News YouTube May Face Criminal Complaints in EU for Using Ad-Block Detection Scripts

[helper800]

Let's see what the courts say. The law as quoted states " that those intentionally accessing information by infringing security measures, or doing so without lawful authority “shall be guilty of an offense.”"
"We're Google so we assume we're above the law your honour" probably isn't going to fly.

The problem with your argument is the key words used in that quote 'infringing security measures' and 'doing so without lawful authority' are highly specific to user agreements that the users likely opted into either via a EULA or some other agreement as a matter of account creation.

 

[George³]

The problem with your argument is the key words used in that quote 'infringing security measures' and 'doing so without lawful authority' are highly specific to user agreements that the users likely opted into either via a EULA or some other agreement as a matter of account creation.

If the EULA is found to violate the law, is it invalid?

 

[helper800]

If the EULA is found to violate the law, is it invalid?

EULA's are rarely found to violate the law because teams of lawyers make them, but not impossible. A EULA cannot protect a company from breaking the law. The problem with this argument is that they are almost certainly not violating the law with their 'EULA' if that is the mechanism they use to get such information from users.

 

[Deleted member 2962262]

The problem with your argument is the key words used in that quote 'infringing security measures' and 'doing so without lawful authority' are highly specific to user agreements that the users likely opted into either via a EULA or some other agreement as a matter of account creation.

Those terms of service are here: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c

There's nothing under 'About Software in the Service' or elsewhere that warns the user about 'running scripts to detect ad-blocking browser plug-ins' much less solicits consent for such activity.

If an individual or organisation pulled such trickery on Google they and the media would label them 'hackers' and law enforcement would quite likely become involved.

 

[Order 66]

Those terms of service are here: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c

There's nothing under 'About Software in the Service' or elsewhere that warns the user about 'running scripts to detect ad-blocking browser plug-ins' much less solicits consent for such activity.

If an individual or organisation pulled such trickery on Google they and the media would label them 'hackers' and law enforcement would quite likely become involved.

True, but who actually reads the TOS? I don't for one and I'm guessing most people just scroll to the bottom if they have to and click agree.

 

[Deleted member 2962262]

True, but who actually reads the TOS? I don't for one and I'm guessing most people just scroll to the bottom if they have to and click agree.

Sure, my point is I doubt Google's lawyers will be able to convince a judge or jury that users who, in principle, accept the agreement have thereby consented to 'running scripts to detect ad-blocking browser plug-ins' - without some such argument this activity, potentially, puts Google in scope for a criminal charge.

 

[helper800]

Sure, my point is I doubt Google's lawyers will be able to convince a judge or jury that users who, in principle, accept the agreement have thereby consented to 'running scripts to detect ad-blocking browser plug-ins' - without some such argument this activity, potentially, puts Google in scope for a criminal charge.

We shall see. I am extremely confident that the worst that will happen will be a fine.

 

[Order 66]

We shall see. I am extremely confident that the worst that will happen will be a fine.

I just hope it is a sufficient fine to get google to stop doing it rather than just being viewed as a business expense.

 

[helper800]

I just hope it is a sufficient fine to get google to stop doing it rather than just being viewed as a business expense.

I have not seen a case where it is not 'just another business expense.'

 

[Order 66]

I have not seen a case where it is not 'just another business expense.'

exactly my point. Too many of these fines are just slaps on the wrists of these companies. A billion dollar fine should be sufficient to stop it from happening.

 

[abufrejoval]

EULA's are rarely found to violate the law because teams of lawyers make them, but not impossible. A EULA cannot protect a company from breaking the law. The problem with this argument is that they are almost certainly not violating the law with their 'EULA' if that is the mechanism they use to get such information from users.

Let's not forget that this is about EU law.

US laywers may be the best in the world when it comes to US law, but when EU regulations come to play, no amount of EULA will protect these companies, because any EULA contrary to EU law is null and void.

It's killed all those shrink wrapped "license agreements" and it's likely to be the same here: the bigger the EULA the bigger the chances nobody can be obliged to read and respect them.

Sometimes it's nice to be legally entitled by your government to play dumb.

It's only when they don't care what you think or say that this becomes a bit of a bother...

 

[helper800]

Let's not forget that this is about EU law.

US laywers may be the best in the world when it comes to US law, but when EU regulations come to play, no amount of EULA will protect these companies, because any EULA contrary to EU law is null and void.

It's killed all those shrink wrapped "license agreements" and it's likely to be the same here: the bigger the EULA the bigger the chances nobody can be obliged to read and respect them.

Sometimes it's nice to be legally entitled by your government to play dumb.

It's only when they don't care what you think or say that this becomes a bit of a bother...

EULA's work similarly to that effect in the US. You cannot document your way out of a crime in the US. The whole point of a EULA is to protect a company from liabilities when someone starts using a product or service by said company, not shield itself from illegal conduct. If EULAs were to be made ineffectual legally like you say they are in Europe, everyone there would sue most companies out of existence or companies would not do business in Europe.

