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.

Comments

If the EFF supports Gator, then...

[PinkX]

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.

Re:If the EFF supports Gator, then...

[joebp]

I thought the EFF was here to defend, first, the people rights online over those of the companies, even more unethical ones.

The real point is - who decides what you see what is on your screen when you visit a website?

If it is the website owner, this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts (ahem, he says on /.).

If Gator looses this action, it is likely that ad-blocking software (did anyone say Mozilla?) will be liable to similar actions. The point being Gator is contending that the User should decide what is on her screen when visiting a website.

This doesn't detract from the fact that Gator are shady, near-fraudulent scamsters who need a jolly good beating with a cluestick.

Re:If the EFF supports Gator, then...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If it is the website owner, this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts (ahem, he says on /.).

I think you've got it backwards. I don't believe there is any precedent at this time in favor of what you describe. Though some people find it distasteful, there's no clear evidence that advertising is actually harmful to adults, and so there's been no movement toward "protecting" adults from it. If a TV network wanted to swap the ratios and start showing 22 minutes of advertising per half hour, nobody would stop them. (Except market forces, of course.)

All of this is dependent on the word "adult," though. Advertising has different effects on adults and on children, and organizations like the FTC and the FCC have guidelines about advertising to kids. But as far as adults go... it's a free country.

In other words, nobody has said that "crap like popups and excessive adverts" are something that reasonable adults should be protected from.

Re:If the EFF supports Gator, then...

[Brendan Byrd]

In matters of freedom, the door swings both ways. You can't throw out the bad without throwing out the good. Case in point, the ACLU has defended the KKK's right to assemble and hold their rallys several times.

Do I support the KKKs cause? No.
Do most ACLU members support their cause? No.
Do I support the ACLU's stance on protecting the KKK's right to hold a rally? Hell yes!

If I don't, I might as well open the door for my right to rally be thrown out the window, in case MY cause decides to march down Washington.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Ahh...

[joto]

It is really quite a confusing world we live in today. EFF supports Gator. Slashdot readers support sofware patents, and so on.

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 = Consumers?

[WeaponOfChoice]

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...

Re:Gator = Consumers?

[Sloppy]

Ah, but if that's the argument, then its the users who should be trying to block Gator, not ESA.

If you accept Gator's assertion that users have final say, then yes, that hurts Gator, but it hurts the people they're fighting even more.

Ultimately, users are responsible for their computers. Gator's deceptive behavior is a matter between them and their users. For a third party (ESA) to step in and fight with Gator over this turf, only legitimizes the position that the turf in question belongs to someone other than the users.

Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Who gets control of MY computer?

[Inominate]

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.

Re:Who gets control of MY computer?

[Blkdeath]

So the argument is wether website publishers, or spyware producers get control of my computer?

Looks like it. From what I gather about Gator's software, it's essentially pointless. Many modern web browsers have long shipped with functionality to store form information for websites (including and especially the one in Gator's principle target audience - Internet Explorer), so what we have is software that tracks a person's use of the web, blasts them unmercifully with ads which could see a FedEx or UPS ad appearing on the USPS website, or a Best Buy ad appearing at a small computer vendor's website, or a Sony Music ad appearing at BMG, etc. While this isn't neccesarily the crux of the matter, it's still a great concern to people who budget ads on their website.

Now, standard IANAL applies here, but I certainly hope this won't affect those of us who disable popups in Mozilla, and use ad-filtering proxies (personally, I use AdZap with Squid).

Don't I have a say in this? Why can't I have control of my own computer!?

It does seem like we've got an argument brewing over precisely which fox should guard the henhouse, doesn't it?

C'mon, be rational

[Chris Pimlott]

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.

You're all missing the bigger picture

[parliboy]

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.

Issues clouded by lack of information

[vbweenie]

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.

Gators Bad MMMkay

[cranos]

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.

My opinion: it seems simple enough

[mao che minh]

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.