In defense of HTTPS Everywhere

Today Doc Searls reposted Dave Winer’s three part post challenging the need for HTTPS Everywhere.  Dave writes:

There’s no doubt it will serve to crush the independent web, to the extent that it still exists. It will only serve to drive bloggers into the silos.

Some pretty strong claims from Dave and his posts are worth a read.  They come, in my opinion, to an entirely wrong conclusion despite some valid points and a “sky is falling” delivery.  Why wrong?  Consider how you might prioritize security in a software development project.  This is something I tell my consulting clients but I’m going to give it to you for free:

[Read more…]

Vendor entitlement run amok

My main issue with vendors turning us into instrumented data sources isn’t the data so much as the lack of consent. My Fitbit knows a lot about me but it’s an add-on that I self-selected and it provides value to me. The tracking in my browser is not something I can easily avoid since the browser is now an integral part of my life. Between those extremes there are lots of IoT devices that you can currently choose a private version but where that choice is rapidly disappearing. You can still buy a dumb light switch but not a dumb car, for example. Your shiny new GT phones home.

Among the vendors who seem to feel an entitlement to our data is Microsoft, whose Windows 10 is basically a box of spyware disguised as a user-productivity-gaming-and-cat-video-watching platform. I’ve already written about the issues there, how to mitigate them, and the disheartening number of those “features” that can’t be disabled. Yet as bad as all that is, this latest revelation still managed to surprise me across several metrics: the lack of consent, the extent of the invasion, the degree of exposure, the fact that it’s already been exploited to infect user devices, the fact that the entity who exploited it is a “legitimate” vendor, and the fact that said “legitimate” vendor egregiously exposed the exploit to the Internet. [Read more…]

Apple applies for patent to deliver ads based on credit status

In USPTO Application 20150199725, Apple describes a system for targeting advertisements “based on the amount of pre-paid credit available to each user.”  The application goes on to say that “An advantage of such targeted advertising is that only advertisements for goods and services which particular users can afford, are delivered to these users.”

I’m unhappy with this for a few reasons.  My first objection is that the human-readable description on the application is deceptive.  Your pre-paid balance is not an indicator of what you “can afford.” For example, if you deposit $X each week for your college kid’s expenses, that balance on the card doesn’t mean (s)he can “afford” luxury products costing $X or less. If you are me, it means they can afford ramen noodles, paper, pens and not much else.

People shouldn’t be bombarded with ads products costing $X or less just because that amount shows up in their debit card regularly. It would be a very effective technique to market items with a street price of $(1.25*X) discounted to $X to such people. That changes the equation from “can’t afford to buy it” to “can’t afford *not* to buy it, at these prices!”

Ads for things that cost more than you can spend are described in the application as being disappointing.  But I submit that a constant barrage of ads for things you know you can buy but should not is worse.  Having to say no to things you obviously cannot buy gives you practice saying no to things you should not buy.  You get used to a large portion of things in your ad stream being unavailable.  Exercising that “no muscle” helps at times of vigilance fatigue when you are sorely tempted to do something self-destructive, and who doesn’t have days like that?

On the other hand, a constant stream of things you want, have the cash to pay for, but really cannot afford would be depressing.  It leads toward the rationalization of “why shouldn’t I buy this? I can afford it.”  In a bit of psychological alchemy, it converts “can pay for” to “can afford” much as the patent application conflates the two and to the same ends.  I suspect there are people for whom this system will make shopping even more addictive than it already is and I doubt they can get a medical exemption from the advertiser.  At least not without agreeing to let the advertiser use their medically diagnosed addiction as a targeting criteria.

I can see it now.  Ads for “Shopaholics Pseudonymous – more effective than any 12-Step program and only $69.95/month!”

I also wonder about the subtle but significant disconnect between the example of “pre-paid credit” used in the human-readable introduction, versus the text of the patent claims which consistently use the words “credit status” as the decision criteria. Credit status is a lot broader term than pre-paid credit and could include FICO scores, payment history, income-to-debt ratio, etc. Future Terms Of Service documents supporting this technology could use a similar suggestive and ambiguous language construction to bootstrap unwitting permanent permission grants by consumers that allow advertisers to run full credit reports at will.

Various Federal and State laws restrict who is allowed to pull your credit report and for what reasons. The last project I worked on at Equifax was designed to get as far as possible around those laws in order to sell credit-qualified mailing lists without recording a credit report hit. Bypassing those legal restrictions is the holy grail of reporting agencies because it opens up their information database to lucrative new markets eager for that data. Of course, none of that matters once the consumer explicitly grants permission and a TOS worded to grant access to your “credit status” could do just that.

Of all the claims in the application, I especially like this one:

[0044] In one embodiment, the advertisement management system 14 is arranged to reserve a portion of the available credit (or actual credit) equal to the amount of an item in an advertisement being delivered to a user upon delivery of the advertisement. Thus, if the user wants to purchase the advertised item, they would definitely have available credit. However, the user would not be able to use this reserved credit, if needed, for other purchases.

Assuming widgets cost more than half your balance and you don’t like Apple’s widget on offer, you are prevented from buying Orange’s widget until the charge hold expires.

Incidentally, substitute “gun” for “widget” and Apple just implemented a mandatory cooling-off period for gun sales. Well, except for the one Apple wanted to sell you. You can have that one immediately.

IYou can't buy this am imagining the series of ads you get. Say you have $500 of credit available. The first few ads are for $100 items like expensive wine or flower delivery for your spouse. But now the credit is reserved and you have only $200 left to spend so the next ads are for a pair of mid-tier headphones and a new mobile handset costing $50 and 2-years of indentured servitude. But those ads reserved some of your balance too and now you have less than $100 available.

It continues on like this until the only ads you receive are for a soft drink in the vending machine and all you can afford there is the generic soda and not the Coke or Pepsi. At some point you are turned down at the grocery checkout trying to buy baby formula and diapers because Apple’s been pushing ads for iPads at you all day.

Many years ago, Eve took a bite out of the apple and Bad Things happened.  Hang onto your wallets folks because it looks like the Apple is finally getting around to biting back.

 

 

Better surveys = better signal

I’ve spilled many bits in this blog about the difference between vendor-driven creepy malvertising ad-tech versus consumer-driven intentcasting and Vendor Relationship management.  The vendor-driven model is the one where you are surveilled from all sides and the data compiled, analyzed, sliced, diced, massaged, correlated and enhanced until the vendor has a good idea to which things you will respond viscerally and then attempt to manipulate you with them.  This model is based on exploitation of human biases and vigilance fatigue. Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) on the other hand is about the consumer broadcasting intent and preferences to a market that can respond accordingly.  This model is based on fulfillment of the consumer’s self-directed interests and desires.

Somewhere in the middle are consumer surveys: direct customer input, wholly vendor driven.  Or at least many people, vendors and customers alike, think these are somewhere in the middle.  Me?  I’m a sucker for surveys since they are about as close to VRM as it gets most of the time these days.  I fill them out in bulk in hopes of detecting some whiff of VRM in one of them, and now and then I’m rewarded for my effort.  But only once in a blue moon.  Sadly, virtually all surveys I’ve seen fail to rise to a level that might qualify as anything close to VRM and most are just plain clueless.

[Read more…]

Intentcasting…to a roach?

OK, so it’s a robot and not a roach. But it is a robot that *looks* a lot like a roach. Researchers at Bielefeld University are experimenting with emergent behavior on a robot platform they named Hector. Their software thus far has been reactive. The new software aims to give the robot “what if” capabilities to solve problems it has not been programmed for. This would imbue the robot with independent goal-directed behavior – i.e. robot intentions.

But beyond that, “they have now developed a software architecture that could enable Hector to see himself as others see him.” In other words, they gave it theory of mind and their ultimate goal is for it to be able to sense the intentions of humans and take these into account when formulating responses and actions. They want it to be self-aware. Though the rest of the world will probably see in this the parallels to Skynet of Terminator fame, the more interesting part to me is the notion that it will sense human intention.

Perhaps this is because the current crop of “smart” devices seems very autistic to me.  Though they have a wide range of apparent intelligence, they respond only to what they can directly sense, and only within a context of which they are the center.  The inability to make inferences about humans, and in particular to understand their intentions, is a typically autistic cognitive deficit.  While it is possible to emulate this to some extent, it is often perceived as inauthentic and creepy, which may be why I write about it so much.

