Sophie Fry Blogs

When Google decided in May to stop accepting online ads for short-term, ultra-high-cost personal loans known as payday loans, some people wondered whether the company was acting more like a publisher exercising editorial control than a supposedly neutral search engine.

Now that Google’s policy has gone into effect, it’s worth asking: To what extent should the company be a gatekeeper, judging which online ads are okay and which are not? And if the world’s largest Internet search engine is going to be selective about accepting ads, where does it draw the line?

The same questions could be applied to Microsoft and Yahoo, which refuse to carry ads for certain types of sensitive content (but still advertise payday loans). Baidu, the world’s second-largest search engine, has been grappling with these issues since earlier this year, when its practice of promoting medical listings without vetting them sparked outrage over a tragedy: a young man with cancer died after receiving an ineffective treatment from a hospital he found through a Baidu ad. The outcry prompted an investigation by China’s Internet regulator, which ordered Baidu to review its ads and remove any that promote unlicensed medical providers.

University of Maryland law professor Frank Pasquale says Google has tried to have it both ways: sometimes it portrays itself as a simple utility and a mere conduit of its customers’ ads, but other times it presents itself as a content provider that can and should exercise control over the ads it shows.

“Whenever Google is accused of abetting or enabling copyright infringement or defamation, it says, ‘We’re just [connecting people] like the phone company does, and you wouldn’t sue the phone company over this,’” says Pasquale. “But when people say, ‘If you’re a common carrier [utility], you should take all ads,’ Google will say, ‘No, we’re like a newspaper and we should have carte blanche over what we publish.’”

With payday loan ads, Google is characterizing itself as the watchful online guardian. The company has said it banned the ads to protect its users because “research has shown that these loans can result in unaffordable payment and high default rates.” (Google declined to comment for this story beyond saying that it constantly reviews its AdWords policies and updates them ”when necessary.”)

Google also seems to have been influenced by advocacy from a large coalition of civil rights, digital rights, and financial reform organizations. In late 2015, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other groups sent Google reports detailing abuses that often accompany payday loans—among them fraud, unauthorized transactions, and long-term indebtedness. “We said, ‘This is a problem, and we want to talk to you about this,’” says Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology, who participated in the outreach campaign. “There were long conversations with Google and a lot of bringing this research to their attention over the course of a couple of months.”

An ongoing inquiry into payday lending by the U.S. government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have further heightened Google’s interest in predatory lending practices.

Consumers might not realize it, but Google—and other ad-supported search engines—have been making editorial decisions about the types of ads they will carry for years. These companies won the right to reject ads they consider objectionable in 2007, when a Delaware district court ruled that constitutional free-speech guarantees don’t apply to search engines since they are for-profit companies and not “state actors.” The decision cited earlier cases that upheld newspapers’ rights to decide which ads to run.

Google currently prohibits ads for “dangerous,” “dishonest,” and “offensive” content, such as recreational drugs, weapons, and tobacco products; fake documents and academic cheating services; and hate-group paraphernalia. Google also restricts ads for content it deems legally or culturally sensitive, such as adult-oriented, gambling-related, and political content; alcoholic beverages; and health care and medicine. It may require additional information from these advertisers and limit placement to certain geographical locations.

Legal experts aren’t uniformly comfortable with Google’s taking on this role. While the University of Maryland’s Pasquale supports Google’s decision to add online payday loans to its restricted list as a benefit to consumers, University of Connecticut law professor James Kwak thinks Google is overreaching. Given the company’s dominance—it is estimated to have a 55 percent share of the $86.2 billion global market for search ads—Kwak thinks Google is essentially exercising regulatory authority when it bans certain ads and should be subject to scrutiny on the grounds that it might be violating First Amendment protections on free speech.

“The question is, ‘When does something have so much control over the dissemination of ideas that it should be treated as part of the government?’” says Kwak. “This is a company with enormous power that’s using that power to affect other industries.”

Now that Google has agreed to ban a category of ads, partly on the basis of community advocacy, will people expect it to block other ads that cause public harm? And since Google has committed to policing its payday loan ads, shouldn’t it take responsibility for other potentially unethical ads that it runs?

Consider for-profit colleges and services for relief of student debt. Google has not instituted special regulations for such ads even though both entities are widely believed to capitalize on consumers’ confusion and hurt more people than they help.

