Solutions to cybersquatting and phishing must target brand customers instead of the trademark infringers, who are in effect liars. This post outlines why online-based traditional solutions fail, and it offers solutions to two types of lying (cybersquatting and phishing).
There's no point to trying to reduce phishing by reducing its profits. Nobody knows how much money can be made by phishing, and this includes would-be phishers; an economic-incentives solution can't work if the solution's target has no idea what his or her profits are. Meanwhile, the would-be culprits do know they face entry barriers that are negligible at best. Why not give the scam a try and see what happens?
Trying to blacklist phishing sites doesn't work either, judging by the research of Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton at Cambridge University. The problem, they argue, is that liars can manipulate crowdsourcing-based solutions (see Evaluating the Wisdom of Crowds in Assessing Phishing Websites).
A third anti-phishing tactic, that of shutting down the sites, can be countered by strategies found in a paper done by Moore (see Phishing and the Economics of E-crime). But site takedowns do get results when fighting cybersquatters, since traffic to the liar's site is through direct navigation (which can be taken down) or search engines (which take a long time to index under different domain names).
The remaining solutions, suing the violators or buying up their sites, often do more harm than good. (See "Domain Name Lessons from Napster” and "Don't Litigate, Mitigate!”).
Brand owners can get better results with solutions that target brand users:
By Alex Tajirian, CEO at DomainMart
Related topics: Cybercrime, Cybersquatting, Security
To post comments, please login or create an account.
DNS SecuritySponsored byAfilias | |
Top-Level DomainsSponsored byMinds + Machines | |
MobileSponsored bydotMobi | |
IPv6Sponsored byNominum | |
DNSSponsored byNeustar UltraDNS | |
SecuritySponsored byVerisign |