RE: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

["Mike O'Neill" < >]

Don,

Just because regulatory capture happens (and it happens everywhere) does not 
mean you have to abandon law. You just have to make the legal procedures more 
transparent and honest.

I know first-hand that is an uphill struggle, the "just" is tongue in cheek, 
but I cannot see what the alternative is.

Law was invented to stop us destroying ourselves, and we need it now to help 
save the web.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Marti 
[mailto:
 ]
 
Sent: 06 October 2015 18:05
To: Mike O'Neill 
<
 >
Cc: 'Brian Behlendorf' 
<
 >;
 'ProjectVRM list' 
<
 >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

begin Mike O'Neill quotation of Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:04:12PM +0100:
> 
> I also like Privacy Badger because, as you say it does not depend on a 
> sporadically maintained and non-transparent blacklist, but detects 
> "tracking behaviour" algorithmically. But there has to  be an underlying 
> recourse to law for when clever technicians defeat the algorithm.
> 
> The trouble is that code is obscure, so non-transparent. Sure the code is 
> open-source but very few have the time or inclination to burrow into it, 
> other than those with a commercial imperative.
> 
> This means that people maybe unaware when tracking behaviour is undetected. 
> Already Privacy Badger by design does not detect tracking that uses 
> first-party cookies, and these are just as capable in communicating 
> people's web activities to third-parties. The third-party elements that do 
> this do not place or read cookies (or localStorage) in their own origin so 
> the algorithm does not register them as "trackers". In fact this is now the 
> most common form of tracking, ever since Safari iOS introduced default 
> third-party cookie blocking.
> 
> There is a useful role for tracking protection technology but this must 
> supplement, not replace, law and regulatory action.

Legal and/or regulatory action in the USA would be the
most dangerous thing to have happen at this point.

We have a level of regulatory capture here in the
USA that would mean any law that addresses this issue
would end up fossilizing the most harmful practices
of whoever can afford the best lobbyists.  Today,
everyone with lobbying budgets wants a piece of the
surveillance marketing gold rush. The mobile carriers,
ISPs, large broadcasters, all of them.  So we would
end up with a surveillance marketing regulatory regime
that makes it hard to do anything else.

If you think the harmful practices of consumer
credit and DRM companies are unfairly backed-up by
government power in the USA, wait until you see what
the government would do with surveillance marketing.

Team Signal has a lot of strengths, but pull with the
US government is _not_ one of them.  Trying to turn
this situation into a legal or regulatory issue is
like challenging a bighorn sheep to a head-butting
contest on a narrow ledge.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Behlendorf 
> [mailto:
 ]
>  
> Sent: 06 October 2015 02:24
> To: Mike O'Neill 
> <
 >
> Cc: 'ProjectVRM list' 
> <
 >
> Subject: RE: [projectvrm] adblock sells out
> 
> 
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Mike O'Neill wrote:
> > That is my perspective also, arbitrary blocking of content will diminish 
> > experience because you might not get to see stuff that could in fact have 
> > been interesting to you.
> > 
> > I am more interested in stopping tracking e.g. behavioural advertising, 
> > which relies on an ecosystem designed to collect and use personal data 
> > without consent. Advertising per see is
> > OK as long as it is only what it appears, an ad. If it is annoying I will 
> > not go back to the site. If it collects information about my web activity 
> > without my knowledge or consent I
> > want the site closed down or have it blocked by my browser.
> > 
> > Adblocking based on an externally curated list will never work. It can be 
> > defeated by simply delivering ads from Urls using recently registered 
> > domains, which can be done faster that
> > the curators can detect them. The commercial infrastructure for it can 
> > also be defeated by throwing enough money at it, i.e. “acceptable ads” 
> > business models.
> > 
> > This is why we need regulation. Collecting personal data without a legal 
> > basis is a crime and the law should come down hard on perpetrators. 
> > Tracking protection in browsers then can
> > focus on the bad actors who avoid the law, a much easier problem to solve.
> 
> Agreed with your diagnosis but disagree with your perscription.  Privacy 
> Badger is effectively an ad blocker for creepy-tracking third party 
> advertisers.  It does not rely on an externally curated block list, and it 
> does not block first-party ads, the kind that not only are usually better 
> aesthetically (as the content provider is usually less likely to muck up 
> their own pages than a third-party advertiser) they also create a 
> higher-quality relationship between advertiser and consumer (as per Marti 
> et al).
> 
> https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
> 
> Its code is open source, and more devs/eyeballs on it would be great. 
> Its "business model" is if you like it, please consider a donation to the 
> EFF. :)  There's still lots of features to add to it; I personlly would 
> love to be able to share third-party-tracker data with other users so that 
> we could block them earlier rather than having to learn anew every time.
> 
> Brian
> 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mike O'Neill
> > 
> > Technical Director
> > 
> > Baycloud Systems
> > 
> > Oxford Centre for Innovation
> > 
> > New Road
> > 
> > Oxford
> > 
> > OX1 1BY
> > 
> > Tel. 01865 735619
> > 
> > Fax: 01865 261401
> > 
> > Email: 
> > 
 
