New national statistics report shows over 5m fraud and computer misuse offences in 2016

UK statistics cyber crime

New figures from the Office of National Statistic’s ‘Crime in England and Wales: year ending Sept 2016’ report, showed an estimated 6.2 million incidents of crime in 2016.

In addition to covering a wide variety of crimes, such as burglary and theft of vehicles, new for the 2016 results is the inclusion of statistics on fraud and computer misuse.

There were 3.6 million fraud and 2.0 million computer misuse offences for the first full year in which such questions have been included in the CSEW.

“The inclusion of these new offences yields a new headline estimate of 11.8 million incidents of crime covered by the survey, but it will be another year before a comparable time series is available,” the report stated.

“The new fraud and computer misuse estimation of 5.6 million offences highlights the challenge forces face to be better equipped to fight cyber enabled crime and the need for all of us to better protect ourselves,” said Andy Lea, Head of Policing at KPMG. “These figures also show the difficult decisions forces will need to make when prioritising their use of resources.”

Fraud and computer misuse details

The survey results show that adults aged 16 and over experienced an estimated 3.6 million incidents of fraud, with just over half of these (53%; 1.9 million incidents) being cyber-related.

The CSEW classifies a crime as being ‘cyber-related’ when the internet or any type of online activity was related to any aspect of the offence.

Key findings include:

  • The most common types of fraud experienced were “Bank and credit account” fraud (2.5 million incidents; 68% of the total).
  • “Non-investment” fraud – such as fraud related to online shopping or fraudulent computer service calls (0.9 million incidents; 26% of the total) was the second highest.
  • There were an estimated 2.0 million computer misuse incidents reported.
  • Around two-thirds (66%; 1.3 million incidents) of the computer misuse incidents were computer virus-related and around one-third (34%; 0.7 million incidents) were related to unauthorised access to personal information (including hacking).
cybercrime statistics
CSEW fraud and computer misuse – numbers of incidents for year ending September 2016 (Experimental Statistics).

Financial losses to victims

The report shows that, although a high number of cyber crimes were reported, in just under two-thirds of incidents resulting in financial loss, the victim lost less than £250 (61%).

Two-thirds of fraud incidents involved initial loss of money or goods to the victim (66%), independent of any reimbursement received. This equates to an estimated 2.4 million offences, compared with 1.2 million incidents of fraud involving no loss.

Incidents of bank and credit account fraud were more likely to result in initial loss to the victim (73%, equivalent to 1.8 million) than other types of fraud.

In the majority of these incidents, the victim received a full reimbursement, typically from their financial services provider (83%).

Traditional crime blurs into virtual crime

“We see a blurring between traditional, real world crime and virtual crime; criminals are happy to blend their techniques across the two and so ‘cyber’ can no longer be seen as a separate compartment of crime,” said David Emm, Principal Security Researcher at Kaspersky Lab.

“It is important to note that an accurate year-on-year comparison from the ONS, to demonstrate the growth of fraudulent cybercrime, will not be possible until January 2018. However, we agree that bank and credit account fraud is one of the most problematic areas with the continuing rise of e-commerce,” Emm continued.


[Source:- softwaretestingnews]


Petition to bring Pokémon Go to Windows phones officially hits over 100,000 signatures

Pokémon Go is everywhere – be it walking around town, eating out at a restaurant, or even being at work. The phenomenon of Pokémon has just taken the world by storm with endless news stories of people wandering into dangerous places that they normally wouldn’t pay attention towards. Fortunately or unfortunately, Windows phones don’t have access to the latest “must-have” app. For some, this could be a blessing in disguise, saving them from the dangers of the wilderness. For others, it is acting as a social barrier from those on other mobile platforms, preventing people from socialising with their friends.

For some, this could be a blessing in disguise, saving them from the dangers of the wilderness. For others, it is acting as a social barrier from those on other mobile platforms, preventing people from socialising with their friends.

Over the past few days, Windows phone users have come quite a long way, with anunofficial client for Pokemon Go on Windows 10 Mobile being delivered. It’s in beta stage at the moment, however, development is seemingly fast-paced with therealready being 3 versions and counting. The app is rough and doesn’t provide the full experience, but for some it is enough for now. That doesn’t stop people clamouring for an official app though – in fact, thousands of people every day are still signing the petition to bring Pokemon Go to Windows phones, in particular, Windows 10 Mobile.

