Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Inserting Ads Into Your Pages
TheWoozle writes "Some ISPs are resorting to a new tactic to increase revenue: inserting advertisements into web pages requested by their end users. They use a transparent web proxy (such as this one) to insert javascript and/or HTML with the ads into pages returned to users. Neither the content providers nor the end-users have been notified that this is taking place, and I'm sure that they weren't asked for permission either."
It's not like we pay them for our internet access or anything.
Oh wait, we do... crap.
Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
I know this won't be everyone's primary concern, but what happens to all of those pages carefully crafted to adhere to a specific standard eg HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or whatever else you may choose? Surely, unless these uninvited contributions also adhere to that specific standard, we have no hope of producing standards-compliant documents.
On the one hand I'd be really annoyed* if my ISP did this to me, on the other hand maybe there are some people who wold prefer ads and a cheaper monthly fee?
And on the third hand... isn't this going to break a whole bunch of websites? I'm having a hard time imagining how they could do it without major side effects.
(* I'd be wanting to stuff a few ads up their HTTP stream, I can tell you)
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
http://wtanaka.com/node/62
It was especially annoying when the ad insertion code didn't quite work right and caused web pages to break.
When I worked at the helpdesk of a small ISP, we were approached by this company to see if we were interested in letting them test their ad-inserting proxy server on our customers. I protested that it was scummy and might lead to legal trouble (I was guessing) over changing pages in-flight, but my bosses didn't listen. That was back in 2002 or 2003, and I left shortly after to take another job. No idea what's going on there now.
I'm moving to a new ISP since my current one has started blocking port 25 in and out. I run my own mail server, so I appreciate that Uniserve's TOS explicitly allow servers (clause #19). However, they also explicitly say that they insert ads:
Needless to say I'm not happy about that, but in Vancouver my choices are limited: Telus (who'll censor web pages if they belong to a union striking against them), Shaw, or a handful of small ADSL ISPs that all seem to be much the same. Uniserve seems the best of a bad bunch.
Carousel is a lie!
They later issued a new firmware that disabled this. But not before I had issued them a "fuck off" feedback. I have never bought another belkin product since and I strongly urge no-one else to do so either. Fuck them.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Yes I know their hardware sucks for other reasons also.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
The company that runs the box the ISP installed provides an opt-out option. Go to this page and click opt-out.
I think their behavior with this product is reprehensible. Pass the link on to anyone you know who is affected and encourage them to call their ISP and complain every day until it's removed. If all their call center does is get complaints, they'll reconsider whether it's making them any money.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
This is one angle to pursue, you have requested a page and the page you receive has been altered by the proxy, therefore "corrupted" the data.
If this continues then someone can write a plugin for Firefox to stop the adverts.
Back at the start of the net, many people started to build their own little networks (e.g. the "freenets", which existed long before freenet) and make connections with their neighbours. This activity was wiped out when ISPs started providing service at less than cost in order to build their business, making freenets not worth the investment. Now we are back at the stage where ISPs are trying to make money and messing up the service. It's time to restart building those networks and move off the commercial ISPs. Does anybody know any good places to start this? I'm ready to interconnect with my neighbours. How do we arrange sensible cheap long distance interconnectivity?
What about freenetworks.org? Are Wifi Coops any good? Any others?
The content in my pages is copyright implicitly, even if I don't register or even declare it in the pages. The right my ISP has to copy it is only for the purpose of publishing it in the transaction I have explicitly permitted: publishing it on URL requests.
If my ISP copies it for any other purpose, like inserting ads, or copies it into (or as) some other context, like an ad page, it's violating my copyright.
Every copyright violation - every page - makes them liable for a fine. That can really stack up, and costs a lot more than each page view generates in ad revenue.
Unless I've signed away my copyright in some contract with the ISP. Which I personally haven't. Nor should you.
If you have retained your copyright, and your ISP violates it, you should look forward to them handing over their business ownership to pay the damages. Email your lawyer from your other account and get the ball rolling. Why should corporate copyright holders have all the fun?
--
make install -not war
The customers of these asshole ISP's may not be able to stop them, but web site owners might. HTML code is frequently copyrighted. Injecting Javascript into a web page creates an unauthorized derivative work. Some webmaster needs to start sending DMCA takedown notices to ISP's using these ad injection proxies.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
So if you mom is suddenly very excited on the phone about the latest washing powder or insists that you shave only with 5-blade Gillette for best results, you should know better.
These ISPs are modifying the content of another source. They alter the format or content or appearance of the requested data or information. Potentially, they endanger the quality of the service being provided on the other end. This is an offense against net neutrality.
Content providers who earn income from their own web activity should be among the first to file suit against these ISPs. I imagine network TV companies would be VERY offended if advertisments were inserted over, in or around their own presented material and web based business should be expected to have the same offense taken.
Hit them where it hurts: right where people are deciding which ISP to go with.
