RE: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis

["T.Rob" < >]

At the suggestion of a list member I reworded a couple of sentences in the
post.  We do not have a good word for the type of violation that occurs when
someone forcibly invades your personal digital space, against your will and
over your strongly voiced objections.  It isn't blackmail or bribery.
Coercion doesn't begin to come close to describing it.  When it is in the
real world and sexual we call it rape.  If you imagine being surrounded by a
mob of aggressive marketers, all vying to get close enough to shove their
message down your throat, rape may seem a good analogy.  It did to me at
that moment.

However, if you've experienced that in the physical world the digital
equivalent nothing else deserves to share the word.  Rather than diminish
the word any further with the analogy, I've updated the post to compare
Marketers to a horde of mindless zombies relentlessly pursuing you to get a
piece of your brain.  We're back to something that falls far short of
describing the violation of a Marketer bypassing consumer-side controls to
surveill you, while asserting (and apparently believing) that they have an
absolute right to exploit you in this way.  

So it's slightly less strong shit.  But thanks for the tweet. :-)

Kind regards,
-- T.Rob

T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
IoPT Consulting, LLC
+1 704-443-TROB
https://ioptconsulting.com
https://twitter.com/tdotrob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doc Searls 
> [mailto:
 ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 17:25 PM
> To: T.Rob
> Cc: ProjectVRM list
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis
> 
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:15 PM, T.Rob 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> >> The marketing industry as a whole can never address the integrity
> >> issue, because there's always someone who's willing to be a little
> >> creepier, a little closer to the edge.
> >
> > Let's hope that isn't true.  The problem is they lost sight of their
> mission.  More thoughts here: http://iopt.us/1wq8LSW   (At 1805 words it's
> a short one for me.)
> 
> For some reason my tweet about this doesn't show in my timeline, or the
> timeline of the one guy who retweeted it. But here is what it said:
> 
> @tdotrob: The Marketing/Cybercrime Symbiosis: http://bit.ly/1o4297w
> Strong shit. #VRM #marketing #security #privacy
> 
> >> The question is how many of the high- reputation brand advertisers
> >> will split off from the bottom-feeders.
> >
> > The most recent exploit in the news wasn't bottom feeders.  The entire
> model based on circumventing consumer controls is indistinguishable from
> malware.  It is in fact nothing more than legal malware.
> 
> That's a pull-quote.
> 
> Doc
> 
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > -- T.Rob
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Don Marti 
> >> [mailto:
 ]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:20 AM
> >> To: Katherine Warman Kern
> >> Cc: T.Rob; 
> >> <
 >
> >> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis
> >>
> >> The marketing industry as a whole can never address the integrity
> >> issue, because there's always someone who's willing to be a little
> >> creepier, a little closer to the edge.  The question is how many of
> >> the high- reputation brand advertisers will split off from the bottom-
> feeders.
> >>
> >> A little history... We had a good tool against email
> >> spam: a broad "private right of action"
> >> in state antispam laws such as Washington's CEMA (
> >> http://www.dwt.com/advisories/9th_Circuit_Deals_Blow_to_Professional_
> >> CANSP
> >> AM_Complaint_Mills_08_10_2009/
> >> ).  The federal CAN-SPAM law, backed by the Direct Marketing
> >> Association, pre-empted state antispam laws and we lost private right
> of action.
> >>
> >> Yes, the DMA sided with spammers over its own members who send legit,
> >> opt- in marketing email.
> >>
> >> The same thing is happening now with the IAB and the creepy ads.
> >> Existing organizations such as the DMA and IAB have been captured by
> >> the intermediaries who sit between advertisers and content creators.
> >>
> >> There's a growing recognition from both "ends" that the "middle"
> >> isn't working.  The question is how to connect dissatisfied web
> >> publishers to dissatisfied brand advertisers without the creepy stuff
> in the middle.
> >> Doc covers the problem here:
> >>
> >>  http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/09/16/giving-respect-to-brand-
> >> advertising/
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> begin Katherine Warman Kern quotation of Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at
> >> 06:49:33AM -
> >> 0400:
> >>>
> >>> T.Rob, I wish there were a way to convince the marketing industry to
> >> address the integrity issue. The huge volume of both intentionally
> >> malicious and unintentionally intrusive marketing makes it more and
> >> more difficult and expensive for an advertiser with integrity to stand
> out.
> >>>
> >>> K-
> >>> Katherine Warman Kern
> >>> @comradity
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:01 PM, "T.Rob" 
> >>>> <
 >
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>> https://ioptconsulting.com
> >>>> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Don Marti
> >> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> >> 
 
> >