A few weeks ago, the petition hit 50,000 signatures. Today, it has reached 100,000 – just 20 days later. That’s a pretty hefty milestone to reach for a mobile platform that so many claim is “dead” or lacks any large number of users. If we put this into perspective, many Windows phone users, with the exception of those who follow the news closely or are really into the platform, will not have noticed the petition or even thought of it. If those were to be factored into the numbers, then that 100,000 could, in reality, be much larger.

Of course, there will also be some fake signatures on the petition, alongside those who signed it but wouldn’t use the app. These variables make it difficult to provide an accurate number of how many actually want Pokemon Go to arrive on Windows 10 Mobile. One thing is for certain, though: a large number of users do want it.

There’s been no response from Nintendo, Niantic, or Microsoft regarding the petition. Microsoft did respond to some feedback reports on their Feedback Hub, stating thatthey’re looking into it, but that’s as far as it has gone.


[Source: Winbeta]

Microsoft suit is latest tech clash with US over privacy

Microsoft suit is latest tech clash with US over privacy

As we live more of our lives online, the companies we trust with our digital secrets are increasingly clashing with authorities who want access to the messages, pictures, financial records and other data we accumulate in electronic form.

Microsoft opened a new front in the battle over digital privacy this week, suing the Justice Department over its use of court orders requiring the company to turn over customer files stored in its computer centers—often without notifying the customer involved.

It’s the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by Microsoft and some of its leading competitors. Apple recently fought a high-profile battle over the FBI’s demand for help unlocking an encrypted iPhone in San Bernardino, California, and it’s continuing to challenge similar demands in other cases.

Other companies, including Google, Facebook and Yahoo, have increased their use of encryption. They’ve also sued for the right to report how often authorities demand customer information under national security laws, after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of government data-gathering efforts.

Privacy advocates have applauded those moves, while authorities complain they could stymie legitimate investigations. But those legal maneuvers may benefit the companies as well as their customers. In the wake of Snowden’s revelations and high-profile hacking attacks, tech firms want to reassure customers their information is safe.

“Privacy is an economic good at this point,” said Jennifer Daskal, a former Justice Department attorney who now teaches law at American University in Washington, D.C. “It’s good for business because consumers care about it. So the companies are competing over being privacy protective.”

Many tech companies make money directly from customer information, of course, by selling advertising targeted to their users’ interests and behavior. While some privacy advocates have criticized those practices, others note that’s different from handing over information to authorities who have the power to put people in jail.

In the latest case, Microsoft Corp. says the U.S. Justice Department is using a decades-old law to obtain court orders for customers’ data, while in some cases prohibiting the company from notifying the customer. Microsoft says those “non-disclosure” orders violate its constitutional right to free speech, as well as its customers’ protection against unreasonable searches.

Microsoft suit is latest tech clash with US over privacy
This July 3, 2014, file photo, shows the Microsoft Corp. logo outside the Microsoft Visitor Center in Redmond, Wash. In a lawsuit filed Thursday, April 14, 2016, Microsoft is suing the U.S. government over a federal law that lets …more

Microsoft is also fighting a court battle in New York over the government’s demand for emails of a non-U.S. citizen that the company has stored in a data center located in Ireland. Microsoft President Brad Smith has argued the case could open the door to other governments demanding information stored in the United States.

As people and businesses store more information on their electronic gadgets, or online in corporate data centers, “these companies are increasingly the intermediary between the government and our own privacy,” said Daskal.

One former federal official was critical of Microsoft’s latest lawsuit. Daniel “D.J.” Rosenthal, a former Justice Department lawyer, said it could lead to warning “child molesters, domestic abusers, violent criminals and terrorists that they’re being investigated.”

But authorities are required to disclose most search warrants for information stored in filing cabinets, safes or other physical locations, as Microsoft notes in its lawsuit. With more people storing data online, the company contends the government is exploiting that trend “as a means of expanding its power to conduct secret investigations.”

The company understands the need for secrecy in some cases, Smith added in a statement. “But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine.”

Microsoft’s business customers “regularly convey to us their strong desire to know when the government is obtaining their data,” Smith said, while adding that individual customers should have the same right.

The Redmond, Washington-based company says authorities used the 1986 law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, to demand customer information more than 5,600 times in the last 18 months. In nearly half those cases, a court ordered the company to keep the demand secret and, in about 1,750 cases, those gag orders were indefinite.

In recent years, the tech industry and civil liberties groups have pressed Congress to reform several aspects of the law, which they say is outdated, but previous attempts have stalled.

“Hopefully this litigation will either produce a ruling or it will spur Congress to act,” said Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Microsoft’s move was also praised by Aaron Levie, the CEO of online data storage company Box. In a statement, Levie said his company has been expanding its encrypted storage services to “give customers more control over their data.”