That only works if there is actual competition. In most large cities, customers have only two choices. They can go with cable modem service from Some Big Cable Company or DSL service from Some Big Telecom Company. Both usually suck. People living in smaller communities often have no choice at all.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
...like a copyright infringment. The ISP takes the work, creates a derivate, then distributes that derivate to you. Clearly the page is distributed as a whole even though it's made up of parts, you'd certainly relate porn ads to a company if they appeared on that company's webpage which means it's absolutely not its own work. It's like a book club embedding ad pages in the books before shipping them to members.
Distribution is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
That they change the content means all paragraph 512 limitations are out the window.
The fair use test (commercial, creative work, almost whole work (all the non-ad content), kills ad revenue) is a 0-4 slam dunk against.
So tell me exactly, what's protecting the ISP from an "allofmp3" style lawsuit for a few trillion, since every web page is a $150,000 lawsuit in itself? Whoever in the legal department who approved this should be terrified.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ok, mod me down for this if you will, but why not just vote with your feet and go to a different ISP?
In these days of webmail and portable email addresses/domain names, why don't more people do this? It's still a buyer's market, and there's still lots of mom-and-pop ISPs who'll be glad of your business.
All the talk of 'taking legal action' smacks to me as being what's typically wrong with the entire attitude of everyone today. Compensation culture and all that - where there's blame there's a claim.
Smegma.
Exercise your GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to stop using the offending ISP take your business elsewhere and.
Failing that, exercise your GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to walk into the ISP's main offices with an automatic shotgun.
I figure that either way, you're not gonna be using that ISP any longer.
We should start sending multi-page advertisements with our ISP payments embedded in the middle, to monetize the untapped revenue stream available when the ISPs want to get paid.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
It would seem pretty straightforward to document uses of your website to sell ads, so that you could sue ISPs for copyright violation. This seems pretty straightforward to me.
1) Generate a unique id for every webpage transmitted. php's uniq() function would be fine. Embed it in the page.
2) Generate a checksum before transmitting the page. Save the id and the checksum, perhaps in a mysql database, when transmitting the page.
3) Embed a javascript that can compute the checksum of the document at the user's end. Have it transmit the checksum back to the server.
4) If the checksum doesn't match, have the javascript transmit the content of the page and it's headers, and perhaps even a traceroute, back to the server.
5) Server stores all of the above in a "pages corrupted in transmission" log.
Log analysis should then give you a list of ISPs who have consistently corrupted your pages, details on what they inserted, and documented # of violations with date and time. You can take this documentation to the court and say "Look! Earthlink/Megapath/AT&T/Whoever has illegally copied my website to market their own advertisements 12,432 times in the last year!". Demand remuneration.
6) Profit!
7) Reduce ISP's willingness to fsck with other people's content and thereby make the world a better place.
8) (Optionally) Have your own javascript strip their ad and/or put a banner at the top that notes "Your ISP has attempted to illegally insert their own advertising into our website, thereby making money off you and me without either of our permission. We strongly suggest you switch internet service providers." -- try to get user pressure on the ISP.
I'm about to head out on a 10-day vacation. When I get back, if one of y'all hasn't written this yet I'll start on it myself.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I may not often agree with Gordon Brown: but him objecting to Sarkozy's attempt to remove 'competition' as a basic tenet of the EU was 100% correct. Protectionism, in the long term, hurts all consumers.
Some time soon, we will cross the line where my opinion becomes a majority opinion: That any and all unasked for advertisement is harassment and should carry criminal penalties accordingly. Double the punishment if it masquerades as something else (i.e. fake grassroots campaigns, product placement, etc.)
Alternatively, lift all restrictions on advertisement. Then we'd at least have nude girls and hardcore porn on every wall and window, instead of beer and washing powder.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
and I am not joking. Since it is often said that we should not worry about net neutrality issues at all and that "free market" and competition will take care of any issues.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Why not just run your internet through your own proxy and remove the ads? Sure, it may be a bit slower, but surely it could be done with something like Privoxy on top of Squid.
Actually the free market is alive and well, the supply of lawyers has never been better.
> To have a man-in-the-middle, all you need is a certificate signed by an authority that your computer trusts. The ISP can surely get that.
Give this man a cookie, or at least a mod point.
Once they manage to get your browser loaded up with a CA they control it is game over. Imagine, you type www.chase.com into your browser. Remember, THEY also operate your DNS. They resolve www.chase.com to an address they control and generate a certificate linking www.chase.com to that IP. Meanwhile their proxy server connects to the real https://www.chase.com/ and retrieves the homepage. Then their faked out server reencrypts the content and their inserted ad and sends it on to your browser which displays it with the lock intact.
This is what the various secure DNS proposals are intended to address. DNS hijacking allows almost any abuse in the higher layers.
