[jbigelow76]

    >Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission?

It seems to me like it's a two way street. The site is implying permission to consume the content by placing it out there, we imply permission to have ads served at us by going to the sites knowing the ads are there.

If the site is serving up malware why patronize it to begin with? There is a distinction between an ad and malware.

[forca]

The sites don't always know the ad servers have been compromised. A person visits a site, allows ads/3rd-party cookies, is surfing with admin rights, the ad servers gladly push their drive-by malware and ta-da... infected user. It's that simple...

Blocking ads, disallowing cookies (whitelisting), blocking the general ad industry is the only safe way. It's like sex: use protection.