I wouldn't consider what we do evasion really. We are using real tokens that you have received from your browser as a result of browsing the web. Any good anti-bot will have enforcement for abuses of that token.
But as mentioned by another reader, that would almost certainly violate the ToS of the web property subject to the automation. It's almost indistinguishable from session hijacking as far as that property is concerned. And it certainly isn't intended usage.
Indeed, it would likely be classed as a violation according to your own ToS.
It's a delicate matter as we all deploy personal automations that break ToS without us really giving it a second thought. But as a commercial endeavour, it feels brazen, I'm sorry to say.
According to the Ofcom regulation checker [1] (linked to by The Register article), the Online Safety Act does not apply to this content.
Here's the most pertinent section (emphasis mine):
> Your online service will be exempt if... Users can only interact with content generated by your business/the provider of the online service. Such interactions include: comments, likes/dislikes, ratings/reviews of your content including using emojis or symbols. For example, this exemption would cover online services where the only content users can upload or share is comments on media articles you have published...
is this legal advice you are offering, as someone practicing law in the uk? because you are all over this thread stating your opinion very confidently.
(conveniently, there is no risk to yourself if you happen to be wrong or misinformed.)
No, I'm not offering legal advice, and neither am I stating an opinion. I'm simply quoting Ofcom, the regulatory body responsible for overseeing this law.
A valid point, and maybe I should have phrased it differently. I've deleted the comment which used the word "misinformed", so as not to cause any confusion.
My point is simply that the Ofcom quote clearly states that user comments on an article are not subject to the Online Safety Act. I assume this is a fact, as it's from the horse's mouth.
Some people appear to be basing their opinions on the assumption that the OSA does apply to such comments (hence my use of the offending word).
>Please note: The outcome of this checker is indicative only and does not constitute legal advice. It is for you to assess your services and/or seek independent specialist advice to determine whether your service (or the relevant parts of it) are subject to the regulations and understand how to comply with the relevant duties under the Act.
I mean even the site itself says it really shouldn't be used for legal advice...
On top of that, none of this matters until said law is settled under a case. Most often it's the first judge and the set of appeals after that point that define how the law is actually implemented. Everything before that is bluster and potential risk.
Pricing per seat makes little sense for a component library. It forces every party involved in building an application to acquire a license, not just a designer who might otherwise have been hired once to provide the assets. Seat-based pricing suits tools people daily drive (Figma, Slack), whereas asset libraries are better priced by what you ship with them.
A more natural unit for pricing would be per domain, application, environment, or similar.
That said, I'm aware several UI frameworks have moved toward seat-based licensing recently, so it must be working for them in some sense.
Take a deep breath and try again. You'll get more of a constructive argument with the person you're responding to were you to engage with intellectual honesty.
An entity must follow the law of each jurisdiction it conducts business. This is not a novel concept. If an entity wishes to process data of citizens of a particular country, then they must follow the laws and regulations of said country, in those instances.
The entire point of this is that the jurisdictional argument is unclear. As abhorrent as Clearview's business is, businesses should only be subject to the jurisdictions they actually reside in or have employees in or otherwise have a legal nexus in. Otherwise, you end up in a world in which someone says "because citizens of country X can remotely access your website, you are subject to the laws of X", for every single X in the world.
If a country wants to control what its citizens access it can put up its own firewall and deal with the backlash from its own citizens. Let's not help move towards per-country internets.
It is a false statement to claim that they are supporting Nazis.
Did you take exception to the company prior to this controversy? After all, they use manufacturing plants in a country which blends far right and far left political ideas concepts quite openly.
It’s time we start ignoring the lunacy from the fringes of society. Nothing good comes from indulging the psychopathic lust for control on display from these types of people.
I'm referring to the far right ramblings of DHH supporting political figures who are associated solely with violence and intolerance.
I'm referring to the far left activists who have developed a habit of coercing individuals, organizations and communities, sometimes with threats of physical escalation, for perceived connections to other political fringes.
I'm referring to those using language along the lines of "they have hitler particles in them".
I'm referring to tech journalists who do nothing except whine about left wing politics, however benign.
It's mind melting.
---
Edit: To add colour to the final reference, the same journalist who attacked Framework for issuing Pride stickers is now coming to their defence. It's predictable, it's unproductive, and it should be filtered by anyone who values their time.
> In a post on X on Monday morning, Mr Zelensky said: “In the fourth year of the full-scale war, Russia continues to obtain components for producing weapons... “During the massive combined strike on Ukraine on the night of October 5, Russia used 549 weapon systems containing 102,785 foreign-made components — from companies in the United States, China and Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Netherlands.”
The editorialized focus on British parts being found is being highlighted over other countries for some peculiar reason. For fun, have a read though the numerous printings of this story, each vying for the most evocative sub-headline.
I don't think evocative sub-headlines without providing context can be considered highlighting any particular aspect of the story in a useful or meaningful way.
The international outlets have done far better at communicating this story.
This is true. They are problematic also. Especially Putin, which I believe we are partially responsible for also. The desire for better governments is not snobbery. Especially from the US and China, because they suck big time right now and they are the most influencial globally.
If a web property has implemented anti-bot mechanisms, what ethical reasons do you have for providing evasion as a service?
reply