The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising

from the they-still-get-through dept

We've already noted just how ridiculous the US government's decision to take $500 million from Google is, because some Canadian pharmacies advertised on the site to Americans. It just doesn't make sense to blame the platform provider for the actions of its users. If Canadian pharmacies are violating US laws in shipping to Americans, then block the shipments. But don't just take money from Google. And, of course, the reality is that most of the Canadian pharmacies selling to Americans were selling legitimate products and were actually helping to keep people healthy by letting them purchase affordable meds.

But the bigger issue is this idea that Google somehow has to magically block all pharmaceutical ads or face additional lawsuits. Already, it appears that Google is failing in this endeavor. John Nagle noticed some indications that ads for fake drugs were still getting through, and presented some evidence. In exploring the example he presented, I think he might have confused advertisements for (somewhat questionable, and probably useless) herbal supplements that are named like some prescription drugs, but that's not necessarily advertising fake pills. It's sketchy, but it's not clear that it completely violates the "no fake drugs" rule.

However, continuing to look through some similar examples suggests that other sellers of fake drugs are still very much advertising on Google. I'm not going to provide links here, but it didn't take long before I saw a series of Google AdSense ads, such as the following:
The top two, at the very least, appear to be directly advertising Viagra. Clicking on the second one brings up a site that claims to be selling Viagra via an "official certified pharmacy" but with no prescription. As far as I know (meaning, according to Wikipedia), Viagra still requires a prescription.
Now, it may be easy to knock Google here, which claims that it is no longer accepting such advertising. But the bigger issue is that this demonstrates exactly why you're not supposed to hold a platform liable for the actions of its users. No matter what Google tries to do to block ads that advertise "illegal" drugs, people are going to figure out a way to get through, and it's ridiculous to pin the blame on Google. It can't hand monitor every such ad.

Furthermore, this seems to highlight the increased risk people are put at due to this effort by the Justice Department. The Canadian pharmacies that Google got in trouble for dealing with weren't selling fake pills. They were selling legitimate pills for re-importation into the US. On the other hand, it seems likely that what's left and getting through in the ads, such as the one in the screenshot above, is almost certainly fake... and potentially dangerous. Wouldn't people be better off getting ads from actual certified pharmacies, rather than from something like what you see above?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    After looking at the AdSense screen capture, my question is this:

    Who is Eric Tile and why is he dissin' his function?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Cock Blocking Ads

    This will be hard for some people to swallow

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

      Re: Cock Blocking Ads

      This will be hard for some people to swallow

      Just be careful not to get them stuck in your throat, you could end up with a stiff neck.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    The answer to your inquiry is "Yes."

    Wouldn't people be better off getting ads from actual certified pharmacies, rather than from something like what you see above?


    Of course, but it's not as if Big Pharma cares who they kill for their profits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    Big Search hates to pay the content creators

    While I'm sure I couldn't do better than Google at keeping out the pill ads, I can't help but feel like Google brought this on themselves by trying to fly too close to the sun. Everywhere I turn there are stories about how Google is sucking because they're too cheap to pay someone to keep things up. They just believe that their magic AI programs will generate the big revenues and they hate sharing these revenues with anyone.

    For instance, today's paper brings us the news that people keep sending false reports into Google Places about competitors closing down. Surprise! Everyone thought, "Let's just get rid of the journalists. Let's get the crowd to do the work." Then Google will keep the profits. But surprise! The crowd has better things to do than do Google's leg work for them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/technology/closed-in-error-on-google-places-merchants-seek-fix es.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google&st=cse

    Big Search hates to pay the content creators and now it's coming back to bite them on the butt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

      Re: Big Search hates to pay the content creators

      "Big Search"

      I_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

      Re: Big Search hates to pay the content creators

      That's some lovely non sequitor you have there. Did you pay for it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 3:27pm

      Re: Big Search hates to pay the content creators

      Yeah, someone who fully and honestly compensates content creators should do something about this leeching middle-man corporation. Like the RIAA or one of it's members.

      Oh wait.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

    stop trying to bring common sense into the conversation, mike. you're wasting your time, especially as far as law enforcement agencies are concerned!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

    Google had better make some efforts to police its ads.

    They get paid to do so; in own interest for reputation, and they've a duty to do so, too. -- Newspapers have always done so. (Non-tabloids.) If a few slip through, it's probably excusable; if no effort, take half billion bites until they recognize the responsibility that goes along with opportunities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Sep 7th, 2011 @ 12:05am

      Re: Google had better make some efforts to police its ads.

