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.
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."
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.
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.