AT&T Hotspots Now Injecting Ads

An anonymous reader writes: Computer scientist Jonathan Mayer did some investigating after seeing some unexpected ads while he browsed the web at an airport (Stanford hawking jewelry? The FCC selling shoes?). He found that AT&T's public Wi-Fi hotspot was messing with HTTP traffic, injecting advertisements using a service called RaGaPa. As an HTML pages loads over HTTP, the hotspot adds an advertising stylesheet, injects a simple advertisement image (as a backup), and then injects two scripts that control the loading and display of advertising content. Mayer writes, "AT&T has an (understandable) incentive to seek consumer-side income from its free Wi-Fi service, but this model of advertising injection is particularly unsavory. Among other drawbacks: It exposes much of the user's browsing activity to an undisclosed and untrusted business. It clutters the user's web browsing experience. It tarnishes carefully crafted online brands and content, especially because the ads are not clearly marked as part of the hotspot service.3 And it introduces security and breakage risks, since website developers generally don't plan for extra scripts and layout elements."

Comments

Good News

[binarylarry]

Soon someone will have a script or browser extension for this.

Can You Say Lawsuit?

[mschwanke97402]

So, basically AT&T is placing their advertising on someone's web site without paying for the privilege? Were I the content owner, I'd be speaking to my lawyers first thing. The sad thing is that major companies don't even seem to worry breaching the public's trus or their reputations anymore. How long until Comcast decides to force extra advertising into my cable internet browsing. Oh! That's right, I cancelled them after the NetFlix throttling episode. So now, I guess I have to cancel DirecTV (AT&T) too.

Free wifi

[Archfeld]

and you wonder that they push ads ? Provide your own connection and stop using free ones. While I think it is low class, what do you expect for FREE ?

Re:Free wifi

[andymadigan]

Fine, but require AT&T to disclose (in large font) that it's not an internet connection, since the content is being modified en route.

Something like:

WARNING: Web pages you view may be recorded or altered by AT&T or its affiliates. Web pages and other content retrieved may not reflect the content available over a standard internet connection. Information you enter or retrieve may be transferred or sold to third parties. AT&T is not responsible for malware injected into your content by its affiliates, or damage done to you or your computer by said malware.

(Actually, I think that last sentence should be in large font at the top of every web page that uses ads inject by third parties)

Re:Copyright?

[wbr1]

To clarify. From the fraud and abuse act

In practice, any ordinary computer has come under the jurisdiction of the law, including cellphones, due to the inter-state nature of most internet communication.

....

(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

Sending my PC an ad, at the bear minimum causes damage due to increased wear on storage devices. At its worst it installs malware or defrauds such as to install malware.

Perhaps more relevant is mail and wire fraud:

18 U.S.C. 1343 provides:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Re:Copyright?

[adolf]

Is using a browser on a dumb phone with a WAP gateway creating a derivative work?

Is using the Readability bookmarklet creating a derivative work?

Both of these things have been happening for number of years (over a decade, in the first example). They simply reformat web pages.

Now that you've thought about these questions for a moment, consider: If they reformatted a web page and added advertising, does that addition of advertising affect the things status as a (non-)derivative work? (Aside from making you livid, of course. I'm not happy about ads, either.)