Edited by author 11-26-2002 09:50 AM
This goes to a thread entitled ''Informationally Aware Advertising''

Getting freaked out by opening this panel in the context of a DoubleClick ad makes me think of a user than surfs to a porn site then has a heart attack when opening their IE security settings and seeing an option to enable the installation of desktop items.

The video and audio access is clearly set to "Deny" by default... you've only got to panic when someone can hack into your Flash player and modify your settings remotely.

In terms of the interface, I think we're just fortunate that browsers have some common 'traditions' when it comes to how users are presented with certain options.

This 'feature' of Flash MX is no big secret... if you saw any of the Macromedia marketing gumph that accompanied the release of Flash MX you would have heard all about it.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but how can you say:"So the ad with the James Bond name has within it the technology to use our equipment to look at us, listen to us, capture us, and broadcast us to "other people," apparently without having to obtain our express informed consent."

To my knowledge, this is not true. As long as the Flash ad does not have any audio or video communication within itself, your webcam or mic will not send any audio or video to anyone. When you get an ad with some audio or video communication, which requires your webcam or mic, you will get the settingspanel popped up by itself, so you wil have to allow or deny this.
This goes for every ad that comes from the Doubleclick network, as long as you don;t check "Remember" in the settings panel.
So to my knowledge, you are in total control of what goes where within the Flash player.
If I'm missing the point of your article, please let me know. But I don't see any harm or spyware-kind-of thing in these capabilities of Flash 6.

Hi Tom. I understand your paranoid reaction. A bit of clarification is needed, though. The ad you saw was not created in Flash 6. None of the major ad networks support or recommend serving Flash 6/MX ads yet because the penetration of the plugin in not high enough just yet, though it will be eventually.

The reason you saw the "settings..." option when you right-clicked and the following configuration window about the cam/mic settings is because you are using the Flash 6 plugin, not because the ad was created in Flash 6. In fact, since you are running the Flash 6 plugin, you will see that config for every single flash file you view, no matter what version it was created in. The config is a part of the plugin, not the flash file itself. And any flash file that is older than 6 cannot access those features, only 6 or higher.

Now, I am not providing this explanation to say your concerns are unfounded. I think a healthy amount of skepticism about any new and potentially invasive technology is a good thing. But what I can tell you, as a long time Flash developer and one who has developed several apps utilitizing the new camera/mic features of FlashMX/6, Macromedia has gone to extensive lengths to make sure this as safe as possible. They have seen too many other companies get lots of bad pr about security(microsoft) and did not want to follow their lead. MM actually spent their time on this *before* it was released, instead of waiting until people cracked it, then releasing a patch, which is so often the path software companies take.

Any Flash content that wants to utilize these features will always prompt and ask the user for permission (unless the user permanently grants and denies for a particular site). And this is handled by the flash plugin, not the flash file served from the site. And there are no currently known hacks around this, though this is not to say their wont be someday.

Anyway, hope this info is helpful.

Tom - do you know anything at all. You message is full of 'techno' balle that is uter utter shit !

This is a feature of the plugin that ONLY allows access to the cam/microphone if you ALLOW it.

if you dont want it to have access then sya no. Which is the default.

If your going to post shit like this get you facts strait firt you ignorant piece of turd

Chuck, I appreciate your information. I think part of the problem for non-geek end users like myself may be that the process of notification of this apparent capablility, and any informed discussion of it, is 1.) not readily available, and 2.) sufficiently complicated as to require more than a sound bite to explain. This might be more a problem of communication than of insidious warez, which only makes it more necessary in the current climate of Government sanctioned clandestine surveillance that companies do everything in their power to be up front not just with developers, but with end users.

Bruce, Unlike some others, I do not assiduously attend to every bit of every company's marketing gumph. Nor do I expect most end users feel obligated to do so. As the man says in Cool Hand Luke, we might have ourselves here a failure to communicate.

Dear tom_sucks - it might be worth pondering why you are so nettled. Look at it like this: Your information may be correct, but look how far away from the ad that information can be found. It is neither clear nor up front. Second, why should I take your or the company's assurance that these "default" settings are as good as gold? Third, have you ever heard of exploitable security holes in allegedly secure software?