Online Job Scam: Credits

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

Thank you to all of the job seekers who have contacted the WPF and shared their experiences with us. Without the UMAB victims’ information, researchers would have had much greater difficulty piecing together the puzzle this scam presented.

Thank you to Beth Givens and Jordana Beebe of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Thank you to Michael Shamus of Utility Consumers Action Network.

Nick Corcodilos of AsktheHeadhunter.com alerted the WPF to the original iteration of the scam which was the scam researchers eventually selected for the longitudinal study. Without Nick Corcodilos, there would have been no substantial documentation of the UNK iteration of the UMAB scam, and maybe not even the Macrocommerce iteration.

DDT of Cryptorights.org provided researchers with technical and informational support.

DSP of Privacy Activism provided key insight and information.

Thanks to NACAA for generously allowing Pam Dixon the opportunity to discuss the UMAB scam at their national conference. The conversations at NACAA were helpful in gaining an understanding of the broad national impact of job fraud.

John Boak designed the timeline and was critical to the design of the visual presentation of the research information.

Roadmap: A Year in the Life of an Online Job Scam – A Longitudinal Study: IX. Credits

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

Posted June 8, 2008 in Report: A Year in the Life of an Online Job Scam - A Longitudinal Study, Uncategorized

Global Visualization of Countries with Data Privacy Laws, Treaties, or Conventions

Background and Methodology: The conceptualization and initial research for this...
New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...