Hacker News Reader

Comment by isbvhodnvemrwvn | Hacker News Reader

Using this logic I can send full fingerprinting data as long as I do it from the front-end?

I mean courts are not that dumb, it's still the website owner which decides what is done.

The website owner decides what's asked to be done. The browser is still owned by the end-user can choose to make the request. This is why ad-blocking is fundamentally required.

I can put “rm -r /user” in my HTML as long as I want. It’s the user’s browser that decides what gets executed. This is a fundamental principle in the architecture of the internet. You cannot make another computer do anything. You can only send messages, and the receiver decides how to act on those.

Going further with this argument would all hacking also be ok?

No because hacking generally circumvents the intended system design. The architecture of the World Wide Web explicitly allows for user discretion in fetching and executing linked content. There's no slippery slope from using a system within design parameters and executing malicious instructions on other people's systems without their permission and/or knowledge.

Good point. There is a distinction to be made. For fraud, we have those distinctions. If I send you an email that looks like an invoice for a service you already ordered, but is really, at closer inspection, an order form, I am still responsible if I planfully designed the email so that the average recipient would be fooled. This also means that if I send that email to grandmas I’ll be held more accountable than if I send it to lawyers. These are all important discussions. The ruling we see here just doesn’t enter such discussions, because the court hasn’t even recognized the problem.

Except you cannot. If you are aware of a vulnerability that triggers the destruction of user's data from the browser just visiting a website, abusing it would be illegal.

>>You cannot make another computer do anything. You can only send messages, and the receiver decides how to act on those.

By that logic malware doesn't exist. That's the wildest west version of the internet that we gladly left behind.

Browser can be configured not to send this data.

If I ask you to jump from the bridge, and you do, how is it my fault that you chose to comply?

So code in frontend would be "asking" in this case, in your opinion? Javascript is executed by default by all major browser deployments.

If you are that caring about your privacy, you absolutely should use a browser that is configured in such a way that it doesn't leak your IP to anyone you didn't consent to.

I'm running systems that I'm modifying to the extent that satisfies me, but that's not the concern here. Right now I'm caring about everyone's default privacy level, not just my own. And in this ideal world, third party sharing is not opt-out.

Yes, definitely. Ad absurdum, browsers could be mandated to have the user opt-in to every single instruction that is executed. It's technically possible, the user has control.

I think it's a slippery slope to imagine/enforce a transfer of agency between the website user and provider, where the latter will try to make the opt-in appear as simple as possible. An ideal opt-in is more than the click of a button, it's an understanding. A button accompanied by a wall of text isn't understanding.

Code in the frontend is absolutely not "asking". I'd bet that most of the users have no idea what's going on in their browsers and devices, and those instruments then, in turn, shouldn't prey on this ignorance. I know that this is not how the world works, but a difference is that we could have control over this one.

The court did not even see this issue, i.e. the distinction between issuing a suggestion or directive vs. actually executing the request directly. The court, in fact, states that the was the website itself that did the sharing. The ruling suffers from unsound reasoning.

It could be, however, that the website owner never brought up these arguments. The court does not have to do its own investigation. This is called the “maxim of disposition” in German law. Whatever both parties agree on what is true has be treated as true by the court.

So if the claim that the website itself issued the request to Google servers was uncontested, then this ruling is sound, based on the claims brought forth by the parties in this particular case.

Depending on the circumstances, telling people to jump from the bridge can be a crime.

Ok, don't jump from a bridge. Take off your clothes, and go to your neighbors, I'm asking you right now. Are you going to comply?

You know that in many countries, encouraging or assisting illegal activity is a crime in itself, right?

UK:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_a_cri... Germany (given we are talking about a German court): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anstiftung_(Deutschland)

Stripping and jumping from a bridge is not illegal activity.

Both are illegal in quite a few places. Stripping may violate public nudity laws.

Jumping off bridges is often illegal, as well. For example, Florida: https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/2020/07/06/bridge-ju...

Yes, that might be a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam#T...

But I didn't identify myself as a policeman. Just a request from some random person on the internet. The person I asked to do it didn't comply, because he knows better what instructions to obey. So should his browser.

Another thing came to mind.

Let's say you know I'm the kind of person to easily give people money. I just got my paycheck, and you knowing this, you ask me to give you the money. I'll give you the money because that's the kind of person I am. But then I'm left with no money for the month, and all of its consequences.

Who do you think would carry the blame in this situation?

A regular user has no idea how these mechanisms work and can't be reasonably expected to do the configuration themselves. Since it's a clearly privacy-hostile behavior to include this code in the first place, the operator of the website should be prosecuted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com