Slashdot Mirror


Smartphone Apps Fraudulently Collecting Revenue From Invisible Ads

JoeyRox writes: Thousands of mobile applications are downloading ads that are never presented to users but which collected an estimated $850 million in fraudulent revenue from advertisers per year. The downloading of these invisible ads can slow down users' phones and consume up to 2GB of bandwidth per day. Forensiq, an online technology firm fighting fraud for advertisers, found over 5,000 apps displayed unseen ads on both Apple and Android devices. "The sheer amount of activity generated by apps with fake ads was what initially exposed the scam. Forensiq noticed that some apps were calling up ads at such a high frequency that the intended audience couldn't possibly be actual humans."

129 comments

  1. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cough.

    1. Re: Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of the ad-consuming apps are unremovable "system apps" (like uber) that the carriers push to the phones?

  2. Gee, I'm really torn... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On the one hand, fraudsters who steal phone users' bandwidth in order to reap revenue from advertisers, are scum.

    On the other hand, so many advertisers are scum as well, and the enemy of my enemy might be my friend. I might be willing to lose a bite out of my data cap in order to stick it to advertisers. Oops, did I say that out loud?

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only indirectly stick it to advertisers because websites throw so many ads in my face it bogs down the site, which all but forces me to use Adblock.

      I don't blame the advertisers, without them all sites would be Pay to Enter, unless you're a Wikipedia and can get people to give you money every year. I prefer the internet stay free, and I'm willing to deal with ads if they aren't force fed down my throat.

    2. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      Data cap? Is that really still a thing?

    3. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, ad-supported sites are not "free" - they are supported by the people who buy the products featured on those sites, which (thanks to targetted advertising) are the site visitors. The difference is that instead of an honest and direct set of micro-transactions, you have a whole slew of middlemen and people thinking they're paying nothing, when in fact they're just paying more for a featured product.

      If you want to complain about anything, complain about how difficult it is for small businesses to collect small amounts of money without hefty overheads. And the conmen forming the ad industry who lead consumers and sponsors alike into thinking that the ad-supported way of working is the only viable way of working.

    4. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Sure is in Canada. My theiving provider actually has the gall to charge $15/gig over the limit, too. $15! Our plans our nuts, too. I pay over $100/mo for 8 gigs... and that's a reduced rate. Normally it'd probably be closer to $150 or more for the plan.

    5. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by mlts · · Score: 2

      The ad industry is a bubble. Look at the clickbait ads pushed at you constantly. Obama's HARP, reverse mortgages, asking how much your car is worth, "free" [1] $100 Amazon gift cards. Programs that are dodgy at best. "criminal background checks" that demand a ton of your info... then want $35-50 for the check. Yes, there are a few relevant items, but most presented are at best dodgy.

      What they are selling are not ads. They are selling the data that gets slurped off your phone or computer, which is why browser fingerprinting, supercookies, add-ons galore, and other stuff are the norm. The ads are secondary to watching what the person is doing, 24/7.

      [1]: TANSTAAFL. I read the T&C on a "free" offer, and it required subscribing to three different things on a gold/silver/bronze level, as well as many other hoops to jump through before you would even be considered for the card.

    6. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is...

        - Users are not forced to pay once cent to obtain any of the content
        - Users find products they are interested in, and are priced reasonably enough that the user wants to purchase the product
        - Sellers find potential buyers they might otherwise not find
        - Sites make money to encourage continued generation of content

      And on top of that, users can block ads just by installing AdBlock.

      I'm really having a hard time finding the downside in this.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No, they're not required, but at least some must buy from sponsors. Just as a micro-transaction system involves no force, but at least some must pay enough. In neither case is there force - the alternative is no/degraded web site.

      2. There are many more efficient ways of finding products one is interested in, champ. I'd counter that advertising is a way of offering products that buyers ARE NOT already interested in - otherwise they'd go out of their way to look for them.

      3. Ditto here. Well-built product search engines / review sites / discussion forums are WAY better at connecting informed buyers to relevant sellers.

      4. The point being that there may be better ways.

      Yes, which is a lot of busywork because I'd rather support a site directly (more of my money going exactly where it's deserved) rather than through a sponsor revenue system. And many sites know this, which is why they're finding alternative methods of collecting income from regular visitors.

    8. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      For those who don't think to do the math, the 2 GB per day mentioned in the summary would amount to a monthly expense for you of 880 dollars - and that's if you don't do anything with the phone yourself.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While you may disagree with the price exacted by advertisers, they are still providing you with something in exchange. They help pay for the website you are visiting. Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.