Bielefeld University's Hector robot

Bielefeld University’s robot Hector is close to being self-aware

The quest by the marketing industry to provide targeted messaging tailored to your specific interests and intentions very much parallels the autistic experience.  Any given product or brand seeks to better understand how it is perceived by humans.  Or to put it another way, products and brands lack theory of mind and the ability to infer human emotions and intentions from non-verbal communication.  Like any autistic person, they attempt to mitigate their cognitive deficits by gathering data, observing reactions, forming a model of human behavior, calculating appropriate responses, then improving data sources and refining the model over time.  When humans do this we call it vocational training and independence skills.  When vendors do this we call it ad-tech.  Both groups tend to wonder why people at large often perceive it as creepy.

Hector is essentially autistic.  With the addition if self-awareness and the ability to infer human intentions, Hector may cross the line to creepy.  We’ll find out shortly.

JTPhoneHome

JT (Jibo Terrestrial) phone home!

The consciousness of most of our iconic sci-fi robots like C3PO and Robbie was modeled after that of humans – it was self-contained and part of the robot itself. Even though the Star Wars bots could access the networked world, they didn’t send their sensor data back to a central mother ship to be interpreted, processed, and turned into instructions for the robot to follow, then transmitted back. Everything happened locally. Contrast this with our real-world robots that use the mother ship architecture. Siri, Cortana, Alexa, Google [x], Jibo, Pepper, etc. all phone home more often than ET.  If you use these products, their vendors have access to all the data they send back to the mother ship.  Because that data is potentially very valuable, it would be naive to believe that it will be discarded once its benefit to you  the user has been realized.

It remains to be seen how the software coming out of Bielefeld will work, but one hopes that some aspect of self-awareness will be so incompatible with latency as to strongly favor local processing. If that is true and the new robot architecture is more like science fiction of yesteryear than the science fact of today, there is some hope that someone, somewhere on the planet will finally use intention detection in a non-creepy way that primarily benefits the individual and not the vendor.  It might also give us insights that will improve the lives of autistic people by helping us learn to infer human behavior in non-creepy ways.

On the other hand, if you ever read about Hector in Ad Age, we are all doomed. Skynet will have awoken. And it will have a really good deal for you.

 

A version of this post which more deeply explores the autism connection is posted on my Ask-An-Aspie blog here.

The Newtrain Manifesto

Next month Deborah Schultz will be presenting a keynote called Smart Data: The Struggle to Enhance Customer Experience in a Digital World at the Direct Marketing Association’s upcoming Marketing Analytics Conference.  In preparation she bounced the topic off of the VRM mailing list asking how the crowd there would challenge this audience.  Naturally, I had a few ideas.

[Read more…]

Listening wasn’t bad enough?

Owners of Samsung’s “smart” TVs are now reporting that streaming apps running on the TVs are inserting Pepsi ads into user-owned content stored locally on their PCs and NAS drives.  In nearly identical stories, GigaOm and Ars Technica report that this happens for Plex and Foxtel apps running on the TVs.

In addition to the obvious privacy implications, this renders visible a new category in the monetization field: legalized theft of intellectual property.

If you recall the arguments around web search, framing and deep linking, the damage claims arose from money made on the value of the content by people who did not own the content and without permission of the content owners.  It was, according to various legal arguments, theft of intellectual property rights, conversion, dilution of the market, etc.

In this case, Samsung is monetizing content you stream locally without regard to who owns the content.  There is every reason to believe the content is yours since every smart phone made today takes movies.  It’s a point of pride for Samsung who tout their high quality cameras and sensors made to do exactly that.  Samsung unquestionably understands the concept of user-generated content and the high probability that the content into which they are inserting commercials is home movies of your cat(s), your kid(s), someone’s birthday party, or your vacation.  Maybe you are showing home movies of your recently departed loved one at the wake and suddenly Samsung inserts the Pepsi commercial.  (One only hopes it is at least the “Pepsi brings you back alive” campaign from years past.)

The point is, Samsung has no way of knowing anything about the content or the context, only that you find it interesting enough to watch therefore it is valuable enough to monetize, and Samsung believes they have the right to do so.

Because they manufactured the display.

I realize suggesting that Samsung believes they have a right to impose these ads on you may sound a bit hyperbolic, so let’s look at their Privacy Policy–AdHub Supplement:

When you use a Samsung service that includes ads provided by AdHub, AdHub receives certain information about your device. This information may include the device’s hardware model, IMEI number and other unique device identifiers, MAC address, IP address, operating system version, and settings.

