2/07/2010

A little more on the Automation Labs hoax

It has been suggested by the editor of All Facebook that the Automation Labs hoax may be a viral marketing campaign.


I think this is unlikely. First, Automation Labs produces a software robot (called a "bot") for the very popular Facebook game Farmville, developed by Zynga. Bots play a game or take in game actions on behalf of the player when he is not present at the computer. I'm not by any means recommending the game (and certainly not the bot) - I feel Zynga does business with some very shady people (see this Tech Crunch series and this Consumerist article.) However I might feel about them as a company, Automation Labs product violates their terms of service, players that use this software are likely to be actioned (banned, warned or some other punitive measure taken against them). This is particularly relevant in the aftermath of Blizzard Entertainment vs. Glider, a software bot formerly used in the popular MMO World of Warcraft.


In essence, the court found that the developers of the Glider bot violated Blizzard's copyrights, particularly in reference to their game client (the software players use to access the game.) Since then, while bot makers are still active, they are leary of litigation as this case is a possible precedent in future actions. Looking at the WHOIS lookup for automationlabs.org, the address in the administrative information section leads to a mail center in Brea, CA and their telephone contact is an unpublished number in Los Angeles, CA. This may mean they have some assets within the U.S. and could be reached by the U.S. legal system. Many bot makers exist in countries with poor records when it comes to IP protection such as China or India. If they are located within the U.S., then putting themselves on the radar like this would make no sense.


Also, this hoax uses their company name in a fairly negative light (and in most gaming communities botting software is already considered in a very negative way), making those that searched for the term less likely to buy their product. Are you eager to buy a legally questionable product from someone being accused of hacking by one or more of your friends? That's what I thought.


I concede the possibility that this may have been started by a competitor, but I would think that Automation Labs would have to be seen as a leader in the field. Their website does not lead me to believe this is the case, and a Google search for Farmville bots (no, I am not clicking those links even with my shields up) has Automation Labs product ranked fifteenth - below the fold (on the second page of results) for most people searching Google. I would expect a serious competitor would rank in the top five.


Additionally, bot software developers tend to avoid the light of day and this has shined a spotlight upon their community in Farmville. When awareness of botting goes up, so do user reports and game company enforcement efforts. I noticed this during my time in World of Warcraft. There is no positive evidence that this was a viral marketing campaign either by Automation Labs or one of their competitors.


Another possible scenario: Users who utilize bot software tend not to be the most security conscious people around. Because people want this software and it is not socially acceptable, it often comes with a little something extra. Malware. Key-loggers, root kits, worms, etc. I'm not specifically accusing Automation Labs of dispensing malware, but this was often a source of infection in WoW community. So our user downloads something with malware in it and panics - he starts checking all his online accounts, changing up his passwords and secret questions. He checks his block list on facebook, and he types in the name of the company he thinks infected him - and a whole list of people pop up because of Facebook's suggestive search. He gets the totally wrong impression that these people have access to his account and after blocking them, posts a status about it. And so it goes.


This seems plausible based on user behavior I've seen in the past, I cheerfully admit to having no evidence whatsoever as to its validity. Just musing while I wait to see if netLibrary is going to cooperate with me.