Slashdot Mirror
EFF, Gator Against Other Pop-ups?
The Register reports that Gator has filed suit against Extended Stay America Inc to ensure that Extended cannot block its ads. Gator's argument is that consumers should be able to decide what they see on the Web and not Web site owners. It said in its suit that Extended Stay America has no right to prevent computer users from choosing to get its software and "viewing separate works, comprising advertising on that user's own computer screen, even when other works share the screen." Meanwhile, the EFF is considering supporting Gator's case, saying the issue is about who controls a computer when people go on-line.
I'll lose all respect for them.
Meanwhile, the EFF is considering supporting Gator's case, saying the issue is about who controls a computer when people go on-line.
Ok, and what about Gator installing its ad/spyware without users noticing it? What about it opening endless of popup/popunder windows? What about it monitoring users browsing/shopping habits?
I thought the EFF was here to defend, first, the people rights online over those of the companies, even more unethical ones.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
In this case, I'd have to say I am impressed with EFF. They firmly stand up to the ideals they preach about, not caring about whether the company in question is generally supportive of them or not.
Gator's argument is that consumers should be able to decide what they see on the Web and not Web site owners
Seems more like gator's argument is that they should be able to decide what the consumer see on the web, not the web site owner and certainly not the consumer...
It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
Extended Stay America should be allowed to provide internet access which blocks Gator just as Gator should be allowed to provide an ad-subscription service, as long as both of them clearly explain to their customers what they are doing. No website owner has the right to tell me how I look at their site, even if I choose to block the ads with Mozilla/Junkbuster/etc or have them replaced with other ads by using the Gator software. But by the same principle, why should Gator be able to tell my provider what kind of service they provide to me?
I think this article is either missing some rather important details, or wasn't very clear. Is Extended Stay America blocking its customers from viewing Gator content while using the "hotel's" network, or somehow magically blocking Gator from working while someone looks at their website from anywhere in the world?
I don't really see a problem with any hotel or whatever that provides me internet access as a service blocking any particular content. So long as it's in the agreement signed at the front counter--seems fair. And if people don't want this type of service, simply don't stay at their chain. Personally, I like that sort of thing so I would be inclined to stay with them more often knowing this. It's not a first ammendment thing since I'm told about it up-front and I can choose to stay elsewhere.
On the other hand, if Extended Stay America has found a way to disable Gator from working on their website from anywhere--my congrats. Yeah, it's probably going to cost them in this civil suit that they may lose. It's still cool to think that someone's found a way to disable Gator, though.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
So the argument is wether website publishers, or spyware producers get control of my computer?
Don't I have a say in this? Why can't I have control of my own computer!?
The only entity which should have control over a computer is the administrator/user. Not external companies, not advertisers, not the software vendors. The user, and only the user.
Is Gator a scummy company? Sounds like it. Do pop-up ads suck? Hell yes, why do you think I use Mozilla? But does it matter in this case? No.
This case is about one specific thing, does control rest in the hands of the remote web site or within your own computer. The law does not give one damn about who Gator is; if Extended Stay America wins and sets the precident that the web site gets to control _completely_ how your computer displays it, it won't have matter if it were Gator or if it were motherteresa.com.
Look past the company and look at the issues at stake. It _is_ one worth fighting for.
Even so, what about a site that only lets you view the website while running WindowsXP and Windows Explorer? Is that ok with you?
Fight Spammers!
Should an ISP be permitted to proactively block content. In other words:
Could Time Warner Cable block sites that are critical of AOL?
Should Universities acknowledge the RIAA letter and continue their P2P crackdowns?
etc.
EFF is attempting to demonstrate that the liberties and rights we all enjoy must apply to everyone, or they apply to noone.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
But what if Extended Stay makes the claim that it is acting on the user's behalf to block Gator's ads, That's the claim that Gator is making.
If Gator can make the claim that by the user's download of Gator, Gator is acting on the user's behalf in replacing Extended Stay's ads with its own, what is to keep Extended Stay from saying that by the user's navigation to Extended Stay, Extended Stay is acting on the user's behalf to block Gator.
I don't understand this story.
In what sense is Gator being blocked, and by what means? If the means employed are threats of legal action, then there's a case for the EFF to fight and there are strong reasons for them to fight it.
Gator changes what happens when you visit certain websites. So, in some cases, does Mozilla with pop-ups disabled. If I want to download a bunch of HTML source from a URL using my own custom application, process it through a Swedish Chef dialectizer and display it on my desktop in 48pt Courier over an animated backdrop of Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo, I can (and maybe I will...later...).
The end-user de facto controls the appearance of HTML-formatted content. The idea that content-owners should be able to use legal means to force me to view their pop-ups, or refrain from opening my own over their content, seems and is downright wrong. It's like being told not to look in a shop-window whilst wearing spectacles with pictures of naked choirboys taped to the insides, and you know how much I hate it when that happens.
