Slashdot Mirror
Fraud Bots Cost Advertisers $6 Billion
Rambo Tribble writes A new report claims that almost a quarter of the "clicks" registered by digital advertisements are, in fact, from robots created by cyber crime networks to siphon off advertising dollars. The scale and sophistication of the attacks which were discovered caught the investigators by surprise. As one said, "What no one was anticipating is that the bots are extremely effective of looking like a high value consumer."
On the one hand, botnets are bad. On the other hand, they're being used to devalue online advertising.
Let the advertisers bleed.
I hope it costs them even more than that
I have to admit, this makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.
TFA says the bots mimic human behavior. I guess this means they accidentally click on the link when it pops up over another already loaded link, or slightly miss the tiny close arrow, etc. then immediately curse and hit the back button?
3... 2... 1...
Maybe because "high value consumers" are usually bot-like drooling idiots.
Table-ized A.I.
I read the article and I'm still confused. Why would a cyber crime network want to do this? How are they making money by causing companies to pay for clicks that weren't legitimate.
Man, how did this story get past the DICE overlord filter?
Where do I get one of these bots?
I don't want the money, I just want to make sure Madison Ave doesn't have it either.
Here's the thing. This is like a microeconomics modeled market. If the click rate is inflated by 25%, I'll wager the payouts compensate by being deflated by 25%. Advertisers are willing to pay for clicks, and will probably adjust their prices accordingly.
One of the few times I feel comfortable saying online that the free market will handily solve this problem, without worrying that I'll end up sounding like a lolberterian.
A friend of mine was doing this in high school circa 1996.
It's not fraud. It's how the system is set up. Pay fractions of a cent per each click through? Ok. I'll make several fake accounts that continuously click it from different IPs.
That's because a "high value customer" doesn't behave much different than a bot. Sadly, it's not the other way around.
Nice!
Perhaps advertisers should finally move away from the current revenue system that pays per-click and should instead move towards a profit sharing system where the referring website receives a commission based on any sales or executed transactions.
I've been reading about click fraud for over a decade now. I don't expect it to go away under the current system.
that someone found a way to profit off the 'free advertising' scams
You know, the pop-ups, page opening, screen crawling crap that eats up load time for people trying to learn something, find a product, do comparison shopping.
You remember, the people you feed on, the CUSTOMERS!
The botnet architects are just honing their skills for next years Turing competition.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
not in the least. I never click on those annoying ads unless its by mistake. Which begs the question...who exactly is clicking on those ads? And how many of those clicks add up to actual sales? I think it's a lot lower than advertisers would lead us to believe.
1) Peer review on methodology please, otherwise it could be just, "Advertisers want more regulation to protect them and want to avoid having to pay so much for placement";
2) That said, my only regret is finding out that click "fraud" isn't higher. I'd like ad-sponsored anything to become an impossible business model - better, I'd like advertisements to become ineffective. In the last 70 years we reached the point where all the overt propaganda techniques used by government are being ridiculed, but we're playing catch-up as far as bothering when private firms do it.
No ad has ever told enough truth to be worthwhile, and certainly none has been worth wasting my concentration. Service directories please - why the hell would I choose a firm just because it's done more to sell itself, rather than improved its product/service?
(And remember that "public relations" is a word made up by propagandists who didn't like the negative connotation of "propaganda".)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Seems like everyone in this article though it was a bad idea..but it looks like it does hurt them.
If the advertisers are paying 6 billion, that's their own fault.
Maybe now they will fuck off.
characters in the body
Thank you very much, Mr. Fraudboto
It's arguable that they only have themselves to blame for not doing better audits. A lot of malware comes from ads, which end up in botnets, which end up clicking ads to make money.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Benchtools.net performs this "feature" under the guise of a "...proprietary technology that monitors the online marketing strategies of a brand and their competitors..."
Their product lines are specifically designed to click ads.
I only remember clicking an ad ONCE intentionally. I've clicked them many other times on accident but only once because of interest.
There was this new add - on reported a day or two ago which auto clicked on ads. If really the advertising industry is losing money on that.... Maybe I'll look again into adding that addon on all PC I install FF onto (with the rest of the gang, nos script, no flash, ad block)...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Fucking Americans...
Why can't you use two letter words properly? WTF? How stupid do you have to be?
It's "extremely effective AT looking like a high value consumer".
One of my ideas was for a gaming network where you played online video games, and you split ad revenue between the player and yourself.
I then wanted to simplify the system and just have a streaming network where you watched advertisements and got paid. The problem is that someone could simply turn it on and walk away from their computer and there's no way to know they watched the ads. The same thing is going on with bots. Anyone can say they watched ads or clicked on ads with computer, and until you solve a way to determine if someone is actually sitting there watching the ads, your system is open to exploitation.
God spoke to me
Are "fraud bots" a bit like "click bots", but sounding slightly more illegal?
I have long suspected that 98% of Slashdot traffic came from mindless bots.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What no one was anticipating is that the bots are extremely effective of looking like a high value consumer.
Actually, what is surprising is that these supposed high value customers are not in fact actually bots (instead of essentially being web users programmed to be overconsumers by a history of exposure to saturation advertising and silly enough to click on adverts for stupid things).
Philosophically, when some thing exhibits indistinguishable from another (e.g, a consumer exhibiting behavior indistinguishable from a bot), are these high-value consumers not really acting like "artificial" bots? Because we know these "artificial" bots (aka high-value consumers) aren't actually buying anything, but are simply browsing indiscriminately out of boredom and collecting browser-based exploits from the wild to expand real bot nets in a symbiotic relationship.
