← Back to context

Comment by jolmg

2 months ago

Mmm... your quote (IDK where it's from) mentions them having consent from device owners, but your FBI link cautions on how to avoid getting infected by malware.

If they have consent, they're not really botnets. Botnets involve infecting devices without the owners knowing.

With consent, it wouldn't be much different from e.g. open WiFis at restaurants and hotels, companies using a single ISP and single public IPv4 address for all their employees, and most VPN services.

7 comments

jolmg

Reply
not-a-llm  2 months ago

by consent they mean a dialog/EULA with careful wording was display and the user clicked ok.

  • Barbing  2 months ago

    And even if you spent a minute explaining the proposition to a user off the street, it still wouldn't be fair unless you laid out the drawbacks. Which leads me to a question.

    There must be countless individuals all over the world who suddenly can't log into their Gmail or create any new accounts because a fraudster sent spam from their IP. I wonder: has anyone has tried to quantify that problem?

    • jolmg  2 months ago

      > There must be countless individuals all over the world who suddenly can't log into their Gmail or create any new accounts because a fraudster sent spam from their IP.

      Places with open WiFi like hotels and restaurants would be having the same problem. People on CGNATs would be having the same problem. An IP doesn't correspond with a single user.

      3 replies →