It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seeking the advice and input of ATS members on an important issue...

page: 29
241
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I have signed it as well - Hope being from the UK it still counts




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
OMG. I thought the legislation was a little more serious than preventing companies from installing spyware cookies on my computer when I accidently click on an advertisement.


Part of the reason this legislation has come about is the popularized notion that cookies are some kind of "spyware." Cookies are not spyware. Nearly all sites and web servers write cookies.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
hhmm...if i were asked to allow ads on this site, i would gladly click yes. they have been un-obtrusive and are not bothersome. however, i have been to websites where ads constantly interrupt what i'm doing on that website. those i do not go to anymore because of those ads. ads are not there to piss website visitors off, and some of them have. so...i'm kinda on the fence on this one. but i'm going to go ahead and write my congressmen anyway to stop this, having said that, webmasters and owners should be aware that too many of these pop-ups and redirects wiil kill the website entirely.



[edit on 1-12-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Advertisers won't give up, they will find a way to get customers.

I don't see this as killing the web.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You're correct as far as you take it. It sure won't hurt advertisers. Advertisers go to the venue that delivers the eyeballs. The point here is that it will be MSM and the largest of the large virtually exclusively splitting up the revenue.

It will no longer be a practical/viable alternative for that advertising dollar to be spent with the mid sized sites.

I'm of a belief that info will get out one way or the other. It's just a damn shame that something like this proposed legislation, which is built on the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that they've built up among the public, has a chance to do some serious damage to smaller sites.

The MSM don't like the competition. Boucher is being funded by Big Media. He cares nothing, and certainly they care less, about realistic privacy concerns. Snow job.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Thank you very much for alerting us to this not-so-helpful bill. I will write to my legislators about this.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I was the first person from oregon to sign this petition! Guess I have some work to do...Cmon oregonians, sign it!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDesolate
 


I agree.. except that there is soooooo much money involved, and the vast majority of site views are NOT MSM sites, but rather independent sites like ATS, that companies like Google, for the sake of saving their own asses, will find a new way of delivering the same services without these malicious cookies or whatever.

I'm not saying the bills right, or that I agree with it, in fact what I am saying is even if it passes it won't do much of anything.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
without these malicious cookies or whatever.

Could you explain what it is about cookies that makes you feel they are malicious?

I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested in what is causing these types of reactions in people.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
OMG. I thought the legislation was a little more serious than preventing companies from installing spyware cookies on my computer when I accidently click on an advertisement.


Part of the reason this legislation has come about is the popularized notion that cookies are some kind of "spyware." Cookies are not spyware. Nearly all sites and web servers write cookies.


One reason people do not trust the concept of cookies is because some sites have abused the personal identification aspect of cookies and have shared them.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
One reason people do not trust the concept of cookies is because some sites have abused the personal identification aspect of cookies and have shared them.

Actually, I'm not so sure that's true... at least in so far as "cookies" being involved.

There has been some unscrupulous data sharing with some online retailers and the "loyalty" programs fraudulently displayed during online check-out, but that didn't involve cookies.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Where do all the viruses on ATS come from?
Advertisers…
Where does most of the spyware come from?
Advertisers…
Who perpetrates The vast majority of all online fraud?
Advertisers…
Who puts pop over ads on the screen to cover content?
Advertisers…
Who makes their ads impossible to back out of or close down?
Advertisers…
Who puts up annoying sound ads that scare the crap out of you in the middle of the night?
Advertisers…
Who have people repeatedly asked ATS to reign in though they refuse to do it?
Advertisers…
Who places tracking software on your computer without your knowledge or permission?
Advertisers…
Who breaks almost ever rule associated with online etiquette and decency?
Advertisers…

Please give me one reason why finally cracking down on these unregulated criminals is a bad thing? I mean other then it effecting some companies bottom line, that is?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Count me in! Let's save ATS and independent, free-thinking, alternative websites...and then....lets lynch the Rich Boucher bastard!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Fisher_UK1982
 


You do realize that websites exist without advertisers on them?
Even ATS used to exist back in the day before it was ATS.LLC.INC.ASSC.CO.™…



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
One reason people do not trust the concept of cookies is because some sites have abused the personal identification aspect of cookies and have shared them.