In addition, the first time you visit a service that displays ads by AdHub, Ad Hub will assign your device a random ID number, which will be sent back to AdHub each time your device gets a new ad from AdHub.

When AdHub displays an ad to you, AdHub logs the fact that your device received that ad, as well as the webpage or other place where you viewed it.

This leaves no doubt that Samsung is assigning unique tracking IDs to each device capable of rendering content and ads.  In order to access the features of the phone, tablet, smart TV or whatever, you are required to have a Samsung account.  This attaches your personally identifiable data to each Samsung smart device and correlates those devices under a single umbrella account.  Everything that is trackable on the devices is personally identifiable back to the device owners.

Whether or not you trust Samsung as custodian of your private data, the real question is how much you trust the advertisers and publishers that Samsung invites into your device through their AdHub.  Though Samsung doesn’t share with them the information collected by Samsung, they do something even better.  Samsung gives these third parties direct access to your device, tells you up front that your data will be collected by these third parties, then disclaims any responsibility for what those third parties might do with that privileged access.  Samsung remains cozily wrapped within a cloak of anonymity and a blanket liability shield:

Third-party advertisers may use web beacons in their ads in order to collect information about users who view their ads, including through cookies, beacons and similar technologies. Samsung does not control the data collection and use practices of these companies.

Samsung next states their right – there’s that word again – to impose these terms on you.  The last part of the policy supplement states that “you can opt out of receiving targeted advertising from AdHub” but notes that that if you do “you will continue to see ads, but they may be less relevant to you because they will not be based on your interests.”  In other words, haven’t opted out of any of this data collection, only whether it is used to deliver targeted ads.  Everything upstream of that, including the personally identifiable data collection and all the various uses to which that may be put, both by Samsung and it’s army of anonymous advertisers, is protected under the contract.  Should you choose to operate the device without registering it to a Samsung account, the piece that makes your use of the device personally identifiable and provides the context of all your other devices, you don’t get to use the features for which you purchased the device.

Let’s be real clear about this.  You unquestionably own all rights to content that you create, including the right to monetize that content or to make the choice to not monetize it.  You are watching the content in the privacy of your own home.  It is running over cables, switches, routers and NAS devices that you personally own.  You are the one paying for the electricity and bandwidth.  But if the smart device on which you render the content bears a Samsung nameplate, they can force you to watch ads as a prerequisite to render that content, whether you like it or not.  Not only is Samsung monetizing your content, they are monetizing your viewing of your content.  

Whatever we may think of this, we need to be asking what’s next?  Will Motorola, Linksys and Netgear claim a right to insert ads into your privately owned, user-created, streamed content because they manufactured the cable modem, switch and router, respectively?  Will Western Digital, Buffalo, or Synology claim a right to insert their ads into your privately owned streamed content because they made the NAS drive?

All of these “smart” components are in the path between where your content is stored and where it is displayed.  All are essential for the content streaming to work.  All have the processing capacity to insert ads into your content, and all come with Terms of Service and Privacy Policies that you agreed to sight unseen.  Samsung may render the content but there is no content to render without all of these other components.  Samsung was merely the first to stake their claim but every device in the chain has no better or worse standing to claim a right to insert ads into your streamed content than does Samsung.  Do you believe none of them will assert that right once Samsung establishes it?  What, exactly, do you believe will stop them?

Let’s do the chess thing and think ahead a move or two.  What happens if someone figures out how to disable the ads and distributes a root kit or firmware patch?  If that qualifies as anti-circumvention under the DMCA it would be a felony.  Will we not have the right to root our TV, just like we do/don’t have the right to root our phone?  What happens if a downstream device like the TV happens to interrupt the stream right in the middle of the ad being inserted by an upstream device like the switch or NAS drive?  Will Linksys start charging Samsung and Synology for access to your in-home network, the same way that ISPs want to charge Netflix, Amazon and Hulu for bandwidth that has already been paid for at both ends?  Because if you are not the ultimate arbiter of what happens on your private home network, then it is up to the courts and corporations to say what happens there.

