3 ms·
He was encountering challenges defeating their "anti-fraud" technology. Thus he knew it sounded like fraud to the victim services, and he did it anyway, defeati
by unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
He was encountering challenges defeating their "anti-fraud" technology. Thus he knew it sounded like fraud to the victim services, and he did it anyway, defeating the controls they placed to verify the clicks were legitimate.
- lesuorac 2y agoSo, if I hire a bunch of employees to enforce a sites ToS and call that team the Anti-Fraud team then anybody breaking my ToS is guilty of fraud? The guy lied for financial gain. That makes it fraud. An argument about "defeating anti-fraud technology" is not the leg you want to stand on.
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoI understand your point but it misstates the issue: > For example, on or about December 26, 2018, SMITH emailed two coconspirators that, “We need to get a TON of songs fast to make this work around the anti-fraud policies these guys are all using now. They are referring to anti-fraud policies as a general thing across all streaming platforms, not a specific named filter used by Spotify/Amazon/etc. Since they are referring to the policies by the intent rather than name or generically as ToS, this indicates an awareness that their behavior was ultimately fraudulent. I understand it would be very different if the conspirators said “evade Spotify’s dumb ToS policies” and later Spotify said “actually those aren’t mere ToS, those are anti-fraud policies.” That’s not what happened.
- mjburgess 2y agoThey're naming those policies. That's what they are called by the platforms, and that's what "fraud detection" means in these cases. This is an "engineering" definition of fraud. In the legal sense of the term fraud detection is impossible, since these platfroms are not measuring the intentions of users.
- FpUser 2y ago>"The guy lied for financial gain. That makes it fraud." Isn't lying for financial gain is what almost any company does?
- gruez 2y agoMy bank sells CDs to me, at a rate that's clearly disclosed to me. What type of "lying for financial gain" is happening here?