      Ad fraud steals money from advertisers, period. They are taking money from the advertisers without providing a good or service in exchange. This is theft.

    10. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by GNious · · Score: 1

      There's a flaw somewhere here I think.
      The more fraudulent behaviour, the less valuable the individual ad/impression becomes, the bigger the need for fraudulent behaviour.

    11. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I only indirectly stick it to advertisers because websites throw so many ads in my face it bogs down the site, which all but forces me to use Adblock.

      I don't blame the advertisers, without them all sites would be Pay to Enter, unless you're a Wikipedia and can get people to give you money every year. I prefer the internet stay free, and I'm willing to deal with ads if they aren't force fed down my throat.

      That is untrue. Before advertisement on the internet, there were still millions of sites. At some point, somebody decided we needed to "monetize" all these sites, and that is when advertising started happening. Without advertising most of the information on the internet would still be available, because most of it is available adfree somewhere on the internet already, it is just harder to find it now because of all the sites that basically are just link farms with ads and have no actual useful content of their own.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by mlts · · Score: 1

      Websites existed well before ads came around. There are other models to make revenue, be it subscriptions, microtransaction based clearinghouses [1], grants, or other ways.

      People are inventive. The Internet as we know it would survive if all the third party behavioral monitoring, tracking, ad-slinging, and shovelware/malware companies took a powder.

      [1]: None of these solutions are perfect, but the current ad model can be abused as well.

    13. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by mjm1231 · · Score: 0

      While you may disagree with the price exacted by advertisers, they are still providing you with something in exchange. They help pay for the website you are visiting. Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.

      Counter argument: Ads on a website inherently cause the website to be in a considerably less useful form.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    14. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wait, you're paying $12.50 per gigabyte of data and complaining that they charge $15 per gigabyte as an overage? Sounds reasonable.

    15. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Websites existed well before ads came around.

      Sizzling Steak may not have come before the programmable philosophic engine, but I'm pretty sure they beat out the WWW.

    16. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Luckily (and I should have mentioned) there is I think a $50 or $100 cap on that fee.

    17. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      WAd fraud steals money from advertisers, period. They are taking money from the advertisers without providing a good or service in exchange. This is theft.

      Tough fucking luck.

      I'm not going to load malware on my computer just to please some advertiser.

      I'm not going to pay extra money for the bandwidth they steal from me so they can load malware on my devices.

      I'm not going to wait 4 or more times as long for the webpages to load just to have "What a housewife in Pennsylvania found that has the insurance companies worried" clutter my screen.

      Small and static non-tracking ads - I'll look at those all day.

      But the right to serve ads does not include the right to infect my devices - like adChoices and others do do - or increase my monthly bill, like they all do.

      And I'm not so certain that the tactic of pissing people off actually works all that well for sales anyhow.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the people who profit here are the ones who thought:

      Embedding a completely useless and resources intensive bit of content into may app and lying about it sounds like a good way to make money.

      Say what you will about actual ad supported content, but this is both wasteful and fraudulent. Ads are at worst wasteful, and is some rare edge cases do benefit the end user when they manage to advertise something interesting you weren't previously aware of.

      Advertisers at least generally think people want to see their ads and app developers who include ads are generally trying to find a way to be compensated for their labor.

    19. Re: Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most ads don't even try to sell anything. So somebody is full of shit. Until ads are hosted by the site they appear on and make sense I'm blocking them.

    20. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      The real answer to this is for those developing the fraudulent apps to share a portion of their revenue with you! Then everybody but the advertisers wins!

    21. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      Websites existed well before ads came around. There are other models to make revenue, be it subscriptions, microtransaction based clearinghouses [1], grants, or other ways.

      the early web was experimental and non-profit, but that was really, really early. the internet boom has had ads since day one. there was never a time when websites were (primarily) supported by subscriptions, microTxs, etc.

      but anyway, if people could make more money that way, do you think they would? or what, no one has thought of it yet, and the world's just waiting for your insight into website profitability? no, almost no one supports themselves in that manner because it's not viable. any web product i know of that has a subscription model does it as a side to the primary revenue stream: ads.

    22. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What if they just steal the ad revenue and pretend to send the ad? If it's invisible it does no good to send it at all. Even in matters of fraud, please no half measures. We could even have a service where a host out the cloud takes your place and receives ads and even pretends to click links and thus pretends to be you for all advertising purposes, yet your phone or PC never has to receive the data at all. The advertising profile could be attached to a pseudonym, so it doesn't compromise your privacy or security. Your favorite websites get paid, advertisers get righteously fucked and the villagers rejoice.