If, on the other hand, Gator is being blocked by technical means, then fair enough. There's no reason why content-owners should have to create content that can be rendered in Hankey-o-Bork-o-Vision, and if they can detect and refuse to respond to requests coming from my custom client (or some Gator-"enabled" browser), then they're surely entitled to do so. That's true even if it's Mozilla they're blocking. More fool them if they do, but they're within their rights: they can configure their server and write their CGI any damn way they want.
Experience is a hard school, but fools will learn no other.
Okay I can sort of see the Freedom of Speech angle people seem to be throwing up here but it really doens't hold water.
Gator is and always will be a viral piece of software that offers no benefits to the victims of its attacks and plenty of problems least of all being the pop-ups.
It hijacks web sites with which the parent company has no agreement for ad hosting or serving and displays competitors ads. Sort of like everytime you get into a ford your cellular rings and its someone from Toyota telling you to go their lots.
All in all its an annoying piece of shit.
This law suit they are bringing is just a bullshit attempt to play the freedom of speech card.
The truth is that little my computer icon on your desktop is only on windows for a reason...
First, I'm not a trained legal professional so I can't profess to having highly informed knowledge of the case or of the legal background (I'm just an enthusiastic supporter with a sixth grade education :) ).
Nonetheless, while I'm usually in step with the EFF's positions, it seems to me that defending Gator in this matter would be questionable. If you remove any bias regarding the alleged shadiness of Gator's previous business practices and just examine the question of allowing or disallowing people w/ certain software to browse the site, I still think it's shaky ground.
Here's a real-world example: Private brick-and-mortar retail businesses on the whole are still allowed to reject service to certain customers to a large degree.
When a user requests a specific page from a business's server (in this case, ExtendedStayAmerica), it's not as if the transaction is completely FREE to the business -- There is a minimal cost (albeit miniscule) to process the page and serve the page out on bandwidth. There IS a cost to the private business for providing this service. It isn't until AFTER the page out to the client's browser/computer that the actual "bits" are then "transferred" to the client. The burden resides on the server first, not the client. Consequently, the private business should STILL have some leeway in controlling who places that burden on their servers.
I understand that this decision could potentially mean that business could "exclude" Mozilla because of it's pop-up restrictive abilities. Nonetheless, it's THEIR right whether they want to allow users of this software access to THEIR servers. From a business perspective, it'd be pretty stupid to ignore the Mozilla-using community; nonetheless, it's their right to do so if they want to shoot themselves in the foot.
What's the difference between the private owner of a fancy restaurant who rejects a person who isn't wearing a coat and tie and ExtendedStayAmerica disallowing Gator users who, albeit tangentially, are using ExtendedStay's services at ExtendedStay's expense?
Again, I'm not a legal scholar, so I might be completely off, but as an avid and longtime supporter of the EFF, I would advise them to more carefully look at the situation before jumping into the pool.
This is simple:
Gator secretly installs itself (I say secretly, because the process by which it is installed is so transparent to the average user they never actually agree or disagree to anything) on your computer and then "hijacks" the legitimate, paid-for advertising of other companies with that of it's affiliates.
This web site denies Gator from performing this action. Instead, the web site insures that the data contained on their site is presented directly to the viewer. It is then up to the viewers chosen software (a browser) to display the content. The average web surfer has no idea that the ads that are popping up or being displayed are in fact not from the content provider, but rather being presented by some piece of spy ware that was installed on their system without their full knowledge or compliance.
First off this isnt flame bait because not many people are going to argue gators side on this message board. That spyware company gets on cour computer and breeds its own nasy wasteland in your memory. If it wasnt for lavasoft's adaware those SOB's might have a chance. But they dont... not on my linux box atleast.
Gator argues that this comes down to the owner of the computer? Either way both sides violate what Gator's logic deems to defend. Thanks Gator for looking out for my civil net right, and taking up my band width, and banging on my firewall, and taking up my processor time, and putting spyware on the machines of America so that the average user who doesn't know what you are about is unwittingly being looked at. My message to Gator is stop hiding behind a shield of personal rights while wielding the sword of your enemy.
I don't look at this as the EFF supporting Gator, I look at this as the EFF looking to establish precedents that are favorable to their view of computer rights.
Most slashdotters probably agree that the user should control their computer. This is also the EFFs position. From the point of view of establishing a precedent, if Gator has a good looking case they should jump aboard.
I seriously doubt Gator is doing this to protect my rights as a consumer. They certainly aren't going to allow me to pick and choose which ads I see. If I block ads on my computer using Mozilla, that should be my right. If Gator "hijacks" my computer to steal another companies ad revenue, that's wrong.
Anonymous Cowards suck.
Many sites grow by taking advantage of a CPA model whereby affiliate sites earn a commission when they send a visitor to a partner site. The affiliate is rewarded for marketing a product or a service or a brand. Gator jumps up and gets in the middle between the affiliate website, and the merchant website. This interferes with the existing relationship. If Gator is not stopped, affiliate marketing as we know it is dead.