Michael Gracie

Techdirt asked if a firm should be held responsible for false positives in its anti-phishing tools, while Earthlink was deemed innocent of such.

The answer could be over-complexified, but my opinion is NO!

First off, there is likely little damage to be had from a company whose site is designated as a phishing trap. Most existing customers will go directly to the site anyway, and direct approach (usually via bookmark) is hardly an example of how phishers lure folks in. Second, a simple communication can set the record straight between the tool provider and the website owner.

The bottom line is..no harm, no foul…and better to be safe than sorry.