back to article Ad-blocker blocking websites face legal peril at hands of privacy bods

Websites that detect ad-blockers to stop their users from reading webpages could be illegal under European law. Alexander Hanff, a privacy campaigner and programmer, says he has received a letter from the European Commission confirming that browser-side web scripts that pick out advert blockers access people's personal data ( …

Page:

            1. Alexander Hanff 1

              Re: Grey Areas

              I spent the last 6 months speaking at industry events (both advertising and publishing) warning them they are breaking the law and suggesting they find a better way. 500 million (roughly 25% of Internet users globally) blocking ads because of privacy and other concerns is quite possibly the world's biggest ever protest. The current model is unsustainable and instead of trying to find a way which is acceptable to Internet users they choose instead to go to war with them using illegal tools to infringe on the fundamental rights of the people.

              So don't tell me I haven't given them a chance to fix the situation, I have - repeatedly.

              Now the time for action has arrived.

            2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Grey Areas

              "If a government makes it technically illegal to take non-harmful actions in order to refuse service to someone who will not pay for that service"

              There's nothing to stop any server paywalling their site. That's not the point here.

              And the user viewing ads is not paying. Someone else is paying, the advertiser of whatever product or service is being advertised; and oddly enough they're quite likely paying good money to piss off the visitor who will then be making a mental note never to spend their own good money on that product or service.

        1. Alumoi Silver badge

          Re: Grey Areas

          Damn right!

          And they should inform the user by forcing the web browser full screen, using blinking text and annoying loud (and I mean ear shattering loud) sound that he/she is a fking freeloader and he/she should die a horrible death.

          Oh, wait, they server ads, so it's the same thing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Grey Areas

        >1. Cookie banner solutions are currently not compliant with the law (they place the cookies before the page is even rendered and the user has seen the banner)

        So now the cookie consent kit published by the EU on advice from the lawyers who drafted the law (most of whom would also be the technical legal advisors to the judges in your mythical case) is illegal? I think not.

  1. quattroprorocked

    Publishers could simply

    "Hi, we only grant free access to people who actually appreciate what we do

    May we check your browser for ad blocking?

    Yes - we check and if no ad blocking, (or you ad block but we're whitelisted) you see the site.

    Yes - and if you have ad blocking and we're NOT whitelisted we drop a cookie that allows you to see the page you wanted now, plus X pages per month for free, and hope you like us enough to become a regular reader at $1pw.

    No - you don't value our work? Find someone else to give you the info you want.

    GOOD NEWS - all our ads are safe to view. We host them on our servers and they do not get to use any of your information, and there is no external code called, and the only links are ones you can click to go to the advertisers site."

    This model would allow potential new subscribers to taste, help those just dropping in for something on the fly, persuade those who really appreciate the site to pay for it, and deep six the whole ad flinging biz.

    I pay WIRED $1 a week. I'd happily pay El Reg the same. Vice I read but could live without.

    I used to be a publisher (with a safe ads policy) and frankly, if you won't pay, and won't allow safe ads, you can fuck off. But safe ads are the key. Until publishers can promise that, ad blocks will stay.

    1. storner
      Thumb Up

      Re: Publishers could simply

      Couldn't agree more. When I stumble across a site that seems interesting, I am quite willing to pay them for their efforts - but in return, I expect them to stop forcing ads down my pipe. Or at least give me the option to turn off the darned noise.

      But expecting to get intelligent writings for free is naïve.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Publishers could simply

        "But expecting to get intelligent writings for free is naïve."

        And we have El Reg to prove it!

    2. Alexander Hanff 1

      Re: Publishers could simply

      I am fighting for (and have been doing so for the last 10 years) the removal of non-consensual tracking and behavioural profiling (which actually only makes up around 7.5% of display ad revenues according to the industry's own research). My campaign is about privacy not about ads. Also, as I have stated a number of times there are legitimate and legal ways to detect adblockers - the issue here is non of the tools being used currently do this in a legal way.

      I also think it is ok for publishers to block content to people who refuse to view their ads - but they must do it legally - currently they are doing it illegally.

      But this campaign is also about publishers who are not just illegally detecting adblockers but circumventing them (which is also illegal) and no publisher has any right whatsoever to circumvent the choice of a consumer and display the ads despite knowing the user has refused consent.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Publishers could simply

        Are you trying to get the law changed to make unharmful practices legal, or are you trying to shake down honest publishers who are just trying to make a living?

