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

uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 469 posts

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#431

Post by belorn »

maratc wrote: post #389
kelseydh wrote: post #363

Google removed chrome extensions that do cookie stuffing before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-two-chrome-ad-b... PayPal's Honey extension should be pulled by Google for doing the exact same thing. There is no difference and Honey shouldn't get special treatment just because it's owned by PayPal. --- UPDATE: It's criminal wire fraud. Brian Dunning sentenced to 18 months jail for cookie stuffing: https:…

Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.

From what I can find, the definition of cookie stuffing is to deceptive claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate. Its the deception that is illegal, not the act of setting cookies. As such, the amount, ton, or a few, does not change the definition. If they are claiming credit for the sale then they are either doings it in good faith or in bad faith.

Which definition/source for cookie stuffing are you looking at?

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#432

Post by maratc »

belorn wrote: post #431
maratc wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.

From what I can find, the definition of cookie stuffing is to deceptive claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate. Its the deception that is illegal, not the act of setting cookies. As such, the amount, ton , or a few , does not change the definition. If they are claiming credit for the sale then they are either doings it in good faith or in bad faith. Which definition/source for cookie stuffing are you loo…

> claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate

They will argue that by providing a coupon that lowered the price for the customer they did in fact facilitate the sale. IANAL but this sounds reasonable to me. Less so for the sales they did not find a coupon for (even if they argue they've tried).

The rest of your comment folds under this.

I guess we'll see how this plays out, but for what it's worth, the attached filing does not argue "cookie stuffing". (It argues other things.)

This may also go to a completely different direction of e.g. "securities fraud" -- the SEC may argue that PayPal, as a public company, has advertised their Honey service as "finding the best deals for their customers", and on the basis of that claim some of the investors chose to buy its shares. If this was a lie, the shares sale was made under false premises, and that seems like "securities fraud".

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#433

Post by sophacles »

shwaj wrote: post #94

I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.

Copyright infringement isn't theft, whether it's about movies or source code.

I don't care about the movie industry, and don't care if they lose money. I don't care about the software industry or if they lose money.

I do care about information being freely available whether its in the form of movies or source code - it's in no way contradictory for me to want people locking up source code to be stopped from doing so while also wanting to see more torrenting. Copyright law is a tool - much like fire. I don't want my house to burn down, but I also don't want the fire in the furnace to go out... is it contradictory that i want to use fire to keep warm but not have all my possessions destroyed?

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#434

Post by schiffern »

maratc wrote: post #429
kelseydh wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud because the offender is receiving commissions for sales they did not generate, thus defrauding legitimate advertisers and companies paying for the advertising. Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension for sales it did not generate. They are representing themselves as the on…

> Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.) > Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave i…

A distinction without a difference. It's functionally the same whether you store the same referral info elsewhere and stuff the cookies "just in time" vs stuffing the cookies all at once beforehand.

Functionally the extension is inserting itself as a second impromptu persistence mechanism ("cookie jar"), allowing it to stuff its cookies at a different phase of the e-commerce flow.

Slightly altered mechanism, same effect, same crime.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#435

Post by boneitis »

Alex-Programs wrote: post #369
Dylan16807 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as I watched the video all I could think was "what the fuck did you think they were doing?". Well, not screwing over their partners and customers? They didn't have to overwrite existing affiliate codes to make lots of money. And the stuff you list in your last sentence is a really big deal.

Yeah, you're right about them not having to rewrite existing ones. They could've only inserted affiliate codes when there weren't existing ones. It's less that I think it's OK, more that I'm unsurprised.

> more that I'm unsurprised

Bingo.

You want to stick your lawyers on them and try to punish them and extract as much money as you can out of them? Fine. Whatever.

>> not screwing over their partners and customers?

I wasn't around to organically take in this situation, but being introduced to Honey by seeing this blow up today, I can only say: "...no? I don't think so?"

Take, for example, the wild west days of rampant SEO exploitation (I'm talking like 2000s or 2010s era) and its race to the bottom, and Google's subsequent refinement of the SEO program over the years. Why am I supposed to root for one side over the other, again?

Their bottom line purpose is the revenue stream; this is not a FOSS project that does so much as to not even solicit donations.

--

I hope the top thread writer from that HN discussion five years ago is having a field day dancing on top of his I-told-you-so mountain :)

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#436

Post by throwaway48476 »

josephg wrote: post #152
kristofferR wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before, this is how ALL coupon sites/extensions have worked for decades. I'm frankly baffled it weren't more common knowledge, despite being common sense, before the MegaLag video. Did people really think that sites like retailmenot.com or wethrift.com make you open tabs to the shop you're searching for coupons for before you can see the coupon code just for fun?? Affiliate code stuffing is the coupon provider busine…

Utter scumbags. The google chrome & Firefox extension stores should ban the lot of ‘em.

Honestly the developers should be banned by name from using the Firefox extension store. So they don't come back with yet another scam.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#437

Post by throwaway48476 »

14 wrote: post #351
traverseda wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can live in the gift economy or the money economy. Taking stuff from the gift economy and selling it is gross.

One thing I see over and over again is that those with lower moral standards often seem to prosper. The saying cheaters never prosper has never seemed to hold true from what I have seen. Still I hold myself to a high standard in life even if I could get away with something I believe in morals. If I find a wallet I return it with all it's cash. Sadly if you have no morals you take the cash and come out ahead. My son l…

Most people want to live in a high trust society. Unfortunately the low trust society moves in.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#438

Post by throwaway48476 »

loeg wrote: post #179
shwaj wrote: post #94

I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.

It's just different people. "Copyright infringement isn't theft" is an extremely niche viewpoint in general.

Niche viewpoint amongst whom? IP lawyers?

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#439

Post by throwaway48476 »

matt3210 wrote: post #160

It wouldn’t surprise me if most companies steal GPL code. When code is closed source, how can anyone know?

The people who find it more convenient to steal GPL software are not the same group willing to do the work of obfuscsting that fact.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#440

Post by throwaway48476 »

Drakim wrote: post #51
tzs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a few ads from them on YouTube promoting their ad blocker, specifically touting that it gets around YouTube's efforts to block ad blockers. I thought it was interesting that YouTube, in the midst of trying to crack down on ad blockers, allows ads promoting an ad blocker that is specifically claiming to evade that crackdown.

I wonder if there could be anti-trust aspects to cracking down on such ads.

Youtube ads are less moderated than youtube videos. They know where the money is.
Post reply on HN