Posts by FF22

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

Re: Ok, just RTFC

@Alexander Hanff 1 "There has been extensive discussion on this at regulatory levels and device fingerprinting is illegal under 5(3) without consent if it doesn't fall under specific exemptions (which I can't think of any situation where it might)."

Thank god we don't have to rely on your obviously bleak imagination, because we have a written, official Opinion from the DPD Working Party, which explicitly mentions several examples where device fingerprinting will be exempt even from prior user consent.

That said, even if it's not exempt, it's still not illegal - contrary to what you keep implying - per se, but only requires consent, which can be - again, contrary to what keep saying - also implied, just like in the case of cookies. There's no official written statement from the EU where it would say otherwise, but there are several, where it is explicitly stated that device fingerprinting falls under the very same consent requirements as regular cookies.

And, unlike you, I can also provide you with a verifiable and official document proving what I'm saying, and disproving what you keep repeating. Feel free to read it: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp224_en.pdf

@Alexander Hanff 1 "None of the cookie banner solutions currently being used are compliant with EU Law - so no they can't be used to cover adblock detectors to make it legal."

Yeah, you keep repeating that false statement, but the facts are contradicting you. Current ad blocker detector (at least the many I've encountered) do not violate the laws you were referring to, because they do nothing alike that you purported they would.

They do not store any scripts or data on the client terminal, and they do not even try to discover the extensions you are running (which wouldn't be illegal anyway). They do functional testing, on a per page basis, which requires none of what you implied.

To me it's obvious, that you simply don't know and understand how web technologies and specifically ad block detectors work, and what those specific technological terms you keep using mean (hint: not what you seem to think). That's where the problem lies, and until you fix that by educating yourself about this issues, you'll always be in the wrong.

@Alexander Hanff 1 "Furthermore, the cookie banners do not have a "I don't agree" option, only an "I agree" option (which is also illegal)."

The "I don't agree" option is present on every single page - even on those who do not display a banner at all. It's located in the top right (on Mac: left) corner of your browser window and mimics an X.

Re: What about..

@Alexander Hanff 1 "Canvas Fingerprinting is also illegal under 5(3) of 2002/58/EC"

Wrong. It's not illegal. It just requires the same consent as do cookies. So, fingerprinting is perfectly legal as long as the consent requirements are met.

"So if you detect that sites are using this method you should first complain to the site and if they do not change their behaviour, fire off a complaint to your regulator."

He can try, but if the site is otherwise compliant with the "cookie law", it's also perfectly legal to use fingerprinting.

"If you regulator refuses to enforce, get in touch with the EU Commission and file a complaint against your country "

Yeah. Either that. Or you could just educate yourself about the actual law and about how the web works at the technological level. Wouldn't harm you either.

" The Commission have advised me to do the same thing with Member States who do not enforce our rights regarding adblock detectors."

You mean your imaginary adblock detectors, that "store scripts" on the client terminal, right? Well, since there are no such detector in existence, yet, I guess you'll have to write one if you want to continue your crusade against this yet imaginary enemy, and not look like a complete fool in the process.

Re: What about..

@A Ghost "Data-Rape is wrong."

Right. But only then, if the data is taken from you. If you're taking data (content) from the publishers/providers against their will and without compensating them for that (because you're using an ad blocker), then that's ok, right? Or isn't this what you meant? Because it certainly sounded that way.

@Alexander Hanff 1 "Average ad revenues per year per user for publisher is less than £0.50 according to industry reports. Wired are currently charging > 8x that per month for their subscription."

And why is that? Because managing subscriptions requires extra resources and incurs extra cost. You've to sell to and support tens of hundreds of thousands of users, instead of just a few big clients, that you've to do with ad-supported model. This obviously requires a larger staff, which in turn requires more revenue/user to be sustainable.

"This is one of the problems with subscription models - for some reason publishers think it is sensible to charge literally hundreds of times the amount they would get per user per year for their subscription fees."

That reason is called: economic rationality and covering the costs. Serving a subscriber costs more than serving an ad-supported user, so you've to charge more for a subscription, than what you make on an ad-supported user.

"Publishers need to either start forming group subscription models where users gain access to many publications"

Yeah. And newspapers need to start forming subscription models where users gain access to many newspapers. Or banks need to start forming subscription models where users gain access to many account with a single credit card. Etc. That's obviously not how things work.

