Re: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

['Don Marti' < >]

You can't write a network application that assumes that
both ends will always be on a reliable network, and you
can't do a business fix that depends on an honest
politician in the system.

Fixing the web tracking problem will be like fixing
the email spam problem in an important way -- no
single measure such as closing open SMTP relays or
blocking 3rd-party cookies can fix everything.  But we
have been able to make email spam unacceptable, and
uneconomical for most, _despite_ (with hindrance, not
help from) the government's pro-spam "CAN-SPAM" law.

begin Mike O'Neill quotation of Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 07:06:45PM +0100:
> 
> 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/
> 

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