advertising

I Know What You Downloaded Last Summer

Posted on March 11, 2012March 11, 2012 by Matt Taylor 2 Comments

YouHaveDownloaded.com

An interesting site popped up near the end of last year called YouHaveDownloaded.com. You might not have visited it, or even heard of it, but if you’ve been using torrents, it might have heard of you.

The site is quite simple, it tracks torrents and the people (IP addresses) downloading them, much like copyright holders do (or hire companies to do for them). They claim to be tracking roughly 4%-6% of all torrent downloads and 20% of torrents from public trackers, like The Pirate Bay.

The difference to the copyright holders is that this site makes the information is collects public. You can see what it thinks the IP address you’re using has been used to torrent, or any other IP address you can think of. It might not be right, or it might be spot on.

This site just highlights what is going on all the time. Torrenting is a very public activity unless you’re making an effort to protect your privacy (like using a proxy or VPN from a reputable provider). Privacy is not the default on the interwebs.

IP addresses are more like PO Boxes than physical addresses — most people have dynamic IP addresses that regularly change, and add in the fact that some people have insecure Wi-Fi, the results on the site aren’t that accurate.

The site brings up an interesting statistic, especially if it’s true: “About 10% of all online shoppers, in the US, are torrent users as well.” In the future will advertisers link an IPs torrenting history to an advertising profile. Is this already happening?

The removal form

The site provides a form that supposedly enables people to request removal from the site. Don’t use it.

Previously it asked people to sign in using their Facebook accounts, and the CAPTCHA to get to the non-Facebook removal form didn’t work (ie. they wanted to link your data with a real name, cue warning bells). Now it seems like Facebook has revoked their access to use Facebook logins (they say Facebook logins are “Temporarily disabled due problems with Facebook”), so it brings up the removal form, which asks for a name and an email address.

I’m not saying this is what the people behind the site are doing, but this would be all the information they would need, in addition to the information they have on torrents associated with your IP address, to send an extortionate email your way. Or sell your data (probably not to copyright holders, because they hire people to do this for them already).

Here’s what their removal terms are (and yeah, the rest of the site is worded like this too):

“Removal Terms
The Details: By submitting a request to have your download activity removed from our database, you are acknowledging that the activity was, in fact, carried out by yourself. This means that you are only submitting a request to have the details of your own personal activity deleted. Any unrecognized activity, such as files you did not download or do not remember downloading, are not — I repeat, are not to be included in your removal request. Why is this imperative? Well, we actually don’t have to explain ourselves…sorry.
The important part is that you understand these terms and conditions before hitting that beautiful button that will erase your criminal back ground, at least for now. Wait, you did remember to read these terms before making the decision to submit a removal request, right? Of course you did, everyone reads the fine print.
Other Important Things to Consider: We make no guarantees that your information will not appear on any other databases. We may have erased your bad behavior but, keep in mind that your data on this site is aggregated public domain. So, if by chance, another sadistic group of people decides to open a similar web site, we have no control over what they do with your information. Furthermore, if you continue to involve yourself in activity like this, your future download history will, without a doubt, appear in our database again and we may not be as nice about it next time.
If any part of these terms is still unclear, please visit your local elementary school and ask to repeat grades 3 through 5.”

Giving the people or company behind the site any more information about yourself is not a good idea, even if they claim that the site is a joke and you shouldn’t take it seriously.

And anyway, if your IP address is listed on the site, it must be because of the person that used it previously. Right?

The only redeeming feature of the site? You can look up the content companies that take people to court for illegal file sharing.

Posted in Law, Technology, Worldwide

Election Roundup

Posted on November 25, 2011March 2, 2014 by Matt Taylor 1 Comment

Colin Craig’s Conservative Party of stock photos

Here’s a selection of where stock photos used in mailer six (pdf) are used elsewhere on the internet. Part one of our stock photo adventure is here.

