[HN Gopher] A Deep Dive into the Residential Proxy Service '911'
___________________________________________________________________
A Deep Dive into the Residential Proxy Service '911'
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 64 points
Date : 2022-07-18 16:15 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (krebsonsecurity.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (krebsonsecurity.com)
| anonymousiam wrote:
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| > 8chan/8kun has been linked to white supremacism, neo-Nazism,
| antisemitism, multiple mass shootings, and is known for hosting
| child pornography.
|
| While I do not doubt that some of the discussions were
| legitimate political speech, it sounds like there was a lot
| more going on.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Legally speaking, the only actual one of issue is the child
| porn. The first amendment allows private parties to happily
| host and run literal Nazi pride events if they want, and
| there's very little legal way to stop it.
|
| However, in the same vein, if you want to host said Nazi
| pride event and need to find private companies and businesses
| to provide catering and other services, they all legally have
| the right to tell you to fuck off, and if that means you
| can't find ANY services, then that's too bad for you, stop
| being such an insufferable prick.
|
| The right of assembly is essentially codifying "if you are a
| cunt then nobody will want to deal with you" into law. We've
| had to work around it in some cases, because sometimes people
| treat things like skin color and gender and other horrible
| things as a proxy for "cunt", but explicitly exclusionary and
| violent ideology is not a protected class.
| EarlKing wrote:
| > However, in the same vein, if you want to host said Nazi
| pride event and need to find private companies and
| businesses to provide catering and other services, they all
| legally have the right to tell you to fuck off, and if that
| means you can't find ANY services, then that's too bad for
| you, stop being such an insufferable prick.
|
| Substitute 'Nazi pride' (whatever the hell that actually
| means) with 'being black' and tell me you still support
| this. Go ahead. I dare you. Public accommodation laws exist
| for precisely this reason, and I'm not at all convinced
| they shouldn't be applied more broadly.
|
| > The right of assembly is essentially codifying "if you
| are a cunt then nobody will want to deal with you" into
| law.
|
| If you're not being a cunt to at least somebody then you're
| probably not saying or doing anything of consequence. Once
| upon a time it was legal to own other human beings until
| someone started being a cunt about it. Sometimes that's
| exactly what the doctor ordered.
|
| > explicitly exclusionary and violent ideology is not a
| protected class
|
| So, just to be clear: When certain parties on Twitter start
| spewing generalities about "all white males"... they should
| be deplatformed, right?
| EarlKing wrote:
| Literally every one of those things can be applied to
| Twitter, and yet no one has tried to get Twitter
| deplatformed. I mean, really, Twitter was subject to public
| outrage only a few years ago when people uncovered Saudis
| openly bragging about their child brides on the site and
| people started mass reporting them... and yet Twitter remains
| online and unmolested. There is a very clear double standard
| present.
| [deleted]
| jjulius wrote:
| I know that Krebs can be pretty polarizing to a lot of people,
| but let's look at what actually happened here.
|
| >On Sunday, July 10, KrebsOnSecurity contacted Psychz Networks,
| a hosting provider in Los Angeles, to see if they were aware
| that they were the sole Internet lifeline for 8kun et. al.
| Psychz confirmed that in response to a report from
| KrebsOnSecurity, VanwaTech was removed from its network around
| the time of the Jan. 6 hearing on Tuesday.
|
| So, he called and asked something to the effect of, "Hey, did
| you know that you're the only provider for 8kun? Any comment
| for my report?" and we're to take that as Krebs "[deciding]
| that political speech is a security threat to the Internet, and
| he is actively working to further the censorship"?
|
| I'm not quite sure that I can make that leap as easily as you
| can.
| [deleted]
| skanga wrote:
| Political speech is DIFFERENT from domestic terrorism. There is
| NO right to free speech in private forums.
| msla wrote:
| https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
|
| > Grace Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness, attempted to distribute
| religious literature on the sidewalk near a post office in
| Chickasaw, Alabama. The Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation owned
| Chickasaw, Alabama in its entirety as a company town. Marsh
| was convicted of criminal trespass. Appealing her conviction,
| Marsh argued that the state law violated the First Amendment.
|
| [snip]
|
| > In an opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black, the majority ruled
| in Marsh's favor. The Court reasoned that a company town does
| not have the same rights as a private homeowner in preventing
| unwanted religious expression. While the town was owned by a
| private entity, it was open for use by the public, who are
| entitled to the freedoms of speech and religion. The Court
| employed a balancing test, weighing Chickasaw's private
| property rights against Marsh's right to free speech. The
| Court stressed that conflicts between property rights and
| constitutional rights should typically be resolved in favor
| of the latter.
|
| And, because Silicon Valley is in California:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R.
| ..
|
| > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center
| from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive
| activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| Those two cases say much more about company towns and the
| California state constitution than they do about the US
| Constitution's First Amendment.
| msla wrote:
| The first one was decided on the basis of the US
| Constitution's First Amendment.
