spinofflive
Untitled-1

MediaApril 17, 2018

I got Instagram hacked by the fake Ray-Ban ads, and I’m mad as hell

Untitled-1

Ads hawking bogus Ray-Ban sunglasses are springing up all over Instagram feeds. But where do they come from and who is to blame? Don Rowe, who found despite a spotless online record he’d been spamming the bloody things himself, launches an investigation.

Like scoffing at some sucker with a cracked phone screen, there’s a certain perverse pleasure in knowing that you, incredible intellect that you are, would never be caught out by some dumb Facebook scam. “No friend of mine shall be tagged in a fake ad! My social presence is sacrosanct!” Until it’s not, and you are scammed, and and you end up looking really dumb.

The ads, posted by individual user accounts up to four times in a row without warning, consist of a bad graphic offering Ray-Bans at 90% discounts in any currency from pound to euro to the New Zealand dollar. Various URLs are provided for keen shoppers, but the sites are uniform in their amateur design, error-ridden copy and total lack of affiliation with the actual Ray-Ban site hosted in the US.

“We are professional online company in the world,” they trumpet. “Our designer items are hand picked to match every uptown ladies’ latest desires all at discounted prices.

“This is a perfect place for perfect products. It would be an honor for our professional team to provide satisfied services for you.”

Though the websites are identical right down to the typos, they are registered to various cities in Eastern China. Seems legit.

The user’s friend list are tagged in the comment section, and posts from public-facing profiles quickly receive likes from bot accounts presumably controlled by the same company responsible for the ads. It’s embarrassing, it’s shameful as, but is it dangerous?

Who is responsible for such humiliation? And how, I wanted to know, can I wreak vengeance?

Cognisant of Instagram owner Facebook’s apparent impunity to everything, I set out with low hopes.

My first inquiries were to Instagram, the algorithm God itself. Were they aware of the scam, I asked. What is causing accounts to post fraudulent advertisements? Have users inadvertently given permission to third-parties? How can users rescind these permissions if so? What is Instagram doing to remove the vulnerabilities that made this possible? Has Instagram identified the body responsible for exploiting user accounts, and what action will be taken?

Instagram replied! Except they didn’t answer any of the questions. Instead they sent me their community standards and some platitudes around always striving to improve user experience.

I tried the privacy commissioner. Users are advised to report the issue and change their password, was the response, but you know all of that already.

There isn’t a lot of information online regarding the current batch of advertisements. They’re not, however, the first of their kind. Facebook, the mothership platform itself, was affected by a very similar “Ray-Ban” scam in 2017, 2016, 2015 and we can only assume all the way back to the dawn of time.

Alongside fake Ray-Bans, users on Facebook and Instagram have been exposed to ads offering cheap Yeezy’s, Rolex watches and Luis Vuitton bags, among other luxury goods, for at least half a decade. The legality and liability of the concerned parties is unclear.

In a 2010 US legal case, Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., eBay successfully argued it was not liable for counterfeit Tiffany products being sold on its platform. Though eBay had purchased Google adspace promoting the fake products, as the company doesn’t take possession of goods, nor does it directly sell goods, the case was not a direct trademark infringement, but a contributory trademark infringement. The court again ruled eBay was not liable, as the trademark right holder has the responsibility to police for infringement, not a middle man or on-seller. While French courts disagreed with the Second Circuit decision, the case set a precedent in US law for online retailers.

How that applies to platforms like Instagram who don’t facilitate the sale of counterfeit goods, instead advertising them, is another question.

There are more serious concerns than someone getting Ray-Bali’s instead of Ray-Ban’s for their $20, or just looking like a dick online, however. The content of the spam posts is irrelevant in comparison to the fact they exist in the first place – if a third party is able to masquerade as a user at-will, products (and opinions) much more nefarious than sunglasses can enter a network essentially endorsed by the user in question. While it’s all good and well to argue common sense and skepticism, the fact remains we implicitly trust the word of our friends and contacts over that of a third party, and thus our guard is down and the posts have greater penetration. It’s tinfoil hat stuff, but say they opted to post not an ad for cheap glasses, but criminal content with the potential for real lasting harm to a users reputation.

Further, as Instagram refuses to answer my questions regarding the scam, it remains unclear how a third party was able to post on my behalf in the first place, nor what anyone can do about it. Considering they obviously have at least partial access to my account, what else does the nameless retailer have access to? How vulnerable is my information? Are they reading my messages, harvesting my contacts, using my account as a conduit to infect others?

Nobody knows, and nobody’s talking. It may be the only sensible course of action is to delete anything and everything created by Facebook Inc. On the other hand, a 90% discount! Where do I click?


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now




Keep going!
 (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
(Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

MediaApril 16, 2018

What does Spark winning the RWC mean for Sky, and for rugby fans?

 (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
(Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

The telco and TVNZ have outbid the satellite giant for the right to broadcast the 2019 men’s Rugby World Cup – and it marks a watershed moment for our media and audiences

What’s all this then?

“Spark New Zealand announced today it has secured the rights to bring to New Zealanders the Rugby World Cup 2019”, a press release told us this morning, the biggest domino to fall yet in the TV versus internet war. TVNZ are listed high in the piece, and will provide major technical and talent support – but just seven games (including the final) will screen live on free-to-air TV.

Spark? Aren’t they a Telco? What do they want with our beloved sports?

