Is there some way for us to block ads at network-level on networks we don’t control? Something that allowed us to connect to public wifis or work networks and prevent ads from loading, therefore messing with the digital economy if we did this on a large scale?
Edit: I didn’t explain my thoughts very well. I mean blocking ads for other people around me. I know that’s probably not even legal, but would be awesome, if possible
On Android this is possible: under “Network & Internet” settings there is a field called “Private DNS.” Simply set your own preferred DNS server here.
Adguard has public DNS options that block all advertising, even inside apps, though for state-level exploits as described in this article I’d assume the only way to be 100% sure is to run your own PiHole.
The only caveat I’d add is using the Private DNS function can sometimes break WiFi login pages or cause other network issues - a couple times I’ve found I need to revert to “automatic” to get a WiFi or app to connect properly
The large scale part won’t be possible without some type of network control.
The super easy way is replacing the DNS at the router (in the DHCP config) with some public, ad-blocking DNS. But you need access to the router’s config.
You can find very cheap routers with default credentials in the wild.
I feel like there’s at least one historical example of a worm being released that was designed to attack home routers and patch the vulnerability it exploited, but my search is failing.
Anyway, that’s the sort of tactic you’d need to do what you’re asking.
That’s exactly what I’d love to be able to do. Just imagine, a “mere” 10% of routers affected would be enough to give a significant reduction in ad revenue to some big corps
This predatory ad shit works because most people don’t care enough to do something about it. That same cohort of people likely also won’t care enough to fix the “issue.” They’ll hear about it, see their email still works fine and move on with life.
Edit: could we design something like a community vpn project? Something like… I don’t know… like Tor, but for a completely different purpose? Something you can install and it routes your traffic through globally distributed nodes which automatically filter your traffic to remove ads and other security measures?
That would keep things opt-in. It would keep control of the system / filtering bound by community interest. We could set up separate filtering systems too — in case that would be required. Users can pick which filter package their traffic is treated with.
I don’t have a lot of bandwidth, but I definitely have some to spare. I am not using my Internet 24/7.
Edit 2: to be clear, I don’t really think opt-in is justified here’s though. The interesting question isn’t whether we can block advertisements for strangers. It’s whether we can justify protecting people from a demonstrably dangerous infrastructure, even when they haven’t requested that protection.
Consider three premises:
An infrastructure exposes people to harms they generally don’t understand or meaningfully consent to.
A third party possesses a mechanism that can reduce those harms without requiring individual participation.
The intervention introduces substantially less risk than it prevents.
I don’t think requiring explicit, individualized consent is automatically the most defensible ethical position. We already accept similar arrangements in cybersecurity.
Email providers filter malicious attachments without asking recipients about each one. Network administrators block connections to malicious destinations. Browsers prevent known dangerous downloads.
The important precedent is that protective defaults can be justified without affirmative consent for every individual intervention.
However, those examples involve services or systems with an established responsibility for protecting their users. Therefore I think our approach should be similarly designed. A stranger modifying somebody else’s communications has no comparable authority.
Silently installing protective software through advertising exploits is theoretically conceivable, but it would reproduce the same unauthorized device-compromise problem we’re trying to eliminate. I would be cautious about this — what if your infrastructure can itself because a centralized attack surface?
I also wonder about what methods can target ad infrastructure directly, though. That’s another approach.
A localized DNS server with PI hole, or just a firewall in between your device and the on-site network could do it. DHCP makes it difficult to get this to people without being malicious about it, and most tech would detect and block it if you tried.
You can run a PiHole or similar at home to block ads, but that doesn’t work when you’re on the go.
Once in a while I need to turn it off because a link in an email doesn’t work (blacklisted tracking domain, but also how you unsubscribe) and for that brief moment, seeing the full, unblocked internet the way regular people see it is shocking.
Is there some way for us to block ads at network-level on networks we don’t control? Something that allowed us to connect to public wifis or work networks and prevent ads from loading, therefore messing with the digital economy if we did this on a large scale?
Edit: I didn’t explain my thoughts very well. I mean blocking ads for other people around me. I know that’s probably not even legal, but would be awesome, if possible
On Android this is possible: under “Network & Internet” settings there is a field called “Private DNS.” Simply set your own preferred DNS server here.
Adguard has public DNS options that block all advertising, even inside apps, though for state-level exploits as described in this article I’d assume the only way to be 100% sure is to run your own PiHole.
The only caveat I’d add is using the Private DNS function can sometimes break WiFi login pages or cause other network issues - a couple times I’ve found I need to revert to “automatic” to get a WiFi or app to connect properly
The large scale part won’t be possible without some type of network control.
The super easy way is replacing the DNS at the router (in the DHCP config) with some public, ad-blocking DNS. But you need access to the router’s config.
You can find very cheap routers with default credentials in the wild.
I feel like there’s at least one historical example of a worm being released that was designed to attack home routers and patch the vulnerability it exploited, but my search is failing.
Anyway, that’s the sort of tactic you’d need to do what you’re asking.
That’s exactly what I’d love to be able to do. Just imagine, a “mere” 10% of routers affected would be enough to give a significant reduction in ad revenue to some big corps
I think you’re on to something.
This predatory ad shit works because most people don’t care enough to do something about it. That same cohort of people likely also won’t care enough to fix the “issue.” They’ll hear about it, see their email still works fine and move on with life.
Edit: could we design something like a community vpn project? Something like… I don’t know… like Tor, but for a completely different purpose? Something you can install and it routes your traffic through globally distributed nodes which automatically filter your traffic to remove ads and other security measures?
That would keep things opt-in. It would keep control of the system / filtering bound by community interest. We could set up separate filtering systems too — in case that would be required. Users can pick which filter package their traffic is treated with.
I don’t have a lot of bandwidth, but I definitely have some to spare. I am not using my Internet 24/7.
Edit 2: to be clear, I don’t really think opt-in is justified here’s though. The interesting question isn’t whether we can block advertisements for strangers. It’s whether we can justify protecting people from a demonstrably dangerous infrastructure, even when they haven’t requested that protection.
Consider three premises:
I don’t think requiring explicit, individualized consent is automatically the most defensible ethical position. We already accept similar arrangements in cybersecurity.
Email providers filter malicious attachments without asking recipients about each one. Network administrators block connections to malicious destinations. Browsers prevent known dangerous downloads.
The important precedent is that protective defaults can be justified without affirmative consent for every individual intervention.
However, those examples involve services or systems with an established responsibility for protecting their users. Therefore I think our approach should be similarly designed. A stranger modifying somebody else’s communications has no comparable authority.
Silently installing protective software through advertising exploits is theoretically conceivable, but it would reproduce the same unauthorized device-compromise problem we’re trying to eliminate. I would be cautious about this — what if your infrastructure can itself because a centralized attack surface?
I also wonder about what methods can target ad infrastructure directly, though. That’s another approach.
A localized DNS server with PI hole, or just a firewall in between your device and the on-site network could do it. DHCP makes it difficult to get this to people without being malicious about it, and most tech would detect and block it if you tried.
NextDNS or similar custom DNS.
You can run a PiHole or similar at home to block ads, but that doesn’t work when you’re on the go.
Once in a while I need to turn it off because a link in an email doesn’t work (blacklisted tracking domain, but also how you unsubscribe) and for that brief moment, seeing the full, unblocked internet the way regular people see it is shocking.