×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

420,000 Scam E-mails Sent Every Hour In UK Alone

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-clicking-you-fools dept.

Security 71

An anonymous reader writes "More than 420,000 scam e-mails are sent every hour in the UK, according to a report by CPP, which estimates that Brits were targeted by 3.7 billion phishing e-mails in the last 12 months alone. A quarter of us admit to falling victim to e-fraudsters, with the average victim losing over GBP285. Fake banking e-mails are the most common method used by criminals, with 55% of those targeted receiving seemingly legitimate e-correspondence from high street banks."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

71 comments

Those Numbers Are Suspect (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589510)

A quarter of us admit to falling victim to e-fraudsters ...

Okay so the population of the UK is what? Sixty million? So a quarter of that would be fifteen million. Fifteen million victims.

... with the average victim losing over GBP285.

Okay the details in the article are scant but I assume they are talking about the mean and not the median. If that's true then 285*(1.5*10^7) = over four billion quid? And that's about six billion USD.

My gut reaction is to question this survey or whatever means they used to collect the above information. I can't find anything but this news article on their site [cpp.co.uk], anybody have a link to the original report so we can inspect their methods?

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (3, Insightful)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589538)

I gotta wonder how many British internet/email users are kind of naive to the nature of the crime. I mean even my 58 year old mother has heard of two or three of the common phishing types. That sounds like a high number of victims to me. Maybe I'm misreading the author's intent.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32592164)

I mean even my 58 year old mother has heard of two or three of the common phishing types.

Since most of the modern mail clients have some reasonably successful way of flagging or ditching suspicious emails (given that most reputable ISPs filter the most egregious examples to /dev/null), she usually won't even need to think about it these days.

It might be unfashionable to say this, but there's a lot to be said for running a localhost-based email client (e.g. thunderfart or whatever works for you) rather than the web-based options offered by gmail, yahoo and all the rest. Not to mention that you have an archive of your emails if your internet connection breaks...

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589556)

They probably did an email survey with subject "Have you been scammed?". 28% that answer useless unsolicited mail probably have been scammed.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589696)

They probably did an email survey with subject "Have you been scammed?". 28% that answer useless unsolicited mail probably have been scammed.

They were probably disappointed that the second line didn't read "The Nigerian government have a compensation scheme. Our records show that you are entitled to $20,000 thousand US dollars. Email me at ministeroffinance152342@hotmail.com for details of how to make a claim."

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590038)

Our records show that you are entitled to $20,000 thousand US dollars. Email me at ministeroffinance152342@hotmail.com for details of how to make a claim.

I'm surprised that doesn't go to the Redundancy Minister of Redundancy instead.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32589814)

"They probably did an email survey with subject "Have you been scammed?""

----
Have you been scammed?

Click here to find out more!

[clicks on link]

Congratulations! Now you have been.
----

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589836)

Yeah, I got one of those email surveys. I only had to pay $10 to find out whether I had been scammed in the last 12 months. Unfortunately, they replied back that I had, though they didn't give any details about when. I'm still trying to figure it out.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589964)

Yeah, I got one of those email surveys. I only had to pay $10 to find out whether I had been scammed in the last 12 months. Unfortunately, they replied back that I had, though they didn't give any details about when. I'm still trying to figure it out.

But if they told you that you had and they were scamming you then it was not a scam ...... but that would mean that they told you the wrong answer, in which case it was a scam .... so the answer was right ..... my brain hurts (stack overflow).

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (-1, Redundant)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590074)

Whoooooooshh!

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32590520)

it's not necessary to post every sound you hear to slashdot.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32590912)

Nope, but posting when hearing the whoosh sound is tradition...

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32591330)

Nope, but posting when hearing the whoosh sound is tradition...

Only in response to a post where the author obviously didn't get it.

In this case, Chrisg obviously DID 'get it', and plankrwf fails it as only a completely misplaced 'Whoosh' can fail.

A misplaced 'Whoosh' ranks right up there with a 'first post' that isn't first in Zontar's Book of Fail.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32590116)

Seeing as how you are a brit, could you clarify something for me?

We get V1Ag4A spam in our mail, do you happen to get t00thp4st3 spam? I've always wondered about that.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (2, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590362)

Indeed we do. Clinical testing has proven that when applied to the "mini-me" orally by your wives, erectile performance improves dramatically.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590794)

Clinical testing has proven that when applied to the "mini-me" orally by your wives,

Whoa... polygamy is legal in the UK? I never figured you guys would be down with that.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32589684)

For only £29.95 I'll mail you my *FREE* pamphlet "Great British E-Mail Scam of the Elizabethan Age and How to Profit By Them in This Age of Innocence". -Jonathan Swift, Managing Director, Barclays Bank PLC.