Spark are a Telco, short for Telephone Company, but they’re a lot more than that, and would like both you and their investors to know it. The term they and others who are evolving from copper wires to fibre and cell towers use is ‘digital services provider’.

What this means is rather than being network connection, they also sell you things you might like to do with that connection. ‘Spark Ventures’ is a kind of internal startup incubator, with units like SVOD (Subscription Video on Demand) provider Lightbox (declaration: Lightbox and Spark are section sponsors of Spinoff TV and music), home security firm Morepork and health monitoring service Vigil.

The Spark Ventures businesses (image: screengrab)

Sports is considered one of the best things you can sell online. It has a number of unique attributes: it happens live and people have a proven willingness to pay to watch it live or as-live; it’s heavily discussed in mainstream and social media, helping market your product; and is (relatively) hard to pirate due to its value being in seeing it live.

That, along with a huge influx of new bidders, has driven incredible inflation in sports rights prices over the past decade – leading to Sky saying ‘enough’, and letting Spark take it.

Makes sense that Spark would want it, then. But isn’t the internet bad? And didn’t Spark brick it last time it had sports?

The internet is obviously, provably, inarguably bad, yes. But our internet is actually quite good, especially compared to Australia, who have absolutely botched their national broadband network rollout.

There’s also a second internet cable currently being rolled out under the Tasman, which is expected to be operational by June. Between that and the continued expansion of Chorus’ fibre network we should have a pretty robust and fast system by the end of next year.

Of course, it’s definitely not great for everyone. Rural areas still struggle, and older people straight up do not want anyone to change anything, ever – especially their sports.

Spark’s record with Sports thus far is not great. A collaboration with Coliseum Sports never really gelled, perhaps because the sports – golf and English football – were, while premium, relatively speaking still niche in New Zealand. This is the big time – there is literally no bigger event for New Zealand than the Rugby World Cup.

What’s TVNZ’s role in all this?

TVNZ’s role is production and talent – they are being relied upon to deliver the product and make it entertaining. The SOE came under intense criticism during the just-ended Commonwealth Games for playing ads (which seems unfair) and for messing up some of the big events (which is entirely fair).

Yet, comparatively speaking, the RWC is a far simpler affair, and SVOD a simpler platform to deliver on. The logistics of covering dozens of sports with only four channels are brutal, whereas a series of games, with only rare overlaps, are a relative doddle. The talent side is perhaps trickier – the best rugby commentators are all with Sky, and have been for some time. Levering them away, with only a limited diet, will be costly, while going into big games without match-hardened veterans – or using real old-timers in their place – will freak the public out.

Luckily for Spark and TVNZ they have a couple of tournaments to sort both tech (likely an off-the-shelf Neulion package) and talent – later this year the Sevens RWC and the U20 tournament are folded into the same rights deal, as is the next women’s World Cup. After the Black Ferns’ sensational win last year, and given the major growth in interests in women’s sport worldwide, that could turn out to be another big and valuable part of this package.

Spark are now in the sports game. Sky must be sweating.

Well, yes. But no more so than usual. In many ways the RWC is the perfect property for them to lose. While it has huge interest, it runs over just six weeks, so few people sign up because of it (though some might quit early, knowing it’s not coming). Additionally, the performance of TVNZ during the Commonwealth Games will have them quietly praying for a disaster which sees sports bodies and sports fans alike flocking back to the familiar.

The other intriguing element will be whether Spark does a deal with Sky to allow them to on-sell the rights. While this seems on the face of it to defeat the purpose of acquiring the rights in the first place, it’s not as farfetched as it sounds.

This is because part of Sky’s genuinely bold new strategy is to turn itself into a platform for third parties to sell to its customers, using both its present tech and a new Chromecast-style device. They pointedly mentioned Lightbox as a service they might on-sell, and did so after news had broken that they were likely to lose the rugby rights.

What this means is that there remains a chance that the rural oldies who will be most furious about the internet stealing their rugby may yet be able to access it through their set-top boxes – a PR win for both Spark and Sky.

All Blacks coach Steve Hansen with then-ASB CEO Barbara Chapman and captain Kieran Read at the ASB Rugby Awards. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

What about the rest of rugby – is that staying with Sky?

TBC. That’s the big sword of Damocles hanging over Sky: retain those rights and they’re likely to be able to hang on to their customers. Yet if Spark does well out of this, which will be measured by some combination of direct revenue and customer acquisition/retention, then they will likely be emboldened to make a real play for the SANZAR rights, which will soon be negotiated for the period following Sky’s current deal expiring in 2021.

That’s all the media Game of Thrones stuff out of the way – what will it mean for the rugby fan?

Spark CEO Simon Moutter suggested a full noise online package would run to a bit over $100 in an interview this morning on Morning Report. This is both cheap (compared to, say, the $50 we paid to watch Joseph Parker lose to Anthony Joshua a couple of weeks ago) and expensive (compared to the $50 a month it costs for Sky and a sport package currently).

Moutter emphasised, though, that there would be a number of ways of accessing it, including one-off games. This is in many ways the key pricing breakthrough sports fans have been asking for, and might help with the major problem NZ Rugby has had: its products being locked away behind a pricey paywall, and thus becoming invisible to a generations of younger and less wealthy New Zealanders.

If nothing else this deal is a fascinating experiment, and by the tournament’s end Spark, Sky, NZ Rugby, TVNZ and the rugby audience will know a vast amount more about where the sport is headed, and how it will all work.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now