4 ms·

Don't users implicitly consent to a website using their CPU and bandwidth for arbitrary tasks while the website is open, by using a browser that downloads and r

by csense 12y ago

Don't users implicitly consent to a website using their CPU and bandwidth for arbitrary tasks while the website is open, by using a browser that downloads and runs arbitrary JavaScript and allows it to XMLHTTPRequest? Even if the code in question was being run on a publicly accessible website, was used by a New Jersey consumer, and was fully functional and actually mined Bitcoins (all of those points are disputed by the students' counsel)...The only thing that's being taken by the website operators would be users' CPU cycles and bandwidth. And if the users have implicitly consented to the website's arbitrary use of those resources, how is anyone being harmed?

wanderingstan 12y ago
This implicit conset is an interesting area, and I'd wager on seeing more cases like the OP. Last year a a friend and I spent an evening napkin-sketching a service that would piggyback on an existing js platform (ads, analytics, etc) but would do a little "extra" work performing quality of service tests. For example, it could do timed fetching of images from different sites to test promised speeds. So you could know how fast sever X could deliver to a user in Guatamala, when some other client in Guatamala connected to server Y.
icebraining 12y ago
I think there's an argument for the users having consented to the use of CPU and bandwidth for the purposes of displaying the website. That the website can technically use that allowance for unrelated purposes doesn't imply consent, any more than you'd be giving a parket valet permission to take a ride with your car just because you handed him/her the keys without an express agreement. In an implied contract, it's the expectations of a "reasonable person" that count.
- malka 12y ago
  > for the purposes of displaying the website. What about analytics tools ?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It's an edge case, I'm not sure. But I'd say it's still part of the website tooling made to improve it, not an unrelated appendix, even if I'd prefer people stopped using them.

by csense 12y ago

wanderingstan 12y ago

This implicit conset is an interesting area, and I'd wager on seeing more cases like the OP. Last year a a friend and I spent an evening napkin-sketching a service that would piggyback on an existing js platform (ads, analytics, etc) but would do a little "extra" work performing quality of service tests. For example, it could do timed fetching of images from different sites to test promised speeds. So you could know how fast sever X could deliver to a user in Guatamala, when some other client in Guatamala connected to server Y.

icebraining 12y ago

I think there's an argument for the users having consented to the use of CPU and bandwidth for the purposes of displaying the website. That the website can technically use that allowance for unrelated purposes doesn't imply consent, any more than you'd be giving a parket valet permission to take a ride with your car just because you handed him/her the keys without an express agreement. In an implied contract, it's the expectations of a "reasonable person" that count.

malka 12y ago
> for the purposes of displaying the website. What about analytics tools ?
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's an edge case, I'm not sure. But I'd say it's still part of the website tooling made to improve it, not an unrelated appendix, even if I'd prefer people stopped using them.