4 ms·

Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. I usually just F12 and remove the offending element

by dusted 7y ago

Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. I usually just F12 and remove the offending elements or their styling, so that I can read the article. There's only two reasons that's possible: Either the developer hated that they block information, and left a way through for people, or they're incompetent. I like to assume the best in people and believe the former to be the case.

KarlKemp 7y ago
It’s probably closer to price discrimination: they are obviously happy for people to read what they publish even without paying, as long as it’s only people who would not pay otherwise. Publishers aim for a barrier that is just high enough so that people with less time and more money would rather pay than circumvent them. It’s the exact same mechanism as supermarkets using coupons to grant people with lower financial means the opportunity to shop with them, knowing that their regular customers would die of embarrassment if their neighbors saw them clipping coupons.
hamandcheese 7y ago
> Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. If you use a news website (say the NYT) without plugins like the one linked, it’s blatantly obvious that this statement is not true. So, if you go out of your way to conceal who you are, or to masquerade as someone/something else (i.e. google bot), in order to trick a web server in to sending you bytes that you know they wouldn’t otherwise send you, don’t be surprised if some people accuse you of stealing.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  The description says "referer set to Google", meaning it's just disguising you as someone who clicked on a Google search result. This begs the question if altering your browser's User-Agent is theft since some sites actually alter their prices depending on which browser or OS you use it on. Like, if a Mac/Safari user is expected to pay $99, but your Windows/Chrome User-Agent gets you a $89 deal, are you stealing $10?
- salawat 7y ago
  You aren't "tricking" a web server. This is how the web works by design. Cookies were the kludge, and no, telling me I should maintain state to make your attempts at financialization easier does not give you a moral high ground, especially when you're assuming my hardware is there for your use. That was, and never should be the case, and I will fight to the pain against anyone that asserts otherwise. My computer is not your developer's playground. I already suffer through enduring Ads when I don't feel like spreading my personal info to the 4 winds. One should be happy to get that much. Those living in glass houses are best advised to refrain from casting stones and all.
- chimprich 7y ago
  The website is sending out text for searching on though, making it look as if it is available for reading freely, and then withholding it once you start reading it. In some cases they let you start reading it then swipe it away once you are invested in the article, which seems dishonest. I don't know about the legal aspect, but morally I am fine with bypassing restrictions under those circumstances. I don't have a problem with paywalls provided the companies involved are completely up-front about it (e.g. putting their entire site behind a paywall, or offering some articles for free searching/reading and others only behind the paywall). That seems much better ethically, and also impossible to bypass. I'm quite happy paying a subscription to the Guardian for news despite (or because of) the fact that none of their news is behind a paywall.
ryanlol 7y ago
Clearly, if the websites didn’t want you to download their customer db, they’d not let you inject SQL queries!
- tareqak 7y ago
  Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of the server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a problem? That’s how a user uses any accessibility feature (dark mode, screen reader mode, magnification/zoom, etc).
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    >Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of the server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a problem? Why not? It’s pretty clear that you’re knowingly doing this in order to exceed authorized access. Why is this different from exploiting a vulnerability? Accessibility features are not intended to defeat access controls.
    - tareqak 7y ago
      If that’s the case, then browsers allowing people to view and manipulate the source of a web page (both initial download and XHR requests) are aiding in that process. If the ask is to walk back decades of being able to do exactly this sort of local manipulation of received data, then this form of the Internet would be like cable or satellite television with permitted forms of interactivity. Why bring content to the Internet if there is desire to change the rules and norms of how the Internet works? Why not roll a separate version of the Internet with those desired rules? Yes, laws exist to protect copyright, prevent theft, and forbid illegal access, but those laws are insufficiently aware of how the Internet operates with respect to things like client-server communication. In fact, the design of the Internet predates many (if not all) of these laws, and the specifications of how the Internet works are a de facto law expressing how clients and servers interact with one another. Should lawmakers give requirements to the W3C to specify desired and undesired operations on the Internet? I genuinely ask these questions in good faith: they are simply follow-on thoughts of mine from taking your point as a premise. If my ideas seems extreme or exaggerated, then that’s simply where my mind goes first as opposed to necessarily being criticism.

