Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AdTrap Aims To Block All Internet Advertising In Hardware

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the because-it-is-hateful dept.

Advertising 295

cylonlover writes "AdTrap is a new low-power, zero configuration device which promises to banish adverts from computers, tablets, and anything else connected to the local network. AdTrap's creators point out that their device works not only with full-sized PCs, but everything else connected to your home internet, such as Apple devices running iOS 6 – and without the need of third-party apps or jailbreaking. In addition to blocking web browser ads, AdTrap is also reported to remove ads from streaming devices like Apple TV and Google TV. A configurable 'whitelist' is offered too, so that users can allow adverts on websites of their choice."

cancel ×

295 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frosty pee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991579)

I can haz adblock plox?

Countermeasures Deployed (5, Funny)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#41991585)

This is why I place ads on the main page of my websites and you can only view content from the popups.

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991641)

...and that's why when i find sites like yours, i add them to my blacklist forever. fuck your ads.

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41991999)

Sounds like you need the new Whoosh-Detector-Matic 5000. Only $29.95!

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#41992315)

Hey! My AdTrap missed this one! I want a refund!!!

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41991727)

That sounds like zero websites I visit more than once.

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41991761)

Blacklist this, click next google result for my query.

Slightly off topic, is there any search engine that lets you blacklist sites so they don't show up in results? It's kinda tedious to copy/paste that endless tail of "-site:..."

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991847)

Google lets you block entire sites from search results. You'll never see them.

The feature is kind of hidden at....

http://www.google.com/reviews/t

(its amazing what blocking facebook here does. amazing and nice.)

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 2 years ago | (#41992043)

Could you make a custom Google search query and append the sites to that query string? (I'm assuming Firefox)

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992231)

That's easily done in Opera. I assume the other browsers that let you configure the search box can do this easily, too.

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41992155)

Why? We already have various governments and businesses (??AA) doing that for us, so we don't need to. I would rather have a way of circumventing their filters.

Re:Countermeasures Deployed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41992111)

Heh, I'm very surprised that isn't standard practice by now.

Embed ads into directly into HTML (2)

Zandamesh (1689334) | about 2 years ago | (#41991589)

Make them indistinguishable from a normal .png or a piece of text. Or is there some technical reason why this can't be done?

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41991623)

Because these days ads are not served from the same source as the content. They used to be in the past and likely will again in the future if this sort of thing catches on.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (2)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | about 2 years ago | (#41991927)

which would be great so it'd be a lot more unlikely for drive-by malware install ads to run, and if they ran the website owners wouldn't have the typical excuse of "oh sorry, one of our ad networks was compromised, we apologize"

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 years ago | (#41992245)

I'll bet Ad Proxies will become common before they host the files locally... it will look like it's coming from the server you are getting the content from, but the server is just relaying the ad from their ad host.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (4, Informative)

Canazza (1428553) | about 2 years ago | (#41992403)

As a web developer that thought makes me physically ill...
I begrudge doing that with sites I set up myself and *trust* the content on, let alone random-ass third parties.

That way lies security nightmares.

There are three reasons why remote-hosting adverts (and user-generated content) on a seperate domain is a good thing:
1) Shares the bandwidth load between two servers
2) An extra seperation between Content and Application makes for simpler updates
3) Malicious Injected content can't pretend to be from my own domain and is sandboxed by modern browsers.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41992095)

That gets complicated. If you're not serving the ads from your server you have to trust the people who run the website. All the fancy click counting will go away, which the advertisers will hate. And if the advertisers hate it, I'm for it.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991665)

Almost all ads are hosted by an outside company like Google. If it is displayed, Google knows because someone from your ip requested that image. If you click it, they know. If you turn them to images and put them on the site's server, then Google must trust you to report how many visitors you had, which will kind of be a pain.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991703)

Most ads are served up from identifiable ad networks - you could do it your way, but it's not convenient for the advertisers.
I like using ipcop with the urlfilter addon - subscribe to a block list, check the ads box, and enable transparent proxy. Done. Only for ipcop 1.4.x I think, but that even runs well in a virtual machine...

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41992415)

Those are easily filtered as well. 99% of ad's are a specific size. Look for that and SMOOSH!

