4 ms·

I use outline.com to get past these attempts to block the EU: https://outline.com/BF9AaC https://outline.com/BF9AaC It almost always works. As does archive.is

I use outline.com to get past these attempts to block the EU: https://outline.com/BF9AaC https://outline.com/BF9AaC It almost always works. As does archive.is, if you want to see more of the page's original layout.

cabaalis 8y ago
I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block based upon it? Because if so, it totally validates their decision to not spend resources on it.
- alangpierce 8y ago
  Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
  - EvilTerran 8y ago
    Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.
scarejunba 8y ago
Isn't this copyright violation? Or do the websites have a deal with the site?
- EvilTerran 8y ago
  > Isn't this copyright violation? Eh... maybe? I mean, you could achieve the same end result with a proxy/VPN and your browser's reader mode - to do it that way wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? I feel like, in principle, Outline should be treated the same. But on the other hand, the fact that they're transforming the page server-side, and caching it there, may push it over the line in the eyes of the law. IANAL, I don't really know. To be honest, copyright law is such a tangled mess, I don't really give it much thought. Outline does the job, and if anyone's going to get into trouble it'll be them not me, so I'm happy enough.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Right. It's definitely them violating copyright since they're distributing. Imagine if I just copied all your blog posts and put it on a different site with my advertisements on it. That's copyright infringement too. This is no different. They will probably be auto-DMCA'd soon.

cabaalis 8y ago

I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block based upon it? Because if so, it totally validates their decision to not spend resources on it.

alangpierce 8y ago
Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
- EvilTerran 8y ago
  Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.

scarejunba 8y ago

Isn't this copyright violation? Or do the websites have a deal with the site?

EvilTerran 8y ago
> Isn't this copyright violation? Eh... maybe? I mean, you could achieve the same end result with a proxy/VPN and your browser's reader mode - to do it that way wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? I feel like, in principle, Outline should be treated the same. But on the other hand, the fact that they're transforming the page server-side, and caching it there, may push it over the line in the eyes of the law. IANAL, I don't really know. To be honest, copyright law is such a tangled mess, I don't really give it much thought. Outline does the job, and if anyone's going to get into trouble it'll be them not me, so I'm happy enough.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Right. It's definitely them violating copyright since they're distributing. Imagine if I just copied all your blog posts and put it on a different site with my advertisements on it. That's copyright infringement too. This is no different. They will probably be auto-DMCA'd soon.