Slashdot Mirror
FTC Shuts Down 'Pop-Up Trapping' Sites
Masem writes: "The FTC today ordered the shutdown of 5,500 sites owned by John Zuccarini, all of them the so-called 'typo' sites that common mis-entered URLs for popular sites (such as Annakurnikova.com); when the user visits these sites, their back button behavior in most popular browsers is modified as to open multiple pop-ups featuring ads for adult entertainment and gambling sites when pressed, and uses other technology to basically 'trap' the browser until the entire application has to be closed. While some sites are still operating, the FTC is going to take this matter to court, which may decide exactly how much control a web site can take over the end browser using JavaScript and ActiveX. CNet has the full story." Le Marteau contributes a link to the same story at the Washington Post.
Hey, give the guy a break, he's trying. He closes down most of his sites, but whenever he hits the "back" button they all start up again. Those damn javascript-based admin tools...
One thing that surprised me is that this slime ball has been sued for this before and lost 57 cases tied to 200 domain names and been fined $800,000 to $1,000,000. And he's still doing it. The only reason he would still be doing this is if it is profitable, above and beyond court costs and fines.
Who is falling for all this and patronizing the sites that trap you like this?
Even though I'm sure we all had good intentions (if not complete thoughlessness) when all these cool features were added to JavaScript. But really, isn't it time that this gets fixed at the Browser end? I cannot think of *any* good reason for browsers to allow JavaScript to modify how buttons like Back and Close opperate without confirmation by the user. (it would also be trivial to apply a reasonable limit, like say 3, to pop-up windows). Microsoft and Netscape should both be *really* embarrassed that this issue is being addressed by the governent and potential legislation before they've even had a chance to suggest ways of fixing the situation.
Namely, You are connecting to THEIR machine.
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated? (Though I realize you might not have intentionally made that connection; they can be sneaky, but the point remains.)
I just don't like regulation, If it's bad and wrong, it's the clients job to work with the received data. But noone's blaming Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, or Konq (and you really can't blame the last 2, they're implementing things to take care of this junk).
Target a solution, rather than the cause and punishment.
That's just my view.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
The guy was only exploiting a system that pays money based on "impressions" or "exposures." He set up traps that generated as many ad exposures as possible, but it made no difference to him whether the ads made a possitive impression on anyone.
This is why most of the ads were for porn, since he needed advertisers who didn't check what the presentation of their ads would look like or the nature of the site itself. Outside of porn, few advertisers are that lax any more. I'm sure that, given a choice, even porn advertisers would want a "friendlier" presentation than this guy gave them. But they don't care enough to even check. In the mean time, this guy was raking in a hundred or more ad exposures per victim.
This is a great thing. The FTC protects people from fraud and other illegal business practices. That is what they are doing in this instance. The FCC regulates the airwaves, television, and so forth.
The government isn't "getting involved in the internet" in any new creative way. They are just protecting consumers (us) from fraudulent illegal business practices
Next time get the FCC FTC thing correct before you post, it completely changes the context of the article.
looking for a bug in some Javascript (we maintain
our own web browser), and after delving down
through the deliberately obfuscated javascript
code, it became obvious what it was trying to do:
it went through all links in the document, attaching
a javascript "front-end" to each link that did an http GET request
informing the remote site what had been clicked on,
before actually following the link. the technique
used seemed fairly dodgy (the request was purporting
to be for a non-displayed image), but it's interesting
to see what a fairly reputable site is prepared
to do in order to get as much information off you as possible (without your knowledge).
how reasonable is that? i don't like it, but is that sort
of subterfuge the kind of thing we'd like to stop too?
[PS. apologies if this appears twice - it looked like
had rejected the previous ones; and then the whole
server seemed to crash: what was going on there then?]
Yes, but hacking your client to filter it is a DMCA violation.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Okay - I'll probally get flammed for this. But if you are using Internet Explorer you can start up IE with the -new command and have each browser open in a seperate process. That way, your main browser won't lock up or be forced to 'end task' if your popup windows get out of control.
People who are rabidly anti-filtering forget that for some purposes it is useful. Alcohol, cigarettes, guns, porn - all things that an age-filter is useful for. I can't watch my son every moment he's online. This prevents inadvertent finger presses more than deliberate ones, at least until they get to a certain age. When my son gets to that age, he and I'll talk.
-- United States Supreme Court, Rowan vs. U.S. Post Office, 1970
how to invest, a novice's guide