 

[abufrejoval]

EULA's work similarly to that effect in the US. You cannot document your way out of a crime in the US. The whole point of a EULA is to protect a company from liabilities when someone starts using a product or service by said company, not shield itself from illegal conduct. If EULAs were to be made ineffectual legally like you say they are in Europe, everyone there would sue most companies out of existence or companies would not do business in Europe.

Thanks for a whole new can of worms!

I'd say EULAs are lots of everthing. Corporate liability is only one part. But lots of EULAs are also about limiting the rights of purchasers (e.g. reselling) or trying to circumvent privacy rules. And these EULAs are voided differently in the EU than in the US because the regulations still differ, in spite of billions spent on lobbying to 'bring EU law (and practice) "in line" with US corporate interests'.

And after some door-to-door salesmen fifty years ago managed to sell people who signed a contract form there into an indefinite indenture today often called a subscription, a lot of consumer protection laws were introduced in the EU which will break such indenture clauses, among which I'd put the iStore, had I ever fallen for the fruity cult.

I'm sure there is similiar regulation in the US, but from what I hear from far away, it's often state level and not as strong in areas like data protection or the reversability of e-commerce sales.

 

[helper800]

Thanks for a whole new can of worms!

I'd say EULAs are lots of everthing. Corporate liability is only one part. But lots of EULAs are also about limiting the rights of purchasers (e.g. reselling) or trying to circumvent privacy rules. And these EULAs are voided differently in the EU than in the US because the regulations still differ, in spite of billions spent on lobbying to 'bring EU law (and practice) "in line" with US corporate interests'.

And after some door-to-door salesmen fifty years ago managed to sell people who signed a contract form there into an indefinite indenture today often called a subscription, a lot of consumer protection laws were introduced in the EU which will break such indenture clauses, among which I'd put the iStore, had I ever fallen for the fruity cult.

I'm sure there is similiar regulation in the US, but from what I hear from far away, it's often state level and not as strong in areas like data protection or the reversability of e-commerce sales.

EULAs that, "limit the rights of purchasers," are again for protection of the manufacturer from the user. Whether or not a specific EULA, "Circumvents privacy rules," is only true is specific cases where that actually happened, and is typically only done if currently legal to do so, which is few and far inbetween. I'm no fan of lobbyists either.

Your specific example that you made must have have happened in the EU because it has been illegal to have indentured servitude, or slaves for that matter, in the US for over 100 years at this point. I do not know what you are referring to with regards to Apple and its product, though that may be because I am an android user myself.

In regards to Federal, State, County, City level laws, they are all equally powerful compared to any other law in the country, they just pertain to specific areas in the US. I do not know about other states, but California where I live there are a lot of strong protections given to consumers with regards to e-commerce and otherwise.

 

[bit_user]

In regards to Federal, State, County, City level laws, they are all equally powerful compared to any other law in the country, they just pertain to specific areas in the US.

Texas recently passed a state law preventing cities & counties from creating more stringent laws than those the state passed.

Texas Republicans ended a patchwork of local rules they say hurt business. They also eroded powers of city councils.

Lawmakers delivered Gov. Greg Abbott a long-sought bill to stop local governments from enacting local laws that exceed state law on a number of fronts.

www.texastribune.org

 

[bit_user]

I've been wanting to get back to this. Sorry it's taken me a while, but I feel it's important.

On the one hand, I care somewhat about privacy and don't necessarily want my personal information exposed on the internet, but on the other hand,I figure that so much of my personal information is already on the internet that another place having it isn't going to make much difference.

This notion that privacy is a lost cause, because "it's all already out there" is both wrong and dangerous.

First, even if many people know some things about you, not everyone knows everything (yet). Furthermore, if laws came into effect restricting the use and retention of data about you, those existing repositories of information about you could wither away rather quickly. So, it's not a lost cause.

Here are some reasons you should care about your own information, even if you're nobody special:

• It can be obtained by identity thieves, via hackers or data brokers.
• It can potentially be used by prospective employers, who might discriminate against you based on your online activities or a medical condition.
• It can be used by Google Search, youtube, social networks, and others to present you with a distorted view of the world.
• Per the above point, it can increase your anxiety, because anxiety-provoking content tends to drive engagement.
• To manage your anxiety, you might withdraw from news, thereby becoming less well-informed.
• Politicians, special interest groups, foreign governments, etc. can use your information to influence your political activity - not only who you vote for, but whether you vote at all.

To expand on that last point, it's not only political ads, but imagine even going to a politician's website and being presented with a view that's specific to you. You're shown a platform which aligns with the issues you're likely to agree with and care about, while all the parts of their platform you're unlikely to support are hidden.

In addition to the above, here are some threats to society:

• Personal information can be used to radicalize individuals to all corners of the political spectrum.
• By feeding us content that plays to our preconceptions and fears, political divisions are widened and sharpened.
• Information on politicians and government employees can be used to influence or blackmail them by foreign governments or special interest groups.
• Information on political candidates can be used by their opponents to undermine their candidacy.
• Information on voters can be used to swing elections by redrawing districts and influence their political activities.

In other words, I think privacy is important for a functioning government and vital to democracy and national unity.

