Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

EFF, Gator Against Other Pop-ups? 52

Posted by Hemos from the the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend dept.
The Register reports that Gator has filed suit against Extended Stay America Inc to ensure that Extended cannot block its ads. Gator's argument is that consumers should be able to decide what they see on the Web and not Web site owners. It said in its suit that Extended Stay America has no right to prevent computer users from choosing to get its software and "viewing separate works, comprising advertising on that user's own computer screen, even when other works share the screen." Meanwhile, the EFF is considering supporting Gator's case, saying the issue is about who controls a computer when people go on-line.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF, Gator Against Other Pop-ups? More

EFF, Gator Against Other Pop-ups?

Comments Filter:

  • If the EFF supports Gator, then... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PinkX ( 607183 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:28AM (#4641794) Homepage
    I'll lose all respect for them.

    Meanwhile, the EFF is considering supporting Gator's case, saying the issue is about who controls a computer when people go on-line.

    Ok, and what about Gator installing its ad/spyware without users noticing it? What about it opening endless of popup/popunder windows? What about it monitoring users browsing/shopping habits?

    I thought the EFF was here to defend, first, the people rights online over those of the companies, even more unethical ones.

    • Re:If the EFF supports Gator, then... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joebp ( 528430 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:36AM (#4641818) Homepage
      I thought the EFF was here to defend, first, the people rights online over those of the companies, even more unethical ones.
      The real point is - who decides what you see what is on your screen when you visit a website?

      If it is the website owner, this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts (ahem, he says on /.).

      If Gator looses this action, it is likely that ad-blocking software (did anyone say Mozilla?) will be liable to similar actions. The point being Gator is contending that the User should decide what is on her screen when visiting a website.

      This doesn't detract from the fact that Gator are shady, near-fraudulent scamsters who need a jolly good beating with a cluestick.

      • "this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts"

        Wrong. You can "protect" yourself very easily. Don't visit the offending website.

        • How do you know it is an offending site until you get there?


          Even so, what about a site that only lets you view the website while running WindowsXP and Windows Explorer? Is that ok with you?

      • The author of a website or the surfer? Who decides what a surfer should see? That is a bogus question, as Gator is niether of these. Gator is a third party. No one chooses to install gator, they get tricked into taking it. A god damn pop-up window comes up, and they click to make it go away, and gator installs. If the EFF supports gator, then they are obviously just a criminal syndicate, and I will be really disillusioned. I thought they were fighting the good fight.
      • If it is the website owner, this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts (ahem, he says on /.).

        I think you've got it backwards. I don't believe there is any precedent at this time in favor of what you describe. Though some people find it distasteful, there's no clear evidence that advertising is actually harmful to adults, and so there's been no movement toward "protecting" adults from it. If a TV network wanted to swap the ratios and start showing 22 minutes of advertising per half hour, nobody would stop them. (Except market forces, of course.)

        All of this is dependent on the word "adult," though. Advertising has different effects on adults and on children, and organizations like the FTC and the FCC have guidelines about advertising to kids. But as far as adults go... it's a free country.

        In other words, nobody has said that "crap like popups and excessive adverts" are something that reasonable adults should be protected from.
      • If Gator looses this action, it is likely that ad-blocking software (did anyone say Mozilla?) will be liable to similar actions.

        No. Just because the website owner isn't committing a crime, it doesn't mean Gator (moz, etc) is. Remember, Gator brought the suit.

      • What if my choice is to get all content from the web site, not from Gator? Last time I checked, most people didn't "choose" to install Gator, it piggy backed on software that they really wanted. Their point about giving the user choice is a valid one, but their business practices pretty firmly contradict with their stated good intentions. Not that that's likely to be legally significant here, but still...
        • Unfortunately often they do 'choose' to install gator... the problem is is that people often don't do a good job of examining EULA's... admit it... everyone is guilty of just clicking 'yes' far to often, myself included.... What gets me is when there is a pop up, and they make a 'window inside a window' graphic and people click the 'fake' close window button, and end up getting the software in windows...
      • The real point is - who decides what you see what is on your screen when you visit a website?