    23. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the first smartphone|tablet platform that shuns ads and in-app purchases **completely** and truly locks down app privileges shall be the one i adopt.. why the fuck does a game or one-hit-wonder-app need access to my camera? my gps location data? wifi networks? my contacts? FUCK YOU.

      i don't mind paying for something, but let me put funds on the "app store's" account by credit|debit card or even anonymous prepaid card, and buy an app that way, without the data sharing and device snooping.

    24. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.

      And life would go on and we'd find something else to focus our attentions on, big deal.

    25. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you may disagree with the price exacted by advertisers, they are still providing you with something in exchange. They help pay for the website you are visiting. Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.

      Ads do not - IMO - improve the quality of the page (even with adblock and noscript enabled) and make the layout worse. It is underutilized in areas where an ad ought to have been. Had the ad been there, this negative would be even more pronounced.

      Also, ads can negatively affect the direction of site content and design (*cough* BETA *cough*). By design, consider that this site wants to be some sort of video portal or something.

      You brought up a positive, that an ad might financially support some positive features of the site. These include bandwidth, original content, and editorial skills. I think we have one out of three here. The original content is largely unnecessary. The free editing by firehose submissions is of similar quality to what Dice pays for, IMHO.

      Given that both positives and negatives exist, you can't say much about the situation. I do remember the time before the rise of banner ads and - MORE SPECIFICALLY - third party ads. We could likely survive just fine with first party ads (think CNN or Disney or Amazon pushing their own wares on their sites) or even sponsorships directly hosted (second-pary ads?).

      It is probably the second-party or sponsorship model that effed in the A the most by your train of thought. Shame on you, really.

    26. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more.

    27. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get tired of seeing this lie repeated everywhere.

      For those of you that aren't old enough to remember the Internet before 1995 or so: ads in that time were extremely rare yet there were plenty of sites with useful info on them. Advertising came to the Internet after the average world "discovered" it around 2000 or so because the number of eyeballs was too big for them to ignore any longer.

      Remove advertising, and you'll see the end of scams like this as well as the death of a few irrelevant ad-driven sites, and everything else continues as normal. Nothing of value is lost.

    28. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like a great way to make political ads more tolerable. What a nice way to welcome corporate free speech too. If the apps were smart enough to use a much lower frequency on paid-data connections than when on WiFi, users wouldn't be hit much. Think of it as a small price to pay for not seeing the ads.

    29. Re:Gee, I'm really torn... by s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner · · Score: 1

      You might be misunderstanding what many of those permissions are needed for. Yes, GPS is not needed for non-navigation apps. But if a game requires any sort of internet access (even for "high scores" or some other bullshit, and certainly for serving you the ads that they thought were necessary to make the game free), it's going to request wifi access so that it can communicate when you're connected to wifi as opposed to burning often limited cell network data. If the game has any function for inviting or sharing with friends (by the way, if you do this we probably can't be friends anymore), it needs access to your contacts list.

  3. That's why pay-per-view ads are a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should only pay out on pay-per-click, and even then, the payout should be largely affected by how long that user stayed after clicking an ad, whether they bought anything, etc.

  4. 2GB per day? Really? by StayFrosty · · Score: 2

    [quote]The downloading of these invisible ads can slow down users' phones and consume up to 2GB of bandwidth per day.[/quote]

    While this is an interesting revelation, I'm not really sure what the fear-mongering is all about. What is Forensiq trying to sell here?

    --
    "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
  5. Ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ads... Stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

    Go back to the TV with your antiquated crap.

  6. Not very shocking by s.petry · · Score: 0

    First, morality has been in the trash can for quite some time. Some is my own cynicism as I age, but I don't remember corruption being this open when I was younger. I don't see many people even try to hide it today.

    Now the easy part. How hard is it to spoof data? I could write code in seconds which builds BS HTML strings and pumps them to wherever I want. I don't believe the advertisers are too shocked about this either, or they would have done something long ago to ensure better security.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Not very shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate advertisers are victims themselves. The advertisers who don't really care about this situation are just the middle man who earn millions on this scam. When I as a small web shop owner would like to spam on mobile apps I'd have to go to an advertising firm who will ask money for every advert that is shown or clicked. Do you really think that firm cares wether all adverts I've paid for are effective, or even wether they are shown at all?
       
      Yes, reputable advertising companies would care, but do you know of any really reputable advertising company?

  7. Keep it up boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep it up, keep ripping off advertisers, drive the value of advertising on our phones down to zero. Eventually nobody will be making money and we can relive the golden age of computers on our smartphones, an age dominated by passionate hobbyists and shareware authors.