On a similar note, people always wondered if the anti-virus companies actually were in cahoots with the virus writers. How do with know the ad platform companies aren't simply promulgating a myth of the ephemeral existence of high-value consumers that want to be identified in a sea of bots by the latest and greatest sophisticated ad platform subscription?
Exactly how does fake-clicking on ad links "siphon off money to cyber-crime networks"?
The big winners, as far as I can see, should be Google. They get paid per click-through. More than that - they charge $x for an ad that's displayed until it receives N clicks per month, then they go to the advertiser and tell them "You ran out of clicks on the 17th of last month, you want to increase your click allowance?" They're coining it coming and going.
Calling Google a cyber-crime network - well, I can see the case, but it feels like an oversimplification...
Advertisements do not pay for the internet.
The net existed long before advertisers got a hold of it and ruined it. Advertisers are not sponsoring the net there just cashing in on its popularity. The article calls the bots "a criminal network." it should call them heroes of the fucking universe.
Perhaps advertisers should finally move away from the current revenue system that pays per-click and should instead move towards a profit sharing system where the referring website receives a commission based on any sales or executed transactions.
Then you get things like CPALead where you have to choose one of three offers and complete it in order to view a page. One time I visited a site locked by CPALead and all three were to download, install, and try a Windows-exclusive program. Though I have Wine installed on my PC, it still wouldn't let me in due to my Linux user agent.
Do people actually click on the ads?
I've been on the web for a long time and a cant recall ever clicking on an ad other than to move it out of my way.
Maybe I just have a cruel bend, even if I see content that interests me I'll open a new browser tab and go to the content rather than click through.
To be honest most of the targeted click through I see (that gets past adblock) is late, I have already surfed and made my decision to purchase or not and what and who to purchase it from.
As far as the Bots go, this is what happens when you deal with the devil, he's always going to get his cut first. You never let the Wolf count the chickens, he's always passing some behind his back. Greed, laziness, and stupidity leaves the door wide open, just like Bill Gates selling an OS he did not even possess!
Take that Gates mentality and apply it to real world purchasing - For larger purchases I have found I can get a better deal in person at the brick & mortar, using the info I have found online to beat them up with. You just have to make the effort to ask for a lower price, often you will get the better price on the first ask as the salesmen are bonused on the # of units sold and they will just give it away for the asking instead of doing the dance, then they can check the win box and move on to the next victim.
Rick B.
ask me how do i know it
The biggest problem here is ignoring that there are different types of transactions in a community, which include subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft (as discussed on my own website). Selling eyeballs to advertisers to fund a website is primarily an exchange economy transaction. But, as with putting up holiday lights just to make the darkness cheery, there can be gift giving involved in an action (even with a substantial power bill for the lights). You put up lights this year in one place, someone else puts up lights some other year somewhere else, and we all (in theory) enjoy the spectacle. Or, like many towns have tax-funded street lights for safety and convenience, government agencies like NOAA can put up useful websites about the weather with hazardous weather alerts, or NASA can put up useful websites about space science. People can also put up personal websites with journals or "How To" documents just because they are useful or interesting to themselves and their family (subsistence) and accept that it is OK if others look at them.
About a dozen years ago, I read somewhere on Philip Greenspun's website (on making websites), a comment to the effect that, if people announce they are getting a cat, or learning to play the piano, or taking vegetarian cooking lessons, people very rarely ask, how are you going to make money at that? But when people start a website, that seems to be the first question other people ask.
Of course, things have changes a bit now that so many people use Facebook or similar instead of just hosting their own website. It's ironic, since it is so cheap to host your own content now on a paid website (US$5 per month for a cheap one?) or even free on GitHub pages and similar. Or you can get a FreedomBox-like "wall wart" server (in theory) that just serves content through your ISP (in theory, since many ISP's prohibit servers on personal accounts).
I plan another comment related to the Pointrel software ideas I've been working on (including a social semantic desktop) and how it overlaps the ideas discussed in the BitTorrent Project Maelstrom to have distributed content. My work is still in flux (and may never succeed perhaps), as are other options like FreedomBox or Maelstrom which are works in progress. But the point is, more options are emerging for creating and distributing content and we may, at some point, get away from centralized servers and back to the older model where people had local copies of books and papers or went to local libraries for copies of such. The model of the web right now is like than expecting that every time someone wanted to read something of some sort they visit the office of the person who wrote it. And if that person's office door is closed, you can't read it. We can do better as a society. Yes, people can make copies like of Wikipedia pages, but the context is lost and the copies are hard to manage. We could hopefully do better.
However, it is fair to ask how people can survive physically and financially in the 21st century. I feel a basic income for everyone in the USA (not just people over 65 on "Social Security") and other countries too could be part of the answer to that, and that such a world would be overall a better place with more creativity and more subsistence production and more gift giving and healthier participation by citizens in government planning -- and with less theft by "clickfraud" or other means. However, even without a basic income, the "git economy" aspect of the internet has saved me a lot of money and trouble, from people generally freely sharing advice (including links to free software) on personal blogs (or on an advertising supported site like Slashdot). I hope my own contributions as part of that informational gift economy will prove worthwhile and useful at least to some people here and there.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The most obvious sources are the owners of the websites making money from the ads, or unscrupulous ad agencies so they can charge their customers more.
However, there was no mention in the article of anyone being caught, so I am a bit confused.
dsoodak
(for some reason I can log ibut can't post under my username)