text:
4513.0 - Criminal Courts, Australia, 2002-03
Women more likely to receive a non-custodial sentence (Media Release)
This publication presents nationally comparable statistics relating to the criminal jurisdiction of the Higher (Supreme and Intermediate) Courts across Australia for the period 1 July 2002-30 June 2003. Magistrates' Criminal Courts data are also available on an experimental basis. The statistics provide indicators on the characteristics of defendants, including information on the offences and sentence types associated with those defendants.
The statistics are sourced from the national Criminal Courts collection conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and have been compiled according to national standards in order to maximise consistency between the states and territories. The Explanatory Notes, Appendixes and Glossary provide detailed information on the data sources, counting rules, terminology, classifications and other technical aspects associated with these statistics.
CHANGES IN THIS ISSUE
A bench warrant issued is no longer considered a method of finalisation (see paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Notes for further information).
In table 1, the offence categories 'Homicide and related offences', 'Deception and related offences' and 'Illicit drug offences' have been further disaggregated.
Data on Higher Criminal Court principal offence, principal sentence type and sex have been published in table 4. A comparison of principal offence and principal sentence type between 2001-02 and 2002-03 has been published in tables 9 and 10.
Some previously published data are available as special data services. For further information on the availability of data cubes contact the National Information and Referral Service on 1300 135 070.
Data on the characteristics of defendants finalised in the Magistrates' Criminal Courts are included in this publication. These tables are considered experimental (see paragraphs 45-47 of the Explanatory Notes for further information). While they should be used with some caution, they provide useful information on this part of the Criminal Court system. They are included in Appendix 1.
INFORMATION ON ABS CRIME AND JUSTICE
Information about ABS activities in the field of Crime and Justice statistics are available from the Crime and Justice theme page on the ABS web site. To access the theme page, select Themes from the menu on the home page. Details of other ABS publications relating to Crime and Justice statistics can be found in paragraph 48 of the Explanatory Notes.
The ABS acknowledges the valuable contribution of the Board of Management, National Criminal Court Statistics Advisory Group, the Courts Practitioners Group and the staff of the various agencies that provide the statistics that are presented in this publication.
For further information about these and related statistics, contact the National Information and Referral Service on 1300 135 070 or Nick Skondreas on Melbourne 03 9615 7381.
This publication presents statistics relating to the criminal jurisdiction of the Higher (Supreme and Intermediate) and Magistrates' Courts of Australia, for the period 1 July 2002-30 June 2003. The criminal jurisdiction of the courts is responsible for trying and sentencing persons or organisations charged with criminal offences. The statistics are based on data extracted from administrative records held by state and territory agencies responsible for courts administration except for Queensland (where it is supplied via the Office of Economic and Statistical Research), and New South Wales (where for the first time, it is being supplied via the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research).
The publication provides a picture of the characteristics of defendants dealt with by the Higher Criminal Courts, including information on the offences and sentence types associated with those defendants.
A comparison of Higher Criminal Court offence and sentence type data between 2001-02 and 2002-03 has been provided. Summary data relating to criminal finalisations in the Higher Criminal Courts are also available for individual years from 1996-97 onwards.
Information on the characteristics of defendants finalised in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts, including offence and sentence type information associated with those defendants, is presented. These tables have been labelled experimental and are included in Appendix 1.
The Explanatory Notes provide detailed information on the data sources, definitions, counting rules and other technical matters associated with this publication.
The key findings for defendants finalised in the Higher Criminal Courts during 2002-03 are:
The number of finalisations decreased by 8% (1,354) between 2001-02 and 2002-03 to 16,643. The exclusion of bench warrants as a method of finalisation has partly contributed to this decrease (see paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Notes for further information). Taking this change into account, the number of finalisations between 2001-02 and 2002-03 (excluding bench warrants) fell by 5%.
More than 80% (13,474) of all finalised defendants in the Higher Criminal Courts were proven guilty and 6% (990) were acquitted. Combined, these two finalisation outcomes represent defendants that had their case adjudicated by the courts (87% or 14,464) and of these 93% (13,474) were proven guilty.
Males represented the majority of adjudicated defendants (87%). Of all defendants adjudicated, half were males aged 20-34 years. Just over 40% of both male and female adjudicated defendants were aged 20-29 years.
For male defendants, the most prevalent principal offence category for which they were adjudicated was Acts intended to cause injury (21%). For females it was Deception and related offences, and Acts intended to cause injury (both 19%).
Just over half of defendants proven guilty (55%) received custodial orders to be served (i.e. custodial orders excluding fully suspended sentences) in 2002-03, a slight increase on 2001-02 (54%). For both males and females, custodial orders to be served were the main sentence types, although the proportion was higher for males (58%) than females (38%).
Over 37% of females proven guilty received a non-custodial order compared to 24% of males.
The median duration for all adjudicated defendants in the Higher Criminal Courts in 2002-03 was 22 weeks from initiation to finalisation.
Of all adjudicated defendants, those that received a guilty verdict had a median duration of 48 weeks, and those that were acquitted at trial had a median duration of 40 weeks. For those who pleaded guilty the median duration was 19 weeks.