Logan Koepke, an analyst at Upturn, a technology law and policy consultancy that published an influential 2015 report about online payday loans, thinks Google’s decision may set a precedent for consumer advocates to seek to shape companies’ ad policies.

Some people aren’t comfortable with Google as the final arbiter on these topics. Kwak, for one, would like to see greater transparency surrounding such decisions. He suggests that Google hire a group of economists or social scientists to identify deceptive products being advertised online, or perhaps work with the CFPB to determine the most exploitative financial products.

Pasquale also favors some form of public or government scrutiny to ensure that such decisions are being made in the public interest and not for commercial reasons favoring Google. That’s relevant to the payday loan issue since some people have speculated that the ban will benefit LendUp, an online lender that describes itself as a “payday loan alternative” and is funded by Google Ventures, the investment division of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

LendUp has pointed out, though, that its ads will be subject to Google’s ad ban, just like those of other lenders.

Bedoya understands why Google’s clout and reach make people uneasy, but he says, “The reality is, these companies had tremendous power before this decision and will have tremendous power after it. The key is to encourage them to use their position in a way that’s not harmful.”

Banks may face formal inquiry into whether they can refuse to reimburse victims conned into transferring money into fraudsters’ accounts

UK banks should do more to protect customers tricked into transferring money to fraudsters, according to a consumer body that has lodged a “supercomplaint” with financial regulators. The move by Which? means banks could now face a formal investigation into whether they can continue refusing to reimburse victims.

The organisation submitted its first supercomplaint this year in the same week that official data revealed that fraud in the UK payments industry had soared by 53% as criminals develop increasingly sophisticated tactics to steal bank customers’ cash.

Which? said banks should “shoulder more responsibility” when someone is conned into transferring money to another person’s account, just as they reimburse customers who lose money due to scams involving debit and credit cards or fraudulent account activity.

Some customers have lost considerable sums. In March this year the Guardian featured the case of Sarah and David Fisher, who were conned out of £25,000 after a fraudster posed as their builder and emailed them a fake invoice that was virtually identical to the one they were expecting.

The explosion in online and mobile banking means UK consumers now make more than 70m bank transfers a month, compared with just over 100m in a whole year just a decade ago. Which? claims that “protections have not kept up”.

Using its legal powers, the organisation has submitted a supercomplaint to the Payment Systems Regulator, the watchdog for the UK’s £75tn payment systems industry, which must now respond within 90 days.

There are many financial frauds that directly target customers, such as phishing emails and phone- and text-based scams. However, among the biggest growth areas are impersonation and deception scams where fraudsters hack into someone’s email account and then pose as the builder, solicitor, landscape gardener or other tradesperson that the consumer has legitimately employed. Typically, the victim receives an invoice via email, which does not rouse suspicion because they were expecting it. It looks authentic and is usually for the correct amount – however, unbeknown to the consumer, the bank account number and sort code have been changed to those of the fraudster.

This is what happened to the Fishers, from north-west London. Last October they received a genuine invoice for building work that was being carried out, then what appeared to be a follow-up email from the same firm with a fresh invoice attached that included “our new banking details”. The couple duly paid the requested £25,000, and while it quickly emerged they had been scammed, by the time the bank that operated the account used to accept their money was alerted, the cash had been withdrawn.

Almost a year after the incident, they have yet to recover a penny of their money. Sarah Fisher, a record label manager, told the Guardian this week that the police had identified the fraudster as someone living in Denmark. As a result, the case was “not being progressed” and had effectively come to a halt.

She added: “We took it to the financial ombudsman, who said that Barclays [which operated the account] had not behaved improperly.” However, she said their MP, Tulip Siddiq, had said the case raised important issues and intended to pursue the matter in parliament.

Victims conned in this way currently have no legal right to get their money back from their bank, said Which?. Banks typically refuse to refund customers on the basis that they made the payment voluntarily. However, Which? said: “Consumers can only protect themselves so far. People cannot be expected to detect complex scams pressuring them to transfer money immediately, or lookalike bills from their solicitor or builder.”

The organisation said banks had invested in security systems to detect and prevent fraud where they were liable to reimburse the victim, but added: “There aren’t sufficient checks if someone is tricked into transferring money directly to another person’s account.”

Which? said it wanted the regulators to formally investigate the scale of bank transfer fraud and how much it was costing consumers, and propose new measures and greater liability for banks to ensure consumers are better protected.

