> The CFAA angle would be that participation in ads/tacking was part of the contract for accessing the 'free' service, that by blocking ads or sending false info the user is using a false credential to access the service.
I'm horrified whenever I see people having this perception of the issue, and worried that it'll get accepted by the legal system as the correct view.
From my POV, the only contract that exists between me and a random ad-loaded website is the one negotiated between my computer and their server - that is, the HTTP protocol, which clearly stipulates that I can render any reply you send me in whatever way I like. This contract provides many tools for expressing the intent of gating content behind some requirements (like payment, or receiving different content first), but the common rule is: you don't send the content you're gating before the client proves they've met the requirements.
And honestly, I'd consider mixing ads into content to be borderline CFAA (the ads themselves being abusive and often fraudlent, and sometimes malware) - and sending software intending to compromise my user agent (like trackers, or ad-blocking busters) to be crossing the CFAA line. Unfortunately, I don't think the lawyers would agree with me :(.
Are you horrified when a movie theatre doesn't want people sneaking in their own food and drink? Some consider that trespass in that you have broken the contract you agreed to when buying the ticket. They can call the cops and have you arrested for accessing the theatre in contravention of the rule. I could see an equivalent for websites that adopt a "no ad blocking" rule.
If you are asked to leave and do not leave I can see you possibly being arrested for trespassing, but I fail to see what you would be arrested for by bringing in food from outside the theatre. Sure, they could ban you from coming back to property (and this could lead to trespassing arrests, if you did return) but thats about it.
I'd expect such websites to communicate it, though, and do the minimum of work to prevent me from entering with ad blocker on. I'm fine with paywalls, and even "disable your ad blocker" walls - they're up-front, and in agreement with spirit of the HTTP protocol.
Much like cinemas. If I try to bring in food I didn't bought at the cinema store, I will be stopped at ticket check and refused entry. Also, the cinema doesn't require me to buy food as a condition for watching the movie. If they did, I'd consider it the price of entry.
What current ad-loaded websites are doing is the equivalent of letting you in to watch a movie, and then having someone come to you as you're watching, and poke you and yell at you because you didn't buy anything at the store.
> They can call the cops and have you arrested for accessing the theatre in contravention of the rule.
I've never heard of a cinema calling cops on people who snuck in food into the theatre. Is that US-specific?
It only happens when people are discovered, begin arguing, are told to leave, and don't. It's mostly drunk people who have brought alcohol into a movie. Cops remove them as trespassers who refused to leave after being told to.
I'm horrified whenever I see people having this perception of the issue, and worried that it'll get accepted by the legal system as the correct view.
From my POV, the only contract that exists between me and a random ad-loaded website is the one negotiated between my computer and their server - that is, the HTTP protocol, which clearly stipulates that I can render any reply you send me in whatever way I like. This contract provides many tools for expressing the intent of gating content behind some requirements (like payment, or receiving different content first), but the common rule is: you don't send the content you're gating before the client proves they've met the requirements.
And honestly, I'd consider mixing ads into content to be borderline CFAA (the ads themselves being abusive and often fraudlent, and sometimes malware) - and sending software intending to compromise my user agent (like trackers, or ad-blocking busters) to be crossing the CFAA line. Unfortunately, I don't think the lawyers would agree with me :(.