Big Tech Should Reimburse Victims of Online Scams (reuters.com) 68
Big tech companies whose online platforms carry advertisements for scams should be made to reimburse victims, British lawmakers said, as part of wider efforts to combat a growing epidemic of online fraud in Britain. From a report: While banks have signed up for a voluntary code to reimburse fraud victims who do enough to protect themselves, there is not sufficient regulation governing social media and other websites where victims are often first lured in, Mel Stride, chairman of the cross-party Treasury committee, told Reuters. "The government should look at some kind of arrangement that makes the polluter pay," he said. "Online platforms are hosting this stuff, not really putting enough effort into weeding it out, and indeed financially benefiting because they're getting the advertising revenues," Stride said. TechUK, a trade body that represents major tech companies in Britain, including Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft, declined to provide an immediate comment. Stride's comments came as the Treasury committee on Wednesday published the findings of a report on economic crime, which urged the government to seriously consider forcing online platforms to help to refund victims.
Normally I wouldn't agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
But in this case, I actually somewhat do. The problem is that I've seen many of these scams on Facebook and reported them, and Facebook has repeatedly refused to act. Given this they are explicitly involved in the scams, keeping them up so that they can continue to get their cut of the ad sales off them.
In that sense it makes 100% sense to hold them liable. I'm completely for not holding companies responsible for harmful user generated content they haven't had the opportunity to tackle like scams and so forth - I know they can't control everything, but I think that excuse goes when the likes of Facebook explicitly support such scams by refusing to take down scams that have been reported to them. At that point they should be held not just liable, but criminally liable because they're literally knowingly and wilfully supporting crime.
Re: Normally I wouldn't agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The simpler solution might be to require businesses have a certain number of in-country support staff per X amount of customers. Retail businesses would be untouched as would a lot of behind the scenes B2B companies, but unaccountable tech giants would be destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who argue that a private company shouldn't be forced to provide a platform for racist thoughts will probably agree that the same company shouldn't provide a platform for fraud, either. Right?
If, indeed, it is a private platform, and it is providing a means to facilitate fraud, doesn't that make it an accessory to crime? I think it would be very hard to argue that a company which routinely deplatforms people for wrongthink does not also have a responsibility to prevent actual crime on its pla
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
>Perhaps we should then also prosecute airlines for flying terrorists in and out of countries.
If they have been told they are transporting terrorists, then yes, of course!
>Perhaps we should also prosecute hotels when a prostitute gets a room.
Not sure of the laws on this, but if this is illegal and the hotel knowingly does it, then yes, of course!
Do you have some sympathy for corporations that makes you think that a corp doing illegal things shouldn't be prosecuted? wtf?
Re: (Score:2)
The people who argue that a private company shouldn't be forced to provide a platform for racist thoughts will probably agree that the same company shouldn't provide a platform for fraud, either. Right?
If, indeed, it is a private platform, and it is providing a means to facilitate fraud, doesn't that make it an accessory to crime? I think it would be very hard to argue that a company which routinely deplatforms people for wrongthink does not also have a responsibility to prevent actual crime on its platform.
Craigslist has been prosecuted for crimes which had occurred on its platform, why would Facebook be any different?
I agree with you in principal but had some additional thoughts.
Let's say we get a law that says 'platforms must provide fraud reporting and reasonably act on all reports, else they're liable for civil/criminal penalties arising from the action'. Then email/IM/etc. get blown out of the water.
Then again, even if you wrote the law to only include things like paid advertising for things that are obviously fraudulent or illegal you'd catch a TON. I can't even count how many facebook ads i've seen for pirate ga
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems with that. If your platform is used as a source of fraud, you should be liable.
It's just like if you carry ads, you curate the ads you show, or you contract it out to an ad company. Either way, you're responsible for what happens because the choice of carrying ads and who to use was up to the site owner, not the visitor.
Anyways, it fits with the ToS anyhow - if you're blocking posts for illegality, well, fraud schemes are illegal too. So it put it in the same category.
Especially if you're
Re: (Score:1)
The Post Office delivered the scam mail. Should the Post Office be liable for this?
Personally I think so, but understand that holding Big Tech accountable for scam ads creates a scenario where any system or business (or
Re: Normally I wouldn't agree... (Score:1)
Sure, the USPS should be held liable if it begins curating the mail we receive, effectively becoming a publisher as opposed to a blind carrier of content.
Re: (Score:1)
By law the post office isn't supposed to open your mail and read it.
A site that runs advertisements has no such limitation. A business that earns money through advertisement should be expected to perform at least some due diligence.
If they knowingly take money from scammers, and then refuse to act when abuse is reported, then I would think that would also make them a willing participant in the scam and also liable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting point, and I definitely agree that businesses that profit from facilitating scams should also be liable, and that liability should be significant compared to their annual revenue so it's not just a slap on the wrist.
