 | | https.... .... there's a solution already in place for any web developer who is worried about their content being hijacked in this fashion. | |
|
 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 | |
|
 |  | | Re: Horrible thought: There's always Adblock Plus to add whatever proxy servers and other ad based domains show up to block this bs. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: What about blocking them via a HOSTS file? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium join:2000-11-09 14225-2105 | Re: Horrible thought: 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! | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Duramax08:From a look on reddit, it doesnt seem to block it. according to other users on reddit who are subjected to this, the only way to block it is to harvest and block the IP that the injected content is served from at the router level. | |
|
 |  | | 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
| Re: Horrible thought: 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: 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..
| 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  GonePremium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| Re: Horrible thought: 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? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  bt join:2009-02-26 canada kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| said by TBusiness:Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. It wouldn't be the user doing the suing. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | You're referring to the arbitration clauses that many have in their service agreements, I assume. That doesn't mean you can't sue; it just makes it harder to win. You can still sue, as can any other subscribers, and the ISP must still answer in court, even if all they do is bring up the arbitration clause.
But that isn't even the issue here. Web site owners whose sites were affected can sue the hell out of them, and that pesky little arbitration clause will be irrelevant. And, as I said in another post, the site owners can simply block access from that network. Just wait until subs can't access Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. Yeah, that'll go over really well.
Where I work, the general philosophy of the legal department is to avoid the risk of lawsuits, because, even if you might win, there's still a cost in terms of time, energy, and bad publicity. Now, do the calculation. Are a few bucks from advertisers worth lawsuits, Web site blocks, and angry customers? You're pissing off lots of people for a few bucks, and even the potential advertisers may run the other way. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | you can still sue your ISP, just not class action. you have to take them to small claims court now. I think 100 small claims court actions against a single ISP would be an extremely good show of unhappiness and force. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | it would be a website owner suing the ad company for modifying their site, or something to that effect. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  GonePremium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| Re: Horrible thought: said by Chubbysumo:it would be a website owner suing the ad company for modifying their site, or something to that effect. If the ISP is the one doing the injection without the knowledge of either party, the ISP would be the one who would get hauled into court by the website for creating the association without authorization. The advertiser could very well sue the ISP for the exact same reasons, too. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: and you're assuming they have a cap! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  DampierPhillip M Dampier join:2003-03-23 Rochester, NY | Re: Horrible thought: said by TBusiness:and you're assuming they have a cap! This provider has usage caps. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | They don't have a right (BTW -- most of the things we enjoy are a privilege, not a right) but if they have a cap, it's certainly possible that they could legally use part of it to deliver for-profit services (i.e. ads). They'll write it into your TOS and claim that the service price and caps are built upon the assumption they can do this.
I'm not saying ad injection isn't sleazy and wrong for lots of reasons. I just don't believe an effective argument is based on them using part of "your" cap. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | 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 | Re: Horrible thought: Well said. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | 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 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Private network, and who are they going to run to? Hughes 'net if thats the only other service available? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | There is reverse precedent for a site blocking access. When Dish, DirecTV or any number of cable companies dispute content provider charges, the public has already experienced numerous and repeated blackouts. Certainly a "free" site can legally refuse traffic from anyone it chooses. Even a pay web site can refuse access if it does not allow subscribers to renew their subscription or refunds subscription fees. Web sites have no legal requirement to guarantee access to everyone who wants to access them. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: They aren't replacing the ads, they're injecting over the website. Think pop-up or inline pop-up. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Horrible thought: If you read the original blog post, they're both putting ad banners at the bottom of websites and replacing website ads with their own. What makes it worse is sometimes they replace some ads with a competitor's advertisement. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Charter
| said by TBusiness:And what law are these companies violating? Copright? NOPE! actually, a lawyer commented on the reddit thread that said that they may be violating copyrights because its replacing in site adverts as well as pop-overs, as well as changing the fundamental layout of several sites(like apples), which companies might not take to kindly too finding out that their site is being modified mid-stream. | |
|
 imtim83I hate those people so muchPremium join:2001-06-03 Kenner, LA | Ad Muncher ftw!
