Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is Comcast going to do about it? Shut off a paying customer? Not likely.
Voluntarily, maybe not, but we can make it a legal requirement.
Because that worked out so well with file sharing
LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
461–470 of 549 posts
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
A crackdown would probably be an FBI responsibility, the NSA is not a law enforcement agency and absolutely does not have the authority.
In terms of law enforcement, sure. But what we really need is competent white hat hackers doing battle with the black hats. Even if no one goes to jail, the NSA could make residential proxies much harder to operate in the US simply by detecting them and reporting them to ISPs. It would be good for ISPs to then validate the reports properly, give warnings, etc.
A lot of residential proxy networks don't let you access financial and government websites because that would create an actual national security risk and get them shut down. So, given that, what is the actionable complaint?
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how it would? Because the bad actors are remotely instructing infected computers/devices to make HTTP/TLS requests for them, so they appear totally normal to the other side.
In a hypothetical world where using TLS was abnormal, you could monitor the content of whatever the bots are doing for suspicious activity. And if they chose to use TLS anyway, the mere presence of of TLS could be considered suspicious. Back in the real world, you can also passively fingerprint TLS handshakes to characterise the client device. Most of these proxy networks masquerade as "normal" clients, but if the ty…
It's not a crime to buy a new device and log it in to your WiFi.
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#46442% of the apps on LG's platform have these quasi-malware SDKs in them? Seems kinda bad, whether it's due to negligence or just pure incompetence? You'd think there might be legal consequences for a corporation that lets their app store turn into a malware delivery system?
It's not "quasi-malware," it is malware.
My understanding of malware is that it must cause some problem for the user.
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#465Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all above board though, as you, the user, agreed to the terms & conditions for installing said app. This won't change unless governments create and enforce laws.
> It's all above board though, as you, the user, agreed to the terms & conditions for installing said app. I have an LG TV, about 6 years old now. For a while it was connected to the internet. Every time I turned it on, after a ~20s delay, it would pop up asking me to install an update and I would press RIGHT + OK to select the "No" button because it worked fine and previous updates just made it slower, added ads etc…
Then you took it back to the store for a refund, right?
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t this like arguing we shouldn’t have food standards because people should be free to decide what they put in their bodies? Sure, in principle that’s true. But in practice, is it really fair to expect everyone to understand the health risks of every possible ingredient? Likewise here, is it fair to expect the average consumer to understand what it means to host a residential proxy? Or even what a residential prox…
The industry has proved again and again and again over the past two decades that surveillance, manipulation, and profiteering is all they care about, and the public is wising up to this fact. "We're screwing you clueless people for your own sake" is no longer effective as a thought terminating cliche and can only create stronger animosity towards the industry.
Note that residential proxies are not a surveillance technology, but an anti-surveillance technology. They defeat IP-address-based surveillance.
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do run Tailscale proxies in their home, and an always-on device like a TV is a good place to run it.
Why would your TV always be on? My TV is only on when I'm using it.
Do you mean the screen is on or the processor is on? If it's plugged in, the processor is on.
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your smart TV would make you risk going to prison for theft? Just because its open does not mean permission to use.
Huh? Open networks are open. You don't go to prison for that. Anyway, as the next comment said, there aren't many open networks anymore, though you'll still find some (see other comment)
Walking into a random house's open door is still illegal.
Anyway, intent matters. This probably wouldn't be found criminal unless there was malicious intent.
Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time anything asks for a DOB or anything like that, I enter the earliest date their system allows. Been doing it for decades. I guess that might make me more trackable?
Heh. Steam thinks I'm 126.
Ouch. I wouldn't risk lying to Steam, given what it has the ability to delete.