12 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. Office Depot, Inc. and a California-based tech support software provider have agreed to pay a total of $35 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the companies tricked customers into buying millions of dollars’ worth of computer repair and technical services by deceptively claiming their software had found malware symptoms on the customers’ computers.Office Depot has agreed to pay $25 million while its software supplier, Support.com, Inc., has agreed to pay $10 million as part of their settlements with the FTC. The FTC intends to use these funds to provide refunds to consumers.

      Lovely fraud scheme. Good thing that Office Depot and support.com are paying for this.

    1. Many customers who took their computers in for a free “PC Health Check” at Office Depot or OfficeMax stores between 2009 and November 2016 were told their computers had malware symptoms or infections — but that wasn’t true. The FTC says Office Depot and OfficeMax ran PC Health Check, a diagnostic scan program created and licensed by Support.com, that tricked those consumers into thinking their computers had symptoms of malware or actual “infections,” even though the scan hadn’t found any such issues. Many consumers who got false scan results bought computer diagnostic and repair services from Office Depot and OfficeMax that cost up to $300.

      Office Depot scammed people all over the USA, tricking them into believing something was wrong with their computers.

  2. Dec 2018
    1. La nascita della vaccinazione viene fatta risalire, secondo la storiografia più accreditata, all'anno 1796 ad opera di un geniale medico di campagna: Edward Jenner

      **Niente di più falso: la pratica della vaccinazione risale a tempi remotissimi ed Edward Jenner non era un medico**. Il cosiddetto "padre dell'immunologia" Edward Jenner non era un dottore. • Fonte: Dott. Walter Hadwen, JP, MD, LRCP, MRCS, LSA., spiegò durante un discorso nel 1896: • "...Ora quest'uomo [Edward] Jenner non aveva mai superato un esame medico in vita sua. Egli apparteneva ai bei vecchi tempi quando Giorgio III era Re - in cui gli esami medici non erano obbligatori. • Jenner considerava l'intera faccenda come una superfluità, e appese "Chirurgo, farmacista" sulla sua porta senza nessuna delle qualifiche che giustificassero il titolo. Non lo è stato fino a vent'anni dopo che praticava. Cosìcché ritenne opportuno ottenere le lettere relative al titolo (MD) dopo il suo nome. • Di conseguenza con la Scotch University e conseguì il titolo di Dottore in Medicina per la somma di £ 15 e niente di più. • È vero che poco prima aveva ottenuto una borsa di studio della Royal Society, ma il suo ultimo biografo e apologista, il dott. Norman Moore, confessò che il titolo era stato ottenuto con poco meno di una frode. Venne ottenuto scrivendo un articolo straordinario su un favoloso cuculo, composto in gran parte da arroganti assurdità e freaks fantasiosi a cui nessun ornitologo del presente presterebbe la minima attenzione. • Qualche anno dopo, piuttosto insoddisfatto dell'unica qualifica medica che aveva ottenuto, Jenner comunicò con l'Università di Oxford e chiese loro di concedergli la laurea honoris causa di M.D., e dopo molti tentativi infruttuosi l'ottenne. • Poi inviò al Royal College of Physicians di Londra per ricevere il loro diploma, e presentò la sua laurea a Oxford come argomento a suo favore. Ma pensavano che ne avesse già abbastanza a buon mercato, e gli dissero chiaramente che fino a quando non avesse superato i consueti esami non gli avrebbero dato altro. "• Quindi, in sintesi, Edward Jenner era una frode con zero qualifiche mediche . Ha acquistato la sua "laurea" e il titolo di medico per £ 15. Era un ciarlatano e i pro-vaxxers lo lodano e lo coprono chiamandolo un "medico di campagna".

  3. Nov 2018
    1. “You threw us under the bus!” she yelled at Mr. Stamos, according to people who were present.

      Just imagine how all of your users feel Ms. Sandberg! And let's be honest, the fish stinks from the head.

  4. May 2018
  5. Jun 2017
    1. In a recent analysis of more than 500 billion events collected from multiple global online services, 18% of user accounts that originated from cloud service IP ranges were fraudulent.

      Really cool statistics.

  6. Dec 2016
    1. The government had commissioned a report on fraud after a scandal in Tower Hamlets, a borough in East London, where the elected mayor was stripped of his office last year and found guilty of corrupt practices involving voting fraud

      A case in England in which voter fraud changed who was elected for a local office.

