all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

"No no, I'm not a thief, but me and my 1200 paying friends would like to take a look around your house, may we come in?"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

    This shit should be illegal.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 24 minutes ago* (2 children)

    When I browse a website without the dialog I assume they’re not disclosing anything, but as a web developer that’s super against this my own websites are dialog free too.

    It’s sad that we expect this behavior from “normal” websites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 minutes ago (1 child)

    That's why I appreciate the few and far between sites that have a banner... That's just "we don't track or nuffin', see here what we do", so it's clear that they've considered, any potential scripts did load successfully, and they're hopefully not lying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    A script that shows a modal box or whatever when something fails to load as expected need not spy on you to function, but maybe I'm reading into a funny post more than I should be.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 hour ago

    You're technically correct (the best kind of correct).

    It's trivial to attempt a connection to an ad server and detect the failure and display a dialog.

    The problem is that (publishers don't want to acknowledge) there's no difference between advertising and malware.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago

    Someone with that many partners is disease ridden.

  • source