"giving those publishers revenues which are inline with ad revenues if they want to replace ads with subscriptions - or - they need to reduce their subscription costs to micropayment levels inline with ad revenues."

Did it occur to you that they are already charging the bare minimum to cover their costs? Why do you assume they can lower their subscription fees? And why do you assume to know everything better than publishers do, while it's pretty obvious that you've neither the insight, nor the data, bot not even the wit to make those assumptions?

"Then the go down another illegal route and start pushing "branded content" (aka native content or "advertorials"). I was at a publishing event in Paris just a week ago and they were talking about adblocking - their solution? Disguise advertising as content - again this is also illegal."

Yeah. You first force their hands by cutting their existing, honest forms of revenue with ad blocking. Then you're complaining that they have switched to other, less honest forms to generate revenue. Way to go. Hypocrisy much.

"The argument about us not paying for the content we read... we didn't buy anything, so why would we pay for it - in any way?"

Yes, you did "buy", or rather, consume content and/or service. So you should pay for it.

"It's a companies choice to use the web - no-one is forcing them. If they believe that ads are the only way they're going to make money... then perhaps they should start charging a subscription fee."

And would you be ready to pay let's say even just $5/month for every site you visit? How much would be that for a month for you? Just check you browser history - how many sites have you visited in the last week alone? How much would have that cost you if you'd have had to subscribe on every single of them? What a nuisance would it have been to subscribe to every one of them? Would you have been glad to provide every single of them with your credit card details to charge you for their subscription?

I'm keenly awaiting your answer on these questions. If most of them are not positive, then it's obvious, that a subscription model can't ever even just closely replace the ad supported model.

"Calling visitors freeloaders is not really the way forward."

Well, the first step to every solution is to recognize and name the problem. So calling freeloaders "freeloaders" is the first step to solve the problem cause by them.

Re: @FF22

"I guess that means that streaming video isn't a recording or stored on a client computer and so is not a violation of copyright then?"

You question is completely irrelevant in this topic, because it's neither about advertising, nor about data protection. Which you are obviously confusing with copyright.

"if the anti-adblock program doesn't infiltrate the clients memory space how can it possibly know what information was displayed on a client browser?"

Your question is loaded, which is a logical fallacy. Also, it can or could know by the fact, that said information was not requested from the server. The third thing: nobody said that anti ad blockers do not get somehow into the memory of the client computer. They might do that, but if they do, they are deliberately loaded there by the browser on the users behalf. And that's not illegal.

Re: @FF22

"Yes, the advertiser doesn't pay for the ads not seen due to ad-blockers. But that also means they sold fewer ads. Which in turn means the people paying for the ad campaign will pay less. "

Wrong. They will pay the same amount or even more. Why? Because advertisers will just shift ad formats and channels that are not blockable. Like billboard advertising. Or television advertising. Or sponsored content. Or native advertising.

And also because prices are determined by supply and demand. And just because web sites won't be able to show banner ads anymore, the demand won't be less for advertising. So that will raise the price of advertising through other channels and other formats.

Which, however, in turn are less effective, less targeted. This will again drive the price of advertising up. So while free web sites and services will all perish, because they won't be able to even just cover their costs, other media, where you can't block ads, will flourish. And they will earn even more through unblockable ads.

Ads will cost more, both per unit, and also in grand total, because the system will be less effective, there will be less competition, and the barriers to entry will be higher. Everybody will lose out, except for the owners and employers of those unblockable advertising channels/formats.

Re: Ad blocking is no win situation for everyone - both publishers and users.

"If enough of us do, the model dies. This does not mean the death of online advertising, just of third-party ad-serving. Publishers are free to do as traditional media have always done: review the ads, judge their suitability and compatibility with the primary content, and embed them DIRECTLY in it."

Too bad this is not true, because ad blocker are out to block all ads, whether served locally or remotely. The just want to get rid of ads, all of them.

Also, even if local ads would be not blocked, they could be served less effectively, less targeted and more costly than in the current, centralized/distributed model. That would mean that sites would have to show more and bigger ads to generate the same amount of revenue they do now - which then again obviously would be a basis for ad blockers to complain, and to block even those local ads.

