Beat the copycats!
How government bodies can make themselves more recognisable on the internet
In the Dutch parliament last week, Hawre Rahimi highlighted an issue that's been confronting the country's government organisations for a while: how do you stop unauthorised people reselling public services at a profit via official-looking websites? The Netherlands has a problem with people setting up websites that look as if they belong to government organisations, where internet users can do things such as apply for a driving licence or make a benefit claim. The copycats charge a hefty premium for the services they offer, when all they do is pass on the application or claim to the appropriate government department. What can be done to stamp out sharp practices of that kind?
It's hard to prove that copycats are breaking the law
One problem is that what the copycats do often isn't obviously illegal. While some do cross a line by using official logos or calling themselves government agencies, many mislead visitors in more subtle ways that rely on formal language and the look and feel of their sites. Another problem for real government organisations is that copyright laws don't apply to public information. So copycats can easily lift information from official sites and reuse it word-for-word, usually without breaking the law. To complicate things further, there are many legitimate service providers that genuinely help consumers and businesses with complex and time-consuming administrative procedures.
Google's role
Fortunately, Google intervened a few years ago by imposing restrictions on – and in some cases prohibiting – the advertising of public services. Since then, it's been harder for unauthorised actors to offer passports, driving licences or Certificates of Good Behaviour in Google ads. However, unauthorised providers can still use conventional SEO techniques to push their sites towards the top of the unsponsored search results. And, unable to advertise with Google, copycats have increasingly turned to techniques such as spoofed e-mail and placing links on portals. What's more, the advertising of some kinds of service, such as tax advice, can't in practice be banned.
The answer has to start with monitoring
It's vital for a government organisation to have a good overview of what's happening on the internet. Who's using the organisation's name and logo? What sites come up if you search for the services that the organisation provides? Many government organisations therefore use services such as SIDN BrandGuard to keep track of domain name registrations that include or closely resemble their names, and to scan for third-party websites that use their logos. Having an overview enables government departments to define priorities and devise countermeasures. That doesn't always mean taking legal action, because a lot of sites that use government information turn out to be acting in good faith. In fact, it's not uncommon for monitoring to result in the identification of official sites that the central organisation has lost track of. Examples include websites set up for earlier publicity campaigns, and the sites of public-private enterprise partners (e.g. https://samenzijnwijdenbosch.nl).
Taking action does help
The people behind copycat websites want as little hassle as possible. They don't want anyone threatening their cash flow. Reselling a government organisation's services is therefore less attractive if that organisation is known to go after unscrupulous 'agents'. For the genuine public service provider, the best approach is to tackle the obviously unlawful sites first. Where other sites are concerned, the cost of action has to be weighed up against the benefits on a case-by-case basis. In that context, specialist legal advice is invaluable and ultimately saves money, because specialist lawyers get straight to the nub of the case.
Being distinctive really matters
Nothing, however, is quite as important as making government websites immediately recognisable. Consistent use of a distinctive house style, familiar payment methods and relevant standards makes it easier for the public to tell the difference between real government sites and lookalikes. Here's what we suggest:
Always use the same domain name for websites and e-mail. That way, the public soon gets to recognise that name, and any site or message that uses a different domain stands out. When offering services in the Netherlands, don't use any extension besides .nl – unless your organisation is linked to a city or region with its own extension (e.g. .amsterdam).
Make sure your website and domain name are registered to your organisation, not a service provider. If the registration data for a domain name is correct, it's easier to tell it apart from lookalike domains. Don't be tempted to go for the 'convenient' option of letting your web designer or ad agency register your domain name for you.
Make sure your sites support all the open security standards recommended for government websites. That'll prevent e-mail spoofing. And preventing spoofing is important, because copycats that can't advertise with Google often use spam and spoofed mail to get people visiting their sites.
Make sure that your site is easily findable. With copycats excluded from sponsored search results, pushing yourself to the top of the unsponsored results is a good way to get most people clicking through to your site, not a copycat site. If you don't want a site to be found, relegate it to page 2 of the results.
A dedicated government internet extension?
In his post, Rahimi suggested creating a special internet extension for the Dutch government, such as '.nld'. That way, public information and transactions would always be distinctive, he reasoned. It's a good idea, that's worked well elsewhere. In the US, for example, public bodies have been successfully using the .gov extension for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, though, .nld isn't different enough from .nl to work the way Rahimi describes. In practice, internet users often give the extension no more than a cursory glance, as evidenced by the copycats' liking for Mali's .ml domain. A dedicated government extension should ideally be long and clearly unique, like paspoort.rijksoverheid. However, creating a new extension like that would need prior approval by ICANN.