HIGHER CRIMINAL COURT FINALISATIONS
There were 16,643 defendants finalised in the Higher Criminal Courts during 2002-03, a decrease of 8% on the 17,997 defendants finalised in 2001-02 (see table 11). The exclusion of bench warrants as a method of finalisation has partly contributed to this decrease (see paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Notes for further information). Taking this change into account, the number of finalisations between 2001-02 and 2002-03 (excluding bench warrants) fell by 5%.
Over the past six years, and excluding bench warrants prior to 2002-03, the number of defendants finalised in the Higher Criminal Courts has fluctuated from a low of 15,281 in 1996-97 to a high of 18,864 in 1999-2000.
DEFENDANTS FINALISED(a)
Method of finalisation
In 2002-03, more than 80% (13,474) of defendants in the Higher Criminal Courts were proven guilty (i.e. pleaded guilty or were declared guilty at trial) and 6% (990) were acquitted (see table 8). Combined, these two finalisation outcomes represent defendants that had their cases adjudicated by the courts (87% or 14,464). The remaining 13% (2,179) of defendants were finalised by a non-adjudicated method such as all charges withdrawn by the prosecution.
Of all adjudicated defendants, 83% pleaded guilty and 17% (2,393) were subject to a trial outcome. Of these trial outcome adjudications, 59% (1,403) were found guilty.
ADJUDICATED DEFENDANTS
The median age of defendants finalised by adjudication in the Higher Criminal Courts was 29 years, with the age profile of female defendants (30 years) slightly older than that of male defendants (28 years) (see table 1). The median age of adjudicated defendants displayed considerable variation across the principal offence categories (see principal offence below).
Males represented the majority of adjudicated defendants (87%). Of all defendants adjudicated during 2002-03, half were males aged 20-34 years. Approximately 42% of both male and female adjudicated defendants were aged 20-29 years.
ADJUDICATED DEFENDANTS(a), By age and sex
Principal offence
Offence data refer to the principal offence adjudicated by the court (see paragraphs 33-36 of the Explanatory Notes for discussion on principal offence).
Five principal offence categories (Australian Standard Offence Classification Divisions, see Appendix 2), accounted for the majority of the adjudicated defendants in Australia's Higher Criminal Courts during 2002-03. These were: Acts intended to cause injury (including assault) (21%); Unlawful entry with intent (including burglary and break and enter) (15%); Illicit drug offences (13%); Robbery, extortion and related offences (12%); and Sexual assault and related offences (11%). There were 10,274 (71%) defendants adjudicated by the Higher Criminal Courts with a principal offence in one of these five offence categories.
For male defendants, the most prevalent principal offence category for which they were adjudicated was Acts intended to cause injury (21%). For females it was Deception and related offences and Acts intended to cause injury (both 19%). In comparison to the relatively high proportion of females with a principal offence of Deception and related offences, 6% of males had this as their principal offence. In contrast, there were proportionally more males than females with a principal offence of Sexual assault and related offences (12% and 1% respectively).
ADJUDICATED DEFENDANTS, By selected principal offence
Adjudicated defendants with a principal offence of Manufacture or cultivate illicit drugs had the highest median age (39 years), while the lowest median age was for defendants with a principal offence of Robbery, extortion and related offences, and Unlawful entry with intent (24 years) (see table 1).
ADJUDICATED DEFENDANTS, Median age by selected principal offence
Nationally, the principal offence of adjudicated defendants showed a different pattern across age groups in the Higher Criminal Courts. Defendants aged less than 20 years were more likely to be adjudicated with a principal offence of Unlawful entry with intent, whilst those aged 20-44 years were more likely to be adjudicated for Acts intended to cause injury and those aged 45 years and over were more likely to be adjudicated for Sexual assault and related offences. While this is consistent for males, female defendants aged less than 20 years or 25-34 years were more likely to be adjudicated with a principal offence of Acts intended to cause injury, those aged 20-24 years were more likely to be adjudicated for Unlawful entry with intent and those aged 35 years and over were more likely to be adjudicated for Deception and relation offences.
Between 2001-02 and 2002-03 the proportion of adjudicated defendants was similar across all principal offence categories for sex.
Principal Offence - Adjudication type
Nationally, 83% of adjudicated defendants in the Higher Criminal Courts were finalised by pleading guilty (see table 2). Those with a principal offence of Unlawful entry with intent had the highest proportion of defendants finalised with a plea of guilty (95%). In contrast, adjudicated defendants with a principal offence of Homicide and related offences (51%) or Sexual assault and related offences (60%) were least likely to plead guilty and therefore most likely to have a trial outcome (acquittal or guilty verdict).
Three principal offence categories accounted for the majority of trial outcomes. These were: Sexual assault and related offences (26%); Acts intended to cause injury (21%) and Illicit drug offences (10%). There were 1,349 (56%) defendants with a trial outcome in the Higher Criminal Courts in one of these three offence categories.
Across all principal offence categories, the acquittal rate for Higher Criminal Court defendants as a proportion of trial outcomes was 41%. The principal offence category with the highest acquittal rate was Abduction and related offences (57%), followed by Sexual assault and related offences (51%). The principal offence with the lowest acquittal rate was Illicit drug offences (20%).
Nationally, 93% of adjudicated defendants were proven guilty. The proportion of adjudicated defendants proven guilty was highest for Unlawful entry with intent and Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons (both 98%), followed by Illicit drug offences, Theft and related offences, and Deception and related offences (each 97%).
The proportions of adjudicated defendants proven guilty varied across states and territories, with some of the largest variations occurring for the principal offence categories of Acts intended to cause injury (ranging from 77% in the Australian Capital Territory to 94% in Victoria) and Sexual assault and related offences (ranging from 70% in New South Wales to 90% in Victoria).
