Fake News Scam Sites Advertising On Real News Sites

Virtual_Raider writes "Wired is running a story about a new twist in the never-ending quest to prove P. T. Barnum's adage. Old: Scammers are creating fake news sites that look almost like the real thing. New: They are advertising on real news sites, making it difficult for unwary readers to catch on they are being duped with fake coverage of get-rich-quick scams. Among those running the scam 'news' ads are the Huffington Post and Salon. From the article: 'The story has art, it has a sidebar, there's weather, supposed reader comments — even ads. Steadman is described as "a mother from San Francisco" — at least, when I read the article. Thanks to cutting-edge reporting techniques perfected by News 5, she will automatically move to the geolocation of your internet IP address when you read it. Look, she lives right in your neighborhood!'" Forbes also wrote about the scam news sites a couple of weeks back.

Comments

ABC Should Crack Down

[eldavojohn]

Intriguing article. I like the ad that uses Barbara Walters' photo and claims

Barbara talks about the "Miracle Pill" known as Resveratrol

Notice they didn't user her last name. But they use her image and the abc News logo ... their domain name is hilarious, news3news.com (looks like newsnews and 3news were taken, ha) which leads one to the registrant residing at:

PO Box 12068
George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-1010

P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands. Imagine that. They don't even bother to use domainsbyproxy or a similar service like most of the other domains listed in this Wired story.

Selling questionable meds is probably pretty hard to prosecute ... but using abc's logo and Walters' image for advertising is definitely prosecution worthy. I hope some of these companies go after this scum.

Re:ABC Should Crack Down

[tb3]

I think the crackdown should be on Visa and Mastercard. Think about it; it's illegal to receive stolen goods, or sell stolen property, but the credit card companies are acting as intermediaries for these crooks. And, oh yeah, taking a cut (something like 3 - 5%). If the credit card companies had to take more responsibility for who they granted merchant accounts, under penalty of law, I'll bet these fraudsters would find it a lot harder to operate.

Re:ABC Should Crack Down

[PeanutButterBreath]

I'd love to see more prosecution of fraud, but the problem with going after banks, credit card service providers etc. is that it will raise prices and limit selection for legitimate products and services.

If the alternative is that idiots get screwed trying to get rich, healthy or "confident" quick, I know which strikes me as the lesser evil.

Re:ABC Should Crack Down

[Ironica]

I think the crackdown should be on Visa and Mastercard. Think about it; it's illegal to receive stolen goods, or sell stolen property, but the credit card companies are acting as intermediaries for these crooks. And, oh yeah, taking a cut (something like 3 - 5%). If the credit card companies had to take more responsibility for who they granted merchant accounts, under penalty of law, I'll bet these fraudsters would find it a lot harder to operate.

Interesting thought. How, though, are the CC companies supposed to judge who is a legitimate business and who is committing fraud? What procedures would you have them put in place? What is their burden to examine their customers' business practices? What rights do they have to terminate a merchant account based on what kind of business they conduct? Would merchants have reciprocal rights protecting them from wrongful termination? What would be the limits on the CC company's liability for loss of business if they terminate a legitimate account by mistake?

It might be more feasible to give CC companies the responsibility to forward complaints of fraud to the appropriate authorities. Maybe if someone challenges a charge, they can ask that person if they would like to file a fraud investigation request. That request would include authorization for the CC company to turn over that particular customer's records of transactions with that particular merchant to appropriate law enforcement officials for investigative purposes. Then they'd have sort of a "mandated reporter" status, where if they don't pass on the information to the authorities, they could be held liable, but they are not *themselves* responsible for enforcing law.

Old news.

[SatanicPuppy]

Newspapers run similar ads (with a tiny "Paid Advertisment" banner on the top) and I've heard of TV stations doing the same thing with "Fake Newscasts" but that's usually more common during election years.

Re:Old news.

[DriedClexler]

Yeah, and back in 2004, some anti-Bush spammers bought long ads on CBS deliberately designed to look like real CBS news, even including a doctored video made to look like Dan Rather presenting documents proving Bush skipped out on his National Guard service.

What's funny is, they didn't even bother to make the documents look realistic.

Why CBS even approved the "ads", I have no idea.

Barnum

[Deadstick]

the never-ending quest to prove P. T. Barnum's adage

I'll give the author a pass on the libelous misattribution, and just point out that Barnum did not take your savings or your mom's Social Security check. He promoted a lot of hokum, but he took your fifty cents and sent you home satisfied.

And he brought us Jenny Lind...

rj

Google and Slashdot Should Crack Down

[tomhudson]

Recently both Google and slashdot have been running ads for "you can make 11,668.00 from home" lately. The ads are served up by google to sites like slashdot, and it's the same modus operandi: Ask you for $2 for information, then bill you $70 to $90/month for a "subscription" you supposedly agreed to.

For search pages, google can argue that it's just conveying information for free. For ads it serves, google has no such safe harbour - it's a for-profit business, and they really should crack down on these obvious scams.