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

Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#41

Post by mpeg »

jszymborski wrote: post #31
mpeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem. For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course,…

Right, but are you suggesting that the Google ad servers are not going to use that information to sell to these visitors on other websites that are showing ads from the GDN?

I'm not a Google fan by any means, but DFP is the #1 ad server in the world and an industry standard, and I definitely don't think they would use DFP data to populate GDN segments because it would be a privacy nightmare.

You have to consider DFP is a software tool, it would be like Slack selling your data so other SaaS can target you when you are talking about buying a new CMS.

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#43

Post by rtb »

mpeg wrote: post #26
frou_dh wrote: post #6

Invisible trackers aside, it's simply gross that local government sites have banner ads on them. Have some pride and/or taste!

When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem. For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course,…

I think they understand it fine. As you say, the website is using Google's ad server. So it is sending detailed identifying info about each user to Google.

Just because that has become normal for "the online ad ecosystem" over the past few years doesn't mean that it should be acceptable or that we cannot try to stop it.

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#44

Post by farazbabar »

throwawaylolx wrote: post #34
sandwell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the core issue that council websites are using real-time bidding for their ads? Yes. These websites are used to support a variety of public services, e.g. disability, poverty, drugs, or alcoholism services. Brave believes that sending tracking information about people accessing this information is a breach of privacy.

And is "real-time bidding" an otherwise uncommon ad strategy that is relatively specific to the these websites? If it is, then I can understand the alarmism, but otherwise this news can be compressed to "UK council websites use targeted ads," right?

No. The issue is the means used to target ads on this site are transmitted back to ad servers and used outside this context which is a nightmare scenario.

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#46

Post by mpeg »

rtb wrote: post #43
mpeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem. For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course,…

I think they understand it fine. As you say, the website is using Google's ad server. So it is sending detailed identifying info about each user to Google. Just because that has become normal for "the online ad ecosystem" over the past few years doesn't mean that it should be acceptable or that we cannot try to stop it.

What is the alternative here? Should Enfield spend tax payer money creating an alternative tool to show banner ad cross-promotions and re-training their teams?

Where do you stop? Is Google Analytics evil too? What about Twitter feeds?

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#47

Post by tssva »

eclipxe wrote: post #39
mpeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem. For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course,…

Brave's business model is fear mongering.

And extortion.

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#48

Post by 627467 »

I don't want to be overly critical here but If we rush to call this 'widespread surveillance' (intended or not) I worry that we'll quickly start losing words/expressions to describe the stuff that snowden unveiled or whethever the government does in China...

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#49

Post by Grumbledour »

choathedolls wrote: post #33
blibble wrote: post #25

I suspect the root cause of this issue is the average web developer not realising that including any third party javascript gives total control of the page to whoever controls the included URL

The average developer knows this even if you're an absolute lover of all things JS. Whether or not the developers were forced to include them due to certain constraints is another issue.

I am kind of sick of this excuse.

While I suppose every developer here was in a situation where they had to include something they did not want, I also know that none of my colleagues would care or even think about including external scripts, trackers or other crap. Possibility would be high they would be the ones suggesting it. And I have met many developers who think that way. And looking at a plethora of open source projects, which many would assume should have many developers more conscious of these kind of issues suggest this is more than anecdotal evidence.

Most people, developers included, probably even most developers on hacker news, don't care at all. We should not always try to push responsibility on someone else when it is us who builds this kind of crap often without even protesting.

Re: Surveillance on UK council websites [pdf]

#50

Post by frou_dh »

mpeg wrote: post #26
frou_dh wrote: post #6

Invisible trackers aside, it's simply gross that local government sites have banner ads on them. Have some pride and/or taste!

When you actually look at the sites, it's clear Brave hasn't done their homework or don't really understand the online ad ecosystem. For example, Enfield council ( enfield.gov.uk ) is using Google's ad server (DFP) set to show only internal ads. All their advertising is for cross-promoting projects and sites that Enfield council is involved with, including pest control, social lettings, a publicly-funded golf course,…

In the PDF, this is the example of the banner ad they show:

https://i.imgur.com/qwuU5Sx.png

So the banner ads being strictly council related is certainly not universal.

Post reply on HN