Ad Blockers risking the collapse of the free Web

Dave
-
0
Ad Blockers risking the collapse of the free Web

We have grown used to thinking of the Internet as being free. Simply logging on and we are given all manner of content without having to pay for it. We can read the news, watch videos or chat to our friends via social media without ever having to hand over our credit card details.

Of course, that content isn’t really free. It costs money to run a website. You need to pay the web developers who build and maintain the website. You also need to pay the people who produce the content.

Although well-known brands, such as FT.com, delivering highly specialised content are able to operate on a subscription-based model, for most content providers this is not an option. Even Facebook, arguably one of the best known online brands, with 1.59 billion active users, would not get away with charging a subscription.

Most content publishers have chosen to monetise their online content via advertising. In the last quarter of 2015, Facebook’s advertising revenue was $5.64 billion (£3.9 billion). But that opportunity to generate advertising revenue is at risk due to the rise of the popularity of adblocking software.

Last year, Adobe and PageFair released a report showing the number of adblocking software users globally to have reached almost 200 million, up 41% on the previous year. The most popular ad blocking tool used by millions of users globally is Adblock Plus, a tool that comes as an extension/add-on to most web browsers and which has been downloaded over 500 million times.

Apple, famous for its bold business moves, has updated its iOS operating system to enable its iPhone and iPad users to block adverts on websites, and mobile network, Three, is planning to introduce adblocking on its UK and Italian networks.

The reason for the increase in popularity of this type of software is the fact that online adverts have become increasingly irritating to web users. They complain about pop-up adverts that completely block the content they want to see and give them no obvious way to dismiss the adverts. They don’t like being subjected to large video downloads that slow down their connections and eat into their data allowances.

Adverts that carry out excessive user tracking are considered unacceptable at a time when privacy and identity theft are hot topics, and some adverts even contain malware. Adblocking software prevents these adverts from being delivered.

For content providers, this is becoming a increasingly frustrating problem. In its report, PageFair claimed that adblocking software cost publishers $22 billion in lost advertising revenue in 2015. The situation has become serious enough that John Whittingdale, the UK’s Culture Secretary, has said that the government stands ready to help in any way it can after hearing all sides of the argument.

forbes adblock welcome message photo
Forbes.com asking politely visitors to disable their ad blocker

In the meantime, a number of content providers such as Forbes are fighting back. They are replacing the content with a message asking their website visitors to disable their adblocking software if they detect that it is being used. Others, such as Wired.com and the German tabloid Bild.de, offer the option to either disabling the software or paying a small subscription to be able to view their content.

Initiatives such as the Acceptable Ads Manifesto from Adblock Plus and the Internet Advertising Bureau’s L.E.A.N (Light, Encrypted, Ad choice supported, Non-invasive ads) Ads program are working on scaling back the level of intrusiveness of adverts, on the basis that if the adverts are not excessive, website visitors will have less of an incentive to use adblocking software.

However, in the meantime, while it might sound attractive to be able to surf the web without seeing adverts, if a way to deal with adblocking software cannot be found and it becomes impossible to monetize content, there is a very real risk that the content will evaporate. What we have grown used to – a web full of “free” content and information – will have been lost forever.

Trust Re approved as Lloyd’s coverholder

Walid
-
0
Trust Re approved as Lloyd’s coverholder

Trust Re subsidiary, Trust Insurance Management (TIM) was approved as a Lloyd’s of London coverholder, last week.

This allows Trust Insurance Management to write business in the 200+ countries in which Lloyd’s operates, both on an insurance and reinsurance basis.

Coverholder status is given to an entity when it is authorised by a Lloyd’s managing agent to enter into contracts of insurance and/or issue insurance documentation on behalf of a syndicate at Lloyd’s.

The approval process requires an extensive examination of the company’s underwriting capabilities, processes, systems and procedures. As an approved Lloyd’s Coverholder, Trust Insurance Management is entrusted with binding and claims payment authority on facilities it places in the Lloyd’s market.