        I think the difference here is that most users do not know what Gator does. If the user employs blocking software that's a concious action on their part, whereas the extra ads that Gator displays is most likely taking place without the full knowledge of the user. In other words, I honestly doubt that the user is choosing to display one set of ads/banners/popups/popunders for another.

        I fully agree that ultimately the user should choose what is ultimately displayed on their computer, I just don't think Gator falls into a category that includes full disclosure of what it does.

    • Ok, and what about Gator installing its ad/spyware without users noticing it? What about it opening endless of popup/popunder windows? What about it monitoring users browsing/shopping habits?

      Ah, yes. More Internet legal crap being built to slightly alleviate Windows users' ridiculous spyware problems. Not an issue, except for the fact that then there's stupid case law that comes and slaps the rest of us in the face. Why should there be legal grounds for blocking or not blocking anything? Why should it be illegal for something like "smart tags (or whatever MS called its failed link-adding code)", or a Javascript-filtering proxy, or a text-based web browser to be used? The entire fucking point of HTML and the Web was that *anyone* could view the content however they wanted. Use whatever browser, whatever platform. Dumb terminal attached to a VAX/VMS system? No problem.

      And now, thanks to *stupid* squabbles over ever-shrinking ad-revenue among dying dot coms, we're going to end up with a massive amount of legal baggage.

      Let me put down my feelings. Anyone and anything should be able to process someone's web pages before the user views them, if the user so desires. If I want to have squid+sleezeball eat my ads, then I should be darn well allowed to do so. If I have a fetish with the color blue, I should be able to make my text always blue, and I should have the right to have user-defined !important CSS elements locally.

      Now, some people are complaining that Gator does things behind a user's back. Okay, fair enough. Make a law about deceptive claims that software packages make. If you really want regulation over software, do something with a European flavor and require that any software sending personal information (as defined by law) give, in plain English and a standardized format, an enumeration of what information is being transmitted. Via a *standard API*, so that companies can log, filter, and deal with the software being run on their networks, and users can keep a log, etc.

      But as for companies complaining about who has the right to slap the next flashing ad banner across some Windows user's screen...who really wants to give company A legal protection from company B?

      Nothing would suck more than to have a bunch of "quick-fix" laws slapped on the Internet and software in general. SYN flooding is a federal crime now because for a while, people were pissed off and scared about a hole that was difficult to patch over in TCP. Of course, syncookies came out quickly, but now we have this stupid law on the books that's going to be there forever and ever. Let's not have another mess like that, please.

      Thanks. Coments are, as always, welcome.
    • In matters of freedom, the door swings both ways. You can't throw out the bad without throwing out the good. Case in point, the ACLU has defended the KKK's right to assemble and hold their rallys several times.

      Do I support the KKKs cause? No.
      Do most ACLU members support their cause? No.
      Do I support the ACLU's stance on protecting the KKK's right to hold a rally? Hell yes!

      If I don't, I might as well open the door for my right to rally be thrown out the window, in case MY cause decides to march down Washington.

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
    • The EFF certainly deserves our wrath for supporting Gator. Gator is software with no discernible legitimate purpose, and is guilty with excessively dishonest marketing. Likewise, OSS is a threat to capitalism, as it actively aims to promote piracy of intellectual property through hacking of legitimate security protocols, and the widespread distributions of thos hacks. And don't get me started on the ruffians of /. All they ever do is to criticize the Patriot Act,the only thing standing between us and the terrorists. It seems /. is perfectly willing to allow the destruction of the USA so they may have uninterrupted access to p0rn and stolen music.

      Or perhaps there are more complex reasons why we take certain positions.

  • Ahh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joto ( 134244 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:36AM (#4641816)
    It is really quite a confusing world we live in today. EFF supports Gator. Slashdot readers support sofware patents [slashdot.org], and so on.

    In this case, I'd have to say I am impressed with EFF. They firmly stand up to the ideals they preach about, not caring about whether the company in question is generally supportive of them or not.

