# Great Irish Times account of a Gmail scam



## Brendan Burgess (8 Mar 2011)

Mike Milotte was thinking of buying a camera. He gmailed some of his friends about it. Next thing a banner ad appeared in his gmail account advertising  this camera. He paid €2,500 and never saw the camera or his money again. Gmail say they have no responsibility.

Read the full article [broken link removed]


----------



## Olympian (8 Mar 2011)

Salutary lesson about the dangers of internet fraud. Don't see how Google can have any liability. 

If I bought a newspaper which had an ad for a camera for €2,500 and I purchased from the advertiser who absconded with my money I can hardly expect the newspaper to rectify the fraud.


----------



## Boyd (8 Mar 2011)

Interesting scam, targeting the user's confidence that they were inside a safe sandbox i.e. their email account. 
I would however be very wary of buying something from a site for €2500 which usually costs €5000 and would do a decent amount of investigation into the company and website. I assume a whois.com would've shown the website was registered in Lithuania....
Is it not possible to claim the cash back from your credit card in this scenario though, since it is fraud (since people are always advised to make say furniture purchases on credit card to have some recourse if issue arises)?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Mar 2011)

I don't think that comparing Google to the Irish Times is appropriate. The guy mentioned a particular type of camera in his email to a friend and Google inserted a specific ad for that. I think that is very dangerous. I don't think Google is liable, but I think they need to  review how to stop this. 


> Is it not possible to claim the cash back from your credit card in this scenario though, since it is fraud



The scammers had this covered, very cleverly. 



> if I paid by credit card, they told me, there would be a 17.5 per  cent surcharge, but I could save this by transferring funds directly  from my bank to theirs.



Fair play to the author for admitting to this story publicly. Anyone could get caught by this.


----------



## Boyd (8 Mar 2011)

Ah I didnt see that, in fairness though that should've been a major red flag, as should've been any mention of transferring funds to a bank account. 17.5% surcharge for a credit card surely should sound insane to a prospective customer! Though as you say the person was honest in saying "And, if I’m honest, I didn’t want to be put off at this stage"


----------



## gianni (8 Mar 2011)

An expensive camera for half the 'normal' RRP and a request to transfer money directly into a foreign bank account...

I think there is only one person to blame here.


----------



## chook (8 Mar 2011)

First rule for internet purchases: If it's too good to be true, it's too good to be true.

Fair dues though to him for publicly admitting he's been scammed and for warning others.

Google should be nervous. They have no business snooping through peoples' e-mails even if the snooping is done by a robot.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (8 Mar 2011)

Google insert ads all the time based on a browser's internet habits.

Google adsense shows ads applicable to the browser's browsing history and searches history so to speak.

Caveat emptor me thinks applies here.


----------



## Satanta (8 Mar 2011)

username123 said:


> in fairness though that should've been a major red flag, as should've been any mention of transferring funds to a bank account. 17.5% surcharge for a credit card surely should sound insane to a prospective customer!


To be fair to the poor victim, while agreeing that should have been a red flag, there are legitimate companies that do have similar set ups. The 17.5% surcharge is very much over the odds (and common among fraudulent sites), but many (legit) companies will allow a discount for direct bank transfers (harwareversand, a very reputable German computer component supplier, come to mind - although the surcharge here for the use of PayPal is an additional 3%, so it's only to cover the additional fees they'd incur).

The article briefly mentions the 'quality score' used in the google adwords auction, (wrongly) suggesting that it relates to the legitimacy of an advertiser or that they're a reputable company. Sadly, that isn't the case. The QS is simply a measure of relevance which relates to the previous performance (click through rate) of a keyword (in this case the specific product name I'd guess), the historical CTR of that advertisers account (for all ads and keywords), the relevance of landing page to the ad and keyword and other similar relevance factors.


----------



## dahamsta (9 Mar 2011)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Caveat emptor me thinks applies here.



Precisely. If you can't recognise the difference between a bargain and a scam at those prices, you should probably cancel your internet access, you're a danger to yourself. Probably a good idea to have a safety gate on the stairs too.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Mar 2011)

Never believe the ads, especially gmail ads. I've notice one Irish shop keeps posting a gmail ad for a sale on say one brand, but when you go to their site theres always a lesser/different offer. I've reported it, but they keep on doing it. So the lesson is don't believe anything.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Mar 2011)

AlbacoreA said:


> Never believe the ads, especially gmail ads. I've notice one Irish shop keeps posting a gmail ad for a sale on say one brand, but when you go to their site theres always a lesser/different offer. I've reported it, but they keep on doing it. So the lesson is don't believe anything.



To whom did you report it?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (9 Mar 2011)

With google adsense ads you can click on the 'Ads by Google' to report that ad directly to google.


----------



## Boyd (9 Mar 2011)

Basically my heavy-handed approach is that ANY sponsored ads/google ads are usually absolute rubbish and I only buy stuff from website I know/can check for feedback via AAM or boards.ie. This has worked well more me anyway.


----------



## Olympian (9 Mar 2011)

I believe most browsers have a add-on or similar mechanism for blocking ads. Works on organic search results but possibly not gmail.

Do a google search for "block ads _your browser_".


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Mar 2011)

A technical question



> It was around the middle of January and I had mentioned in an email to a  friend that I was on the point of investing in a top-end Canon camera  that would also shoot high-definition video. Within seconds of sending  this message, I was astonished to see an ad for my chosen camera pop up  in the banner running across the top of my inbox.