      ...and what have they been doing so far? Does it not count as effort for some reason?

      "Newspapers have always done so. (Non-tabloids.)"

      You might want to do some research and find out the differences between Google and newspapers. You might learn something about the internet and the arguments actually being made.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

    Here's a little something for all of you Google (and yahoo) lovers to ponder over. Google, the defender of free speech apparently is only a free speech proponent up until it's business concerns are addressed. After that it's "free speech, whatever". See the last paragraph to see how they have your back.

    "NEED TO KNOW: TECHNOLOGY
    Fair-Weather Friends
    [Description: http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=11152&width=268 &height=]
    20TH CENTURY FOX
    The revolt: Avatar is the most pirated movie in the world.
    Google and other Internet giants take a principled stand against new intellectual-property legislation. Can it last?
    By Sara Jerome
    Updated: September 2, 2011 | 6:56 a.m.
    September 1, 2011 | 6:25 p.m.
    When Congress returns next week, it will take up an ambitious intellectual-property bill that could overhaul how the government fights online theft and ease pressure on the Obama administration to live up to promises made before the 2008 election. Recording and movie studios couldn't be happier, but tech giants such as Google, in part citing a need to protect free speech, have pledged to fight the transformative measure.
    Yet, in reality, the tech giants' objections are economic, not ideological. And if lawmakers can meliorate that business anxiety, they could cleave the corporations from their traditional allies at nonprofits and think tanks, straining a traditional Washington alliance.
    The Protect IP Act aims to crack down on websites that facilitate online piracy-a drain on entertainment companies whose high-priced products bounce around the Internet for next to nothing, generating revenue for criminals (often based overseas) who sell counterfeit versions online. The legislation from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., expands the Justice Department's power to take action against infringing websites. With an OK from the courts, law enforcement could instruct search engines and domain-name providers to make the infringing sites invisible to Internet users and redirect them to a page explaining why the content is inaccessible. Ad networks and payment processors would also be forced to stop supporting those sites.
    Fighting piracy is a rare issue with bipartisan support on Capitol Hill; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the powerful recording and movie lobbies also back the bill. But the legislation is hardly a sure thing. A similar proposal failed to pass the last Congress, and a particularly effective coalition of opponents-Google and other major Internet interests allied with outspoken civil-libertarian groups-has emerged this year to stall the process.
    NetCoalition, including Google and other technology corporations, opposes the Senate version for fear it could shift the cost of anti-piracy enforcement from the government to Internet companies. The behemoth with the most experience and influence in Washington, Google can leverage its powerful lobbying infrastructure-it added 10 firms just this year-to change minds on the Hill.
    Meanwhile, Google has collected a vast network of allies among nonprofits and think tanks, to which it doles out thousands of dollars in donations every year to help push its agenda in Washington. They are joined by civil-liberties groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Don't Censor the Net, that have helped to frame Google's vantage point as a First Amendment issue. Civil libertarians say that the bill could chill free speech by giving authorities power to remove websites without giving owners a chance to fight back.
    Not surprisingly, the tech companies have borrowed the First Amendment rhetoric. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt warned in May that such laws could set a disastrous precedent not only for search engines but for freedom of speech in general. When Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., announced he would place a hold on the Senate bill, he also cited similar arguments. "I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective," Wyden said in a statement.
    Given the strength of this pro-technology, anticensorship platform, the bill might seem dead on arrival in the House. But congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity say they think House members can win over the tech companies by revising the bill to drive a wedge between the corporations and their libertarian allies. If Google switched sides, it would realign its powerful lobbying base behind the bill, leaving the principled opponents out in the cold.
    This flip-flop wouldn't be hard to achieve; the corporate grievances are relatively narrow. For starters, tech firms say that the Senate draft could endanger the safe harbors they have in other copyright laws, which give businesses that fail to obey statutes legal impunity as long as they've made a good-faith effort to comply. Second, the legislation allows copyright holders to sue technology companies that link to pirated material. Internet companies assert that enforcement should come from the Justice Department, not copyright owners. And third, domain-name filtering-the act of redirecting users away from the infringing material-could be a major problem for the stability of the Web because the technology that enables redirection is incompatible with emerging security systems that prevent hacking.
    Congressional aides say that when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., introduces his proposal this fall, tech-industry complaints could vanish. "If he can get that right and win the tech sector, it could move this year or next," a tech aide to a House Judiciary member said.
    Tech allies agree that tweaks could make the legislation supportable. "The best solution to Protect IP's deficiencies would be for Congress to ignore the Senate bill altogether," Larry Downes, an industry consultant, wrote in a recent op-ed. "But as the House prepares its own version of the law, [pro-tech changes] would greatly reduce unnecessary risks to the Internet ecosystem."
    If Google gets what it wants, don't expect it to hold out for the sake of its friends in the free-speech community. Markham Erickson, director of federal policy at NetCoalition, the advocacy group for Google and Yahoo, said he could imagine a situation in which his grievances are resolved but those of civil libertarians aren't. "The First Amendment questions aren't issues that affect us directly from a policy perspective," he said. "If we reach a point where our concerns are addressed but theirs aren't, so it goes.""