    • Slashdot readers support sofware patents
      Slashdot has always been heterogenious. And FWIW, most are opposed to the patent mentioned in the article that you linked to. (It wouldn't be the first time that nerds backed Microsoft against the threat of stupid IP assertions.)
      • Slashdot has always been heterogenious
        Especially over the correct spelling of heterogenous/heterogeneous. (They're both fine, though the OED says the former is "less correct". Yours is wrong).
    • I don't look at this as the EFF supporting Gator, I look at this as the EFF looking to establish precedents that are favorable to their view of computer rights.

      Most slashdotters probably agree that the user should control their computer. This is also the EFFs position. From the point of view of establishing a precedent, if Gator has a good looking case they should jump aboard.

  • Gator = Consumers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WeaponOfChoice ( 615003 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:41AM (#4641838) Homepage
    Gator's argument is that consumers should be able to decide what they see on the Web and not Web site owners

    Seems more like gator's argument is that they should be able to decide what the consumer see on the web, not the web site owner and certainly not the consumer...
    • well, it would be valid to say that the consumer wants to see what gator shows(_IF_ most people who got gator even knew they got it, or knew why they get annoying popups they don't want).

      but then again, if this is the case, consumer should be able to use software to block the GATOR's ads, and there shouldnt be a teachny peechy thing gator could say about it.

    • Re:Gator = Consumers? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )
      Ah, but if that's the argument, then its the users who should be trying to block Gator, not ESA.

      If you accept Gator's assertion that users have final say, then yes, that hurts Gator, but it hurts the people they're fighting even more.

      Ultimately, users are responsible for their computers. Gator's deceptive behavior is a matter between them and their users. For a third party (ESA) to step in and fight with Gator over this turf, only legitimizes the position that the turf in question belongs to someone other than the users.

      • For a third party (ESA) to step in and fight with Gator over this turf, only legitimizes the position that the turf in question belongs to someone other than the users.

        I agree with you and don't think the ESA should be involved (there's no logic to allowing one 3rd party the freedom to serve you adds and not another... especially when that freedom is only the consumers to give).

        Essentially if Gator wins, they lose (sooner or later as someone else will usurp them with the full protection of the law and the precendent of the first case) and if they lose it put's us all in a dicey position as to what we are allowed to do with content as it arrives on our machines - do we have to view pages 'complete' and will the simplest of add blocking code become verboten in the same was as DeCSS - with all the implications that may have (considering I block most of the major ad servers at my router it could be a difficult one to properly control...)

  • Not so fast (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:49AM (#4641863)
    Extended Stay America should be allowed to provide internet access which blocks Gator just as Gator should be allowed to provide an ad-subscription service, as long as both of them clearly explain to their customers what they are doing. No website owner has the right to tell me how I look at their site, even if I choose to block the ads with Mozilla/Junkbuster/etc or have them replaced with other ads by using the Gator software. But by the same principle, why should Gator be able to tell my provider what kind of service they provide to me?
    • Its not clear exactly which is being blocked though. Extended Stay America is a hotel (or motel or whatever). The question I have is, is extended stay blocking its guest who are connecting to the internet while in the hotel from using gator. As long as this fact is disclosed to the guest it sounds resonable. The other question, is if they are blocking gator from working on peoples computers who are just visiting their website from elsewhere. Its simply not obvious which is happening honestly.

  • Details? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by clark625 ( 308380 ) <clark625@nOspam.yahoo.com> on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:30AM (#4642040) Homepage

    I think this article is either missing some rather important details, or wasn't very clear. Is Extended Stay America blocking its customers from viewing Gator content while using the "hotel's" network, or somehow magically blocking Gator from working while someone looks at their website from anywhere in the world?


    I don't really see a problem with any hotel or whatever that provides me internet access as a service blocking any particular content. So long as it's in the agreement signed at the front counter--seems fair. And if people don't want this type of service, simply don't stay at their chain. Personally, I like that sort of thing so I would be inclined to stay with them more often knowing this. It's not a first ammendment thing since I'm told about it up-front and I can choose to stay elsewhere.


