With a technical workaround. The thing is, when does improving browser compatibility count as hacking? Most major websites "hacked" IE with a fake P3P header. This is not that different.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8048306/what-is-the-most...

http://alexanderhiggins.com/google-fined-22-5m-for-hacking-s...

I see it this way; in the US, if a content publisher chooses to apply DRM, this provides them additional legal protections - whether the DRM is broken or not. Even if stripping DRM is "click Next" simple, it's still illegal.

Here, we're applying similar benefit to the consumer. The consumer has expressed they do not wish to be tracked. The application of a loophole does not make it okay.

Is it a little over-reaching? Possibly. But it's about time things were over-reaching in the consumer's benefit, rather than the corporations'.

By your definition here a buffer overflow exploit is a "technical workaround". >.>

I remember commenting long long ago about how the fake P3P header thing will get people in trouble one day. Not sure that one has happened yet though.