Privoxy as looked for and filtered specific sized image files for nearly a decade to scrub site hosted adverts.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (1)

patchouly (1755506) | about 2 years ago | (#41992467)

No reason at all. Make a jpg with your ad in it. Want it to move? Use an animated gif. You'll lose the full effect of Flash ads, but it will get past all the ad blocks.

Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992473)

Make them indistinguishable from a normal .png or a piece of text. Or is there some technical reason why this can't be done?

Did you not read the slashvertisment here on slashdot , I think it was about some anti-spam device that hid an ad inside editorial text on the front page...

Pixelserv on DD-WRT (5, Informative)

Metabolife (961249) | about 2 years ago | (#41991599)

Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#41991929)

Too bad development on DD-WRT has stalled. No updates for my fairly popular router for two years now, not even security updates.

Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#41992073)

I just installed a few weeks ago DD-WRT on my Buffalo ADSL-modem/router. The web GUI is quite buggy, but otherwise it's great, totally worth the time and effort. Buffalo's own firmware was totally, completely broken and even the web GUI was developed to work only with Internet Explorer :S Now it chugs along happily without nary a hickup, and I've even got uMurmurd (voice chat server) running on it 24/7 :)

That said, yeah, it would be nice if DD-WRT's development picked up again. I would like to see the remaining bugs ironed out.

Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41992287)

I don't know which Buffalo router you have but the one I have was terrible with DD-WRT. I had to TFTP it back to the Buffalo customized DD-WRT because the community stuff had unreliable WiFi, reboot issues, and other problems. Turns out that the WiFi on the router is terrible, stopped working after 6 months and I ended up getting a more expensive router just to use for WiFi. I used to love Buffalo, and now the only thing I like about them is the ability to get the power of DD-WRT without having to go thru TFTP hassles.

Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41992433)

It wont. He is making money off of taking it commercial and is ignoring the public DD-WRT. Pick up OpenWRT, it's far more advanced now than DD-WRT

I'll take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991615)

...things that won't work for $1,000, Alex.

blocked already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991619)

I already have a 50 thousand+ line hosts file. It effectively does the same thing.
Along with adblock, noscript, and flashblock.. I don't see anything i don't want.

I don't see how people use the web without adblocking anymore.
The few times i've tried to use a public machine lately it was so bad i gave up.

so. many. crap. ads.

Re:blocked already (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41991639)

Why not just setup a proxy on one machine instead of bother to do this to every machine in your home? Or just do it on the router.

Re:blocked already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992027)

Copying a single text file across networked computers is hard?
Never seen a router with a blacklist that will hold 50k entries. Most consumer stuff will only get you a few hundred.
A proxy is a good solution. But less than ideal to add new machines to. Copying a single text file is the easiest it gets.

And that hosts file is older than any of the current hardware i own by at least 10 years. It evolved to meet the need.

Re:blocked already (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41992185)

Harder than doing nothing, yes.
I can't imagine a real router having trouble with that. A proxy is easier in that you don't have to copy the file over and over to each machine as it updates.

Re:blocked already (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41992451)

Privoxy runs on OpenWRT and does everything you need.

Re:blocked already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991653)

apk??

Re:blocked already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991747)

What is apk?

Re:blocked already (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991787)

It's an Android app that takes any input text and randomly capitalizes and bolds fragments, inserts random punctuation, and then adds large lists of /. internal links to the end.

Re:blocked already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991957)

The post was short and to the point for a potential use of a hosts file. It wasn't a pages long post that made only a single on-topic point while spending 90+% of the space acting like there is some anti-hosts file cabal, or rambling on about how much he's proved other posters wrong (who are actually all a single, prolific troll), or talking about how his handful of on topic posts got rated up or how his neighbors like him should be proof there is no reason he should be modded down. Plus he didn't sign his name several times.

tinahc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992003)

there is no anti-hosts cabal

Re:tinahc (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#41992355)

And it's not a wholly owned subsidiary of The Lumber Cartel, which also does not exist, either.

Re:blocked already (3, Interesting)

davewoods (2450314) | about 2 years ago | (#41991953)

I work for an IT contracting company, and my co-workers do not have Adblock of any type. They go around on the web, VIEWING ADS. I do not understand it, they know a lot about IT, yet do not sterilize their browsers? Who would do that willingly? One of them even uses IE, ON PURPOSE.