As Trust Insurance Management is writing on behalf of Lloyd’s syndicates, the capital is rated A+ (Strong) by Standard &Poor’s, A (Excellent) by AM Best, AA- (Very Strong) by Fitch and is backed by the Lloyd’s central fund.

Trust Insurance Management has also entered into an agreement with Novae Syndicate 2007 at Lloyd’s to be able to write Property, Energy, Liability and Political Violence business, with a view to developing other lines of business in the future.

Kamal Tabaja, Chief Executive Officer of TIM, said “On behalf of Trust Insurance Management, we are confident that the value-added services offered, combined with established expertise from both Trust Re and our underwriting partners, provides us with a firm base for the starting point of this new Managing General Agent (MGA).”

Trust Insurance Management is an insurance manager regulated by the Central Bank of Bahrain. As a subsidiary of Trust Re, Trust Insurance Management has full access to the underwriting expertise and reputation of Trust Re.

Trust Re, headquartered in Bahrain, has branches in Malaysia and Cyprus, as well as a representative office in Morocco and a liaison office in India. It writes both life and non-life business on a Facultative & Treaty basis.

The company has recently released its financial results for 2015 that showed a whopping 100 percent increase in profits, attributed to a very strong non-technical income, particularly a one-off realised gain on the sale of shares during the first half of the year.

Markel and Talbot team up to launch D&O binder in Dubai

Walid
-
0
Markel and Talbot team up to launch D&O binder in Dubai

Markel International and Talbot Underwriting have teamed up to provide a new binder facility with a capacity of up to a maximum of £21 million ($30million USD) per risk for Directors and Officers (D&O) liability exposures in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) via Lloyd’s Dubai.

Last week’s announcement came as the two leading insurers revealed their wish to combine their respective expertise and knowledge of the D&O risks in the MEA marketplace to provide the binder as an alternative to other markets in the region.

Dubai, the city that grew out of the Middle East desert into an leading global business, has managed over the past years to attract some of the biggest names in finance to the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), a special-purpose free zone governed by English common law.

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s specialist market for insurance and reinsurance, established a presence in Dubai last year when it opened its underwriting platform operating from the DIFC.

James Hastings, managing director of Markel’s professional and financial risks division, said:  “We opened our office in the DIFC because, with the development of Lloyd’s in Dubai, we saw more business being placed locally and wanted to take advantage of that trend. Our partnership with Talbot now gives us opportunity to do that on D&O risks in the broad region serviced by the Dubai platform.”

Malware embedded in surveillance cameras sold on Amazon

Walid
-
0
Malware embedded in surveillance cameras sold on Amazon

Security researcher Mike Olsen has made the disturbing discovery on a surveillance camera purchased on the Amazon website.

The researcher said in a blog post that while searching Amazon for a decent set of outdoor surveillance cameras for a friend, he came across a deal for 6 PoE cameras and recording equipment.

After receiving the devices, Olsen started setting up the surveillance system, logging and configuring it via the administration console.

To his surprise, the admin interface showed the camera feed but without any of the standard settings or controls usually available.

“Being one of those guys who assumes bad CSS, I went ahead and opened up developer tools, maybe a bad style was hiding the options I needed. Instead what I found tucked at the bottom of the body tag was an iframe linking to a very strange looking host name.” Olsen said.

After further investigation, Olsen found out that the strange host name, “brenz.pl”, is in fact linked to a host domain used for malware distribution

CyberWarZone, cyber security information monitoring website, recently explained in a post that “Brenz.pl is used by cybercriminals to infect unaware users with malware and Trojans which allow the cybercriminals to gain full control of the infected device.”

In this case, the site appears to be accessed through iframe injection, a technique that loads elements of another webpage within the one a user has deliberately accessed. While this method is widely used across the web for legitimate purposes, it also has a wide range of malicious applications.”

Last month, a similar issue was raised on an Australian discussion forum with a related camera, used in commercial products, being linked to the domain Brenz.pl

This a key reason for Olsen alerting and raising users awareness about the potential danger some equipment can embed, especially when most people do not suspect them to be dangerous.

