Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ad blocking is under attack

blog.adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#431

Post by manigandham »

RodericDay wrote: post #311
manigandham wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument really gets old. Morally you know what you're doing. Most people would be fine blocking the big dozen or so of the most offensive ad networks but this extreme approach (especially when the publisher is trying to offer you choices) just comes off as ridiculous.

Morally, advertisers know what they're doing, too.

It's not advertisers as much as a complex supply chain with bad incentives in a 12-figure global industry.

We say the same things with government waste over military and healthcare. And we can fix it in the same ways with better trust, accountability and regulation.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#432

Post by kelnos »

stale2002 wrote: post #295
throwawaywonk wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change woul…

Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits. So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits. Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not…

Blocking a URL is, in and of itself, not illegal, sure.

Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism.

I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implications of this are. I'm glad the EFF has stepped in to help them out; I'm content to wait for their opinion (or the opinion of an actual lawyer versed in the subject at hand) on this.

In the end, this is just another example of why the DMCA needs to go.

[1] Yes, you could say that this is bad design that the mechanism can be broken so easily, but that's not the point: the DMCA doesn't care how good or bad the mechanism is. If you break it, you're in violation.

[2] I suppose there's another point to be made: DMCA takedown notices are only for removing content or links to content that contain actual material where copyright has been infringed, not for removing circumvention tools.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#433

Post by kelnos »

thecrazyone wrote: post #423
Gracana wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather just go a level up... You don't want users to tamper with your ads? Ok, we'll block your entire site. No tampering.

users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. This ending up not serving your purpose nor theirs. For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our lic…

> users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list.

I don't think that's universally true. For me, if a site is broken because blocking ads also makes the content inaccessible, I just close the browser tab and move on with my day. (For a while the LA Times was blocking content in this way, so I just refused to visit their site. I guess it worked; they don't do this anymore.)

I don't claim to be the common case, but frankly I don't know what the common case is, and I suspect you don't either, so it could go either way.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#434

Post by kelnos »

fenollp wrote: post #305
jxramos wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if folks could get sneaky and change the design from a literal url to a regular expression tailored to single out that url but would also include additional sites that are just gibberish and could be relaxed if useful sites ever do fall into the URL overlap. This might be a new line of research to craft regExs to filter out a specific string while also throwing out a bunch of sister gibberish strings that wo…

How about having EasyList clients fetch the whole history of the repo? That way any domain that was ever added would be in the blocklist. True negatives should be pretty low.

The downside is that some sites/patterns are removed from the list for legitimate reasons (for example, in the case where a rule is overly broad and breaks sites that it shouldn't). If you can make the software distinguish between "good" and "bad" old rules in the history, then you absolutely have not complied with the DMCA takedown notice anymore.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#435

Post by KGIII »

tuupola wrote: post #372
vinylkey wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in that blog post, they state: "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit." Their request is here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... And was made by this account: https://github.com/dmcahelper So, they made a github account the same day they made the "request" with an account that in no way indicates where the request is coming from? The github p…

The DMCA request itself seems to be here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-08-02-L...

I've done a bit of research, now. You can trademark a domain name, but it appears they can't be copyrighted. I am pretty sure the DMCA is silent in regards to trademarks.

Hmm...

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#436

Post by throw2016 »

matt4077 wrote: post #388
xroche wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform. This. This is the main topic here. The wide use of centralized services (such as Github, but it applies also to Facebook, Google et al.) makes you dependent to corporate decisions, including coward (or maybe rational) decisions towards freedom o…

It's not Github's job to stand up to DMCA notices. The law requires them to forward them to the account publishing the content without any consideration of the merits. Then, easylist has the option to comply or refuse.

That's besides the point. It's the reason open source projects should not depend on centralized sites like github or any other site that make this kind of disruptive automated dmca take down easy.

It should take much more legal effort and 'application of mind' to effect disruption.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#437

Post by xg15 »

kelnos wrote: post #429
jxramos wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if its a matter of forgetting but about not knowing the contours of the boundaries of what's permissible and seeing a straightforward workaround as a proposition which also serves to give feedback regarding why or why not the proposition would be tenable. Evaluating a concrete technical solution in light of some legal matter should do well to illuminate and draw attention to the crux of the problem. I gu…

It's not specifically about the DMCA; it's about legal issues in general. Intent matters in the vast majority of law. You'd be hard-pressed to argue in front of a judge that your intent wasn't to block this specific site, based on the sequence of events: 1. Site added to block list. 2. Site removed from block list due to DMCA takedown request. 3. Site block by new rule added that doesn't target it directly. I can't i…

I think it's about what exactly is the DMCA used against. My first thought was as well that they claimed the act of writing down the domain name somehow violated the copyright of their domain. That sounds kind of silly and if it were actually the case, I think a hash/regex solution would make sense.

However I think what actually happened was that the business is operating paywalls/"anti-adblocker-walls" for other sites - so they claim that blocking them constitutes "circumvention of protection devices" for their customers - which indeed would be far severe for adblockers if confirmed by a judge.

(That's my understanding, though I might have gotten it wrong)

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#438

Post by DannyB2 »

Hey Admiral, and websites using this anti ad blocking technology,

I don't want to circumvent your copyright access control. I really don't.

All that I ask is a way to quickly and easily identify such sites so that I can block them and never ever visit them again. Never ever. Even if the sites and Admiral quit this despicable reprehensible behavior, I won't know it -- ever. Because I simply will never be back again.

Thank you!

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#439

Post by mtgx »

tzs wrote: post #332
komali2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when the USA sent super cops to rappel into Kim dotcoms house and kick down doors?

Dotcom was accused of doing things that are illegal in both the US and New Zealand (and around 200 other countries...). That's why New Zealand cooperated with the US's extradition request, including raiding Dotcom for the US.

He may not be the best example, but there are others who have been bitten by things as trivial as "routing data through U.S. servers" (including through a CDN).

So I guess the lesson here is: don't do that.

Post reply on HN