    On the other hand, if Extended Stay America has found a way to disable Gator from working on their website from anywhere--my congrats. Yeah, it's probably going to cost them in this civil suit that they may lose. It's still cool to think that someone's found a way to disable Gator, though.

  • Who gets control of MY computer? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Inominate ( 412637 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:54AM (#4642161)
    So the argument is wether website publishers, or spyware producers get control of my computer?

    Don't I have a say in this? Why can't I have control of my own computer!?

    The only entity which should have control over a computer is the administrator/user. Not external companies, not advertisers, not the software vendors. The user, and only the user.

    • Re:Who gets control of MY computer? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @10:35AM (#4642388) Homepage
      So the argument is wether website publishers, or spyware producers get control of my computer?
      Looks like it. From what I gather about Gator's software, it's essentially pointless. Many modern web browsers have long shipped with functionality to store form information for websites (including and especially the one in Gator's principle target audience - Internet Explorer), so what we have is software that tracks a person's use of the web, blasts them unmercifully with ads which could see a FedEx or UPS ad appearing on the USPS website, or a Best Buy ad appearing at a small computer vendor's website, or a Sony Music ad appearing at BMG, etc. While this isn't neccesarily the crux of the matter, it's still a great concern to people who budget ads on their website.

      Now, standard IANAL applies here, but I certainly hope this won't affect those of us who disable popups in Mozilla, and use ad-filtering proxies (personally, I use AdZap with Squid).

      Don't I have a say in this? Why can't I have control of my own computer!?
      It does seem like we've got an argument brewing over precisely which fox should guard the henhouse, doesn't it?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • C'mon, be rational (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @10:38AM (#4642405)
    Is Gator a scummy company? Sounds like it. Do pop-up ads suck? Hell yes, why do you think I use Mozilla? But does it matter in this case? No.

    This case is about one specific thing, does control rest in the hands of the remote web site or within your own computer. The law does not give one damn about who Gator is; if Extended Stay America wins and sets the precident that the web site gets to control _completely_ how your computer displays it, it won't have matter if it were Gator or if it were motherteresa.com.

    Look past the company and look at the issues at stake. It _is_ one worth fighting for.

  • You're all missing the bigger picture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by parliboy ( 233658 ) <parliboy@gmail . c om> on Monday November 11, 2002 @01:01PM (#4643300) Homepage
    Should an ISP be permitted to proactively block content. In other words:

    Could Time Warner Cable block sites that are critical of AOL?

    Should Universities acknowledge the RIAA letter and continue their P2P crackdowns?

    etc.

    EFF is attempting to demonstrate that the liberties and rights we all enjoy must apply to everyone, or they apply to noone.

    • Re:You're all missing the bigger picture (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @02:35PM (#4644055) Journal
      Could Time Warner Cable block sites that are critical of AOL?

      Sure, I'd support their legal right to do so, say, come up with a web page saying "this site is blocked by AOL/Time Warner".

      Of course, if they redirected requests to a apparently legitimate false (their own) website, I'd consider that illegal, since you're claiming to be www.wehateaol.com or similar. Probably fraud.

      I'd also support the right of the media to do a nasty series of articles about this, and the right of the consumer to switch away from AOL after hearing that AOL does this.

      Censorship isn't inherently wrong. If all the members of a church don't want porn on their public access computers, that's their right. People should be able to voluntarily engage in censorship. The problem with censorship is when something like the government starts doing it -- then you're screwed, because you can't ever escape it.

      Entertaining considering my .sig, eh?

      Should Universities acknowledge the RIAA letter and continue their P2P crackdowns?

      This has nothing to do with whether netadmins should listen to the letter or not -- it only relates to whether, if they do decide to take action based on said letter, they have the righ to do so. Sure, I'd also support the right of a network admin to bandwidth cap or port-block ports on their own network. Of course, such things might factor into my decision to attend that university...
      • Sure. And when all these companies end up under one corporate umbrella, you'll say the same thing, right?

