Eastern Alliance Insurance Group Review - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program
Inova. The secure alternative to traditional workers’ compensation insurance, from Eastern Alliance.
For more than 15 years, Eastern has worked with employers whose workers’ compensation needs are best met by the alternative insurance model. Inova, an innovative alternative to traditional workers’ comp insurance, provides potential ownership opportunity, comprehensive workers’ comp resources, and experienced guidance and management.
Inova is much more than a smart alternative to traditional workers’ comp insurance. It’s strategically driven to provide additional benefits for your business:
- The approach to risk and claims management is second to none, using industry-leading medical cost containment programs and strategic partnerships to ensure better outcomes for employers and injured workers.
- Offers flexible ownership structures, which could provide you with a return on your investment.
- Ability to take control of your cash flow with our flexible pay-as-you-go premium payment program, ParallelPay.
- A return to wellness program with ecovery, Eastern’s holistic approach to helping injured employees return to wellness and productivity.
- The commitment that Eastern will look out for you and make your needs top priority. At Eastern, we are dedicated to providing you and your employees with focused attention, expert guidance, and comprehensive care that makes you feel like you’re our only customer. We call that the Eastern Way.
Online Security Cybercrime and Fraud Scale Revealed in Annual Figures
There were an estimated 3.6 million cases of fraud and two million computer misuse offences in a year, according to an official survey.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales included the offences for the first time in its annual report, which covered the year to September.
Separate figures recorded by police showed an 8% rise in offences overall.
The Office for National Statistics said crime recording improvements meant the police figures could not reveal trends.
'Crime has changed'
John Flatley, from the ONS, said: "In the past, burglary and theft of vehicles were the high-volume crimes driving trends but their numbers have fallen substantially since then.
"When the crime survey started [35 years ago], fraud was not considered a significant threat and the internet had yet to be invented.
"Today's figures demonstrate how crime has changed, with fraud now the most commonly experienced offence."
Sir Tom Winsor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales, told the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4 that many frauds went undetected and a great deal never got reported to the police.
"The amount of fraud that is taking place now is probably in epidemic proportions," he added. "The police are having to work very, very hard to keep up with even the ones they know about.
"The capability at police forces is quite skeletal and that needs to change and change a great deal."
The National Police Chiefs' Council lead for crime and incident recording, Chief Constable Jeff Farrar, said forces were working with the Home Office, police and crime commissioners, and industry experts to develop new tactics to fight cybercrime.
"The ability to commit crime online demonstrates the need for policing to adapt and transform to tackle these cyber challenges," he said.
Cyber and fraud: What is being counted?
- Bank and credit account fraud - meaning criminals accessing bank accounts, credit cards or fraudulently using plastic card details
- "Advance fee fraud" - crimes where the victim has been tricked into handing over cash after a communication, such as a lottery scam
- "Non-investment fraud" - criminals conning a victim into buying something, often online, perhaps through a bogus phone call or email.
- Other frauds including investment or fake charity scams
- There are two broad categories of "computer misuse" crimes:
- Unauthorised access to personal information, including hacking
- Computer virus, malware or other incidents such as "DDoS" attacks aimed at online services
What’s Behind Google’s Secretive Ad-Blocking Policy by Online Security
When Google decided in May to stop accepting online ads for short-term, ultra-high-cost personal loans known as payday loans, some people wondered whether the company was acting more like a publisher exercising editorial control than a supposedly neutral search engine.
Now that Google’s policy has gone into effect, it’s worth asking: To what extent should the company be a gatekeeper, judging which online ads are okay and which are not? And if the world’s largest Internet search engine is going to be selective about accepting ads, where does it draw the line?
The same questions could be applied to Microsoft and Yahoo, which refuse to carry ads for certain types of sensitive content (but still advertise payday loans). Baidu, the world’s second-largest search engine, has been grappling with these issues since earlier this year, when its practice of promoting medical listings without vetting them sparked outrage over a tragedy: a young man with cancer died after receiving an ineffective treatment from a hospital he found through a Baidu ad. The outcry prompted an investigation by China’s Internet regulator, which ordered Baidu to review its ads and remove any that promote unlicensed medical providers.
University of Maryland law professor Frank Pasquale says Google has tried to have it both ways: sometimes it portrays itself as a simple utility and a mere conduit of its customers’ ads, but other times it presents itself as a content provider that can and should exercise control over the ads it shows.