Levie added: “We also fully support Microsoft’s effort to require more transparency in government data requests and the government’s full observance of the protections guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”


Pele sues Samsung for $30m over lookalike use in ad

Pele in action in the 1970 World Cup final v Italy

Brazilian football legend Pele is suing South Korean electronics giant Samsung, after claiming the firm improperly used a lookalike in an advertisement.

He is claiming at least $30m (£21m), according to legal papers lodged at the US District Court in Chicago.

The advertisement for ultra high-definition televisions ran in the New York Times without Pele’s permission.

Pele, 75, whose full name is Edson Arantes do Nascimento, is considered by many to be the best player of all time.

He played for Brazil’s victorious World Cup winning teams of 1958 and 1970, scoring in both finals, and was in the squad which won in 1962.

With club side Santos he twice won the Copa Libertadores and Intercontinental Cup. Later in his career he went on to become the face of “soccer” in the US, as the NASL looked for a sporting breakthrough in the mid-1970s.

Scissors kick

It is alleged that Samsung ran the advertisement after breaking off negotiations in 2013 to use Pele’s image to promote its goods.

According to the complaint, which does not name Pele, the ad includes a facial photo of a man who “very closely resembles” him, and also a small picture of a footballer making a “modified bicycle or scissors-kick, perfected and famously used by Pele”.

The iconic star now makes much of his income through product endorsements.

Pele in film Escape to VictoryImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionPele is well-known for his bicycle or scissors-kick

The complaint also says that the Samsung advertisement will damage the value of his endorsement rights and mislead consumers into thinking he backs Samsung products.

As well as seeking compensation his legal team say they also want to prevent future unapproved uses of his image.

The lawsuit was filed by Pele IP Ownership LLC, which owns the former player’s trademark and publicity rights.

Pele’s lawyer Frederick Sperling has also represented former Chicago Bulls basketball star Michael Jordan.

He helped him win a case against the former Dominick’s Finer Foods over an unauthorised use of his identity in an advertisement in Sports Illustrated magazine.


[Source:- BBC]

Apple Loses Video Over IP Patent Scuffle in Germany


A German court on Wednesday determined that Apple had infringed a patent owned by the Kudelski Group’s OpenTV division.

Apple products sold in Germany can’t use streaming technology that infringes OpenTV’s patents, the court reportedly ruled.

The suit was brought in 2014 in Düsseldorf District Court over three patents held by OpenTV and its sister company, Nagra. The plaintiffs alleged that Apple products and services — including iOS devices, Apple TV and the App Store — had infringed their video streaming patents.

OpenTV filed a similar complaint last year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Video Over IP Patent Infringement

At the heart of the case is OpenTV’s intellectual property that allows the streaming of video over IP. OpenTV has claimed that Apple illegally used content streaming technology covered by five patents that date back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those patents specifically apply to digital video, broadcast and satellite transmissions.

The Kudelski Group has not taken aim solely at Apple. It has filed lawsuits against Netflix in Europe and the United States. The parties last year agreed to a settlement under which Netflix would be integrated into Kudelski’s pay-TV set top boxes.

“There is a precedent from that perspective,” said Roger Entner, principal analyst at Recon Analytics.

“With that in mind, it is clear that Apple will now have two choices: They can appeal or they will settle,” he told the E-Commerce Times.

“Usually this kind of action results in one, a settlement or cross-licensing agreement of some sort for Apple to access the patents; two, an extended patent challenge in a couple of high-value regions, such as the U.S. and the EU; or three, technology innovation to work around the patents and perhaps find a more elegant solution in the process,” said Paul Teich, principal analyst at Tirias Research.

“Sometimes it’s a combination, such as paying for option two while deploying option three,” he told the E-Commerce Times. “It depends on whether they are prohibited from shipping infringing products while negotiations and challenges are taking place.”

To Appeal or Not

This week’s ruling in Germany could be the beginning of a long and drawn-out battle over the intellectual property.

“It’s unclear whether Apple might appeal the judges’ decision or request a stay to have more time to review the situation or pursue a settlement with Kudelski,” said Charles King, principal analyst at Pund-IT.

“Without a settlement or a favorable ruling from a higher court, Apple products — including iPhones, iPads, Macs and Apple TV devices — could all be affected, either by being removed from the market or having core video streaming functions disabled,” King told the E-Commerce Times.

Patently Well-Founded

Tracking the chain of custody of the infringed patents — as well as the companies that have licensed the technology behind the patents — also could be a consideration.