Re:Those Numbers Are Suspect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32590064)

Okay so the population of the UK is what? Sixty million?

Maybe, after all the immigrants have been kicked out.

I wonder... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589524)

...how long until the general public has caught on to the point where Spam is no longer profitable? Then again, I would assume the costs associated with it are fairly low...

Still, how are people dumb enough (or just ignorant enough) to click on spam in 20-freakin-10?

Re:I wonder... (3, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589544)

Instead of waiting for the general public to catch on, which simply is not going to happen, a better question would be how long is it going to be before ISPs and providers update email protocols so that fake emails are simply not possible (or at least make it a lot harder than it is now)?

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32591646)

Instead of waiting for the general public to catch on, which simply is not going to happen, a better question would be how long is it going to be before ISPs and providers update email protocols so that fake emails are simply not possible (or at least make it a lot harder than it is now)?

Anonymity > Some idiot who gets scammed.

Re:I wonder... (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589576)

I think it's sensible to make a separation between phishing and other spam. If you click on an email advertising V14GR4, I'm quite happy to stamp 'Moron' across your forehead and be done with it. I wouldn't be nearly so hard on someone who gets a message which is identical to previous correspondence from their bank, but contains a link to l|oydstsb.com rather than lloydstsb.com, for example.

Of course, even the best phishing email is useless against a well educated user, and I think the 25% figure sounds very high, but I can somewhat sympathise with those who fall for a well-crafted phishing scam in a way that I can't for those who end up on the wrong end of a semi-literate 419 email.

The fact that sites like PayPal sometimes do send out real messages with all the hallmarks of a scam also serves to confuse issues. I seem to recall that this [paypal-marketing.co.uk] site is, in fact, legit.

Re:I wonder... (4, Insightful)

internewt (640704) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589772)

The fact that sites like PayPal sometimes do send out real messages with all the hallmarks of a scam also serves to confuse issues. I seem to recall that this [paypal-marketing.co.uk] site is, in fact, legit.

The holy grail of business is to turn costs into profits. Whilst spam, phishing, owned accounts, etc. look like costs to Paypal, they will very much be looking to change those to profits if possible.

I don't use paypal, as it has always reeked as far as I am concerned, but as I understand it they will freeze accounts at the drop of a hat, for various reasons. If they have just 1% of accounts frozen at any one time, that will be a decent chunk of cash, and they can earn interest on it, and all the other shit capitalists can do when they have capital.

So is it in PP's interests to freeze accounts? If so, they need excuses, and security is always a good-un. They might not purposefully confuse users, they just give the ones willing to take the wrong end of the stick, the wrong end of the stick. PP sending out emails that look like scam emails is just them offering "the wrong end of the stick".

To geeks, it should be pretty straight forward - always, always, always, use the paypal.com domain for anything PP related. Never have other domain names. The drive for profit comes along though, and PP want to totally fill search results for escrow (or whatever) to drown out the competition. Or more importantly, those dirty commies looking to be critical of paypal, or their industry.

Re:I wonder... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32592426)

I don't use paypal, as it has always reeked as far as I am concerned, but as I understand it they will freeze accounts at the drop of a hat, for various reasons.

The latter has always bothered me, but still Paypal does offer a very useful service. My take on it is that a wise shopkeeper doesn't leave his day's takings sitting in the till, he puts them in the hands of someone he can trust (his bank, or in a safe). He doesn't leave them sitting there for some opportunist to come and snatch away.

I don't connect my paypal account to anything that will bankrupt (or even significantly inconvenience) me, so I figure I'm OK. There have been cases where organisations have run into cash-flow problems when dealing with paypal, but I have little sympathy for them.

Paypal never was intended to be more than a clearing-house for funds. Treating it as a bank is just foolish.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#32595068)

he puts them in the hands of someone he can trust (his bank,

As a Brit, I assure you that a UK bank is not somewhere you can trust if you run a business. I'd rather do business with the mafia - at least they are honest about being criminals.

Re:I wonder... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32598644)

Banks are not perfect, but if they freeze your funds you at least have the option of smashing your local manager's kneecaps. With Paypal you have to work hard to even find someone to complain to, and no guarantee that he'll listen.

Re:I wonder... (3, Informative)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589610)

People who I've witnessed who got suckered:

Elderly people. They have this attitude that because the offer showed up on their machine, it must be legit. Older folks are a bit more trusting - generally speaking. Of course, that's a generalization. My Dad is one hell of a cynic and when he die and if there's a Heaven, St. Peter is going to get a lot of shit. "How do I know this is really Heaven? Put it in writing!"

