Phil Graham on 13 Jul 2000 07:32:39 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Fwd: [bioexchange] FW: CyberSleuth will identify entitiestargeting corporations |
>Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact bioexchange-help@listbot.com >Delivered-To: mailing list bioexchange@listbot.com >Reply-To: "The bio-exchange" <bioexchange@listbot.com> >From: Naomi Sunderland <Naomis@Brisinst.org.au> >To: "'bioexchange@listbot.com'" <bioexchange@listbot.com> >Subject: [bioexchange] FW: CyberSleuth will identify entities targeting >corporations >Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:03:57 +1000 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > >The bio-exchange > >Check out the terminology used the article below on cybersleuthing services >now available to help companies identify and "eliminate" on-line activists >working against them. See in particular: > >victim >threat assessment >neutralizing >perpetrators >rogue websites >"shuttering of a terrorist web site" >"objective not only to stop spread of incorrect information but also to >ensure that what has already spread is eliminated" > >What are we talking about here - online activism or nuclear fallout?! > >This is all quite disturbing. Question is, are we dealing with "warfare" or >is it merely in the description? Or both? > >Naomi Sunderland > >Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org) Posted: 07/12/2000 By >papadop@peak.org >============================================================ > >eWatch CyberSleuth >http://www.ewatch.com/pop_sleuth.html > >Wednesday, July 12, 2000 > >It is unfortunate that companies are being targeted by entities whose >motives are fraudulent, deceptive or criminal. > > eWatch CyberSleuth will attempt to identify the entity or entities behind >the screen name(s) which have targeted your organization. > > eWatch CyberSleuth includes a 30-day subscription to the eWatch All >Coverage Bundle (except WebWatch) with the screen name(s) as the sole >criteria. > > eWatch CyberSleuth requires 7 to 10 days to complete from the date of >submission and costs $4,995 per screen name. 48-hour turn around is >available for an additional $1,995 per screen name. Results will vary and >cannot be guaranteed. Customers will receive a dossier detailing all >information gathered about the subject during the inquiry. Click here to >order. > >COUNTERACTING ONLINE ANTI-CORPORATE ACTIVISM > >While the Internet is in fact a new medium, based on our five years of >experience in helping companies monitor the Internet, most of the old >rules with respect to how we respond and react still apply. The biggest >differences are that our actions are more public, the audience is larger >and we're running in real-time. > >There are six major motivations for online activism. The same response >methodology cannot be used for all of them. It is critical to understand >the motivation or motivations behind online attacks in order to employ the >correct response mechanisms. The six motivations include: > > Legitimate complaint. > Behavior influencing (Environmental group targeting an oil company, etc.) > Stock manipulation. > Revenge. > Mis- or dis-information. > Fraud and extortion. > >Troubleshooting dubious postings need to happen on four fronts (what we >call these the four C's): > > Classification > Containment > Communication > Counteraction > > CLASSIFICATION > > Before troubleshooting, decide if action is warranted. Let's face it, >there is a lot of awful content on the Internet about even the best >companies. > To take action on every occurrence is impractical. What are the >key triggers that your company will use to prioritize and classify online >threats? > In our experience, other companies have used these standards, >among others, for online threat assessment: > > Threats against the safety of employees. > Threats against property (physical and intellectual). > Decreasing sales. > Lowering stock price. > Affecting litigation. > Affecting negotiations (labor, acquisitions, etc.). > >CONTAINMENT > > If the attack is prioritized for action, then containment is the next >step. Containment is a two part endeavor focusing on (1.) Neutralizing the >information appearing online, and; (2.) Identifying the perpetrators >behind the postings, rogue website, hack, etc. > > Neutralizing information posted online, if appropriate, is the removal of >the offending messages from where ever they appear in cyberspace. This may >mean something as simple as removing a posting from a web message board on >Yahoo! to the shuttering of a terrorist web site. > The objective is to not only stop the spread of incorrect information, >but ensure that what has already spread is also eliminated. Victims of >verifiable libel and trademark infringement have a much easier time >neutralizing Internet content in our experience. > Non-libelous content but nonetheless incorrect or offensive content is >less likely to be removed by 3rd party search engines, ISPs, etc. > > Identifying the perpetrators behind the action requires the kind of >special expertise that we've assembled for out eWatch CyberSleuth product. > Internet attackers attempt to cover their tracks by erasing identifying >personal information from their postings, using anonymous remailers to >strip off network information, posting under assumed names, etc. > Identifying these perpetrators is done using a variety of methods such as >following leads found in postings and web sites, working ISPs, involving >law enforcement, conducting virtual stings, among other tactics. > >COMMUNICATION > > Depending on the scope of the event, it may become necessary to >communicate to our key audiences about an incident that is occurring >online. Our key audiences may include our employees, vendors, customers, >prospects, regulators, beat journalists, financial analysts and investors >(retail and institutional). > The purpose of communicating with our key audiences is to signal that we >are on top of the situation and have, or are working, to resolve it. When >our key audiences are communicating in real-time, so must we. In certain >situations, the lack of a response will be viewed as incompetence or >worse, that there is in fact something to hide. As in other media, >perception is reality. > > On the Internet, there are many communication tools at our disposal. We >can post back to the message boards where the original postings appeared >to give our side of the story, provide clarification or debunk it. We can >email directly those we think were affected by the incident. We can use >our own web site -- or set up a temporary micro site -- to address the >situation in detail. > Micro sites are useful for communicating a lot of information to a lot of >people in a short period of time...especially journalists. For situations >that are or have the potential to affect a large number people, companies >are also using traditional media tools such as news releases and media >relations that can reach outside the online world more effectively. > > Regardless of the method used, the targeted company has to evaluate these >tools with great caution. What may appear to a company as a serious >incident may in fact not be to its key audiences. > By communicating even to a small audience we run the risk of creating a >larger problem where one did not exist before. And on the Internet, it is >easy for our adversaries to take our response out of context. Furthermore, >when communicating with our adversaries directly, everything we send them >will more than likely appear online. Depending on the situation, curt >letters from corporate lawyers merely serve to bolster their claims. > >COUNTERACTION > > Based on the information that is learned about the perpetrator(s), and >given the seriousness of the offense, the appropriate countermeasures are >taken. > These may include everything from simply exposing the individual online >all the way to arrest. In some cases, the perpetrator is an employee of or >contractor to the targeted company. In these cases, termination of >employment is customary. > > Counteraction may also include closing loop-holes in computer networks or >developing new security procedures to prevent a recurrence. > > For more information on eWatch CyberSleuth or to discuss a specific >situation you may be facing, please email info@ewatch.com or call >1-888-857-6842. > >====================== > >*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material >is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest >in receiving the included information for research and educational >purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the >source. *** > > > > > >============================================================ >How to Use this Mailing List >============================================================ > >You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the >biotech_activists mailing list. > >To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body of >the message type: >unsubscribe biotech_activists > >For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to >listserv@iatp.org. >In the body of the message type: >help > >Please direct content questions about this list to: mritchie@iatp.org > >Please direct technical questions about this service to: support@iatp.org > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to bioexchange-unsubscribe@listbot.com > >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinions expressed in this email are my own unless otherwise stated. Phil Graham Lecturer (Communication) Graduate School of Management University of Queensland 617 3381 1083 www.geocities/pw.graham/ www.uq.edu.au/~uqpgraha http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/philgraham/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold