FCF has been around, though perhaps not well known, for years. I agree that this is practically begging for a simple Firefox StealThisWebPage plugin, which is why I helped kill the suggestion to implement FCF at my old job. Google Search quickly turns up some blogs on which folks have released one-line Javascript "bookmarklets" for accessing Wall Street Journal, and suggestions for using an existing privacy-focused Firefox plugin to take advantage of FCF.
I don't know if it's possible to truly secure this (especially with Google's insisting that there be no per-individual limit on FCF access). Chances are that the reader knows the "title" of the restricted content. Clearly the reader knows the site's URL. All the reader has to do, as eddie said, is search Google for that title with a "site:" phrase. It doesn't matter what fancy-pants crypto, Web Services, etc. Google might build for FCF -- hacking around FCF will always be fairly easy to do. So the value proposition of FCF is inversely proportional to the cost & difficulty of paying for the restricted content. WSJ wants $103 for an annual subscription, so naturally people will try to abuse that more than if they only asked for $10 per year, or were actually willing to sell a seven-day pass for $1.99.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق