![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Professor Pan, if you want to disprove HMWs argument, address his/her ideas and links. HMW has repeatedly responded to your scepticism with argument and evidence, and you repeatedly quit the specific issue and fly on to the next thing you doubt (but don't support with evidence). Its probably impossible to prove HMWs is completely wrong (cos who knows where all intel money goes), but you might want to work on making a dent somewhere.
Police blocks on the information highway
By Scott Morrison and Chris Nuttall
Published: December 8 2004 02:00 | Last updated: December 8 2004 02:00
....
Freedom of speech advocates point out that even western governments try to exercise a degree of control.
.....
Amnesty International estimates that up to 30,000 internet police work at internet service providers (ISPs) around China. These officials have access to sophisticated software enabling them to detect "subversive" key words in e-mails and downloads, as well as trace computers from which messages are sent.
.....
A more sophisticated censoring tactic is known as TCP hijacking, used to block certain keywords included in the results provided by search engines. The Chinese authorities also practice DNS hijacking, in which surfers trying to connect to a site are redirected to another site or an invalid address.
Online Advertisers with Google Adwords Campaigns may be Affected by Keyword Hijacking
(PRWEB) February 3, 2005 -- Clickrisk has identified a critical flaw in Google Adwords that allows an attacker to disable campaign keywords and adopt higher ad positions at reduced costs.
Adam Sculthorpe, security specialist and CEO of Clickrisk.com, and his team of 19 researchers have discovered through extensive forensic testing and analysis of Google Adwords, a new type of click fraud—Keyword Hijacking. Keyword Hijacking is where an attacker disables campaign keywords to secure a higher ad position. Sculthorpe explains, “this is achieved by disabling targeted keywords across many advertisers’ campaigns simultaneously by artificially inflating the number of times an ad is displayed.”
Sculthorpe is concerned that “the business impact of keyword hijacking can be very high—cost-per-click (CPC) advertisers may suffer disabled keywords for extended periods of time”. This compromises return-on-investment (ROI) for online ad campaigns, where symptoms of an attack include a sudden drop in click-through rates and disabled keywords.
A leading security expert, Sculthorpe has more than 18 years of combined security intelligence and technology industry experience, including providing consulting services for Fortune-500 organizations. His expertise helped to protect the integrity of daily banking transactions in excess of US$350 billion for leading Swiss and U.S. investment banks.
The incidence of click fraud risk exposure is on the rise. According to Clickrisk’s Chief Risk Officer, Jack Bensimon, “our clients have experienced substantial losses ranging from 20 – 65% of their total click costs.” Bensimon believes that “managing business risk is a critical component of online advertising” and further recommends that “online marketers should be vigilant and regularly monitor keywords”.
Clickrisk security analysts believe the keyword hijacking vulnerability may be widely exploited.
Clickrisk is the leading provider of click fraud prevention software and professional consulting services to manage integrity issues for online advertisers. For more information about keyword hijacking and other types of click fraud, please visit http://www.clickrisk.com/ or call 416-850-2091 for additional information.
'The archives' is a big place, could you name what or where are your strongest examples?professorpan wrote: I have offered long, detailed, comprehensive refutations of Hugh's keyword hijacking idea. Go through the archives if you don't believe me.
TCP hijacking, used to block certain keywords included in the results provided by search engines. The Chinese authorities also practice DNS hijacking,
orz wrote:This bears no relation to your idea of using the same word in a different context to somehow confuse people...
What, like-
Patriot Act?
Clean Skies Initiative?
No Child Left Behind?
Help America Vote Act?
Marriage Protection Act?
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
block certain keywords
orz wrote:This bears no relation to your idea of using the same word in a different context to somehow confuse people...
Every single one of these Orwellian names applies to legislation that is the OPPOSITE of its name. C'mon, orz. It is so common and obvious that you don't see it.
orz wrote:Yes of course the Patriot Act etc etc are totally 'orwellian' in the most obvious way
But strangely enough, these dishonest and clearly manipulative names have nothing to do with the technical workings of internet censorship by the Chinese government,
or techniques of google ad fraud,
or insertion (by unspecifiied and unfeasible means) of subliminal political messages in movie ad campaigns,
or any of the other interesting unrelated issues you start changing the subject to whenever I point out that part of one of your previous rants seems to make no sense.
One of my main problems with your posts at the moment is that you seem to think you can "prove" your point by simply googling "keyword hijacking" and triumphantly presenting me with any web page or news article that contains both those two words regardless of the context!?
Have you read Orwell'sPolitics and the English Language? If not you certainly should. I'm guessing you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be able to shamelessly write horrible sentances like "This is rewriting history to achieve Orwellification using keyword hijacking."
robert d reed wrote:At your least coherent, you sound (to me) like a raving paranoid.
Yes they do. They rely on KEWORDS as tools of infowar.
The article on google ad fraud uses the phrase 'keyword hijacking' SIX TIMES.
I expected you to continue discussing Robin Moore and the history of spook pop culture.
But ho-hum this is just all old news?
Maybe that's why you dropped Moore when he proved my point.
Return to Psyops and Meme Management
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest