Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 405 posts

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#381

Post by austincheney »

eridius wrote: post #375
austincheney wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it completely does. You don’t own my computer, software, or it’s settings. In accessing your content I am committing no act of fraud or theft since the user agent string is not a qualified identifier. Are you directly giving it to Google via encrypted tunnel? I am not redefining how any technology works or making any alteration to your distribution or your service. Yet, you are still giving it to me free and…

What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else; that doesn't mean you have permission to do this, that just means you tricked me . Neither leg…

> What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that?

Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. When this is not the case there are two possible outcomes: a defect or missing security.

The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. In this case it isn't even remotely confused with trespassing because you are giving me the prize simply by my asking for it without any regard for who or where I am.

We can invent all kinds of fictions as to why this is right or wrong. More important is whether I am violating security (there is none to violate) or violating technology (clearly I am using HTTP properly). Ultimately this distills down to one question:

If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously?

The answer to that question determines why the use of a technology qualifies the usage behavior.

> Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that.

Why is that not okay?

> You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else

I did no such thing, because you never asked who I was. Would you give your car keys to a complete stranger assuming they are a valet without any consideration as to whether they are who they claim? If in this case the car is stolen what is your expected recourse?

> that doesn't mean you have permission to do this

It is perfectly legal to modify my user agent identifier for any reason at any time. It is my computer, my software, and my settings.

> that just means you tricked me

How could I have tricked you? You never bothered to ask. This is how this technology qualifies its use in this way. You made a faulty assumption and are shifting the blame for that assumption. You can continue to be upset about this, but you will continue to hand me the content that you wish to protect without any legal recourse or restitution.

If this were my business I would abandon this irrational commitment to a failed idea and either secure my financial model or just open it up.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#382

Post by cabalamat »

Angostura wrote: post #351
cabalamat wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. If I send a site an http GET request, and that site responds by giving me some data, then that site has given me implied consent to look at the data. If they don't want me to look at it, they shouldn't have given me it.

I walk into a shop, the shop keeper holds the door open for me. I place an article in my pocket and leave without paying. Presumably, there's implied consent for me to to that? yes?

> I place an article in my pocket and leave without paying.

The analogy would be if the shopkeeper (i.e. web server) picks up an article and puts it in your pocket.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#383

Post by ric2b »

Mirioron wrote: post #312
kjsthree wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ THIS! I don’t see how the situation is in any way more complicated. Real-world analogies can get pretty squirrelly but it would be quite literally like the following. Man standing on the sidewalk outside a store yells into the store at the shopkeeper “hey there, can I have some free fish?” Shopkeeper yells back “sure!” and tosses a fish to the man on the sidewalk. Add more yelling back and forth for TLS handshake.…

Off topic: isn't this how user privacy works too though? People complain about companies like Google and Facebook "stealing their data," but it's their browsers sending out the data. If users don't want Google to have the data then they shouldn't send it to Google.

Yes it is, and that's why several browsers have been working hard to protect user privacy without impacting convenience too much.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#384

Post by lilyball »

austincheney wrote: post #381
eridius wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else; that doesn't mean you have permission to do this, that just means you tricked me . Neither leg…

> What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. When this is not the case there are two possible outcomes: a defect or missing security. The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. This is why, at least in the US, a warnin…

> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology.

No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different.

> The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation.

Nope.

> This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced.

This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. The CFAA does not require any sort of warning in order to determine that a user has overstepped their authority.

This isn't even true in the physical world. Many states require notice that you're trespassing before you're criminally liable, but "many states" does not equal all states. And even in the states where this is true, the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation", it just means you're not criminally liable if you weren't informed that you didn't have permission to be there.

> If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously?

Because you tricked me.

The fact that you fooled me into thinking you're someone else does not give you the legal or moral right to the results. Neither legality nor morality is a game, where if you can just figure out the right loopholes you can get away scot-free. That's not how it works. Not in the real world, and not in computers either. The word that describes what you're doing is "fraud".

Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That's not a moral argument. The ease of tricking me does not in any way affect whether it's ok.

As an analogy, let's say I'm a baker, and to celebrate my dear mother Alice's birthday, I decide to give away a slice of cake today to anybody named Alice that comes into my shop. I'm not a suspicious soul by nature, so if someone walks up and says "Hi I'm Alice" I'm inclined to believe them. I'm not advertising this anywhere, there's no sign saying "If you introduce yourself as Alice you get free cake", it's just something I'm doing. If you hear about this (say, you have a friend named Alice and she tells you about the free cake she got), do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Sure, the damages are pretty small, but you're still lying to get something you know you're not entitled to, with no justification other than you want it.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#385

Post by brokenmachine »

Mirioron wrote: post #312
kjsthree wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ THIS! I don’t see how the situation is in any way more complicated. Real-world analogies can get pretty squirrelly but it would be quite literally like the following. Man standing on the sidewalk outside a store yells into the store at the shopkeeper “hey there, can I have some free fish?” Shopkeeper yells back “sure!” and tosses a fish to the man on the sidewalk. Add more yelling back and forth for TLS handshake.…

Off topic: isn't this how user privacy works too though? People complain about companies like Google and Facebook "stealing their data," but it's their browsers sending out the data. If users don't want Google to have the data then they shouldn't send it to Google.

This could have implications for Google.

Basically this example, if accepted in law, would mean that if you want your data to be private then Google would be expected to respect that, even if you sent them that data in the clear.

It's a ridiculous outcome.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#386

Post by brokenmachine »

DarthTetanus wrote: post #140
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly about "soft" paywalls, allowing you to read maybe a dozen articles per month without paying. There is currently no way I know of allowing this functionality that is meaningfully "reliable". At least not without erecting new barriers such as mandatory registration (and verification). So you, and everyone else, seem to be demanding publishers just switch to "absolute paywalls". You will then have strictl…

Ideally, it would hasten society’s realization that the flow of information should not be subjected to capitalism.

I agree but unfortunately in reality information costs money to discover.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#387

Post by brokenmachine »

_em6m wrote: post #372

Oh my fscking god... the comments in this thread are just... It's like trying to explain to a 5 years old why candys are not free... If it's behind a paywall, it's because the creators want you to pay for the content. It doesn't matter if you can bypass the paywall with a user agent hack or if you must install daemon tools and use 54 different keygens and cracks and patches and firewalls to block ping-home requests.…

>If it's behind a paywall, it's because the creators want you to pay for the content.

Their lack of a viable business model is not my problem.

It reminds me of those windscreen washers at traffic lights. Start washing my car windows without my permission then expect to get paid? GTFO.

If you send data to my browser then I am entitled to read it.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#388

Post by austincheney »

lilyball wrote: post #384
austincheney wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. When this is not the case there are two possible outcomes: a defect or missing security. The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. This is why, at least in the US, a warnin…

> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different. > The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. Nope. > T…

[flagged]

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#389

Post by eridius »

austincheney wrote: post #388
lilyball wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different. > The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. Nope. > T…

[flagged]

> I think you are aware but irrationally refusing to accept that HTTP is public and anonymous by default.

That has literally no bearing whatsoever on the morality of pretending to be someone else in order to get access to IP that you don't have the right to access. This is the second time you're calling me irrational, and it's not acceptable.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#390

Post by austincheney »

eridius wrote: post #389
austincheney wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I think you are aware but irrationally refusing to accept that HTTP is public and anonymous by default. That has literally no bearing whatsoever on the morality of pretending to be someone else in order to get access to IP that you don't have the right to access. This is the second time you're calling me irrational, and it's not acceptable.

I am not pretending to be anybody. I am anonymous. This is how HTTP works. That is why you should either be asking your users who they are or stop pretending to care that it is important.

Rationality - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

I used the word irrational in the context (both times) of commitment. This is an accepted description in behavioral health literature and does not address you as a person. It is also not polite to accuse people of tricky (fraud) when there is no evidence of such.

Post reply on HN