Reply to post: Re: Bull?

Re: Bull?

If Mr Hanff is referring to @blepharon as his Twitter "stalker" then I can categorically state that Bull (I've no idea who BULL is) posting above is NOT @blepharon (and that @blepharon is NOT a stalker).

Any futher unsubstantiated allegations he might want to make on that subject, should be backed up with verifiable evidence - I can certainly publish my own.

But getting back to adblocking - I'm not at all sure that the pics of the EU letter/email that we got given on twitter make it clear that detecting adblockers is illegal. ~IANAL - and neither is Mr Hanff.

1. The letter talks about what is allowed/not allowed, under the legislation, and that is not the same as saying that any unspecified model of adblock detection is illegal or legal.

2. It isn't the whole letter - when Mr Hanff has the time, it would be good to see a proper scanned pdf of the whole letter, available online.

3. It isn't an opinion from the advocate general or the ECJ following a specific test case, and is therefore not legally binding on anyone.

I'd love to see my version what I THINK the ePrivacy directive says actually enforced - but having personally been through 8 years of the blood sweat and tears of the Phorm campaign (where I worked very hard to support Mr Hanff for some years), as well as seeing no progress on StalkStalk (despite trying personally with others to pursue legal action against TalkTalk) or the interception of email by Google, Yahoo! UK&Ireland, BT, and the interception of web browsing by BlueCoat Systems/Verizon/Huawei - I am not easily persuaded that something IS illegal just because Mr Hanff SAYS it is, and that such "illegality" will actually be enforced by the national or European courts.

So far I've not actually SEEN any legal actions pursued to a conclusions by Mr Hanff on these or related matters, whether against Google, Safari, or others. Threats, rudeness, emotive personal opinions, but no actual court hearings with judgements.

My personal opinion? I use a HOSTS file, I use an adblocker, and I also use an anti "adblock-detector" greasemonkey script. I pay for content I value using a subscription model.

Why? Not primarily to protect my privacy although that is important - I don't like being tracked and I do my best to prevent it. But mainly because I don't trust ad-networks not to serve MALWARE onto my computer. Which is why I also run script blockers.

If I used a smartphone, I'd also be bothered about ads swallowing up bandwidth.

I'll wait for the further appearance of material next week on Mr Hanff's website ( http://think-privacy.com ?), as promised on https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/723457388104286209 - is that the same material promised 5 weeks ago for the week beginning 14th March https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/708326532075413504 ?

I doubt the answer will be found in legal threats. It will be inexorable pressure from ordinary consumers reacting by continuing to use adblockers, developing their own opensource tech to circumbent adblocker-detetion, and avoiding publishers who take measures that consumers find unacceptable -It's along time since I polluted my devices with Murdoch's brand of "publishing". That process is already happening and the ad-tech companies are losing (hence all the conferences they are sponsoring). Publishers who adapt to that reality can survive. The others? We can live without them.

Meanwhile - my advice is.. "follow the money" (on all sides of the argument).

Keep mentioning malvertising and bandwidth when publicising the issue.

Always ask for evidence.

Don't believe what people tell you unless they can back up their claims/allegations with evidence.