|
| Also, I was responding to a blanket assertion that you
| have no constitutional rights in a private forum. A
| company town _is_ a private forum.
| joshmanders wrote:
| > Also, I was responding to a blanket assertion that you
| have no constitutional rights in a private forum. A
| company town is a private forum.
|
| But your own stuff explicitly stated that the courts did
| not deem it a private forum but was a public form.
|
| Websites are not the same thing, so yes a website is
| still a private forum and therefore not in violation of
| 1A.
| Retric wrote:
| "it was open for use by the public"
|
| The ruling makes clear a company town is not a private
| forum. One thing that separates that company town or
| shopping mall from say a private resort is the
| requirements for access. Cruse ships, aircraft, etc
| default deny entry making them less public spaces.
|
| Beyond that, a private home can deny access based on skin
| color while a bed and breakfast can't. That same bed and
| breakfast could however deny access because a customer is
| rude.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The first one was decided on the basis of the US
| Constitution's First Amendment.
|
| Yes, but _much_ more narrowly than you 're trying to
| apply it.
|
| Subsequent decisions made clear internet services are not
| the same as company towns.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
|
| > The Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and
| inapplicable today because of the disappearance of
| company towns from the United States, but it was raised
| in a somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber
| Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D.
| Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass
| email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed
| software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on
| free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority
| for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were
| private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a
| such a degree that constitutional free speech protections
| could be applied. The federal district court disagreed,
| thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet
| service provider level.
| rtkwe wrote:
| True but to apply 1A it had to be determined that the
| constitutional protections were applicable at all which
| hinged on the level the area had been "dedicated/opened
| to public use" more recently other qualifiers have been
| added such that a company needs to exercise "powers
| traditionally exclusive to the state" to be held to
| constitutional standards. There were cases back years ago
| like Cyber Promotions v. America Online that allowed
| companies to limit speech on their platforms that would
| already cover cases like this too.
| ok_dad wrote:
| 8kun is more like a dank, smelly basement than an open air
| market.
| jcranmer wrote:
| There are few facts on which Pruneyard relies that are
| completely at odds with the attempts to apply it to social
| media moderation:
|
| 1. The speech being conducted was agreed by everybody to
| not be disruptive.
|
| 2. It was agreed by all parties that no one could confuse
| the speech of the protesters with the speech of the
| shopping center.
|
| For social media concerns, these two facts do not describe
| the actual situation, and so Pruneyard is not appropriate
| precedent.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Speech that isn't disruptive isn't really worth anything.
| There's little point in saying things people already
| agree with. It's saying the things that people don't want
| to hear that has real value. If you can't say the things
| that people don't want to hear because they are
| "disruptive" then you don't really have the freedom of
| speech.
| EarlKing wrote:
| There is, however, a right to be free from tortious
| interference.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Krebs has generally great content, but how the Ubiquiti situation
| was handled really rubbed me the wrong way. Krebs made a mistake,
| trusting a source that ended up being the malicious party.
| However Krebs never owned up to it. Never issued an apology or
| admitted his frankly scathing posts about Ubiquiti were
| inaccurate or at best incomplete. It's unfortunately a common
| theme these days in media.
| powerhour wrote:
| This and his predilection to doxx his opponents is reason
| enough to block his site from social media platforms. He's a
| bad egg.
| ahepp wrote:
| Can I find a rundown of this situation somewhere?
| greggsy wrote:
| He's one of very few people doing this type of investigative
| journalism online, and is - as cringey as it sounds - the
| closest we've got to an IRL 'internet superhero'.
|
| Ubi was a bad call but the information was credible - as an
| insider, the informant was in a unique position to spin his
| story in such a way. I don't blame him for making the bad call,
| and I don't think he should 'own up to it'.
|
| That one story is far from representative of his broader
| achievements, and comparing it to the concerted efforts other
| more malicious actors in the media landscape is disingenuous at
| best.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Case in point why you should never _ever_ use a 3rd party VPN
| ever for any reason. Even for something quick.
| melvyn2 wrote:
| There are plenty of good/trustworthy VPN services. They just
| don't advertise as much as the bad ones. I know that the VPN
| company I use can't abuse my connection because I don't even
| use their app, and can instead set up wireguard/OpenVPN
| connections to my liking.
|
| Beyond the technical side, a public VPN company provides much
| more anonymity than using your own VPS/server, as you share an
| IP and traffic with other users rather than just having a
| second personal IP to your name.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >There are plenty of good/trustworthy VPN services. They just
| don't advertise as much as the bad ones.
|
| This is also why I always immediately unsubscribe from and
| stop watching any YouTuber who starts pushing these services.
| They are 100% shady. Which leaves only two possibilities;
| that the content creator is either naive or willfully
| complicit.
| greggsy wrote:
| Almost 100% of them are naive, unless they're crypto bros.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-18 23:01 UTC)