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

Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

themarkup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#41

Post by 0goel0 »

kube-system wrote: post #24
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

So you're saying we can't change the law?

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#42

Post by aspaviento »

BonoboIO wrote: post #16

This is just like a highscore game ... 33 Trackers | 60 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=edition.cnn.com 32 Trackers | 53 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=wsj.com The newspaper business is digging it's own grave. "This website could be monitoring your keystrokes and mouse clicks."

35 Trackers | 92 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=publico.es

Absolutely insane.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#43

Post by Semaphor »

fxtentacle wrote: post #35
_jal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not make it theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is legally distinct. It is also morally distinct - the 'owner' of the 'intellectual property' is not deprived of their ownership if someone violates the transactional model by looking without permission. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is interference with a business model. Please stop saying obviously incorrect things.

While I agree with you, public opinion probably does not agree with you. And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. I've added a link to one such propaganda video to my original comment.

I’m not sure public opinion doesn’t agree. I mean I could believe it, but I wouldn’t take it as a given.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#44

Post by 0goel0 »

BonoboIO wrote: post #16

This is just like a highscore game ... 33 Trackers | 60 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=edition.cnn.com 32 Trackers | 53 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=wsj.com The newspaper business is digging it's own grave. "This website could be monitoring your keystrokes and mouse clicks."

Do you pay for your news then I assume?

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#45

Post by _jal »

fxtentacle wrote: post #35
_jal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not make it theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is legally distinct. It is also morally distinct - the 'owner' of the 'intellectual property' is not deprived of their ownership if someone violates the transactional model by looking without permission. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is interference with a business model. Please stop saying obviously incorrect things.

While I agree with you, public opinion probably does not agree with you. And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. I've added a link to one such propaganda video to my original comment.

If you agree, why are you repeating it?

> And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft.

Do you echo every pressure group's rhetoric?

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#46

Post by geerlingguy »

Sephr wrote: post #39
mywacaday wrote: post #34

Does anyone know of a way to quantify the cost of ad-trackers in terms of cpu/memory/bandwidth/battery? How much more responsive would websites be without all the trackers? How much longer would we keep our phones if they didn't struggle under the weight of all this tracking? How much less data center capacity would be required? How much more bandwidth would be available?

You can quantify the impact of ad trackers on system resources by measuring the difference in a site's resource utilization with and without an ad blocker.

Just counting Google Analytics, it added between 200-500ms total load time on my own website. I dropped it for Fathom, which dropped that to about 70ms. A log-based system would drop the overhead to 0, but Fathom is more convenient for me.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#47

Post by kube-system »

0goel0 wrote: post #41
kube-system wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

So you're saying we can't change the law?

We can certainly make new one (or potentially modify consumer protection law) to protect privacy. There's no part of copyright law that makes sense to change that would do the thing GP is asking for. It is an entirely different concept.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#48

Post by markbnine »

mhaberl wrote: post #18
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

> If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying What value would that be? Fun? If it is a bad movie and I have no fun what value did I extract from it then? > everyone agrees that this is theft Oh, how I wish I could download a car

Be patient. . . there's people working on that.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#50

Post by woadwarrior01 »

kube-system wrote: post #24
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

I understand that bare facts cannot be copyrighted but IMO, a better test in this case is to ask whether the information has any monetary value? Because once it is under the posession of the data brokers, it's aggregated and traded like chattel.
Post reply on HN