7 ms·

If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, bu

by fryguy 10y ago

If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.

mattlevan 10y ago
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.
  - otterley 10y ago
    Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.) Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud: (1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad); (2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension); (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); (4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended); (5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad) In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.
      - WhiteOwlLion 10y ago
        The distinction is automation versus manual process. If you manually reply with bogus information, then your illustration works. When you automate the process, there's no intervention on your part. Ad blocking is fine with me, but when you intentionally click on ads in an automated way, this becomes click fraud. There's a certain level of click fraud that is tolerated by Google, but AdNaseum takes it too far IMO.
        fapjacks 10y ago
        The intervention on my part is writing/compiling/installing/actively using the automation.
        WhiteOwlLion 10y ago
        You could make that argument for any bot, but in the eyes of Google or myself, I see it as click fraud. I think Google made the right choice here. If you disagree with surveillance and want privacy, there are other tools available such as Ghostery and µBlock. They provide what you want without being retaliatory.
        type0 10y ago
        You're joking right? You obviously never automated bogus reply on the phone answering machine for one or the other reason. If you don't pick a phone at home and answering machine takes it, are you comiting a fraud because it is automated and telling everyone that you're not home.
    - pklausler 10y ago
      When I manually click an ad for a political candidate or party that I despise, am I committing fraud? (Not saying that I do that, of course. Entirely hypothetical.)
      - hsod 10y ago
        Seems like point 1 would not be satisfied, because you are actually clicking the ad. I suppose someone could argue that you're still deceiving them about your intent but it seems like quite a stretch.
    - dsp1234 10y ago
      You're missing a few elements. One of which is, "the injured party’s right to rely thereon"[0] (unless that's what you mean by #4 above). "A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her." It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable. [0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-fraud/ http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Knowing that it is possible for a representation to be falsified (what you describe the ad network as knowing) is very far from knowing that it is false (the branch of the standard you appear to be appealing to argue a lack of right-to-rely.) So, I don't think the argument, as you've made it, is convincing.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      As far as (1).... making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. That is an inference that the website owner is making, not a statement the user is making. The user never agreed to that. This would be like if you are a dairy farmer and you notice people who buy cookies usually buy milk, so to make things simple you make an agreement to pay a store 25 cents for every cookie they sell (because you want to incentivize them to sell more cookies and therefore more milk). You couldn't then accuse a customer of fraud when they buy cookies but not milk. They never agreed to always buy milk when they buy cookies, that was just an assumption you made.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. Whatever the merits of that argument might be in the general case, using an extension which expressly advertises its function to include falsifying clicks to mislead ad networks makes it hard to make the argument in that context.
        cortesoft 10y ago
        Right, but just because I know the inference that a 3rd party is making, am I under some responsibility to not change my behavior? I don't think I have some legal or moral responsibility to not troll someone watching me.
    - ben0x539 10y ago
      Is this analysis independent on whether I'm the party who gets paid for the ad clicks? It makes sense to me that if I make someone sign a thing saying I get money per click, and then go ahead and simulate clicks, I'm defrauding them, but if I'm just some random guy, why's it on me to play nice with their method of detecting clicks?
    - type0 10y ago
      > (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); I think you are deceiving everyone that you are indeed an attorney.
    - tornadoboy55 10y ago
      A very large part of the globe does not follow common law.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    Who is the user defrauding? If they're not the site running the ads, they have no business relationship with the ad company, so the ad company really can't reasonably demand of them to only click certain ads.
    - problems 10y ago
      Yes, you don't sign any agreement to see or click on ads. Clicking them is in no way fraudulent, just standard behavior.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - heroprotagonist 10y ago
    It's arguable. Fraud generally requires intent to result in financial or personal gain. There's no gain here for the user. There's gain for the advertising company at the expense of the company purchasing the advertisements. But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.
    - _audakel 10y ago
      There is gain for the user, in the respect that they receive the service of their privacy being protected
    - hsod 10y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but according to this definition the fraud perpetrator need not gain, only cause injury to the fraud victim: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
- fryguy 10y ago
  Yes. The intent is what's important to me. If it were an extension, like in the 90's when everyone was on dial-up, that pre-loaded links, and some of those links happened to be ads then that's one thing. The goal of that extension is to load pages faster since they've already been downloaded. That's not fraud. This extension clearly understands that links are ads and that clicking them will cost the advertiser money with no benefit to them. And then clicks them. That's what makes it fraud.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    That's not how fraud works.
    - zaphar 10y ago
      How is that not how fraud works. The extension practically bills itself as a form of protest intended to devalue an ad for an advertiser by acting in an intentionally deceptive manner. It is generally understood and indeed reasonable to assume that in order for most users to click an ad they must first see it. This extension intentionally violates that in order to deceive that same advertiser.
dxhdr 10y ago
Defraud: illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception. That does not describe the situation in the least. AdNauseum is more akin mailing junk back to junk mailers using their paid postage. You show me an ad, which I did not ask to see? Fine, I'll click it, automatically. Enjoy.

