4 ms·

This is why I usually use just lynx.

masswerk 9y ago
I may be wrong, but isn't connecting to a web server by lynx illegal (considered "hacking") in some countries? I remember a case in the UK around the time of the London olympic games.
- holmb 9y ago
  It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Consider the difference carrying a knife, being a hunter, and carrying a knife being a bankrobber and going into a bank to use it.
  - brockers 9y ago
    Oh it most certainly can... it SHOULDN'T but it absolutely can.
    - holmb 9y ago
      Perhaps the knife was a bit exagerated. It will be considered a weapon in many jurisdictions. Lynx however will/should hardly be considered a hacking tool. curl has been in deep waters many times, equally perplexing as the lynx scenario. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/01/19/subject-urgent-warning/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/01/19/subject-urgent-warnin...
  - masswerk 9y ago
    Compare Linux Reviews, "Solaris-user arrested by British Police for using Lynx" -- http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/01/28_0001/28_0001.html.en http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/01/28_0001/28_0001.html.en
    - holmb 9y ago
      That is scary indeed. Was he convicted? Police do make mistakes and one can only hope that they are corrected.
      - masswerk 9y ago
        I faintly recall reading (to my utter astonishment) that he was at least not freed from the accusation as you would have expected. I tried a search for any follow-ups, but to no avail. Maybe due to the "right to forget." (Information conveyed without warranty, liability or claim of correctness. It has been 12 years since, I may be in error.)
        gsnedders 9y ago
        He might have never been charged, and being released without charge is rarely reported.
  - JadeNB 9y ago
    > It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Since illegality is, literally, whatever is contrary to the law, anything at all can be illegal. We can hope that crazy things won't be illegal, and decry their illegality—but, since it's convenient for a government to impose sufficiently many laws that anyone can have some infraction pinned on him or her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo), to say that any particular thing can't be illegal is probably wishful thinking.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  I'm not familiar with that case, but I don't think an accusation that using a text mode browser like Lynx constitutes "hacking" would stand up to any type of scrutiny. (I'm not a lawyer and I'm in the US; things may differ in the UK). Lawyers will make the most egregious leaps and grasps to paint the opposing party in the worst light possible, especially in the early stages of the case, because if they don't claim that Lynx is a "hacker's tool" in the initial pleadings, then it may be looked upon with suspicion if they try to raise that point later. So they are essentially trying to reserve as many potentially beneficial claims as they can at once, including (and especially) any claim that may portend that the other party is a devious scoundrel with the worst possible intentions. Lawyers will thus front-load with every kind of tenuous, ridiculous accusation they can (without presenting a significant risk to the licensing), expecting some of it to get "laughed out of court", just so that on the off chance that it doesn't, it will help their case. I'm sure a real lawyer would contest that to some extent, and I'm sure there is slightly more nuance to it than that, but that is my layman's assessment and I think it is roughly accurate. The takeaway is not to take legal pleadings too seriously, because the goal is not to find justice per se. It is for your side to win, to get what it wants, under the assumption that that automatically represents justice.
  - masswerk 9y ago
    Please note that this wasn't related to some lawyer actions, but the Metropolitan Police's Computer Crime Unit acting on the basis of suspected offence under the Computer Misuse Act. The offensive act occurred while the browser was used for making a donation at a tsunami related website of the Disasters and Emergency Committee, where the browser showed up as an "unusual event" in the access logs. I believe, the case is part of a more general theme (which is, indeed, related to the EME topic): There's a perceptible will to regulate any kind of browsing into consumer-style app usage. E.g., manually entering a URL ("URL hacking") has been considered a fraud attempt; using a browser which only supports the basic protocol set and not all of it is considered as possibly related to intrusion and terrorism (oh, that T-word again). In the end, we may wake up with the law enforcing a certain, standardized life style. We may wake up with a deregulated companies and strictly regulated citizens.
- daemin 9y ago
  I'd hypothesise that anyone skilled enough to be using a text browser is also skilled enough to be a "hacker" and will most likely have a computer filled with "hacking tools" and other "circumvention devices". Basically anyone that can use a text based browser also is using some form of *nix and knows how to handle a command line application. They probably tinker with computers and so have many low level tools at their disposal.
cjsuk 9y ago
I would but hardly anything works in it which is the problem.

