How a Chinese Company Built a $250M Search Hijacking Empire(medium.com)
medium.com
How a Chinese Company Built a $250M Search Hijacking Empire
https://medium.com/against-surveillance-capitalism/how-a-chinese-company-built-a-250-million-search-hijacking-empire-35f957566852
61 comments
[deleted]
This doesn't feel completely clear cut. Users installed the add-on expecting their search to change. It changes their search. Presumably it's at least preventing Google & Bing from then knowing who made the search. Whether it's truly anonymous seems a bit of a stretch. (how do they define it?)
These extensions do not simply change the default search in the browser. They actively hijack searches on the Google and Bing homepages. Test it yourself in a sandbox.
A user who literally types in Google.com or Bing.com into their browser address bar intends to conduct a search using Google or Bing. Their intention is very clear. It is not to have their search hijacked and taken to a "private" search engine.
They also use Bing to power their search results and ads so Microsoft is still able to collect the user's data.
A user who literally types in Google.com or Bing.com into their browser address bar intends to conduct a search using Google or Bing. Their intention is very clear. It is not to have their search hijacked and taken to a "private" search engine.
They also use Bing to power their search results and ads so Microsoft is still able to collect the user's data.
It's still sort of doing what the extension says it is going to do. On the extension page it says
"Keep your searches private by redirecting searches that may be tracked to Search Encrypt, a privacy-focused search engine... For your privacy, Search Encrypt intercepts the requests if it's on our list of sites"
So it says it hijacks right in the description.
On their website for their "search engine" it says
"The Search Encrypt encrypts your search terms between your computer and searchencrypt.com. Search Encrypt is supported by sponsored ads featured on our search results page."
Which obviously (to you and me anyways, not to others) is also done at Google so there is no actual benefit other than Google doesn't get your data.
My conclusion is that, yes, they are scummy and taking advantage of fears of people to make a buck. But is it an outright scam? Not so clear.
"Keep your searches private by redirecting searches that may be tracked to Search Encrypt, a privacy-focused search engine... For your privacy, Search Encrypt intercepts the requests if it's on our list of sites"
So it says it hijacks right in the description.
On their website for their "search engine" it says
"The Search Encrypt encrypts your search terms between your computer and searchencrypt.com. Search Encrypt is supported by sponsored ads featured on our search results page."
Which obviously (to you and me anyways, not to others) is also done at Google so there is no actual benefit other than Google doesn't get your data.
My conclusion is that, yes, they are scummy and taking advantage of fears of people to make a buck. But is it an outright scam? Not so clear.
your searches are not private though, since one they're decrypted on searchencrypt.com, they're logged as per chinese government reporting laws.
Private is a BS term, can mean just about anything. If it's private from the US gov but not China, that might be "private" enough for some, obviously not for others. But it's also nowhere near certain your assumption is true.
OTOH, otherwise it's the five eyes and NSA logging them. Both alternatives are really, really bad in my opinion.
[deleted]
So 7 million users equals a revenue of $250 million. Meaning 1 user is worth $35 on an annual basis. That’s insane! No wonder Google is so huge.
Google doesn't push their shopping affiliate links as agressively.
Maybe not exactly in those terms, but effectively every Google ad is logically the same and even more lucrative, as google gets paid for potential purchases unlike affiliate links which only pays for actual purchases.
And if you think Google is not aggressive, search "credit card" without ad block. It is insane!
And if you think Google is not aggressive, search "credit card" without ad block. It is insane!
Credit card is such a commercial term that it's bound to have a lot of bidding. I tried to search for "Campobello", the Canadian island bordering Maine, the other day, and was amazed that there were no ads at all. There still aren't. DDG on the other hands shows me three ads, two on top and one at the bottom. Make that as you will.
Google has $1x0,000,000,000.00 in revenue and they have no business in China. So it's more than $35 for Google, especially in US, EU, Canada, Australia etc.
Hmm... I'm unable to access and read this article. Medium displays a 410 error and an ominous message: "This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules." Given the subject matter, I'm starting to get a little suspicious about why this article was taken down.
It's displaying for me fine an hour later.
I just noticed that as well. You can still read the article by doing a google search and looking at the cached version.
