Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Research Paper Considers Serving Web-ads From Localhost

An anonymous reader writes: A paper from Microsoft researchers (PDF) posits the possibility of 'pushing' web ads to a user's own computer and serving them into pre-arranged containers on web pages, with the EFF or ACLU serving as privacy mediators between the user and the advertisers who want to engage them. However the framework — dubbed 'Privad' — would need to get installed on the user's system by the same familiar means which the likes of Superfish use. The report admits that Privad would probably need to be disseminated "through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other incentives."

4 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Dis gon' be gud by gTsiros · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This idea will be received with open arms, here on /., I'm sure.

    I'm somewhat worried (absolutely petrified, I should say) about the effort spent on advertisements. I guess considering human nature it is a necessary evil, but still...

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  2. Re:"From Microsoft Researchers" by macs4all · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More like, "From the Microsoft Marketing Department." Unless I'm missing something, this is just bundling "safe" adware as part of Windows. Hmm, maybe Ubuntu will have new life breathed into it.

    No, this is just Microsoft's idea of a way to monetize the "free" Windows 10 Upgrade.

    See, the problem is, when Microsoft gives away Windows 10 in a wan attempt to keep up with Apple doing the same for the past 2 (or is it 3?) Versions of OS X, they are directly hacking away at a primary revenue source. Apple, OTOH, has the cost of OS X factored-in to their overall sales of related hardware, and so it really isn't "felt" on the overall Balance Sheet.

    So now, Microsoft is in the unenviable position of trying to figure out where to "make up" that revenue, especially since their sales are down in almost every sector overall, and so they are forced to resort to sleazy tactics like essentially turning Windows 10 into adware.

    My prediction: Either they will be shamed into abandoning this despicable idea; or they will create a PAID "ransomware" tier for those who will pay $99 (or, knowing MS's burning desire for SaaS, more like $49/year) to "disable" the ads. Mark my words; you heard it here, first...

  3. corporate torrent by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have been wanting to see Apple or Microsoft or Netflix embrace torrent like local servers. But not for ads. For movies. Just push out all the movies to people's computers at night. Then let itunes or whoever form the torrent networks to deliver movies to paying customers. As long as I get a discount (since it's my bandwidth and electricity) why not? I'd like it as thumb in the nose of comcast and anyone else throttling the net.

    I'm not talking about illegal file sharing, I'm talking about just having content served right within Comcasts own network so there's no peering issues.

    Yes I appreciate how long comcast would let that go on. Just a fantasy.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  4. Re:3 ... 2 .. 1 . by macs4all · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Class action.

    I hope it's in the billions.

    Why? The only ones who ever see the awards are the defense attorneys.

    So what? The societal point of a class action suit is to punish the offenders. Are you going to take a day off work to file a small claims suit for $1.23 when you are overcharged on your phone bill? Will you even bother to spend an hour on hold, or change providers if there is a BS $0.95 "surcharge" added to you bill? I know I won't. I won't use the coupons I get sent either when they lose the suit. At least the lawyers get cash - that what discourage corporate behavior from being even MORE egregious.

    You mean like with the Tobacco Company Settlements, where not only did the Defendants get exactly NOTHING, but then THEY ended up paying the Fines in the form of cigarette prices that more than DOUBLED, coincidentally RIGHT after those Settlements were agreed-upon.

    I don't even smoke cigarettes; but I thought that was one of the most blatant "transfers of burden" that I have ever seen; the Tobacco Industry didn't suffer a DIME, directly. The ONLY ones who suffered were the poor victims that the Tobacco Companies Addicted in the first place!

    So now, tell me how Class Actions teach Corporations a lesson?