Conservative Party image

Fidenza Asset Management

—

Conservative Party image

Wallaby Motorhomes

—

Conservative Party image

Quote Alabama Insurance

Medical Center Associates

The Conservative Party is a bad influence

The ACT Party are using stock images on their Facebook pages. Here’s some from their small business section.

ACT Party image

Terrace 139 Creative

—

ACT Party image

The Small Business

—

And from the Gen Y section.

ACT Party image (you’d think they’d actually use a New Zealander)

Indiana Library Federation

Six reasons not to vote Conservative tomorrow

From their handy ‘How Conservative Are You?’ quiz.

Welfare reform so that there is no pay without work and incentives are toward working and couples staying together. No benefits (“no pay without work”). Concerning that they want to incentivize couples to stay together. Creates a, I assume, financial, incentive to stay in a domestic violence situation. Not everyone wants to have a partner and they shouldn’t be penalized for that.
That the legal drinking age be raised to 21 years of age. War on youth.
That the ban on smacking be removed with a return to parents being able to use reasonable force in correcting their children. The law already has an exception “if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. Force shouldn’t be used instead of proper parenting.
Tougher sentences for violent criminals along with a requirement that they work and learn while imprisoned. “Requirement that they work” seems like it would be slavery. Locking people up longer isn’t the magic answer to crime.
In sentencing ‘life’ imprisonment shall actually mean life imprisonment. As above, this isn’t the magic bullet.
That Citizens Initiated referendum should be binding if 67% or more of votes cast favour the proposal. (and apparently we’re having a referendum in 2014 – “That the 2014 election referendum should include the following questions …”) – Referenda are stupid in that questions are often worded in a way that solicits the response desired by the people behind the referendum. Binding referenda could unfairly affect minority groups. Here are some examples of ridiculous referenda we have had:

Should the number of professional firefighters employed full time in the New Zealand Fire Service be reduced below the number employed on 1 January 1995? (12.2% yes, 87.8% no – 1995 – 27% turnout)
Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences? (91.8% yes, 8.2% no – 1999 – 84.8% turnout, held on day of general election) [emphasis mine, did 91% of New Zealanders who voted really support hard labour? Unlikely. Were they voting for better treatment of victims? Probably.]
I vote for compulsory military training. I vote against compulsory military training. (77.9% in favour, 22.1% against – 1949 – 63.5% turnout)

If I have crushed your Conservative Party dreams, and/or you’re not sure who to vote for tomorrow, check this website out.

Posted in Law, New Zealand

The Conservative Party Keep iStockphoto In Business

Posted on November 3, 2011March 2, 2014 by Matt Taylor 3 Comments

If you enjoy this post, you might want to subscribe to get sent new posts of mine by email: click here.

The Conservative Party and I don’t get along. Their use of stock images of people in their advertising material (ht: The Egonomist) is one of the many things we disagree on.

Using the magic that is Google Image Search, I present to you the faces from the Conservative Party advertising that might seem familiar, but not because you would have seen them in real life.

But wait. If you want to play along at home, you can download their mailers that they’ve helpfully uploaded to their website and image search your heart out. By my count we’ve only had three delivered, so if you want a spoiler of what’s to come in your letter box in the coming weeks, here’s four and five in advance.

I – II – III – IV – V (pdfs)

Mailer One

Conservative Party image

Mama’s Health

SwitchUp (and I’m pretty sure they just made up that name and quote)

Addiction Discussion

iStockphoto

—

Conservative Party image

ANG Investments

—

Conservative Party image

Doctors’ Pediatric

Virgil Roberson

Building Blocks Early Learning Center (is this even a real teacher?)

—

Conservative Party image

VA Mortgage Center

Sala de Terapia

—

Conservative Party image. You’d think that maybe they’d use a real New Zealand farmer for this image, but you’re not the Conservative Party or their graphic designers.

