Interesting, depending on how someone interprets 1c2c, it looks like the U.K. made it illegal to lie on the internet. I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., I would think that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
Ad blocking happens on your own computer, which you are authorised to make changes to. But simulating a click, therefore making an entry in another person's computer is what makes it unlawful.
I sent a get request. If you put something in your database that's on you.
Could we all be less eager to be the devil's advocate?
"Chug your mandatory mountain dew in order to continue"
Yes but technically you are not making an entry in someone's database; you merely send a request and it is not your problem that the remote computer misinterpreted this as displaying an interest in an ad. Remote server doesn't use any password, SMS confirmation or similar measure to restrict the users that are authorized to send requests so sending it sould be 100% legal.
But as a proverb says, "the law is like a drawbar, you can bend it as you like".
I had the same question. I don't wanna your tracking cokies and I don't wanna you draw strange pictures on my computer to fingerprint me. But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
> But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
Why not?
If you don't want bots clicking on your link you should put a captcha on it. If your link is publicly accessible, my background click is authorized by consequence.
Computer Misuse Act 1990. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
(b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
(c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
(2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data;
Clicking ads is exactly what they exist for. Not convinced this breaks the law any more than just clicking an ad would.
Interesting, depending on how someone interprets 1c2c, it looks like the U.K. made it illegal to lie on the internet. I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., I would think that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
In the US even the president lies every day, so I guess the US can't forbid to lie.
Would running an ad blocker not fall under 2.c?
Doesn't running ads on my computer without consent fall under 1a?
Ad blocking happens on your own computer, which you are authorised to make changes to. But simulating a click, therefore making an entry in another person's computer is what makes it unlawful.
I sent a get request. If you put something in your database that's on you. Could we all be less eager to be the devil's advocate? "Chug your mandatory mountain dew in order to continue"
Yes but technically you are not making an entry in someone's database; you merely send a request and it is not your problem that the remote computer misinterpreted this as displaying an interest in an ad. Remote server doesn't use any password, SMS confirmation or similar measure to restrict the users that are authorized to send requests so sending it sould be 100% legal.
But as a proverb says, "the law is like a drawbar, you can bend it as you like".
Following that logic I should never click any links on the internet, since I would be potentially logging as activity on someone else's computer
If I purposefully click an ad even though I know I have no intention to purchase anything also unlawful?
who allowed them to make entries in MY computer in the first place?
I had the same question. I don't wanna your tracking cokies and I don't wanna you draw strange pictures on my computer to fingerprint me. But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
> But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
Why not?
If you don't want bots clicking on your link you should put a captcha on it. If your link is publicly accessible, my background click is authorized by consequence.