Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    What's the word? Rhia7's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2006
    Posts
    9,578
    Tech article: Targeted ads and injected Javascript? You're in San Francisco!
    (removed url, explanation below)
    Last edited by loxly; April 28th, 2008 at 04:12 PM.
    ~Rhia7 -- Remember the 7
    Twitter me

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Ok, so people are complaining about what happens to pages when they're using FREE wireless access points? Do they understand that FREE needs a way to monetize, or not?

    Ever hear of the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch?"? Don't like it? Then pay for your net access...

    If you want privacy, then don't use open access points.

  3. #3
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    I don't mind ISPs offering FREE wireless access points. I don't mind if they add their banners and let the websites run in their own windows. But to deface my websites, to add a javascript in MY pages. NO WAY.
    I don't want anybody to modify my OWN websites and make money from MY work.
    Charles Arthur - "I was surprised that Meraki is adding advertising to my web site (where's my cut?)"
    "Meraki's script is injected directly into the site that I'm visiting"

  4. #4
    Outsourced Program Manager John Jupp's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 23rd, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,502
    It makes me wonder if the City of San Francisco (and any other municipality doing this) is the criminal - or - is it just people who use SQL injections to deface or take over the appearance of websites - oh wait, that's what all the concern about the people behind the recent spate of SQL injection attacks is all about.

    To change the face of a website is a breach of copyright and artistic and litery content. If they are not replacing ads as per the article but putting it all within a frame around which they serve their own ads however....well I know a few search engines which do that. Not nice but...

    Besides, as an operator they get paid under a Roaming Agreement by other operators so they still get paid. Serving their own ads in replacement would be illegal. Serving their own ads in complement would not.
    Flambi Media Limited - USA/UK/EU Affiliate Management Expertise

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Zeus - There wasn't much complaining when ISPs like NetZero or 1stUp/MicroAV (for those who remember so far back) forced users to have a frame of a banner on their screen to get free access.

    I haven't seen webmasters complain when proxy services automatically inject ads into sites visited - Bottom line is, you can't stop it. If you don't want the Meraki to profit from you, block their IPs from your sites (easily doable). Otherwise, don't complain.

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jupp
    It makes me wonder if the City of San Francisco (and any other municipality doing this) is the criminal
    Please point out anything criminal in this case (and don't reference the copyright issue, as it's been beaten to death in courts and nothing has been ruled illegal).

    Do you think residents would rather have no free WiFi?

    There's also nothing regarding SQL injections (a hack) mentioned; Just adding a banner to the pages.

    There's much more to worry about with ad companies such as Phorm partnering with major ISPs (such as BT in the UK) than is to worry about small free wireless ISPs such as that in San Francisco.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jupp
    Serving their own ads in replacement would be illegal. Serving their own ads in complement would not.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jupp
    Besides, as an operator they get paid under a Roaming Agreement by other operators so they still get paid.
    There's no such thing as "Roaming Agreements" with ISPs. There are peering agreements, but there generally aren't situations where one ISP pays another, as it's usually just a reciprocal traffic arrangement, or a 1 way traffic purchase.
    Last edited by Joshua; April 27th, 2008 at 03:58 AM.

  7. #7
    Outsourced Program Manager John Jupp's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 23rd, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,502
    Not being a resident of the City of San Francisco I am unfamiliar with the system they have there. However accessing the portal....do users have the opportunity to make cell phone calls? If so then the City does get paid a Roaming Agreement which for a population of however many million is a very lucrative Agreement and highly profitable.

    As quite correctly concurred... adding ads and not replacing ads isn't illegal. As for "criminal", I was referring to the spate of SQL injections invading websites and using this as a comparator example. The City is using a SQL injection yes? So it's legal for one but not the other?
    Flambi Media Limited - USA/UK/EU Affiliate Management Expertise

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jupp
    The City is using a SQL injection yes? So it's legal for one but not the other?
    No, there's no SQL injection being used. SQL injection is when a third-party exploits a script in order to add something into a website or database permanently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection . Nothing being done by this ISP permanently modifies the structure of a website.

    As for the roaming agreement, I really don't see what WiFi access has to do with cell phone calls... WiFi is a totally different technology than cell phone access, and to my knowledge, the WiFi repeaters do not have anything to do with repeating/rebroadcasting cell phone tower signals.