Furthermore, Olsen believes that all equipment to be installed in a house, especially equipment that can be connected to the Internet, should be thoroughly checked before the installation. This is the only way to ensure the confidentiality and security of data and people.

The seller, Urban Security Group, when contacted, assured Slate.com that none of its products have spyware, viruses, or malware. A representative of the company said “We’ve sold about 200x cameras since the beginning of the year and none have had any issues,”

Panama Papers: Could today’s Tax Avoidance become tomorrow’s Tax Evasion

Walid
-
0
Panama Papers: Could today’s Tax Avoidance become tomorrow’s Tax Evasion

Journalists around the world have only just started to wade through the massive data leak dubbed “The Panama Papers,” but one thing is already clear:

There has been a public rush to condemn the tax avoiders as unequivocally immoral. How dare these wealthy and politically elite individuals and corporations move their money off shore in order to lower their tax burden, the critics charge?

The political fallout from public consumption of the 11.5 million files is just beginning. Within two days of their release, hacked from the woefully outdated and unprotected computer network of global law firm Mossack Fonseca’s Panama City offices, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson resigned. Documents linked him to an offshore company.

Also sullied was British Prime Minister David Cameron’s late father, found to have enlisted Mossack Fonseca’s expertise in sheltering his investment fund, Blairmore Holdings Inc., from UK taxes.

The Prime Minister himself has denied any such involvement, but the tangential connection was unwelcome at a time when Cameron has called for austerity in the face of declining tax revenues. Thousands of protesters called for his resignation on Saturday 9th April after his revelation that he had bought and sold shares in his father’s fund, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Mossack Fonseca founder Ramon Fonseca has maintained that his firm has broken no laws, denouncing the hack as a “witch hunt” by activist journalists. He told Reuters that the firm has set up more than 250,000 businesses for clients over the past 40 years, insisting that their “standards are very high.”

 “I guarantee you we will not be found guilty of anything”

“I guarantee you we will not be found guilty of anything” Fonseca told Reuters.

Such confidence is likely well-founded. The Panama Papers leak has quickly heightened awareness of the need for much better cyber security, but it has also triggered another discussion that is equally important: There is a clear difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Tax avoidance is generally described as legal manoeuvring to reduce one’s taxes, while tax evasion involves breaking the law to achieve the same end.

Since the Great Recession of 2008, tax havens have been coming under heavier scrutiny. As the wealth gap continues to widen around the world, the masses are becoming less tolerant of the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.

Some observers view this climate as the launch of an all-out assault on capitalism. After all, when corporations avoid taxes to maximise profits, they are simply fulfilling their fiduciary duty to shareholders. To decry that practice is to question the very underpinnings of globalisation and the capitalist system, argue many on the Right.

A second argument advanced by this sector is that tax avoidance and even evasion are good for society because, contrary to popular opinion, they result in lower taxes for everyone else.

Tax avoidance proponents, already weary of the moral harrumphing surrounding the Mossack Fonseca leak, argue that if politicians are as disdainful of avoidance as they claim, they alone have the power to write laws restricting it, yet they have failed to do so.

Still, in Great Britain, a YouGov survey found that 62 per cent of people found legal tax avoidance “unacceptable.”

It is, and has for a long time, been deeply entrenched in nations around the globe. The Guardian has reported that the Panama Papers shed new light on how Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle used Mossack Fonseca to hide millions of dollars in a variety of schemes. Putin, in turn, has sought to deflect the attention, chiding U.S. President Barack Obama for looking the other way while corporations seek haven from taxes in the state of Delaware.

Likewise, Fonseca told Reuters that it is cheaper to do business in Nevada than in Panama. The South American country ranked just 13th in the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index. The five most secretive nations, respectively, were Switzerland, Hong Kong, the United States, Singapore and the Cayman Islands.

Top 15 Jurisdictions of Financial Secrecy Index - 2015
Top 15 Jurisdictions of Financial Secrecy Index – 2015

The scandal threatens to overshadow the G8 summit on tax avoidance that David Cameron will host next month in London, a follow-up to a 2013 summit in Northern Ireland in which the prime minister vowed to crack down on the practice.