    3. Tony Paulazzo

      Re: Publishers could simply

      I used to be a publisher (with a safe ads policy)

      Dude, I was so with you until that last paragraph. If you don't like how the internet works (hint: it's a two way street not a passive selling medium), then you fuck off. Yes, you can open a dialogue with me as a potential customer, but don't try force feeding me your agenda. Go back to TV where people channel flick thru the ads or make coffee or surf their tablet / phone (which now Apple are happy with adblocking means advertisers are truly fucked), maybe they should try opening a dialogue because they're losing friends right, left & centre.

      NOTE: Didn't downvote you, and will happily whitelist sites I frequent.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Publishers could simply

        "Dude, I was so with you until that last paragraph."

        To what were you objecting - that he was a publisher or that he had a safe ads policy? Should he have had an unsafe ads policy?

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Publishers could simply

      If the ads are hosted by the site the ad-blocker would be a no-op unless it blocked the entire site so the first part of your comment would be irrelevant. It would also enable the site would have to take responsibility for what it showed so there would be an incentive to filter out attempts at malvertising and a disincentive to repel viewers with ads that offensively attempt to stick their fingers into visitors' eyes and ears.

    5. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Publishers could simply

      Safe Not disruptive ads I'd accept.

      I watch ITV, sometimes. I accept ads. But TV ads don't flash across the screen while I'm watching the content. Don't interrupt too often ( and provide opportunities to put kettle on or visit the loo when they do) and don't intrude by flashing stupid colours on and off, bounce around or present stupid come-ons that are just there to lead you to somewhere totally different.

      It's not the ads that bother me. It's the disruption.

      1. quattroprorocked

        Re: Publishers could simply

        FWIW, I would not have video pop under blow up jump out ads on any site I ran, and back then, I didn't. Static image and text is all I allowed. It's all I'd allow now.

        I think disruptive ads are a pain that pisses off the audience, and any site that used them would have a hard time keeping me as a reader even if they were safe.

      2. Fatman

        Re: Publishers could simply

        <quote>I accept ads. But TV ads don't flash across the screen while I'm watching the content.</quote>

        Then consider yourself lucky.

        Here on the other side of the pond, on many independent stations, popover ads are becoming the rage during the program.

        Other stations will crop the credits to only a portion of the screen just in order to side load more ads.

        1. illiad

          Re: Publishers could simply

          they must be more observant in Portugal, where that film/programme ends, and goes to ads.. after the ads, the credits come up! :D

    6. jason 7

      Re: Publishers could simply

      I'm happy to pay. I just don't want ANY ads. If you don't want my money, then you too can fuck off.

  2. Mr Templedene

    I used ghostery for quite a while, but decided I could put up with ads when an update meant it seemed to ignore whitlisted sites and keep blocking.

    After I removed it, ad-block detection still detects that I have an ad-blocker running, even though now I don't!

    That is very annoying, wired and fark are two of the obvious guilty parties.

    1. Chika

      @Mr Templedene

      Totally agreed. The last version of Ghostery had detrimental effects on a number of sites and I often found that the only way to get in with no problems was to switch the damn thing off, so I uninstalled it. A pity because at one time it did a good job.

    2. John Savard

      If Ghostery gets detected after it's uninstalled, Ghostery, not Wired or Fark, is the guilty party. Any program that leaves traces of itself behind after the Windows Uninstaller has done its work has not been following the rules for a Windows application.

      But presumably it's not sold in stores in boxes, so it doesn't need to get permission to stick a logo on them.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        " Any program that leaves traces of itself behind after the Windows Uninstaller has done its work has not been following the rules for a Windows application."

        ?

        How did Windows Uninstaller get in here?

        1. Fatman

          RE to answer your question.

          <quote>How did Windows Uninstaller get in here?</quote>

          IF this were a court of law, then the other side would have to raise an objection on the grounds of Facts Not In Evidence.

          IOW, someone assumed that Windows was involved; and may not be aware of alternative O/Ses like Linux, OSX, etc.