  7. Jul 2016
    1. Page 63

      A discussion of fraud in the humanities involving a book on gun ownership

      In one case, allegations of inadequate, and accurate, and unverifiable data to support much-publicized conclusions about the historical rates of gun ownership led to the revocation of a major book prize and the loss of the author's University position.

      The book is called arming America. The Astorian is Michael Bellesaies

  8. Mar 2016
    1. The winner-take-all aspect of the priority rule has its drawbacks, however. It can encourage secrecy, sloppy practices, dishonesty and an excessive emphasis on surrogate measures of scientific quality, such as publication in high-impact journals. The editors of the journal Nature have recently exhorted scientists to take greater care in their work, citing poor reproducibility of published findings, errors in figures, improper controls, incomplete descriptions of methods and unsuitable statistical analyses as evidence of increasing sloppiness. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)As competition over reduced funding has increased markedly, these disadvantages of the priority rule may have begun to outweigh its benefits. Success rates for scientists applying for National Institutes of Health funding have recently reached an all-time low. As a result, we have seen a steep rise in unhealthy competition among scientists, accompanied by a dramatic proliferation in the number of scientific publications retracted because of fraud or error. Recent scandals in science are reminiscent of the doping problems in sports, in which disproportionately rich rewards going to winners has fostered cheating.

      How the priority rule is killing science.

    1. The role of external influences on the scientific enterprise must not be ignored. With funding success rates at historically low levels, scientists are under enormous pressure to produce high-impact publications and obtain research grants. The importance of these influences is reflected in the burgeoning literature on research misconduct, including surveys that suggest that approximately 2% of scientists admit to having fabricated, falsified, or inappropriately modified results at least once (24). A substantial proportion of instances of faculty misconduct involve misrepresentation of data in publications (61%) and grant applications (72%); only 3% of faculty misconduct involved neither publications nor grant applications.

      Importance of low funding rates as incitement to fraud

    2. The predominant economic system in science is “winner-take-all” (17, 18). Such a reward system has the benefit of promoting competition and the open communication of new discoveries but has many perverse effects on the scientific enterprise (19). The scientific misconduct among both male and female scientists observed in this study may well reflect a darker side of competition in science. That said, the preponderance of males committing research misconduct raises a number of interesting questions. The overrepresentation of males among scientists committing misconduct is evident, even against the backdrop of male overrepresentation among scientists, a disparity more pronounced at the highest academic ranks, a parallel with the so-called “leaky pipeline.” There are multiple factors contributing to the latter, and considerable attention has been paid to factors such as the unique challenges facing young female scientists balancing personal and career interests (20), as well as bias in hiring decisions by senior scientists, who are mostly male (21). It is quite possible that, in at least some cases, misconduct at high levels may contribute to attrition of woman from the senior ranks of academic researchers.

      Reason for fraud: winner take all

  9. Feb 2015
    1. The New York State attorney general’s office accused four major retailers on Monday of selling fraudulent and potentially dangerous herbal supplements and demanded that they remove the products from their shelves.

      As early as the opening, we can see issues with the handling of the subject matter that give ample room to herbal supplement apologists.

      The apologist could start with the semantic objection, "What is an herbal supplement that does not contain the ingredients on the label -- it is just a filler pill." He will go on to establish that this constitutes supplement fraud for sure. But the author seeks to smuggle the idea of danger into the idea of herbal medicine and would not be able to do that if the products were more carefully engineered. In other words, these fraudulent herbal supplements only present dangers because they're fraudulent; if they contained what they were supposed to they would be safe.

      The apologist would be deeply mistaken.

      Sadly, even though this is just one little paragraph, the problems do not stop there. The 4 major retailers targeted by the investigation are being set-up (through the use of that "major" label) as giants in the industry. While this may be true by the numbers, it's also a very easy point for an apologist to knock down. One can almost imagine the smaller scale "herbal remedy" operation -- "Is it really any surprise big corporations fail to provide a quality herbal product? They care about you. They only care about their bottom line."

      Suffice it to say, the handling oo the reporting, as well as the circumstances of the investigation look like they're going to leave much to be desired. If thee early presentation fails persist throughout the article, it would have the effect of turning this should-be exposé into little more than a flash the pan.

      We'll see this is exactly what happens.