If that doesn't animate you, maybe the points I made about identity thieves or prospective employers will. @bigdragon, regarding your baby food incident, what if it were actually a prospective employer who decided they didn't want to hire someone just starting a family and didn't offer you a job you really wanted?

If I could get targeted ads almost exclusively about PCs and their respective components, I would be fine with that,

But is it worth it? Is it that important to see PC-related ads on sites that have nothing to do with computers? Someone interested in PC components can still get those ads when on a site like Toms or while viewing corresponding parts of social networks or sites like Reddit.

The industry wants you to believe that privacy is gone and we can't get it back. Your apathy suits their interests. IMO, the stakes are too high to stop caring.

 

[GenericUser]

This notion that privacy is a lost cause, because "it's all already out there" is both wrong and dangerous.

Basing off most people I've talked to in my life, I've noticed there's a very pervasive notion out there that "if you can't protect all of it, then it's not worth trying to protect any of it." Many people do seem to see it as a lost cause that's pointless to pursue.

 

[bit_user]

Basing off most people I've talked to in my life, I've noticed there's a very pervasive notion out there that "if you can't protect all of it, then it's not worth trying to protect any of it." Many people do seem to see it as a lost cause that's pointless to pursue.

Yeah and I don't know what it would take at shake them out of that line of thinking. Maybe, if some country or the EU really nails the right balance, people will eventually see how much greener their grass is, particularly after some big, odious event.

One thing that worries me is that if a Watergate-type scenario were to play out today, we'd probably never know. Plus, it seems like we've become so desensitized to scandals that it would never get the same level of outrage, and that outrage is what fueled a lot of reforms that made such abuses more difficult to repeat (except, we now live in a new world that needs new measures & protections).

 

[stonecarver]

we now live in a new world that needs new measures & protections).

Thank you well said.

 

[Unolocogringo]

Malware Bytes Premium and Firefox with Ghostery add on is simple tracking cookie killer combo.
For windows I use Spybot Anti beacon.

For my phone I uninstall every app,game I can but keep the phone functional.
Unless needed wifi, bluetooth and location are always off.

Of course I only use my phone a few minutes a day unless traveling in unknown locations.
I know this does not stop all tracking, but it is simple and works for my wife and mother in law(88 years old) also.
Keeps them safer without being complicated.
It takes away all the "shiny" distractions.

 

[Deleted member 978]

Can you specifically cite some of the US laws broken here? It would be useful to list them specifically, assuming this isn't fan fiction.

For GDPR - Article 21 here: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-21-gdpr/

For US - CCPA (well California)

• The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights.

Preventing a video from showing because an individual used Anti-Malware/Anti-Virus software to block scripts that detect one's personal information as a means to discriminate.

This will be challenged in court along with other intrusive code they use to force specific content on users that they think they want to view (that's legal proceeding is already under way).

Given that Alphabet Inc was already a $1.7 Trillion company prior to trying to discriminate, they'll have a hard time convincing a jury this will cause them any financial hardship.

 

[Deleted member 978]

but ads are how creators make the majority of their money

This is false in most cases, plenty of data and break-down videos to show that cost-to-content work ratio for even hitting 1 Million subscribers is not sufficient for single entity sustainability.

Sponsors and Patreon and marketing their own products (T-shirts, mugs, mats, etc.) is how they make money ... these are not the same as "advertisers" YouTube generates for any video watched (the ones they don't want us to block). There is NOTHING we can do about YouTube content creators that put "Ads" within the videos they create ... which is what most content creators do because that is where the money is at, not YouTube ads.

 

[Ogotai]

well, using an ad blocker on you tube, now prevents the use of you tube completely.

in order to use you tube, you have to allow ads, or use you tube premium.

i hope you tube looses views cause of this...

 

[DSzymborski]

For GDPR - Article 21 here: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-21-gdpr/

For US - CCPA (well California)

• The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights.

Preventing a video from showing because an individual used Anti-Malware/Anti-Virus software to block scripts that detect one's personal information as a means to discriminate.

This will be challenged in court along with other intrusive code they use to force specific content on users that they think they want to view (that's legal proceeding is already under way).

Given that Alphabet Inc was already a $1.7 Trillion company prior to trying to discriminate, they'll have a hard time convincing a jury this will cause them any financial hardship.

Do you have any precedent that your browser status is using ad-blocker is considered "an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person?"

Nor is a GDPR a US law, which is what the question you're referring to asked.

The CCPA connection is even flimsier. These laws have extensive definition of the terms used, which have almost entirely been ignored here when people play internet lawyer.

There's so much heat in these arguments, not light. Fire up Lexis and Westlaw and give some cites.

 

[Unolocogringo]

well, using an ad blocker on you tube, now prevents the use of you tube completely.

in order to use you tube, you have to allow ads, or use you tube premium.

i hope you tube looses views cause of this...

My method seems to work and is NOT an "add blocker"
I can view most of the web without problems.
Malware Bytes premium with block tracking cookies /malware/scams enabled.
Firefox with default protections enabled.
Ghostery add on for Firefox for the few Malware Bytes misses .
You can choose which sites get completely blocked, which are partially blocked, and sites you do not want to block at all.