The median duration of all adjudicated defendants in the Higher Criminal Courts in 2002-03 was 22 weeks from initiation to finalisation.
The nature of the charges presented to the court, together with the process required to deal with the charges (which is affected by type of plea), impact on the time required for a court to finalise a case. In general, a trial will require more court time than a case where the defendant initially pleads guilty. The complexity of the case, often associated with the type of offence(s) being heard, also impacts on the time required to finalise a case.
Duration - Change in plea
The initial plea entered by the defendant has implications for the workload of the Higher Criminal Courts and the length of time a defendant remains active within the court system. An initial plea of 'Not guilty' may lead to a trial while an initial plea of 'Guilty' will remove the need for a trial and result in a sentencing hearing.
Of the defendants finalised by adjudication (excluding Queensland), 57% (5,071) entered the Higher Criminal Courts with a not guilty plea and were therefore expected to be tried (see table 7). Of the defendants who initially pleaded not guilty, 63% (3,179) changed their plea to guilty during proceedings in the Higher Criminal Courts.
Defendants with an initial plea of guilty had a shorter median duration in the Higher Criminal Courts system than defendants with an initial plea of not guilty and final plea of guilty. Defendants entering an initial plea of not guilty and final plea of guilty had a shorter median duration than defendants with an initial and final plea of not guilty.
Duration - Adjudication type
Of all adjudicated defendants, those that received a guilty verdict had a median duration of 48 weeks, and those that were acquitted at trial had a median duration of 40 weeks (see table 6). For those who pleaded guilty the median duration was 19 weeks.
Duration - Principal offence
Adjudicated defendants with a principal offence of Homicide and related offences had the longest median court case duration of 37 weeks, followed by defendants with a principal offence of Sexual assault and related offences (29 weeks). These two offence categories had a high proportion of trial outcomes (49% and 40% respectively), which take longer to finalise. Adjudicated defendants with a principal offence of Unlawful entry with intent had the shortest median duration of 14 weeks, consistent with the majority of defendants pleading guilty (95%).
ADJUDICATED DEFENDANTS, Median duration by selected principal offence
DEFENDANTS PROVEN GUILTY - PRINCIPAL SENTENCE TYPE
Data on sentence type are collected and published for all defendants who are proven guilty. Sentence type refers to the principal sentence type a defendant receives (see paragraph 41 of the Explanatory Notes for further information).
Custodial orders
Just over half of defendants proven guilty (55%) received custodial orders to be served (i.e. custodial orders excluding fully suspended sentences) in 2002-03, a slight increase on 2001-02 (54%) (see table 10). For both males and females, this was the main sentence type, although the proportion was higher for males (58%) than females (38%) (see table 3).
DEFENDANTS PROVEN GUILTY, Custodial order (excluding fully suspended sentences) by age and sex
Custodial orders (excluding fully suspended sentences) as a proportion of all sentence types varied across principal offence categories and ranged from 87% for Homicide and related offences, to 31% for Public order offences (see table 4). Males were nearly twice as likely to receive a custodial order for Property damage and environmental pollution (49% of males and 25% of females) and Acts intended to cause injury (56% of males and 30% of females).
The proportions of custodial orders varied across states and territories, ranging from 38% in the Australian Capital Territory to 74% in the Northern Territory and New South Wales. Some of the largest variations occurred for the principal offences of Acts intended to cause injury (ranging from 20% in the Australian Capital Territory to 78% in the Northern Territory) and Deception and related offences (ranging from 32% in Victoria to 88% in the Northern Territory).
DEFENDANTS PROVEN GUILTY, Custodial order (excluding fully suspended sentences)
Nationally, 18% of adjudicated defendants proven guilty received a fully suspended sentence as their principal sentence type (see table 3). Fully suspended sentences were the principal sentence type for 17% of males and 24% of females. The proportion of defendants receiving a fully suspended sentence as a principal sentence increased with age, ranging from 11% for persons under 20 years, to 22% for persons aged 45 years and over. Fully suspended sentences as a principal sentence type were greatest for Offences against justice procedures (28%), followed by Illicit drug offences, and Weapons and explosives offences (both 25%) (see table 4).
Non-custodial orders
Approximately one-quarter (26%) of defendants proven guilty received a non-custodial order (includes community supervision/work orders, monetary orders and other non-custodial orders) as their principal sentence type (see table 3). This proportion was greater for females (37%) than for males (24%).
In contrast to fully suspended sentences, the proportion of defendants proven guilty receiving a non-custodial order decreased with age, ranging from 50% for persons aged less than 20 years to 18% for persons aged 45 years or more. The most common non-custodial sentence type for both males and females was a community supervision/work order (67% and 71% respectively of non-custodial sentences).
DEFENDANTS PROVEN GUILTY, Age by selected principal sentence
The principal offence categories most likely to receive a non-custodial principal sentence (see table 5) were Public order offences (50%), followed by defendants for both Property damage and environmental pollution, and Theft and related offences (39%).
Between 2001-02 and 2002-03 the proportion of defendants proven guilty receiving a non-custodial order decreased from 28% to 26%, while the median age of defendants proven guilty receiving this sentence type decreased from 25 years to 24 years.
MAGISTRATES' CRIMINAL COURT FINALISATIONS
Coverage and data quality issues place limitations on the use of the experimental Magistrates' Criminal Court data for the 2002-03 reference period. For further details see pages 47-49 of Appendix 1.
This page last updated 20 June 2006