    1. Re:Keep it up boys by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep it up, keep ripping off advertisers, drive the value of advertising on our phones down to zero. Eventually nobody will be making money and we can relive the golden age of computers on our smartphones, an age dominated by passionate hobbyists and shareware authors.

      I keep thinking that we are going to see Google collapse in on itself when people realize that every dollar spent on internet ads leads to less than a dollar worth of increased sales. But Google is smart enough to not be dependent upon ad revenue, but acts as "the house" where they play odds on both the ad buyers and the ad sellers and make sure the house always gets its percentage. In order for Google to go under, a large number of online businesses would have to realize that online advertising is worthless, and lucky for Google a sucker is born every minute.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re: Keep it up boys by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You make that sound like a bad thing. You know, I hope, that you're posting on Slashdot??

    3. Re:Keep it up boys by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Advertising isn't worthless. Online advertising isn't worthless. Poorly targeted advertising probably has negative value. Advertising is especially valuable for things that I didn't know existed. If I'm traveling somewhere new and there's a sign for Canoe rentals, I just might decide to spend a day touring the local waterways. The first iPhone needed a lot of advertising support since it was a brand new product category. I'm waiting to see an advertisement for the latest generation of robot vacuums as I don't know when they will hit the market. I got an email today with Amazon's editors picks for children's books and responded. Downloaded the free samples. If my son likes them, I'll buy the full book. Spyware removal scams are negative value because not only will I not buy it, but the reputation of whoever runs the ad goes down.

    4. Re:Keep it up boys by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking that we are going to see Google collapse in on itself when people realize that every dollar spent on internet ads leads to less than a dollar worth of increased sales.

      except that's not true. it's all tracked. do you really think that despite seeing that ads don't result in clickthroughs, businesses still are happy to toss their $ in the garbage?

    5. Re:Keep it up boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tell advertisers all I need is you to be found when I search for your product. Better have the best price, warranty, shipping rate, etc. I search for what I am looking for.

    6. Re:Keep it up boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advertisers don't give a fuck, as long as they are being paid, and if they aren't paid they are not advertising.

  8. 3rd party lib or app itself ? by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if a 3rd party lib is responsible for any of this, quietly committing the fraud without the app developer's knowledge? Unless those 5,000+ apps are coming from a relatively small number of developers.

    1. Re:3rd party lib or app itself ? by thsths · · Score: 1

      That is a very good question. And I wonder whether 3rd party libs do anything else illegal - such as spying on the user, stealing passwords etc...

    2. Re:3rd party lib or app itself ? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Considering how many things are straight-up clones, especially in the Android market, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a handful of companies that pump out cheap (to develop), crap, copy+paste games and put this kind of stuff in them.

  9. Win-Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developers get revenue and users don't have to view actual ads. It's a victimless crime! Except if you count the advertisers, which I don't.

    1. Re:Win-Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which bit of "[...] slow down users' phones and consume up to 2GB of bandwidth per day" did you fail to comprehend?

    2. Re:Win-Win by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      Slowing down users phones is qualitative.

      Developers can clearly make apps that only update/work via WiFi and not over 3/4G so, if I were a nice ad revenue generating programmer, I'd take a hit on the total gain to limit this impact. Users can track how much data an app uses...

  10. Take action against advertisers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I get one of those apps? Not mentioned in the linked article.

  11. My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    I have eliminated Safari and other data intensive app connections to cellular (WIFI only now) and I'm still getting atrocious data use.

    This is called FRAUD.

    1. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Do you use the Podcast app? It's terrible for using cell data. If you go under Settings -> Cellular you can see which apps are using up your data.

    2. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by itamihn · · Score: 2

      In android you can view the data usage per app. Is there something similar in iPhone? It easily pinpoints which is the app(s) that is use more data than they should.

    3. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current period does not reset monthly, I wish there was a seperate monthly view.

    4. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's insane. It would have been nice for the slashvertisement to have listed a few apps that were guilty of this. I'd like to know the kind of things to avoid downloading. Anyone have any names of apps that are doing this?

    5. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Yes. Go to Settings -> Celullar and it will list all your apps and how much cellular bandwidth each app has used.

      You can also enable/disable cellular access for each app.

    6. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      My apps don't add up to 12.4 GB. As I said, this looks like fraud.

    7. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      No Podcasts. I've seen and turned off all but a few essential items. Looks like Fraud to me.

    8. Re:My Cell Data Usage "Current Period 12.4 GB" by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Do they add up to close? the cellular network could include protocol overhead.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  12. Hosts on the Android by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first thing I do after a system update or rooting is changing the host file to block all know ads servers.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Hosts on the Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that list of known ad servers is?