Uneducated people. These are also the people who buy shit from infomercials that will "cleanse their colon" and attend hotel ball room "lectures" on how to make hundreds of thousands of dollars trading stocks - all you have to do is pay $1200 for their "special" trading program. Of course, there are some really street smart uneducated people who get one over on MBAs - so I'm speaking about my experiences, only.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589740)

Uneducated people. These are also the people who buy shit from infomercials that will "cleanse their colon" and attend hotel ball room "lectures" on how to make hundreds of thousands of dollars trading stocks - all you have to do is pay $1200 for their "special" trading program. Of course, there are some really street smart uneducated people who get one over on MBAs - so I'm speaking about my experiences, only.

I think the "street smart" is more important than educated. I worked with a really intelligent guy, a brilliant systems programmer who signed up for timeshare he couldn't afford in a place he didn't want to go to because the agent convinced him that he could make a fortune in subletting the share.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590178)

> People who I've witnessed who got suckered:

Young people. They have this attitude that they can safely put all sorts of private and embarrassing stuff up on FaceSpace because they are "streetsmart" and know how to twiddle the privacy settings so that only their "friends" can see it.

Educated people. These are also the people who paid $40,000 for a car with an electric transmission because it was "green" and Japanese rather than a $10,000 Chevy that got better mileage. They also got sucked into the "fair trade" scam.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32592002)

These are also the people who paid $40,000 for a car with an electric transmission because it was "green" and Japanese rather than a $10,000 Chevy that got better mileage.

After the end of 5 years, the Japanese car is still running flawlessly, and can be sold for a good chunk of what you paid for it, or ran for years to come.

At the end of the same 5 years, the American car is falling apart, rusted, and worth about 10-15% of what you paid for it.

The Japanese car will have infinitely more fit and finish, and overall feel better constructed, and better appointed. The American car will have buttons in random spots, and design decisions that completely baffle you. The American car also can't corner worth a damn. Oh, and the sitting position feels like sitting in a garden pail.

In short, American made cars are crap. Almost everyone I know has who has bought a car in the last decade opted to buy Japanese (or even Korean) over a US made car, because it's a better car. The only people buying American are buying crappy entry-level cars, or want big lumbering things like a Dodge Charger.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589926)

how long until the general public has caught on to the point where Spam is no longer profitable

You're assuming the scammers and the emailers are one and the same.

Much more likely you have the scammers fronting some money to the emailers. As long as theres one scammer out there with a hairbrained business plan, the emailers will be hired and put to work.

Don't know if the UK situation is similar to the US situation, but in the US its almost a stereotype that some percentage of people whom take out home equity lines of credit set up a retail store, despite the complete lack of experience, selling stuff like "pirate products", "decorative candles", cupcakes, small restaurants, etc. Then six months later when the seed cash is gone they fold and file personal bankruptcy.

Interestingly, the local cops thought it so unusual that the local candle store was still open for business after about three years, that they investigated it, and it seems the candle store was selling weed on the side, Busted!

Re:I wonder... (3, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590170)

how are people dumb enough (or just ignorant enough) to click on spam in 20-freakin-10?

Not spam, phishing.

I used to receive barely literate mail shots, with my bank's domain in the "From:" field. Tracking back the IP revealed that the sender was a 3rd party with a domain registered to a caravan (trailer) park.

When I reported this to my bank as either a phishing attempt, or breathtakingly bad practice on their part, I got a snotty reply saying that this was a genuine mailshot via a 3rd party, and that this (by which they implicitly meant "faking headers") was standard practice. They genuinely could not understand why I had a problem with them sending out exactly the sort of faked email that they were regularly warning me about.

Needless to say, I changed banks shorty afterwards, but the lesson is that the line between legit and fraudulent is thin and wiggly.

Precisely! (1)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589572)

This is precisely why I've gone back to smoke signals!

I'd try telegraphy if I could be assured that no Viagra ads would come my way or that yon' government agencies would not intercept...

Cheers!

--Stak

Re:Precisely! (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589758)

This is precisely why I've gone back to smoke signals!

I just traded a deer carcase for the promise of a new bow and a lifetime supply of arrows you insensitive clod.

Sent? or Received? (2, Insightful)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589586)

"420,000 scam e-mails are sent every hour in the UK"....?

Surely it means that these emails are received? They are not all generated in the UK.

Well, not the ones I get, which clearly use poor English or American spellings. (Note that I distinguish between the two.)