  3. Efros

    Already apply

    My own Site Blocker. Fairly simple, if the site asks me to disable adblocker by refusing to load content until I do I don't go there again. Fuck you Forbes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Already apply

      I just dont go to sites that try to block access for add blocked browser on my main browser i fire up a different one without add block to view the site if i really want to see it.once i have seen the page i clear the cashe, history and cookies for that browser.

      I am on a limited bandwidth account and all the adds add up.

    2. Craigness

      Re: Already apply

      Have you ever paid Forbes for their content?

      What do you think they might want to say to you?

      1. Efros

        Re: Already apply

        nope and frankly I don't care, and I won't know what they want to say to me while they block access.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Already apply

        "Have you ever paid Forbes for their content?"

        I don't use that site so I don't know whether they have a paid for option. Do they? Because if they don't your question is irrelevant - if they don't accept payment he can't make one.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I dont get a choice.

    I dont get a choice as add blocking is done at the firewall.

    the solution used is not as complete as add block + but it does stop a lot of adverts.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: I dont get a choice.

      AC wrote "add blocking"

      add = addition

      ad = advertisement

      Tom Scott does a nice video rant about the dangers of electronic voting. One possible upside of e-voting could be that everyone's online e-vote could be weighted down based on, for example, how often they use 'add' to mean 'advertisement', or using the wrong 'there, they're, their' word.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I dont get a choice.

        JeffyPoooh

        I do apologise for being dyslexic and having problems with spelling.

        I have enough problems with spelling when coding let alone having to deal with spelling Nazis.

        why is my opinion / vote any less relevant or weighty based on my ability to spell.

        1. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: I dont get a choice.

          Compilers are the fiercest 'spelling Nazis'. No excuses, no apologies.

          Anyway, you can relax. I've arranged to have your full-weight vote reinstated. ;-)

  5. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    'Wired' does this.

    After about 15s, they throw up a message, "Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers..."

    Refresh, pause while content reloads, then click 'X' to stop it happening again.

    Seems to work.

    1. Chika

      Re: 'Wired' does this.

      Have noticed that Dailymotion has started doing something similar recently. A screen with "Oops" and a message to check various things "and switch off any Ad Blockers" comes up. Not on every video, but enough to make it annoying.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: 'Wired' does this.

        "a message to check various things "and switch off any Ad Blockers" comes up. Not on every video, but enough to make it annoying."

        Yep, it's utterly crazy and made worse by lazy webdevs. I don't use an ad blocker. But I do use NoScript. I will almost always whitelist the URI of the site I am visiting if it's a useful site and I'm likely to re-visit and sometimes even the CDN they use. But I leave the 3rd party scripts blocked. It's not my fault if they want to use scripts to show me ads. If the ads came from 3rd party URIs without using scripts then I have no doubt they would appear on my screen as intended. I'd be fine with that. But so many ad slingers have proven unable to police themselves by flinging out malware that I simply do not trust them to be allowed to execute code on my PC.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: 'Wired' does this.

      > After about 15s, they throw up a message, "Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers..."

      Which is pretty easy to stop.

      If websites allowed an option for "non-intrusive ads" then I'd probably take ot.

      The problem is they don't and generally they offer adverts in frames from 3rd parties who don't adequately vet the content. I've run across too many driveby software installations and _noisy_ adverts in frames to allow them ever again.

      1. illiad

        Re: 'Wired' does this.

        sooooo many drone on, forgetting that it is MOSTLY googles fault for monetising it for lazy people!!!

  6. Trey Pattillo

    snooping my machine

    is a violation....

    One tech site known as tweak town [no space plus .com] know that you are running AdBlock Plus and you get the following below legalize in 7 languages and no way to "contact" them, read "privacy" etc....just the crap text.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AD BLOCKER INTERFERENCE DETECTED

    Your ad blocker is interfering with the operation of this site. Please disable it or whitelist this site. Thank you.

    --------------------------------

    WRONG....you must remove ABP. Just disabling it or whitelisting will not work.

    WHERE ARE THE REGULATORS [US or EU] to send Guido and his baseball bat to give them a clue about the latest of "viral 3rd party ads".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: snooping my machine

      You would have thought that legitimate advertisers would want to display effective ads to the people who might actually buy stuff. This would mean far fewer, better ads. But at the end of the chain the only way we have of expressing a preference for good quality advertising versus random malware is to install ad blockers. The communication channel has too high a noise to signal ratio.