The Payment Systems Regulator confirmed that it had received the supercomplaint and said it would examine the evidence Which? had supplied and gather its own, “to build a clearer picture of the issue and decide a course of action”.

Possible outcomes might include regulatory action, a review or a referral of the complaint to another body.

There's been an alarming number of phishing scams identified this year and these emails are getting more clever and realistic than ever.

The latest phishing email you need to keep an eye out for disguises itself as an iTunes email. Much like the Amazon phishing scam we showed you, this email claims that you have been overcharged for a download purchase, $25 for one song, which is usually $1.99 or less, or $45 for the Netflix app.

The email will show you a very official-looking billing statement and will encourage you to click a link that says, "Cancel andx Manage Subscriptions." But, because you're a Komando.com reader, you'll notice the typo in the link and know that's red flag number one.

Whatever you do, don't click that link. It could take you to a malicious site that can steal all of your valuable information, then it's game over.

If you think you really might have been overcharged, check your bank statements first before clicking any links.

Just being in the know about these emails is step one. There are other steps you can take to keep yourself safe from these phishing attempts. If you see an email like this in your inbox:

- Be sure to exercise caution before you click on anything. Hover over any links and see where they direct before you click. If the links provided go to a website, don't click it. Navigate to the company's site yourself without the link.

- Take some time and try to spot the typos.

- If you're not sure that you can spot the signs, click here to take our phishing IQ test to see how many stand out to you.

- Practice multi-level authentication, which means you have at least two forms of verification, such as a password and a security question before you log into any sensitive accounts.

- Another thing is to have an internet security system. We recommend our sponsor Kaspersky Lab. Software from Kaspersky Lab can recognize and block ransomware. Even if it's a new version or unknown version of a ransomware, Kaspersky Lab can figure out that the program is doing something it shouldn't. Kaspersky Lab will stop it from running and will roll back any files that were encrypted to a previous non-encrypted version. Of course, Kaspersky Lab software also helps filter out and warn you about phishing scams, so your odds of downloading a ransomware virus are slim. Get this protection, and so much more, with Kaspersky Total Security.

The hugely popular hit HBO show "Game of Thrones" was the most pirated program in 2015. It's been a constant problem for HBO and the company often has to send out warning emails to users and take down demands to torrent sites.

But now, even if you're not pirating "Game of Thrones" you could get one of these notices - but it's not what it seems. Scammers have started to send spoof warning emails from HBO in order to get victims to to send over some serious cash.

The spoof emails instruct the victim to pay a few hundred dollars as part of a settlement for being caught pirating Season 6, Episode 10 of "Game of Thrones." The email reads:

"On this regard, request is hereby made that you and all persons using this account immediately and permanently cease and desist the unauthorized copying and/or distribution of the Work listed in this notice. You may also be liable for monetary damages, including court costs and/or attorney fees if a lawsuit is commenced against you."

The email later says you only have 72 hours to complete your settlement, otherwise further legal action will be taken.

The email is very convincing and could fool nearly everyone. It is professionally-worded and has minimal typos. So in this case, the best defense might be knowing what HBO's real cease and desist letters look like:

It's important to note that the real cease and desist letter doesn't demand money and there's no time limit. It also specifically names the IP address, whereas the fake email doesn't.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STAY SAFE

Scammers are getting trickier by the day, so you'll have to stay one step ahead of them. One way to do this is to know the warning signs and red flags to look for before clicking on any links or sending out any sensitive information.

- Keep an eye out for typos and bad grammar.

- Be able to identify where the email is coming from.

- Hover your mouse over any links before you click to see where they are pointing.

- Click here to take the Phishing Email quiz to see if you can spot all the warning signs of a phishing scam.

- Be wary of email-only wire transfer requests and requests involving urgency.

- Be cautious of mimicked email addresses.

- Practice multi-level authentication.

- Protect yourself with online security software. We recommend our sponsor, Kaspersky Lab, which offers software that helps to filter out and warn you about phishing scams, so your odds of being tricked are slim. Kaspersky Total Security can recognize and block malicious links and Trojan programs, and covers up to five devices on one license. Buy it today and save 50%.

Scammers have been worming their way into giant social media networks to trick people into giving over their personal and financial information.

Over the past year, the number of phishing attempts on social media networks like Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Instagram and LinkedIn (LNKD, Tech30) has exploded 150%, experts at security firm Proofpoint (PFPT) say.