I think they definitely need a protection from liability for new things that they didn't know about. That might be something they would need to prove in court when there's a lawsuit or prosection to avoid being found guilty, so they don't wait a few months while profits roll
Re: (Score:2)
>1. Scan everything they carry, so no more privacy.
This "consequence" is so cute! It's almost as if you believe they don't already scan everything they carry already! How precious!
>It would be even worse because to facilitate scanning everything, there would need to be a law prohibiting encryption.
I would expect that encrypted communications be exempt, not that we would ban encryption. You are just trying to make stuff up that is impossible to try and bolster your point.
>2. Require a registered
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the sentiment, but in reality it is possible to use end-to-end encrypted communication by email, instant messaging, VoIP, and in the regular mail.
I'm talking about a hypothetical situation. Yes, I also expect that there wou
Re: Normally I wouldn't agree... (Score:2)
The post office doesn't charge an advertising fee, only a delivery fee. They are literally a common carrier. So they should not be held accountable.
Faceboot on the other hand doesn't charge a delivery fee, but they do charge an advertising fee. As such they should be liable for paid advertising, but not astroturfing.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time the U.K. wanted to reduce the population of poisonous snakes in India. They set up a program to pay people for capturing these snakes.
Sounds good, but what actually then happened is that Indians started breeding the snakes because of the payday.
If you set up a thing that requires X to pay for Y, then Z will start doing Y to get money from X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory yes, in practice no. But they should be.
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
In theory yes, in practice no. But they should be.
How about we meet halfway, and make them liable when a scam has been confirmed, then reported, and they don't take it down? I've reported half a dozen scams on facebook in the last year only to be told "this post meets our community standards."
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't, but it's not a question of ethical obligation. Arguably advertisers shouldn't advertise products which literally do not have any evidence to support the product's claims.
Like how the fuck is Prevagen advertised on the television? It's obviously a scam product, it is not actually capable of enhancing memory. But because they abuse personal testimonial loopholes, the claims are made by people who take it, not the company directly. It's an obvious scam.
The larger problem is really the American
Re: (Score:2)
TV Networks are liable for the adverts they show. If a company wants to put an advert on a TV Network about how to have sex with children, they get denied really quickly, and reported to the police.
So the 'policing' 'censorship' 'bla bla' is already there.
Re: (Score:2)
TV Networks are liable for the adverts they show. If a company wants to put an advert on a TV Network about how to have sex with children, they get denied really quickly, and reported to the police.
So the 'policing' 'censorship' 'bla bla' is already there.
And yet, we see ads on TV for obvious scam products.
Yes if they say "clinically proven" (Score:2)
Are TV networks liable for, say, weight loss products that don't work?
If they say "clinically proven" and forged the results and it was known to the TV network, then yes. No, you cannot eliminate all scams, but that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to eliminate the profit motive from big tech for the obvious ones.
Why Are (Score:1)
Re: Why Are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Are (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why Are (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How are they going to "weed it out" (Score:2)
I'd like to see their suggestions on how an advertising platform is going to verify the quality and effectiveness of every product they advertise. Oh, and do so without hurting small businesses who may not be household names yet too.
Re: (Score:2)
1)Only allowing ads from registered businesses within the country being advertised as the business owners are on the register they could be contacted to make sure they ordered the Advert before the Ad is displayed.
1a) Companies wanting to advertise out of country need to be verified in similar manner
2) verifying the ad and no changes without verification (they could charge for this)
3)Since most scams also involve Domains that have scam websites Domain names sellers and hosting compa
Re: (Score:1)
Only advertise for bonded companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between "evaluating the quality and effectiveness of every product" and weeding out scams... a big difference.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/... [fcc.gov]
Stations are prohibited from broadcasting material that promotes certain lotteries; advertises cigarettes, little cigars or smokeless tobacco products; or perpetuates a fraud. Some advertisements also may violate regulations that fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Trade
Normally I wouldn't agree... but in this case I do (Score:5, Insightful)
Numerous times I have reported adverts on Google SERPS or Facebook feed that were scam ads. Every single time I got an email back saying they investigated and found nothing wrong with the ad.
It's hard to be the police when your paycheck comes from the criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun and Games until... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the issue I have with the current “voluntary” banking code that British banks “voluntarily” sign up to (they are ridiculed by the regulator until they do, with threats that the voluntary code will soon become less than voluntary)
Under that code, the banks can do everything right - 2FA on their websites, multi factor on any and all phone contact, the direct debit guarantee etc etc and still be liable for so called “push pay” fraud.
Under the “voluntary”
Guard rails, I see guard rails everywhere. (Score:4, Informative)
To a *very* narrow degree, I agree with you. Where the fraud was perpetrated and enabled by some sort of autheticity mechanic from big tech - ie if Apple's Store insists that everything they sell is virus free, and you get a virus, then sure.