I do not think I will ever understand their logic as to why they do not use Adblock, which, when questioned, results in a shrug.

Re:blocked already (5, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41992233)

1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?

2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads

3. They may find some ads actually useful

SSL ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991631)

What happens when the ads are sent encrypted?

Re:SSL ads? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41991659)

Why would that matter? Do you really think it is inspecting the packets to do this?

I am betting it is just dropping traffic from known advertising domains.

Re:SSL ads? (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41991725)

Presumably even encrypted communication has to come from a url, which is how most adblockers identify ads.

Re:SSL ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991959)

Something that sits in line cannot look at the URL requested from a server - that information is inside the SSL payload. It can only look at source and destination IP addresses, unless it acts as a proxy that intercepts all SSL and decrypts it on the box. That would also mean it could look at your online banking session. So either you trust it with ALL your encrypted traffic, or it cannot intercept ads that are served encrypted. It could improve on only dealing with source and destination IP addresses by also snooping DNS traffic and correlating recent queries for known ad network domain names and their answers to later encrypted traffic, but this could still cause problems - what if an IP hosts both a domain for an ad network as well as legitimate content?

Re:SSL ads? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41992249)

Nope, there's still host resolution step. Device sits between you and DNS.

Re:SSL ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992309)

> Nope, there's still host resolution step. Device sits between you and DNS.

Right. Hence this portion of my post:

> It could improve on only dealing with source and destination IP addresses by also snooping DNS traffic and correlating recent queries for known ad network domain names and their answers to later encrypted traffic, but this could still cause problems - what if an IP hosts both a domain for an ad network as well as legitimate content?

no (1, Interesting)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41991649)

If they hardwired the blocking in to it the ad sites could simply play a name game and get away with serving adds so it is obviously software just on another box, second this won't stop ads that are encrypted traveling over ssl if embeded in the site correctly. It is more convenient for me to block ads at my own device using no script and adblock plus, as for my mobile devices I could simply blacklist IP addresses and domains at my own router and do everything this box claims to do already. Fail fail and more fail. All this will do is give people a false since of security.

Re:no (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991773)

Even if the ads are encrypted, if the IP of the ad server is blocked, the ads are not getting across.

My concern about a device like this is that it ups the arms race. Right now, I use Adblock, NoScript, and Ghostery on FF, and "click to play" and Adblock on Chrome without issues. With devices like this, websites will start denying content, similar to an old EQ2 wiki site where I had to use greasemonkey to get around the JavaScript.

Ads are less of a concern for me. The fact that ad servers are a very large source for malware is.

What I don't get is the difference between this device and a transparant proxy. Perhaps it might be good to have the device add a squid cache so it not just blocks IP addresses, but generally speeds up browsing.

From the TFA, I'm guessing this is a BlueCoat-lite device.

Re:no (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41991829)

You can do all that. 250 million non tech sophisticateds can't.

I could write my own browser if I wanted to. You're missng the point.

Re:no (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41992159)

"as for my mobile devices I could simply blacklist IP addresses and domains at my own router and do everything this box claims to do already"

Now pull yourself out of the Slashdot groupthink and pretend you don't know the difference between a router and a modem (and don't care). This is a box you plug in and it gets rid of a lot of ads. No need to install stuff on every computer, no need to fiddle with black-thingies and I-pee addresses (these Internet people think of such such stupid names).

Next Two Steps: (2)

X!0mbarg (470366) | about 2 years ago | (#41991691)

First, someone is going to Sue them for some asinine reason, based on loss of revenue, or some such nonsense.

Second, Product Placement will become the advertisement of choice, since it's a lot more difficult to remove or block. On websites, it'll be background wallpaper, or in the motif. You want placement? Better pay what it's worth to a site, series or production!

After all, the Ad companies, "need" to bombard us with their dreck, or we won't feel the need to rush out and buy it.

You know, like Cigarettes.

Oh, wait. Those ads were all banned ages ago, and Look at how that worked.

Just sayin'

Re:Next Two Steps: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992105)

First, someone is going to Sue them for some asinine reason, based on loss of revenue, or some such nonsense.

I'll send horribly overpriced bills for using my network/memory/processing/electricity resources to the advertisers.

After all... they'd have to pay for billboards too, so why should they get my screen space for free ?

