Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonkostempski | Hacker News Reader

"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site."

No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.

View on HN

...you consider private websites to be public areas?

If I can get to it without passing through a gate (login) then yes, it is a public area. Content creators should put up a wall and gate (require someone to pay money to view the content) if they want their content to not be public.

Does a "check this box to agree to the terms" constitute a wall?

That would be an explicit agreement to a contract and there are still a large number of restrictions as to what a TOS can require from you.

> That would be an explicit agreement to a contract

Indeed it would. That's what i'm talking about.

> there are still a large number of restrictions as to what a TOS can require from you

Yep, there certainly are. And I don't believe the issue of "disable your adblocker" has yet been specifically adjudicated. But it seems like an eminently reasonable request to me.

If it is publicly accessible, it is not a private website. If someone hands me a free newspaper and I cut out the ads before reading it, is that also stealing?

Privately owned doesn't mean it's not publicly accessible. If they want selective entry, they need to put a bouncer at the door, not expect me to close my eyes, let them jam ad blasting headphones in my ears, while they riffle through my pockets for any personal information they might find valuable just for the privilege of viewing what is, more often than not, just another thinly disguised ad.

is browsing an open s3 bucket hacking?

Of course not, but that's a non-sequitur. A privately owned store has a public entrance, but we also are happy to accept the right of the store owner to charge admission or kick out people who cause trouble. Entering the store is not burglary, but staying there against the wishes of the owner is trespassing.

No one is preventing you from refusing to service a GET request.

Sure, but they haven't expressed any wishes at all.

If a site blocks me because I have an adblocker, I happily leave.

But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.

> But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.

Do you apply this moral principle in other areas? If your friend leaves their wallet at your house, do you consider the money in it to be yours?

A site does not send content to you by accident. Literally the very job of a web server is to evaluate whether or not you met the conditions entitling you to content. A HTTP 200 response literally means "here, you can have it".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com