121–130 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally. If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
If you didn't steal anything, what would the charge be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> noindex So, the browser extension indicating (with big red fonts) that this site is noindex could be a simplest solution? For not power users who don't know about any extensions that would be not so easy though. If that function will appear in Chrome enabled by default, that would raise questions about Google motives, obviously.
I think noindex is nice to have but not neccessary for this trick. The only solution is to fix the back-button bug/vulnerability in Chrome.
Honestly, it doesn't shock me in the slightest that someone who markets themselves as an SEO expert would not only do something as unethical as this, but also brag about it, as though they think they've done something they should be proud of.
FWIW, Dan (the author) has an outstanding reputation for professionalism and integrity in the marketing world. If he says he did something for ethical reasons, to those who know him, he's earned the benefit to be believed. (If you don't know him, you'd be forgiven for being suspicious) And credit should be given to him for educating everyone on this exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally. If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
If you didn't steal anything, what would the charge be?
If you only get caught after leaving the premises it is trespassing, since it's apparent you didn't steal. Picking a lock in order to trespass might make the sentence a bit harsher than normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally. If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
If you didn't steal anything, what would the charge be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally. If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
If you didn't steal anything, what would the charge be?
This is really a good example why it is so difficult for security experts to do research and experiments where real users are involved. What Mr. Petrovic did is illegal in most developed countries: copyright violation (copying web pages) and monitoring and storing user behavior without their consent (and, even worse, by phishing). It doesn't matter that he did it for a "very brief period of time (for ethical reasons)…
When you do security work, that's an important part of your job. Sure, in many scenarios like traditional pentesting you can probably do fine within the legal boundaries in most jurisdictions, but as soon as you do serious security research when you actually test your ideas in practice, you're likely to cross the line sooner or later. It's a difference between "it should probably work" and "yes, it worked, I tried it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think noindex is nice to have but not neccessary for this trick. The only solution is to fix the back-button bug/vulnerability in Chrome.
Back button is not the only way to end up at noindex site.
The problem is not to end up at "noindex site" (btw: noindex is not a neccessary part of this scheme). The problem is to end up at "noindex site" thinking that the "noindex site" is a competitor site. And I don't see how such deception is possible without the backbutton-bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think noindex is nice to have but not neccessary for this trick. The only solution is to fix the back-button bug/vulnerability in Chrome.
It doesn’t seem like there is a fix, short of removing the history API.