        What will you say if one day the only access you can get is censored access, because the cable and telephone monopolies have joined forces and are operating in cooperation with media conglomerates (who may even own them) out to 'protect their intellectual property'?

        Remember, these companies don't have to obey the constitution. They know no bill of rights.
        • Okay, you're concerned about Constitutional issues? The Constitution has given us a rich tradition of not taking away our abilities to do something unless it's explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Goes for me, goes for people that work at AOL. If they want to block things on their own network, I don't care. If I set up a network of my own, I think I should be able to do whatever I want to with it. Heck, I even think I should be able to prevent people from using my network via 802.11b when walking by, even though that prevents them from viewing web sites.

          Remember, these companies don't have to obey the constitution

          Sure they do.

  • The user. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hackwrench ( 573697 )
    But what if Extended Stay makes the claim that it is acting on the user's behalf to block Gator's ads, That's the claim that Gator is making.
    If Gator can make the claim that by the user's download of Gator, Gator is acting on the user's behalf in replacing Extended Stay's ads with its own, what is to keep Extended Stay from saying that by the user's navigation to Extended Stay, Extended Stay is acting on the user's behalf to block Gator.
    • Because the user hit a clickthrough EULA when they downloaded and installed Gator. ESA likely doesn't have a clickthrough EULA when you go onto their site.

      Now, if somewhere on their site they have a "terms and conditions of use" link, and that link contains terms such as, "You agree to allow our ads to display on your screen while you surf our site", then Gator's up shoot creek.

      Personally, I think the whole thing stinks since really it will only serve to further validate clickthrough EULA's authority.

      • Because the user hit a clickthrough EULA when they downloaded and installed Gator. ESA likely doesn't have a clickthrough EULA when you go onto their site.

        Gator has been known to be installed without user permission, hence no EULA. There's a reason it's called spyware.

  • Issues clouded by lack of information (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vbweenie ( 587927 ) <dominic,fox1&ntlworld,com> on Monday November 11, 2002 @04:35PM (#4645124) Homepage

    I don't understand this story.

    In what sense is Gator being blocked, and by what means? If the means employed are threats of legal action, then there's a case for the EFF to fight and there are strong reasons for them to fight it.

    Gator changes what happens when you visit certain websites. So, in some cases, does Mozilla with pop-ups disabled. If I want to download a bunch of HTML source from a URL using my own custom application, process it through a Swedish Chef dialectizer and display it on my desktop in 48pt Courier over an animated backdrop of Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo, I can (and maybe I will...later...).

    The end-user de facto controls the appearance of HTML-formatted content. The idea that content-owners should be able to use legal means to force me to view their pop-ups, or refrain from opening my own over their content, seems and is downright wrong. It's like being told not to look in a shop-window whilst wearing spectacles with pictures of naked choirboys taped to the insides, and you know how much I hate it when that happens.

    If, on the other hand, Gator is being blocked by technical means, then fair enough. There's no reason why content-owners should have to create content that can be rendered in Hankey-o-Bork-o-Vision, and if they can detect and refuse to respond to requests coming from my custom client (or some Gator-"enabled" browser), then they're surely entitled to do so. That's true even if it's Mozilla they're blocking. More fool them if they do, but they're within their rights: they can configure their server and write their CGI any damn way they want.

  • Gators Bad MMMkay (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cranos ( 592602 )
    Okay I can sort of see the Freedom of Speech angle people seem to be throwing up here but it really doens't hold water.

    Gator is and always will be a viral piece of software that offers no benefits to the victims of its attacks and plenty of problems least of all being the pop-ups.

    It hijacks web sites with which the parent company has no agreement for ad hosting or serving and displays competitors ads. Sort of like everytime you get into a ford your cellular rings and its someone from Toyota telling you to go their lots.

    All in all its an annoying piece of shit.

