121–130 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that somehow makes what they're doing OK?
I'm not sure I understand your logic here. They've come up with a clever way to create a sustainable, free vpn service, with the ability to easily opt-out for a still reasonable price. All the while clearly stating how it all works in their FAQ. What more do you want them to do?
If anyone cares for their proxy links, here are they: http://milankragujevic.com/uploads/hola/?ref=hackernews And the blog post: http://milankragujevic.com/post.php?id=72&ref=hackernews&cid...
It was only recently that they started requiring the user auth for the proxy access, earlier it was a free for all without any auth at all. Now they have the option to track which accounts are causing traffic on their network and potentially put a stop to them (not that is isn't difficult to get around)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume they forward the requests to their own servers? In that case there isn't much to reverse engineer without access to their servers. Unless they use some kind of P2P system, which I doubt.
their updated faq says the following 'Hola built a peer to peer overlay network for HTTP, which securely routes the sites you choose through other Hola users' devices and not through expensive servers'. so it is a p2p system...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Luminati angle is new, but the fact that free Hola users are used as peers or exit nodes is common knowledge among better informed users. I've warned others of that fact in the past myself. Of course, I imagine most users are not so well informed.
Indeed, I knew for a while too, but I let it go so long as all posts were made by humans. But selling an API at $20/GB (bandwidth you pay $0 for) to flood message boards and scrape search engines from random people's IPs without their consent is horribly unethical in my opinion. Edited to add: I also see it as a breach of trust in the original agreement, even if you were fully informed that by installing Hola you bec…
Anyone like to recommend a browser-extension-based VPN tool that's a bit more respectful than Hola and is relatively cheap? (Of course I run my own VPN server using OpenVPN, but Hola is really convenient when I'm only trying to get an American IP to avoid Australian geoblocking - it's also easy for non-technical friends to use.)
Just use Tor Browser, it's "extract and launch".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I knew for a while too, but I let it go so long as all posts were made by humans. But selling an API at $20/GB (bandwidth you pay $0 for) to flood message boards and scrape search engines from random people's IPs without their consent is horribly unethical in my opinion. Edited to add: I also see it as a breach of trust in the original agreement, even if you were fully informed that by installing Hola you bec…
Just a heads up that the Hola network does not (yet) support HTTPS connections. Force HTTPS on the website and Hola will not longer use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello, Fredrick Brennan here (8chan owner). They changed their FAQ IN RESPONSE to my breaking the story on this. Proof: Google cache of Hola FAQ as of 26 May: https://archive.is/tgujS As you can see, there is no mention of Luminati, or the underlying mechanics at all. I published hola.html and updated my global announcement just hours before the FAQ change: https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/603178141650026498 T…
I see this Hola thing get upvoted all the time on reddit as a way to watch region-locked videos. Pretty disgusting that they've tricked millions into installing their software without informing them of all the illegal activities that could be funnled through their IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tunnelbear recently released a chrome plugin for their VPN service. I hear good things about it. (I personally use the application on my Mac)
Tunnlebear makes no claims relative to logging its users activities or about its responsiveness to requests for them. Beware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hola's browser extension is proprietary. A friend of mine has been considering reverse engineering it but is not sure of the laws.
If they are in the EU – great, the right to learn covers the right to take apart, understand, reassemble, and remix any technology that you have a license to use and where, during the process, the original owner has no material losses. So, if he’s in the EU, he can do it. (IANAL, but this was the conclusio of an EUGH decision). Otherwise it gets harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are in the EU – great, the right to learn covers the right to take apart, understand, reassemble, and remix any technology that you have a license to use and where, during the process, the original owner has no material losses. So, if he’s in the EU, he can do it. (IANAL, but this was the conclusio of an EUGH decision). Otherwise it gets harder.
My google-foo is failing; could you please link to some information on "the right to learn"?
(I can’t find the ruling right now either)
Two companies were involved, company A and company B. Company A developed an office suite containing a macro language, company B developed their own office suite and wanted to have compatibility to the macro language of company A’s suite.
So company B decompiled company A’s suite, copied the decompiled code of their APIs and built their own interpreter.
The court ruled that while source code itself is a copyrightable creative work, compiling and decompiling it produces code that is not directly related anymore, and, while it is based on the original code, the only similarities between both types of code are that they describe the same algorithms. But, per european law, algorithms are not copyrightable, only patentable, so the result of a decompilation step is not directly copyrighted work.
Additionally they argued that in other industries, like automobiles, it is common to take apart the products of your competitors, analyze them, and use the knowledge gained for your own products (unless you infringe patents, of course).
And this basic right to own stuff also gives you the right to take apart stuff you have a license to use under the condition that it does not provide a direct loss for the person selling you the license, for example you can not take apart a rented car, but you can take apart a car you bought.
Additionally the court argued that this right can not be signed away, not even in private contracts or through ToS or EULAs, as it would severely restrict the right to "own" stuff.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, consult a lawyer (or rather several, this topic is complex) if you intend to use this as defense in court.