<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dennis Yu graph</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:06:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</title>
		<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-14166</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/?p=3786#comment-14166</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-14164&quot;&gt;michael webster&lt;/a&gt;: I&#039;m curious about some of the better ways.

It seems a more direct approach would be to go to the affiliate networks that were running the offers as they have a direct line to their affiliates...although many networks allow payment by paypal or direct deposit, both of which could easily keep the identity of the actual affiliates hidden.

Do you have a different idea of how Google might go after the information? Or if you plan to write that up in your blog I&#039;ll just wait on that and link over to it.

Another thing that&#039;s been on my mind is why Google continues to allow Pacific WebWorks (the actual company) to run on adwords when they&#039;ve disabled accounts of some companies selling pretty common physical items for not having a good privacy policy or having an optin box on a landing page).

I posted about that here:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/09/google-forgets-to-disable-pacific-webworks-adwords-account/&quot;&gt;Google forgets to disable Pacific WebWorks Adwords account&lt;/a&gt;

Is there a legal reason why Google would allow the advertising to run from a company they claim caused them &quot;incalculable damage&quot; while disabling the account of someone selling pneumatic seals because they didn&#039;t like his privacy policy or optin page?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-14164">michael webster</a>: I&#8217;m curious about some of the better ways.</p>
<p>It seems a more direct approach would be to go to the affiliate networks that were running the offers as they have a direct line to their affiliates&#8230;although many networks allow payment by paypal or direct deposit, both of which could easily keep the identity of the actual affiliates hidden.</p>
<p>Do you have a different idea of how Google might go after the information? Or if you plan to write that up in your blog I&#8217;ll just wait on that and link over to it.</p>
<p>Another thing that&#8217;s been on my mind is why Google continues to allow Pacific WebWorks (the actual company) to run on adwords when they&#8217;ve disabled accounts of some companies selling pretty common physical items for not having a good privacy policy or having an optin box on a landing page).</p>
<p>I posted about that here:<br />
<a href="http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/09/google-forgets-to-disable-pacific-webworks-adwords-account/">Google forgets to disable Pacific WebWorks Adwords account</a></p>
<p>Is there a legal reason why Google would allow the advertising to run from a company they claim caused them &#8220;incalculable damage&#8221; while disabling the account of someone selling pneumatic seals because they didn&#8217;t like his privacy policy or optin page?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael webster</title>
		<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-14164</link>
		<dc:creator>michael webster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/?p=3786#comment-14164</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-14162&quot;&gt;Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)&lt;/a&gt;: Here is the beginning of the complaint:

 &quot;Upon information and belief, Defendants engage in the illegal and infringing acts alleged below through an interrelated network of entities that share common ownership, officers, managers, office locations, business and accounting functions. To avoid detection and identification of all those behind the scam, this network includes an ever-changing coterie of websites that utilize the same templates to generate the same fake news stories, fake testimonials, fake blogs and pressure tactics to drive unsuspecting consumers to credit card processing sites like those run by PWW. Because they have operated as a common enterprise, each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the unlawful and infringing acts alleged below.&quot;

Basically, Google is suing PWW to find out through the discovery process who is behind these fake websites.  Google has simply asserted that PWW is in cahoots with the scammers.  There are better ways to find this out.  By the time discovery is done with the scammers will be long gone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-14162">Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</a>: Here is the beginning of the complaint:</p>
<p> &#8220;Upon information and belief, Defendants engage in the illegal and infringing acts alleged below through an interrelated network of entities that share common ownership, officers, managers, office locations, business and accounting functions. To avoid detection and identification of all those behind the scam, this network includes an ever-changing coterie of websites that utilize the same templates to generate the same fake news stories, fake testimonials, fake blogs and pressure tactics to drive unsuspecting consumers to credit card processing sites like those run by PWW. Because they have operated as a common enterprise, each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the unlawful and infringing acts alleged below.&#8221;</p>
<p>Basically, Google is suing PWW to find out through the discovery process who is behind these fake websites.  Google has simply asserted that PWW is in cahoots with the scammers.  There are better ways to find this out.  By the time discovery is done with the scammers will be long gone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</title>
		<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-14162</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/?p=3786#comment-14162</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-14161&quot;&gt;michael webster&lt;/a&gt;: Maybe because Intellipay is a subsidiary of Pacific Webworks? Or are you saying Google would have to file a separate pleading on that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-14161">michael webster</a>: Maybe because Intellipay is a subsidiary of Pacific Webworks? Or are you saying Google would have to file a separate pleading on that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael webster</title>
		<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-14161</link>
		<dc:creator>michael webster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/?p=3786#comment-14161</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-14160&quot;&gt;Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)&lt;/a&gt;: Yes, I am setting up a file to download the various court documents.  I don&#039;t see how on this pleading that PWW is responsible as the credit card processor.  I think more has to be pleaded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-14160">Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</a>: Yes, I am setting up a file to download the various court documents.  I don&#8217;t see how on this pleading that PWW is responsible as the credit card processor.  I think more has to be pleaded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</title>
		<link>http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/08/dennis-yu-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-14160</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/?p=3786#comment-14160</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-14159&quot;&gt;michael webster&lt;/a&gt;: Thanks Michael. Been down sick for a bit. Maltego definitely speeds things up, btw. But there is still a lot of manual work required to get some of the data.

Will you be doing a write-up on the Google Pacific WebWorks lawsuit?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-14159">michael webster</a>: Thanks Michael. Been down sick for a bit. Maltego definitely speeds things up, btw. But there is still a lot of manual work required to get some of the data.</p>
<p>Will you be doing a write-up on the Google Pacific WebWorks lawsuit?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

