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

LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 549 posts

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#521

Post by inigyou »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #139
Dylan16807 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the very least, consumer connections explicitly disallow "Commercial Use". And that's really bad! Far more than reselling, you should very much be able to run a website from home!

> And that's really bad! No, it’s fair, and probably federally regulated. You wanna run a business? Then get a business license, pay your business taxes, and sign up for a business Internet connection. That’s what they’re made for. Then run your servers to your heart’s content.

You literally want to turn the USA into China? Because that's what they have in China! It's even enforced by a layer 4 firewall on every connection.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#522

Post by inigyou »

oasisbob wrote: post #48
cognitiveinline wrote: post #4

Sharing a slice of your internet in a privacy preserving way in exchange for something of value, seems fair, no?

No. I'm surprised Comcast or some other ISP doesn't step in with a claim of tortious interference. Reselling or granting access to the ISPs services like this is almost always against the ISPs terms of service. The consumer is in no place to consent to this exchange.

Tortious interference means preventing some business from making sales. Who is being prevented from selling what?

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#523

Post by inigyou »

account42 wrote: post #308
cognitiveinline wrote: post #4

Sharing a slice of your internet in a privacy preserving way in exchange for something of value, seems fair, no?

We have this invention called money so that individuals don't need to wrangle complex swap trades and instead sell the things (usually their time) that they are OK with selling with informed consent and buy the things they want without having to give up things they don't want to or don't understand. If selling your internet connection was a reasonable thing to do there would be dedicated apps/boxes for that instead o…

There are dedicated apps for that. For example ByteLixir.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#524

Post by inigyou »

ryandrake wrote: post #16
cognitiveinline wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need of (2) and (3) - the user can choose to not install/use the app. (1) is the right fair boundary.

Those apps just shouldn't exist. I don't know how "join your users to a botnet" became some kind of legitimized monetization scheme. Ads are bad enough. What's next? "Participate in a DDOS in order to use our app?"

What's the definition of a botnet?

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#525

Post by BrenBarn »

inigyou wrote: post #472
BrenBarn wrote: post #99

The messed up thing is that we need to rely on LG to stop allowing it rather than just making it illegal.

Why would it be illegal though? What law?

Why not just ban all apps that "allow unknown third-parties to route their Internet traffic through a user’s TV"? (Or similarly for other devices.)

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#526

Post by preg_match »

vel0city wrote: post #498
preg_match wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time I used Windows seriously, which was Windows 10, this was not the case. If that's changed then great. But we need to acknowledge that Windows software install is changing to become more Linux-ified. With package managers and repos out of the box. Clearly the Linux model is more secure, and Microsoft knows it. It's a good idea for Microsoft to take inspiration here. It's only a matter of time before they…

> The last time I used Windows seriously, which was Windows 10, this was not the case. Apps like Chrome and Spotify have been doing it for almost 20 years, since they made their Windows apps back in 2008. Python updated their installer to install to the user profile in 2015 with version 3.5.0. VSCode started doing it in 2018. Discord did it at launch in 2015. Zoom and Teams and Slack do it and have for a long time. I…

While windows has containers, I’ve never seen them seriously used and realistically nobody is leaving docker or podman. I include podman in that because Red Hat was smart and made podman almost a direct drop in.

I’m very cynical about windows. Mostly because windows is bad in almost every way software can be bad.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#527

Post by Tor3 »

kyriakos wrote: post #442
Tor3 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way less than before, but, as an example, the supermarket very close to my home (in my home country - my other comment elsewhere is about our home in Japan) has an open network. It's presumably so that when customers are there then the supermarket's app, on customers phones, will have access to coupons and the like. My own phone utilizes that (I don't use a data plan with that phone, as I mostly use it for calls and…

I've seen a lot of open networks in stores, cafes and malls in my country too but on most occasions they at least take you to a captive portal to accept their TOS or ask you to enter an email address to spam you later, they are not just connect and browse with zero interaction.

There are still connect-and-use ones, like the one I mentioned, and the rest of them (fortunately there aren't that many which requires an email address anymore, though some exist) are just uselessly annoying. Airports, for example, always try to go through a 'connect' phase, and on Android that's sent through some Android-tool which often don't even work for some of those networks. And for no reason - TOS is useless, and sometimes there's not even a TOS - it's just a "connect' button. All of that makes it hard, sometimes impossible to connect, for absolutely zero reason. :-(

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#528

Post by patrakov »

Uvix wrote: post #429
mschuster91 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but for a TV, I just want a dumb screen that I can hook an HDMI cable to and run off a computer. Look into Digital Signage displays. You pay a brickload more money but get (much) higher quality in return.

I haven't found digital signage displays with the same brightness for HDR content, or variable refresh rate support.

Try a gaming monitor, Gigabyte AORUS FV43U.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#529

Post by kotaKat »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #375
jacobgold wrote: post #369

US residential proxies are the bane of the internet. They're the major source of social media manipulation and spam. Services can dramatically reduce abuse by blocking entire IP ranges based on country of origin, organization, or type (hosting providers). But a company can't block US residential IPs if it would also cut off many of their real customers. The US government (probably the NSA) should be cracking down har…

> Major US ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) should detect clearly suspicious activity coming from customer IPs and warn them to scan their computers, check their TV apps, and find whatever is turning their internet into a proxy. It's very bad for the customers too (slows things down, gets their IP banned, etc) Is there incentive for them to? If anything, you might be paying extra for the data use and not even know it, right? The…

frmr ISP call center nerd here that took calls for hundreds of rural ISPs in North America, ranging from little rural fiber coops to as large as the former Hargray of South Carolina:

The support costs of malware remediation fucking suck. The moment you try to implement some kind of blocker in place like this is the moment you flood your call center(s) with thousands of ignorant consumers that have zero clue what you're trying to tell them, can't comprehend that they have "a virus problem", and are not going to calmly listen to a support rep try to suddenly train them on what the issue is and how to fix it.

(Bonus points for liability on what we direct a customer to do or not do.)

all Jimbob knows is that "comcast has blocked me from getting to my pornhub" and is very angry at the rep they have on the phone.

There's a reason we used to be told to blow people off with a 'contact your local computer shop' and it's time and money and liability.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#530

Post by neop1x »

tosti wrote: post #364
account42 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are attacking a straw man instead of answering the question.

They were second hand, idk. They were already burned when they arrived. Suffices for me to say I don't have much confidence in OLED.

There have been a huge progress in this regard! New OLEDs don't burn out like those early generations.
Post reply on HN