At least 18 public-sector websites in the UK and US send visitor data in some form to various web advertising brokers – including an ad-tech biz in China involved in past privacy controversies, a security firm claims.
[…]
In the US, .gov websites are not supposed to run ads. In the UK, ads are allowed on .gov.uk websites, subject to some limitations. The .gov and .gov.uk sites flagged by Silent Push each publish an ads.txt file that spells out the businesses allowed to automatically sell that site’s ad space to advertisers as a visitor arrives.
[…] Silent Push found a bunch of UK and US government websites with [the ads.txt] file listing various advertising exchanges and resellers ranging from Google (like what El Reg uses) to one in China.
[…]
One of the ad-tech vendors used by the .gov.uk sites, and highlighted by Silent Push, is Yeahmobi. This Chinese entity reportedly had its mobile ad SDK removed from the Google Play Store in 2018 for alleged ad fraud. Yeahmobi did not respond to requests for comment.
[…]
Silent Push’s report identifies four .gov sites that, in our experience, do not display adverts though do ping web ad platforms, do list various exchanges in their ads.txt files, and may break US government CISA rules. In the UK, it’s a different story, as 18 sites identified by Silent Push use Yeahmobi among others to display ads somewhere on pages.
Nevermind using chinese ad brokers why do .gov.uk websites have ads in the first place lol?
These seem to be mostly websites for small city/district councils, who have never had huge budgets, and their budgets have been cut by the current central government.
My guess is either:
The UK has come to terms with it’s inexorable slide into developing nation status and figured it might as well shill a few boner pills along the way.
UK sounds desperate for any revenue to show a lower deficit %. It can’t increase revenues by raising taxes on the rich so it does silly shit like this.
They don’t as far as I’m aware, I’m not sure what this post is about. They definitely don’t have ads on.
Maybe they’re trying to get analytics service at no cost, if that’s something offered by the ad broker? Easier than trying to fight for funding for it? It does seem kind of odd.
Maybe they’re ads for their own government services? Technically, an adverstment doesn’t have to just be for skeezy companies trying to steal your info or money.
Like your on the drivers license pages and you see a space on the side that “advertises” getting your license renewed. It’s more flashy and draws attention more than just a link to help people find what they’re looking for easier.
Not in the UK, but my official city page has 3 advertments prior to getting to the body of the page (which is the offical link tree). One for reporting a concern, one for the recreation department, and a rotating one for more receration stuff and the transparency department.
Why would you need an ad broker to advertise your own shit. Like just put it there? Using the ad broker would be all of the same work except with more middleman.
Idk, maybe they get all the analytics, like someone else mentioned.
I just know there are “ads” on government websites I’ve seen that don’t necessarily follow the traditional concept of what we’ve come to know as advertisements, but are adverstments none the less. How they’re set up, and what function they serve beyond directing people to a different place, is beyond me.
Maybe I should have phrased it differently… Adverstments aren’t always from sketchy companies stealing your info, sometimes they’re from sketchy governments too…