Thanks for the update links, Doc (and others down the thread). That so many writers converged on the same theme is…well…uncanny. From: Doc Searls [mailto:
]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 16:01 PM
To: T.Rob
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Online advertising is the new digital cancer Arg! Huge overlook on my part. Just added it to the post. On Dec 14, 2014, at 3:22 PM, T.Rob <
">
> wrote: Love it! Not the least because it looks a bit like an elevator summary of From: Doc Searls [
">mailto:
]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 14:16 PM
To: T.Rob
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Online advertising is the new digital cancer Coincidental: Is perfectly personalized advertising perfectly creepy? It's speculative, and leverages Don Marti's work. Also includes a draft of a graph. Feedback welcome. On Dec 14, 2014, at 2:03 PM, T.Rob <
">
> wrote: Online advertising is the new digital cancer There's actually only 2k words in the post. The other half is relevant pull quotes from two of the dozen or so sources I linked to. Basically, the post boils down to this: not only is online advertising riddled with malware, according to Federal Times and Invincea it is being now used by nation-states as a weaponized component of Advanced Persistent Threat campaigns. I went out of my way to provide many more links than usual in my posts so that people can look up the source documents if they like. Considering the extent of the damage we know about (remember, the latest malvertising delivering to top-tier sites went undetected for 2 years) the idea that any court took the suit against AdBlock plus seriously is amazing. An unfavorable outcome for AdBlock Plus would amount to the granting of legally protected status for organized cybercrime. Aren't those people hard enough to catch without granting them blanket immunity? T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner +1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text +44 (0) 8714 089 546 Voice
|