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991711)

I wonder if it'll remove thinly-veiled Apple ads from Slashdot summaries.

my ISP allready has that! (1)

fredan (54788) | about 2 years ago | (#41991739)

it is called:

Block sites directly via their DNS server which gives back a NXDOMAIN for where it is propitiate.

Easy solution this f*ck advertise problem.

Re:my ISP allready has that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992071)

Who is your ISP? I'm surprised this hasn't garnered some scorn.

Re:my ISP allready has that! (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#41992401)

You're lucky. I can't even use my ISPs DNS servers anymore, since they won't even return NXDOMAIN for domains that actually DON'T EXIST.

Ads aren't really the problem any longer (2)

edawstwin (242027) | about 2 years ago | (#41991767)

For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer. It's the awful cluttered formatting. Every article I read lately has several breaks in the text for unrelated videos or headlines for other articles, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the right side of the page is just a mess of other crap I'm not interested in. Plus, multi-page articles that are only six or eight paragraphs to begin with, just to get more page impressions. That is a sure way to get me to never visit your site again. I'd really like a browser that just gives me the text that I want to read - I'll even take an old-school banner ad at the top if it gets rid of all of the other crap.

Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer (0)

PIBM (588930) | about 2 years ago | (#41991887)

Lynx ?

Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about 2 years ago | (#41991933)

Here's another vote for Lynx. It makes sites like Linuxtoday actually readable. Safari's Reader Mode does a good job of not presenting all the sidebar stuff, too. I find it very useful.

Seriously, if we stop looking at ads, will Western Civilization's already precarious economy suddenly implode and combust? Because if so, ... that would be cool.

Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer (1, Troll)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#41992495)

I'm sure you hand-carved this post on an ethically-harvested piece of wood and hand-delivered it to the local Slashdot office.

Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 years ago | (#41991991)

Those side banners and having to resize every singly page are largely why I paid $3-$5 for a manga reader on my phone (that basically strips the images from the host sites). I no longer have any ads to deal with while getting my manga fix.

Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer (2)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#41992443)

I do wonder about how badly it will screw up the layout of a website to pull whole chunks of it out. At work, our corporate overlords block Facebook, but I often find that without Facebook, the space that it should have been place it grows to accommodate the scolding message from our IT department about how Facebook is blocked, covering part of the content of the damn page! I even added Facebook to my hosts file, but now I just have a giant 404 iframe that again covers part of the content.

The Huffington Post, in particular, is REALLY bad for this. I actually have to start up Firebug and delete the offending iframe so I can actually read some of the stories.

I am opposed to this. (5, Insightful)

Chardansearavitriol (1946886) | about 2 years ago | (#41991781)

The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING! Or, adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads. Id happily unblock adds..Its just when I do, I get ALL THAT again. No matter how long its been. Its like its 2000 still.

Re:I am opposed to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991961)

Don't forget the security issues of Flash.

This is why I tell people to either use the "click to activate" feature in Chrome or grab the FlashBlock addon for FF. That way, the useful Flash content can be played or at least whitelisted, while the dubious stuff fresh off an ad-serving site does not have to be shown.

Sort of ironic that I've never had malware issues just because add-ons are blocked unless explicitly clicked on, while a VM I have that allows anything will get infected just accessing normal websites.

Re:I am opposed to this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991963)

So you only visit porn sites? Or you're a major drama queen/cry baby. Stop taking money out of everyone pockets you free loader. It costs sites money to let you use them. And guess what! not everyone is google or facebook. The majority of sites cost more to run then they make.

Re:I am opposed to this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992283)

We don't block googles ads.... We block yours.

Think about that for awhile... What do your ads do that googles does not...
Why would we block yours but not the ads from the largest adspace on the net?

hint: FUCKING ANNOYING!

Re:I am opposed to this. (4, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41991977)

The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING!
Or, adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads.

Id happily unblock adds..Its just when I do, I get ALL THAT again. No matter how long its been. Its like its 2000 still.

Most content managers will counter with "well if you want free content you can come and get it" but at this point people (consumers and content providers) should be able to figure out what it is that readers really want, instead of taking anything that MIGHT generate a stream of eyeballs and ad the crap out of it (and instead of users following links to read the same information over and over). Here is a hint: taking a news article that you swiped from somewhere else (or worse, poorly re-authored with no thought and no English skill) and putting a timed popup ad that smacks me after about 15 seconds is a really good way to make sure I never pay attention to anything from your site ever again.