by dusted 7y ago

KarlKemp 7y ago

It’s probably closer to price discrimination: they are obviously happy for people to read what they publish even without paying, as long as it’s only people who would not pay otherwise. Publishers aim for a barrier that is just high enough so that people with less time and more money would rather pay than circumvent them. It’s the exact same mechanism as supermarkets using coupons to grant people with lower financial means the opportunity to shop with them, knowing that their regular customers would die of embarrassment if their neighbors saw them clipping coupons.

hamandcheese 7y ago

> Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. If you use a news website (say the NYT) without plugins like the one linked, it’s blatantly obvious that this statement is not true. So, if you go out of your way to conceal who you are, or to masquerade as someone/something else (i.e. google bot), in order to trick a web server in to sending you bytes that you know they wouldn’t otherwise send you, don’t be surprised if some people accuse you of stealing.

Hamuko 7y ago
The description says "referer set to Google", meaning it's just disguising you as someone who clicked on a Google search result. This begs the question if altering your browser's User-Agent is theft since some sites actually alter their prices depending on which browser or OS you use it on. Like, if a Mac/Safari user is expected to pay $99, but your Windows/Chrome User-Agent gets you a $89 deal, are you stealing $10?
salawat 7y ago
You aren't "tricking" a web server. This is how the web works by design. Cookies were the kludge, and no, telling me I should maintain state to make your attempts at financialization easier does not give you a moral high ground, especially when you're assuming my hardware is there for your use. That was, and never should be the case, and I will fight to the pain against anyone that asserts otherwise. My computer is not your developer's playground. I already suffer through enduring Ads when I don't feel like spreading my personal info to the 4 winds. One should be happy to get that much. Those living in glass houses are best advised to refrain from casting stones and all.
chimprich 7y ago
The website is sending out text for searching on though, making it look as if it is available for reading freely, and then withholding it once you start reading it. In some cases they let you start reading it then swipe it away once you are invested in the article, which seems dishonest. I don't know about the legal aspect, but morally I am fine with bypassing restrictions under those circumstances. I don't have a problem with paywalls provided the companies involved are completely up-front about it (e.g. putting their entire site behind a paywall, or offering some articles for free searching/reading and others only behind the paywall). That seems much better ethically, and also impossible to bypass. I'm quite happy paying a subscription to the Guardian for news despite (or because of) the fact that none of their news is behind a paywall.

ryanlol 7y ago

Clearly, if the websites didn’t want you to download their customer db, they’d not let you inject SQL queries!

tareqak 7y ago
Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of the server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a problem? That’s how a user uses any accessibility feature (dark mode, screen reader mode, magnification/zoom, etc).
- ryanlol 7y ago
  >Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of the server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a problem? Why not? It’s pretty clear that you’re knowingly doing this in order to exceed authorized access. Why is this different from exploiting a vulnerability? Accessibility features are not intended to defeat access controls.
  - tareqak 7y ago
    If that’s the case, then browsers allowing people to view and manipulate the source of a web page (both initial download and XHR requests) are aiding in that process. If the ask is to walk back decades of being able to do exactly this sort of local manipulation of received data, then this form of the Internet would be like cable or satellite television with permitted forms of interactivity. Why bring content to the Internet if there is desire to change the rules and norms of how the Internet works? Why not roll a separate version of the Internet with those desired rules? Yes, laws exist to protect copyright, prevent theft, and forbid illegal access, but those laws are insufficiently aware of how the Internet operates with respect to things like client-server communication. In fact, the design of the Internet predates many (if not all) of these laws, and the specifications of how the Internet works are a de facto law expressing how clients and servers interact with one another. Should lawmakers give requirements to the W3C to specify desired and undesired operations on the Internet? I genuinely ask these questions in good faith: they are simply follow-on thoughts of mine from taking your point as a premise. If my ideas seems extreme or exaggerated, then that’s simply where my mind goes first as opposed to necessarily being criticism.