zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
Wikipedia summarizes fruad as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right." The user does not unlawfully gain and the ad provider doesn't have a legal right that's being infringed on here.

Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.

No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

>>ddevau+0G
"I am this browser, requesting this content on behalf of the user, who clicked on this ad."

Walk me through this, okay?

>>Viking+YR
I don't understand what you're asking for.

>>Sir_Cm+kU
The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad.

(1) a false statement of a material fact

The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad."

That's not true. The user did not click on the ad.

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

The user knows they did not click on the ad.

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim

Everyone in this thread is saying it's to confuse the metrics, and some are saying it's to purposefully take money from the advertisers.

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement

The vast majority of HTTP GETs to URLs that are only found as href on Ads are requested because the user clicked on the Ad in their browser. Can you name even ONE other time a browser follows the onClick event on an Ad?

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Money.

So, walk me through how this is not fraud?

>>Viking+zA1
You should read the comment you replied to, dude.

>(1) a false statement of a material fact

>The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad."

>That's not true. The user did not click on the ad.

I said in my comment:

>Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.

>>Sir_Cm+pB1
It's not the GET I have a problem with, it's the fact that you're following the onClick, as though the user did in fact click.

And you left a YUUUGE amount of ambiguity there, intentional or not, when you used the word "implies."

I don't know how the courts take things like "Click here if you agree to the terms" on an online form, but I don't think you've closed the door on my argument, yet.