A small industry behind scam emails (2, Insightful)

OutputLogic (1566511) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589630)

Obviously, there is a small industry behind scam emails: people that harvest emails, ones that come up with "scam campaigns" (fake pay-pal or citibank solicitations), developers, IT to maintain servers, etc. It's hard to imagine that 420K scam emails an hour in UK alone are sent by a few amateurs.

Re:A small industry behind scam emails (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589706)

Actually, I don't have a huge problem believing it's a relatively small number of people doing it. The initial emails at least are most certainly NOT sent out by means of someone clicking "New message", filling in the To:, subject: and content and hitting send.

Re:A small industry behind scam emails (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590244)

> Actually, I don't have a huge problem believing it's a relatively small
> number of people doing it.

It's a large number of people doing it (unknowingly).

> The initial emails at least are most certainly NOT sent out by means of
> someone clicking "New message", filling in the To:, subject: and content and
> hitting send.

No. They just turn on their pcs. The bot handles all the details in the background.

Blame the bank, not the user (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589726)

I could be sent a phishing email. I could click the link. I could provide the phisher with 3 numbers from my pin, and 4 characters from my password. Over time, I could provide them with the whole PIN and password.

What could they do with this information?

Pay my bills and nothing more.

Why?

Because I have a card reader that provides an encrypted string after I provide it with my chipped card, PIN and a string from the website. I need to do this for every new transaction.

I still believe that only the greedy get scammed.

Re:Blame the bank, not the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32589856)

So what, I've got two card readers, I guess that makes me twice as safe.

Or the phishing email will just inform you of the changes in the security system, database upgrades, fraud has been detected on your account or whatever to trick you into using you card reader as part of the login.

Re:Blame the bank, not the user (2, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589932)

Why? Because I have a card reader that provides an encrypted string after I provide it with my chipped card, PIN and a string from the website. I need to do this for every new transaction. I still believe that only the greedy get scammed.

Unfortunately you might need to re-sync [nationwide.co.uk] it to gain the full security benefits.

Seriously there is one thing that is terribly wrong with these card readers. They are a gift to muggers. They can be used to verify the pin for a credit or debit card - even ones from other issuers. They don't even have to risk marching you to a cashpoint and forcing you to withdraw money, they can do it all from the comfort of their own crack-house. I complained to the bank and they pointed out that a card would be locked out after three wrong attempts. After two broken fingers I think most people would think twice before using this feature.

Re:Blame the bank, not the user (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32592572)

Seriously there is one thing that is terribly wrong with these card readers. They are a gift to muggers

The real problem is with fraudulent card use over time. Most debit cards have a withdrawal limit of £300/day. If you get mugged, you may lose £300. Go cancel the card immediately, and that's it. Fraudulent use over time is stopped if they have to know the PIN... if they know the PIN, you'll probably know that they know it.

Re:Blame the bank, not the user (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590400)

Plenty of banks don't provide this tech, and those that do tend to treat it as infallible (i.e. the blame automatically rests on the customer if the account is compromised).

Kevin Mitnick's "The Art of Deception" contains several examples of using social engineering to overcome multi-factor authentication such as this, and while they may not be worth the effort for bulk-attack phishing, they could easily have a worthwhile payoff if used against a wealthy target.

Even simpler is the option of using the phished information to drive a good old fashioned offline attack. Jeremy Clarkson posted his account number and sort code publicly [bbc.co.uk] in an effort to show that they were not sensitive information (they're on every cheque you hand out, so you'd certainly hope they aren't). He had £500 transferred from his account to charity without his consent - a fairly benign demonstration, but a proof of concept nonetheless.

Spam catching (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589776)

The best spam stopping tool is still an alert, critical mind!

Re:Spam catching (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589846)

The best spam stopping tool is still an alert, critical mind!

And that's precisely why so many people end up being scammed.

Re:Spam catching (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590220)

The best spam stopping tool is still an alert, critical mind!

Ridiculous. The mind has the consistency of blancmange. You'd need something at least as solid as tuna chunks or a crispy donut to stop spam.

Re:Spam catching (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590658)

> You'd need something at least as solid as tuna chunks or a crispy donut to
> stop spam.

Or steel plate if it is still in the can and fired from a decent beer-barrel cannon.

I almost got scammed once (2, Interesting)

dandart (1274360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32589914)

I posted an advert on Craigslist, then someone replied stating that they'd give me £410 for a £230 object if I were to send it to Africa. They faked an email from paypal, saying they'd payed, hoping I'd send it away. But fortunately I'm not stupid enough to think that emails are always real. I went to Paypal by typing the domain in, and sure enough, it was blank, and it was a fake. I emailed the person back disappointed that they'd try to scam me. The person's email (for all to block) was sndrcollins9 at gmail dott com .

