If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 per person" or "for registered guests only", would you ignore it?
The point is that the context matters: both the users context and the context of the restriction. It’s not as clear cut as “ignoring restrictions = bad”.
The restriction itself can be unethical, in the same way that bypassing a restriction can be unethical.
The reality is a lot of interesting, trivially harmful to non harmful things are illegal and we still do them anyways.
orf's law: > As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison with Rosa Parks approaches one."
Seems reasonable to me. Substitute Rosa parks with another example of unethical restrictions if you wish - there are many.
I propose a new law myself: as an online discussion gets longer, the probability of someone trying to defeat an argument by stating that it mentioned Rosa Parks or Hitler without engaging with the substance of that argument approaches one.
The rules aren't always right and sometimes have unintended consequences. I think a bigger issue than Browser Use is all of the copyrighted material in every LLM. Given that precedent has been set with zero legal consequences, I'm not sure there's much of a leg for you to stand on here.
I'd still consider why the restriction is there and why I'm thinking of breaking it, before deciding if it's unethical or not.
It depends, basically. Generally I follow the rules and restrictions, but maybe see them more as guidelines or suggestions.
There are many valid ethical exceptions for evading anti-bot detections. For example: you are a white hat actor scraping a black hat site. There are hundreds of other plausible examples.
