5 ms·

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 y

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.
- eridius 8y ago
  > Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different. > The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. Nope. > This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. The CFAA does not require any sort of warning in order to determine that a user has overstepped their authority. This isn't even true in the physical world. Many states require notice that you're trespassing before you're criminally liable, but "many states" does not equal all states. And even in the states where this is true, the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation", it just means you're not criminally liable if you weren't informed that you didn't have permission to be there. > If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously? Because you tricked me. The fact that you fooled me into thinking you're someone else does not give you the legal or moral right to the results. Neither legality nor morality is a game, where if you can just figure out the right loopholes you can get away scot-free. That's not how it works. Not in the real world, and not in computers either. The word that describes what you're doing is "fraud". Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That's not a moral argument. The ease of tricking me does not in any way affect whether it's ok. As an analogy, let's say I'm a baker, and to celebrate my dear mother Alice's birthday, I decide to give away a slice of cake today to anybody named Alice that comes into my shop. I'm not a suspicious soul by nature, so if someone walks up and says "Hi I'm Alice" I'm inclined to believe them. I'm not advertising this anywhere, there's no sign saying "If you introduce yourself as Alice you get free cake", it's just something I'm doing. If you hear about this (say, you have a friend named Alice and she tells you about the free cake she got), do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Sure, the damages are pretty small, but you're still lying to get something you know you're not entitled to, with no justification other than you want it.
  - austincheney 8y ago

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.

eridius 8y ago
> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different. > The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. Nope. > This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. The CFAA does not require any sort of warning in order to determine that a user has overstepped their authority. This isn't even true in the physical world. Many states require notice that you're trespassing before you're criminally liable, but "many states" does not equal all states. And even in the states where this is true, the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation", it just means you're not criminally liable if you weren't informed that you didn't have permission to be there. > If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously? Because you tricked me. The fact that you fooled me into thinking you're someone else does not give you the legal or moral right to the results. Neither legality nor morality is a game, where if you can just figure out the right loopholes you can get away scot-free. That's not how it works. Not in the real world, and not in computers either. The word that describes what you're doing is "fraud". Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That's not a moral argument. The ease of tricking me does not in any way affect whether it's ok. As an analogy, let's say I'm a baker, and to celebrate my dear mother Alice's birthday, I decide to give away a slice of cake today to anybody named Alice that comes into my shop. I'm not a suspicious soul by nature, so if someone walks up and says "Hi I'm Alice" I'm inclined to believe them. I'm not advertising this anywhere, there's no sign saying "If you introduce yourself as Alice you get free cake", it's just something I'm doing. If you hear about this (say, you have a friend named Alice and she tells you about the free cake she got), do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Sure, the damages are pretty small, but you're still lying to get something you know you're not entitled to, with no justification other than you want it.
- austincheney 8y ago