      I don't have a practical solution to this, but perhaps this is something the EU could put its mind to. If it could have such a success over micro USB, a standard for inoffensive advertising on websites, an accreditation system, and an adblocker that whitelists ads on approved sites might be a starting point.

      1. FF22

        Re: snooping my machine

        "But at the end of the chain the only way we have of expressing a preference for good quality advertising versus random malware is to install ad blockers. "

        Wrong. Actually, the contrary is true: ad blocking is what eliminates any expression of preference - because, you know, it blocks all ads, regardless of its quality, which it can't and doesn't even try to asses.

        You could only expect ads to become more of what you think is better quality, if you would not block them, but would rather visit sites which display ads you like (or hate less), and shun sites that display ads that you find bad an obtrusive. This way sites with better ads would proliferate, and sites with bad ads would go out of business.

        But with ad blocking on, you are not only eliminating that feedback loop, but are also forcing publishers to show more obtrusive ads to the remaining non-adblocking folks, because now they will have to cover also the costs of serving you with those ads.

        Ad blocking is not the solution, but the very problem that makes ads larger and more obtrusive.

        1. raving angry loony

          Re: snooping my machine

          FF22 the advertising industry apologist writes: "But with ad blocking on, you are not only eliminating that feedback loop" and "Ad blocking is not the solution, but the very problem that makes ads larger and more obtrusive."

          Which, as we all know, is complete and utter bullshit.

          For starters, I've only seen one platform that allows any feedback on ads. Others are "click here to give us feedback" but all that does is take us to the subject of the advert in the first place, with no way to actually give feedback. The only feedback we CAN give is tell you to fuck right off. So we do. Some ads are OK. Others are not. But we can't CHOOSE. So we choose to remove all of them. The problem is not ours. It's yours.

          As for ad blocks making ads larger and more obtrusive? A tiny fraction of the population currently uses ad blockers. Ergo, ad blockers aren't what's making adverts larger and more obtrusive. I'm guessing the real reason is the total disconnect between the advertisers and the people they're trying to foist their shit onto. Advertisers seem to think that the only purpose of the internet is to sell their shit. Well, they're wrong. And until they learn that they're wrong, ad blockers will continue to rise in popularity. Of course, advertisers are like any salesperson - completely immune to self criticism and completely deluded about their popularity.

          Tell you what. Go back to your boss in the advertising industry and tell him that when (a) they actually let us give FEEDBACK on the desirability of ALL ads they've just pushed in our face and (b) they STOP making the ads larger and more obtrusive some of us will then turn off the ad blockers (and script blockers, and tracker blockers, and other blockers.)

          I've yet to see an ad that actually asks for feedback on the ad itself. No, each time there's a link, no matter what the link CLAIMS it is for, it's actually just another excuse to fuck me over with intrusive advertising and privacy invading scripts or some other crap. So we can't give feedback on a per-ad basis. Nor can block on a per-provider basis because the advertising industry hides itself under multiple pseudonyms and other slimy practices - just like the scum they are.

          So yeah, there's a war on. One the advertisers may or may not win. But until the advertisers realize that they are the cause of most of their own problems, nothing will change. Until apologists like you stop blaming the public for choosing not to read your crap, nothing will change. Look towards how you operate for the real cause of the problem.

          And if websites want to block me for using an ad blocker, by all means do so. I'll gladly go elsewhere. But do so without breaking EU privacy laws, or suffer the very real, very expensive consequences.

          1. FF22

            Re: snooping my machine

            @raving angry loony

            You heard that loud woooosh sound? It was the point I made flying over your head.

            What I said - and what you didn't get - was that by not visiting sites with "bad" ads, but switching to sites with "good" ad instead, you're creating a feedback loop, which doesn't need you to actually fill out a form about ads. The system will just notice automatically what's good, and what's bad, and adapt to that and to your preferences.

            That's like "voting" with your money, you're just doing it with your eyeballs. But by not giving money/eyeballs to anyone (because of using an ad blocker), you won't force anybody to make better products for you. The only thing you can achieve is that nobody will want to make stuff for you, because they won't be able to make a living off that.

            Simple as that. Even you could understand.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: snooping my machine

              Put it this way. They'll just make the ads more obnoxious and unavoidable until you either acquiesce or abandon the Internet.

              And if you choose the latter, then they'll follow you back into reality, where junk calls from foreign parts and junk mail from shell addresses are all over.