Let’s think another chess move ahead.  US law sets a pretty high bar before law enforcement officers can invade the sanctity of your home.  True, these are greatly eroded lately, but your home is where you enjoy the most privacy protection against being recorded in video or audio, and physically searched.  But if your TV, phone, game console, robots, toys, appliances, baby monitors and security systems are all live-streaming to corporate entities, law enforcement no longer have to clear that high hurdle.  Most companies, especially small start-ups, won’t stand up to government information requests.  Do you worry that “this call may be recorded for quality assurance”?  Now everything you say in your living room, bedroom, bathroom, car, and your side of every phone call will be recorded for quality assurance and delivered to law enforcement during discovery, even if you aren’t the target of the investigation.  You will have more privacy in your front yard than in your own home.

None of these scenarios are all that farfetched in a world where manufacturing a device confers the right to mediate the content transmitted or rendered on that device in a private setting.  We consumers don’t read the contracts to which we are bound when we buy these devices and it doesn’t seem likely we’ll start any time soon.  We keep buying the devices despite frequent news stories detailing ever more invasive privacy invasions and it doesn’t seem likely we’ll stop buying them any time soon, either.  These practices generate net-new revenue for the device manufacturers so, short of them stepping on one another, there’s no chance they will stop voluntarily any time soon or, for that matter, ever.

When you can be forced to watch an ad before viewing content you personally created, there is no neutral, no middle ground, no shred of privacy left to give up that isn’t already being taken from you without your consent.  The only options left are to accept the commoditization of our intimate lives, or else to actively protest and demand regulatory protection of our privacy rights and strong enforcement.

If you believe that there is anything at all in the world to which you have a right of privacy, this moment in our time is the last chance you will ever have to demand it before the window of opportunity slams shut and you are rendered effectively naked in the panopticon of life.  Anything short of active opposition now is acquiescence.  We need to be angry and we need to hold our elected officials accountable to represent our interests for once.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem likely we’ll start doing that any time soon, either.

What is your definition of personal?

Over at the Cloud Ramblings blog, John Mathon provides his list of Breakout MegaTrends that will explode in 2015.  There’s an entry in there about Personal Cloud rising to prominence.  Yay!  John and I often see eye to eye on our visions of the near future of computing and Personal Cloud is definitely huge in that future.  But it seems that once you get past the name “Personal Cloud,” our visions begin to diverge.  I’d like to explain how they diverge, why my vision is better, and beseech John and all the other pundits, analysts and trade journalists out there to adopt a slightly stricter interpretation of what, exactly, constitutes “personal.”

[Read more…]

Busting the myth that people don’t care about privacy

There’s a fundamental disconnect in the discussion about online privacy.  We are told that people don’t care about their online privacy.  Evidence of people not reading terms of service, blindly accepting all permissions on their apps, and even filling out detailed questionnaires in return for an actual cookie, seem to support this position.  But in the aftermath of a breach, or simply a news story pointing out how invasive the Facebook Messenger permissions are, the reaction implies a strong expectation of better privacy.  It is as if people have an expectation of privacy but a contradictory expectation of not being required to do anything to get it.  These two things seem mutually exclusive and yet they exist simultaneously.  How can that be?  As with most mysteries of the universe, the answer involves some physics.

[Read more…]

The latest malvertising incident and why you should care

Today’s news from Net-Security.org is that newly discovered malware was found on Google’s ad network and its purpose is to hijack your router’s DNS settings causing all devices behind your firewall to use poisoned DNS resolvers. That means even if *you* run NoScript, AdBlockPlus, HTTPS Everywhere, Ghostery, anti virus and avoid sketchy sites, a visitor on your guest network or even some anonymous neighbor leaching off your wireless signal can compromise your router.

Awesome.

Article: Attackers change home routers’ DNS settings via malicious code injected in ads

If all my ads were not so personalized and relevant, I’d be upset about this. But it’s SO worth it, right?

The funny thing is that the attackers have FAR more privileged access to your device and your data than do the malvertisers and yet so far they just want to take over your device and empty your bank account. If the attackers ever decide to go after your *data* they’ll not only find out your daughter is pregnant before you do, they’ll make her pay $100 to not tell you about it. Then you get an email asking what your conservative employer might think of your risque purchase history. They clean out your bank account and ruin you, it’s a 1-time profit. But if they blackmail you with your data they get a long-term income stream. They get a pension fund. Forget about calf-cow relationships. Start thinking ant-aphid.

