Re: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

[Doc Searls < >]

One alternative is tech that obviates the need for new law.

Not saying we don’t need laws and regulations that do the world good. Just 
saying that there is a world of good that only tech can do. 

And, btw, our main job here is to make #VRM tech. (Or, in cases like mine, to 
encourage it.)

Doc

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Mike O'Neill 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> 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/
>