upvote
I think it would be nice for them to be held accountable but I get the feeling this is part of a wider nation state intelligence apparatus and I doubt that they will hold themselves accountable.
reply
deleted
reply
nah, you'll never get there that way. Even if there was willpower to do it legislating these things is too hard.

What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).

If they win the landscape will change. It would set a precedent for civil liability for infecting your users even when it's not your content directly. That would likely spook the shit out of the market, security becomes a feature.

reply
You're wrong on legislating these things. If the ad network is forced into KYC for their ad distributions and they are excluded from safe harbor, like a TV network would be, then I guarantee those ads cease to exist.

This mentality of "it's to hard" doesn't get things done.

I do agree that some greedy lawyers and civil liability would solve this, but that's not a long term solution at all.

reply
Why the website instead of the ad provider? The website didn't server the ad. The ad provider did and should be the responsible part to ensure what it provides is not malicious.

Attacking a single website does nothing. If you bankrupt the site, there are millions more sites. If you attack the ad provider, bankrupting it, and shutting it down, millions of sites are now protected.

Your logic just doesn't compute

reply
Ideally, you'd sue the website because the website is responsible for everything that shows up on the website they control, and the website would turn around and sue their ad provider because they paid that ad provider for a service that wasn't malware delivery and as a result of that ad provider's crimes (or negligence) the website now has legal costs and harm to their reputation.

It shouldn't fall on the person just going to a website to track down the vendors and third parties the website contracts with.

reply
The lawyers should name everyone involved with unauthorized access to your computer as defendants , the obviously innocent parties can be dropped before it gets to trial.
reply
I don't understand how you could arrive at this perspective. If you're doing business with ExampleCorp and one of their subcontractors malfeasantly mishandles things, would you say that ExampleCorp had nothing to do with it? If not, why does that change when the interaction happens via example.com?
reply
Seems to me the website is negligent and the ad provider is an accessory (e.g. helping to select targets for fraud), at the very least.
reply
The website is signing up for a service. You could say that a website continuing to use the service of a known malicious ad provider is problematic, but are there any ad providers known to have not served malicious something?

I think you're also confusing multiple malicious activities occurring on the web. Data harvesting is another thing that needs to be banned into oblivion. Rarely are sites doing that natively. It is being done as a second part of service the site wants. A site/app wants naturally wants to seen analytics about how visitors are using the site/app, so they include some third party tool that provides that data to an extent at the cost of collecting/keeping that data for their own use. Want to make it easy for users to interact with social platforms regarding your site/app, they now get to collect/keep that data. That's a different thing than being served malicious ads.

reply
The website is partnering with another business, often as their primary or only means of revenue. That is their entire business. This is not you signing up for a service like Netflix. It is a B2B partnership, and in fact, if you look at the direction money is flowing, they're the ones selling the service (surreptitious access to users' computers). It is their responsibility to choose their business partners and what ads they'd be running. If they're not doing any examination of what they're inflicting on their users, and just letting whomever's buying send whatever payloads they'd like, then yeah that's negligent at best.

"I'll pay you if you run this software on your visitors' computers without asking questions" is not a "service" you sign up for. People don't pay you as a service. That's about as shady a deal as it sounds.

reply
Is a general contractor who subs out the electrical also blame free when the house burns down?
reply
IMO the ad provider is fully at fault for allowing script tags and other potentially vulnerable features in ads. Why can't the ads just be static? I mean I get why they want it, but it should not be allowed, and IMO that's where the ad provider is almost fully at fault
reply
Websites can set CSP to not allow ad providers to serve scripts. They're the ones adding those scripts to their page, and are equally at fault. Though static ads can still point people into a fraud pipeline, and websites running those ads should be held accountable for that too.

It's fully possible to individually negotiate with someone that wants to publish an ad on your site. If you choose to take money from literally anyone who wants to do so, then why would you not be accountable when they inevitably use you to target users for fraud? You chose to take their money and not even look at what you were publishing.

reply
I don't think we should try to split accountability at all here.

The ad platform that allows malware to be served to anyone is at fault.

As is the individual website that has selected to allow a 3rd party's code to be delivered to your machine without controlling that risk, often for very silly reasons.

reply
> The website didn't server the ad.

