Comment by ndiddy
10 hours ago
If you look at the article, the network they disrupted pays software vendors per-download to sneakily turn their users into residential proxy endpoints. I'm sure that at least some of the time the user is technically agreeing to some wording buried in the ToS saying they consent to this, but it's certainly unethical. I wouldn't want to proxy traffic from random people through my home network, that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
> that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
Or residential proxies get so widespread that almost every house has a proxy in, and it becomes the new way the internet works - "for privacy, your data has been routed through someone else's connection at random".
> Or residential proxies get so widespread that almost every house has a proxy in, and it becomes the new way the internet works - "for privacy, your data has been routed through someone else's connection at random".
Is this a re-invention of tor, maybe I2P?
IP8 address tumbler? to wit, playing the shell game, to obstruct direct attribution.
They provide an SDK for mobile developers. Here is a video of how it works. [0] They don't even hide it.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9HLrwvUO4&t=15s
Of course they're pitching it like everything's above board, but from the article:
> While many residential proxy providers state that they source their IP addresses ethically, our analysis shows these claims are often incorrect or overstated. Many of the malicious applications we analyzed in our investigation did not disclose that they enrolled devices into the IPIDEA proxy network. Researchers have previously found uncertified and off-brand Android Open Source Project devices, such as television set top boxes, with hidden residential proxy payloads.
If popup ads that open the play store are ethical, this is ethical.