4 ms·

DataUnlocker has nothing to do with "consent walls" or cookies, nor does it allow nor enable websites to circumvent laws like GDPR. I'm honestly (understandably

DataUnlocker has nothing to do with "consent walls" or cookies, nor does it allow nor enable websites to circumvent laws like GDPR. I'm honestly (understandably) surprised it's being perceived this way — that's great feedback to improve our communication! Let me put this absolutely clear: DataUnlocker does not change how a website handles privacy or consent. 1. If a website uses a "consent wall", that's the website's decision — not something introduced or enabled by DataUnlocker. 2. If a website properly implements GDPR-compliant consent, no tracking occurs without the user's approval, even when DataUnlocker is in place. So what does DataUnlocker actually do? - It wraps the web app's code in a way that software like blockers can no longer tamper with or disable it — making the site's intended logic (like analytics, post-consent) function reliably. Restoring analytics data lost to blockers is just one (though probably the main) use case for this new approach. Does this explanation help to clarify things better?

azalemeth 1y ago
I know exactly what it does – I just think it is incredibly misguided. Cookie walls and consent banners are not uniformly legal; there are repeated instances of the IAG's "default" option being found to be breaking EU law by many national regulators. I don't want _any_ form of tracking, beyond the inevitable server-side usage logs, of what I do on a website. None. Nil. Nada. I don't consent to GA, Adobe Tags, or anything like that – and I both make that choice explicit by declining tracking and by blocking them at source. By proxying requests for the scripts that I (and google's own extensions for people like me!) explicitly chose to block at an OS level as well as in my browser you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. If I see an obsfucated load of JS as a website, I (and good search engines like Kagi) automatically distrusted that site and I will be far less likely to visit in the future. Give me plain html, make it fast, and make it readable. I realise most people aren't as extreme as perhaps I am, but honestly I suspect a very high percentage of computer-using professionals are -- and we're likely to be a particular market segment that the owners of sites that would be your target audience would wish to court.
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  1. You could the same way blame websites for using Cloudflare to hide the real IP address of their servers, preventing your network-level blocker from doing its job. 2. Open dev tools right now and search for /s.gif – you'll see it collecting extra data from you. It's not blocked by (at least) uBlock. It's not needed to run the website. Surprised? It's okay if you decide to leave Hacker News now, since it collects more data than needed and tricks your ad blocker (because it doesn't use a standard tracking URL). Does that break the law? Absolutely not. At worst, they could just disclose in their Privacy Policy that they track how long you spend reading comments, without any PII, and it's up to you whether or not to use their resource. TL;DR: Even with blockers installed, you can't guarantee websites won't run some custom code or proxy or whatever else to collect data. Tracking can be minimized, but never completely removed. Now, think about mobile apps. How often do you read their source code before using them? Ad blockers can't modify mobile apps. Legally, the same framework applies: the app outlines Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy, says what it collects, and you decide whether to proceed. Same as cookie banners on websites. If a business wants your email or phone number in exchange for services – and makes that clear – that's legal. In this context, DataUnlocker just turns web apps into mobile apps, protecting them from tampering. It's like writing your web app in WebAssembly and canvas, where browser extensions can't Ctrl+R their logic (i.e., can't inspect or block as easily). It's technically feasible to cut ads or tracking from a plain HTML+JS app – but not so with WebAssembly. Historically, the flexibility of web architecture allowed for modification, but some people now demand web apps to be fully tailored to what they want, be free, no ads etc. That's not illegal by any stretch. > you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. It's not you who sets the rules of service usage by installing extensions. The service provider does. If you don't agree with a website's Terms or Privacy Policy – just leave. That's okay. The web is just an instrument. My website could easily state: only Microsoft Edge Mobile users are allowed. If I block all others via JS, I'm not violating laws – I'm enforcing access terms. If you write JS to bypass that, you're the one violating them. At least for now, no country mandates that websites must serve everyone. This is business. Not politics. TL;DR: DataUnlocker is legal as long as (for instance) Google Analytics is legal. Proxies (like Cloudflare) are legal – it's about how you use them, not the fact that you use them. When you install a blocker software you're right, you are so much signaling to the web service that you don't want to be tracked, and at the same time will reject all their ads. But at the end of the day, it's up to a service provider whether to provide you their service. You can use Mastodon instead of X. You can use GIMP instead of Adobe Photoshop. You're free to choose.

