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.
It's unclear from the excerpt of the letter that he's posted if it's quite as slamdunk a case as he's indicated, but it certainly is an interesting read of the law. Either way, Hanff has made it clear that he's going to use this "opinion" from the EU Commission to go after a ton of websites using anti-ad block systems:
Of course, from the sound of things, if Hanff is correct in his analysis, this could make things trickier for EU sites that want to use anti-ad-block software, as they'd have to first get users' consent, and give them some level of control (possibly allowing them to just bypass the ad blocker check entirely). There are all sorts of reasons why the war on ad blocking is a bad idea, but here's one more possibility, especially for EU sites.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 10:49am

    And the EU ends up in a corner, where they lead themselves.
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bob Buttons, 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      The same could be said about Hollywood. Their next step is to try to convince ISPs to willingly start hacking away at their own customers to try to push them into supporting Hollywood's business.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 6:35pm

        Re: Re:

        They tried asking and got told to GTFO... so now they are trying to get the law changed so they can skip innocent until proven guilty, evidence those pesky due process things so they can terrorize account holders.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JT, 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:16am

    Worst anti-adblocker i've found so far...

    The Telegraph website is funny as it's pop-up 'Unblock our site, pay subscription or leave" message greys out the article but still allows you to scroll, so you can still read the whole thing.

    OOOOOH, while typing this I double checked a story and the pop-up thing has gone. news travels fast it seems

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:21am

    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

    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 script, no cookies, no shoes, no shirt, no service, no shit. Always use a VPN, or a trusted proxy at the least. Now that more people are using their cell phones as computers things can and will only get worse. Advertising pays for the Internet? Last time I check my ISP sent out another monthly bill, and the price and allotment of bandwidth are going in the wrong directions. And up yours EU with that right to be forgotten bullshit. I hear the Germans have forgotten Hitler, and the Italians Mussolini, how convenient. Maybe I can forget Truman dropped the A Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:29am

    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 script, no cookies, no shoes, no shirt, no service, no shit. Always use a VPN, or a trusted proxy at the least. Now that more people are using their cell phones as computers things can and will only get worse. Advertising pays for the Internet? Last time I check my ISP sent out another monthly bill, and the price and allotment of bandwidth are going in the wrong directions. And up yours EU with that right to be forgotten bullshit. I hear the Germans have forgotten Hitler, and the Italians Mussolini, how convenient. Maybe I can forget Truman dropped the A Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PlagueSD (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:40am

    I'll stop using my ad-blocker as soon as sites start properly vetting their ads for malicious code. You don't want me visiting your site, fine. That's the wonderful thing about the internet. I can just go somewhere else to read the same article.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McKay (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:56am

    Browser detection?

    Would that mean accessing the user agent string or otherwise making your webpage browser specific similarly be in violation of the same law?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ben S (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 1:37pm

      Re: Browser detection?

      Well, doing this w/o informing your customer of the fact that you're accessing data on their computer to do this, and getting consent, would be.

      "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..."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:08pm

    Typo?

    I assume you mean 'anti ad blockers are a form of spyware."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:13pm

    Forbes won't let me in while running Privacy Badger - saying I'm blocking their ads despite not actively blocking any ads. Mid to high quality ads still show up fine.

    So, it's been months since I've read anything from Forbes. I'm certainly not turning anything off for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Avantare, 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:16pm

    Block this!

    I'll CONSIDER not using it when they start paying for a portion of MY bandwidth that I PAY FOR.
    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JBDragon (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:43pm

    If you go to a site and they block you for using a Ad-Blocker, I say they have every right to block you! Just like you have every right to block the ad's.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Monday (profile), 22 Apr 2016 @ 11:51am

      Re:

      I believe the argument is about Ad-Blocker-Blockers' creating an Invasion of Privacy issue here. They are installing, more often than not, malicious spyware into the Browsers of Website Patrons.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:47pm

    I'm right there with you Avantare. Equally as much as poor programming giving forth shows not worth wasting time watching, is the cram of ads, which I hate with a passion. I too, no longer own a tv and am not in the market for one.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dakre (profile), 21 Apr 2016 @ 12:53pm

    Ad blocking is unstoppable

    I love when these articles come up, since I use Ad Block Plus to keep myself safe from malicious ads. In some cases, you will come across a website that can detect the ad blocker, but only because of certain checks it makes. Surprise! You can check how they do it by looking at the site's source code, and that makes many sites easy to unblock.

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 21 Apr 2016 @ 3:25pm

    Publishers, etc, will never let sense get in the way of money and profit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2016 @ 4:51pm

    Interpretation

    When you read the article 5(3)the first part does seem like an easy win but the 2nd part could allow anti ad blocking.

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2016 @ 3:05am

    Nice article! I'm gonna whitelist techdirt from my ad-blocker. I'm so glad someone understands why people use them to begin with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Deb, 25 Apr 2016 @ 5:43pm

    The guy turned out to be fraud

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glen, 16 Aug 2016 @ 1:37pm

    If you want to get more info on anti adblockers, visit http://anti-adblocker.weebly.com/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.