Update: Medium has restored the article. The Chinese troll army failed to suppress the news for long.
Please see a screenshot of the full article here:
https://imgur.com/a/uJxate0
For the data table, go here:
https://airtable.com/shrtyVQQG1DhaXIxx
It looks like this company is trying very hard to suppress this news. A media blackout might work in China, but not in America.
I am in contact with Medium to get the article restored. If anyone has a Medium contact, any help would be appreciated.
Please see a screenshot of the full article here:
https://imgur.com/a/uJxate0
For the data table, go here:
https://airtable.com/shrtyVQQG1DhaXIxx
It looks like this company is trying very hard to suppress this news. A media blackout might work in China, but not in America.
I am in contact with Medium to get the article restored. If anyone has a Medium contact, any help would be appreciated.
There is something poetic about Google allowing a Chrome extension to hijack search queries.
I'm loathed to install things like Grammerly, or Honey precisely because of fears like this.
I'm loathed to install things like Grammerly, or Honey precisely because of fears like this.
[deleted]
Title says "how" but it doesn't explain anything.
It just lists that they run two malicious Chrome extensions.
Talk about clickbait.
It just lists that they run two malicious Chrome extensions.
Talk about clickbait.
> Genimous Technology Co Ltd, a public company traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange under the symbol 000676, is the 12 billion CNY ($1.7 billion USD) company that is behind these extensions [1]. Their ownership is concealed through shell companies setup in offshore jurisdictions like Polarity Technologies Ltd in Cyprus and EightPoint Technologies Ltd in the Cayman Islands, but can be traced through analysis of the browser extensions terms of service and contact information [2, 3]. Based on public filings, in the first 6 months of 2019, Genimous made 900,296,410.76 CNY ($125 million USD) from its overseas division, which generates its revenues from ads on search results pages [4, 5 (page 15 of the PDF)] for a $250 million yearly run rate.
That's just a description of the company, probably copy-pasted from some stock market site.
When someone says "how they built an empire" I expect to read their history and modus operandi.
When someone says "how they built an empire" I expect to read their history and modus operandi.
I don't think stock market blurbs have this:
> Their ownership is concealed through shell companies setup in offshore jurisdictions like Polarity Technologies Ltd in Cyprus and EightPoint Technologies Ltd in the Cayman Islands, but can be traced through analysis of the browser extensions terms of service and contact information
In any case, it's a blog post summarizing ongoing reporting and developments of a new company that ostensibly operates below the radar. It seems obvious that it won't contain the kind of indepth, historical content that a book offers.
> Their ownership is concealed through shell companies setup in offshore jurisdictions like Polarity Technologies Ltd in Cyprus and EightPoint Technologies Ltd in the Cayman Islands, but can be traced through analysis of the browser extensions terms of service and contact information
In any case, it's a blog post summarizing ongoing reporting and developments of a new company that ostensibly operates below the radar. It seems obvious that it won't contain the kind of indepth, historical content that a book offers.
Was thinking exactly that.
DDG uses Bing results (+ some tweaking) for their search results.
Per their description here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/company/ad...
They use Yahoo ad search syndication to put their own ads against them.
They also insert their own affiliate links onto results.
How is that materially different than what's happening here? That this company presumably doesn't have a backend search API agreement with Bing?
Per their description here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/company/ad...
They use Yahoo ad search syndication to put their own ads against them.
They also insert their own affiliate links onto results.
How is that materially different than what's happening here? That this company presumably doesn't have a backend search API agreement with Bing?
The user is intending to search with Google but the query never touches Google or shows any Google results. That's why it's different.
Thanks for the DDG link, though. I had no idea.
Thanks for the DDG link, though. I had no idea.
Apologies for offtopic, but do all search engines do the affiliate thing? I.e. if I click on a Google link and buy a thing on Amazon, Google gets paid?
I used to work for a company that did desktop search hijacking. Looking back I can't believe how normalized it was internally.
Is there anything actually illegal about this? What laws are broken?
The Computer misuse act(UK) GPDR (EU) are just two
We have no idea what data they're actually storing, and everything the extensions does is stated in the description of the extension, I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the Computer Misuse Act is being broken here. We have no idea on the data they store so who knows if GDPR is.
