Comments on: Pitter patter, pitter patter of the phish http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/ the blog that is not dansdata.com Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:50:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-4578 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:57:03 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-4578 A little update, for the benefit of any Google searchers: I've been getting a lot of phish lately pretending to be from "jerilp1", who is another real eBay user. A little update, for the benefit of any Google searchers: I've been getting a lot of phish lately pretending to be from "jerilp1", who is another real eBay user.

]]> by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-1355 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:26:29 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-1355 <i>they WANT to select the most ignorant/clueless/lazy/stupid people</i> I've <a href="http://www.dansdata.com/spamtheory.htm">written about</a> this theory in the past. they WANT to select the most ignorant/clueless/lazy/stupid people

I've written about this theory in the past.

]]> by: reyalp http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-1351 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:03:57 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/pitter-patter-pitter-patter-of-the-phish/#comment-1351 I used to be puzzled by this sort of apparently clueless tactic of spammers and phishers. Surely doing something that 99% of people notice is a scam right of the bat is not the most profitable way to go about this ? Then I had a revelation... they WANT to select the most ignorant/clueless/lazy/stupid people. The tiny percent that are going to look at that email, not notice that they hadn't actually bought anything from that seller, not double check their records to make sure they actually owed that amount, and STILL send them money, aren't going to be the least bit affected by google results for the name. If they are that gullible, they might not even notice it's the same person they paid last week. Sure, they might get a few extra hits if they were little more sophisticated, but sophisticated isn't their target audience. I'd bet the people who fall for the most obvious scams are also the least likely to effectively go after the scammer if they do figure it out. That's my theory anyway. Scammers just being incredibly stupid is of course also persuasive hypothesis. I used to be puzzled by this sort of apparently clueless tactic of spammers and phishers. Surely doing something that 99% of people notice is a scam right of the bat is not the most profitable way to go about this ?

Then I had a revelation... they WANT to select the most ignorant/clueless/lazy/stupid people. The tiny percent that are going to look at that email, not notice that they hadn't actually bought anything from that seller, not double check their records to make sure they actually owed that amount, and STILL send them money, aren't going to be the least bit affected by google results for the name. If they are that gullible, they might not even notice it's the same person they paid last week.

Sure, they might get a few extra hits if they were little more sophisticated, but sophisticated isn't their target audience. I'd bet the people who fall for the most obvious scams are also the least likely to effectively go after the scammer if they do figure it out.

That's my theory anyway. Scammers just being incredibly stupid is of course also persuasive hypothesis.

]]>