XL Catlin introduces enhanced marine cargo insurance

Walid
-
0
XL Catlin introduces enhanced marine cargo insurance

XL Catlin, through its Americas Marine business, has introduced an enhanced insurance policy to offer more comprehensive cargo insurance coverage on a domestic, foreign or worldwide basis – as its first new marine product.

The new policy offering includes coverage extensions for land conveyance and warehouse/storage facilities, updated trade sanctions, enhanced terms for shipments made under a Letter of Credit, multinational coverage endorsements and new coverage extensions that address control of damaged goods, pairs and sets, brands and trademarks, recoopering and repacking, expediting expenses, exhibitions and special property floaters.

XL Catlin’s Global Marine business provides insurance for clients with special coverage needs for their marine or offshore energy exposures, including Cargo, Blue Water and Brown Water Hull, P&I, as well as Excess and Primary Marine Liability.

The new policy form is a market response to the complexity of managing cargo risks. According to the International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) – 2015 Cargo Statistics – Analysis, a number of factors are contributing to the increase in size and complexity of these risks. For instance, cargo theft is becoming more severe; there are larger accumulations of value on vessels and in ports, and companies must contend with more global compliance requirements.

Anne Marie Elder the Chief Underwriting Officer of XL Catlin’s Americas Marine business said “To move assets, goods and products from point A to point B, businesses are contending with complex logistics, compliance issues and increasing threats of theft – to name a few.  This enhanced policy extends coverage to address cargo exposures that continue to grow in size and complexity.”

“Cargo risks are complex enough. In redesigning our cargo policy form, we’ve taken the complexity out of the policy language and terms, clearly outlining critical policy information on an easy to read declarations page, key definitions and service level agreements,”  said Andrew D’Alessio, XL Catlin’s Americas cargo product leader in New York.

Apple vs. FBI: Narrow win for tech giant

Walid
-
0
Apple vs. FBI: Narrow win for tech giant

The recent battle between Apple and the FBI over whether the tech giant should help it unlock the San Bernardino killer’s iPhone sparked a fascinating debate.

It is a dilemma that the world has increasingly struggled with since Sept. 11, 2001: How much privacy should people be willing to sacrifice for the sake of security?

The issue, in so far, as it relates to the iPhone case, has now been resolved. One day before U.S. Magistrate Sheri Pym was set to rule on the government’s motion to force Apple to help it unlock the encrypted iPhone of the killer Syed Farook, the Justice Department withdrew its motion because, it stated a third party had unlocked the phone instead.

Nevertheless, the withdrawn motion raises perhaps an even more interesting question – who won, Apple or the FBI? Some would say it was Apple because they dug in their heels in their defence of privacy rights.

They demonstrated their resolve to stand up for their customers, a hugely important gesture in the post-Edward Snowden world, in which U.S. cell phone carriers’ disturbing collusion with the National Security Agency was exposed.

Designing software to help the FBI open the phone would set a terrible precedent, Apple argued, ultimately eroding their customers’ privacy rights.

On the other hand, the FBI could be viewed as the winner because it accomplished its objective in accessing the phone’s contents to perhaps learn more about why Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, gunned down 14 people in a medical centre, and to investigate what ties they might have had with other terrorists.

The Bureau also sent a strong message to tech companies:

Cooperate with us or risk looking unpatriotic and soft on terror to the public.

What might look like a defeat for Apple – a third party managing to crack their encryption – could turn out to be a positive for the company if the case drives it to tighten its security. Many observers believe that the case has triggered, or perhaps shed light on, a form of arms race between tech developers and the government/hackers.

While the San Bernardino battle is over, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. government will push further in its broader war with Apple. Publicly, the FBI maintained it only sought access to Farook’s iPhone, but in law enforcement agencies around the world, locked iPhones are collecting dust in evidence lock-ups.

