Re: [projectvrm] adblock sells out

[Kevin Cox < >]

We have all the Laws and Regulations needed in the Privacy Principles agreed to by many countries.  However, they are largely ignored because they impossible to enforce with the technology as it exists today.  We have to develop the tech so that privacy is built into the way we do things and that way has to be less expensive and easier to use than what we do at the moment.

Here is a technology that is a move in the right direction and that will advance the VRM cause.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/04/why-the-internet-needs-ipfs-before-its-too-late/

Kevin

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

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/
>

--

Contact 0413961090