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 4:19pm

      Re:

      "Here's a little something for all of you Google (and yahoo) lovers to ponder over."

      HA, shows what you know. I am a Ask lover!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 5:49pm

      Re:

      Here's a little something for all of you Google (and yahoo) lovers to ponder over. Google, the defender of free speech apparently is only a free speech proponent up until it's business concerns are addressed. After that it's "free speech, whatever". See the last paragraph to see how they have your back.

      I don't think anyone has ever really believed otherwise. No one thinks that Google is in this just for the civil liberties questions. So what's your point?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 6:22pm

        Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

        A) We hate Google for what it's /actually/ doing. We see past its PR front.
        B) Google is a soulless giant corporation that doesn't need you to defend it, yet you do defend it frequently.
        C) Your own words from above: "it didn't take long before I saw a series of Google AdSense ads" show that these violations are easily found. Google clearly isn't doing much to stop it.
        D) You use the technique of boldly stating the very problem as if it's dismissable. -- "No one thinks that Google is in this just for the civil liberties questions." -- THAT IS THE POINT. None of what Google does can be trusted to coincide with the interests of citizens, and in fact, I say that Google is /more/ suspect for all its show, when it's the perfect SPY AGENCY, a direct threat to all privacy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 9:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

          It isn't that Mike doesn't see it, he does. But it is an inconvenient truth for him so he frantically tries to spin it away. All of these so-called internet rights groups are slurping down cash from the Google tit pretending like they're partnering with a like-minded corporate do-gooder. Horseshit. EFF, PK, CDT, et al all realize that Google doesn't give a rat's ass about free speech and these "activists" know perfectly well they're pimping for Google's corporate agenda using the free speech stalking horse.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 10:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

            I wonder who's more batshit insane...

            Ootb, or Buck?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 11:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

              You mean they aren't Clones sent to fight off the Droids?

              ...Wow. My paradigm just got eaten by Cthulhu.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 9:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

              delude yourself as much as you want Jay. This is Google's own man (via it's front group) saying this:

              "The First Amendment questions aren't issues that affect us directly from a policy perspective," he said. "If we reach a point where our concerns are addressed but theirs aren't, so it goes."

              It totally contradicts Google's public statements and position. If you don't think the other Google shills (EFF, CDT, PK) don't recognize this you're as willfully blind as they are.

              Watch and see what happens when the House bill drops and Google gets a few issues addressed during markup. They're go from being an opponent to neutral or perhaps a proponent. And their dozen or more lobbying firms (not individuals, firms) will go to work getting Protect IP passed.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 3:57am

          Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:

          It isn't that Mike doesn't see it, he does. But it is an inconvenient truth for him so he frantically tries to spin it away. All of these so-called internet rights groups are slurping down cash from the Google tit pretending like they're partnering with a like-minded corporate do-gooder. Horseshit. EFF, PK, CDT, et al all realize that Google doesn't give a rat's ass about free speech and these "activists" know perfectly well they're pimping for Google's corporate agenda using the free speech stalking horse.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 5:23pm

    The Streets Aren't Safe Anymore

    There are crimes committed, like illegal drug sales on street corners in many towns. We should hold the government accountable for those crimes. They should fine themselves $500M because other people are doing "no-nos" on their infrastructure, and they should be forced to stop it from happening.

    When they succeed at stopping all crimes on all streets, that will prove to Google that it is possible to do such a thing, and Google can follow the shining example.