azalemeth 1y ago

I know exactly what it does – I just think it is incredibly misguided. Cookie walls and consent banners are not uniformly legal; there are repeated instances of the IAG's "default" option being found to be breaking EU law by many national regulators. I don't want _any_ form of tracking, beyond the inevitable server-side usage logs, of what I do on a website. None. Nil. Nada. I don't consent to GA, Adobe Tags, or anything like that – and I both make that choice explicit by declining tracking and by blocking them at source. By proxying requests for the scripts that I (and google's own extensions for people like me!) explicitly chose to block at an OS level as well as in my browser you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. If I see an obsfucated load of JS as a website, I (and good search engines like Kagi) automatically distrusted that site and I will be far less likely to visit in the future. Give me plain html, make it fast, and make it readable. I realise most people aren't as extreme as perhaps I am, but honestly I suspect a very high percentage of computer-using professionals are -- and we're likely to be a particular market segment that the owners of sites that would be your target audience would wish to court.

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
1. You could the same way blame websites for using Cloudflare to hide the real IP address of their servers, preventing your network-level blocker from doing its job. 2. Open dev tools right now and search for /s.gif – you'll see it collecting extra data from you. It's not blocked by (at least) uBlock. It's not needed to run the website. Surprised? It's okay if you decide to leave Hacker News now, since it collects more data than needed and tricks your ad blocker (because it doesn't use a standard tracking URL). Does that break the law? Absolutely not. At worst, they could just disclose in their Privacy Policy that they track how long you spend reading comments, without any PII, and it's up to you whether or not to use their resource. TL;DR: Even with blockers installed, you can't guarantee websites won't run some custom code or proxy or whatever else to collect data. Tracking can be minimized, but never completely removed. Now, think about mobile apps. How often do you read their source code before using them? Ad blockers can't modify mobile apps. Legally, the same framework applies: the app outlines Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy, says what it collects, and you decide whether to proceed. Same as cookie banners on websites. If a business wants your email or phone number in exchange for services – and makes that clear – that's legal. In this context, DataUnlocker just turns web apps into mobile apps, protecting them from tampering. It's like writing your web app in WebAssembly and canvas, where browser extensions can't Ctrl+R their logic (i.e., can't inspect or block as easily). It's technically feasible to cut ads or tracking from a plain HTML+JS app – but not so with WebAssembly. Historically, the flexibility of web architecture allowed for modification, but some people now demand web apps to be fully tailored to what they want, be free, no ads etc. That's not illegal by any stretch. > you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. It's not you who sets the rules of service usage by installing extensions. The service provider does. If you don't agree with a website's Terms or Privacy Policy – just leave. That's okay. The web is just an instrument. My website could easily state: only Microsoft Edge Mobile users are allowed. If I block all others via JS, I'm not violating laws – I'm enforcing access terms. If you write JS to bypass that, you're the one violating them. At least for now, no country mandates that websites must serve everyone. This is business. Not politics. TL;DR: DataUnlocker is legal as long as (for instance) Google Analytics is legal. Proxies (like Cloudflare) are legal – it's about how you use them, not the fact that you use them. When you install a blocker software you're right, you are so much signaling to the web service that you don't want to be tracked, and at the same time will reject all their ads. But at the end of the day, it's up to a service provider whether to provide you their service. You can use Mastodon instead of X. You can use GIMP instead of Adobe Photoshop. You're free to choose.