3 ms·
Are you serious? Basic browser/device detection to suggest a suitable ad blocker is not really the same as the tracking carried out by big ad networks. I don't
by k1m 11y ago
Are you serious? Basic browser/device detection to suggest a suitable ad blocker is not really the same as the tracking carried out by big ad networks. I don't see the similarity to be honest.
- a_imho 11y agoI'm very serious [1]. It is not at all basic for me. I can't find the discussion from a couple of days earlier, but afair it basically said wsj let the google crawler indexing their articles, while simultaneously blocking users by detecting their device. http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-now.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-r...
- Coding_Cat 11y agoThat blog, to me, only shows the problems of selective enforcement I fail to see how it is relevant? Regarding the WSJ: it's a technologically unsophisticated (but probably effective) way of having indexing work with a pay-wall (which requires more tracking in and of itself anyway). But selective access does not violate your privacy, only your freedom to view their content. And as much as I oppose the "companies are people too" movement I do think they have a right to selectively serve their content as much as you have a right to decide what you want to do with the bytes they (try) to send you (e.g. adblock them).
- a_imho 11y agoNot a lawyer, and not even a native speaker, my interpretation might be false. I take away there is a very fine line what is authorized access and it can be bent depending what size of a fish you are. And if I violate CFAA when accessing systems someone not cared to secure (not that I do), they sure as well when running scripts in my browser that track me or try to detect my system. I think it derails the conversation, but do you have the right to pretend to be the google crawler then?