Adbusters Suggests Click Fraud As Protest 390
An anonymous reader writes "In response to Google's recently announced plans to expand the tracking of users, the international anti-advertising magazine Adbusters proposes that we collectively embark on a civil disobedience campaign of intentional, automated 'click fraud' in order to undermine Google's advertising program in order to force Google to adopt a pro-privacy corporate policy. They have released a GreaseMonkey script that automatically clicks on all AdSense ads."
Re:They need to get paid somehow (Score:3, Informative)
All this while Adbusters uses Google Analytics! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Protest"? (Score:4, Informative)
And it will cost Google a lot of time and money to validate whether a click is fraud or not if enough people start doing it.
Nah, just a simple matter of Javascript to test if you have certain pieces of chrome installed relating to this script to determine if the clicks are fake. No Javascript, no ads for the plug-in to click on anyway. Then the plug-in is going to have to randomize where it stores its chrome evade detection.
Re:Why not just block their ads? (Score:5, Informative)
You're being obtuse. The intent of the statement was clear. In case it wasn't to you, allow me to help clarify.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud [wikipedia.org]:
Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script, or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.
Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, USA, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the United Kingdom. There have been arrests relating to click fraud with regard to malicious clicking in order to deplete a competitor's advertising budget[citation needed].
While not being done 'for a profit' it's still an asshat move to make.
Re:Not civil disobedience (Score:5, Informative)
In case you use firefox, try this extension (for example): Ghostery [mozilla.org]. It pops up a list of all the tracking scripts found on the web page you're browsing. Try leaving his on for a week and count how many websites track you. If your friends or family use firefox, install it for them, too.
Re:Why not just block their ads? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think I already have Google ads blocked...
Will false-positives hurt them more than just adblocking them?
Way more.
I'm an AdWords user and I pay $1 every time someone clicks my ad.
I quit using their "affiliates" because I was getting a lot of clicks from cybersquatting sites.
Re:"Protest"? (Score:3, Informative)
No, users still win. Flash isn't a magical locked-down proprietary fairyland. There's no way for an application written in Flash to ensure it's being run on Adobe Flash and not, say, an improved and hacked-up Gnash [gnu.org].
Re:Adblock? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why not just block their ads? (Score:3, Informative)
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Californ.txt [nsi.org]
Here are a couple of catchy little numbers from that page, all under the sub heading "any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense":
Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.
Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
A lawyer would tell you there is a LOT of wiggle room just in those phrases. For example "causes the disruption of computer services" seems to be just what is advocated here.
Depending on exactly what section was applied, fines run up to $10,000 and the cost free, forced accommodations is up to three years. Google is in California, right?
Opt-out here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ad Blocking = Digital Earplugs..... (Score:3, Informative)
"You agree to use it at the cost of viewing ads."
-No, I didn't. Many others didn't either.
Re:Protest is one approach, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Nice strawman... (Score:3, Informative)
But really the whole mission statement of Adbusters is stupid. Removing all ads from the internet will destroy pretty much every service on the internet. Think youtube would be profitable without ads? How about any site you visit with alot of images. Bandwidth isn't free so sites make money from either ads, donations or memberships. Most sites with memberships remove the ads for you so this goal is STUPID. Just use Adblock if you hate them so much
"We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century. To this end, Adbusters Media Foundation publishes Adbusters magazine, operates this website and offers its creative services through PowerShift, our advocacy advertising agency."
- http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters [adbusters.org]
I personally am still weighing the pros and cons of the clickfraud approach, but the comment that your post is FUD is spot-on.
Re:Ad Blocking = Digital Earplugs..... (Score:3, Informative)
There is no "moral wrong" in blocking ads. The problem is far more practical than that.
The web sites you visit cost money to run. Perhaps you pay a subscription to some of the sites you visit. Those sites that you visit, but do not directly give money to, have to find a way to finance themselves.
One such way is through advertising. Experience has proved to companies that exposing people to carefully designed propaganda can influence their spending habits, and thus these companies are willing to pay money to owners of web sites in order to display this advertising to visitors.
If you use AdBlock, you will never click on an ad on a site, and thus never provide any revenue to the site owner to offset his running costs. That is the practical (not moral) problem with running AdBlock.
I run AdBlock, but I would never click an advert anyway, even if I ever saw one. However, this is a mere rationalisation - I am still denying revenue to the owners of the sites that I visit.
I am not being immoral in doing so, since I am under no moral obligation to view these ads. However, if everyone did the same as me, the site owner would receive no revenue whatsoever and (unless some kind benefactor financed the site out of his or her own pocket) the site would be forced to close. This is the heart of the problem.