Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just curious.
if google didn't have passwords on accounts, do you think they could really go around suing people for logging into other people's accounts illegally? no, they'd simply be asked to put passwords on accounts.
Click-botting is the same thing. Google can easily deal with this, so why bother arresting people? why not just close up an obvious hole rather than waste the courts time. Which I'm sure is why they didn't bother paying off that AdSense clique guy.
To put it more simply- it's not illegal because no one cares.
Blaze, I was already rather tired of your misguided personal comments. I will politely ask again that you either keep your posts on topic or refrain from posting at all. You know absolutely nothing about me, and you would be wise to keep your judgements to yourself.
>>Click-botting is the same thing. Google can easily deal with this, so why bother arresting people? why not just close up an obvious hole rather than waste the courts time. Which I'm sure is why they didn't bother paying off that AdSense clique guy.
I don't know how much you know about clicktracking, or simulating human traffic, but perhaps the amounts demanded in the Adsense clique thing might give you an idea of the scale on which this kind of system might successfully operate. You asked the question yourself: "why bother arresting people?".
>>even if you don't agree to the TOS or run it for profit, IMO using a clickbot to click on AdSense ads would still be illegal (although maybe not fraud).
I'm uncormfortable with this idea. It seems to suggest that the making a bot that goes and clicks on things can in itself be illegal, which I guess was why I brought up the Googlebot comparison.
[edited by: pixel_juice at 8:41 pm (utc) on Mar. 25, 2004]
Caching web pages without permission is almost certainly a violation of copyrights. Courts haven't ruled on it yet, though it seems to me that there is a case working it's way up the system.
As far as spidering and viewing, no. When you place an item on the internet you are extending an "implied license to browse." The act of placing on the net is implied permission to access it.
If you wish to revoke the implied license, you must take the steps to do so, by using passwords, robots.txt, .htaccess, etc.
No, I'm not an attorney... I came across this info when I was researching the implications of Opera's use of Adsense, which sends the Mediabot out to sites that haven't signed up with Adsense.
And to keep this on topic, are clickbots in and of themselves illegal. Almost certainly not. It matters a lot what you're going to do with it. If your intent is to crash a server by clicking it oblivion, or defraud advertisers by clicking ppc ads, then those actions are illegal.
I dont spend too much time in jenstars forum, but this was a real informative thread.
as for the commercial click bot service in Russia or Eastern Europe, what makes you think that there isnt already such services being run , right in the USA and UK?
Shak
The issue isn't about me and what I know, but rather what I am saying.
And what I am saying to you is that it's not an issue because basic statistical analysis can determine when clicks are generating meaningful conversions and when they are not.
If they are not generating conversions, than Google will simply refrain from paying out a high EPC. If this becomes more widespread, they will simply encourage more and more conversion tracking the widerspread the issue is.
Like putting a password on a user-account. It's not fraud, because Google could not really care less.
As for how much some nut is charging for AdSense Clique .. how does that forward any argument - what kind of logic is this? The appeal to nutjob?
Perhaps, but are Google just about to introduce this? Or just as importantly, are Overture or any of the other pay per clicks and affiliate schemes that charge based on clicktracking systems?
And clickbots are just a question of scale. Paying real people to click on ads is not unheard of. Just think of cost per click / clicks per hour / minimum wage.
>>look who's getting personal?
Please consider what you implied in msg #58 - the original reason I asked you to stay on topic.
If I had this data and I was rightfully concerned about fraud, I would not hesitate to use it. Odds are very good that they are doing basic statistical analysis to determine which clicks are converting as compared to the average adsense / average adwords campaign and which clicks are not.
I mean .. if you were making billions of dollars a year don't you think you'd hire a first year stats student to do the math required?
As for the original thing, I was refering to your logic, not you. I don't think it's an issue me being personal but an issue of you taking things personally.
Odds are very good that they have already introduced this. Overture and Google have conversion data from probably about 40% of their adwords customers.
NOT correct!
Shak
If your intent is to crash a server by clicking it oblivion, or defraud advertisers by clicking ppc ads, then those actions are illegal.
How so? What law? Where in the law (not TOS) does it say that a person has to click the ads for them to be counted?
