>I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare.
That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.
It advances the conversation because it refutes the argument that "It's not the users fault" brought up a few comments ago, by using the balaclavas in bank analogy.
In short, just answering this question (which as stated in the other comment is not the issue), yes that person has t done anything wrong. There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.
But banks aren't mandated to admit you either. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean a private establishment has to let you in. When it comes to denying entry, banks are relatively tame. Some establishments go beyond that, by denying entry unless you wear formal clothing, or presenting proof of identity.
>No one said that the user gets unlimited leeway. And we're not talking about that. But you can strawman as much as you like.
Then why are you refusing to address the fact that the OP seemingly went out of his way to seem suspicious, by using a "heavily customized Firefox config on Linux"? There might be legitimate reasons for doing that, and it's not illegal to customize your browser, but those factors are true for wearing balaclavas as well. Why don't you think cloudflare is justified in refusing service to the OP, given that whatever he's doing is probably in the top 0.1% of suspiciousness?
You seem to be confusing suspiciousness with using software set up the way you want it set up. There is no fact about the OP going out their way to be suspicious.
The *fact* you and cloudflare seem to think using software set up the way the OP wants is suspicious is the actual issue.
No idea why you seem to be obsessed with balaclavas but the analogy doesn't work, and is simply there to try and make your strawman argument look less like one.
The implicit assumption of you final question is that the OP is in some way acting suspiciously, they are not. They are using their browser set up how they like, and are doing NOTHING wrong. I'll refer you back to my previous point: The *fact* you and cloudflare seem to think using software set up the way the OP wants is suspicious is the actual issue.
Please look up what a strawman is. Disagreeing what counts as "suspicious" is a disagreement, not a strawman.
>You seem to be confusing suspiciousness with using software set up the way you want it set up. There is no fact about the OP going out their way to be suspicious.
By that logic would you say that wearing a balaclava in a bank isn't suspicious either, because it's "wearing clothes you want to wear"?
> The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition and the subsequent refutation of that false argument, instead of the opponent's proposition
You're not addressing the actual issue but instead replacing it with your twisted take, and then refuting it. In case you missed it you're attempting to make the OPs behaviour out as suspicious. And then having made it suspicious stating the cloudflare is well within their rights because the OP is acting suspiciously. Strawman. And your broken analogy involving a balaclava (now in a bank) feeds into this false narrative.
The OPs use of their software set up how they like is not equivalent to the OP entering a bank in a balaclava.
Cloudflares behaviour is the equivalent of some sort of secret police setting up a roadblock and refusing to let you pass unless you are dressed in a certain way, whilst also stripping you naked and grabbing all you bio data to boot.
>You're not addressing the actual issue but instead replacing it with your twisted take, and then refuting it. In case you missed it you're attempting to make the OPs behaviour out as suspicious. And then having made it suspicious stating the cloudflare is well within their rights because the OP is acting suspiciously. Strawman. And your broken analogy involving a balaclava (now in a bank) feeds into this false narrative.
"not addressing the actual issue but instead replacing it with your [...] take" is literally how analogies are supposed to work. If you disagree with it, you have to point out why it's not applicable. Over the last few comments you have failed to do this.
>The OPs use of their software set up how they like is not equivalent to the OP entering a bank in a balaclava.
Why?
>Cloudflares behaviour is the equivalent of some sort of secret police setting up a roadblock and refusing to let you pass unless you are dressed in a certain way, whilst also stripping you naked and grabbing all you bio data to boot.
I can't tell whether you're not self-aware, or are purposely engaging in bad analogies as some sort of way to get back at me for my balaclava in bank analogy.
Regardless, comparing browser fingerprints to "stripping you naked and grabbing all you bio data to boot" is a stretch. On a theoretical level, your device fingerprint isn't tied to your body, and can be changed, unlike actual fingerprints. You can have multiple devices. Devices can be shared. You can change around settings to yield different fingerprints. At a practical level, most people care far more about being "naked" and "bio data" than people knowing that they're using an iPhone 15 Pro (or whatever), which realistically is what fingerprinting amounts to. Moreover, "setting up a roadblock" is only objectionable because it's interfering with your ability to travel freely. If I want to go to a concert, and a gang sets up a road block on the interstate, my ability to go to the concert is being being impeded by a third party. However, cloudflare isn't a third party. They're contracted as the security vendor by the website you're trying to visit. Therefore, it's less like "secret police setting up a roadblock" and more close to a bouncer not letting you in because he doesn't like the look of you. Since the site is basically private property, private property owners are free to choose who to admit onto their premises, and the site owner has delegated that authority to cloudflare, cloudflare is free to reject you entry for whatever reason, just like a bouncer is free to reject you entry for whatever reason.
You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please don't do this, regardless of how provocative other comments are or you feel they are. It just feeds a downward spiral.
I see no point in engaging with you further. You repeatedly attempt to sidetrack the conversation by changing the subject and providing various strawman arguments and bad faith statements. You have nothing valid to add or offer, as proven by you most recent replies. You can continue your disingenuous nonsense if you like but your points are moot since you are simply addressing your own off topic analogies. I'm done feeding the troll. Or corporate shill?
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread, crossing into swipes and personal attacks. We have to ban accounts that post like this. Fortunately I don't see other cases of this in a quick runthrough of the account's posting history, so this should be easy to fix. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.