It's pretty simple that the usual "reasons" brought up on the side of ad blocking are all just feel-good excuses, that try to paint the picture like if users would be only the victims and publishers would be the bad guys, who are rightfully deprived of their income, and who are seriously expected to provide service and generate content for everybody for free.

But the sad truth is, that ad blockers are the actual perpetrators who rape honest publishers of their well-deserved income for their hard work that goes into building and operating a site, a service, and generating content, free of charge for the users. And they are no better and not much different than ordinary shoplifters and thieves, who do the very same thing similarly honest shop owners.

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.

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?

Re: Bull

@Alexander Hanff 1

Well, you know, this whole situation is exactly like if you would have contacted EU officials and asked them whether "PEZ dispensers that are dispensing cyanide pills" are legal or illegal - and you would have gotten an answer back, that explicitly states, that "well, PEZ dispensers that are dispensing cyanide pills are illegal, because cyanide is a toxic element that is not allowed to be present in food or toys above [just a wild guess] 0.001 micrograms".

And then you would go on tour and to media outlets and would claim that "the EU has declared PEZ dispensers illegal" - while in fact they did nothing alike. They only answered your (rather pointless) question about an imaginary PEZ dispenser that specifically dispenses cyanide pills - but which has nothing to do with PEZ dispensers on the market and which nobody in their rights mind would start to manufacture anyway.

The only difference between your "anti ad blocker that stores scripts" story and the "PEZ dispenser that dispenses cyanide pills" story is, that while the concept of a PEZ dispenser is simple enough for everybody to get a grasp on, and to realize that the problem with such a dispenser would be the cyanide itself, most people - including you - are simply not knowledgeable about the inner workings of anti ad blockers or even of the web and of web browsers in general to realize that

(1) the problem with anti ad blockers that store scripts would be - according to the EU - not their existence per se, but storage of scripts, and that

(2) existing anti ad blockers are not storing scripts or any other information on client computers - so they're not illegal either. And that you're riding a dead horse there.

And it's not only that actual anti ad blockers don't store any information on the users' computers, but it wouldn't even make sense for them to do so. Because users can turn off or on the ad blocking any time, between any two page loads - and if an anti ad blocker would store any information on whether a user blocks ads, instead of re-evaluation that on every page load, then it would

(1) fail to allow access to the content for a user that has turned his previously active blocker off, and

(2) fail to deny to the content for users that have originally not blocked ads, but have enabled it after passing the ad block test. Which would completely defeat the purpose of an anti ad blocker, both ways.

So, in reality all ad blockers work by checking whether the user is blocking ads on every single page load, and allowing or denying access to content based on the result only in regard of that single page just loaded. No storage of information is needed for that, and it would be actually totally counterproductive to store any such information.

And because actual anti ad blockers do not store information on the users' computers and because they don't collect any personally identifiable information either (which again is not needed and would not make sense anyway), they're not and can't be illegal under EU data protection laws, even if they didn't ask for prior consent from the user for doing what they're doing.

The only illegal anti ad blockers under the EU law would be those imaginary anti ad blockers that "store scripts" on the users' computers, but which do not exist in reality - only in your enquiry to the EU and of their reply on that.

Re: Bull

"AFAICS these are two statements of the same thing."

No, because anti ad blockers - as already said - do not examine your cache, do not query the list of installed extensions/plugins (contrary to what our "expert" says), etc. And because they do not store or transmit that information anywhere inside or outside of the browser. They simply do nothing that the EU DPD would require to ask prior consent for.

Re: @FF22

@Graham Marsden:

Your "reasoning" is like

- if you're defending women's right not to be raped, you have to be a raped woman

- if you're defending black people's right not to be shame for their skin color, you have to be a black man

- if you're defending publishers right to not have their ad blocked blankly, you have to be a representative of an internet advertising company*

(*which doesn't even make sense even in itself, but let's skip this part for now)

No, I do NOT have to be a woman, a black man or an internet advertising (firm) to defend some group of people, a phenomenon or even just an idea against unfair treatment, false statements and abuse in general.

And the reason why I'm saying what I'm saying is completely irrelevant and does not determine whether what I say is factual and logical. Not that I wouldn't have explicitly disclosed why I'm saying what I'm saying. Just saying, that even if I wouldn't have done so, it still wouldn't matter.