    2. Re:Hosts on the Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just say APKs name three times and you will find out.

    3. Re:Hosts on the Android by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      APK is that you?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Hosts on the Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127.0.0.1

    5. Re:Hosts on the Android by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Hosts on the Android by drooling-dog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've had a very good experience with this one. I'm accustomed to it now, so using someone else's computer without it (or similar) feels like swimming in a shark-infested pool with turds floating in front of my face.

    7. Re:Hosts on the Android by Magnum7385 · · Score: 1

      Might want to take a look at http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/ .. quite handy.

    8. Re:Hosts on the Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm accustomed to it now, so using someone else's computer without it (or similar) feels like swimming in a shark-infested pool with turds floating in front of my face.

      Are the sharks armed with laser beams?

    9. Re: Hosts on the Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this. I use their ad server file for squid and it works like a charm. Even got rid of the annoying slashdot ad for game or war with big tit Kate. I'm kinda sad about that one tho :P

  13. ad bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This smacks of the ad bombs I've been dealing with on a particular streaming site. The site tries to display an ad, which adblock promptly blocks. The site sees this and decides to send ALL of the ads, in what I'm calling an ad bomb.

    Here's how it works. I go to the site and start a video stream. Adblock reports 4 blocked ads. The stream plays fine for awhile until whatever script is running decides its time for an ad.

    Then the fun begins.

    Watching the ad block counter in realtime in about 45 seconds or less, I've pulled down, not exaggerating, 7500 ads. And they keep going, eventually so much traffic that the stream starts to stutter, and if I let it go longer, my entire wifi network becomes lagged out like a 14.4 modem.

    So from the sounds of it, some of these apps are basically doing the same thing without the ad block step, they pull every ad down from the company, thousands of them at once, crippled your phone, destroy your data limit, but never display a single ad to the user. The devs get paid by the ads they pull, there's no checking method to ensure those ads were actually delivered to the end user.

    For people on crappy data plans, this is enough to cost you several hundred dollars in "over your limit" data. that's a big punch in the nuts come pay day.

  14. Advertising is for luddites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Modern advertisers use apps. Oh wait.

  15. Bill Hicks said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are in marketing or advertising...kill yourself

    1. Re:Bill Hicks said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say that... those ad people tend to drive better cars than you do...

  16. Nope, not fraud at all, no sir by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Just like everything else in the world, it's always the victims fault for falling for a scam. It's not my fault they made it technically easy to break contractual agreements. And it is a contract, because advertisers are paying money for a service (in common law that would be called considerations, and it is the first hurdle in determining if a contract is valid, written or verbal).

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  17. NOT HAPPEN ON WINPHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO ADS TO SHOW!

    1. Re:NOT HAPPEN ON WINPHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No users to show them to

  18. Re:2GB per day? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They sell a platform to marketers. The platform attempts to filter out such invisible ad downloads, and it does other things like showing end-consumers the actual address of an ad if it's wrapped in a bunch of iframes.

    This story isn't aimed at you, unless you're a marketer looking to avoid paying for ads that customers never see.

  19. Also consumes device space... by zarmanto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure I had one of these offending apps, at one time -- though, in my case it may have been a legitimate error on the part of the developer, rather then malicious: It was an alarm clock app for iOS, which displayed a banner ad when you had it in portrait mode but not when you had it in landscape mode. Funny thing is, I learned in the course of time that it was still downloading those ads regardless of orientation, because there's an odd quirk in the way some (or all?) iOS apps download ads; they retain the ad on the device for some indeterminate period of time. Since I just left the iPad charging and sitting on that alarm clock app whenever I wasn't actively using the iPad, this caused that one app to bloat to ridiculous proportions over time, eventually filling up multiple gigabytes of space -- that is to say, all of the remaining space on the iPad.

    (Naturally, I eventually ditched that app and sought out one which was entirely ad-free.)

  20. Re:2GB per day? Really? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    On Verizon's network, 1 GB costs $10, so 2 GB * 30 days * $10 = $600. That would be a big deal to me if my kids were playing this game with their 4G connection turned on.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  21. Good scams... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    The sheer amount of activity generated by apps with fake ads was what initially exposed the scam.

    It is positively amazing how many criminals manage to wreck a good scam by getting greedy.

    1. Re:Good scams... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      ^^^ THIS.

      I too am frequently amused at how often these guys trip themselves up through sheer greed.

      If they had just been willing to throttle it down a bit they'd be safely reaping their profits as we speak with no one the wiser, but now the hunt is on.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  22. Does this help explain the low click-through rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many advertisers complain that Internet ads seem MUCH less effective than print, TV and radio.

