full-disclosure - Re: Unreal: a movement to block Firefox

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:33:35 -0700
From: blah <blah@...kogre.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Unreal: a movement to block Firefox

I'm mystified by this whole "theft" concept.

If a commercial comes on my TV, and I leave the room... am I stealing?  If I
turn the TV off for 30 seconds... am I stealing?

If I block the ad on my PC -- *my pc*, not anywhere upstream... how is that
stealing.  how is that different.

I remain unconvinced.  The people blocking the ads are not going to be
purchasing services/items through those ads.

On 9/11/07, Juergen Fiedler <juergen@...dlerfamily.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:58:24AM -0400, mbs wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I happen to pay for my internet
> > access. If I choose not to waste my bandwidth (and my time) with
> > unwanted content, I would suggest that is my right.
>
> This is not going to be a very popular opinion, but I submit that the
> only honest way to exercise this right is to stay away from sites that
> serve content that you don't want to see.
>
> The 'I pay for my Internet access, so all content should be free'
> argument makes as much sense as, say, claiming that because you pay for
> your cable TV, all pay-per-view shows ought to be free of charge.
> What you pay for is the delivery of the content, not the content
> itself; web site owners don't see a dime of what you pay to your ISP.
>
> By serving ads on a site, the owner implicitly demands viewing them as
> a form of payment for the content they provide. While I think that
> blocking all Firefox users from a site makes very litle sense, I can
> entirely disagree with the conclusion that blocking ads from ad
> supported sites is uncomfortably close to theft.
>
> Just my two cents...
> -Juergen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFG5uiGvKOJTPSBKa0RAmDtAKCRuzXc5jt1eLQAwdQU1dL7l/Dg3QCgvtwE
> qwuhSGmP48D+1IpyrsyCehY=
> =3xkx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/