Was Rosa Parks unethical for sitting down on a bus?

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.

> Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions

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.

Look at what Google's doing right now with Chrome. On June 30 Chrome will remove the last flag that let uBlock keep working, and there's no workaround. Google says it's about security and performance, but is it? $239 billion in ad revenue last year seems to be the motivational factor. The "restriction" is a rule written by the company that profits when you can't block its ads, dressed up as protecting you. But... CISA recommends ad blockers as a defense against malware spread through ad networks.

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.

There are many ethical reasons to bypass restrictions. Colloquially, we just call them exceptions.

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.

You're confusing law with ethics, they are not the same.