Stop phishing scams! Don't be gullible.

Re:I almost got scammed once (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590042)

It is amusing that you would spell out the email (to avoid it being spammed) of someone who scammed you, what courtesy! (Or is it because of the slashdot filters? Either way, I lol'd :p

Re:I almost got scammed once (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590090)

I assumed the filters would get me. I didn't check. And of course, courtesy! I don't stoop to their level! Heh.

wow, brits arent to savy then...... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590574)

Being a brit myself, i guess i can see the humor behind this all, but my guess is pc users are missing some element of
know how when it comes to being up to date with all the security issues of today. Up to date with your AV, not opening emails with attachments....scanning every file before opening, etc, etc.... seems to me too many users are security
illiterate.

Can someone please enlighten me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32590596)

I get these stupid emails all the time. Most of them go into my "bulk mail", but I still feel compelled to go in my bulk mail folder to have a good laugh. I read the emails and wonder how stupid people can be. HOW can anybody fall for giving out personal information without visiting the company's website YOURSELF (entering the URL yourself) and how can anybody fall for the wire-transfer scam?? WHO in their right mind would wire money to someone they don't know?

Well, that's not the part I need enlightening on. WHERE are all these criminals? I've gotten ones from Africa but there are an overwhelming number of them that say they're in England. If they want you to wire money to England, I don't see how they could be lying about their location. That's what confuses me! England isn't a 3rd world country. I've always regarded Britons as equals (I'm American). So, who the hell are these people??

/. Surveys? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#32590700)

Anyone get one of those surveys asking about the utility of /.? They use your /. account details and email (from a comment posted, I guess), and how they're doing research for some university in China? (Hong Kong, actually, but China is accurate).

I never answered mine - there was a little nagging feeling at the back of my mind saying "scam!!!" which is enough to avoid it.

420,000/hour? OMG!!! That's... not very many. (1)

johndiii (229824) | more than 3 years ago | (#32591252)

One per inhabitant of the UK - every six days. I'd love to get one only every six days.

Great. Spam marketing on Slashdot. Thumbs DOWN. (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#32591514)

More than 420,000 scam emails are sent every hour in the UK according to a report by CPP which estimates that Brits were targeted by 3.7 billion phishing emails in the last 12 months alone. A quarter of us admit to falling victim to e-fraudsters, with the average victim losing over GBP285 each.

First of all. . , who exactly is "CPP"??

It took a bit of Google confusion to determine that it's this some bullshit corporate security racket...

http://www.cpp.co.uk/about-cpp/ [cpp.co.uk]

It appears that their business model is based around selling security devices and systems, featuring ID cards as one of their premier items. The interests here are just a BIT conflicted.

Second of all. . . Sorry, but as much as I think the herd is idiotic, I simply don't believe that one in four Brits is THAT stupid.

Lies, damned lies and statistics, right?

Oh whatever. If you can't work out why this is utter and complete bullshit, then further writing isn't going to make a very big difference and you probably feel like all those security cameras make you safer.

Fear-mongering bullshit ADVERTISING of this nature has no place on Slashdot.

-FL

Re:Great. Spam marketing on Slashdot. Thumbs DOWN. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32592064)

CPP eh??

The report looked something like this:

#include
#include
#include "scam.h"

void main()
{
      for(;;) {
            printf("Number of email scams this hour: %d\n",scams(time()));
            _sleep(3600);
      }
}

output:
Number of email scams this hour: 420212
Number of email scams this hour: 419494
Number of email scams this hour: 422230
Number of email scams this hour: 41^C
^C
C:\mod_this_up>

That's the scam report from CPP!!!

I spot a correlation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32592234)

420,000... high street banks...

The UK is seeing an epidemic of stoner fraud.

Makes you wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32592990)

If 420,000 scam e-mails are sent every hour in the UK, how many will it be in Nigeria?

Average? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32593432)

The "average" or mean amount is not very "meaningful" in this case (pun slightly intended), since most people do not respond to the scam so only the ones who do and end up paying money are those that skew the average. It's like identity theft: the average is whatever it may be, but the median amount lost is 0, because most people recover the losses. Most citizens would be unaffected (at least directly), so don't mislead by mentioning "the average citizen".

CPP sell ID theft insurance (1)

cmclean (230069) | more than 3 years ago | (#32593488)

They have a big stake in the market, and have one of the most pernicious, devious and downright aggressive marketing and sales tactics it's ever been my displeasure to be on the receiving end of. So don't just take those numbers with a ladle-full of salt, take them as plain "marketing bullshit dressed up as research and regurgitated by lazy publishers"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...