[_factor]

In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written.

If you send me an unsolicited mailer with a microchip that tracks my eyes and face as I read it, you’ve already pushed too far. To then claim my using a robot to read it for me is fraud ignores the invasion of privacy you’ve already instituted without my express consent (digital ads are this).

It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.

[gruez]

>In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written.

At best that gets you off the hook of fraud charges, but not tort claims, which are civil, and don't require intent.

>It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.

There's no concept of "self-defense" when it comes to fraud, or torts.

[jniles]

I am super curious how far this goes. If, hypothetically, I wore some sort of glasses that kept facial recognition from identifying and tracking me at my local grocery store, would that constitute a civil infringement in the future?

What about extensions that skip embedded ads in a YouTube video? Is that tortuous interference with the view counter that creators use to market their reach?