Because if what I'm saying is not factual and makes no sense, you could obviously still rather easily point that out, and expose the logical and factual flaws in my comments. But you didn't and don't do that. Instead, you fall back to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. You wouldn't have to do that if you would actually have a factual and logical counterpoint to my statements, would you?

And no, you don't actually have to answer that question. It was a rhetoric one, which we both know the answer on.

Re: @FF22

@Palpy "It has made advertisers take notice. The fact that they are panicking is proof that adblockers are changing the system."

Wrong. The advertisers are not panicking. Actually, they couldn't care less. They only pay for ads that are not blocked - so ad blocking does not harm them. It also does not force them to make their ads better or less obtrusive.

It's the publishers, who provide content and services to you, who are taking the loss. Creating that content and providing those services to you costs them money, and they cover those costs with the money they get from the advertiser in return for showing their ads to you along their content and services.

But if you're blocking ads, then they can't show ads to you, and don't get money to cover the costs of serving you. Because of that, they will either have to show more and more ads to the remaining users, who don't yet block ads (which in turn will make those also want to block ads), and/or will have to cut back on the amount and quality of service they provide to you. It's a downward spiral, that ends in the publishers publishing junk content and/or going out of business, and with them their free services also gone from the web.

So, by blocking ads you're creating that downward spiral for every site that provides services free of charge to you. And if you keep blocking ads, all those sites will cease to exists or explicitly charge you cash for their services. And no, you won't be able to just go to another site from there on, because all those other sites are financed the exact same way, and they will be all gone or charge you cash for their services.

And the advertisers? They will be still laughing their asses off. They won't be affected by this at all. The only one who will lose out will be the publishers, and you, as a user, who won't have access to free content and free services any more.

As I already said: ad blocking is not the solution, but the problem itself. That's a fact, and you not realizing it won't change that, unfortunately.

"Kudos to webmasters who use, or used, static ads, vetted and safe ads, non-intrusive ads."

Doesn't matter whether they do, because ad blockers block also those ads. That's the whole point I'm making. Ad blockers take any and all incentive from making ads better (whatever that might mean), because ad blockers can't and don't even try to asses the quality of the ads. Ad blockers don't reward good ads.

Only the users themselves could do that (both evaluate and reward better ads), but only then, if they'd actually see the ads, and would pick between sites based on how good the ads they show to them are. But people using ad blockers explicitly exclude themselves from that possibility, and are thus actively contributing to ads becoming worse and worse, while also killing free content and services for themselves (and everybody else) in the process.

Ad blocking is no win situation for everyone - both publishers and users. And the advertisers just don't care, they are not affected by all that. Their CEOs will still earn millions of dollars each year.

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.

Re: Bull

"The javascript file itself is stored and is illegal."

You realize, that no matter how many times you repeat the same false statement, it will not become magically true, don't you? It will stay just as false as it was for the first time. The only thing you can prove by keeping that up is your incompetence and thickheadness.

I understand you think you landed something big that will make you famous. But you didn't, and it will only make you infamous, for being the clueless populist who couldn't even get the basics rights. You will be the Donald Trump of internet cookies.

The sooner you realize this the less damage your reputation will take. And, trust me, it already took A LOT in the eyes of most competent persons.

Re: Bull

Oh, so many fallacies again in a single comment from you:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

All in all, even if said people would disagree with me, it wouldn't mean they would be right. But in reality they don't even disagree with me. It's only you thinking you do, because you can't even interpret the answer you got properly.

That answer merely states that IF an anti ad blocker that would rely on storing scripts in the user's terminal, THEN that would need prior consent from the user to be legal. However, since anti ad blockers DO NOT STORE any scripts in the users terminal, such consent is not need for them to be legal.

That's what you got there. Nothing more, nothing less. And your wishful thinking won't change that fact.

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.

Re: Bull

"FF22: you claim caching is not storage."

No. What I said was that the cache is created and managed deliberately by the browser on the users behalf, and anything that gets in there is not "stored" by the web page or the publisher, and as such is not and can not be subject of the EU DPD. The latter only regulates what the publisher can store on the user's computer, but in the case of the browser cache it's the user and the browser deliberately storing parts of the web page, for their own convenience, and without being instructed by the publisher to do so.

Also, if such "storage" of elements of a web page in a browser's cache (regardless of how it went there) could be considered the violation of the EU DPD per se, then there would be no legal way for a web page to ask for the user's consent either, because, you know, they could only ask for that through a web page, which in turn could find itself also wound up in the browser's cache - making even the attempt to collect consent or present the actual content illegal.