    I suggest the gov't call it "THE WAR ON DRUGS", and that we always write it in all-caps to illustrate the magnanimity of it. It should be over in a few weeks, and then won't Google look so silly!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 6:03pm

    Google Hate

    This is just your normal Google hate, instigated by the usual suspects for the usual reasons (dislike of competition). It suits the perps just fine if Google gets a bunch of rules which are impossible to follow, backed up with regular huge fines to be paid to the government. Also, if Google has to put in censorship of its search results, then the entertainment industry is panting for the chance to put their own list of hated websites in there, thereby getting Google to do their dirty work for them. Assorted other special interests, also keen on censorship, are there in the queue as well.

    This is a direct threat to the quality of Google's search results. Google knows that. Google also knows that its prosperity is built on the quality of its search results. But if the perps can put enough pressure on Google, Google will cave.

    This is how police states get built, folks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 7:21pm

    Every time I allow ads in a webpage I get women in underwear trying to sell underwear.

    That is one reason I never allow ads anywhere.
    This is not a problem just for Google this is a problem for everyone that wants to sell ads anywhere.

    The funny part is that, newspapers, TV stations and radio will be on the scope if Google goes away, they all have huge interests and will be target to those things eventually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    SUNWARD (profile), Sep 6th, 2011 @ 8:06pm

    hijack accounts

    one trend has been to hijack adwords account of existing advertisers and then put on the phara ads.

    I also wonder how some of the ads were approved. A simple filter would have stopped about half of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

    There is no "impossiblity", just what Google is either willing or not willing to do. It took me 20 seconds to find that the first ad is manufacturing and shipping from India, and the product is not brand name, rather a local "generic".

    If Google wants to take money, they need to spend the time to check these ads out. Google makes way too much of a profit on every click to be able to justify not checking, plain and simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      teka, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 1:46am

      Re:

      Cool, have you sent the program over to Google so they can integrate it?

      Oh, you don't have a software tool that can continually perform instant lookups like that, with a 100% success rate and no false-positives, for every ad-word purchased? Weird.. Well, you can at least give Google a list of every criminal in the world they should not accept ads from? No?

      Weird, it is like you are just assuming that your wild claims are practical, workable and cost effective with no idea whether or not they are any good.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 5:52am

        Re: Re:

        Why does everything have to be a program? A company that makes hundreds of millions a year in profit can afford to hire 50 or 100 people to check ads on their site for validity and such. Why does it have to be automated?

        With this much profit on the line, Google can step up and staff accordingly. The Mark One Eyeball and Brain combo does a much better job than most automation.

        In business, if you can't be cost effective, don't get into that part of the business. If Google can't keep their Viagra ads legal, perhaps it is one of those areas they should just decline ads for.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          freak (profile), Sep 7th, 2011 @ 7:32am

          Re: Re: Re:

          50 or 100 people? Man, someone's drastically underestimating the number of ads that pop up per second.

          And if they did hire people, guess what would happen? You'd go from, say, 50-100 ads, to 50000-100000 ads as the spammers hope to get through the shields, the needed personnel would jump up greatly, and the overall ad quality would decline.

          Just deny viagra ads? Well, several troubles with that. One, google gets sued for just about everything they do. At least one legit viagra company would sue google for denying viagra ads. How? I dunno, but I can guarantee it would happen.
          Two, the viagra sellers would just call their product something other than 'viagra'. Lemme look at my spam box, and see what else it's called:
          "Replica watch: make your timepiece stand erect"
          "Cialis"
          "Little blue pill"
          "viagra"
          "The men's pill"
          "Unsheath your rapier after swallowing this"

          Conclusion: If we follow your solutions, genuine viagra sellers will have complaints, which may be valid, false viagra sellers will still get through, google will spend a lot of money to hand-monitor ads, but will still be forced into inefficiency, and the ad quality will decrease.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 8:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            freak, if you put the viagra ads on "needs approval at all times", and hire 50-100 people, and put a nice premium on getting listed, the problem solves itself.

            Remember, all the spam terms mean nothing on Google if people aren't looking for them. They are bidding for viagra, not for v|ag4a. people don't search for "timepiece stand erect" when they want viagra, they search for viagra, or perhaps "boner medicine". There isn't an endless number of variants here that the public searches for in volume, and Google has the tools to spot all the volume searches.

            If 50 - 100 people isn't enough, hire 1000, and charge an insertion premium to review. Google makes hundreds of millions a year, they can afford to do it right.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              freak (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 3:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Like I said, the spammers will flood the market place, and you'll need a hell of out a lot more 50-100 to sort through the viagra ads.


              But let's look at the idea that they're looking for the keyword 'viagra'. I'm going to search up a few things in google, and see what comes up with 'viagra' or other questionable medicine results.