Does gmail scan the contents of your emails?  Or was this as a result of internet searches he had done on Google? 

I don't mind the internet searches so much, but I don't like the idea of Google Robots reading my emails which I had assumed were confidential?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Mar 2011)

I think that it is a very useful article in that it will alert others to this type of scam. 

I had never heard of the 17.5% CC surcharge before and it's a great indicator of a scam. 

Brendan


----------



## Olympian (9 Mar 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> A technical question
> 
> Does gmail scan the contents of your emails?  Or was this as a result of internet searches he had done on Google?
> 
> I don't mind the internet searches so much, but I don't like the idea of Google Robots reading my emails which I had assumed were confidential?



Robots in gmail. Also works to block spam, etc.

http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6603


----------



## gipimann (9 Mar 2011)

Brendan, 

From listening to the guy on TodayFM yesterday, I certainly got the impression that the adverts were generated by the content of the emails, not an internet search. He mentioned that in the past few days (since the scam), he has deliberately included the camera details in emails to himself, only to find the same company (with a slightly different website address) popping up on the adverts list.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Mar 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> To whom did you report it?



*Advertising Standards   Authority*

Has anyone tried the opt out option?

http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/

More information about the ads here....
[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]


----------



## txirimiri (9 Mar 2011)

Its defintely the robots reading your e-mails.

I remember sending an e-mail to a friend saying something along the lines of 'I feel like I am being used as a guinea pig for this medication etc etc'. Lo and behold, next time I opened my gmail, lots of ads for guinea pigs and their associated feed/cages/toys appeared!


----------



## NOAH (9 Mar 2011)

I am very very surprised that he is still using GMAIL and does not once say he is going to quit it forever!!

He does not mention the make of the camera, he does not name the actual website, he is still putting emails with mention of camera why?   A camera for 5000 reduced to 2500 please tell us make of camera.

Its a nice story.   ???

noah


----------



## Leo (9 Mar 2011)

NOAH said:


> He does not mention the make of the camera, he does not name the actual website...


 
Ah, he does:



> I was on the point of investing in a top-end Canon camera that would also shoot high-definition video.


 
Mentioning the website would be a bad idea.


----------



## Howitzer (9 Mar 2011)

I've a lot more sympathy for the author than I would have had just a couple of years ago.

Google feels more and more like a malware company.


----------



## huskerdu (10 Mar 2011)

I was stunned that an investigative journalist  handed over €2500 to a stranger with a website with no due diligence on two grounds

1) If the ad was on google, then the company must be legitimite
2) When they asked me to transfer the money directly, it was to a reputable high-street bank. Surely that must mean that they are honest. 

But, fair dues to him for going public, at the risk of his reputation to help others. 
There are still a lot of people who think that the internet is somehow authoritative.


----------



## Boyd (10 Mar 2011)

Just goes to show how well the scams work if you want the product badly enough


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Mar 2011)

I know three people directly who have been caught by scams. Each one of them is highly intelligent and, I would have thought, alert. 

One bought some land in a land banking scheme. 
One bought shares having been cold called by a boiler house company.
One responded to an email for a cheap holiday in the States. At least he paid by credit card and the credit card refunded him in full. 

I think that the problem is that people seem to not like being rude and hanging up the phone.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (10 Mar 2011)

I have heard it argued that the highly intelligent professional type are easier to scam because they are less likely to question themselves and tend to trust their own judgement.


----------



## dahamsta (10 Mar 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that the problem is that people seem to not like being rude and hanging up the phone.



Or they're just a little bit greedy? I read a lot about cons and scams and most have naiveté or greed as the source issue, or more often a mixture of both.


----------



## PetrolHead (11 Mar 2011)

I have to say, I think the general tone of that article is one of extreme naivety (as are a few attitudes displayed in this thread).

Google has to monetise in some way and its primary resource is information. 

The web has grown in such a way that sites and services are (on the whole) unable to charge the user and therefore need to generate revenue from elsewhere. If you want to avoid this type of advertising being presented to you there are plenty of websites offering services and content at a price or via subscription. 

I think it may be a sociological phenomenon based on the speed the internet has developed and the inability of society to keep pace, but I am consistently amazed at how un-savvy some web users can be (and conversely, how fearful and paranoid others are).


----------



## truthseeker (11 Mar 2011)

I read the article and some red flags jumped out to me.

I would be unlikely to follow an internet advertisement at all - especially one that popped up and was a match with something Id just talked about on email.

The price was too good to be true - and guess what - if its too good to be true it usually isnt true.

I would have done a whois and google search on the website/company name if it wasnt a site Im familiar with using.

I would have been immediately suspicious of being told there was a 17.5% surcharge for using my credit card.

For a high value item Id prefer to spend the few bob on a flight to the UK to inspect the item in person before buying it.

Also for a high value item Id prefer to deal in person for the transaction so that I could go back to the person if there were any problems.

Id be suspicious of any internet stranger telling me to do a direct bank transfer of funds.


----------



## PetrolHead (11 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> I read the article and some red flags jumped out to me.
> 
> I would be unlikely to follow an internet advertisement at all - especially one that popped up and was a match with something Id just talked about on email.
> 
> ...





i.e. - You'd employ a certain amount of everyday common sense...!!!


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Mar 2011)

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.


----------



## dahamsta (12 Mar 2011)

Absolutely. With occasional exceptions. But a little research sorts the wheat from the chaff; even posting somewhere like here and asking other people's opinions.


----------