    If you want to look further into this, I'd recommend checking out http://vancouver.cs.washington.edu/:

    Update (10-31-2007, 19:35 PDT): We have analyzed all of the test results from July 24 to August 12, 2007. We found a diverse set of in-flight modifications being made to our page, many of which were not in the interest of the user or the publisher. During this time period, we found that:

    * 50,171 unique IP addresses visited the page.
    * 657 IP addresses reported modified pages (1.3%).
    * 70% of the modifications where caused by client-side proxy software, such as ad blockers and popup blockers.
    * 46 IP addresses reported changes that were caused by an ISP, such as injected advertisements and modifications to reduce network traffic.
    * 125 IP addresses were using proxies that caused them to be vulnerable to cross site scripting attacks.
    * 3 IP addresses were affected by adware or worms.

  9. #9
    Outsourced Program Manager John Jupp's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 23rd, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,502
    Many thanks for the resource link. Comprehensive.
    Flambi Media Limited - USA/UK/EU Affiliate Management Expertise

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "Just adding a banner to the pages."

    If it's adding banners or anything over banners on our sites, yes it's a problem and yes there have been legal rulings against it.

    Reminds me of:

    http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread...&highlight=isp

    But we have a lawyer here now, perfect question for him.

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Was just reading up on Phorm, crazy stuff.

  12. #12
    Full Member
    Join Date
    October 22nd, 2006
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua
    Phorm partnering with major ISPs (such as BT in the UK)
    As far as I am aware interception of telecommunications is covered by RIPA which makes it illegal (except for court orders, national security etc) to intercept the data without the consent of both the sender and the recipient of the communication ie both the website owner and the user.

    I would guess a similar law would apply in the US (possibly this one.?).

    I dont think that adding random banners as "payment" for using their services would not be illegal but using intercepted data to supply targeted advertising would be.

    Bob

  13. #13
    Full Member
    Join Date
    October 22nd, 2006
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust
    Was just reading up on Phorm, crazy stuff.
    BT, Virgin Media, and Talk-Talk isps are all in negotiations with Phorm.

    That would account for over half of UK's internet users.

  14. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    October 22nd, 2006
    Posts
    200
    I've just come across another "service enhacer" -- Barefruit

    Barefruit provides a comprehensive solution to error traffic, enhancing both the user experience and revenue for ISPs and other partners. Uniquely able to resolve both DNS and HTTP errors, Barefruit provides highly relevant alternatives to the user, putting ISPs back in control of users’ address bars. Operating at network level, Barefruit technology enables ISPs to resolve error traffic across the customer base with no capital outlay.
    .

    So your users won't be troubled by those unwanted 404 errors on your site they will go direct to wherever Barefruit want's to send them. Be it your competitor or even a merchant via Barefruit's affiliate link.

  15. #15
    The Seal of Aproval rematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19th, 2006
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    4,140
    "putting ISPs back in control of users’ address bars"
    Whoever said that ISPs should be in control of users’ address bars?

    -rematt
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon

  16. #16
    http and a telephoto
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,708
    Rhia7 I just removed the link to that article because on a computer here that site set off Spy Sweeper and tried to install multiple browser helper objects that IE deemed not so nice.
    Deborah Carney
    TeamLoxly.com BookGoodies.com ABCsPlus.com

  17. #17
    What's the word? Rhia7's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2006
    Posts
    9,578
    The link came from the blog of the guardian.co.uk -- a respectable newspaper from England.

    People can Google the title of the article if they are interested in reading it.

    I have no idea why an article from The Guardian would set anything off.
    ~Rhia7 -- Remember the 7
    Twitter me

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    Rhia7 I just removed the link to that article because on a computer here that site set off Spy Sweeper and tried to install multiple browser helper objects that IE deemed not so nice.
    loxly - The page checks out clean for me both in Firefox and IE.

    Mind trying to go to it again, and see if it was just a fluke? If it happens again, post and let us know what exactly it tried to install. The Guardian is a reputable news source from the UK, not some fly by night site trying to install spyware.

  19. #19
    What's the word? Rhia7's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2006
    Posts
    9,578
    I second Joshua's suggestion in post #18.
    ~Rhia7 -- Remember the 7
    Twitter me

  20. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. ad:tech San Francisco 2011
    By sponsormobberlin in forum Events and Gatherings
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 30th, 2011, 12:11 PM
  2. Who's Going to Ad-Tech San Francisco?
    By Murray Newlands in forum Events and Gatherings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 01:18 PM
  3. ad:tech - San Francisco
    By Jon@Fluxads in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 20th, 2006, 08:03 PM
  4. Ad-Tech San Francisco
    By Brian - ShareASale in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 10th, 2004, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •