Nope - corporate suits - and they give us a response which doesn't even make logical sense. Do they think we're idiots?
I'm not sure if GL is trying to protect themselves against something and are making up some excuse to justify it but the reasons given for taken down the list don't hold water.
GL would be far better stating the real reason for taking the info down (surely there must be one).
So far what they've done is seemingly to protect the merchants reputation and perhaps protect GL from some imagined legal backlash? The backlash would have no basis is court or other services like Google's own SafeBrowing would not be viable.
Are we to assume the GL cares more about that than users/visitors to these sites?
The statement from GP is frankly pathetic.
> We did not feel comfortable hosting information that could be construed as an open invitation for malicious users to exploit.
The sites were already exploited. That's the thing. At best I can see the argument you're making being "we don't want the sites to get exploited a second time", but that really shouldn't be a concern. The sites were already exploited, there's nothing left to protect. And publishing a list saying "this site has malware on it" doesn't actually tell anybody how the site was vulnerable anyway, unlike disclosing security vulnerabilities which by their very nature informs people how to take advantage of them.