes it clear the company thinks this is some bullshit: seizing and selling a vehicle that still belongs to the company holding the lien. Until the vehicle is paid off, Honda still owns the car. But Massachusetts law enforcement doesn’t appear to care who owns the car so long as they get to profit from its sale. The narrative detailed in the lawsuit makes it clear zero effort was made to make the car’s real owner aware of the city’s plans for the seized car.

Source: Auto Finance Company Sues Massachusetts City Over Its Unconstitutional Sale Of Seized Vehicles | Techdirt

Big Win For Open Access, As University Of California Cancels All Elsevier Subscriptions, Worth $11 Million Dollars A Year | Techdirt

As a leader in the global movement toward open access to publicly funded research, the University of California is taking a firm stand by deciding not to renew its subscriptions with Elsevier. Despite months of contract negotiations, Elsevier was unwilling to meet UC’s key goal: securing universal open access to UC research while containing the rapidly escalating costs associated with for-profit journals.In negotiating with Elsevier, UC aimed to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery by ensuring that research produced by UC’s 10 campuses — which accounts for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. publishing output — would be immediately available to the world, without cost to the reader. Under Elsevier’s proposed terms, the publisher would have charged UC authors large publishing fees on top of the university’s multi-million dollar subscription, resulting in much greater cost to the university and much higher profits for Elsevier.

Source: Big Win For Open Access, As University Of California Cancels All Elsevier Subscriptions, Worth $11 Million Dollars A Year | Techdirt