              Ad men are going to track you, full stop. That's the way they make their living. Try to ban them, they'll come back as something else. About the only way you'll get rid of the ad men is to check out of society.

              1. illiad

                Re: snooping my machine

                there is always paranoia.... LOLOL

                you forget there are legions of hackers out there, selling 'anti-ad' stuff, laughing at you....

              2. Peter Ford
                Mushroom

                Re: snooping my machine

                There *is* an alternative to *me* checking out of society, although it might lead to me being forcibly checked out of society. After all, advertising companies have offices, employ people, operate computers. All of those are potential targets for someone sufficiently annoyed by the intrusion...

            2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

              Re: snooping my machine

              The feedback (-ve naturally) to the Ad slingers is very simple...

              WE DON'T WANT ADS

              Now do you understand?

              The more ads the less I want to visit your site in the future.

            3. Chris G

              Re: snooping my machine

              FF22 Up until that last a fair amount of what you were saying was at least reasoned even if I didn't agree with it.

              However, in what universe is there a way of knowing which sites have "good" ads and which sites have "bad" ads without visiting them all ?

              In addition if sites were receiving less hits because of their ad quality then the ad campaigners would mix and match the ad content much as they do at the moment so as to cover most or all eventualities.

              Besides, I doubt strongly if there is such a thing as a good ad except for that rare moment when something pops up advertising exactly the thing I was looking for and I for one am not going to tolerate the unacceptable level of advertising in the hope that a once a decade ad should show up.

              For what it's worth 'Feedback' in the ad industry is what the rest of us call money, if there were no controls on advertising, there is little that many ad companies would not stoop to to get their message out.

              1. FF22

                Re: snooping my machine

                "However, in what universe is there a way of knowing which sites have "good" ads and which sites have "bad" ads without visiting them all ?"

                Why are you asking this? Why would you have to know and how could you know about *anything* whether it fits your taste or meets your standards without looking at it first? If there's literally nothing in any universe you could evaluate without at least looking at it first, why would you expect to be able to do that with ads? You're making no sense, are you?

            4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: snooping my machine

              'What I said - and what you didn't get - was that by not visiting sites with "bad" ads, but switching to sites with "good" ad instead, you're creating a feedback loop, which doesn't need you to actually fill out a form about ads.'

              Nice one. The only way to distinguish these sites would be to turn off the ad-blockers!

              What a pity we can all see through it.

            5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: snooping my machine

              "The system will just notice automatically what's good, and what's bad, and adapt to that and to your preferences."

              What "system"? How does it know where I've gone? How does it know that the site I visit isn't just a one off? How does know that the reason I didn't go back was because of the ads? Maybe I didn't go back because of the content, ie the primary reason I went there in the first place.

              I think that whooshing sound you are hearing is the points of others going over your head, not ours. NO ONE visits a site specifically to see 3rd party adverts.

              At best, what your "system" will do is notice that one site is more popular than another and start pushing the obnoxious ads there instead of the less popular one which people stopped visiting because of your obnoxious ads in the first place. The way you describe your "system" adapting is more akin to an infectious disease spreading from host to host when it should be mutating into something beneficial.

              1. FF22

                Re: snooping my machine

                "What "system"?"

                Free market. You've probably heard of it before.

                "How does it know where I've gone?"

                Because that's where the ads are served to you.

                "How does it know that the site I visit isn't just a one off? "

                It doesn't have to. The point is: if you and everybody else are visiting a site only once, because it serves "bad" ads (whatever that might mean), the site only earns pennies. But if you regularly return to a site, because it serves "good" ads (whatever that might mean), it makes a tons of money. So the site with the "good ads" will proliferate, and the site with "bad ads" will go out of business.

                It's the very same as what you do when you buy products on the free market. If a company makes bad products or provides bad service, then people will buy from them only once, and never again, and will even alert others to not buy products from that company. So this company with bad products will get no business in the long term. People will instead flock to companies that make better products, and that company will be able to expand, and grow, and provide even more good quality products and services.

                Now, if people would only pick sites based on how bad or good ads on them are, then the same evolutionary process would take place on the market of ads, and they would get all better. Instead, with blocking, there's no incentive to make ads better, and actually the most reckless site is that will be the last standing. And all the good ones will go out of business.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like