> > Description: http://www.linkedin.com/img/signature/icon_in_blue_14x14.gif 
> > Professional Profile
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: StJ Deakins 
> > [mailto:
 ]
> > Sent: 03 October 2015 10:45
> > To: 
> > 
 
> > Cc: Ben Werdmuller 
> > <
 >;
> >  Id Coach 
> > <
 >;
> >  ProjectVRM list 
> > <
 >
> > Subject: Re: [projectvrm] adblock sells out
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I agree. Having granularity of control of blocking is very important. 
> > However, from my perspective ad blocking in general is reactionary and 
> > defensive (somewhat understandably) -
> > whilst what's required beyond this is the ability to easily chose 
> > who/how/when/if to engage. To move beyond stopping the bad and to 
> > facilitate the good.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > That's just my perspective of course :) 
> > StJ
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, 3 October 2015, Rob van Eijk 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> >
> >                    My concern with acceptable ads is who gets to choose 
> > what's acceptible?
> > 
> >
> >       So far, the user can still change the setting. Moreover, you can 
> > use your own TPL ruleset.
> >
> >       My concern is more about the default settings, specifically on 
> > Mobile, where users have less control.
> >
> >       Rob
> >
> >       StJ Deakins schreef op 2015-10-03 11:12:
> >
> >             Unless AdBlock radically changed tack, that'd be AddBlockPlus 
> > - a
> >             rival ad blocking company from Germany with 60+ million 
> > installs.
> >             AddBlockPlus started the "acceptable ads" initiative, e.g. 
> > accepting
> >             money from Google to let Google text ads through.  My concern 
> > with
> >             acceptable ads is who gets to choose what's acceptible?
> >             StJ
> >
> >             On Saturday, 3 October 2015, Ben Werdmuller 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> >
> >                   Isn't their revenue model to whitelist ad providers?
> >
> >                   "It can be Open Source with a mechanism for knowing the 
> > version
> >                   being used can be trusted." > This is partially true, 
> > as long as the
> >                   software can be tethered to a business's bottom line or 
> > other
> >                   business operation. Private individuals have been 
> > trained to expect
> >                   software more or less for free.
> >
> >                   On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, StJ Deakins 
> > <
 >
> >                   wrote:
> >                   They're an odd bunch. I spoke to them a year or so ago 
> > about adding
> >                   VRM principles to AdBlock and was told that they 
> > wouldn't partner
> >                   with any commercial entity. (I then heated that they 
> > were talking to
> >                   disconnect.me [1]). To be fair though, we don't know 
> > that they've
> >                   sold out, it may have been a fire sale - free, open 
> > source sw with
> >                   40million installs to support and no revenue model is 
> > hard to
> >                   sustain in the long term.
> >                   StJ
> >
> >                   On Friday, 2 October 2015, Id Coach 
> > <
 >
> >                   wrote:
> >                   This just in:
> >
> >                   Adblock sells out -- refuses to identify the buyer
> >
> >                   Adblock extension with 40 million users sells to 
> > mystery buyer,
> >                   refuses to name new owner
> >
> >                   
> > http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/02/trust-us-we-block-ads/
> >
> >                   What's strange is that the company won't disclose who
> >                   it's been sold to, why it was sold, or how much it was 
> > sold
> >                   for.
> >                   For the extension's claimed 40 million users this 
> > raises an
> >                   interesting question: Can the extension continue to be
> >                   trusted
> >                   if the new proprietor is entirely anonymous?  TNW 
> > contacted
> >                   Adblock's remaining staff to ask if they'd disclose the
> >                   buyer
> >                   but the company refused, saying that the purchaser had
> >                   specifically asked not to be named.  The only thing the 
> > team
> >                   would tell us is that the tool's creator Michael 
> > Gundlach
> >                   will
> >                   no longer have any relationship with the company -- that
> >                   probably means he's cashed out.
> >
> >                   --
> >
> >                   M: +447500802020 [2]
> >                   S: stjohndeakins
> >                   @stjohndeakins
> > 
> >
> >             --
> >
> >             Ben Werdmuller
> >             benwerd.com [3] | werd.io [4]
> >
> >             +1 (312) 488-9373
> >
> >             --
> >
> >             M: +447500802020
> >             S: stjohndeakins
> >             @stjohndeakins
> > 
> >
> >             Links:
> >             ------
> >             [1] http://disconnect.me
> >             [2] tel:%2B447500802020
> >             [3] http://benwerd.com
> >             [4] http://werd.io
> >
> >        
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > M: +447500802020
> > 
> > S: stjohndeakins
> > 
> > @stjohndeakins
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >
> 

-- 
Don Marti 
<
 >
                   
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  http://www.aloodo.org/test/