Tallahasse Dog Training

—

Conservative Party image

myCommunity

—

Conservative Party image

Elbebe

—

Conservative Party image

EAUK

—

Conservative Party image

Dcttbio

Redhouselane

—

Conservative Party image

Dec-sped

—

Conservative Party image

Pregnancy Treasures

Mailer Two

Conservative Party image (featuring dog guy from above)

Cooperators

Update: Apparently the woman in this photo wasn’t good enough for the Conservative Party:

Conservative Party image

The original (ht: 2011 Election)

Update: Stock Stucker picks up a few I missed, as well as the keywords used for some of the photos on stock sites.

Posted in New Zealand

New Zealand Driver Licence Age Changes

Posted on August 10, 2011February 5, 2013 by Matt Taylor 2 Comments

Update: My exemption was approved. Here’s what I wrote.

On August 1st changes were made to the graduated driver licensing system in New Zealand. The minimum age to apply for a driver licence changed from 15 to 16. That change and that the restricted age was going up with it was fairly well publicized, but what wasn’t was that the age to get a full licence also changed. This Nelson Mail/Stuff article [now offline] doesn’t mention changes to the full licence age at all. This Timaru Herald article stops at the restricted changes too. The latest AA magazine, the Winter 2011 edition of AA Directions, only talks about the changes to the learner age. Not surprisingly, people are confused. I’ve written about the NZTA being unclear before.

Exemptions

However, if someone already paid for their licence test before August 1st, they get around the changes. If you missed out by ~10 days, you have to apply for an exemption to get your licence in the previous time frame, which seems simple at first. The NZTA says they “will grant you an exemption,” basically if you would have been able to get your licence under the guidelines before the changes and if you have a “clean driving record.”

You have to pay a non-refundable $27.20 fee, which covers the processing(???) of the application.

Not everyone is a lawyer

The exemption form (PDF) contains some complicated questions. It seems unfair to expect teenagers to be able to competently answer them.

What have you done to mitigate the risks to road safety? and

How has the legislative requirement been substantially complied with and why is further compliance unnecessary? or
What action have you taken or provision have you made that is as effective or more effective than actual compliance with the legislative requirement? or
How are the legislated requirements clearly unreasonable or inappropriate in your case? or
What events have occurred to make the legislated requirements unnecessary or inappropriate in your case?

Can someone just write “I have a clean driving record?”

Publicity

With the texting ban there were advertisements in newspapers, plus it was covered well by the media. A couple of days ago I saw a Facebook ad about the new blood alcohol limit for young drivers. Excellent. But I had no idea that the changes to the driving age could affect people on their restricted licence from moving to their full licence until after the changes came into effect, and I’m in that target audience.

“The NZTA issued a media statement and launched a new web page with information when the changes were announced, followed up by reminder statements over the past couple of weeks – the changes were flagged as one of the main news stories on our website homepage for several weeks.”
“The info has been available from the homepage of the NZTA website – www.nzta.govt.nz, as well as from www.practice.co.nz (site for restricted [sic] drivers and their parents), and www.safeteendriver.co.nz”

The media didn’t seem to pick up on the affect the changes have on restricted drivers until after the changes. I think the new web page meant is Safe Teen Driver, which is a site for the parents of restricted drivers. Unless that site has been modified since the changes, it doesn’t seem like, after a quick browse, there is any mention of the changes. Teenagers aren’t checking the NZTA website. The Practice website is for learner drivers and my issue is the with lack of communication to restricted drivers about changes that affect them.

RRFC

Now I understand why articles end up saying something along the lines of “there was no response after repeated requests for comment.”

Questions I asked via email on whether the NZTA thought the exemption questions were reasonable to be asking young people, whether having a clean driving record is a good enough reason for getting an exemption, whether information about changes was advertised in newspapers, on TV and through social media, and what the money from the fee for applying for an exemption actually goes towards remain unanswered. I was directed to the NZTA website for full information on applying for exemptions.