Binds a value to a corresponding named or question mark placeholder in the SQL statement that was used to prepare the statement.
The value to bind to the parameter.
Explicit data type for the parameter using the PDO::PARAM_* constants.


If Hitchcock had been a B-movie director, the result might have looked something like this. The plot is certainly worthy of the master, but for all its twist-laden excitement, it lacks the spark of classic thriller material. Richard Todd stars as the supposedly dead man who returns to the family fold to collect his inheritance, much to the shock of his sister (Anne Baxter) who begins to wonder whether her long-departed sibling's sudden appearance is just a figment of her imagination. It's a routine plot, but done well, with just enough surprising moments and decent acting to scrape by.
Richard Todd as Williams, alias Ward McKenzie Prescott Jr.


Critics of Star Citizen might suggest that the game is already overly ambitious, but that isn't going to stop Chris Roberts from adding a celebrity cast of voice actors to the game.
In a recent interview with Develop, Roberts explained that he will cast Star Citizen's single-player experience, Squadron 42, as if he was producing a film. This won't be the first time Roberts has been involved in video production either. He's spent years working as a film director and producer, and earlier this year he spent four months shooting capture for Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom.
Roberts added that Cloud Imperium is coordinating with 3Lateral and Cubic Motion to make sure all in-game performances occur in real-time and are not pre-recorded cutscenes. Not much information could be divulged about the single-player elements of Squadron 42, but more details will be announced at CitizenCon in Manchester on October 10.
Star Citizen is already a game mired in controversy, so does adding in another over-the-top element make any difference at this point? We'd like to know from our readers if you're okay with Star Citizen continuing to add new promises or if you just want to see some semblance of gameplay.


