These companies have been springing up over the last few years. Mainly concentrating on copyright and Intellectual Property.

From the field I am familiar with, these are small companies whose tactics often rely on scaring legally ignornt users into making out of court settelemnts or just having their ISP account terminated.

They are selling nothing more than a "presence", in other words playing big bad cop and puffing their chests up with false claims to scare the little guy.

One company I know have has openly stated that they have never prosecuted anyone, and their financial filings seem to indicate they wouldn't survive losing a case if they dared.

They deliberately blur the distinction between the massive group of software swappers ( no cash exchanges ) and pirates ( illegal sale of often counterfeit software ) and conviently overlook marketing factors like purchase intent when estimating "lost revenues", in other words only a fool would suggest that everyone who uses dodgy software is doing ot for professional reasons and thus represents a lost sale.

As implied their modus operandi is often illegal ( if not criminal in terms of extortion and "Misuse of Computers" in terms of gathering evidence ) and in practice seeks only to keep a hot spot bubbling under to perpetuate their own agenda of profitting from piracy ( as "cops" ) rather than seeking outright closure.

I guess it is only a matter of time before someone ( like Liberty ) assembles a good case against their shady dealings...

The only reason I can deduce for companies going anywhere near these shysters is to appease investors who want to believe something constructive has been done.

The situation for copyright and intellectual property is even more insane in the US with their DMCA legislation being used to justify the criminal prosecution of a Russian national who reverse engineered an Adobe product in Russia and came to speak about it in the US. The proescution is going ahead despite Adobe's requests for charges to be dropped...

:-(

BBC online published a sort of top ten league table of the "most serious cybercrimes of the year"

At number three after virus and hacking was "Adverse comment on internet: 10.5%" - crikey! what a serious cyberCRIME!?!?!

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1514000/1514215.stm

That is one outrageous comment about the mayday bomb. I mean even the city of london cops did not assess threat to bombing level last year.

One assumes these guys must have told the cops as well as the bank, who no doubt were very worried having been informed by these 'experts'.

How could these self appointed techno cops have known of a bomb plot? they monitor email, newsgroup and website content - this means what they're really saying is they saw an email or posting saying bank of blah - side window ground level, easy target - 2pm for the bombing then....

er what?!?!

Interesting that poster above here says they did not have an office in the uk at the time of last yrs mayday protests.

The person 'hack' who wrote the article is in fact the Features editor of New Media Age - bit of a bible mag for the net sector - who have run a couple of articles on Cyveillance.

For note her email address is  elenl@centaur.co.uk - as it may be worth asking her about the story, I doubt Cyveillance would realy say anything. Previously Elen's been a reporter at Media and Marketing Europe, and business editor at Future Events news service.

Bloody hell, check this out!

You say:

Consumers sift through hundreds of web site pages as they research products and services online... how can you be certain they find factual, current information on your company? This white paper examines the challenges and
rewards of ensuring a positive customer experience across the Internet.


It's utterly incredible just how shifty and how
wink-wink-nudge-nudge-know-what-I-mean this paragraph is.

Your mastery of euphemisms would impress BAe Systems or even NATO!

But why can't you just be honest and say what you mean. We all know what
you mean. You mean:

Customers looking for the Nike Website are liable to find websites
documenting Nike's immoral and evil use of sweatshop labour. Such sites
discuss in great detail how workers are paid barely enough to survive, let
alone feed their kids, how they are not alowed to talk - or in some cases
even smile! - and how when they are forced to work extra long shifts - such
as twenty hours for example - management have been known to inject young
Indonesian women with amphetamines in order that they can keep going without
passing out due to sheer exhaustion; not to mention complete lack of
employment rights, complete lack of health and safety regulations, frequent
deaths due to fires due to lack of fire safety standards, and of course the
armed guards employed to keep out trade unions. Moreover some of these
sites will put these dreadful truths within the wider context of the
'structural adjustment policies' being forced onto developing countries by
the IMF and the World Bank, and the promotion of so called "free trade" by
the WTO. This white paper examines the challenges and rewards of ensuring
that people with a social conscience are not allowed the freedom of speech
to inform potential Nike Customers of this frightening situation. Moreover,
this white paper examines the challenges and rewards of preventing internet
activists from publishing any material that discloses uncomfortable facts
about the crimes against humanity perpetrated on a daily basis by big
corporations and by the agents of deregulated freemarket neoliberal
globalised capitalism.

That's actually what you meant.

Jesus! You guys really suck :-(

I used to work for Hill & Knowlton in London, Cveillance's PR agency, and I know that Cyveillance in the UK are working for both De Beers and the Diamond Trading Company, De Beers in disguise. They help them to monitor human rights activists opposed against De Beers' role in the blood diamond trade. By collecting and downloading information from websites and newsgroups, they help companies like De Beers to continue changing their corporate PR so they can disassociate themselves from blood diamonds whilst raking in huge profits.

I think their article in the guardian is nothing but a sponsored piece of media prostitution, orchestrated by my ex-company, as I know for a fact that the "journalist" who wrote it is in their pocket. There never was a bomb threat against any bank, so discrediting the anti-globalist movement, whilst at the same time working on behalf of some of the nastiest companies, they are also rumoured to be employed by British American Tobacco, Shell, Pfizer and other big pharmaceutical companies, should merit a few protest emails to their senior staff:

My guess is, it would be either:  amuir@cyveillance.co.uk or  andrew.muir@cyveillance.co.uk, the same for  dperlman@cyveillance.co.uk or  diane.perlman@cyveillance.co.uk, their CEO in the states is called Panos Anastassiadis, so figure it out yourself.

This story has been featured on "The Register" at www.theregister.co.uk/

Its been a busy two months for Panos at Cyveillence:


June 19, 2001--NFR Security (Bloomberg Ticker: 9022Z EQUITY), a developer of security technologies that protect organizations against attacks, today announced that Panos Anastassiadis has joined its board of directors.

 http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010619/2332.html

... and he started at British Leyland.


BETHLEHEM, Pa., June 21, 2001-- Biocode Inc., a leading supplier of anti-counterfeit and product tracking solutions, announces today that it has formed a strategic partnership with Cyveillance Inc., the leading provider
of automated Internet Intelligence. Biocode's solutions use immunoassay "fingerprinting" techniques to authenticate and covertly track and trace unauthorized distribution of brand products in industries such as pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, agrochemicals, branded spirits, and fast
moving consumer goods. The combination of Biocode's product marking and tracking services with Cyveillance's automated Internet Intelligence services provides brand owners with a coordinated approach towards identifying and
addressing illegitimate activities both in the "on-line" world and in the "physical" sales and distribution channels.

www.cyveillance.com/web/us/newsroom/releases/2001/2001-06-05.htm


Wednesday, June 27, 2001

Cyveillance Receives $14 Million in Funding

Internet software firm Cyveillance Inc. has secured a $14 million round of funding to bolster new technology and sales efforts, bringing its venture capital fundraising efforts to $50 million during its four-year history.

The Arlington company's previous investors — Lazard Technology Partners, New Enterprise Associates, ABS Capital Partners, Graystone Venture Direct Equity and the Dinner Club — pitched into the fourth-round funding. Cyveillance executives started talking to investors in May and closed the funding yesterday, said Cyveillance's chief executive and president, Panos Anastassiadis.

Cyveillance Receives $14 Million in Funding