Slashdot Mirror
Man Accused of Attempting to Extort Google
sandalwood writes "A programmer has been arrested on charges of attempting to "threaten Google with a software program he devised that creates phony clicks on pop-up advertisements delivered by Google. Google pays Web site publishers companies a certain amount for legitimate hits on those ads, but Bradley created a method that generates false clicks that appeared to be real Internet traffic, which would have repeatedly defrauded Google... Bradley contacted Google in early March, informing company officials that he had created the program and wanted $100,000 to keep him from selling it to spammers, according to an affidavit by a U.S. Secret Service agent." A harbinger of organized crime to come? That's a real nice website you have here... a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
This is blackmail, plain and simple. It is just happening in cyberspace and the current laws are thankfully being applied in this new world. There is no genuine economic transaction being furthered by this man's program but to destroy Google's income. He doesn't have a leg to stand on in court.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
The problem comes in when there are all these databases of open web proxies and code in CPAN for accessing and using those. :/
I'm amazed that this guy thought that google would pay out. If he was clever he would set up a few websites and rake the money in slowly over a length of time. I guess greed got the better of him.
Next time don't go to those you are trying to extort. Just go straight to the competition. I'm sure the spammers would have paid him much more than $100,000 collectively and not turned him in.
Imagine, he could have licensed his software to the spammers and charged them an annual fee to use it. He could have been the "Microsoft" of the spamming industry.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Or is there no incentive for a spammer to use this? Who was this guy going to sell the software to, it has no value except to a person who specificaly wants to devlue Googles adspace.
um... guys,
maybe I'm out of line here, but this is not a good topic to brain storm. Why do we want to devises more deviant ways to spam?
And why hurt our precious Google!
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
The problem is that this guy's (alleged) program's sole purpose was to commit fraud.
To continue your gasoline example, it'd be like developing a method to fool the 'pay-at-the-pump' system into giving you gas without actually charging your credit card, and then telling the gas station that if they don't give you $100,000, you'll publish the program in the USA Today(tm).
maybe I'm out of line here, but this is not a good topic to brain storm. Why do we want to devises more deviant ways to spam?
And why hurt our precious Google!
1) Because it's our intrinsic human right to think about whatever we want.
2) Because some of us, as server administrators, must deal with spam in all its vile forms, and we therefore must know our enemy.
Pretending no one thought of it is not an effective way to prevent others from thinking of it. We want all possible exploits to be exposed, so they can be dealt with. You're advocating security through obscurity.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
skipping commercials in PVR'd tv: correct
using a spider to index webpages: correct
downloading a Britney Spears MP3: incorrect
but 2 out of 3 isn't bad I suppose......
1) Because it's our intrinsic human right to think about whatever we want.
FYI, thinking is something you do inside your head. Talking, on the other hand, is an action that can have consequences in the world. It's unfortunate that the urge to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions is not quite as intrinsic as the urge to run one's mouth.
This term is the most overused sack of crap going right now. Details a modern security system that isn't fundamentally equivalent to security through obscurity.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
Maybe you'll have to verify your humanity any time you want to search for something.
Or maybe advertisers will quit trying to quantify per-view or per-link and just pay (or be charged) a flat fee for a time-period run, something more similar to how things work on TV and radio. Rather than making an ad on the web accountable in ways that no other media is required, why not just assume it's getting you market-awareness and presence?
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I guess I don't really understand this security system. If somebody actually knows what you look like, why need photo id? Photo ID's alone clearly have a ton of obscurity built into them. For instance, there are hidden security features that aren't fully known so they are difficult to reproduce. Also, the equipment for making ID's is rare, and thus obscure. Someone who knows what you look like is a decent example. It's benefit is, at this time, it is impractically difficult to impersonate someone with great accuracy, and so we don't have to use obscurity. The same thing can be said to some degree about any system that requires you to have a physical object, but the line is very blurry. I would argue that, fundamentally, requiring someone to have something that is kept hidden, protected is security by obscurity. For instance, you wouldn't leave your keycard laying around Times Square with a sign that says "Secret Passcard". For some reason, when you take it so far as needing an actual person, it seems less so, but it's still not entirely obvious that it isn't a different manifestation of StO.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
How could the guy expect Google to pay him not to run his program if he couldn't guarantee that someone else wouldn't come up with a similar program? Forget law and morals; he had nothing useful to sell to Google. Their money would be better spent finding and fixing any security holes.
-Rich
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
3) Because while brainstorming we are helping to inform the other very smart people on the site about the problem, and somebody might churn out an answer. Information and ideas are not weapons, they are the solution.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
"Google seems helpless to do anything about it, but still happily collects the money."
Exactly, it's not google being defrauded, it's thousands of tiny one-person companies.
FYI, thinking is something you do inside your head. Talking, on the other hand, is an action that can have consequences in the world. It's unfortunate that the urge to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions is not quite as intrinsic as the urge to run one's mouth.
Talking is distributed thinking. As soon as you start looking down upon talking about abuse, you at the same time prevent anyone from doing anything to stop it.
NO CARRIER