text:
Q: how to open a link in same page in different content pane using dojo? I have all anchor tags in left side contentpane of my web page. When i click a link, it will navigates to another another web page. i want that destination web page should open in my center contentpane.
I have hust started DOJO.Please Help me to solve this issue.

              Page1

       // page1.jsp should open in this section

A: Note: This example is working only for Dojo 1.8+
Assuming that you have something similar to:

  show /link1 in targetPane
  show /link2 in targetPane
  ...

The basic instructions follow:
1) Intercept click events on the anchors.
For instance, you can mark the anchors you want to target the content pane with .menuLink class:
show /link1 in targetPane
...then for clicks on those elements:
on(query('.menuLink'), 'click', function(e) {...})
2) Handle the event
Use e.preventDefault(); so that clicking the links won't reload the whole page (as in your current situation :)
Instead instruct the pane to load the link from the anchor:
registry.byId('targetPane').set('href', e.target.getAttribute('href'));
Example
Working example is here (since I've skipped all of the Dojo boilerplate)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When it comes to plumbing, there are many different things that can go wrong which is why we created this plumber FAQs page for you. If you are unsure of how to do something yourself, give us a call today to have a plumber visit you asap.
What causes the water temperature to change in the shower when the toilet is flushed or someone runs another water appliance in the household?
Answer: When you flush the toilet, the tank starts refilling by opening a valve. Some water rushes through the opened valve and is diverted away from the shower. Depending on how the piping is laid and how wide the valve opens more or less water is diverted form the shower and the effect is more or less noticeable.
What is a pressure-balancing valve and why should it be installed on my homes shower systems?
Answer: A Pressure-balancing valves prevents sudden change in temperatures. It will happen to everyone who showers. Elsewhere in the house a toilet is flushed, a faucet is opened, or the washing machine turns on, and the once-temperate water coming from the shower head is suddenly cold enough to make you jump or so hot you want to scream. A simple device called a pressure-balancing shower valve can help you out.
What would be the cause of a water leak from the vent in the plumbing system?
Answer: Water should not be able to leak from your vent system. The only water that should be in your vent system should be the occasional storm water after a big storm. There should be no possible way for sewage or sewage water to get into your vents or water system.
What could cause a high water bill besides pipes leaks?
Answer: Over ninety percent of all leaks in residential plumbing systems are found in the toilet tank. Toilet tank leaks often result from worn parts or improper alignment of some part of the flushing mechanism. It is important to stop the leak happening right away.
What makes my plumbing system & drain pipes rattle constantly?
Answer: This problem is usually caused by the water lines not being properly isolated or installed. It can be easily fixed if your water lines are easily reachable.
Why does my hot water smell like off or rotten eggs? My cold water does not smell, how can I mend this?
Answer: The most common cause of "fowl smelling water" is a non-toxic sulfate reducing bacteria, scientifically known as Divibrio Sulfurcan anda often enters the water system through construction or a break in ground piping. The most common treatment available is the shock-chlorination of the system. This is a surface treatment, and mostly requires repeated trials in badly infected systems.
My toilet will empty itself of water. Why would this happen?
Answer : Their are a couple answers to this easy question, but this solution fixes it almost all of the time. The answer is simple, poor venting or no venting of the toilet fixture. Vents allow for airflow to reach the toilet sewage system. Without the right vents, air pockets form in the waste branches, which cause what, is called back-siphonage. The air in the system, without a vent, can only escape through the sewer and drags the water in the trap along with it.
Why does my toilet often fill up with hot water instead of room temperature water?
Answer: The main reason you may have hot water in your toilet is due to a bad flapper in the toilet tank or a bad fill water valve. This can allow give water the opportunity to seep into the tank. When you have fitted a mixing valve on your toilet to stop condensation from occurring, some hot water is introduced into the cold water line to warm the water just a little, but when the water just seeps a little at a time the hot water dominates the cold and you get a tank of hot water.
How do I stop water in the toilet tank from flowing over the toilet?
Answer: This happens because the fill valve in the tank has a leak somewhere in it. Moreover, if the fill valve has been recently repaired or replaced, it is possible that it has been set too high. If the fill valve is old, replace it soon. By replacing it, your problem should sorted out.
Why does my hot water system not work as well as it did when it was new?
Answer: This is usually due to a sediment build up in your water tank. As hot water systems get a bit older, they accumulate sediment and lime deposits. If these deposits are not removed periodically, the sediment will create a barrier between the burner and the water, significantly reducing the hot water systems performance level. The result is an increase in the amount of energy required to deliver hot water to you.
Why would a hot water system run out of hot water much faster than normal?
Answer: If your hot water heater is running cold easily or frequently then several things could be occurring. Firstly, check the shower head volume to ensure they are not too quick. Moreover, a new shower head puts out about 2.5 gallons of water a minute. Some older heads put out five gallons of water per minute. Working with the shower head would double the length of the shower. In some cases, the dip tube on the cold-water inlet has broken or is worn out.


