3 ms·
This is a lame false dichotomy. This is such an easy exploit that the developers must have known about it, and consciously decided to ship with a vulnerability
by Johngibb 16y ago
This is a lame false dichotomy.
This is such an easy exploit that the developers must have known about it, and consciously decided to ship with a vulnerability.
As others have suggested, they probably realized that those who break the paywall probably wouldn't have paid anyway.
- Johngibb 16y agoLooks like it was knowingly done: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-technology/some-readers-will-get-around-paywall-ny-times-20110324-1c70j.html http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-technology/some-read...
- donohoe 16y agoYou are right and I apologize. There are any number of ways to get around it. Thats a known, regardless of what you do. Rather than expend time and resources locking this up as much as possible its accepted that X number of people will do whatever they want. What is a little frustrating is people thinking they've totally hacked the NYT subscription model and subverted our cleverly crafted lock-down methods. However, its been stated publicly at several pay grades above me, that is there is an organized concerted effort to work-around the subscription then we have to act on that. Not just in a legal way, but also by developers working to lock-down the site more and more. As I said, I'd rather work on constructive projects instead of that. It is easy for anyone who knows how to View Source to get to the content. I just wish they'd stop thinking they're all l33t and subversive when its just a little sad (to me at least). I think I'd ultimately feel better if I just ignored this stuff.
- MatthewPhillips 16y agoCome on, this has nothing to do with "expending time". It's about SEO. Otherwise they would take the minimal effort to serve a different page to people above the threshold.