For years, Apple had been dutifully complying with government motions to unlock the phones under the federal All Writs Act but that changed in October 2015, when a federal judge in a Brooklyn (New York) drug case asked Apple whether such compliance was “burdensome.”

Apple filed an argument accordingly, the magistrate ruled in their favour, and since then the company has been fighting the All Writs Act requests in cases around the country.

In the Brooklyn drug case, Apple has until 15 April 2016 to respond to the government’s motion asking a District Court judge to overrule the magistrate.

A senior law enforcement official recently told Time magazine, “We in law enforcement have been saying for a while now that we need to strike the appropriate balance between privacy and security, where we have a system of strong encryption that allows us to protect our data and our privacy, but also allows some way for law enforcement to go to a judge and get a court order to obtain information that can help us prevent and solve crimes.”

Is the war on cash another lost battle

Walid
-
0
Is the war on cash another lost battle

There was a time, seemingly not long ago, when Joe Royal felt he should only use his debit card for larger purchases.

These days, however, the 44-year-old from Indiana has no qualms about swiping his card to pay for a $1.49 pack of chewing gum at a 7-Eleven store. And, although the store owner has to share a percentage of that sale with the credit card processor, cashiers do not seem to mind, possibly because they have now grown so used to the process.

MasterPass payment
Will contactless payment help phase out cash?

Royal can go days without seeing any cash at all. His paycheck is direct-deposited into his checking account. He pays for gasoline at the pump. He pays highway tolls with a device mounted on his windshield that pulls money from his checking account each month. A website feeds his children’s school lunch money cards from his checking account when the balance reaches the minimum amount that he has chosen. He pays his bills online.

His credit union gives him a cash rebate when he uses his debit card as a credit card, giving him more incentive to use the card wherever possible.

Of course, Royal is far from alone. From America to Zimbabwe, the world is slowly but steadily changing to a cashless society. We do not even need a card any more, thanks to payment methods from Apple, Google and Microsoft that let us simply swipe our phone across a sensor.

Royal says he never intentionally stopped using cash. “I just realized one day that it had just kind of happened,” he says.

Royal still has the freedom to choose whether he wants to use cash, but many observers fear that this will not always be the case. Governments and mega-corporations, such as MasterCard, are working hard to abolish cash. MasterCard is pushing the War on Cash agenda with its “Cashless Journey” project, which deploys a website and public relations campaign to spread the message that cash is inconvenient and invites theft and tax evasion. It urges “government focus and technological innovation” to hasten the death of cash.

Cashless payment methods can be convenient but a growing number of experts are urging governments to always preserve cash as an option because of its utility for small transactions and its use by poor people who lack access to financial institutions.

It is not hard to find examples of nations trying to pave the way toward the extinction of cash. Last year, the government of Denmark announced a proposal to exempt some types of retailers from the requirement that they accept cash, arguing that it costs too much to process and poses unnecessary security risks.

In 2013, Canada stopped circulating the penny, a move some fear is a precursor to phasing out cash.

Governments claim that they are waging their War on Cash in pursuit of greater efficiency but critics suspect a darker motive. In a world of strictly digital transactions, the state will know exactly how each citizen spends his or her money. Harnessing that information will give governments an even greater power than they already exercise.

While these trends are unsettling, there is reason for hope. Like so many futile efforts before – think the wars on drugs, terrorism and prostitution – the War on Cash is likely to be destined to fail.

People are already so cynical about government and their political leaders that it is difficult to imagine that they will easily give up their right to use cash.

 

Trump presidency riskier than terrorism

Walid
-
0
Trump presidency riskier than terrorism

Donald Trump has been a controversial and scandalous figure ever since his announcement to join the race for the Republican nomination and subsequently run for the presidential election back in June 2015.

In his presidential announcement speech, he has revealed a hostility towards Mexico and China, referring to undocumented Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers, and boasting about beating China in business deals “all the time”.