How so? What law? Where in the law (not TOS) does it say that a person has to click the ads for them to be counted?
You just don't seem to get it. I doubt that there is currently a law that specifically talks about clicking on ads, but there are laws about committing fraud. And, if your intent with the click bot program is to generate revenue then, based on the TOS this is fraud. And the TOS is very much a part of this since this is what denotes this a fraud.
!?
What kind of posting is that? I know a lot of AdWords websites that use Google conversion. I was being convserative.
Anyways, why would Google support something if it went completely unused?
if your intent with the click bot program is to generate revenue then, based on the TOS this is fraud.
You just don't seem to get it. I doubt that there is currently a law that specifically talks about clicking on ads, but there are laws about committing fraud. And, if your intent with the click bot program is to generate revenue then, based on the TOS this is fraud. And the TOS is very much a part of this since this is what denotes this a fraud.
Again: The TOS is not the law. A company can put whatever it wants in its TOS but that does not make violating the TOS *illegal* as in you will be charged with a crime. That's what I'm asking --is it illegal, not is it a violation of the TOS.
Let's try this again. Read what I said above. I said that trying to crash a server, or engaging in fraud is illegal.
Go back and read my entire original post. I actually said that I doubted that clickbots themselves are illegal, but the activity you are engaging in with it may be illegal.
Using a hammer is not illegal. However, if you use a hammer to smash all the windows at a local store, or to murder someone, you'll quickly find out that such actions are illegal. Arguing that the law doesn't prohibit using hammers has nothing to do with whether or not your actions are illegal.
Clickbots, as software, are probably not illegal at this time. Using them to engage in fraud certainly is.
Is that illegal? Where do yo draw the line for theft? I don't see much difference.
Using a hammer is not illegal. However, if you use a hammer to smash all the windows at a local store, or to murder someone, you'll quickly find out that such actions are illegal. Arguing that the law doesn't prohibit using hammers has nothing to do with whether or not your actions are illegal.Clickbots, as software, are probably not illegal at this time. Using them to engage in fraud certainly is.
Good point, varya.
Can we now finish this word game, or is this a forum for would-be lawyers?
Go back and read my entire original post. I actually said that I doubted that clickbots themselves are illegal, but the activity you are engaging in with it may be illegal.
Oh so it might be illegal.
Clickbots, as software, are probably not illegal at this time. Using them to engage in fraud certainly is.
Oh so it is illegal.
Thanks for clarifying.
Spiders are not illegal; in fact I have a half dozen installed on my computer. But if I were to use a spider to flood a website with requests in order to disrupt their business "as a joke/challenge", that's an illegal act. No amount of smirking hypotheticals will change that.
Spiders are not illegal; in fact I have a half dozen installed on my computer. But if I were to use a spider to flood a website with requests in order to disrupt their business "as a joke/challenge", that's an illegal act. No amount of smirking hypotheticals will change that.
I agree that some forms of technology that are illegal can be used illegally.
That doesn't answer my question about whether a clickbot would be legal or illegal.
p.s. about "disrupting business".. if I have a monopoly, in fact I disrupt all the competitor's business.
That says it all. Your thiefware is illegal.
- Clickbots and spiders are not in themselves illegal
- Breaking the Google TOS might be proved to be illegal in court (even if I have not agreed to it?)
- Using a clickbot or spider on certain parts of the web might therefore be illegal, regardless of intent.
I personally believe this is still an interesting (and far from clear) question since the existence of programs to simulate human traffic, and the ability of these programs to 'deceive' clicktracking systems is undeniable.
I'd be extremely interested in the implications (for search engine spiders in particular) if a case like this ever made it to court. To say that spiders are allowed to spider because websites are public, might be forgetting that the links a clickbot might follow are also in this public space.
We won on interfering with our business (we had server issues) and they won on the basis that we libeled them to their customers - we said they were stealing data .. apparently you can not transfer copyright that easilly, I guess.
> interfering with our business (we had server issues)
Again, "clickbotting" itself doesnt harm servers.
This thread isnt about DOS, its about clickbots legality/illegality.
you are probably writing viruses and harvesting emails that you sell to spammers too right? that is, until a law prevents. get outta here.
