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

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

boston.conman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 516 posts

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#481

Post by simoncion »

TZubiri wrote: post #438
simoncion wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Y]ou are responsible for [how] your neighbours [use the Internet]. Nope. I'm very much not responsible for snooping on my neighbor's private communications. If anyone is responsible for doing any sort of abuse monitoring, it is the ISP chosen by my neighbor.

This is not a normative social prescription, but a descriptive natural phenomenon. If there's a neighbour in your building who is running a bitcoin farm on your residential building, it's going to cause issues for you. If people from your country commit crime in other countries and violate visas, then you are going to face a quota due to them. If you bank at ACME Bank, and then it turns out they were arms traffickers…

> If there's a neighbour...

What ass-backwards jurisdiction do you live in where any of the things you mention in this paragraph are true, let alone the notion that uninvolved bystanders would be responsible for the behavior of others?

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#482

Post by Dylan16807 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #480
Dylan16807 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using a very weird definition of "logging" to make a joke? Web forms don't need any logging to work.

You save them in a database. Probably in clear text. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

A password being put into a normal text field in a properly submitted form is a lot less likely than getting into some query or path. And a database is more likely to be handled properly than some random log file.

Six of one, .008 of a dozen of the other.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#483

Post by defrost »

ThrowMeAway1618 wrote: post #151
defrost wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If your shallow (and dismissive) comments along these lines weren't so, well, shallow and dismissive, I might be inclined to put a little more effort into it. But they're not, so I didn't. By all means, congratulate yourself for putting this bigoted "culture warrior" in their (obviously) well deserved corner of shame. I'm not exactly sure how decrying bigotry while pointing out that demanding language unrelated to su…

> Or did I miss something important?

Pretty much.

The question you posed above, the question that piqued my interest that I responded to, was

> What's the bigoted history of those terms?

I barely hinted at the bigotry inherent in the creation of a black list by Charles II in response to the bigotry inherent in the execution of Charles I as I was curious as to where your interest lay.

Since then you've ignored the bigotry, ignored the black list in the time of Charles II, imagined and projected all manner of nonsense about my position, etc.

I suspect you're simply ignorant of the actual meaning of the word bigot in the time of Charles I & II, and it's hilarious seeing your overly performative accusations of others being performative.

> Want to help? Demand that police stop assaulting and murdering people of color.

I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the question of the bigotry aspect to the Charles II black list but if it makes you feel any better I was a witness against the police in a Black Deaths in Custody Royal Commission a good many years past.

For your interest:

  1661 Cowley Cromwell Wks. II. 655 He was rather a well-meaning and deluding Bigot, than a crafty and malicious Impostor.

  1741 Watts Improv. Mind i. Wks. (1813) 14 A dogmatist in religion is not a long way off from a bigot.

  1844 Stanley Arnold II. viii. 13 [Dr. Arnold] was almost equally condemned, in London as a bigot, and in Oxford as a latitudinarian.
As we're a long way down a tangential rabbit hole here am I to assume it was yourself who just walked through flagging a run of comments that don't violate guidelines? Either way curiosity and genuine exchanges go further than hyperbolic rhetoric.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#484

Post by sylware »

ronsor wrote: post #373
lukan wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Who is them in this case?

They're referring to the fact that Chinese game companies (Tencent, Riot through Tencent, etc.) all have executables of varying levels of suspicion (i.e. anti-cheat modules) running in the background on player computers. Then they're making the claim that those binaries have botnet functionality.

They can exploit local priviledge escalation flaws without "RCE".

And you are right, kernel anti-cheat are rumored to be weaponized by hackers, and making the previous even worse.

And when the kid is playing his/her game at home, if daddy or mummy is a person of interest, they are already on the home LAN...

Well, you get the picture: nowhere to run, orders of magnitude worse than it was before.

Nowadays, the only level of protection the administrator/root access rights give you, is to mitigate any user mistake which would break his/her system... sad...

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#485

Post by closewith »

lxgr wrote: post #476
closewith wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As commented elsewhere, you're just wrong. It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules and it very rarely happens (outside of actual merchant fraud, which is much rarer in the EU). Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US.

> It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules That's true, but "fraud" and "compliance" aren't the only dispute categories, not by far. In this case, using Mastercard as an example (as their dispute rules are public [1]), the dispute category would be "Refund not processed". The corresponding section explicitly lists this as a valid reason: "The merc…

Okay, so you're grasping at straws here, because:

a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules,

and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy.

We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside the US, unless they are genuinely fraudulent.

Honestly, I think you have no experience with card processors outside the US (or maybe at all) and you just can't admit you're wrong, but anyone with experience would tell you how wrong you are in a heartbeat. The idea you can "defeat" geoblocks with chargebacks is much more likely to result in you losing access to credit than a refund.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#486

Post by closewith »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #444
closewith wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. This is a naive view of the internet that does not stand the test of legislative reality. It's perfectly reasonable (and in our case was only path to compliance) to limit access to certain geographic locations. > I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your cu…

The ancestor post was about being unable to get support for a product, so I thought you were talking about the same situation. Refusal to support is a legitimate grievance. Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit? Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? The…

If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't.

> Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website?

In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#487

Post by Grimblewald »

sneak wrote: post #310
worthless-trash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole AI scraper panic is so incredibly overblown. The problem is that its eating into peoples costs, and if you're not concerned with money, I'm just asking, can you send me $50.00 USD ?

If people don’t want to spend the money serving the requests, then their own servers are misconfigured because responding is optional .

It sure is, now the problems i'd like to respond to legitimate users, I dont care for bots, if theres idle resources why not.

Care to share how I can make that happen given scrapers are hellbent on ignoring any rules / agreements on how to conduct themselves?

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#488

Post by lxgr »

closewith wrote: post #486
Dylan16807 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ancestor post was about being unable to get support for a product, so I thought you were talking about the same situation. Refusal to support is a legitimate grievance. Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit? Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? The…

If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. > Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and h…

What was inaccessible to them: The service itself, or any means to contact the merchant to cancel an ongoing subscription?

I can imagine a merchant to win a chargeback if a customer e.g. signs up for a service using a VPN that isn't actually usable over the same VPN and then wants money for their first month back.

But if cancellation of future charges is also not possible, I'd consider that an instance of a merchant not being responsive to attempts at cancellation, similar to them simply not picking up the phone or responding to emails.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#489

Post by lxgr »

closewith wrote: post #485
lxgr wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules That's true, but "fraud" and "compliance" aren't the only dispute categories, not by far. In this case, using Mastercard as an example (as their dispute rules are public [1]), the dispute category would be "Refund not processed". The corresponding section explicitly lists this as a valid reason: "The merc…

Okay, so you're grasping at straws here, because: a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules, and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy. We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside…

Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background?

It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpretation, being very different between the US and other countries) isn't accurate.

Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) seems like an easy win for the issuer.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#490

Post by worthless-trash »

sneak wrote: post #310
worthless-trash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole AI scraper panic is so incredibly overblown. The problem is that its eating into peoples costs, and if you're not concerned with money, I'm just asking, can you send me $50.00 USD ?

If people don’t want to spend the money serving the requests, then their own servers are misconfigured because responding is optional .

So, that is a no on the fifty?

When AI can now register and break captures on your site to login, how do I compete with this arms race of defeating my protection from AI ?

Post reply on HN