Actually, I'm not so sure that's true... at least in so far as "cookies" being involved.

There has been some unscrupulous data sharing with some online retailers and the "loyalty" programs fraudulently displayed during online check-out, but that didn't involve cookies.


Perhaps you are correct and I have a misconception so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I have one question that remains:


Originally posted by Alxandro
Ok, that was weird.
As soon as this page loaded, I got a VirusScan Alert telling me that nowTrue.swf was detected as "Exploit-CVE2007-0071" and was "deleted"


Is this user lying? Or is the VirusScan program he has obsolete and cannot distinguish between harmful cookies and safe cookies?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Where do all the viruses on ATS come from?
Advertisers…

Lumping all advertisers into your list is both inaccurate and more that a little sensationalist.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmarehalo

Originally posted by Alxandro
Ok, that was weird.
As soon as this page loaded, I got a VirusScan Alert telling me that nowTrue.swf was detected as "Exploit-CVE2007-0071" and was "deleted"


Is this user lying? Or is the VirusScan program he has obsolete and cannot distinguish between harmful cookies and safe cookies?


Cookies are not viruses. The scan he reported in this thread (without alerting us using the malware reporting feature we have) is apparently reporting a viral intrusion that I've been unable to reproduce.

But yes, nearly all anti-virus and anti-badware scanning software mislabel cookies as something potentially malicious or intrusive so as to keep you constantly worried and using their software. Cookies are text files that are only able to be seen by the website that created it.


I do most of my ATS browsing on a PC that has no proactive scanning when I browse the web, and I only use it on ATS (no email or any other sites). Every day I run a scanner, and it never finds anything. I'm not saying members aren't getting alerts while on ATS, I'm just not convinced all the alerts have originated exclusively through some errant ad or other method as a result of browsing ATS.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You do realize that websites exist without advertisers on them?

Not large high-traffic web sites that are free for all without donations.

We currently use more bandwidth in 8 hours than what was allowed all month via Simon's monthly hosting agreement with LiquidWeb in 2003.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I am sorry to be a pain, but I seem to recall this being an ongoing problem, despite many denials of the source of these things, I think its pretty obvious to the membership where they come from.


Examples:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It appears (based on the information we have for now) that one of our ad networks has an infected 728x90 "leaderboard" ad. These appear at the top and bottom of every page. We've disabled these ads until we can engage in a little better research as to what is the cause.



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
www.abovetopsecret.com...
1 - Attempts to exploit banner campaigns: From time to time, we have experienced one or two advertisers that have either had their ads exploited, or are running ad campaigns that have "been sneaked" into the normal rotation of the networks that may contain malicious code.



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In the past, 80% (or so) of these types of complaints have been related to firewall/malware scanners incorrectly alerting to cookies from us or our advertisers. Many anti-_____ software companies classify cookies as malware, which is incorrect and intended to make users think the software is constantly doing something.

A small percentage (only two in the past four years that I can recall) have actually been related to an infected advertisement. And once tracked down with the aid of the ad networks, turned out to be an infected machine that was used to create the Flash banner ads (no malicious intent from the advertisers). Also, we only use ad networks that regularly scan creatives for such infections --- it's not impossible for an infected ad to get through, but unlikely.


Sorry, I love you guys to death, but the truth is the truth…

The government is required to get a warrant to track me, why should it be any less for an advertising company? If it were not for online advertising, we would never need to have spyware checkers. Just where do these guys get off installing anything on my machine, which is MY PROPERTY, without my consent???



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think it would be a good idea to present the misconceptions of cookies on the petition website. I also think it would be a good idea to find some more reputable advertisement companies, nonetheless, you have my vote.

ATS is the best news/information source I have ever come across in my life. Although I would like to see the abundance of filth advertisement dwindle, if the choice is between ATS staying or ads going then I choose ATS staying.



new topics

top topics



 
241
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join