“The patent the panel considered in its ruling was granted in 1997 to ACTV, which was later acquired by OpenTV, which was acquired by Kudelski in 2010,” King noted.

“Since then, the company has successfully pursued and resolved patent licensing agreements with Google, Cisco and Netflix. Besides Apple, Kudelski is also pursuing similar litigation against Verizon,” he added.

“Given the nature of the panel’s ruling which found Kudelski’s claim ‘predominantly valid and well-founded,’ Apple might be best served by agreeing to a patent license,” King suggested.

Beyond Borders

The case could be one to watch, especially as it may not be confined to Germany.

“Kudelski has already filed a similar complaint against Apple in the U.S. Given the history of IP cooperation between the two countries, the ruling in Dusseldorf could strengthen Kudelski’s suit in the U.S.,” King said.

However, the ruling might not go the same way across the Pond.

“It can spread across borders; however, more recently we have seen cases that go in favor of the plaintiff in one country or region and in favor of the defendant in another,” said Jim McGregor, principal analyst at Tirias Research.

“Also note that these cases typically drag on for years because of appeals; as a result, even the German case may still be in its infancy,” he told the E-Commerce Times. “But for now, the only location that could be impacted would be Germany.”

Then again, it could be resolved quickly with a settlement.

“Apple would have to pay to use Kudelski’s patented technology,” said Recon Analytics’ Entner. “It would be a small amount for Apple but a much more significant amount for OpenTV.”


[Source:- Technewsworld]

Stop Social Networking From Taking Over Your Life

Social media distractions

How can you break the social media habit without quitting social media? Get set up to receive good info without being sucked down the social media rabbit hole.

Social media is a huge waste of time … but it’s also valuable.

The trouble is, the benefits of social media can’t be justified by the time we spend on it. Or, more to the point, the mental energy or cognitive load devoted to social networks can’t be justified by what we get out of them.

We spend all this time and energy because we’ve been trained by algorithms to compulsively return again and again to see if something has happened that we don’t want to miss out on. We check our phones. We check the sites. We’re always checking—to the point of obsession and compulsion. Sound familiar?

Worse, we use social media to procrastinate. When we’re doing something boring or challenging, it’s too easy to just click over to a social site and distract ourselves. Social media has trained us to bail on problems that get hard and go check social media where everything is easy and usually trivial and superficial. It’s basically a form of escapism.

There are two ways to participate in the economy—as a producer or a consumer. You’re a producer when you do your job: come up with a great idea for a startup; manage a team of people; call and interface with clients; write a book; or fix, build, clean up or deliver something.

Social media is a huge problem for anyone who wants to accomplish things in life. Why? Because all those minutes and hours you spend checking social media add up to many days, months and even years of wasted time and lower productivity. Every minute spent “consuming” on social media is a minute less of “producing” something.

How many goals won’t be achieved, how many companies won’t get launched, how many books won’t get written and how many clients won’t be satisfied because too many people were too distracted by Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+ and the other social networks.

And the problem will continue getting worse as more social networks come out and the social sites improve their algorithms to make themselves more distracting and addictive.

However, you can put an end to this increasingly time-devouring and life-eating problem! It’s time to reclaim control of your time and attention by breaking the social media habit—without quitting social media.

Understanding Social Media Distraction

The compulsive, addictive distraction of social networks is all about the unstructured checking and browsing and hunting for content. We do this without much awareness. Once we get sucked in, we lose track of time

How often do you find yourself automatically checking your phone while in the company of others, around the dinner table with friends and family, or during other social and even professional interactions?

If you allow yourself to check social media whenever you feel like it, you’re in trouble. Social sites are cleverly engineered to make you feel the need to check more frequently. And as the engineering gets better, the compulsion to check gets stronger.

While you’re sitting there hunched over your laptop, it may look like work and feel like work, but it’s actually the opposite of work.

Every time you check social sites like Twitter or Facebook, you place yourself on the edge of a rabbit hole where time stops and you could hand over control of your mental energy to the social mind hive. While you’re sitting there browsing social media sites, clicking on videos, commenting on political posts, following links and generally following your compulsive curiosity, your vital powers are being drained.

At the end of the day, you’re mentally exhausted. How much of that mental energy was invested in doing productive work, and how much was wasted on social media? It’s impossible to know for sure, but most of us forget about all the social distractions and convince ourselves that we’re tired and late and overwhelmed because we have too much work. Meanwhile, we justify this behavior because of the “truly valuable posts” we occasionally encounter.

[Source:- Eweek]