But we’re good because there are lines – somewhere – that even creepy, invasive, malvertising adtech won’t cross and that will stop the spread of cybercrime over advertising infrastructure. Right? We’re good because the adtech industry is hard at work distancing themselves from organized crime and building security, accountability and user choice into the advertising system.

“Wake up T.Rob, you’re daydreaming again!”

Oh, right. I live in Bizarro World where adtech doesn’t acknowledge any responsibility for building the rails malware rides in on. They would side with us in our battle against against organized cybercrime, except they are too busy making advertising even more invasive: Targeted Online Marketing Got Creepier Again!

Note the exclamation point at the end.  Almost seems like the author is excited about this in a good way.  In fact, that’s the case.

So if you think of it – yes, it is very creepy. It goes to the extent that marketers will start knowing more about you than you do yourself.

But on the other hand we think it’s a great step forward. First of all it means that marketers are interested in finding out what we want to be offered. They are actually listening to us. Secondly this also means more targeted communications. Instead of being bombarded with advertisements you have zero interest in, you may find that eventually you start enjoy advertising as it fits seamlessly into what you are looking for.

But the Adtech folks aren’t stopping with impressively better tech, they are hitting new efficiency levels as well, as noted in Obama-Grade Ad Tech Coming to a Local Campaign Near You. “It’s been a challenge for even mid-range campaigns to be able to afford these online advertising capabilities. Today, it doesn’t matter if you’re running for city council or congress, because now you can reach voters in one of the most effective ways possible regardless of your campaign budget.”

Or if you go to Ad:Tech NYC next week, you can learn about the new frontier of tracking consumers offline in  Behavioral Breadcrumbs: New Tools to Read Digital Signals:

Most traditional digital tracking and measurement only works as long as a consumer sits in front of a browser. What happens when they disconnect? A new breed of technologies helps extend scalable insight into consumer behaviors beyond the screen. From RFID to Wifi to optical tracking, this panel will discuss methods that identify consumer behaviors, help test and ultimately measure.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Market to consumers using signals they’re pushing.
  2. Track behaviors using consumer signals.
  3. Create a type of interactivity and measurability in your campaigns.

I’m sorry, but I’m not PUSHING signal to your RFID reader, WiFi access point, or optical recognition tracker.

If you want to know what consumers pushing signals looks like, go talk to the folks at Customer Commons, whose QR-coded badges broadcast the intention to not be tracked in exactly these ways.  Does your optical tracker honor these signals?  I’m guessing not.

If you want to know what consumers pushing signals looks like, talk to the Respect Network who are building a platform specifically to exchange user-generated signal with marketers and businesses.

If you want to know what consumers pushing signals looks like, talk to me or my colleagues at Qredo who are building out the world’s first and best fully-encrypted, end-to-end communications and Personal Cloud platform that is mutually authenticated at the endpoints and yet the data and metadata are completely anonymous in the cloud servers.  We’re all about quality signal.

Most of all, if you want to know what consumers pushing signals looks like, read The Intention Economy.  Here’s a hint: when we customers push signals, it’s intentional, deliberate, and we like you for receiving them. If you have to hunt for the signal, if we don’t like that you received it, if stealth is involved, if it feels at all creepy to any of the participants, it probably isn’t being pushed.

I’m not going to reach anyone who honestly believes that signals received over passive RFID scans, Wifi hotspot scanning, and optical recognition tracking are being “pushed” by consumers.  However, there must be some marketing and advertising people who realize how incredibly wrong that characterization is and why.  To those people I plead: please side with the consumers against organized cybercrime.  Quit acting as the R&D arm of cybercrime who watch you lay the tracks, then ride them direct to your audience, poisoning the well for all involved.

We are on the verge of computerizing the consumer side of commerce.  When we computerized the supply side 30 or so years ago, it transformed the world.  But the consumer side is much larger and the transformation potentially that much richer.  Consumers want to build systems that send you signal.  Stop trying to sneak in and steal it and just partner with us.  Once we have some trust and accountability between us, organized cybercrime will have to do their own R&D.  And if you are wondering how to make those connections you’re in luck.  The next Internet Identity Workshop is next week.  The place is practically littered with common ground for us to meet on.

Marketers and advertisers, now you get to choose who you want to work with and for.  The customers, entrepreneurs, and identity geeks in the VRM community at IIW?  Or organized cybercrime?  Choose wisely because you’re running out of Mulligans on these compromised ad networks.