Archive for 2012/05/26
New York wants to outlaw anonymous comments to prevent cyberbullying and other online abuse. This criminologist examines why this plan, despite its controversy, may not be such a bad thingPosted: 2012/05/26 in Cybercrime, Education / Awareness, Enforcement, Legislation, Public Policy, Stats / reports
Head Of Dutch High Tech Crime Unit Pim Takkenberg Is Pleased With The Close Coop Between His Team And The Dutch Forensic Lab, Fox-IT And Leaseweb In The Fight Against HackersPosted: 2012/05/26 in Cybercrime, Education / Awareness, Enforcement, New Business Models, Public Policy, Stats / reports
Takkenberg argues that the cooperation was particularly successful when conducting the Bredolab botnet investigation, because foreign judges have been making use of the evidence produced by all Dutch parties mentioned.
To some the cooperation was controversial however because:
1. The Dutch Police had sent every internet user who owned an infected PC (and had become a facilitator of the botnet itself) a warning message;
3. The evidence produced by these Dutch entities resulted in an arrest in Armenia.
Dutch language news article:
4 Years In Prison For Armenian Bredolab Botnet Operator
Amazon, Independent Publishers Group reach settlement. The e-commerce giant had refused to sell e-book versions of titles distributed by IPGPosted: 2012/05/26 in Education / Awareness, New Business Models, Stats / reports
Anonymous hacked into the filtering server used by Reliance Communications and filtered a lot of websites, like TwitterPosted: 2012/05/26 in Blocking, Cybercrime, Education / Awareness, Filtering, Network Security, Stats / reports
This is no censorship because Google itself can make money doing this
Ads that are in violation of our ads policies aren’t allowed to be shown on Google and our AdSense partner sites. For many repeat offenders, we ban not just ads but also advertisers who seek to abuse our advertising system to take advantage of people. In the case of ads that are promoting counterfeit goods, we typically ban the advertiser after only one violation. Here are some metrics that give some insight into the scale of the impact we have had over time, showing the numbers of actions we’ve taken against advertiser accounts, sites and ads. You can see that the numbers are growing—and growing faster over time.
We find that there are relatively few malicious players, who make multiple attempts to bypass our defenses to defraud users. As we get better and faster at catching these advertisers, they redouble their efforts and create more accounts at an even faster rate.
Even in this ever-escalating arms race, our efforts are working. One method we use to test the success of our efforts is to ask human raters to tell us how we’re doing. These human raters review a set of sites that are advertised on Google. We use a large set of sites in order to get an accurate statistical reading of our efforts. We also weight the sites in our statistical sample based on the number of times a particular site was displayed so that if a particular site is shown more often, it’s more likely to be in our sample set. By using human raters, we can calibrate our automated systems and ensure that we’re improving our efforts over time. In 2011, we reduced the percentage of bad ads by more than 50 percent compared with 2010. That means the proportion of bad ads that are showing on Google was halved in just a year.
Google’s long-term success is based on people trusting our products. We want to make sure that the ads on Google are safe and trustworthy, and we’re not satisfied until we do.
Posted by David W. Baker, Director of Engineering, Advertising