    I wonder to what extent 'non-ads' are the cause of this effect.

  23. It depends on your theory of value by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    You should only pay out on pay-per-click, and even then, the payout should be largely affected by how long that user stayed after clicking an ad, whether they bought anything, etc.

    Under a Lochean earned income theory of value (i.e. you should get paid for what you earn), paying an advertiser based on how successful you are at *retaining* customers sent your way seems wrong in most cases. The advertiser is then earning or not earning money based on how good of a job *you* are doing at retaining customers, rather than based on how good of a job *they* are doing at sending you customers.

    There is one relevant component there still which is whether they are sending you the *right* customers, but usually we measure that by demographics and income rather than by the metric of how long they stay on your site, which is much more dependent on whether *you* are doing a good job retaining customers.

    On the other hand, if you are determining what the advertiser should be paid based just on the free-market whatever-we-agree to idea, then you can pay them based on anything you both agree to, including the number of elephants who would fit in your living room. Most advertisers don't sell advertising based on how effective they are at getting customers to buy things, though--that's what salespeople do, and our society tends to make a significant distinction between sales and advertising.

    1. Re:It depends on your theory of value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between showing ads and getting no visitors, and showing ads and getting visitors. Obviously I want people seeing my ads and visiting my site.

      There's also a difference between visitors that buy things, and visitors that never buy anything and waste my bandwidth. Some could argue that's on me, but if I average a 5% purchase rate, and my purchase rate coming from a certain website/app is always close to 0%, then they're sending me shit.

      It's shocking how, in 2015, this hasn't been fully worked out. Publishers can still game the system and punish advertisers, wrecking their monthly budgets and making them survey the numbers to see which sites are scam sites and block them. The ad companies need to be better middleman and protect advertisers from these obvious scams.

    2. Re:It depends on your theory of value by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      The advertiser could stop showing ads that don't generate revenue.

      The advertiser wants to get revenue per ad shown, but they could offer businesses different ways to pay.

      Pay per a click (sites that exist on advertising themselves may prefer this model), pay per a view (brands such as coke or pepsi may prefer this), pay per revenue (sites that actually sell things may prefer this). The ad network only cares about pay per view, but if one ad has a huge click through percentage, they could list that ad, and everybody wins (ad network gets more money, the site profiting on the click throughs does too). Similarly a site that has a decent sell through rate of expensive purchases may be the most profitable ad to show.

      There's no reason to only have on pricing model, and by diversifying the purchase amount the buyers can optimize their budgeting (perhaps at an overall expense to themselves), and the sellers can maximize their per view payment,

      This is how google used to so it when you bid price per a click for keywords, ads that weren't clicked on simply were no longer shown.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:It depends on your theory of value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would base it on retention of customers from the ad relative to the average for your site.

      That way the advertisers who send you the most customers who end up being retained are compensated the most and those who send you tons of uninterested people are compensated less.

  24. Whats the point if they don't name the apps? by krelvin · · Score: 1

    Story is interesting but without naming the apps... whats the point. I use an ad block on my rooted device, but many are not rooted and can't.

  25. Sounds good to me by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Most websites appear to contain invisible ads. Of course, I use adblock.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  26. This isn't really surprising .. by janoc · · Score: 1

    Considering that even an app like HTC's "Kids Zone" (a vendor preinstalled, unremovable app with activities for kids to keep them occupied) requires permissions like: "In-app purchases", "Phone calls", "Contacts", "Calendar", etc - aka everything that could run up an enormous bill or exfiltrate your monetizable personal information while your offspring are playing - it doesn't surprise me at all that someone tries to scam the advertising douchebags too ...

    Today's smartphone is a device for siphoning personal data and money, whether the owner's or the advertisers, nothing more. Any other functionality that it happens to have is starting to become only a side effect and coincidence (even more if the functionality is actually useful). It is starting to be so bad that soon we will use the smartphones only to access Internet on the go and have a second device to actually perform calls, text and keep any other personal info on.

    1. Re:This isn't really surprising .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend

      Compaq iPaq 3650

      Need phone? They got a sleeve for that!

  27. Change who pays by Moof123 · · Score: 2

    Similar to how you don't pay to receive a call on your land line, the laws around cell billing need to be changed so that advertisers must pay for their bandwidth usage rather than the user. If I don't ask for it, I should not have to pay for it (radical concept...).

    Wasting cell data is not a bother to your provider, rather it just lines their pockets. More transparency on the real cost of data might show how big their incentives to let this crap go on are.

