Google Advertise Poker Cheat!
About a month ago I was surfing Google when I found a 'sponsored link' to a page that promised the key to guaranteed online poker winnings. I decided to take a look, since I like poker, and I like money. I was also curious because I faced two conflicting things: - My opinion that one never gets anything for free.
- My trust for Google.
The link opened up and gave a massive spiel about making money online, with loads of '3rd part testimonials', the usual. Then it showed a screen shot which suggested that with this software one might be able to see all the cards one's opponents were holding. Underneath this picture it explained, quite correctly, that if you can see everyone's cards, how can you lose? A little further down it insisted that all the program (selling for $60) did was legal.
Now, being a lawyer, I concluded fairly quickly that looking at other people's cards and thereby winning was most definately obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (stealing). On the other hand, I knew this was a Google-sponsored link, and I thought, surely Google wouldn't advertise something illegal?
I did some research into it and discovered, quite unsurprisingly, that it was all a big scam. In order to use the program 'legally' you first have to get all the players around the table to agree to installing your program and letting you use it! HAHAHAHA! Seriously! Yeah.
So basically this is all about cheating, stealing and scamming. As my friend said, if he could do all that legally why did he want $60 from us, why didn't he just win an infinite amount with his strategies?
Anyway, I wrote to Google about it, complaining and suggesting it was harming their reputation (had already in my mind). They wrote back saying they would investigate and yet today the site is still a sponsored link: http://www.cheat-at-poker.com/
Shocking. Have a look and laugh.
posted by Matt McGrath at 3:02 pm
6 Comments:
Is it plagiarism if you use a direct quote from a dictionary? Just wondering...
An interesting question Chris, but I'm not quite sure how it fits in here...
I would say not, as the the dictionary is attempting to classify that which should already be known. That is to say, you can't copyright a language, and so you can't copyright its definitions.
But seriously, what does that have to do with anything?
Your definition of stealing is also the same sentence used in the oxford dictionary to provide context for the word pecuniary.
"obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception"
I can see that it wouldn't be an issue if you had italicized it or quoted it. Maybe it is amazing coincidence, but the skeptic/asshole inside of me thinks otherwise.
Ah, I see the problem here...
You haven't read enough of my blog to realise I'm a barrister.
That definition of stealing is a definition given by the Theft Act 1967.
In law, quoting statute or prior authority is encouraged... when making a legal submission, there is no such thing as plagiarism.
So no, it ain't a coincidence, but neither is a plagiarism.
The plagiarism thing was a bit out of hand, I was trying to illustrate a point, not necessarily accuse you of outright plagiarism. It's a blog. No one cares if you copy stuff.
I was using it to see if you were just one of those pricks who pretends to know everything BEFORE they looked it up on google moments after someone asks them something. I hope that made sense...
Anyhow it seems that you are not a prick at all, but a nice guy. Sorry for any comments I made that come across as nasty. My bad.
Fair enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home