[105218] in Cypherpunks
Re: Advertising Creepiness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Sun Nov 8 20:29:18 1998
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 20:04:26 -0500
To: Information Security <guy@panix.com>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
In-Reply-To: <199811081759.MAA27023@panix7.panix.com>
Reply-To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue
that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full.
-Declan
At 12:59 PM 11-8-98 -0500, Information Security wrote:
> > From owner-ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998
> > To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> > From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
> > Subject: IP: Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
> > Cc: believer@telepath.com
> >
> > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now
> > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news
list.
>
>Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles?
>
>I would.
>
> > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent, it
appears...
>
>"Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore.
>
>Would you like Information Security to cough up more
>color on his netcopping move?
>
>Hey, you ratted me out to the IP list!
>
>;-)
>
>----
>
> > From: Steve Mynott <stevem@tightrope.demon.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 11:50:05PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >
> > > Myself, I try to mostly just snip out a few paragraphs of a story
and
> > > comment on them, fair use and all.
> > >
> > > My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk
> > > completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this.
> >
> > Click through rates are something like 2%, so most are screening
them out.
> > I rarely noticed what the ads actually said.
> >
> > > (Yes, I tried the utilities which purport to flush banner ads,
but they
> > > didn't work well (long delays, cruftiness).)
> >
> > I don't know which ones you have tried but junkbuster
> >
> > http://www.junkbuster.org/ (a proxy on port 8000)
> >
> > works _very_ well on my linux system, particularly with the "blank
gif"
> > patch.
> >
> > It blanks out 99% of banner gifs, which makes pages like
metacrawler and
> > wired look more visually attractive and load faster.
>
>But, when sites get smarter about using server-side includes,
>the I/O delays will still be there.
>
>I think ISPs should offer a proxy service for WWW access. They have
>bigger pipes.
>
>This could include an opt-in (configure through an ISP-local WWW page)
>adbuster. At the same time, it would to a certain extent anonymize
>access.
>
>And let's say cable-modem access becomes wide-spread, and legislation
>forces the cable companies to allow ISP choice. I think ISPs that offer
>some privacy in user access over this shared medium will have a leg-up
>on their competition.
>
>That would involve software residing local to the user's box that
>would encrypt access between them and the ISP for WWW, email, ftp, etc.
>More than just ssh.
>
>Hey, then you would finally have ads that make clear what encryption
>is for the average user: picture two neighbors going to work in the
>morning meeting in the elevator, and one starts hinting he knows
>what the other was receiving for email, which sites he was surfing...
>
>Maybe the Anonymizer.com people will release/sell such software for ISPs,
>and, of course, sans GAK.
>
>---guy
>
