4 ms·

> In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. That's just plain wrong. There's nothing

> In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. That's just plain wrong. There's nothing special about technology that means you get to throw all your existing moral principles out the window. The ability to technically do something does not confer you the right do it, either legally or morally. Maybe if I draw an analogy to patents it might make sense? It seems most people in technology agree that taking something unpatentable and adding "do it on a computer" shouldn't make it patentable. Morality is no different. Taking something immoral, like taking someone else's intellectual property without paying for it, and saying "but do it on a computer" doesn't suddenly make it moral. Taking someone else's IP isn't immoral because you're depriving them of the paper it's printed on (that part is just petty theft), it's immoral because you're depriving them of the right to control the distribution of their IP and the right to get compensated for the work they did in exchange for giving you the right to use the IP.

austincheney 8y ago
Which moral principle is in violation? You are serving content and then complaining about people reading it. If you are so interested in protecting your IP then why are you giving it to me anonymously? In no way have I altered your means of distribution.
- eridius 8y ago
  If I choose to serve my IP to Google in full for free, that doesn't mean I'm choosing to serve it to everybody in full for free. Just because you can trick me into thinking you're Google doesn't give you the moral or the legal right to my content.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Actually it completely does. You don’t own my computer, software, or it’s settings. In accessing your content I am committing no act of fraud or theft since the user agent string is not a qualified identifier. Are you directly giving it to Google via encrypted tunnel? I am not redefining how any technology works or making any alteration to your distribution or your service. Yet, you are still giving it to me free and anonymous. Some people think taxes are immoral, but that doesn’t give them the right or ability to redefine the tax code. HTTP is not immoral. The real issue here is you are lost and confused because you don’t know how to secure your product. Your negligence in accounting for your business, financial model, and IP is not my lack of morality. Fix your technology.
    - eridius 8y ago
      What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else; that doesn't mean you have permission to do this, that just means you tricked me. Neither legality nor socially-accepted morality recognizes that successfully tricking someone confers the right to the results of the trickery. In fact, both are pretty explicit about how this is wrong.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        > What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. When this is not the case there are two possible outcomes: a defect or missing security. The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. In this case it isn't even remotely confused with trespassing because you are giving me the prize simply by my asking for it without any regard for who or where I am. We can invent all kinds of fictions as to why this is right or wrong. More important is whether I am violating security (there is none to violate) or violating technology (clearly I am using HTTP properly). Ultimately this distills down to one question: If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously? The answer to that question determines why the use of a technology qualifies the usage behavior. > Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. Why is that not okay? > You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else I did no such thing, because you never asked who I was. Would you give your car keys to a complete stranger assuming they are a valet without any consideration as to whether they are who they claim? If in this case the car is stolen what is your expected recourse? > that doesn't mean you have permission to do this It is perfectly legal to modify my user agent identifier for any reason at any time. It is my computer, my software, and my settings. > that just means you tricked me How could I have tricked you? You never bothered to ask. This is how this technology qualifies its use in this way. You made a faulty assumption and are shifting the blame for that assumption. You can continue to be upset about this, but you will continue to hand me the content that you wish to protect without any legal recourse or restitution. If this were my business I would abandon this irrational commitment to a failed idea and either secure my financial model or just open it up.

austincheney 8y ago

Which moral principle is in violation? You are serving content and then complaining about people reading it. If you are so interested in protecting your IP then why are you giving it to me anonymously? In no way have I altered your means of distribution.

eridius 8y ago
If I choose to serve my IP to Google in full for free, that doesn't mean I'm choosing to serve it to everybody in full for free. Just because you can trick me into thinking you're Google doesn't give you the moral or the legal right to my content.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Actually it completely does. You don’t own my computer, software, or it’s settings. In accessing your content I am committing no act of fraud or theft since the user agent string is not a qualified identifier. Are you directly giving it to Google via encrypted tunnel? I am not redefining how any technology works or making any alteration to your distribution or your service. Yet, you are still giving it to me free and anonymous. Some people think taxes are immoral, but that doesn’t give them the right or ability to redefine the tax code. HTTP is not immoral. The real issue here is you are lost and confused because you don’t know how to secure your product. Your negligence in accounting for your business, financial model, and IP is not my lack of morality. Fix your technology.
  - eridius 8y ago
    What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else; that doesn't mean you have permission to do this, that just means you tricked me. Neither legality nor socially-accepted morality recognizes that successfully tricking someone confers the right to the results of the trickery. In fact, both are pretty explicit about how this is wrong.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      > What makes you think that the technical ability to do something confers either the legal or moral right to do that? Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. When this is not the case there are two possible outcomes: a defect or missing security. The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. In this case it isn't even remotely confused with trespassing because you are giving me the prize simply by my asking for it without any regard for who or where I am. We can invent all kinds of fictions as to why this is right or wrong. More important is whether I am violating security (there is none to violate) or violating technology (clearly I am using HTTP properly). Ultimately this distills down to one question: If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously? The answer to that question determines why the use of a technology qualifies the usage behavior. > Just because it's technically possible for you to trick me into thinking you're Google does not mean it's ok for you to do that. Why is that not okay? > You tricked me into giving you something I thought I was giving to someone else I did no such thing, because you never asked who I was. Would you give your car keys to a complete stranger assuming they are a valet without any consideration as to whether they are who they claim? If in this case the car is stolen what is your expected recourse? > that doesn't mean you have permission to do this It is perfectly legal to modify my user agent identifier for any reason at any time. It is my computer, my software, and my settings. > that just means you tricked me How could I have tricked you? You never bothered to ask. This is how this technology qualifies its use in this way. You made a faulty assumption and are shifting the blame for that assumption. You can continue to be upset about this, but you will continue to hand me the content that you wish to protect without any legal recourse or restitution. If this were my business I would abandon this irrational commitment to a failed idea and either secure my financial model or just open it up.