“Whenever Google is accused of abetting or enabling copyright infringement or defamation, it says, ‘We’re just [connecting people] like the phone company does, and you wouldn’t sue the phone company over this,’” says Pasquale. “But when people say, ‘If you’re a common carrier [utility], you should take all ads,’ Google will say, ‘No, we’re like a newspaper and we should have carte blanche over what we publish.’”
With payday loan ads, Google is characterizing itself as the watchful online guardian. The company has said it banned the ads to protect its users because “research has shown that these loans can result in unaffordable payment and high default rates.” (Google declined to comment for this story beyond saying that it constantly reviews its AdWords policies and updates them ”when necessary.”)
Google also seems to have been influenced by advocacy from a large coalition of civil rights, digital rights, and financial reform organizations. In late 2015, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other groups sent Google reports detailing abuses that often accompany payday loans—among them fraud, unauthorized transactions, and long-term indebtedness. “We said, ‘This is a problem, and we want to talk to you about this,’” says Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology, who participated in the outreach campaign. “There were long conversations with Google and a lot of bringing this research to their attention over the course of a couple of months.”
An ongoing inquiry into payday lending by the U.S. government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have further heightened Google’s interest in predatory lending practices.
Consumers might not realize it, but Google—and other ad-supported search engines—have been making editorial decisions about the types of ads they will carry for years. These companies won the right to reject ads they consider objectionable in 2007, when a Delaware district court ruled that constitutional free-speech guarantees don’t apply to search engines since they are for-profit companies and not “state actors.” The decision cited earlier cases that upheld newspapers’ rights to decide which ads to run.
Google currently prohibits ads for “dangerous,” “dishonest,” and “offensive” content, such as recreational drugs, weapons, and tobacco products; fake documents and academic cheating services; and hate-group paraphernalia. Google also restricts ads for content it deems legally or culturally sensitive, such as adult-oriented, gambling-related, and political content; alcoholic beverages; and health care and medicine. It may require additional information from these advertisers and limit placement to certain geographical locations.
Legal experts aren’t uniformly comfortable with Google’s taking on this role. While the University of Maryland’s Pasquale supports Google’s decision to add online payday loans to its restricted list as a benefit to consumers, University of Connecticut law professor James Kwak thinks Google is overreaching. Given the company’s dominance—it is estimated to have a 55 percent share of the $86.2 billion global market for search ads—Kwak thinks Google is essentially exercising regulatory authority when it bans certain ads and should be subject to scrutiny on the grounds that it might be violating First Amendment protections on free speech.
“The question is, ‘When does something have so much control over the dissemination of ideas that it should be treated as part of the government?’” says Kwak. “This is a company with enormous power that’s using that power to affect other industries.”
Now that Google has agreed to ban a category of ads, partly on the basis of community advocacy, will people expect it to block other ads that cause public harm? And since Google has committed to policing its payday loan ads, shouldn’t it take responsibility for other potentially unethical ads that it runs?
Consider for-profit colleges and services for relief of student debt. Google has not instituted special regulations for such ads even though both entities are widely believed to capitalize on consumers’ confusion and hurt more people than they help.
Logan Koepke, an analyst at Upturn, a technology law and policy consultancy that published an influential 2015 report about online payday loans, thinks Google’s decision may set a precedent for consumer advocates to seek to shape companies’ ad policies.
Some people aren’t comfortable with Google as the final arbiter on these topics. Kwak, for one, would like to see greater transparency surrounding such decisions. He suggests that Google hire a group of economists or social scientists to identify deceptive products being advertised online, or perhaps work with the CFPB to determine the most exploitative financial products.
Pasquale also favors some form of public or government scrutiny to ensure that such decisions are being made in the public interest and not for commercial reasons favoring Google. That’s relevant to the payday loan issue since some people have speculated that the ban will benefit LendUp, an online lender that describes itself as a “payday loan alternative” and is funded by Google Ventures, the investment division of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.
LendUp has pointed out, though, that its ads will be subject to Google’s ad ban, just like those of other lenders.
Bedoya understands why Google’s clout and reach make people uneasy, but he says, “The reality is, these companies had tremendous power before this decision and will have tremendous power after it. The key is to encourage them to use their position in a way that’s not harmful.”
Online Security: Which? files supercomplaint against banks over transfer fraud
Banks may face formal inquiry into whether they can refuse to reimburse victims conned into transferring money into fraudsters’ accounts
UK banks should do more to protect customers tricked into transferring money to fraudsters, according to a consumer body that has lodged a “supercomplaint” with financial regulators. The move by Which? means banks could now face a formal investigation into whether they can continue refusing to reimburse victims.
