Guy Argues That Anti-Ad Blocker Systems Violate EU Privacy Laws
from the well,-that's-a-twist dept
We've talked about how ridiculous it is that many news sites (including Wired and Forbes -- and apparently, now, the NY Times) have started using annoying anti-ad blocker software, in which it will block visitors from viewing their content if those sites detect (or think they detect) that you're using an ad blocker. This is ridiculous on any number of levels, but most of all because it is forcing people to put their computers at risk. Plenty of people have tried explaining to publishers that this practice is a bad idea, but to no avail.However, over in Europe, one privacy activist thinks he may have found another path. Alexander Hanff wrote to the EU Commission with his reasoning, claiming that anti-ad blockers are a form of spyware that illegally violate the EU's ePrivacy Directive by not getting consent. As you may have noticed, not too long ago, when you started visiting EU-based websites, it would always inform you of its policy on storing cookies, and requesting that you "accept" the site's policy. This was because of a new electronic privacy directive, that some have called the Cookie Law. However, as Hanff notes, it's quite possible that using an ad-blocker detector script is basically doing the same sort of thing as a cookie in terms of spying on client-side information within one's web browser, and a letter he received from the EU Commission apparently confirms his assertion.
With client side scripts is a breach of Art 5(3) of 2002/58/EC and thus ILLEGAL in Europe #privacy #adblocker #slamdunk
— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 19, 2016
Since so many people are bugging me for them here are photos of the relevant pages of letter. pic.twitter.com/vcTG0qdhIC
— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 20, 2016
This is huge, I am about to launch legal complaints across multiple EU member states & now have formal @EU_Commission opinion to support
— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 19, 2016
To all #publishers currently detecting #adblockers in EU - look out, I am coming for you and I am very well armed. #privacy #spyware
— Alexander Hanff (@alexanderhanff) April 20, 2016
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blockers, alexander haff, anti ad blocker, cookie law, eprivacy directive, eu, media, privacy, spyware
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On the one hand they have publishers bitching about blocked ads and scraping on the other hand they have those same publishers violating the law.
Perhaps the easiest solution is for them to consider perhaps it is the shitty ads they serve up that are the real problem. That consumers don't really owe them anything, and serving up hostile ads and hostile ad blocking is the reason they are in trouble. This isn't something consumers should have to fix, the industry needs to fix itself rather than just invent new ways to be shitty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worst anti-adblocker i've found so far...
OOOOOH, while typing this I double checked a story and the pop-up thing has gone. news travels fast it seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you click "OK" or "got it" on the cookie informant it downloads and installs a Trojan. ;) God help you if you click on an ad, ransomware at the very least. 99% of my email goes right into the trash unopened. Casual surfing? No Java, no flash, no java
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they want the ad revenue, they should take responsibility for the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Browser detection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browser detection?
"Under Article 5.3 of the ePrivacy Directive storing information or gaining of access to information already stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo?
Yes. Yes I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, it's been months since I've read anything from Forbes. I'm certainly not turning anything off for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block this!
Until then... STUFF IT. And even then I've come to really enjoy not seeing any ads at all.
You are the reason I quit watching TV And cable after the stations started showing commercials. I don't even have a TV anymore.
I have 10 radio stations programmed in my car so I can change channels on a whim as well as a multi-disk CD player that plays MP3's.
So screw you and your ads and commercials.
Avantare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I run into that, I say, fine, Bye, bye!!! Then go someplace else. There's lots of other sites on the web to go to that don't block you.
Fair is Fair and it should work both ways. I cut the cord, I get most of my TV over the air with a Antenna, FREE. I still skip all the commercials using my TIVO. I block ad's on my PC, etc using Ghostery. I'm tried of all the ad's. Ad's that can eat up to around 70% of your bandwidth!!! You go to a site for a article and your Web browser is grabbing Garbage from 20-30 other places at the same time. It's really just ridiculous.
They brought it upon themselves. It was one thing if it was some simple banner on the top of the page. Now it's Video and audio going off, and animated crap all over. Hell trying to find the next page of a article in all the mess can be a hassle. I block most all. With Ghostery, I will allow a few things for sites. A couple I'll whitelist if they play nice. If you're web site is grabbing stuff form 10-20+ places, it's all blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The argument then proceeds to Accountability. Can these Vendors be held legally accountable for creating vulnerabilities in a Visitor's computer / cell? Did this (quite literally) "Backdoor" result in damage or exploitation?
Accountabilty; website vendors have to, nay, need to be held accountable for their actions. It is not a visitor or patron's responsibility or fault that a company's business plan, wherein the advertising is a dismal failure, becomes that particular consumer's fault because of a gross failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The radio station I have programmed in does nearly no commercials which is why I've chosen it and like it. No stupid song repeats hour after hour, no commercial breaks.
As I've mentioned before, all these places demanding I open up to their spyware in order to see some minor content I am not likely to be back to the same source again for, doesn't bother me. I comply with their wishes and promply close the site. Their content is not that valuable as is my time spent trying to remove malware from my network. Since the advertisers aren't considering what I want, I don't consider what they want of any importance.
They've made their bed and are now unhappy with the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad blocking is unstoppable
For example, without naming sites, I've seen one check if an ad element (or box) has a height and width greater than 0, and blocks you if the box is set to 0. I just add a line to the ABP filter and I have access again!
At some point, enough businesses, websites, and individuals will be taken seriously, and ad companies will have to change their ways. Preferably to ads that don't drive you nuts or harm your computer...and maybe TV ads won't take up 20 minutes of your 60 minute show...#CordCuttingIsReal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation
"This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user."
The user requests a website and for this website to determine if the user is allowed to see its content it has to run an ad blocker check. So the check is necessary for the website to provide the information requested by the user. Therefor anti ad blockers could be allowed under EU law.
I'm sure someone fluent in legalese could explain it better and also turn it around but at first look the newspapers seem to have a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy turned out to be fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]