    1. Re:Change who pays by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure how that could work. If somebody has to pay for data (possibly data over a cap; my family has a 10 GB monthly cap), how do the cell providers bill the advertiser? How do they tell the difference between bandwidth for data you explicitly ask for, bandwidth for data an app actually needs, and bandwidth for data the app or website is doing against your wishes and without your knowledge? Is there a way for the advertiser to tell if the last hop is cell data or not? If the advertiser doesn't ask for it, why make them pay?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Change who pays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the exact opposite of internet neutrality.

  28. Re:Does this help explain the low click-through ra by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    I doubt it's anything to do with this. I suspect it's because they can't measure the effectiveness of TV, print and radio ads. The advertisers tell them their print, TV and radio ads are incredibly effective, then, when they put ads on the Internet where they can directly measure the effectiveness, they discover... they don't actually work.

  29. Re:2GB per day? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it a big deal? Send them out to the fields to earn that $600 back. Good exercise and learning experience...much better than playing games on their phones/tablets.

  30. Money by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    As someone who has spent money on the Google Display Network and normal search advertising, I can confirm that 100% of ads on mobile and third party sites use click trick / scams to collect CPC revenue with none of the clicks being intentional by potential customers.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Slashdot? Load up Slashdot on a smartphone and enjoy your in-line fumble-tap-harvesting ads for freemium-shitware-scam skinnerbox games.

      Man this place has gone to shit. D1ce is cancer.

    2. Re: Money by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The ad for the big breasted woman for some awful iPhone 'game of war' just won't go away. Lately it's been appearing in two or three of the four boxes of the matrix. It's getting to feel like pretty soon there will be articles here on Slashdot about the Kardashians.

  31. what? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    No matter which way I read your post I disagree. I never stated that the victim is at fault, and don't agree with that position. The point I made was that if you keep the candy jar open and in a spot where it's difficult to monitor, you should not be surprised that people grab a piece without your knowledge.

    In other words, we have known for as long as Web ads have been around that "click to pay" can be spoofed. Advertisers kind of forced things in that direction because it looked cheaper on the surface.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      If you have a contractual arrangement to be paid for clicks or views, and you rip off the other party. It doesn't particularly matter how easy or difficult it is to accomplish the breach of contract. If they catch you, they can make a case against you.

      Of course if you base your business around bad technology that is easy to trick, I totally agree you shouldn't be surprised if there is rampant abuse.

      Senior SW Engineer/Architect - IANAL

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:what? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Advertisers know about click fraud, just like retail stores know about shoplifting and employee theft. They build it into their rates and prices: if that candy bar cost the store 10% more because about one in eleven is stolen somehow, the store sets the price to account for that. It would be possible to build in a lot of protections against shoplifting and employee theft, but they may not be worth what they cost. It isn't a matter of looking cheaper on the surface, it's a matter of expected cost. Accountants have line items for estimated losses from "shrinkage", non-payment of bills, things like that, because you can't make good projections otherwise.

      What's happening here is the web advertising equivalent of a ring of expert shoplifters deciding to hit a brick-and-mortar store. It's loss on a much larger scale. It's also a distinct target, and the advertisers can attack it specifically

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:what? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are either implying that I approve of illegal behavior through sarcasm, or that you approving the illegal behavior. If the latter, I disagree. If the former, see the latter.

      Morality is not the same thing as ease of access.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:what? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I agree. My original point was that the situation should not be shocking to anyone. This is especially true of alleged "Nerds" who should know how these things work.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's clear that you disagree with something. Not that you've been able to respond to any statements without more than a vague disagreement. If you don't want to answer the arguments, then I guess you don't have to respond. But please don't try to setup a strawman for me to attack, because I won't go for it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:what? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      What specific are you missing? Morally theft is wrong. Stealing something can be difficult or complex. The easier it is to steal something, the more likely it is to occur. That has been my assertion since the first post and every subsequent post.

      I never stated that the victim is at fault, and don't agree with that position.

      That comment was in regards to your assertion (sarcastically) that the victim is to blame for the crime.

      You seem to have great difficulty in reading and comprehending English. What straw man has been set up or could be set up? You continue to conflate morality with the ease of an access to a crime. "Morality is not the same thing as ease of access."

      You have repeated ignored my opinion and substituted your belief of what my opinion actually is. I'm sure you know everyone else' opinion way better than they do right? No, don't answer that. Go troll someone else.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You continue to conflate morality with the ease of an access to a crime. "Morality is not the same thing as ease of access."

      I never have. Nor have I mentioned morality as an issue here.

