6 ms·
While this is obviously great for privacy proponents - I still can't understand how, legally, Google must acknowledge and adhere to browser settings. Does this
by Navarr 12y ago
While this is obviously great for privacy proponents - I still can't understand how, legally, Google must acknowledge and adhere to browser settings.
Does this set precedent for that?
- talmand 12y agoI suppose one way to approach that is to say that the fact they are placing a file or some data on your computer without permission through a workaround to bypass your chosen security settings really is breaching the security of your computer. Which I'm sure is illegal in most jurisdictions of the world.
- gress 12y agoThey knowingly bypassed a security policy set by the user. That's classed as computer misuse in many jurisdictions.
- gress 12y agoSeriously - how is this downvoted by anyone other than a zealot? I am merely explaining how it could be considered a legal issue in some places. Not passing judgement on whether it should be.
- luxpir 12y agoAgreed with your point. Don't understand the downvotes either, but I think the general consensus at HN is to not complain about downvotes. Might be wrong, but it won't help your case if so. Still, your point stands.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoTo not adhere to the user's wishes (in this case, through browser settings) is malicious behavior.
- Navarr 12y agoSo then if I write code that works around an ad-blocker, am I being malicious? I'm not sure those two are actually equivalent, but it feels like it in this case - in which case this would be pretty bad precedent.