swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
Re: What about Google?
said by wifi4milez  :And ISP's contract with Nebuad for their ad revenue and analytics. No difference, other that who is getting paid.
Case 1: A sends B a message via messenger M, and agrees to include C's ad, and M delivers it unmolested. This is perfectly legitimate.
Case 2: A sends B a message via messenger M, with or without C's ad, and M opens it and reads it for benefit of D, without consent of either A or B. This is radically different. (The fact that D is "contracting for" this is irrelevant, it's still interference with other people's communications.)
said by wifi4milez :I have bad news for you. If you have opened the page and then checked the "view source" option, then you have already loaded the Google code! All that enables you to do is check after the fact if Google had code embedded in the page. Furthermore, assuming you can find the Google specific code, what will you do then?
Wrong again. It's easiest to explain with an example. A request from my browser to pagead2.google.com may be issued by the browser, but will never get past my router. So the script is never retrieved, much less executed. But I can still look in the page source and see:
<script src="http://pagead2.google.com/ ... >
Besides, a user may load it one time, and block it on another occasion.
said by wifi4milez :said by swhx7 : ...how [can] the customer of a Nebuad-using ISP can prevent his traffic from going through the Nebuad machine? There's no way unless the ISP offers a true opt-out. ... the company is also telling you that they arent doing anything with your data, and until that is proven false (or we have lots of evidence to the contrary) there is no reason to doubt them.
So now you're no longer denying the wholesale wiretapping, something profoundly different from websites serving cookies and scripts - but now you just defend it by saying it's harmless because you trust the spybox companies to "do no evil" (beyond the spying itself). But the spying itself is what a lot of people object to. I don't believe anything said by a company in such a sleazy business, either, but that's secondary. We shouldn't have to take their word for anything because they shouldn't be allowed in a position where they have the power to harvest all the data. Industry self-regulation has never worked for the protection of citizens in any scenario, ever.
said by wifi4milez :Even Karl pointed out that what you describe isnt happening here
What Karl was saying there was that Nebuad doesn't replace ads that site owners have contracted for with other ads of its own. That is true. My point is that the user-tracking and proxying techniques involve the spybox impersonating sites, injecting cookies into headers, and appending javascripts - as explained in funchords' study and elsewhere - and intecepting communications of non-consenting others. This is indeed radically different from sites serving cookies and scripts. (And Karl, in the post you link to, agrees with me.) |