But there's also the fact that they are not a EU or UK company, they are Chinese. Where the laws are far more relaxed about things like this.
But there's also the fact that they are not a EU or UK company, they are Chinese. Where the laws are far more relaxed about things like this.
so many silent business ideas. It is a win-win situation. Customers want to hide themselves behind proxy, and the company make good money from big players. Very smart!
It's not legal whatv theyre doing.
I am not sure. It really depends on all small prints when you install their extensions I guess. All these extensions ask for permissions to work. It is very likely to be legal in my opinion.
On a side note: when I accidentally viewed the Medium article in landscape mode the reference links at the bottom got a strikethrough...
I can't read this article.
Error 410 This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules.
Error 410 This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules.
American companies built a billion dollar industries based on this
: Ask Toolbars, Babylon and Yahoo.
> Genimous Technology Co Ltd, a public company traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange under the symbol 000676, is the 12 billion CNY ($1.7 billion USD) company that is behind these extensions
If you're brave, short this. Shining a light on an edge of ethical/legal business has a good chance of making their revenue dry up fast.
If you're brave, short this. Shining a light on an edge of ethical/legal business has a good chance of making their revenue dry up fast.
>>> Shining a light on an edge of ethical/legal business has a good chance of making their revenue dry up fast.
Any previous case ? Having a hard time believing that a stock is driven by ethical issues
Any previous case ? Having a hard time believing that a stock is driven by ethical issues
> Any previous case ? Having a hard time believing that a stock is driven by ethical issues
There are plenty of examples.
See the recent case of Papa John's. The stock imploded by 50% over a few months in an ethical scandal related to the founder (John Schnatter) saying the N word among other things.
Schnatter had criticized the NFL's handling of the kneeling protests that went on in relation to Colin Kaepernick, saying that it had hurt Papa John's business (they were a prominent sponsor of the NFL). Schnatter took a lot of flack for that criticism.
On a call with Papa John's marketing firm, he said this:
> "Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s," he said, complaining that Sanders had never received backlash, according to Forbes.
> Forbes also reported that Schnatter recalled growing up in Indiana, where he said people used to drag black people from their trucks until they died. Forbes reported that Schnatter's comments were intended to demonstrate his stance against racism, but that people on the call were offended by them.
Schnatter as the founder, and largest shareholder, was forced out of the company. Papa John's sales dropped for the first time in 14 years and they slid into losing money after being consistently profitable throughout their history.
Papa John's was tied up with the NFL in a marketing arrangement, that involved them being the official pizza company sponsor for the league. That arrangement was ended in the months following all of this. Papa John's same store sales promptly nose dived as their public perception was tarnished (they tried numerous promotions to prop that up and it all failed).
In total they lost about 15% of their sales. The company removed several executives and has been working to stop the decline plus repair their brand (they brought in Shaq in a prominent way as one example, he has sparred with Schnatter a few times verbally and Schnatter continues to run his mouth about the situation publicly).
There are plenty of examples.
See the recent case of Papa John's. The stock imploded by 50% over a few months in an ethical scandal related to the founder (John Schnatter) saying the N word among other things.
Schnatter had criticized the NFL's handling of the kneeling protests that went on in relation to Colin Kaepernick, saying that it had hurt Papa John's business (they were a prominent sponsor of the NFL). Schnatter took a lot of flack for that criticism.
On a call with Papa John's marketing firm, he said this:
> "Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s," he said, complaining that Sanders had never received backlash, according to Forbes.
> Forbes also reported that Schnatter recalled growing up in Indiana, where he said people used to drag black people from their trucks until they died. Forbes reported that Schnatter's comments were intended to demonstrate his stance against racism, but that people on the call were offended by them.
Schnatter as the founder, and largest shareholder, was forced out of the company. Papa John's sales dropped for the first time in 14 years and they slid into losing money after being consistently profitable throughout their history.
Papa John's was tied up with the NFL in a marketing arrangement, that involved them being the official pizza company sponsor for the league. That arrangement was ended in the months following all of this. Papa John's same store sales promptly nose dived as their public perception was tarnished (they tried numerous promotions to prop that up and it all failed).
