[xythian]

That was my first ever exposure to programming. I installed as many of those crap ad bars as I could on a backup computer and wrote a macro that would open Internet Explorer, browse thru the same 10 sites in a loop, close IE, repeat.

This setup provided enough income to cover the costs of my dedicated phone line and ISP access.

[verelo]

Not that i have not done many questionable things like this when i was a kid, but at what point is it an admission of fraud that can get one in trouble?

[GSimon]

When the incentive to prosecute (i.e opportunity for resources gained vs opportunity for resources lost) reaches a certain thresh-hold there's action. Generally, that thresh-hold is high because the value gained from prosecution is low, even in cases were one party is quite apparently guilty.

The only real exception would be the "let's make an example of out this person" case. When crime is rampant, prosecutions might happen with greater likelyhood in order to deter more crime for occuring. An example would be pirating music. It is not feasible to prosecute people for pirating music, but suing 1 party publicly will get 1000s of people to stop instantly.

[mirimir]

In this case, the add-click businesses engaged in fraud. So was it fraud to trick them?

[dllthomas]

... yes? "My target is also guilty" is not a defense against fraud...

[mirimir]

I get that. At least, if you're both contributing to fraud against advertisers.

But what about if tricking ad fraudsters avoided defrauding advertisers?

[beedogs]

The point is somewhere well beyond a fifteen-year-old anecdote told anonymously in a public forum.

[jasonmp85]

Certain companies deserve it?