text:
How 'Dynamic Friction' Could Be Online Fraud's Kryptonite
Posted on February 12, 2019 August 14, 2019 9:12 am
Do you want to gain a step on fraudsters? Do you want to beat them while also making it as seamless as possible for legitimate consumers to buy from your website and contribute to your bottom line?
Then be prepared to toss out the rules.
Okay, that's hyperbolic. But it's in service of a larger, very important point: Online fraudsters are much smarter than they were just a decade ago, and slavish adherence to rule-based fraud prevention systems will, essentially, leave a door or two open for those criminals to come through.
In the latest edition of the PYMNTS Masterclass video series, Kevin Lee, trust and safety architect at Sift, dives deep into the new landscape of fraud, and gives specific advice about how to best counter it. Sure, everyone knows fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated and organized — but how many know what to really do about it? Besides that Masterclass video, Lee, along with Karen Webster, will discuss this subject further in today's PYMNTS webinar entitled "Building a Trust and Safety Team from the Ground Up."
Fraud Evolution
In the new Masterclass video, Lee summed up the evolution of fraud over the past decade or so, providing an observation that might lead to some anxious nights for merchants. No longer does fraud typically mean "one individual" trying to break into an eCommerce platform. "Now, different types of bots and scripts attack platforms, not one by one but thousands at a time," he said.
And that's not all: Fraud today involves relatively complicated — compared to a decade or so ago — attempts to take over legitimate accounts or create enduring fake ones. As well, retailers handle much more than payments these days, of course: Digital commerce means delivery, content and other factors that can also give criminals an opening.
That all presents numerous challenges for any retailers interested in avoiding the bad PR, litigation and loss of revenue that typically follows a breach or hack. Among them is building better fraud prevention defenses without alienating honest consumers and existing and potential customers. To put it another way, the challenge is to stop criminals without introducing too much friction that can result in customers giving up on creating accounts or abandoning online shopping carts.
It's a simple matter of numbers, Lee said. Traditional fraud management "might focus on the 1 percent who are exploiting the system." That sort of fraud prevention "spends 100 percent of the time on that one aspect of fraud."
But what about the 99 percent who are on an online retail site with honest intentions, and just want to buy as quickly as possible and then get on with their lives? Well, that's where a practice he called "dynamic friction" comes into play — a concept that can not only help prevent fraud, but also builds trust in the platform and with the merchant.
As Lee told it, the danger of fraud starts well before the transaction, and that knowledge can help defeat it. A fraud prevention system that is based on machine-learning algorithms — not just legacy rules that have probably been around for years — can lead to more understanding about the people who come to a particular platform. And that understanding can lead to more precise detection of fraud attempts without putting too many speed bumps in the path of honest consumers.
Digital Bread Crumbs
Consumers leave "digital bread crumbs along the way," Lee said. Such factors as how quickly a consumer created an account, the nature of the keyboard strokes and other traits can help determine if the person's intent is legitimate or criminal.
"Within 10 seconds, did they go to purchase three GoPros, or were they browsing?" he asked by way of example. "Did they start with GoPro accessories first? Did they put something in the cart and then remove it? All these things, from a behavior standpoint, are really telling."
A fraud prevention system that is primarily rules-based, by contrast, would not spot those traits, those complications. Rules are binary — they do only "yes" or "no." Fraudsters — at least the successful ones — are not so dim as to be stopped by a binary fraud prevention system, Lee said. "Fraudsters learn to adapt very quickly."
Not only that, but consumers are impatient and unforgiving. Faced with too much friction, they might just leave and check out a competitor. Another goal of that machine learning model for fraud prevention is to reduce what Lee called the "insult rate" — treating legitimate customers as potential criminals, which could lead to honest accounts being shut down.
Executive Buy-In
Getting past rules-based thinking when it comes to fraud prevention requires more than a few conditions, not the least of which is what Lee called "executive buy-in."
He drew upon his spam prevention experience at Facebook to explain how various teams within a single business not only have to work together — the practice of eCommerce gets increasingly complicated, with new products coming out all the time, and online retail encompassing a variety of tasks and features — but to "evangelize" their goals and work.
As well, an organization needs a "centralized team dedicated to trust and safety," Lee said. In short, "you need a holistic approach."
Platform operators have an advantage: The "tremendous" amounts of data they have about the "user's entire online journey." The key is making sure that data is fed into machine learning data-mining tools to detect those patterns that indicate fraud — and to focus not just on fraud, but the larger, potentially more lucrative concept of "trust and safety," he said.
That's not to say rules are useless, though. "You still want rules at the end of the day," Lee said. For instance, a good rule is to not deal with consumers who have IP addresses from North Korea. "You don't need a machine to tell you that," he said.
Still, he said, "You are going to need to move beyond the rules, pure and simple."
Related Items:Cybercrime, Data Breach, Editors' Picks, Featured News, fraud, Fraud Prevention, hack, News, security & fraud, Sift, video
How Face ID Can Power End-To-End Verification
Fed Aims To Regulate Banks Based On Size