But 'scams'? How the hell are big tech supposedly responsible for stupid fucking people handing money to Nigerian Defense Ministers who happen to have a secret $50 million account they are willing to share with you?
My daughter had a friend in college who gave her bank login and PASSWORD (!) to someone she'd known online for 2 weeks, who 'just needed some money to help feed her kids this month' but 'somehow didn't manage to get the money she'd wired, but if she gives her her bank info, she can get it squared away'. Yes, I shit you not. A pre-med student (!), who graduated from high school, in her 3rd year at a relatively elite liberal arts college did this.*
The world cannot be made idiot proof, the idiots are too good.
*in retrospect, if she was going to be that dumb, I guess it was better that she learned that lesson when she was a college student with about $500 in the bank, rather than later with a real life and actual assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if users have trouble telling them apart, how would Facebook do it?
Should Google profit off obvious scams? (Score:1)
To a *very* narrow degree, I agree with you. Where the fraud was perpetrated and enabled by some sort of autheticity mechanic from big tech - ie if Apple's Store insists that everything they sell is virus free, and you get a virus, then sure.
But 'scams'? How the hell are big tech supposedly responsible for stupid fucking people handing money to Nigerian Defense Ministers who happen to have a secret $50 million account they are willing to share with you?
My daughter had a friend in college who gave her bank login and PASSWORD (!) to someone she'd known online for 2 weeks, who 'just needed some money to help feed her kids this month' but 'somehow didn't manage to get the money she'd wired, but if she gives her her bank info, she can get it squared away'. Yes, I shit you not. A pre-med student (!), who graduated from high school, in her 3rd year at a relatively elite liberal arts college did this.*
The world cannot be made idiot proof, the idiots are too good.
Most of what you described are not advertisers. The Nigerian minister and person she wired money to didn't pay for a Google Ad. However, I see tons regularly, such as "your computer has virus, click here to fix it" or the famous Flash update scams that were served by Facebook and Google ad services.
Hell, Steve Bannon got arrested for taking money to build a wall he had no plans on building. Should he be able to advertise on these major big tech networks? I wouldn't hold it against Google for hosting
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, a tech company of a certain size should have 48h to deactivate fraud ads from the moment it's first reported or they discover it's a fraud or else they face liability for the damage.
So, you're saying I can just go search for my competitor's ads, report them as fraud, and have those taken down in 2 days? Where do I sign up?
Address the cause, not the effect. Educate! (Score:2)
Regardless of the measures that may be implement to tacke scams, there is always be a way to do it. Scammers are just too inventive when it comes to new manipulation and exploitation methods. The true, long-term solution is education of the user base and society in general. Increase knowledge, raise awarness and make people think before acting.
Re: (Score:2)
So to stop prostitution, give everyone a free BJ? (Score:2)
Regardless of the measures that may be implement to tacke scams, there is always be a way to do it. Scammers are just too inventive when it comes to new manipulation and exploitation methods. The true, long-term solution is education of the user base and society in general. Increase knowledge, raise awarness and make people think before acting.
I hate this argument of "we can't fix everything, so why try to reduce harm?" No crime can be perfectly eliminated. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce harm. We've deemed prostitution illegal in most of the USA, I have no personal issues with paying for sex, but regardless... By your logic, we cannot prevent prostitution, so instead of addressing the supply side, we should address the demand side? So people who like to pay for sex will find a way, so we should just give them all fre
Re: (Score:2)
A modest proposal Re: Ad networks & driveby vi (Score:2)
If a website uses an ad network or themselves serve malware they are responsible for damages and cannot disclaim them via user 'agreement' BS. If the website using technological means to enforce ad delivery, at punitive damages are added. If the website uses DNS spoofing or other means to make 3rd party content appear to be first party (to evade 3rd party cookie blocking, for example), then the website and executives personally are deemed to be equal co-conspirators (aka no 'the c
SF should... (Score:2)
San Francisco should reimburse stores for shoplifting losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, um, no. (Score:2)
If someone steals your car and then collides with another vehicle killing that driver, is the owner of the car at fault? On a related topic, if automobile insurance is mandatory, why should I have to cough up money for an uninsured motorist provision?
The larger question here is why every government on the planet is hell bent on absolving people of personal responsibility? If you're clueless enough to fall for a fraud scheme on social media, that's your problem. That said, if you report it to said social
Pragmatic approach (Score:2)
Politicians love the "blame game" - find a perceived guilty party, preferably with lots of money, and make them pay. Such "you are legally responsible for every fraud you advertise" will end up with only the very large companies being able to advertise. You have a small business, sorry, not ads for you because should you turn out to be a fraud and we sue you to recover the fines the government imposed on us, your valuation will not cover the lawyers bills. Politicians with good intentions fucking it up, not