The organisation submitted its first supercomplaint this year in the same week that official data revealed that fraud in the UK payments industry had soared by 53% as criminals develop increasingly sophisticated tactics to steal bank customers’ cash.
Which? said banks should “shoulder more responsibility” when someone is conned into transferring money to another person’s account, just as they reimburse customers who lose money due to scams involving debit and credit cards or fraudulent account activity.
Some customers have lost considerable sums. In March this year the Guardian featured the case of Sarah and David Fisher, who were conned out of £25,000 after a fraudster posed as their builder and emailed them a fake invoice that was virtually identical to the one they were expecting.
The explosion in online and mobile banking means UK consumers now make more than 70m bank transfers a month, compared with just over 100m in a whole year just a decade ago. Which? claims that “protections have not kept up”.
Using its legal powers, the organisation has submitted a supercomplaint to the Payment Systems Regulator, the watchdog for the UK’s £75tn payment systems industry, which must now respond within 90 days.
There are many financial frauds that directly target customers, such as phishing emails and phone- and text-based scams. However, among the biggest growth areas are impersonation and deception scams where fraudsters hack into someone’s email account and then pose as the builder, solicitor, landscape gardener or other tradesperson that the consumer has legitimately employed. Typically, the victim receives an invoice via email, which does not rouse suspicion because they were expecting it. It looks authentic and is usually for the correct amount – however, unbeknown to the consumer, the bank account number and sort code have been changed to those of the fraudster.
This is what happened to the Fishers, from north-west London. Last October they received a genuine invoice for building work that was being carried out, then what appeared to be a follow-up email from the same firm with a fresh invoice attached that included “our new banking details”. The couple duly paid the requested £25,000, and while it quickly emerged they had been scammed, by the time the bank that operated the account used to accept their money was alerted, the cash had been withdrawn.
Almost a year after the incident, they have yet to recover a penny of their money. Sarah Fisher, a record label manager, told the Guardian this week that the police had identified the fraudster as someone living in Denmark. As a result, the case was “not being progressed” and had effectively come to a halt.
She added: “We took it to the financial ombudsman, who said that Barclays [which operated the account] had not behaved improperly.” However, she said their MP, Tulip Siddiq, had said the case raised important issues and intended to pursue the matter in parliament.
Victims conned in this way currently have no legal right to get their money back from their bank, said Which?. Banks typically refuse to refund customers on the basis that they made the payment voluntarily. However, Which? said: “Consumers can only protect themselves so far. People cannot be expected to detect complex scams pressuring them to transfer money immediately, or lookalike bills from their solicitor or builder.”
The organisation said banks had invested in security systems to detect and prevent fraud where they were liable to reimburse the victim, but added: “There aren’t sufficient checks if someone is tricked into transferring money directly to another person’s account.”
Which? said it wanted the regulators to formally investigate the scale of bank transfer fraud and how much it was costing consumers, and propose new measures and greater liability for banks to ensure consumers are better protected.
The Payment Systems Regulator confirmed that it had received the supercomplaint and said it would examine the evidence Which? had supplied and gather its own, “to build a clearer picture of the issue and decide a course of action”.
Possible outcomes might include regulatory action, a review or a referral of the complaint to another body.
Oakmere Road: Top Story at Apple customers targeted with massive email scam
There's been an alarming number of phishing scams identified this year and these emails are getting more clever and realistic than ever.
The latest phishing email you need to keep an eye out for disguises itself as an iTunes email. Much like the Amazon phishing scam we showed you, this email claims that you have been overcharged for a download purchase, $25 for one song, which is usually $1.99 or less, or $45 for the Netflix app.
The email will show you a very official-looking billing statement and will encourage you to click a link that says, "Cancel andx Manage Subscriptions." But, because you're a Komando.com reader, you'll notice the typo in the link and know that's red flag number one.
Whatever you do, don't click that link. It could take you to a malicious site that can steal all of your valuable information, then it's game over.
If you think you really might have been overcharged, check your bank statements first before clicking any links.
Just being in the know about these emails is step one. There are other steps you can take to keep yourself safe from these phishing attempts. If you see an email like this in your inbox:
- Be sure to exercise caution before you click on anything. Hover over any links and see where they direct before you click. If the links provided go to a website, don't click it. Navigate to the company's site yourself without the link.
- Take some time and try to spot the typos.
- If you're not sure that you can spot the signs, click here to take our phishing IQ test to see how many stand out to you.