Re:I am opposed to this. (4, Funny)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41991985)

adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads.

Come now, let's not bash Slashdot too badly.

Re:I am opposed to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992053)

Did you ever consider that the sites you are visiting benefit from those ads? Don't want ads? Start paying for content.

Re:I am opposed to this. (2)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 years ago | (#41992337)

Or... find someone who's willing to give it away cheaper/free.

Re:I am opposed to this. (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41992487)

The major reason Google got popular was that they did simple to the point text based ads and those ads were far more effective than OMG PUNCH YOUR SCREEN TO MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! advertisements.

Re:I am opposed to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992499)

Did you ever consider a lot better content was here before ads.

Re:I am opposed to this. (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about 2 years ago | (#41992127)

The advertisers know if they keep up the flashy stuff it becomes the norm.

You know that bug they put on television? You know, that thing in the corner identifying the station - years ago I was with a bunch of people that complained about it - but it never went away, I finally gave up watching broadcast, satellite amd OTA TV.

Now people not only don't care about that bug, but also don't give a crap while all the adverts are blasting across the bottom of the screen when you are watching the show.

So that leaves us trying to work around a system that's not going away because too many stupid people can't be motivated to pick up pitchforks and storm the castle.

Re:I am opposed to this. (2)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#41992407)

Ads are a outdated concept that shouldn't exist anymore, period.

Re:I am opposed to this. (2)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#41992523)

Just block Flash, and 99% of the irritants go away. Sites have to be paid for somehow.

Re:I am opposed to this. (4, Interesting)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 2 years ago | (#41992531)

The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING!

For me, the bigger problem is the tracking that goes along with the ads. If no advertising did tracking, I probably wouldn't bother to block them.

What will this ultimately accomplish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991885)

So what will happen when all these free sites and services can no longer function because everyone and their mom are using devices like this or other methods of removing blocking ads.

If you ask me this would be one of those "come back and bite you in the ass" scenarios as either

a) These entities would no longer be able to function and therefore close down
b) They are forced to make money other ways (probably selling information about users that connect to them)

Blocking ads seriously seems like stealing to me. If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service. If you don't want the ad because "they are targeted advertising me :( ;(" like a lot of slashdotters seem to justify adblockers with. DON'T USE THE SERVICE. Undermining companies like this will only end badly.

Re:What will this ultimately accomplish (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#41992347)

Ads shouldn't exist, period.

Finally! (1)

Soluzar (1957050) | about 2 years ago | (#41991907)

I've wanted this for a while. It would be more ideal if it were something that could be incorporated into a router, so that I don't need another device, but I'm sick of seeing adverts on my tablet.

Re:Finally! (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 years ago | (#41992005)

You could try using opendns to block a large number of ads, though I'm sure it's not as effective as this device.

nice, but... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41991923)

...does it work with Windows Media Center or XBMC to cut streaming ads without killing content streams?

Hopefully will teach advertisers a lesson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41991975)

When I use computers without adblock installed or without a hosts file blocking ads, I get annoyed at the amount of obnoxious ads on each site. For 2 paragraphs of content on some news sites, you have a sidebar of 2 video ads loading at the highest possible bitrate they can achieve, banner ads everywhere, and ads that somehow know which sites you've visited before. Not everyone has a decent enough internet connection that can handle all the "Rich multimedia advertisements" that most sites put out. Most of the time you have to wait for all the ads to load, and after a minute or two you can then finally read the actual content, however then there's usually some type of advertisement that covers half the story and makes you have to click for a next page, where you have to deal with the same stuff again. Seeing that ISPs are starting to put bandwidth caps on their users, I believe that most caps would be exceeded just due to the massive amounts of these "rich multimedia" ads that websites shove down people's throats... and people wonder why devices and software that block ads exist. Most people don't care for the simple google ad frame with text based ads that are based on the content of that page and that page only, like what google did when they first introduced them, I don't mind them either. But when you start pulling out bullshit like that, all it does is piss people off.

It's a waste of money and site will fight back. (1)

sziring (2245650) | about 2 years ago | (#41992017)

If you try using hardware/software on a large scale to block ads it will fail. Sites can easily counter this by running some of the code critical to the page load through their ad server. Blocking the ads will also block this critical piece of code and cause the page load to fail, thus no content. Don't waste your money..