Democrat delenda est
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/think-yo
From the site:
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
We log everything - we're a global streaming media website not an ISP, and what we log is media player events for statistical analysis purposes - and it chews up 70 to 120 gigabytes per day at our current rate. This costs us about $1200 a month in my disk and server budgets. Which is a relatively small number in my total monthly IT budget. We've been running for just under 11 months now and haven't had to dump anything, but I can see us starting to purge the oldest log records within the next 6 to 12 months.
One of the problems CleanFlicks had was that they were actually making unauthorized edited copies of the DVDs, even though they required a genuine copy of the DVD to be turned over to them for destruction. Another company, ClearPlay, was also sued after they took a different strategy to avoid the copying problem. ClearPlay made DVD players that just played regular DVDs, but the DVD player cut out portions of the movie as it played, based on a file downloaded from ClearPlay onto a USB flash drive which was then plugged into the DVD player. However according to Wikipedia, the ClearPlay suit didn't make it to a verdict before Congress passed a law explicitly making it legal. I doubt the law applied to inserting adds in web pages though.
The similarity of these situations is that theoretically the ISP customer is asking (by agreeing to the ISP terms of service) for the adds to be inserted in the web pages, just as ClearPlay customers are asking for the bad parts to be removed.
This is also similar to software that removes the adds from web pages. A web page without the adds is like a derivative work, created by the viewer, with the assistance of the add block software.
...This is infuriating and a little frightening. Not only are they junking up my webpage and possibly offending my readership(with the content of the ads) but they are leaving my readers with the impression that I'm behind it all! If I was the owner of a Christian chat site and they inserted a "Wanna hook up?" style dating ad I would be mortified.
But what really worries me is what else are they doing with this technology? Could they programmatically swap out my Adsense Publisher ID with theirs? Could they change the links on my homepage to point to their spam sites? Could they put words in my mouth e.g. my readers suddenly find me favorably reviewing "Male Enhancement" products on my homepage?
> There is a reason the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and it has nothing to do with government control.
Too bad that is mostly a myth in the US. Our rich don't tend to be inherited wealth, somebody earns it (usually by merit) and their desendents piss it away in a generation or two. And the poor don't get poorer, our standard of living is increasing in all social classes. Is it even fair to use the word 'poor' to describe teh less well off in the US when the #1 health problem for the 'poor' is obesiety? Go to the third world and get back to me once you see what poverty looks like.
You are making a common mistake, assuming people are 'poor' because they don't have much money. More often than not they don't have any money because they are poor. 'Poor' is a state of mind. Poor people don't value education, fail to plan for their future, manage money poorly, have expensive and destructive vices (drugs, booze, tobacco, gambling) that leave them unable to save/invest and other traits that lead to them occupying the lower positions on the social ladder. If you took a hundred people from all social strata and tossed them on an island with exactly equal resources, within a year the existing pecking order would re-emerge virtually unchanged. A couple of frat boy trust funders would be unable to reattain their old position and a couple of the less well off might react well to the stress and rise. But overall the majority would stay unchanged.
Yes it is offtopic but this sort of economic illiteracy is rampant on slashdot so every once in awhile I try to correct one of you government educated types.
> The market fails to allocate resources efficiently in the case of natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities.
There are only a few 'natural monopolies' most ultimatly being trackable to government action. But yes, even the great free market economists agree that it is proper role of a legitimate government to protect against monopoly. Imbalance of information tends to sorrect itself, especially with this new fangled Internet thingie. And yes, externalities can be a proper role for the government of a Free People to regulate, within reason.
> There is a reason all countries gave up laissez faire: it didn't work, and led to horrible, horrible abuses.
Yes, 'all right thinking people' around the turn of the century fell into the delusion that socialism was the future. We still haven't counted all of the bodies resulting from that madness. Name one socialist country that, at a minimum, didn't turn into an economic basket case? Most ended up with mass graves and eventually a tyrant being deposed from his iron throne. Do I really need to enumerate the list? Even Europe is finally waking up and smelling the marketplace. A Free market is like a Representitive form of government, pretty much the worst system you can think of....with the exception of every other system tried.
That is until you actually understand them, then they are both beautiful. And inseperable. Eliminate one and the other will surely wither and die. Let one become well established and the other will follow. The Soviets learned this, China will soon enough. Free Markets are the only way for a Free People to deal with one another.
A hundred years ago, when we had a more Newtonian mechanical view of the universe it was at least a defensible position to argue for a planned economy, safe in the delusion that a system as complex as a modern economy could be comprehended by any group of 'experts' well enough to make all of the decisions in an enlightened and efficient way. Hyack pretty much demolished all that back in the 1950's. And since his work we have learned a lot more about emergent systems, chaos theory, general economic theory, such that an educated, enlightened person can no more believe in socialsm than they can believe in the tooth fairy. That and the millions of bodies that resulted from every attempt at a planned economy should be enough to convince even the less mentally adept. Pretty simple actually, Socialism == mass graves, poverty and guards shooting people trying to flee tyranny. Liberty and Free Markets == prosperity, happiness and people trying to get INTO your country.
Democrat delenda est