7 ms·
Seems absurd to legislate this when there's a simple technical solution. If you don't want to allow "deep links" on a public web site, simply block any request
by profmonocle 11y ago
Seems absurd to legislate this when there's a simple technical solution. If you don't want to allow "deep links" on a public web site, simply block any request where the HTTP referrer isn't from your domain (or from domains whose owners have paid you for linking rights, if you can find anyone inclined to do so.) You could go even further by encoding a base64-encoded expiration date + HMAC into the URL, so that your deep URLs can't be saved at all.
I think doing either of these things is silly - why even run a public web site if you're going to do this? But it's their site, and their right to make bad decisions with it.
If a site owner chooses not to do this, it's safe to assume they intended to allow deep links, since links are a fundamental, well-known feature of the medium they chose to use.
- tokenizerrr 11y agoLots of people block referral headers. Browsers also drop them across HTTPS->HTTP boundaries.
- nacs 11y ago> Lots of people block referral headers Source? I would think most people run stock browsers that don't manipulate referrer headers.
- tokenizerrr 11y agoJust take a look at the amount of times https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn... has been installed. And that's just one extension for one browser.
- nacs 11y ago100K users out of 3B+ internet users [1]? I don't think that qualifies as 'lots of people'. [1]: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/ http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/
- tokenizerrr 11y ago100K users of a single extension for a single browser. I'll leave it to you to get the numbers for all other extensions for all other browsers. And don't forget that uBlock can do this as well.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tempestn 11y agoThey're not as popular as they used to be, but many popular security packages (ie Norton Internet Security I believe) also blank all outgoing referrers.
- profmonocle 11y agoThe expiration date+HMAC is still an option. Plus, the number of users blocking referrer headers is probably small enough that a site owner doing this wouldn't care. And browsers dropping the header from HTTPS -> HTTP isn't an issue if you only want to allow access from your own domain. (If you want to authorize third-party sites that use HTTPS, you'd just have to use HTTPS yourself.)
- Anechoic 11y agoIf a site owner chooses not to do this, it's safe to assume they intended to allow deep links, [..] Or it could mean that the site owner doesn't have the technical expertise to block deep links in the manner you describe. I agree that it's silly to block deep linking but there are people that want to do so and a lot of those people don't know how (other than not publishing those links).
- Natanael_L 11y agoThe correct answer is to hire the expertise to get it done. Can't blame the neighbors for looking at your lawn if setting up a high fence is easy and you chose not to.
- bduerst 11y agoI think the better analogy is you can't be upset at people viewing you nude when you're walking around in public without clothes.
- Natanael_L 11y agoMy own basic point is this: If the behavior that somebody finds to be unwanted is trivial to protect yourself from, then only in very special circumstances it should possible to legally ban it. The easier the defense is, the higher the bar for getting a ban through. (Besides the usual need to prove harm.) Because the law should only get involved when you need a strong third party to get involved for protection, preserving order and to arbitrate.
- bduerst 11y agoLegality aside, it just seems counter intuitive in the first place. If you're putting content on a publicly facing server with web routes open to all (i.e. walking nude in public), you shouldn't be surprised when people look.
- jchendy 11y agoI don't think that's what this is about. It's about linking to content that violates copyright laws, e.g. running a torrent tracker. > The case arose in the Netherlands where the GeenStijl website had provided a link to an Australian site showing pictures of a Dutch celebrity taken by Playboy magazine. The Australian site did not have Playboy's consent to do so.
- justinlardinois 11y ago> If a site owner chooses not to do this, it's safe to assume they intended to allow deep links That's not how the law works, though; you don't have to make it impossible for someone to infringe on your intellectual property for it to have protection. That's not to argue that there is any IP law protection here regardless.