I block scripts.... (1)

djsmiley (752149) | about 2 years ago | (#41992089)

but not ad's.

They really don't bother me as long as they aren't all flashing in my face style.

Have people really become so useless at ignoring shiny flashing things that they MUST look at the adverts, and then click them?... If a site so is bad the adverts are offputting I stop using it.

On slashdot I rarely see ad's as they let me turn them off :D

Cool (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | about 2 years ago | (#41992121)

All I can say is how much does it cost and can it be circumvented?

Re:Cool (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 years ago | (#41992429)

According to the Kickstarter page [kickstarter.com] , it currently starts at $115 (which I find WAAAAY too expensive for a single purpose firewall.)

Not really an issue for me. (1)

Infernal Device (865066) | about 2 years ago | (#41992137)

I don't even see ads anymore, thanks to ad blindness. They're easy enough to mentally block (except for the auto-expanders), that whatever they're selling doesn't really register.

Re:Not really an issue for me. (1)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#41992483)

Yeah, I have that too. Are they really that hard to mentally block out? Only if they the cause the page to lag, or auto start some obnoxious video is it really a problem for me.

Adnix (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41992203)

It's Adnix. And by the look of it, we might soon need Preachnix. It's all for a good cause though, giving your money to Hadden so he can build the second machine.

adblock whitelist that doesn't display ads (2)

what the dumple is (682010) | about 2 years ago | (#41992211)

It would be grand if there was an adblocker where you could whitelist sites _AND_ it still doesn't display the ads. I am fine with a select few sites seeing that I received their ads but they don't have to know that my browser isn't displaying them. The ads can go straight to /dev/null

Let's recreate the wheel! Oh, and sell it. (1)

neurosine (549673) | about 2 years ago | (#41992243)

I intuit that this is simply a SQUID server with a custom downloaded blacklist. If not...it could be...and you wouldn't have to pay for it. But yeah, hook this up and I'm sure it will have no negative effects or collate data then sell it to retailers. That's not intuition though...it's sardonicism...I think. Maybe just sarcasm. Certainly cynicism.

Huh? (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about 2 years ago | (#41992261)

What is this ADVERTHOSIMENET you are talking about?

Performance (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#41992299)

This capture all traffic and does more processing operation than a router who simply relay packets. I guess it comes with a slowdown of networking performance?

I've been thinking of something similar (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41992329)

We see adblocking software all over. Firefox addons, things for rooted androids and the like. Most often, they rely on some sort of hosts file or other host identification. (Thanks APK, no one could have thought of that before you did... oh wait... they did... it was too obvious.) But that sort of functionality really needs to live somewhere on the network. I haven't started googling yet, but I'm willing to bet there is some version of DD-WRT out there which will do that for me. But the idea of building a small VM which serves the purpose doesn't seem like a bad idea either.

A handy little box like this is a cute idea, but I wonder about keeping it updated.

I see a future for these boxes though. Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device. The various law enforcement entities out there could require the use of the box for convicts. Concerned parents could also drop one of these in somewhere on the network at home. Of course, an encrypted service out there could easily thwart this in the sense that it it wouldn't be able to monitor what goes on within the session, but it could certainly report that such a session exists.

I don't want it as an additional link in the chain and potential point of failure. I definitely don't want some commercial device controlling the flow of my network while sniffing all the traffic. Selling me blank hardware and showing me how to set it up and even compile from source which I can examine might be acceptible.

Ad companies? You will just have to start TRUSTING the people who host your ads. It'd be impossible to block ads if they originate from the same source as the content. You're an idiot for doing things the way you do now, but keep it up... it enables me to extend my time online before caps kick in.

Here is my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992477)

Just take it.

Originally designed as a censorship device (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41992529)

For the government.

Or what do you think paid the venture capital? It's not like anyone except form banks and the military still has any money.

Why do people expect something for nothing? (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#41992533)

I know the day that free web content and services dry up because there are no more ad revenue streams, the same people complaining stupidly against ads will want to complain about how the web is now hidden behind pay walls. The irony is that most of you won't be able to voice your opinion because you will refuse to pay to access Slashdot.

Actually, I think many of us might value when that day arrives.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?