Recently I posted to this list a claim that marketing has become the R&D lab for cybercrime. 1. Users find ways to stay anonymous and block ads. 2. Marketing devices new adtech to circumvent user controls. 3. Cybercriminals ride the rails marketing builds. 4. Rinse, repeat. I asked whether marketing would ever voluntarily take responsibility for their role and whether there is a line that even Marketing won't cross. In other words, will Marketing ever say "just because we can doesn't mean we should" and find a business model that does not support cybercrime. To my surprise, it turns out I'd overlooked some significant activity in this area. The OTA is saying the same thing, except they are saying it to Congress: http://iopt.us/1r6io96 "According to OTA research, malvertising increased by over 200% in 2013 to over 209,000 incidents, generating over 12.4 billion malicious ad impressions." " In the absence of policy and traffic quality controls, organized crime has recognized malvertising as the “exploit of choice” because it offers the ability to be anonymous and remain undetected for days." “Failure to address these threats suggests the needs for legislation not unlike State data breach laws, requiring mandatory notification, data sharing and remediation to those who have been harmed.” Kind regards, -- T.Rob T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner IoPT Consulting, LLC +1 704-443-TROB |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.