Re: Bull

Your proposed solutions do not scale well and are using the resources very inefficiently. That's exactly why internet advertising has evolved over time not to work that way (which it did originally), but the way it does today.

Such a change would also kill the biggest players in the field (like Google), who make money by inserting themselves between the advertisers and the publishers, and taking their cuts. So, they will do anything to hinder such a shift in the paradigms how internet advertising works.

Re: @FF22

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Re: Bull

"You are wrong - I have researched a large number of the adblock detection solutions and they all work by storing a javascript on the computer of the user which then checks how the page is rendered"

Wrong. You're misusing the term "store" here and misrepresenting (or simply not understanding) what kind of storage (if any) is happening here, and who is storing that information (if anything). Fact is: anti ad blockers do NOT store any scripts on the client side.

If anything, the browser _caches_ the scripts, which however, is not considered as "storage" in this context (ie. data protection rules). And the browser does so not because it's been instructed to do so by the page or the anti ad blocker, but because it does that on behalf of the user, for his convenience.

However, anti ad blockers do not rely on this kind of caching (which you misinterpret as "storage") and would and will work the very same way they do, even if the browser does not cache any scripts, which it does deliberately, and which caching is controlled by the user.

So, no, let me reiterate that to you again: anti ad blockers and ad blocking detection scripts themselves do NOT store any scripts on the users computer, and do NOT process any personally identifiable information either. As such anti ad blockers are not and can not be subject of the EU data protection directive.

The EU didn't state otherwise either. They merely answered your question, based on false premises, and because of that they gave you an answer that is irrelevant and does not apply to actual ad blockers.

The problem here is not with the legality anti ad blockers, but your understand of how these technologies (or even browsers and the web in general) works.

Re: Bull

"The letter from the European Commission to Mr Hanff talks about ALL information, not just personally identifiable information."

Wrong. It talks about information in the context of the data protection directive. The latter only prohibits storage of personally identifiable information. So the word "information" or even "all information" must be interpreted in this context.

That said, as I already pointed out, because there's no actual storage of any information involved in ad blocker detection, it's completely irrelevant what the term "all information" means.

Re: Bull

"Anti blockers work by checking whether the user has seen some ad or received some file, effectively retrieving the information stored in the user's cache about whether that file has been downloaded or not."

Wrong. The cache isn't involved. Neither is any information stored. Actually, if anything, the opposite is true. Ad blocking is detected by some "information" (element of the page) not being present on the client side, because of, you know, it getting blocked.

Bull

The question in the query has grossly misstated how ad blocker detectors work, and the answer was constructed on that false basis. As such it does not say anything about actual anti ad blockers, only about the imaginary ones that do not exist outside of the mind of the guy submitting the query.

Real anti ad blockers do not store any kind of scripts or information on user side. Also, detecting the presence of an ad blocker obviously is not a personally identifiable information, and as such is not protected by the EU directive.

Embrace, extend – and kill. Microsoft discontinues RoboVM

Spot on

"Embrace, extend – and kill."

Except Microsoft never embraced and extended RoboVM.

That said it would be weird if The Register didn't bash Microsoft for no reason, or for reasons it doesn't bash Google or any other company.

New York senator proposes tax credit for open-source developers

Stupid idea

Code itself has no value. It's just text, numbers and symbols. It gains value by solving an actual problem. And if it does so, market will be ready to pay for it.

They could just as well give tax-benefits for those who scribble a few pages full with text or drawings, and place that under public domain. It would be just as ridiculous.

Ad-blockers are a Mafia-style 'protection racket' – UK's Minister of Fun

Re: Ridiculous

The only reason why ads are everywhere, because you and people like you don't want to pay for content and services. If you'd pay the full cost of online content and services, there would be no need for ads to pay for that instead of you.

Now with ad blocking you're essentially killing that additional or exclusive source of revenue. So now you'll have no choice, but to pay for the content. Or said content will just not be made anymore. Just as the article stays.

Ad blocking is stupid. But stupid people obviously can't realize that.

Re: Not even that

You make the right observation. And then fail to draw the wrong conclusion. That is: ad blockers are the reason the ad escalation problem exists. And only abolishment of ad blockers is that defuse and solve that problem.