I did, however, get sent statistics that in July there were around 17,500 learner licence tests conducted compared to around 10,000 in “a normal month” and that there was a 15% increase in 15-year-olds applying to sit learner licences since May when the change was announced. I’m not sure if this takes into account the fact that there were school holidays in July. The pass rate was also up from “the recent average of around 60%” to 67%. I asked for statistics on restricted and full licenses because I think there was a lack of attention given to those age changes, not the learner licence age change. I am yet to have been sent those statistics.

I have to apply for an exemption to get my full licence. What should I write, and what second question should I choose?

^{Image credit: Hamed Saber}

Posted in Law, New Zealand

A Bad Diagram

Posted on June 28, 2011November 5, 2011 by Matt Taylor Leave a comment

Anyone who has driven on New Zealand’s roads knows that there’s a lot of drivers who don’t seem to know the rules surrounding indicators in roundabouts.

Know your way around roundabouts

This is from a NZTA brochure called Know your way around roundabouts from 2005. Well intentioned as it is in trying to simplify the roundabout rules, the diagram seems to suggest that in the middle of the roundabout, when going around the roundabout, drivers can just stop indicating. If someone actually followed this advice, a car waiting at the opposite side of the intersection might think that this car was going straight (which is when you don’t indicate on entry and indicate left on exit) and pull out in front of it. When turning “right”, like in the picture, the driver should really be indicating right until the picture shows to indicate left.

Drivers who don’t know the actual rules probably think they’re doing it right. It wouldn’t hurt to look at the clarity of material released by NZTA.

Posted in New Zealand

What About The Children?

Posted on May 1, 2011April 11, 2014 by Matt Taylor 2 Comments

TVNZ won a High Court appeal against the Broadcasting Standards Authority who had ruled a sex scene (the horror!!) in Hung, a show about a male prostitute, airing after 10pm violated the standards of good taste and decency.

Hung airs late at night, in this case at 9.50pm, is rated AO and as the title and advertising suggests an average episode would contain sexual content. Anyone who chooses to watch realizes this and shouldn’t be outraged at sex scenes being included.

The BSA Chair, Peter Radich was the sensible minority and “…consider[ed] that the scene complained about was acceptable in the context in which it appeared: in an AO-classified programme targeted at an informed adult audience”.

The High Court said it was “plainly wrong” to rule against it and Justice Asher said that sex “plays an inevitable part of the narrative”.

We’re all capable of choosing not to watch something and that needs to be reflected in BSA decisions.

Update 26/05/2011:

Here’s the judge’s perceptive analysis:
Hung’s protagonist is a down and out former teacher who turns to providing sexual companionship to women for pay. Sex plays an inevitable part of the narrative. No viewer could be surprised at a scene with some strong sexual content. The scene formed a natural part of the storyline both of the episode and the series. In its immediate context the scene shows a reversal of the traditional role where sexual exploitation is by men of women, and in a mildly humorous way. In terms of the initiation of sexual contact and payment traditional gender expectations are turned on their head. The themes of role reversal and the exploitation of a male for sexual purposes are reflected in the scene. It is the only sex scene in the particular episode. It demonstrates a modest victory for Lenore in her battle with Tanya for control of Ray. For Ray, it is another dollar. He performs a sexual service for a woman he does not like. It fits naturally into the episode’s storyline. It was not the case, as the majority decided, that the scene was designed “solely to titillate”.

Posted in Law, New Zealand

Matthew Taylor

Tag: advertising

I Know What You Downloaded Last Summer

YouHaveDownloaded.com

The removal form

Election Roundup

Colin Craig’s Conservative Party of stock photos

The Conservative Party is a bad influence

Six reasons not to vote Conservative tomorrow

The Conservative Party Keep iStockphoto In Business

Mailer One

Mailer Two

New Zealand Driver Licence Age Changes

Exemptions

Not everyone is a lawyer

Publicity

RRFC

A Bad Diagram

What About The Children?