Scammers have wasted little time in exploiting the launch of Google+ to mount a spam campaign ultimately designed to promote penis pills and other unlicensed pharmaceutical sales from dodgy websites. Supposed Google+ invitations intercepted by net security firm Sophos last weekend actually point to online pharmacies. The …
re. Cock Like a Rock
Irregularly shaped with a rough and pock-marked surface? No thank you, I already have one.
It's the legitimate invites that are spam.
Spam lies, it's what it does
"Quite who would decide to buy Viagra from a random site in these circumstances"
Well there lies the eternal mystery of spam. 99% of spam uses deception, yet some people still think that those sending the spam are the kind of companies they can trust with their money. Having lied once, they couldn't possibly cheat them again, could they?
The only other possible explanation is that spammers are still hopelessly pursuing a marketing method that simply doesn't work. Somehow I don't think so. I guess you can never underestimate people's capacity for stupidity.
That's the point
The point of spam *isn't* getting punters to part with their card details in the vain hope of receiving some fake viagra; but to persuade people who want to make money that sending spam promising fake viagra is a feasible method.
It's just the modern-day equivalent of the "work from home addressing envelopes" scam: work from home sending e-mails.
I'm struggling to see a difference here.
"who would decide to buy Viagra from a random site in these circumstances"
The same sort of person who actually believes that a person writing to them out of the blue has $15,000,000 (fifteen million dollars) to give to them...
Towards the end of the sentence, the phrase "fifteen million dollars" should be spelled "FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS".
Gods blessings be on you :-)
think of the cheeeeldren
What this does do, in a roundabout kind of a way, is confirm once more that, regardless of one's security investments, regardless of intent, regardless of the innovative ways the likes of 'netNanny' and ilk claim to make the internet a safe place for children... it simply isn't. It isn't and it cannot be made so.
The proof... is in the fact that people clicked that link THINKING they were heading to G+ and went 'somewhere else'. Once you are diverted from your intended destination just once... you are effectively admitting that, but for the grace of Godo, you'd be sitting in front of a picture of donkey pr0n with no control over your hard drive.
Paris likes popups :o)