by fryguy 10y ago

mattlevan 10y ago

Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.
- otterley 10y ago
  Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.) Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud: (1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad); (2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension); (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); (4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended); (5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad) In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.
    - WhiteOwlLion 10y ago
      The distinction is automation versus manual process. If you manually reply with bogus information, then your illustration works. When you automate the process, there's no intervention on your part. Ad blocking is fine with me, but when you intentionally click on ads in an automated way, this becomes click fraud. There's a certain level of click fraud that is tolerated by Google, but AdNaseum takes it too far IMO.
      - fapjacks 10y ago
        The intervention on my part is writing/compiling/installing/actively using the automation.
        WhiteOwlLion 10y ago
        You could make that argument for any bot, but in the eyes of Google or myself, I see it as click fraud. I think Google made the right choice here. If you disagree with surveillance and want privacy, there are other tools available such as Ghostery and µBlock. They provide what you want without being retaliatory.
      - type0 10y ago
        You're joking right? You obviously never automated bogus reply on the phone answering machine for one or the other reason. If you don't pick a phone at home and answering machine takes it, are you comiting a fraud because it is automated and telling everyone that you're not home.
  - pklausler 10y ago
    When I manually click an ad for a political candidate or party that I despise, am I committing fraud? (Not saying that I do that, of course. Entirely hypothetical.)
    - hsod 10y ago
      Seems like point 1 would not be satisfied, because you are actually clicking the ad. I suppose someone could argue that you're still deceiving them about your intent but it seems like quite a stretch.
  - dsp1234 10y ago
    You're missing a few elements. One of which is, "the injured party’s right to rely thereon"[0] (unless that's what you mean by #4 above). "A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her." It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable. [0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-fraud/ http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Knowing that it is possible for a representation to be falsified (what you describe the ad network as knowing) is very far from knowing that it is false (the branch of the standard you appear to be appealing to argue a lack of right-to-rely.) So, I don't think the argument, as you've made it, is convincing.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    As far as (1).... making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. That is an inference that the website owner is making, not a statement the user is making. The user never agreed to that. This would be like if you are a dairy farmer and you notice people who buy cookies usually buy milk, so to make things simple you make an agreement to pay a store 25 cents for every cookie they sell (because you want to incentivize them to sell more cookies and therefore more milk). You couldn't then accuse a customer of fraud when they buy cookies but not milk. They never agreed to always buy milk when they buy cookies, that was just an assumption you made.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. Whatever the merits of that argument might be in the general case, using an extension which expressly advertises its function to include falsifying clicks to mislead ad networks makes it hard to make the argument in that context.
      - cortesoft 10y ago
        Right, but just because I know the inference that a 3rd party is making, am I under some responsibility to not change my behavior? I don't think I have some legal or moral responsibility to not troll someone watching me.
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    Is this analysis independent on whether I'm the party who gets paid for the ad clicks? It makes sense to me that if I make someone sign a thing saying I get money per click, and then go ahead and simulate clicks, I'm defrauding them, but if I'm just some random guy, why's it on me to play nice with their method of detecting clicks?
  - type0 10y ago
    > (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); I think you are deceiving everyone that you are indeed an attorney.
  - tornadoboy55 10y ago
    A very large part of the globe does not follow common law.
Analemma_ 10y ago
Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.
- ben0x539 10y ago
  Who is the user defrauding? If they're not the site running the ads, they have no business relationship with the ad company, so the ad company really can't reasonably demand of them to only click certain ads.
  - problems 10y ago
    Yes, you don't sign any agreement to see or click on ads. Clicking them is in no way fraudulent, just standard behavior.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- heroprotagonist 10y ago
  It's arguable. Fraud generally requires intent to result in financial or personal gain. There's no gain here for the user. There's gain for the advertising company at the expense of the company purchasing the advertisements. But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.
  - _audakel 10y ago
    There is gain for the user, in the respect that they receive the service of their privacy being protected
  - hsod 10y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but according to this definition the fraud perpetrator need not gain, only cause injury to the fraud victim: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
fryguy 10y ago
Yes. The intent is what's important to me. If it were an extension, like in the 90's when everyone was on dial-up, that pre-loaded links, and some of those links happened to be ads then that's one thing. The goal of that extension is to load pages faster since they've already been downloaded. That's not fraud. This extension clearly understands that links are ads and that clicking them will cost the advertiser money with no benefit to them. And then clicks them. That's what makes it fraud.
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  That's not how fraud works.
  - zaphar 10y ago
    How is that not how fraud works. The extension practically bills itself as a form of protest intended to devalue an ad for an advertiser by acting in an intentionally deceptive manner. It is generally understood and indeed reasonable to assume that in order for most users to click an ad they must first see it. This extension intentionally violates that in order to deceive that same advertiser.

dxhdr 10y ago

Defraud: illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception. That does not describe the situation in the least. AdNauseum is more akin mailing junk back to junk mailers using their paid postage. You show me an ad, which I did not ask to see? Fine, I'll click it, automatically. Enjoy.