In total they lost about 15% of their sales. The company removed several executives and has been working to stop the decline plus repair their brand (they brought in Shaq in a prominent way as one example, he has sparred with Schnatter a few times verbally and Schnatter continues to run his mouth about the situation publicly).
Those are very public, very USA-centric examples. Some shady company on the Chinese market? I'm more inclined to doubt anything will happen unless Chrome bans their extensions.
I wonder if their reaction was counterproductive in that the more they try to apologize or do promotions the more people are reminded of the incident because of which they are doing the promotions.
Maybe if they had implemented a strict "no comment" policy and just hunkered down and be completely ignored it, people would have forgotten about it.
Maybe if they had implemented a strict "no comment" policy and just hunkered down and be completely ignored it, people would have forgotten about it.
Check out Cootek - Chinese app developer that went public about a year ago (main app is TouchPal keyboard). They were engaging in "malicious and disruptive behavior" to drive their revenues (Buzzfeed broke the story) and Google banned them from distributing their apps on Google Play. Stock is down from >$9 before the news broke to $5 today.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/google-b...
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ctk/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/google-b...
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ctk/
It’s going to be super interesting to see what the reaction to this is (if any). Even though they sound like a terrible company, everyone should take note how easy it is for Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, etc. to make them disappear from existence.
They are supposedly driving 10% of Bing's search volume... I think Microsoft probably loves them.
I can open the link right now.
Cached link to the medium post.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qwZu8OV...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qwZu8OV...
When Google pays Apple $10B a year to be the default search engine on iOS it's "business".
But when a no-name Chinese company redirects searches to Bing suddenly its "fraud" and "search hijacking" and a "national security threat".
All this really shows is the ridiculous amount of revenue search has that such a simple scheme is making 100M+
But when a no-name Chinese company redirects searches to Bing suddenly its "fraud" and "search hijacking" and a "national security threat".
All this really shows is the ridiculous amount of revenue search has that such a simple scheme is making 100M+
Yes? They're completely different scenarios. One is setting the default search engine, the other is actively subverting the user's intention.
The user’s intention is to proxy the search results so it is anonymized. Based on their chrome extension description it seems to do that. It works not unlike duckduckgo.
Spinning it as some Anti-Chinese national security thing is probably unnecessary.
Spinning it as some Anti-Chinese national security thing is probably unnecessary.
the searches are logged to a server in China. They're not private
I can’t seem to access the article anymore but I recall it saying their concern was the potential for the privacy policy to be changed at any time. This concern would be true for any company.
Just having servers in China is not really much different from having servers in the US. The NSA probably logs more than it lets on.
Just having servers in China is not really much different from having servers in the US. The NSA probably logs more than it lets on.
it is clickbait with contemporary characteristics.
I don't think they anonymize the search, they just send it directly to Bing or Google. Anonymizing the search wouldn't earn them any money.
They kind of do. They are a proxy service, so your IP and browsers are hidden I assume. The search results are coming from Bing and Google.
How does it earn them any money to begin with? I know the article claimed they have a revenue of $250 million a year, but unless they are somehow injecting their own ads, how does a simple redirection result in any revenue for them?
They do inject their own ads
> [...] a search for “airpods” on Bing leads to a Search Encrypt search results page that has more ads than search results. A user would have to have the stamina to scroll through 10 text ads from Microsoft and then 5 image ads before coming to an organic search result
> [...] a search for “airpods” on Bing leads to a Search Encrypt search results page that has more ads than search results. A user would have to have the stamina to scroll through 10 text ads from Microsoft and then 5 image ads before coming to an organic search result
So is there an ad bidding system and marketplace they run with a separate user interface that requires ad buyers to login and purchase ads?
They use Bing for their search results and ads. Microsoft does all the work to onboard advertisers.
>After seeing all those sketchy or even fraudulent mobile ads by TikTok's parent company ByteDance, I won't be surprised if that SMS is a bait.
>But pretty much everybody does it in China, Baidu etc, like "You phone has 8GB of garbage, download us to clean it", "Download us to boost your signal by 4 times immediately", "This cutie just sent you a message, download us to repsond", basically anything to make you download their apps, and only political problems go punished.