A survey of over 3,000 Brits has discovered that more than half (56 per cent) have been targeted by online criminals with a successful attack costing, on average, £247 per person. The study, released on Monday to coincide with the start of the annual Get Safe Online awareness week, discovered that almost one in five (17 per cent …
> 88 per cent of self-generated, sexually explicit online images .. uploaded onto other websites.
that means the other 12% are a significant market opportunity for 4chan
I changed my password to foil crooks
my password is now rapier
*the one with the Leeds royal armouries brochure in the scabbard
Re: I changed my password to foil crooks
I've given up on merely foiling the bastards.
I was a victim of fraudulent selling some years ago. The scam website I bought from was linked to by Google Shopping (Froogle) which is why I never trust Google Shopping any more except for well-known sellers.
"parasitic pornographic websites" tapewormlove.com? theliceshack.xxx?
Though I suspect that would be on the IWF list of doddy sites.
Are you trying to suggest that the diddy men has a relationship with J. Savile?
beautifulbloodsuckers.com, lovelyleeches.com, sexysponges.com, sensualsymbionts.com, etc
Re: doddy sites?
No, the _other_ kind of sucking
I know the plural of anecdote isn't "data" but I don't know anyone who has suffered any monetary (or other) loss due to cybercriminals. And I do know enough people who are regular internet users for that to be statistically relevant. Much as I applaud any moves to educate people of the risks I'm not sure starting off with a dodgy survey and some frightening statistics is the way to go ...
Or perhaps I only know incredibly sensible/lucky/careful users of the internet? Seems equally unlikely too ...
More likely, people who have lost money through their own stupidity aren't going to shout about it from the rooftops.
The youngster was stung twice trying to buy secondhand iPhones that were patently never dispatched. In both cases PayPal was used to cover any risk - theoretically. However in both cases PayPal only managed to retrieve part of the money. Contrary to expectations they had not put the money into escrow - nor would they make up the difference.
Most of the eBay "fraud" is goods that are faulty. People get things from junk/returned sources and sell them on eBay - or they forget why they discarded something into the garage. The latter are the same people who send such things to charity shops. The seller counts on the buyer not being prepared to pay the return postage. If they do return it then the seller sometimes only refunds the item's cost - not the original postage.
Some businesses ignore the remote selling regulations. They not only expect the punter to pay the return postage but charge a "restocking" fee.
eBay shilling seems to be a practice to force up the price a buyer pays. If the shill overbids then the genuine buyer gets "a second chance" offer. However eBay dictates the price as the buyer's highest bid - not that which they would have paid if the shill had not been bidding against them. Caveat Emptor!
Indeed, and these scammers are now on Amazon as well.
You'll all be jealous
When my Nigerian lottery wins and inheritance comes through
Re: You'll all be jealous
Fancy some company for a big night on the town to celebrate your good fortune?
Skype me babes!
Mrs Miriam Abacha (wife of the late President Sani Abacha)
Is this "survey" is derived from anything more than the responses of self-selected, motivated Internet users who have filled in a form on GetSafeOnline's site? There is nothing in the story or on the site to suggest otherwise. (It might help if the organisation had updated its press pages in the past eight months.)
Statistics & lies
"The GetSafeOnline.org survey showed that almost one in five (19 per cent) have lost money as a result of cyber criminals. ... a successful attack costing, on average, £247 per person."
So really, an average cost of a cyber attack is £247*(chance to get robbed = 0.19) = £46.93. Not much. Certainly not enough to justify the inconvenience of changing passwords regularly.
Re: Statistics & lies
Probably not; but it is certainly worth having different, difficult passwords for every online account. The art is making yourself the hardest target out of the five and let the other four rack up the statistics.
Re: Statistics & lies
What sort of idiot fills in a random questionnaire on an unknown site that, at best, has been created purely for marketing.
Oh yes, it's the sort of idiot that's been compromised by the sort of weak en-masse scam that is the internet's background noise.
I've been got
I used a dodgy PC abroad to check my email. By the time I'd got to the next hotel the crafty criminals had:
Got into my email.
Had a new ebay password emailed out (and deleted the email).
Blocked all emails from ebay.com as junk.
Put 90 (!) hair straighteners for sale up on my (good feedback) ebay account.
I had no idea it was happening, as all the 'Your item have been listed/sold' emails never hit my inbox, so they would have got away with it until I next tried to log into ebay, but...
They tried to transfer $100 IN to my paypal account, but had forgot to block the paypal email address.
After some head scrtaching I realised what was happening and tried to get ebay and paypal to lock my account. But both sites were totally blocked in the country I was on holiday in (due to US trade sanctions) - so i couldn't even access their 'contact us' page!
By the time I got back to the UK, they'd sold 18 of them, and I had 18 more positive feedback!
ebay sorted it all as soon as I got home. They removed the transactions, and gave back the $100 in paypal from the person it was stolen from (another hacked account). I got to keep the feedback.
2 years later a person emailed saying their hair straighteners had broken within warranty. I told them how lucky they were to get the (stolen) hair straighteners in the first place!
Now ebay don't let you reset a password to email without providing additonal verification, which I gess would solve problems like mine.
(P.S. All my passwords are different, and the shortest is 9 characters.)
Im alright I changed it to drowssap
"IWF analysts encountered more than 12,000 such images and videos spread over 68 websites."
Bloody careers adviser never even *mentioned* that option...
4 in brits are dumb!
I'd make that 9 out of 10.
If you would not drive a car without instruction, why do people use the internet without guidance?
I suppose you can blame those who have been scammed for their lack of care and attention.
"4 in brits are dumb!
I'd make that 9 out of 10."
First line does tend to prove the second. Well, you've contributed to it, at least. Nice one!
Perceived risks of driving without prior instruction:
- backing the car into a wall (expensive)
- running someone over (litigious)
- dying in a fiery wreck (fatal)
Perceived risks of surfing the internet without prior instruction:
- accidental discovery of boobs (arousing)
"4 in brits are dumb!"
I love how Obviously! seems to mostly post about how others are stupid.
That is all.
"4 in brits are dumb!"
How does the "brits" measurement scale translate into number of elephants in an olympic sized swimming pool?
47%?? this is hilarious...i wonder how they went about (scientifically) selecting people to fill in this survey:
survey company sends out emails proporting to be from a market research company in nigeria run by a relative of a government official who want the survee-ee to western union £100 to them before they fill in the survey , promising that they will be put into a free prize draw when they complete the survey.....
seriously - theres no way 47% of normal people get ripped like this. right, must dash, i have to go and pay a fine for some online pr0n that i looked at - the met police are on to me apparently!
Indeed. Given Mitt Romney's "gaffe", any statistic that quotes 47% of anything is now automatically suspect.
In my day it was '45 minutes' that flagged up dodgy stats.
99% of statistics are bullshit.
99% of what you read on the Internet is bullshit.
So when you read statistics on the Internet?