←back to thread

Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent

(twitter.com)
323 points plusCubed | 9 comments | 21 Dec 18 17:48 UTC | HN request time: 2.125s | source | bottom
Show context
callinyouin ◴[21 Dec 18 19:55 UTC] No.18736064[source]▶
Brendan Eich's defense of this scheme [0] seems a bit weak to me. Do you really think the solution is to make creators opt out? What in the world makes you think it's okay to represent people who have not asked for your assistance and take donations on their behalf? Why is it their responsibility to ask you nicely not to use their name to solicit donations?

[0] https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680

replies(3): >>18736212 #>>18738433 #>>18739563 #
1. jonny_eh ◴[21 Dec 18 20:13 UTC] No.18736212[source]▶
This must be against some kind of law, I'm not sure which though.
replies(5): >>18736368 #>>18736516 #>>18736815 #>>18736960 #>>18737941 #
2. cyphar ◴[21 Dec 18 20:33 UTC] No.18736368[source]▶
You could argue it's charity fraud, though the "intended" target isn't being represented as a charity they are being given donations (so "charity donation fraud", I guess). But it's likely some flavour of fraud.
3. dictum ◴[21 Dec 18 20:48 UTC] No.18736516[source]▶
IA-definitely-NAL, but I can't see a way that opt-out can be legal here.

Maybe the legal defense applies the same logic of consent in third-party tracking (third-party provides the service in behalf of the first-party, to whose terms you agreed by using its service. Even that may clash with laws like GDPR):

Brave, third-party, is providing a service to the first-party – the browser's user – who contracted it as a way to provide a best-attempt donation for the creator.

(If it's not obvious, I'm not privy to the details AND US federal and states' law)

The only legal way I can see to do what Brave currently does is to spam the hell out of creators (ah, growth hacking) when someone attempts a donation, but only take the money after the creator signs up.

replies(1): >>18739133 #
4. pyb ◴[21 Dec 18 21:28 UTC] No.18736815[source]▶
Not at lawyer, but using a third party's persona to collect money (for whatever purpose) sounds like a blatant breach of personality rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
replies(1): >>18736953 #
5. lalaithion ◴[21 Dec 18 21:44 UTC] No.18736953[source]▶
At the very least it should be a violation of trademark law.

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

6. thekyle ◴[21 Dec 18 21:45 UTC] No.18736960[source]▶
Maybe, a few years back I had the idea to create a service identical to what Brave offers today (except based on the traditional banking system, not cryptocurrency) however I stopped after reviewing the money transmitter laws in the United States and determining that they were not compatible with this business model.

It's possible that Brave has found some sort of loophole that allows them to do this, but I haven't verified that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_transmitter

replies(1): >>18737647 #
7. jacques_chester ◴[21 Dec 18 23:27 UTC] No.18737647[source]▶
I have also had this idea (I think everyone who thinks about the problem space for > 30 minutes stumbles on the basic business model).

Expanding your point: banks haaaaate this kind of business model. They see it as a fertile breeding ground for chargebacks, which are very expensive to them.

8. jacquesm ◴[22 Dec 18 00:13 UTC] No.18737941[source]▶
Identity fraud is against the law. Soliciting donations on behalf of an individual without that individuals consent is fraud.
9. erikpukinskis ◴[22 Dec 18 05:37 UTC] No.18739133[source]▶
Well, how about this...

I'll send you $20, if you agree to try to get $15 to the XKCD guy somehow.

If you accept this deal, have you broken the law?