3 ms·

Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". > ho

by dylz 6y ago

Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". > how many games do you think will want the user to have an unlocked device Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. > It is also, of course, ridiculous for a bank or food delivery app to refuse to install their app on a device which is actually controlled by the user when they allow the same device to do the same things on its website Ridiculous, yes, but it's still done anyway. The same device is also often not allowed to do the same things on the website, or the website implements similar or identical fingerprinting code. Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". Which the developer will have a market incentive to not want to do, because they can't get money from you if you're not using their product, and unlike phone platforms, most app developers have aggressive competition. > Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. Not really. If the user has an unlocked device, turning them away isn't going to turn a profit because then you lose their business regardless. Better to get the users who don't pirate than to lose them all. And it's not as if the user is going to lock the device back up for most of these games -- especially when there will be other apps that only work on an unlocked device. > Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily. The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. Moreover, all this is all rather academic when we could get the actual result by allowing the user to do this to their device and seeing what happens, so it can't be an argument for not doing that. Worst case is not very many people do it, and then still what is it hurting?
- dylz 6y ago
  > The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. If only. Every single major US bank and card company does this. It's terrible.

by dylz 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". Which the developer will have a market incentive to not want to do, because they can't get money from you if you're not using their product, and unlike phone platforms, most app developers have aggressive competition. > Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. Not really. If the user has an unlocked device, turning them away isn't going to turn a profit because then you lose their business regardless. Better to get the users who don't pirate than to lose them all. And it's not as if the user is going to lock the device back up for most of these games -- especially when there will be other apps that only work on an unlocked device. > Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily. The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. Moreover, all this is all rather academic when we could get the actual result by allowing the user to do this to their device and seeing what happens, so it can't be an argument for not doing that. Worst case is not very many people do it, and then still what is it hurting?

dylz 6y ago
> The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. If only. Every single major US bank and card company does this. It's terrible.