That's because fraudsters can use social media to target hundreds of thousands of people at once, but also blend in with the crowd. They mimic users and their activities, and they take advantage of the way people use social media to deal with business problems.

Here are five of the most cleverly cloaked scams on social media right now, according to Proofpoint:

1. Fake customer service accounts on Twitter

Online criminals set up fake customer service accounts to phish for bank login and password information and other sensitive data. These imposter accounts look very similar to that of real businesses, but are often one character off -- or they include an extra underscore or other keyboard character.

When someone tweets at their bank or example, scam artists will intercept the conversation, and reply to that message with what seems like an authentic answer.

1. Fake comments on popular posts

A popular news story or social media post might generate a lot of comments. Fraudsters like to take advantage of that large audience by adding their own comments with links to other buzzy headlines that lead to credit card phishing scams.

1. Fake live-stream videos

As more media companies start streaming their shows and movies online, scammers are jumping on the bandwagon.

They do things like comment on the Facebook page of a sports team with a link that leads people to believe they can watch a free live stream of a game. But the links lead to a fake website that asks for personal information in order to start the video, which very often doesn't exist.

1. Fake online discounts

Fake online discounts work similarly to fake customer service accounts. Schemers will set up social media accounts that look like legit businesses, then pretend to offer a real promotion. In reality, they want to trick people into giving up their personal information.

1. Fake online surveys and contests

These tactics have been around for years and are designed to get answers to personal questions that fraudsters can mine and sell later. But criminals embed them into social media posts that often look legit because there's a normal looking profile picture and link, thanks to URL shorteners.

Geography

Location:East Coast of Central America, bounded on the North by Mexico, on the South and West by Guatemala, and on the East by the Caribbean Sea

Capital and Major City & Towns: (Capital) Belmopan City ; (City) Belize City, (Towns) San Ignacio, Santa Elena, Corozal, Orange Walk, Dangriga, Punta Gorda, San Pedro and Benque Viejo del Carmen

Climate: Subtropical (dry and wet season)

Rainfall: Annual rainfall ranges from 60 inches in the North to 200 inches in the South

Land Area: 22,923 km. sq. or 8,867 sq. miles

People & Society

Nationality: Belizean

Official Language: English. Spanish is also widely spoken. There are also a number of indigenous languages e.g. Creole, Garifuna, Maya and Ketchi.

Total Population: 282,600 – (2004 mid-year estimates)

Density of Population: 31.9 – (2004)

Labour Force: 102,437 – (2003 LFS Survey)

Literacy Rate: 76.5 – (2000)

Religions: Predominantly Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. Small groups practise Islam, Buddhist, Hinduism and Bahai

Government

Form of Government: Democratic – Bicameral Legislature

Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II

Governor-General: Sir Colville N. Young Sr.

Head of Government: Prime Minister, Hon. Dean O. Barrow

Governing Party: United Democratic Party (UDP) 2013 – 2018

Next Election: By August 2018

Independence Day: September 21, 1981.

Business Hours: Government working hours: 8:00 am – Noon, 1:00 pm – 5:00pm (4:30 on Fridays) Banking: Mon. to Thur 8:00 am – 3:00 pm

Economy

Currency: Belize Dollar (Bz$)

Exchange Rate: US$1=Bz$2.00

Gross Domestic Product: US$673.5mn (1999)

Per Capita GDP: US$2,771.6 (1999)

Chief Products: Citrus, bananas, sugar, marine products, rice, red kidney beans, beef, pork, poultry, honey, garment, aerated beverages, alcoholic beverages, wheat flour, cigarettes.

Foreign Trade: Exports – US$166mn (1999); Imports – US$370mn(1999)

Principal Exports: Citrus, bananas, sugar, marine products, garments, and timber

Principal Imports: Machinery and transport equipment, manufactured goods, food and beverages, construction materials, fuel, and lubricants.

Major Trading Partners: The United States of America, United Kingdom, CARICOM, Guatemala, Mexico and Canada

Fuels: Lubricants and gas; all imported

Electricity Cost: US$0.19/Kwh. After the second phase of the Mollejon hydro project is completed, the electricity rate will decrease

Electric Power: Belize Electricity Limited; Voltage 110 Volts, Optional 220 Volts; Cost of Kwh: Bz$ 0.38(US$0.19). Type of Generating: Diesel. Continuity: 90% – 95%. Industrial Rate is available.