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
British Coffee Association appoints Thomas Blackwall of Finlays as new Chair
Posted on Tuesday 25th, June 2019.
The British Coffee Association (BCA) has appointed Thomas Blackwall, Global Head of Coffee at Finlays, as its new Chair.
The BCA says Blackwall will help continue the association's sustainability mission, drive new initiatives, and support the industry through the next phase of Brexit negotiations.
"I am hugely honoured to take up this leadership position for the United Kingdom coffee industry and BCA. The BCA is the voice of our industry, actively promoting and defending all tiers of the coffee sector," Blackwell says.
"The association has made huge strides fostering a collaborative environment for the industry on sustainability and technical issues and I look forward to continuing and furthering that important work whilst driving us forward into new strategic areas"
Blackwall will replace Ian Bryson following two years in the role.
Global Coffee Report has launched a LinkedIn Showcase page. Follow HERE for up-to-date news and analysis of the global coffee industry.


text:
The 2006 Terek Grozny season was the first season that the club played back in the Russian Football National League following their relegation from the Russian Premier League at the end of the 2005 Season.

Season review

Squad

Transfers

In

Loans in

Out

Competitions

First Division

Results by round

Results

League table

Russian Cup

2005–06

2006–07

Squad statistics

Appearances and goals

|-
|colspan="14"|Players away from the club on loan:
|-
|colspan="14"|Players who appeared for Terek Grozny but left during the season:

|}

Goal scorers

Clean sheets

Disciplinary record

References

FC Akhmat Grozny seasons
Akhmat Grozny

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia