3 ms·
Would running an ad blocker not fall under 2.c?
by c16 2y ago
Would running an ad blocker not fall under 2.c?
- beejiu 2y agoAd 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.
- icandoit 2y agoI 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"
- codedokode 2y agoYes 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".
- nkrisc 2y agoIf I purposefully click an ad even though I know I have no intention to purchase anything also unlawful?
- surgical_fire 2y agoFollowing that logic I should never click any links on the internet, since I would be potentially logging as activity on someone else's computer
- areyourllySorry 2y agowho allowed them to make entries in MY computer in the first place?
- _trampeltier 2y agoI 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.
- surgical_fire 2y ago> 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.
- _Algernon_ 2y agoDoesn't running ads on my computer without consent fall under 1a?