4 ms·

What? You are going to add a lock to your door that is going to - break your door by making it dependent on a key - use a easily reversible locking mechan

by anatari 14y ago

What? You are going to add a lock to your door that is going to - break your door by making it dependent on a key - use a easily reversible locking mechanism - slow the time it takes to enter your home You do realize that any locksmith can open your lock in less than a minute? Closing your door already gives you most of the benefits. Only half kidding, but I get tired of people dismissing clever tricks because it's not fool proof. Stealing is usually a function of reward/effort.

Bjartr 14y ago
> Stealing is usually a function of reward/effort. Except that for digital media it's a Smart Cow Problem[1], the effort is only there for the first person who wants to circumvent it, then it becomes trivial for everyone. However, I'd suggest that the reason some on HN react strongly to these suggestions is that they rely upon security through obscurity, which can be dangerous by providing a false sense of security when none exists. While this probably isn't as big a deal when it comes to your HTML and CSS, security is a case of err'ing on the side of caution. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_cow_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_cow_problem
- anatari 14y ago
  Yes, I agree. However, I don't think website designs have as much of a smart cow problem as say pop music, so your "DRM" is more likely to succeed its goal.
anglebracket 14y ago
If minification and obfuscation were the only things being done, then your analogy would be sound, but tricks like this also have the effect of degrading the experience for legitimate users with javascript disabled. Adding a dependency on javascript for static content doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
ricardobeat 14y ago
A better analogy would be wrapping plastic tape with "no trespassing" written on it around your front door, or greasing your door handle. It's the opposite of being fool-proof: having near zero utility while degrading the experience for everyone.

by anatari 14y ago

Bjartr 14y ago

> Stealing is usually a function of reward/effort. Except that for digital media it's a Smart Cow Problem[1], the effort is only there for the first person who wants to circumvent it, then it becomes trivial for everyone. However, I'd suggest that the reason some on HN react strongly to these suggestions is that they rely upon security through obscurity, which can be dangerous by providing a false sense of security when none exists. While this probably isn't as big a deal when it comes to your HTML and CSS, security is a case of err'ing on the side of caution. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_cow_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_cow_problem

anatari 14y ago
Yes, I agree. However, I don't think website designs have as much of a smart cow problem as say pop music, so your "DRM" is more likely to succeed its goal.

anglebracket 14y ago

If minification and obfuscation were the only things being done, then your analogy would be sound, but tricks like this also have the effect of degrading the experience for legitimate users with javascript disabled. Adding a dependency on javascript for static content doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

ricardobeat 14y ago

A better analogy would be wrapping plastic tape with "no trespassing" written on it around your front door, or greasing your door handle. It's the opposite of being fool-proof: having near zero utility while degrading the experience for everyone.