Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 230 posts

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#71

Post by 201984 »

JDye wrote: post #41
londons_explore wrote: post #9

We need more residential proxies, not less. I've had enough of companies saying "you're connecting from an AWS IP address, therefore you aren't allowed in, or must buy enterprise licensing". Reddit is an example which totally blocks all data to non-residential IP's. I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from, and a robust network of residential proxies is a stepping…

I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children". I had a question about a new piercing and couldn't get info on it from Reddit because of that. I try using a VPN and they're blocked too. Luckily, I work at a copmany selling proxies so I've got free proxies whenever I want, but I shouldn't _need_ to u…

[flagged]

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#72

Post by viraptor »

trollbridge wrote: post #26
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #4

> These efforts to help keep the broader digital ecosystem safe supplement the protections we have to safeguard Android users on certified devices. We ensured Google Play Protect, Android’s built-in security protection, automatically warns users and removes applications known to incorporate IPIDEA SDKs, and blocks any future install attempts. Nice to see Google Play Protect actually serving a purpose for once.

Yeah, it serves the purpose of blocking this kind of proxy traffic that isn't in Google's personal best interests. Only Google is allowed to scrape the web.

Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#73

Post by the_fall »

happyopossum wrote: post #70
bdcravens wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many are "compensated" (in the way of software they didn't pay for), so the real question is that of disclosure (in which case many software vendors check the box in the most minimal way possible by including it as fine print during the install)

No, the question is not just disclosure. People have their bandwidth stolen, and sometimes internet access revoked due to this kind of fraud and misuse - disclosure wouldn’t solve that

Also, as a website owner, these residential proxies are a real pain. Tons and tons of abusive traffic, including people trying to exploit vulnerabilities and patently broken crawlers that send insane numbers of requests, and no real way to block it.

It's just nasty stuff. Intent matters, and if you're selling a service that's used only by the bad guys, you're a bad guy too. This is not some dual-use, maybe-we-should-accept-the-risks deal that you have with Tor.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#74

Post by JDye »

201984 wrote: post #71
JDye wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children". I had a question about a new piercing and couldn't get info on it from Reddit because of that. I try using a VPN and they're blocked too. Luckily, I work at a copmany selling proxies so I've got free proxies whenever I want, but I shouldn't _need_ to u…

[flagged]

Thanks lad. Will get right on it.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#76

Post by idiotsecant »

viraptor wrote: post #72
trollbridge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it serves the purpose of blocking this kind of proxy traffic that isn't in Google's personal best interests. Only Google is allowed to scrape the web.

Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.

I don't think parent post is claiming that Google is using other people's networks to scrape the web only that they have a strong incentive to keep other players from doing that.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#77

Post by 4nonverbal-alit »

viraptor wrote: post #72
trollbridge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it serves the purpose of blocking this kind of proxy traffic that isn't in Google's personal best interests. Only Google is allowed to scrape the web.

Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.

That's the whole point. Websites that try to block scraping attempts will let google scrape without any hurdle because of google's ads and search network. This gives google some advantage over new players because as a new name brand you are hardly going to convince a website to allow scraping even if your product may actually be more advantageous to the website (for example assume you made a search engine that doesn't suck like google, and aggregates links instead of copying content from your website).

Proxies in comparison can allow new players to have some playing chance. That said I doubt any legitimate & ethical business would use proxies.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#78

Post by viraptor »

idiotsecant wrote: post #76
viraptor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.

I don't think parent post is claiming that Google is using other people's networks to scrape the web only that they have a strong incentive to keep other players from doing that.

No, there are other scrapers that Google doesn't block or interact with. You can even run scraping from GCP. This has nothing to do with "only Google is allowed to scrape". They even host apps which exist for scraping data, like https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sociallead...

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#79

Post by yuliyp »

londons_explore wrote: post #9

We need more residential proxies, not less. I've had enough of companies saying "you're connecting from an AWS IP address, therefore you aren't allowed in, or must buy enterprise licensing". Reddit is an example which totally blocks all data to non-residential IP's. I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from, and a robust network of residential proxies is a stepping…

The end game of that is no useful content being accessible without login, or needing some sort of other proof-of-legitimacy.

Re: Disrupting the largest residential proxy network

#80

Post by yuliyp »

hackeman300 wrote: post #18
packetslave wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Try browsing from any Mullvad vpn. You will be "blocked by network security"

... if you're logged out. Log in so they don't have to lump you in with every scraper you're sharing a subnet with.
Post reply on HN