31–40 of 243 posts
I just tried clicking on "Harper Lee, Author of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ Dies at Age 89" from wsj.com's homepage and got the paywall. I then pasted the headline into google and clicked on it from Google results and did not get hit by the paywall.
And congratulations, you have likely just "exceeded authorized access" and committed a felony violation of the CFAA punishable by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)(i). From the ABA: "Exceeds authorized access is defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to mean "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the…
Who has? Surely not the person who wrote the tutorial.
And by "may", I do mean "may". I don't know. But it's at least possible.
And congratulations, you have likely just "exceeded authorized access" and committed a felony violation of the CFAA punishable by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)(i). From the ABA: "Exceeds authorized access is defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to mean "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the…
Who has? Surely not the person who wrote the tutorial.
Edit: I was mis-remembering, the current law is against possession or manufacture of eavesdropping or wiretapping devices, not hacking tools. The EU has been playing with laws against hacking tools, but apparently nothing in the US yet against it.
The law makes it illegal to distribute devices (incl. software) that the design of such [software] renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Punishable by not more than 5 years and/or not more than $250,000. 18 U.S.C. 2512.
I don't think this blog post qualifies as an "interception" device,... however unauthorized retrieval and recording of another's voice mail messages constitutes an "interception" so who the hell knows. I'm sure you could find a US DA who would argue the falsified User-Agent meant the software is designed to "intercept" communication meant only for Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A App Engine wouldn't have a IP with a reverse DNS *.googlebot.com, would it?
Nope, but it does resolve to something .google and if you check netblocks.google.com it will appear there so they might not be limiting it to googlebot only at this point. https://support.google.com/a/answer/60764?hl=en
Am I alone in feeling like this is akin to a tutorial on how you can shoplift without getting caught? WSJ, for better or worse, does not want to give you content without your paying for it. If you take that content without paying, you are stealing. Just because you have figured out how to get past their security does not mean it's not stealing. (See the second precept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts…
What people choose to do with the information is another story...
Am I alone in feeling like this is akin to a tutorial on how you can shoplift without getting caught? WSJ, for better or worse, does not want to give you content without your paying for it. If you take that content without paying, you are stealing. Just because you have figured out how to get past their security does not mean it's not stealing. (See the second precept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts…
Morally, I'm not sure.
1. If they allowed all bots but disallowed all non-bots, that would raise questions of what defines a "bot". Couldn't I write a personal bot that fetches the story for me? As a browser addon, even?
2. It's even more complex since allowing bots means they allow tools that provide the information to third parties, as the bots are not intended for private use by the bot maker. So the door is already open.
3. But in practice, it seems they favor certain bots. Is it ok that the WSJ lets Google do things Google's competitors cannot? Try to use the "web link" trick from HN on any other search engine, and it doesn't work in my experience. That seems anti-competitive and discriminatory in favor of the existing dominant entity in this space, Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but it does resolve to something .google and if you check netblocks.google.com it will appear there so they might not be limiting it to googlebot only at this point. https://support.google.com/a/answer/60764?hl=en
I don't think that any server that random people can start a proxy on is in Google's SPF record.
I like wsj but I only read maybe 1 article every other day. They need a more reasonable price point, especially since the market will almost bear no price at all. That being said I do enjoy their content, save for maybe the op-eds.
They all seem to want to sell subscriptions, which are perpetual and probably difficult to cancel..
And congratulations, you have likely just "exceeded authorized access" and committed a felony violation of the CFAA punishable by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)(i). From the ABA: "Exceeds authorized access is defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to mean "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the…