- Practice multi-level authentication, which means you have at least two forms of verification, such as a password and a security question before you log into any sensitive accounts.
- Another thing is to have an internet security system. We recommend our sponsor Kaspersky Lab. Software from Kaspersky Lab can recognize and block ransomware. Even if it's a new version or unknown version of a ransomware, Kaspersky Lab can figure out that the program is doing something it shouldn't. Kaspersky Lab will stop it from running and will roll back any files that were encrypted to a previous non-encrypted version. Of course, Kaspersky Lab software also helps filter out and warn you about phishing scams, so your odds of downloading a ransomware virus are slim. Get this protection, and so much more, with Kaspersky Total Security.
Oakmere Road: New phishing scam targets fans of popular television show
The hugely popular hit HBO show "Game of Thrones" was the most pirated program in 2015. It's been a constant problem for HBO and the company often has to send out warning emails to users and take down demands to torrent sites.
But now, even if you're not pirating "Game of Thrones" you could get one of these notices - but it's not what it seems. Scammers have started to send spoof warning emails from HBO in order to get victims to to send over some serious cash.
The spoof emails instruct the victim to pay a few hundred dollars as part of a settlement for being caught pirating Season 6, Episode 10 of "Game of Thrones." The email reads:
"On this regard, request is hereby made that you and all persons using this account immediately and permanently cease and desist the unauthorized copying and/or distribution of the Work listed in this notice. You may also be liable for monetary damages, including court costs and/or attorney fees if a lawsuit is commenced against you."
The email later says you only have 72 hours to complete your settlement, otherwise further legal action will be taken.
The email is very convincing and could fool nearly everyone. It is professionally-worded and has minimal typos. So in this case, the best defense might be knowing what HBO's real cease and desist letters look like:
It's important to note that the real cease and desist letter doesn't demand money and there's no time limit. It also specifically names the IP address, whereas the fake email doesn't.
Scammers are getting trickier by the day, so you'll have to stay one step ahead of them. One way to do this is to know the warning signs and red flags to look for before clicking on any links or sending out any sensitive information.
- Keep an eye out for typos and bad grammar.
- Be able to identify where the email is coming from.
- Hover your mouse over any links before you click to see where they are pointing.
- Click here to take the Phishing Email quiz to see if you can spot all the warning signs of a phishing scam.
- Be wary of email-only wire transfer requests and requests involving urgency.
- Be cautious of mimicked email addresses.
- Practice multi-level authentication.
- Protect yourself with online security software. We recommend our sponsor, Kaspersky Lab, which offers software that helps to filter out and warn you about phishing scams, so your odds of being tricked are slim. Kaspersky Total Security can recognize and block malicious links and Trojan programs, and covers up to five devices on one license. Buy it today and save 50%.
Oakmere Road: Top 5 social media scams to avoid
Scammers have been worming their way into giant social media networks to trick people into giving over their personal and financial information.
Over the past year, the number of phishing attempts on social media networks like Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Instagram and LinkedIn (LNKD, Tech30) has exploded 150%, experts at security firm Proofpoint (PFPT) say.
That's because fraudsters can use social media to target hundreds of thousands of people at once, but also blend in with the crowd. They mimic users and their activities, and they take advantage of the way people use social media to deal with business problems.
Here are five of the most cleverly cloaked scams on social media right now, according to Proofpoint:
Online criminals set up fake customer service accounts to phish for bank login and password information and other sensitive data. These imposter accounts look very similar to that of real businesses, but are often one character off -- or they include an extra underscore or other keyboard character.
When someone tweets at their bank or example, scam artists will intercept the conversation, and reply to that message with what seems like an authentic answer.
A popular news story or social media post might generate a lot of comments. Fraudsters like to take advantage of that large audience by adding their own comments with links to other buzzy headlines that lead to credit card phishing scams.
As more media companies start streaming their shows and movies online, scammers are jumping on the bandwagon.
They do things like comment on the Facebook page of a sports team with a link that leads people to believe they can watch a free live stream of a game. But the links lead to a fake website that asks for personal information in order to start the video, which very often doesn't exist.
Fake online discounts work similarly to fake customer service accounts. Schemers will set up social media accounts that look like legit businesses, then pretend to offer a real promotion. In reality, they want to trick people into giving up their personal information.
These tactics have been around for years and are designed to get answers to personal questions that fraudsters can mine and sell later. But criminals embed them into social media posts that often look legit because there's a normal looking profile picture and link, thanks to URL shorteners.