Ad Muncher to the rescue again! | |
|
 |  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium join:2003-08-04 USA kudos:11 | Yes by now AD MUNCHER must not be very hungry! | |
|
 dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·ITalkBB
| inb4 every corporate executives... Begins to think it's a good idea to use criminal methods to make a buck or two, seeing how they do nothing but sit at their desks reading reports and paperwork, or twiddling their thumbs.
Then suddenly they got a 'bright' (stupid) idea and thinks he's the king of the world because nobody in the industry has ever done this before within the last 2 years (because they got in trouble for it).
Oh well...
C'mon, lets see some moar stupid ideas! | |
|
 |  | | Re: inb4 every corporate executives... how is this a criminal act??? | |
|
 |  |  dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·ITalkBB
| Re: inb4 every corporate executives... Generally I wasn't referring to this article itself, but to how a few out of many corporate executives would act, if it were for the sake of making a quick buck.
By criminal, means things that may not be legal, or may even be bad to the general public.
For instance, what if ads that are injected, for the sake of gaining more profits, they use ads that may be linked to virus sites or even have scripts run when the media/content appears on the site? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: inb4 every corporate executives... Just because its not legal does not make it criminal. Criminal is a whole different ball park. at best this would be civil and not anywhere near criminal. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Re: inb4 every corporate executives... If they replace an ad, they could be charged with fraud/deception. I'm sure you can agree if a postal worker took payment to put a sticker that covered the front page of a weekly ad mailer with competitors ads, that's fraud/deception for profit or gain. That is a crime. For profit and gain, both the postal worker and the organization who paid the worker are deceiving the intended recipient of the mail and the original advertiser. (While not currently relevant to Internet bits and bytes, they are also tampering with the mail which is a federal felony -- if only we had a law like this for the Internet!) | |
|
 crazyk4952Premium join:2002-02-04 united state kudos:1 | lawsuit time Hopefully the will get sued and have to pay a huge amount of damages. We need one ISP to be used as an example so that none of the rest of them think that this is a good idea. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: lawsuit time damages for what???? Can you cite a law that is being broken???? And you do realize that many ISPs have more money than you can dream of to keep things like this out of court. And don't ask the FCC to do anything for you. They're powerless as it is and do not control the Internet.
And you do realize that there is a clause in many ISPs's AUP/TOS that states you only lease their private network - which is an IntRAnet and not IntERnet. Meaning they can do what they wish with THEIR private network, they're only providing you access to the Internet at will?? | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·ITalkBB
| Re: lawsuit time Or, in another case, if their ad injections results in sites that are criminal or dangerous to the general public.
Most ad generating revenues that is used online, are done to maximize profits, even if it means increasing said risk of exposing the public on your site to script based hijacking if they click, or even have the ads run when they view it. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| they're NOT on the website. That's the part you don't seem to get on most of these. They're just a pop-over. And still is not illegal. There is NOT a law that states they can NOT do it. That's the whole point. You are all claiming this is illegal but fail to cite any laws that make it "illegal". Especially when copyright laws does not make this anywhere near illegal. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: lawsuit time What gives any ISP the right to use up your paid for bandwidth. They can't legitimately set a cap and then force you to use it for their advertising too. That's the biggest problem with the internet, like television: people are being forced to subsidize revenue in the guise of user fees. Shouldn't have to pay for tv if you have to watch advertising, anymore than you should have to pay for bandwidth if they are going to use that bandwidth to make you watch ads. How come no one ever screams bloody murder about that? | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA | VPN I wonder if using a VPN would stop this. | |
|
 |  jimkPremium join:2006-04-15 Raleigh, NC | Re: VPN It would, but the better solution (for those who have a choice in ISPs) is to immediately switch to another provider... and don't come back, even if they make a good retention offer. | |
|
 | | ... When I left a CMA service area, they had just been bought out by a Canadian parent company... if they are still operating like that, would the FCC even have jurisdiction over them? | |
|
 |  japPremium join:2003-08-10 038xx | Re: ... said by moldypickle:would the FCC even have jurisdiction over them? Sure. Laws & regulations apply by operating location not place of citizenship. Just like when you travel as an individual: laws where you physically are now is what applies. | |
|
 |  | | FCC does NOT govern private networks nor do they govern the Internet. Sorry. | |
|
 | | Add-Ons anyone... And now you wonder why people run adblocker add-ons...:P | |
|
 |  dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·ITalkBB
| Re: Add-Ons anyone... Because some ads are actually dangerous to users, in that when run, will save 'temporary' files or scripts onto the user's computer.
