zlacker

Seriously? What laws catch it out?

>>pbrone+(OP)
You deliberate harm and financial damage using a computer bot. Almost all countries have provisions where you can be sued for any type of damage you cause and be asked to repair it (a minima at the civil level).

Big ones detect it, so they don't care to sue. Small ones benefit, so they don't sue.

This is your main protection, there is nothing to squeeze from a single guy. Even if you get him to pay you back the fraud, then what ? It costs more in legal fees.

Still, it's such an odd concept to self-inflict yourself such; it's way better to just block the ads than to be tagged as a bot and get Recaptcha-ed or Turnstiled more frequently.

>>rvnx+01
How did I cause financial damage? I didn't charge anybody anything. I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions

>>malfis+n6
With your logic this is legal:

> One public Firebase file. One day. $98,000. How it happened and how it could happen to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1kg9icb/one_pu...

"It's just a script that makes a loop, I didn't charge anybody anything, I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions".

It's a very harmful practice to intentionally try to hurt companies, when you can just block what you don't like.

>>rvnx+u8
Okay but hurting consumers by tracking everything they do is totally okay?

Companies aren’t people. Fuck companies.

>>zeneth+Cb
This is not ok I totally agree with you, but still, I would rather just block the ads, and not buy their products or support them.

There is a side-effect in terms of privacy: you send a fake click request every single time, you also actually disclose to adnetworks which page you are visiting and incidentally your whole browsing history (not through referrers, but because click URLs have a unique click IDs to match).

>>rvnx+u8
> It's a very harmful practice to intentionally try to hurt companies, when you can just block what you don't like.

I say tit for tat. They're intentionally trying to harm me, spying on me, maybe infecting my computer, mining crypto with my CPU, or wasting my network bandwidth. They could just not do that and there wouldn't be any concern about reciprocity

>>malfis+Pr
> I say tit for tat.

Does your say have any relevance here in terms of what the law is? Are you a state judge tasked with interpreting the law? Where's the tit-for-tat clause?