Hacker News Reader

Comment by cabaalis | Hacker News Reader

I think one should be careful using the term "click fraud" in this context. Someone who installs this extension doesn't in my mind qualify to be defrauding anyone. There is no contract in place, it isn't against the law to express interest in a product, and there's no technical controls being breached illegally as the browser is just sending a request to a server.

View on HN

And this is why Google is speculating to integrate WEI on Google Chrome and business owners and advertisers are going to gladly welcomeand implement it and pressure web developers to do the same on their websites. Just because there's no direct defrauding going on, doesn't mean ad networks aren't noticing and accounting for it.

Apple already has shipped something similar. https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att...

"hihi, my browser clicks ads in the background, I'm fighting Big Tech so hard rn"

Google implements WEI on chrome and normal users who just want to block ads can't use their extensions anymore.

"Google Bad! I want to block my ads and cause you financial loss too"

"NO" - Google

So, mission accomplished?

> Someone who installs this extension doesn't in my mind qualify to be defrauding anyone.

Bluntly, it doesn't matter what you or I think -- what matters is what politicians, police, prosecutors and judges think.

I don't see anything on the main github page that says the extension is intended to cause harm to the advertisers or the website, but IME governments have often not cared.

And when 1M people in a country install the extension, are they acting independently or as a group? One person protesting may be legal, 1M organizing may not be protected.

Stop being vague. Which specific law do you think that might violate. Provide a citation.

The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual Section 941.18 U.S.C. 1343 cites these as the key elements of wire fraud: “1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; 2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; 3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and 4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used.”

You have completely misunderstood the wire fraud statute. It isn't even remotely applicable here. Come on. Read the case law.

Since the ad agencies are the ones benefiting monetarily from this alleged fraud, would that not mean that they would be bringing about a case against themselves?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com