Sure it did. The content coming from elsewhere doesn’t change their decision to include it when the user loads their page.

It just makes the decision wildly important.

This is no different than the “I’m too big, can’t tell what my subsidiaries are doing!” wink

Pay attention, do due diligence to do things correctly, or don’t do them.

reply
> What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).

Laughable. As countless class action lawsuits have demonstrated the victims are never made whole (https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/...), the criminals get a slap on the wrist fine that is a tiny fraction of the profit they made doing crime, and the lawyers walk away with pockets filled with cash while nothing changes. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-024-10170-w)

Fine's and class action lawsuits don't work. Throw some CEOs in jail and things will actually change.

reply
It seems like ads already violate the law via whatever that "unauthorized usage" law is that the government likes to throw around.

Too bad no one has the guts to enforce the law that way.

reply
That would mean some google people going to jail...
reply
If such a thing were passed, it can't apply retroactively. But yes, google people would go to jail when they inevitably flout it as they are accustomed to doing. We should make this happen.

People in the US have a unique window of opportunity starting TODAY (Oct 2026) in many places with early voting. I implore everyone who is able to vote in the midterms to do so.

reply
Which candidates support the "put ads providers in jail" platform?
reply
You will have to look at the candidates in your area and do your due diligence. Its unlikely a given candidate will be perfect, but there is generally tremendous differences between them as far as overall posture on privacy and surveillance.
reply
Not tremendous differences, mass surveillance of the people is one of the few issues that are truly bipartisan, but there's candidates better than others.
reply
None of them, but if one did I bet they'd get support from voters and less bribes from the tech industry. As long as politicians value the bribes more than the support the people will never get representation. We should probably pass laws that stop companies from stuffing the pockets of politicians with money, but what politician is going to support a law that takes their bribe money away?
reply
Stop, stop, I can only dream so hard.
reply
All ads are malware.
reply
And all spyware is "mercenary" spyware, at least in the sense that the creators only care about money and are willing to hurt others to get it.
reply
> And add jail time to fines. Fines means nothing for the rich.

This, pretty much. Money removes consequence form your actions. If every time you screwed up, instead of being fined you had to wear a silly hat, go on TV and apologize, or get some time behind bars, even if it were 1 or 2 days it would be very effective.

reply
The default setups are also _crazy_.

So you search for company A wanting to buy their product. You check out. Basically every setup I've audited has every tracking product ever for everything.

So you buy X, and the company sends that purchase event with your information to Meta, Google, TikTok, Applovin, Klaviyo, and 10 others.

This idea is hopelessly entrenched in every marketing department, who has leadership's ear: We HAVE to send EVERYTHING to EVERYONE otherwise our ROAS will go DOWN!

Every platform works this way, they're all set up to put giant red banners on your marketer's dashboards

"You could be getting 50% better results if you sent <customer_2nd_grade_report_card>!"

reply
Its basically how all the ad platforms fundamentally work: they use conversion events to train their ad algorithms.
reply
We should make targeted advertising illegal, full stop. This would remove so many perverse incentives in the system.
reply
This is not the problem. You visiting any website can lead to your computer running the same code.

The main problem is that the exploits from js to code execution or data exfil are possible in the first place. The issue is that you have JS, which is generally pretty isolated, able to talk to bundled libraries (like libwebrtc), which often contain the exploits and share the same memory space. There needs to be a intermediate layer between JS talking to any such library, like process isolation with IPC for communication.

reply
Sure, but there's a big difference between going to a sketchy, malicious site vs a reputable site that does serve ads and now being at the mercy of any arbitrary crap in the ad you didn't choose to see
reply
I'm not sure you understand what you're asking for, or if you do you have not followed the results of this to its conclusion
reply
This comment is meaningless without stating the unintended consequence you believe you’ve identified.
reply
> How is this acceptable for society goes beyond me.

Easy, when your society glorifies and deifies greed, you can excuse literally any act so long as it makes enough money.

That's it. That's the entire explanation. It's capitalism and greed.

reply
> That's the entire explanation.

Not quite. Most people in society are completely oblivious to this happening. And their lack of awareness is why the exploiters don't face more public opposition.

reply
That's true, even what they know is happening is so abstract and hidden that they don't really understand it.
reply
Vast majority of people will gladly sell their privacy.
reply