The Association of Chiefs of Police have issued a report on organized crime.

The London Free Press has an article today that focuses on what the report says about Internet crime, which is 1 of may aspects of the report. My first thought when I saw the article was amazement that people continue to fall for these. For the most part these scams are obvious.

One of the things the report talks about is product counterfeiting. Howard Knopf has a slightly different twist on the IP infringement side of things in his Excess Copyright blog that’s worth a read.

Read the Free Press article

Read Howard’s thoughts

Take a look at the actual report

Apple’s stock dropped temporarily yesterday in high volume trading based on the publication of an internal email saying that the launch of the iPhone and Mac OS X Leopard were both being delayed by several months. 23 minutes after that hit the stock markets, there was another email from Apple saying that the first one was fake, did not come from Apple, and that the launches are on schedule.

It will be interesting to find out who was behind that, why, and how they were able to fake it.

This shows the danger of relying on such information without corroboration and the speed at which it disseminates, but also the speed at which false things get corrected.

Read the emails themselves and some commentary at:

Infectious Greed by Paul Kedrosky

GigaOm

eWeek.com reports that Florida police have arrested 6 and are looking for 4 more people who allegedly used stolen TJX customer info for what they are calling “an $8 million gift card scheme”. This apparently happened before TJX was aware of the data breach.

The article says it is likely that these people did not steal the data themselves – but may lead them to the actual thieves.

The eWeek article has more details, including how the stolen numbers were quickly used to buy gift cards before the credit cards could be cancelled.

Read the eWeek article

I was just party to a discussion with a client and UK legal counsel about a scam that may or may not be new. The UK counsel said this was the 2nd time they have been asked about this this week.

This type of fraud is where someone tries to convince you that either you have inherited money, or you are being asked to help someone get money out of another country. The catch is that you are asked to pay money up front for various reasons.

In this particular one, the fraudsters contact someone in North America who has a relative in the UK that has recently passed away. They claim to be solicitors for the estate, and advise that the person had a substantial estate. Once they convince the victim that they are about to inherit millions, they say they need the victim to pay money up front to cover various charges.

In the situation at hand, UK counsel says that the types of charges being asked for don’t exist, that the process being followed is not typical UK process, and that the address given by the apparent law firm is “looking slightly dodgy”.

This is not a new issue, but since a couple of my clients have received scam invoices lately, I thought it was worth mentioning.

All trade-marks are published by the trade-marks office before being granted to give an opportunity to others to oppose the mark if they feel they have prior rights.

It is not unusual for a business to get what appears to be an invoice for a trade-marks publication shortly after their trade-mark is published. Those invoices are not real – or at best is a solicitation for an overpriced listing in an unnecessary publication.

In general, any invoice that does not come from your trade-mark agent is suspect.

These scam invoices are so common that the Canadian trade-marks office has a warning about them on every trade-mark approval notice it sends.

The Federal Court has fined a company for selling counterfeit Microsoft software. Its not unusual for courts to punish a business that sells software it is not licensed to sell – but in this case punitive damages were awarded, and the individual behind the company was held liable as well.

In most cases courts don’t look behind corporations to make their owners/directors/executives liable. This illustrates that courts won’t hesitate to do so where the conduct is felt to be severe.

From an article in the London Free Press:

Microsoft Canada has won a $700,000 award against a Montreal company, that bought and re-sold counterfeit software, in a Federal Court decision that experts say is tailored to send a clear message to counterfeiters.

“I am satisfied that the defendants’ conduct was outrageous and that Microsoft is entitled to . . . damages,” Federal Court Justice Sean Harrington wrote in his decision.

Read the Free Press article for more detail

ITBusiness.ca has an article that states RCMP and Microsoft officials say product piracy is not limited to wayward resellers or small stores that don’t know any better. And software is by no means the only thing being pirated.

The comments come from an anti-counterfeiting conference. It points out that the nature of counterfeit products is very broad – including medication, clothing, toys, and computers. And sales are not limited to the usual street vendors. Major retailers sometimes unknowingly sell counterfeit products.

For more detail see the ITBusiness.ca article

I have not had much to say about this, as it has received so much press. It raises lots of issues, including the ability to get personal information through pretexting, or pretending you are the person you want the info on.

Some have been critical of how easy it was to get the phone records from the telcos. Its easy to say that all entities should have ways to require adequate proof from those requesting information to proove they are who they say they are. The practical challenge is to get that proof in a way that does not impede legitimate customer interaction.

For anyone wanting to catch up on the issues, CNet has articles on yet unanswered questions, the upcoming congressional hearings, and the telecom issue.

Read the CNet article on unanswered questions

Read the CNet article on the hearings

Read the CNet article on the telecom issue

An ATM in Virginia recently gave out twenties when it thought it was giving out fives. Seems the fraudster found the machine’s manual online that included the codes to put the machine in operator mode, and the default operator password – then used that to reprogram the machine.

It never ceases to amaze me that people don’t change default passwords or set up initial security on various devices, despite the manufacturer’s encouragement to do so.

I can perhaps understand when that happens to a typical consumer with a WiFi connection, but not for something like a bank machine. And putting an operator manual for a bank machine online might not be the best idea either.

Read a Techdirt post

Read a Wired article

Does anyone else see the the irony in this?

The press is all over Hewlett Packard for its pretexting phone record collection (rightly so), and it seems that criminal charges may be laid.

At the same time, the US and Canadian governments are trying to pass “lawful access” legislation that gives them more power to snoop around our communications without warrants or judicial oversight.

So its evil if a corporation spies on its board members and others, to the extent that the government may lay criminal charges – but its OK for the government to spy on its citizens at will?

Read a Silicon Valley.com article about the Hewlett Packard snooping

Read a Techdirt post about the Hewlett Packard scandal

Read a Wired News article about the US National Security Surveillance Act

Read an Ottawa Business Journal article about the proposed Canadian lawful access legislation