              Viagra: no questionable ad results.
              erection: Questionable seeming ad; But legitimate
              building plans, truss design, architecture, nothing
              Architectural rod: fake viagra
              rod, sword, longsword, nothing
              British literature: questionable medicine site.
              Celtic, bodhran, drums, sex, rock 'n' roll, nothing

              Conclusion: If they're all competing for the viagra keyword, they're showing it well. Looks like google might've already banned the viagra keyword, showing as there is no result for that.
              Now, 'erectile dysfunction', OTOH, has plenty of bad-ads.

              And hey, no one might look for 'erect timepieces', but if they happen to be looking for a bit of Lord Bryon, maybe some Shakespeare, they might just happen across an ad.
              (If I had to wager, I'd say that the viagra sellers, or maybe it's one viagra seller behind multiple fronts, is putting up a lot of random adwords with a low daily budget on multiple adwords accounts. Just to be clear, both architecture and rod didn't show any ads, but architectural rod, and architectural did.)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), Sep 7th, 2011 @ 11:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          May I refer you to my LOL comment a page or so above.

          We don't tell the government that "If you can't keep the streets free from crime, then maybe you shouldn't be in the street business." Or that they should just keep hiring enough police until they are able to eliminate crime. Why should Google be held to a higher standard.

          And to those who accuse Masnick of fighting Google's battles for them, get a clue. It's not for love of Google. Techdirt has very frequently and consistently fought for immunity for platforms. Section 230 is frequently supported here, and the same debate was made for Craigslist when Attorneys General tried to grandstand about removing crime (hookers) from CL.

          We don't hold gun makers responsible for crimes done with guns, we don't hold car makers responsible for car accidents or deliberate collisions, we don't hold gov't responsible for crimes committed on public property, we don't hold banks responsible for robberies committed on their premises. A little consistency (and common sense) suggests that we should not hold web hosts responsible for content posted by others on their platforms.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PT, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      Hold on a moment. Generic drugs manufactured in India are not "fake", just cheap. I see no reason why they shouldn't be advertised for sale, like any other commodity that can be traded around the world. Nor do I see any reason why I shouldn't be able to purchase them - it's no different from going on Ali Baba and purchasing a ton of rat poison. This is called "free trade". Now importing it to the US, that may be illegal, but that's a different matter altogether, called "protectionism".

      Free trade is all very well when it's my job being exported, but it's a big no-no when it affects the rents I have to pay the healthcare industry to be granted permission to buy medications at ten or a hundred times the free market price. Don't let the scaremongering about "fake" drugs deceive you - this is not for your benefit, they don't give a shit about you, just about the money. All this censorship achieves is to drive the trade underground, where the dangers become real because there can be no enforcement. Not to mention the annoying spam.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 8:13pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually, because India does not respect copyright and patents in many ways, much of their "generic" drugs are knock offs made without permission of the patent holder. Viagra is still on patent, last time I checked. That makes it "fake".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          PT, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 1:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Viagra is still on patent, last time I checked. That makes it "fake"."

          You appear to be confused. If an Indian company makes a pill that looks like Viagra, is sold as Viagra, and carries Pfizer's trademark, that's a "fake". If Pfizer was granted a patent on the active ingredient in India, then generic pills made in India are "unauthorized". However, I'm pretty sure that's not the case (correct me, with citation, if I'm wrong), and since patent protection ends at national borders, the fact that US and European patents exist is completely irrelevant in India. Nice piece of trolling, though, since you know perfectly well that when imported meds are described as "fake" the implication is they don't contain the active ingredient.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 4:58am

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/south_korean_police_raid_google_android/

    Meanwhile Google keeps getting raided repeatedly in South Korea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andy, Sep 7th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Are they actually Google ads?

    AdChoices appears to be Microsoft...

    http://choice.live.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tim (profile), Sep 7th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

    Making the distinction that legitimate, licensed Canadian pharmacies provide a valuable and safe service

    We appreciate that you point out the fact that “most of the Canadian pharmacies selling to Americans were selling legitimate products and were actually helping to keep people healthy by letting them purchase affordable meds.” This is the case for pharmacies that are verified through the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA), which sell safe prescription drugs and require a valid doctor’s prescription to purchase them. These maintenance medications are used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol and cost as much as 80 percent less than if they were bought in the U.S. To verify that a pharmacy is legitimate and licensed, visit www.CIPA.com.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This