So writing software to allow someone to cause a server to return the string "Set-Cookie: " with the wrong unique ID after it is "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" now.
I don't like people that try to scam affiliates out of their money, but I also don't like the precedent that this sets. How long until the author of an open-source web server is liable for the child-porn someone serves with it?
Probably as soon as someone creates a web server especially for child porn, with a list of features designed expressly to help child porn traffickers, and marketed as the best child porn server out there.
I'm not thrilled about this either, but this guy didn't write this software for any other purpose or market it for any other purpose.
Probably as soon as someone creates a web server especially for child porn, with a list of features designed expressly to help child porn traffickers, and marketed as the best child porn server out there.
Interesting... especially since I consider paying for advertising "per click" fraudulent as well. In what other form of advertising do you get the brand recognition, message delivery, word of mouth, and all of the ancillary bits of advertising that actually makes it work completely for free? No other method. Because content producers and advertising companies in every single other medium understand how advertising works, and understand that only paying when the ad results in a direct IMMEDIATE sell amounts to them defrauding the content providers. I can get my message seen by thousands of users and only pay for a tiny little fraction of that? I can certainly see how that would be an ethical challenge for a company, wanting to get 90%+ of an advertisements benefit without paying for it, but it's pretty clearly unethical to rip people off in such a way.
Call me if you see a magazine, TV, or radio ad that was carried for free and agreed to only accept a payment when a customer shows up and specifically mentions the exact ad that inspired them to make the purchase.
The other recent cookie stuffing case was last April when three people, including the owner of the massive Digital Point forums, were charged with defrauding eBay as well:
This seems like a good bust. If an affiliate contracts to advertise for compensation, and they finagle payment without advertising, that's plain fraud. The guy who helps them do it has aided and abetted.
I don't like people that try to scam affiliates out of their money, but I also don't like the precedent that this sets. How long until the author of an open-source web server is liable for the child-porn someone serves with it?