Companies that provide CPC solutions, such as Google’s AdSense, try to prevent click fraud, but are apparently losing that battle as a new report suggests click fraud to have grown to 17.1% last quarter.

If you are a publisher and have CPC ads on your site (as I do on this site), you’ve probably been tempted to click on those ads to give yourself a few bucks. As with many things on the internet, you don’t necessarily see who you’d be hurting, so you may go ahead and do it. I must confess that when I first started using AdSense I clicked a couple ads displayed on one of my sites and basically stole a couple bucks. Of course, no matter how you or I try and justify it, you are flat out stealing from the advertisers when you click on ads on your website purely to pad your bank account.

It’s depressing to see that the thieves (and that’s just what they are) seem to be staying a few steps ahead of those trying to stop them. Hopefully Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and other ad serving companies will find a way to better serve their advertisers’ needs without succumbing to such a large margin of fraudulent activity. Until then, I guess advertisers will just have to add in that 17% on top of their losses column.

Mularski, the undercover FBI agent, was able to infiltrate a popular online identity theft black market, where people would buy and sell stolen credit cards, accounts, and machines used for counterfeiting. Not only was he able to grant access to the site while posing as an identity thief, he was able to eventually work his way up to administrator where he was given access to all transactions on the site as well as user information that law enforcement agencies were able to use to track down and arrest 59 people while preventing an estimated $70 million in bank fraud.

It’s quite an interesting read so be sure to read the full story.

The messages all seemed to be written by different people with different purposes, but all happened at the same time which was a weird coincidence. It appears that it may have all started with one person “Gmz”, posting the various account credentials on a forum where others likely grabbed them to use for their own reasons.

Obviously impersonating others online is incredibly unethical. Whether you are doing it maliciously to embarass them or to use their influence to make money, what you are doing is wrong. Of course, not only is it wrong, it will likely lead to some nasty consequences if you are dumb enough to target the next president while leaving behind an easily trackable trail in an affiliate link.

Basically, Anthony Michaels, the plaintiff, is claiming that Classmates.com fraudulently misrepresented information to lure him into upgrading his account. The site dangled a carrot in front of him by saying his classmates were trying to get in touch with him when in reality, they were not.

Seems like a pretty straightforward case, though lawsuits regarding the internet never seem to get proper attention by the courts. If the decision lands in the plaintiffs favor, it could send repercussions throughout the Web as similar tactics are used all the time by dating websites, social networks, and other subscription-based services.

Offline marketing is a relatively untapped resource for pushing online services. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any companies out there taking advantage of some “old school” marketing tactics. Take this recently published article where a guy discovers just how far a particular company has gone by using good ‘ol lawn signs of all things.

It’s quite an interesting read as the author relates how he slowly but surely uncovered the root of all those “Single?” lawn signs. I, personally, have seen those very same signs in Southern California and while I always figured they were part of a larger marketing scheme, I never knew just how massive and widespread the advertising is.

While the strategy seems to be fairly profitable, it does leave a bitter taste in my mouth. I absolutely hate all the advertising signs and posters that are put up all over my area and advertisers that resort to that kind of offline “spam” should be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, it seems like the fines you get for violating public property with these signs is so minimal that it’s worth the risk for most. I think there needs to be much more than just a fine, especially for repeat offenders. Perhaps some sort of three strike rule that would send them to jail for a few days?