Of course that can happen in two ways. One: users refrain from using ad blockers voluntarily. Of course that won't happen, because most users are too selfish and stupid to realize that this would be the solution.

The other: free content will vanish, every site will switch to a subscription model, and the only remaining free content will be the ads themselves. This is what will happen. And in the end ad blockers will get just as useless. But now everyone will have to pay actual cash for content.

How exactly do you rein in a wildly powerful AI before it enslaves us all?

Let's just hope AI's will be smarter than these researchers

"Our basic biological machinery in humans doesn't change; it's the same 100 billion neurons housed in a few pounds of cheesy matter. It could well turn out that once you achieve a human level of machine intelligence then it's not much harder to go beyond that to super intelligence."

No logic there. The very fact that human intelligence doesn't seem to progress much, not even at scales of thousands or tens of thousands of years, and that evolution needed billions of years to reach even just human level intelligence, are all a very good indication (if not proof), that the level intelligence can only be raised very slowly and does not scale well.

If an AI will be developed by means of evolutionary processes, then it will be also bound by the limits of those - which are pretty obvious. And if it won't, then it won't be developed using evolutionary processes, then it won't have to develop traits either, that would pose a threat to us. Hell, it wouldn't even necessarily have a motivation to self-preservation, let alone taking over the world.

Samsung trolls Google, adds adblockers to phones

Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

Samsung could just ship the blocker pre-installed on their phones or make it available in their own app store which is already available on all their phones, so, they would not be affected by Play Store terms. Google would have to put that prohibition right into the Play Services License Agreement or into the one they have to Samsung in order to forbid it.

However, I don't think licence agreements are enough to stop this in its tracks, because there's no clear distinction between what an ad blocker, what a tracking blocker, what a content filter, etc. is. Technically they're practically all working the exact same way, and it only depends on their actual filter lists what their net effect is in the end. So you can't really catch them with legalese.

My guess is that with the blocker war escalating Google will have to start to block ad blockers on their own services, too, at a technical level. Once they do that, ad blockers will become a thing of the past - because really, both the law and the technological advantage is at the content creators side. It will be a pain in the ass for the users - but hey, they can only blame themselves for starting and escalating the blocker war.

Boffins celebrate 30th anniversary of first deep examination of Uranus

The title

I see what you did there ;)

New open-source ad-blocking web browser emerges from brain of ex-Mozilla boss Eich

Re: Brought it on themselves

"Indeed. If I get pestered by an advert I'm less likely to buy whatever's being pushed at me. "

You obviously have no clue how advertising works. And just because of your ignorance you're even more prone to be affected and even fooled by it, than Average Joe. In this way I can totally understand of you being so afraid of getting in touch with advertisement. Fears of the weak mind, you know.

Re: Ok...

"How do you know?"

Are you seriously asking me how I know whether a multi-billion dollar company like for ex. Google running the Adsense network has more serious and educated professionals working on their services than for ex. Joe Doe who happens to run his own blog in his spare time? You didn't think that through, did you?

"Just take a look at the crap and verbose JS these ad networks spew up."

What, even if it would be true, would have nothing to do with how secure they are compared to the web sites they have their ads embedded on.

"Just time how much slower a page load is with the ads. "

Which, again, has nothing to do with the security of ad networks. And what's a minor inconvenience anyway, you have to bear for getting all those content and services you're consuming for free.

"No it isn't. I have no financial obligation to these websites "

Yes, you do. Those websites are providing services and content to you in return for you viewing the ads. They may even explicitly state that in their TOS.

" I have signed no contract, agreed to no terms and conditions"

Yes you did by accessing their content and using their services. Look up implied contract! Also, you obviously don't sign any contract when shopping in a mail or taking a taxi either. Yet you don't argue that you don't own neither the shop nor the driver anything for the goods you've taken and the services that have been rendered to you. Or do you?

" I have simply chosen not to view all the content I find irrelevant"

Ads are not part of the content, but your "payment" in return of the former. If you're denying payment for good and services you voluntarily consumed, you're committing theft and fraud.

"Anyway FF22, we will never agree so I'm leaving it now - with my ad blocker still very much switched on."

Weird way of expressing being too thickheaded to accept and too ignorant to understand valid and sound arguments.

Re: Brought it on themselves

"Let's extend your argument a little."