    This law suit they are bringing is just a bullshit attempt to play the freedom of speech card.
    • It hijacks web sites with which the parent company has no agreement for ad hosting or serving and displays competitors ads.

      Wrong. Gator doesn't hijack web sites. It hijacks your browser. Big difference.
    • Yes, Gator is one of the most anoying pieces of crapware ever to disgrace the web. Unfortunately, a lot of the general populace uses, and likes, Gator.

      At epinions.com, Gator gets a 4 star rating.
      "I love it!"
      "A very useful tool"
      "Easy to use and set up, saves time and energy"

      THOSE are the users being affected by this.
  • First, I'm not a trained legal professional so I can't profess to having highly informed knowledge of the case or of the legal background (I'm just an enthusiastic supporter with a sixth grade education :) ).

    Nonetheless, while I'm usually in step with the EFF's positions, it seems to me that defending Gator in this matter would be questionable. If you remove any bias regarding the alleged shadiness of Gator's previous business practices and just examine the question of allowing or disallowing people w/ certain software to browse the site, I still think it's shaky ground.

    Here's a real-world example: Private brick-and-mortar retail businesses on the whole are still allowed to reject service to certain customers to a large degree.

    When a user requests a specific page from a business's server (in this case, ExtendedStayAmerica), it's not as if the transaction is completely FREE to the business -- There is a minimal cost (albeit miniscule) to process the page and serve the page out on bandwidth. There IS a cost to the private business for providing this service. It isn't until AFTER the page out to the client's browser/computer that the actual "bits" are then "transferred" to the client. The burden resides on the server first, not the client. Consequently, the private business should STILL have some leeway in controlling who places that burden on their servers.

    I understand that this decision could potentially mean that business could "exclude" Mozilla because of it's pop-up restrictive abilities. Nonetheless, it's THEIR right whether they want to allow users of this software access to THEIR servers. From a business perspective, it'd be pretty stupid to ignore the Mozilla-using community; nonetheless, it's their right to do so if they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

    What's the difference between the private owner of a fancy restaurant who rejects a person who isn't wearing a coat and tie and ExtendedStayAmerica disallowing Gator users who, albeit tangentially, are using ExtendedStay's services at ExtendedStay's expense?

    Again, I'm not a legal scholar, so I might be completely off, but as an avid and longtime supporter of the EFF, I would advise them to more carefully look at the situation before jumping into the pool.

  • My opinion: it seems simple enough (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @03:46PM (#4653274) Journal

    This is simple:

    Gator secretly installs itself (I say secretly, because the process by which it is installed is so transparent to the average user they never actually agree or disagree to anything) on your computer and then "hijacks" the legitimate, paid-for advertising of other companies with that of it's affiliates.

    This web site denies Gator from performing this action. Instead, the web site insures that the data contained on their site is presented directly to the viewer. It is then up to the viewers chosen software (a browser) to display the content. The average web surfer has no idea that the ads that are popping up or being displayed are in fact not from the content provider, but rather being presented by some piece of spy ware that was installed on their system without their full knowledge or compliance.

  • Gator argues that this comes down to the owner of the computer? Either way both sides violate what Gator's logic deems to defend. Thanks Gator for looking out for my civil net right, and taking up my band width, and banging on my firewall, and taking up my processor time, and putting spyware on the machines of America so that the average user who doesn't know what you are about is unwittingly being looked at. My message to Gator is stop hiding behind a shield of personal rights while wielding the sword of your enemy.
  • I seriously doubt Gator is doing this to protect my rights as a consumer. They certainly aren't going to allow me to pick and choose which ads I see. If I block ads on my computer using Mozilla, that should be my right. If Gator "hijacks" my computer to steal another companies ad revenue, that's wrong.
  • Many sites grow by taking advantage of a CPA model whereby affiliate sites earn a commission when they send a visitor to a partner site. The affiliate is rewarded for marketing a product or a service or a brand. Gator jumps up and gets in the middle between the affiliate website, and the merchant website. This interferes with the existing relationship. If Gator is not stopped, affiliate marketing as we know it is dead.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close