6 ms·

> For ex, one ad network launched “battery saver” style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone. > When you type the word “Uber” into your G

> For ex, one ad network launched “battery saver” style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone. > When you type the word “Uber” into your Google Play, it auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves. Isn't above an example of a criminal intent of deliberate fraud?

pjc50 6y ago
Yes, and? How on earth are you going to even explain it to the police, let alone find which jurisdiction to use?
- yreg 6y ago
  You are buying it from some vendor, their company is invoicing you. You can use either your or their jurisdiction, whatever fits better and you can also sue them directly. You explain it like: >For ex, one ad network launched “battery saver” style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone. >When you type the word “Uber” into your Google Play, it auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves." You don't have to be a genius software engineer to understand that.
  - fegu 6y ago
    Usually you will have to choose the jurisdiction of the party you want to take to court. This is part of the reason some regulated industries require you to have presence locally.
    - yreg 6y ago
      Ah right, usually you can sue on your home turf only if there's a treaty for it (e.g. when both parties are based in EU).
iamacyborg 6y ago
Ad fraud is HUGE online.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  In display, at least. It's not massively common with either Google or Facebook (assuming you avoid their networks), which is part of the reason that both of them make so much money.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    I don't think that's true, just that fraud is different on those platforms. I suspect it depends on how you define fraud but certainly if a platform tells me I'm bidding to show adverts to customers who match criteria X, then I expect them to match that criteria. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188 https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.118...
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Your reference talks about a different set of entities, the information from most data brokers is inconsistent and often wrong (much like display). Because they have first-party information, neither Google nor Facebook suffer as much from this problem (although the most common school attended on Facebook is Hogwarts, so obviously they're not perfect).
      - iamacyborg 6y ago
        > Because they have first-party information, neither Google nor Facebook suffer as much from this problem Maybe not from the problem outlined in the study, but fraudsters certainly create fake high value "profiles" that they use to commit fraud on those networks. I spoke with an ad fraud researcher recently for a marketing podcast I started and he spoke in detail about this fraud is carried out. IIRC he referred to it as retargeting fraud.

pjc50 6y ago

Yes, and? How on earth are you going to even explain it to the police, let alone find which jurisdiction to use?

yreg 6y ago
You are buying it from some vendor, their company is invoicing you. You can use either your or their jurisdiction, whatever fits better and you can also sue them directly. You explain it like: >For ex, one ad network launched “battery saver” style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone. >When you type the word “Uber” into your Google Play, it auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves." You don't have to be a genius software engineer to understand that.
- fegu 6y ago
  Usually you will have to choose the jurisdiction of the party you want to take to court. This is part of the reason some regulated industries require you to have presence locally.
  - yreg 6y ago
    Ah right, usually you can sue on your home turf only if there's a treaty for it (e.g. when both parties are based in EU).

iamacyborg 6y ago

Ad fraud is HUGE online.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
In display, at least. It's not massively common with either Google or Facebook (assuming you avoid their networks), which is part of the reason that both of them make so much money.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  I don't think that's true, just that fraud is different on those platforms. I suspect it depends on how you define fraud but certainly if a platform tells me I'm bidding to show adverts to customers who match criteria X, then I expect them to match that criteria. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188 https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.118...
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Your reference talks about a different set of entities, the information from most data brokers is inconsistent and often wrong (much like display). Because they have first-party information, neither Google nor Facebook suffer as much from this problem (although the most common school attended on Facebook is Hogwarts, so obviously they're not perfect).
    - iamacyborg 6y ago
      > Because they have first-party information, neither Google nor Facebook suffer as much from this problem Maybe not from the problem outlined in the study, but fraudsters certainly create fake high value "profiles" that they use to commit fraud on those networks. I spoke with an ad fraud researcher recently for a marketing podcast I started and he spoke in detail about this fraud is carried out. IIRC he referred to it as retargeting fraud.