      You have repeated ignored my opinion and substituted your belief of what my opinion actually is.

      I sympathize with your frustration. Best we part ways before you project further.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  32. True Unsung Heroes by cloud.pt · · Score: 0

    How come this has been written like there's someone stealing from somebody else? I'll try and be crystal clear about something advertisers and their supporters fail to grasp every single time it matters: ADS STEAL PEOPLE'S VALUABLE TIME IN EXCHANGE FOR THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED, but ultimately aren't because of your models. Nobody that is an honest-to-goodness COMMON USER reads ad-based use policies, and most of them would rather NOT have ads, but abides to them anyway, because well, it's either pay up for that non-free version or live in the stone age. There are successful business models that do not rely on paid apps OR ad-based revenue. Paid models I can just ignore their existence, as I don't pay for things "lightly". Ad models are outright forced on everyone. Whoever keeps forcing them to users is, to me, the real thief and worse, a progress-encumbering entity, as there is nothing good from a ad-cluttered UI, usage of my data plan for you timely needs or even my phone electricity for displaying such aberrations. Somebody who makes money by trolling who is already trolling my attention, carrot on a stick-like, really deserves some sort of award. As a mobile software developer, I congratulate you, unsung warriors of this capitalist world that has lost it's sense of meritocracy.

  33. I wonder... by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

    I wonder if my pc has a few programs like this. It seems whenever I turn on my pc at home, just having it on and idle, slows my network to a crawl. It forces my roku to stop streaming. I have a 25mbps connection. Anyone reccomend a good ip sniffer to see who or what is cramping up my pipes?

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireshark, free and good.

  34. Win-Win by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    That way you don't get to see those flashy ads, but the ad business still finances the app.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  35. Re:2GB per day? Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I guess I haven't been presented one of these ads, because I don't use 2 GB in a year. But then if they presented an invisible ad to me I might be more likely to buy their product than if they presented a visible ad at me, because that would likely make me not want to do business with that company.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  36. Impossible! by maestroX · · Score: 1

    You cannot find over 5,000 apps displaying unseen ads!

  37. Re:2GB per day? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would not be surprising to me. Managing a business cell phone account and I have users that have reached usage cresting to nearly 40 GB in a month. Recently, a group of three of them alone blew out our data plan intended for 18 devices. They claim they are not using that much data, but the consistent increase, month over month, on those lines do not lie.

  38. Say what??? by mark-t · · Score: 0

    Forensiq, an online technology firm fighting fraud for advertisers, found over 5,000 apps displayed unseen ads...

    If the ads were unseen, how do they know they were displayed in the first place?

    1. Re:Say what??? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Because you can monitor traffic coming to the phone.

    2. Re:Say what??? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So all that proves is that traffic was sent to imitate an ad view, not that the ads were actually displayed anywhere.

  39. Re:2GB per day? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black people working in a field is so 19th century, white people working in a field is so 20th century. Now, no citizen would demur to do such work; that's why we pay illegals much more than minimum wage to do so.

  40. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care. I don't see any of that money, and it's not out of my pocket, except for the Electricity that I pay for and the bandwidth that I pay for, and of course my time.

    If some app wants to take money from advertisers without bothering me actually having to look at the ad, then I am all for it.

  41. Someone got greedy by mi · · Score: 1

    The sheer amount of activity generated by apps with fake ads was what initially exposed the scam.

    This is why the "honest" scammers can't have nice things.

    Someone got greedy — a deadly sin.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  42. Fraudulent adverts .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    "Forensiq .. found over 5,000 apps displayed unseen ads on both Apple and Android devices."

    What are the names of these apps and how do they get onto the downloaded devices?

  43. Re:2GB per day? Really? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    On Verizon's network, 1 GB costs $10, so 2 GB * 30 days * $10 = $600. That would be a big deal to me if my kids were playing this game with their 4G connection turned on.

    which proves that this is not really happening in the wild, otherwise it'd be a much bigger deal. you'd be hearing about on the local news, not /.

  44. Is there a list of the fraudulent apps? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Whether or not those apps can be removed I think it would be best if there is a list of the fraudulent apps, and if possible, the frequency of those apps downloading the invisible ads (to enable the users to calculate how much bandwidth those invisible ads are costing them)

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  45. Goodness gracious... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    ...I feel terrible about having an ancient Nokia that can't download data-sucking apps that paw through my personal data in order to exploit me.

    Oh, wait...

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  46. Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking advertisers at their own game? Ingenious!

  47. et by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    the intended audience couldn't possibly be actual humans

    Yet another proof of extra terrestrial life

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  48. You *may* be interested in this then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk