 wmcbrine213 251 145 96 join:2002-12-30 Laurel, MD kudos:1 | Horrible thought: What if people start to get tired of going after these bastards, and it becomes a reluctantly accepted practice, just by the ad-injectors wearing us down with their persistence? Like compassion fatigue -- call it "outrage fatigue", perhaps. -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
|
 | There's always Adblock Plus to add whatever proxy servers and other ad based domains show up to block this bs. |
|
|
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX | From a look on reddit, it doesnt seem to block it. -- »mc-buildville.enjin.com/ |
|
 | reply to wmcbrine Consumers may get worn down, but the companies whose Web sites get altered will simply sic the lawyers on these companies, and that will be the end of it. I think the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because angry consumers have swatted down previous ad-injection efforts before the lawyers could be mobilized. |
|
 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| And what law are these companies violating? Copright? NOPE! They are not changing anything of the code. Instead they can be pop-overs.
And as far as Marriott in NY doing this- private network; read the TOS if you don't agree, don't use it. The same with any ISP or company. People that fail to read are the ones always complaining when things happen. |
|
 | Did you know that car you rented is actually a Peugeot instead of a Maserati?
They still charged you the higher price for rental, but with that fancy Maserati sticker over all the Peugeot markings you never knew different.
Defacement of a website is a crime. Oh wait, thats just for the peons and not the corrupt corporations. |
|
 GonePremium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to TBusiness said by TBusiness:And what law are these companies violating? Copright? NOPE! They are not changing anything of the code. Instead they can be pop-overs. Oh how naive you are!
The owners of the websites could sue the provider for associating their products and services with another company that without their prior approval. Based on the image, an H&R Block ad is appearing on Apple's website. Apple could argue that someone may draw an association between the two by assuming that Apple endorses their product or services when no such endorsement actually exists. For this reason alone anyone doing this could be hauled into court, and a blanket subscriber TOS that attempts to hold harmless the ISP for doing this most likely wouldn't fly either. |
|
 | reply to TBusiness There are enough ads on the network without your ISP using up the bandwidth you pay for (they have NO right to use up your cap) and then ding you for overage later. That's unconscionable.
I doubt there is a way for them to get out of this without looking like ambulance chasing lawyers. |
|
 | reply to TBusiness And how sure are you that your view of this practice's legality will hold up in court? This isn't something that's been run through the courts and settled, so are you ready to fight that battle, with all the associated costs? Oh, and don't forget that, if you piss off the Web sites enough, they have one ace in the hole that you can't fight: they can simply deny all traffic from your network, or they can redirect your customers to a page telling them that they cannot access the site because you are altering its content, then directing those customers to call your support line to resolve the problem. What's your plan to deal with that? If you want to argue that it's your network, so you can handle the incoming data as you see fit, then the Web sites are going to say fine, they just won't send any data to your network. Try explaining your legal argument to your customers as they call in to cancel service. |
|
 GonePremium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 | Well said. |
|
 | reply to TBusiness Possibly the CFAA, but more than anything these ad injections can be seen as a malicious attack on both the users and the websites due to them replacing the website's ads with their own. Let us not even get into how their ads are using subscriber's limited bandwidth due to the company's 250 GB limit and how that can be seen as them forcing users to use much more bandwidth than they normally would in the hopes of causing them to breach said limit.
Basically, this has "bad idea" written all over it and may very well be seen as illegal because of how it's implemented and how it removes and replaces ads on websites. |
|
 | reply to Duramax08 What about blocking them via a HOSTS file? |
|
 KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to ISurfTooMuch I think it would get smacked down hard in court for altering a users experience beyond that what the website owner promised.
A good example would be if I run a website and offer a subscription for a nominal fee to experience the site without any advertising and this cable company starts poking ads in, My customers will come after me not their carrier because they will not know any better. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium join:2000-11-09 14225-2105 | reply to kickass69 said by kickass69:What about blocking them via a HOSTS file? sorry, I dont have one of those...e.g., mine's a "hosts" file. Besides...it wouldn't have much effect because my nsswitch.conf lists "dns" first. -- English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! |
|
 | reply to Probitas and you're assuming they have a cap! |
|
 | reply to Gone Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. |
|
 | reply to ISurfTooMuch Private network, and who are they going to run to? Hughes 'net if thats the only other service available? |
|
 | reply to Uplinkpro They aren't replacing the ads, they're injecting over the website. Think pop-up or inline pop-up. |
|
 GonePremium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to TBusiness said by TBusiness:Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. Who said anything about copyright law? I certainly didn't.
It's about unintended and/or unauthorized association. Do you think Apple would want a Surface or Windows 8 ad injected on top of their website? |
|
 | reply to TBusiness Satellite is slow, yes, but it'd be better than a faster connection where popular sites simply aren't available because the site owners deny all traffic. You don't want to get into a pissing match with Google. Let them block access to all their services and see how that works out with your customers. |
|