I may be wrong, but isn't connecting to a web server by lynx illegal (considered "hacking") in some countries? I remember a case in the UK around the time of the London olympic games.

holmb 9y ago
It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Consider the difference carrying a knife, being a hunter, and carrying a knife being a bankrobber and going into a bank to use it.
- brockers 9y ago
  Oh it most certainly can... it SHOULDN'T but it absolutely can.
  - holmb 9y ago
    Perhaps the knife was a bit exagerated. It will be considered a weapon in many jurisdictions. Lynx however will/should hardly be considered a hacking tool. curl has been in deep waters many times, equally perplexing as the lynx scenario. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/01/19/subject-urgent-warning/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/01/19/subject-urgent-warnin...
- masswerk 9y ago
  Compare Linux Reviews, "Solaris-user arrested by British Police for using Lynx" -- http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/01/28_0001/28_0001.html.en http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/01/28_0001/28_0001.html.en
  - holmb 9y ago
    That is scary indeed. Was he convicted? Police do make mistakes and one can only hope that they are corrected.
    - masswerk 9y ago
      I faintly recall reading (to my utter astonishment) that he was at least not freed from the accusation as you would have expected. I tried a search for any follow-ups, but to no avail. Maybe due to the "right to forget." (Information conveyed without warranty, liability or claim of correctness. It has been 12 years since, I may be in error.)
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        He might have never been charged, and being released without charge is rarely reported.
- JadeNB 9y ago
  > It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Since illegality is, literally, whatever is contrary to the law, anything at all can be illegal. We can hope that crazy things won't be illegal, and decry their illegality—but, since it's convenient for a government to impose sufficiently many laws that anyone can have some infraction pinned on him or her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo), to say that any particular thing can't be illegal is probably wishful thinking.
cookiecaper 9y ago
I'm not familiar with that case, but I don't think an accusation that using a text mode browser like Lynx constitutes "hacking" would stand up to any type of scrutiny. (I'm not a lawyer and I'm in the US; things may differ in the UK). Lawyers will make the most egregious leaps and grasps to paint the opposing party in the worst light possible, especially in the early stages of the case, because if they don't claim that Lynx is a "hacker's tool" in the initial pleadings, then it may be looked upon with suspicion if they try to raise that point later. So they are essentially trying to reserve as many potentially beneficial claims as they can at once, including (and especially) any claim that may portend that the other party is a devious scoundrel with the worst possible intentions. Lawyers will thus front-load with every kind of tenuous, ridiculous accusation they can (without presenting a significant risk to the licensing), expecting some of it to get "laughed out of court", just so that on the off chance that it doesn't, it will help their case. I'm sure a real lawyer would contest that to some extent, and I'm sure there is slightly more nuance to it than that, but that is my layman's assessment and I think it is roughly accurate. The takeaway is not to take legal pleadings too seriously, because the goal is not to find justice per se. It is for your side to win, to get what it wants, under the assumption that that automatically represents justice.
- masswerk 9y ago
  Please note that this wasn't related to some lawyer actions, but the Metropolitan Police's Computer Crime Unit acting on the basis of suspected offence under the Computer Misuse Act. The offensive act occurred while the browser was used for making a donation at a tsunami related website of the Disasters and Emergency Committee, where the browser showed up as an "unusual event" in the access logs. I believe, the case is part of a more general theme (which is, indeed, related to the EME topic): There's a perceptible will to regulate any kind of browsing into consumer-style app usage. E.g., manually entering a URL ("URL hacking") has been considered a fraud attempt; using a browser which only supports the basic protocol set and not all of it is considered as possibly related to intrusion and terrorism (oh, that T-word again). In the end, we may wake up with the law enforcing a certain, standardized life style. We may wake up with a deregulated companies and strictly regulated citizens.
daemin 9y ago
I'd hypothesise that anyone skilled enough to be using a text browser is also skilled enough to be a "hacker" and will most likely have a computer filled with "hacking tools" and other "circumvention devices". Basically anyone that can use a text based browser also is using some form of *nix and knows how to handle a command line application. They probably tinker with computers and so have many low level tools at their disposal.

cjsuk 9y ago

I would but hardly anything works in it which is the problem.