When you browse a page and a piece of media appears, you technically downloaded all related information and content temporarily beforehand. It's also called streaming, but it's the same thing because in the midst of 'streaming' the file exists on your system, hence making your vulnerable to a infection. | |
|
 | | Ads-just the tip of the iceberg Give and inch... While they're altering the http stream to shovel more advertising they might as well fix those pro-Demopublican opinions to pro-Republicrat, expunge any insult of profits Muhammed or Limbaugh, "fix" any Global Warming comments, etc. TBusiness might be flaming liberal, but thanks to using FoxNews Internet Inc. all the comments are altered to what we see here today. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: Ads-just the tip of the iceberg and I am proud to be a Liberal as well. The fact is what is being done here is NOT illegal, not criminal - at best only a civil matter with really nothing to go on law wise.
And yes all comments- even on here are altered or can be altered at anytime. | |
|
 |  | | And here I thought that 'Tbusiness' was a Freeper(no regulations, no lawsuits, so to get massive profit on the backs of the lowly workers).
'man-in-the-middle-attacks' are a crime.
Having to opt-out of man in the middle attackssss, oh wait, there is no opt-out and no opt-in. There have been court cases over the years based on that too. Privacy laws and such. To inject ads in this manner relies on content scraping of every single bit of data that you do. Where is the database of that data and how many days is in the save file?
You can sue anyone. You can not be denied that Right via unlawful legalize.
Even the police do man in the middle attacks with their 'spoofed cell phone tower in a brief case'. Collecting id numbers of cell phones and they can also monitor the traffic for certain data. So unless your log files on your phone stating what tower you hooked up to or pinged, you won't notice.
Extension for firefox called 'comment snob'(just 1 among others). Helps to filter out the derp and the herp and the "um I think that spelling is in English, but what the f*ck does it say or mean". »addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox···nt-snob/ | |
|
 | | unwanted popups on android Seems these folks have taken after android. Nothing beats paying cash upfront for my Razr Maxx ($736) and paying a premium for my mom and pop service provider, paying for my apps (no free aps, no facebook, no twitter) I just use weather, reuters news and a paid angry birds ap. I still get commercials and popups. Nothing pisses me off more than reading a news article and my phone switching to loading a commercial video that I cannot cancel. This should be illegal. It is forcing data on my capped plan and if I needed to make a emergency call, I could not. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: unwanted popups on android those ads are built into your apps from those free services. If the ads are directly on your phone, you have serious problems on YOUR PHONE. And when you complain about an already expensive and limited data plan- that is only your fault that you went with one of the most expensive and limited carriers, not anyone else's. | |
|
 |  | | If you are only using paid apps, there is something called 'push ads'(AirPush), it may be installed by default on your phone by your carrier.
add-ons detector. Should tell you what ad servers are on your phone. »play.google.com/store/apps/detai···N0b3IiXQ.. | |
|
 | | CMA Never thought I'd see a story about my local rural texas isp. Personally been sticking with ATT DSL over CMA. Not really happy with either, but I go with the cheaper and lower latency option in DSL right now. They charge 82 dollars for 7mb/1mb upload internet in my town, and in a couple of the cities they've upgraded to Docsis3 it's 54.95 for 15mb dl internet. Their pricing's all off.
This ad thing is enough to convince me never to try them. | |
|
 |
|