Regrettably, this wasn’t the end of his controversial dialog. In summary, he called for a prohibition on all Muslims entering the United States; advocated killing the families of jihadist terrorists; described on China and Japan as “currency manipulators”; and repeated a negative narrative that American soldiers in the Philippines in the early 1900’s dipped their ammunition in pigs’ blood before executing Muslim terrorists.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. In a recent rally he said that he would like to punch a protester in the face and, even more recently, warming to his theme, he upset the already besieged people of Belgium, many of whom had lost their families and friends, by describing its capital, Brussels as “a hellhole”.

Despite the controversy and lacklustre support in the early stages of the Republican nomination race, Donald Trump has gained significant momentum and looks increasingly likely to secure the Republican nomination.

Many governments, corporations and influential individuals around the world have expressed grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s destabilising influence and potential presidency. Specifically, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a renowned global economic and geopolitical analysis firm, placed Donald Trump’s presidency sixth on their latest list of global threats, on a par with the rising threat of jihadi terrorism.

Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest list of global risks
Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest list of global risks

Donald Trump has been extremely provocative and far from conservative on many of the social and economic issues, which has raised concerns globally. According to the latest EIU report, “his militaristic tendencies and controversial remarks towards the Middle East would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond”.

Illustrative of this, Donald Trump was featured in the propaganda video praising ISIS’s attack on Brussels and calling for more killings in Europe. Robert Powell, global risk briefing manager at EIU, also adds that “One of [Trump’s] extreme positions has been to invade Syria to wipe out ISIS”, citing estimates that a year-long incursion into Syria of 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops could cost $25 billion (£17.6 billion).

Moreover, Trump has advocated plans to seize Syria’s oil fields and refineries, which finance ISIS, and then selling the oil to pay for a U.S. military campaign. However, according to Powell, at current oil prices, this strategy would only net about $500 million (£351 million), at most.

Donald Trump, throughout his campaign, has failed to set forth a comprehensive and clear-cut domestic or foreign policy. The only unambiguous policy Mr. Trump advanced was the construction of a wall along the United States’ southern border, paid for by Mexico which makes no practical sense.

It is unclear as to how he would react and govern the country if faced with serious issues such as disputes in the South China Sea, a terrorist attack on American soil or another financial crisis.

Moreover, the statements made by the President of the United States can have serious economic consequences, both domestically and internationally. Considering the extent of the market’s reaction to only two or three words from the Federal Reserve Chairman, this may not prove to be an overstatement of the impact that an ill-chosen statement by Mr Trump, as President of the USA, might have and the blunt way of speaking that has made him so popular among Republican voter could be disastrous if he is in the white House.

Lloyd’s of London feels the pressure as it suffers a 30% drop in profit

Walid
-
0
Lloyd’s of London feels the pressure as it suffers a 30% drop in profit

The World’s largest insurance market is challenged by continued pressure on pricing and low investment returns

Lloyd’s of London insurance market has posted a 30% drop in profit in its financial year 2015.

The specialist insurer’s market announced last week a profit of £2.1 billion ($2.98 billion) for 2015, representing a serious drop from the £3.0 billion generated in 2014.

John Nelson, Chairman of Lloyd’s, said “In a market undeniably tougher than seen for many years, in 2015 we have had to demonstrate our determination, innovative thinking and ability to adapt and take action.

The significant pressure on premium rates and exceptionally low investment returns have, naturally, had an impact on our results. Low interest rates and low investment returns generally in the capital markets continue to attract additional capital into the sector.“

More than 80 syndicates underwrite insurance at Lloyd’s, covering all classes of business. Together they interact with thousands of brokers and agents daily to create insurance solutions for businesses in 220 countries and territories around the world. Lloyd’s insures the majority of FTSE and Dow Jones industrial average companies.

The annual report announcement contained some positive elements such as the six per cent improvement in gross written premiums to £26.7 billion ($38.4 billion) from the £25.3 billion in 2014. In addition to the seven per cent increase in the capital assets to £25.1 billion ($36.1 billion)

Despite the drop in profits, Lloyd’s remains committed to driving forward with its Vision 2025 plan, which includes the expansion into new markets such as Dubai, China, Turkey, India and South America and many others.

1...17181920Page 18 of 20