7 ms·

In theory, is this conversation similar to a group of people discussing the easiest way to break into a car?

chwahoo 16y ago
Or maybe more similar, in effect, to getting free pieces of candy from a candy machine :). Of course, there is a contingent that believes there is no similarity between something like this and stealing since nothing physical is taken (but I'm not in that camp).
MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Probably. Although it doesn't seem that NYT is trying to make their wall all that strong. With per month freebies, the exceptions for search engines, the exceptions for social networking and blogs, and having the security for their wall be done in javascript... they probably don't care that people who try hard enough can get at the low hanging fruit.. but then again, you're absolutely right in your assessment.
badhairday 16y ago
You wouldn't steal a car would you?
MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Is using an ad-blocker unethical for the same reason?
- fletchowns 16y ago
  I would say yes, it is. If you like the website, don't cheat them out of some ad revenue. Don't you want them to be able to keep doing what they do?
baddox 16y ago
I don't think so. I consider computer network traffic a lot different from the "unlocked door" analogy of physical property. Sure, you don't have permission to enter someone's home just because their door was unlocked or you found a clever way in. However, when you make a request to a web server and it returns a bunch of text that your browser renders as text/graphics, I think it's perfectly okay to change the way that rendering works.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  Right. This is like someone parking an unlocked car with a blank title and a full tank of gas on your front lawn and leaving it there for a week.
  - baddox 16y ago
    I don't like any analogy involving actual property, because actual physical property has natural scarcity. When you make a web request to the NYT servers, they are willfully distributing a copy of that content to you. Obviously, you're not allowed to do anything you want with the content (like sell or otherwise redistribute it), but I certainly think you can manipulate it and view it any way you want.
- alphaoverlord 16y ago
  But in this case, they are actively trying to "lock" their door. Speaking abstractly, this misalignment of interests has nothing to do with the mechanisms of action. That's like saying the cops can use heat-sensors to look at houses, because thats just electromagnetic signal and you can render it however you want. No invasion of privacy there right?
  - baddox 16y ago
    Cops shouldn't use heat sensors without a warrant solely because of the privacy issue. They can certainly look at your house while passing by, which is also just a function of electromagnetic signals. I would argue that since the NYT is willfully delivering you the content of an article and merely instructing your browser to conceal it, that's a far cry from "trying to 'lock' their door." If someone was distributing their username/password or an authorized cookie, or using a server-side exploit to access content, then I think that would constitute a breach of ethics if not law. Basically, my point is that once the NYT willfully transmits data to your computer, you should be able to manipulate it any way you wish, obviously barring any sort of commercial use or redistribution that violates copyright laws. Anyway, it's not that hard to protect data from certain users and make it available to others. That's a design pattern as old as multi-user computer systems/networks.
nickpinkston 16y ago
It's probably closer to trying to peek at what's behind a fence - that's innocent right?
- mathias 16y ago
  A very fragile fence, in this case.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
zck 16y ago
"Anyone want a calendar?" "Yeah, I'd love one." "Here you go; for your convenience, it's got a speaker to remind you to get an oil change at my garage." "Huh, that's weird, but I'll just remove the battery and I won't hear the message." Once the bits leave the nytimes.com server and travel to my computer, they don't control how I use them. I can't break laws (e.g., republish the words as my own), but if I don't want to see part of the page, that's my prerogative.
- donohoe 16y ago
  Well, then you should really have said: "No thank you. Please keep your calendar" and I would wish you well on your way.
tomjen3 16y ago
Sure but so what? I have discussed the best way to get away with murder with good friends. Not that I would kill anybody, but simply because it is an intellectual challenge.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  > Not that I would kill anybody Made me think of this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865...

Or maybe more similar, in effect, to getting free pieces of candy from a candy machine :). Of course, there is a contingent that believes there is no similarity between something like this and stealing since nothing physical is taken (but I'm not in that camp).

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

Probably. Although it doesn't seem that NYT is trying to make their wall all that strong. With per month freebies, the exceptions for search engines, the exceptions for social networking and blogs, and having the security for their wall be done in javascript... they probably don't care that people who try hard enough can get at the low hanging fruit.. but then again, you're absolutely right in your assessment.

badhairday 16y ago

You wouldn't steal a car would you?

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

Is using an ad-blocker unethical for the same reason?

fletchowns 16y ago
I would say yes, it is. If you like the website, don't cheat them out of some ad revenue. Don't you want them to be able to keep doing what they do?

baddox 16y ago

I don't think so. I consider computer network traffic a lot different from the "unlocked door" analogy of physical property. Sure, you don't have permission to enter someone's home just because their door was unlocked or you found a clever way in. However, when you make a request to a web server and it returns a bunch of text that your browser renders as text/graphics, I think it's perfectly okay to change the way that rendering works.

IgorPartola 16y ago
Right. This is like someone parking an unlocked car with a blank title and a full tank of gas on your front lawn and leaving it there for a week.
- baddox 16y ago
  I don't like any analogy involving actual property, because actual physical property has natural scarcity. When you make a web request to the NYT servers, they are willfully distributing a copy of that content to you. Obviously, you're not allowed to do anything you want with the content (like sell or otherwise redistribute it), but I certainly think you can manipulate it and view it any way you want.
alphaoverlord 16y ago
But in this case, they are actively trying to "lock" their door. Speaking abstractly, this misalignment of interests has nothing to do with the mechanisms of action. That's like saying the cops can use heat-sensors to look at houses, because thats just electromagnetic signal and you can render it however you want. No invasion of privacy there right?
- baddox 16y ago
  Cops shouldn't use heat sensors without a warrant solely because of the privacy issue. They can certainly look at your house while passing by, which is also just a function of electromagnetic signals. I would argue that since the NYT is willfully delivering you the content of an article and merely instructing your browser to conceal it, that's a far cry from "trying to 'lock' their door." If someone was distributing their username/password or an authorized cookie, or using a server-side exploit to access content, then I think that would constitute a breach of ethics if not law. Basically, my point is that once the NYT willfully transmits data to your computer, you should be able to manipulate it any way you wish, obviously barring any sort of commercial use or redistribution that violates copyright laws. Anyway, it's not that hard to protect data from certain users and make it available to others. That's a design pattern as old as multi-user computer systems/networks.

nickpinkston 16y ago

It's probably closer to trying to peek at what's behind a fence - that's innocent right?

mathias 16y ago
A very fragile fence, in this case.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

zck 16y ago

"Anyone want a calendar?" "Yeah, I'd love one." "Here you go; for your convenience, it's got a speaker to remind you to get an oil change at my garage." "Huh, that's weird, but I'll just remove the battery and I won't hear the message." Once the bits leave the nytimes.com server and travel to my computer, they don't control how I use them. I can't break laws (e.g., republish the words as my own), but if I don't want to see part of the page, that's my prerogative.

donohoe 16y ago
Well, then you should really have said: "No thank you. Please keep your calendar" and I would wish you well on your way.

tomjen3 16y ago

Sure but so what? I have discussed the best way to get away with murder with good friends. Not that I would kill anybody, but simply because it is an intellectual challenge.

IgorPartola 16y ago
> Not that I would kill anybody Made me think of this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865...