Telecommunications: All automatic systems: Direct dialing with major countries in the world. Telexes, faxes, cellular, email and internet are also readily available.

Other

Time zone: EST -1; GMT – 6

Phone Codes: Belize City (22), Belmopan (82), Orange Walk (32), Cayo (82), Dangriga (52), Punta Gorda (72), San Pedro (22), Caye Caulker (22), Placencia (52)

Major Ports: Belize City, Big Creek and Dangriga.

Major International Airport: Phillip S. W. Goldson International, 8 miles WNW of Belize City.

Entry Requirements: A valid passport is required of all visitors. Citizens of the United Kingdom, some Commonwealth countries, the European Union and the USA are not required to have a visa, provided they have a return or round trip ticket.

Departure Tax: Passengers who are nationals over 12 years pay US$11.25 and US$15.00 for non-nationals.

The International Financial Securities Regulatory Commission was established to promote investor confidence in the securities and capital markets by providing more structure and government oversight.

Because some companies have limited liability, the protection of shareholders, members and third parties dealing with these companies is of special importance. With the Accounting Directive, Member States are given direction on the reporting by such companies.

The Directive addresses the presentation and content of the annual or consolidated financial statements, of the management reports, of the measurement bases used and of publication. With this shared set of principles, non-IFRS financial statements in the EU are not only of high quality, but also comparable to a great extent.

The International Financial Securities Regulatory Commission was established to promote investor confidence in the securities and capital markets by providing more structure and government oversight.

Welcome to Gantz Associates

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst.” – Aristotle

Have you read the fine print on your life? It’s everywhere – in the details of the contract you signed to buy your house, in your employer agreement, in your mortgage, in your credit card agreement, in your car lease, in the details of your life insurance policy.

Most of us take the time to read the words, but we may not know what they mean. Much of the fine print is confusing and complicated.

Gantz Associates is the law firm for real people. We help hard-working Americans prevent the dark spiral of losing homes to foreclosure. We guide people in navigating the sticky web of social security disability, estate planning, bankruptcy and other issues affecting people in their daily lives.

We help you stay afloat. We save all that you’ve worked so hard to achieve.

“We’re here to help you,” says Adam J. Gantz, founder and managing partner of Gantz Associates. “We care about saving our clients from unimaginable loss. Every day we are dedicated to achieving this so that you can live the American dream.”

Gantz Associates provides thorough legal representation to hardworking, but financially challenged, citizens at discounted rates.

5 Tips to Protect Yourself from Online Travel Booking Scams

Thanks to the Internet, booking travel online is simple. But as your ideas of a spring break or summer vacation take shape, remember to be cautious when making reservations online. The number of phony travel booking websites is growing because they’re so successful at scamming consumers. Learn what to do so you don’t take a quick trip to Fraudville instead of your dream destination.

Fake Travel Reservation Websites

According to estimates by the American Hotel & Lodging Association (link is external), approximately 15 million online hotel reservations are made on bogus third-party sites every year. These rogue websites trick people into thinking they’re reserving directly with their hotel of choice. Instead, the victims are making reservations on phony sites set up to steal their money, credit card information, and dreams of a relaxing overnight stay. With cybercriminals pocketing more than $1.3 billion in fake hotel reservations, consumers need to beware when booking hotel rooms and other travel reservations online — such as for airline flights and rental cars, too.

How to Avoid Online Travel Reservation Scams

1.Go directly to the official website of the hotel, airline, or rental car agency to book your reservations. It should have “HTTPS” in the URL. If you’re not sure you’re on a real site, call the company to verify. Or try Norton Safe Web to find out if a website is safe, for free.

2.If you decide to use a third-party site, choose a well-known and reputable brand.

3.Get recommendations for trusted travel companies or sites from your network of friends and family. If you’re ever uncertain about if a company is legitimate, check with the Better Business Bureau (link is external).

4.Use a credit card instead of a debit card to book online. In case the website is phony, you won’t have given the cyber criminals direct access to your bank account. Many credit card companies offer fraud protection.

5.After you make an online reservation, always call the company afterward to confirm. If there is no record of your reservation, it’s better to know sooner rather than later. You’ll be able to alert your credit card company, report the fraud, and still have time to book reservations with the real deal.