You can do that, but it's a logical fallacy, called beating a straw man. Replacing my original argument with one of your own an "proving" that it's somehow absurd or false says actually nothing about the validity of the original argument.

"You're failing to understand that "

No, I do not "fail to understand". On the contrary: I know what you don't: that ads can do no more harm to your computer than can do the web page they're embedded on. And I also know that ad networks are generally more secured and run by more professional people than are websites, in general.

So blocking ads and and yet keeping visiting the websites themselves, while claiming that you do it just to avoid getting infected or harmed by them, is a no-brainer. Also, it's akin to taking goods at the mall and refusing to pay for them (ie. stealing them), and then claiming afterwards that you only did it, because money might contain germs and viruses, and you only stole the stuff to avoid getting infected.

Theft is theft, no matter what your reasons for doing it are. And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft.

Re: Brought it on themselves

"explaining that people who didn't see the glorious value in advertising were evil and should be locked up"

Reading comprehension just beat you at it. Again. Badly. No wonder our culture is doomed when most people can't even understand simple, three sentence comments, written in plain English.

Re: Brought it on themselves

You heard that wooosh sound? It was the point made flying over your head.

Re: Brought it on themselves

Your arguments is as moronic as arguing for locking up every white, every male, and every American person in jail, just because there were a few crimes committed by a (or a few) American white males some time ago. That's a false generalization and a collective punishment, which is not only wrong but also illegal to make. Just like it is blocking all ads on all sites just because there were some bad ads or even bad sites.

No, that Linux Keyrings bug isn't in '66 per cent of Android devices'

Re: Hyprocrisy much

"google have a policy to notify the company then wait a period of time (3 months I think) to give them a chance of fixing it before its revealed."

And, yet - as already explained - , they have not done so on several occasions. Their top security researcher, Tavis Ormandy did not only release information on vulnerabilities prior to notifying Microsoft, but he also published actual exploit code alongside, and even advised others against notifying Microsoft of other vulnerabilities, because he though they "treat vulnerability researchers with great hostility, and are often very difficult to work with". Just Google it!

Hyprocrisy much

"Ludwig's not thrilled that the vulnerability landed without prior notice to the Android team"

And yet, they (Google) have done the same thing with several Windows-vulnerabilities in the past. Karma is a btch, I guess.

How hard can it be to kick terrorists off the web? Tech bosses, US govt bods thrash it out

Re: Confused thinking

You, Sir, would make a perfect representative or congressman. You are just as clueless about how encryption and the internet works, as those demanding backdoors and the ban on terrorists.

In reality, everything you are demanding could only hurt the honest citizens, but would be completely ineffective against anybody with bad intentions, like the terrorists.

No, Kim Kardashian's plump posterior's pixels did not break the App Store – just this El Reg man's mind

People...

... are idiots.

I can turn Yahoo! around claims hedge fund manager

Just as biased

This article seems just as biased in favor of Marissa, as it claims the original letter is against her.

I don't know whether Yahoo is salvageable, but one thing is clear: she had more than enough time to make changes at Yahoo, and she failed to turn around the sinking ship. If it could have been done, it's her fault, for not making it. If it could not have been done, it's her fault because of not recognizing that.

Marissa failed, no matter what. Unfortunately, that will not prevent, but actually help her land another CEO job at a different (but most likely larger) tech company, once the Yahoo ship finally hits the ocean floor.

Like a version? JDK 9 will point out its own flaws the very first time

Wrong release date

Java 9 GE has been postponed last week from Q3 2016 to Q1 2017. http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-December/003149.html

'Dear Daddy...' Max Zuckerberg’s Letter back to her Father

Her name

Reminds me of The Simpsons, season 10 episode 13

Brilliant

[o]

Re: Perhaps, just perhaps...

It wouldn't have mattered when he'd done this. It would still come off as self-promotion. Which probably has to do with the fact, that Zuckerberg has surely well-established his image as a proficient sociopath, whose every deed is motivated by some kind of utter self-interest.

A font farewell to Fontdeck as website service closes

Re: Font (Fount)?

Typefaces and fonts are two different things. The latter are a unique, binary representations of the former, and thus for ex. are copyrightable. Typefaces on the other side are not, because they're just an abstract ideal (as existing only in form of thoughts) of how letters and symbols should look.