4 ms·

It is, though. Why should I not be able to agree, with sufficiently informed consent, to route traffic through a connection I operate via a computer I own using

It is, though. Why should I not be able to agree, with sufficiently informed consent, to route traffic through a connection I operate via a computer I own using software I've chosen of my own free will to install? What's the difference between running a Tor exit node and a "residential proxy" except optics? Look: I'm 100% for banning secret proxies that hide from the user, but stopping people knowingly and voluntarily running these proxies is a violation of fundamental software freedom tenets.

windward 3mo ago
It all comes back to this. I pay for the network, I'm liable for it: I decide what comes through it.
ozlikethewizard 3mo ago
The difference is the user. Your average smart TV user doesn't know what a residential proxy is, hell who's installing/playing the games but children? Consumer regulation to protect consumers from a knowledge disparity that leads to uninformed consent isn't a bad thing imo.
- quotemstr 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ethbr1 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - ozlikethewizard 3mo ago
    Did I say that? Regulate the companies that produce the products not the products themselves.
  - beamy 3mo ago
    Isn’t this like arguing we shouldn’t have food standards because people should be free to decide what they put in their bodies? Sure, in principle that’s true. But in practice, is it really fair to expect everyone to understand the health risks of every possible ingredient? Likewise here, is it fair to expect the average consumer to understand what it means to host a residential proxy? Or even what a residential proxy is?
    - soraminazuki 3mo ago
      The industry has proved again and again and again over the past two decades that surveillance, manipulation, and profiteering is all they care about, and the public is wising up to this fact. "We're screwing you clueless people for your own sake" is no longer effective as a thought terminating cliche and can only create stronger animosity towards the industry.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Note that residential proxies are not a surveillance technology, but an anti-surveillance technology. They defeat IP-address-based surveillance.
account42 3mo ago
We're not talking about people voluntarily installing proxies, we're talking about proxies piggy backing on apps that are marketed for an entirely different purpose.
- quotemstr 3mo ago
  The article is clear that LG is talking about banning all proxies, even voluntarily installed ones. A smart TV is a computer. Why should the owner of a computer not be allowed to run any program he wants?
  - amiga386 3mo ago
    That is not the case. The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA: > “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor said. “If this option is not removed, these apps will be suspended.” This says nothing about your own software installed on the TV, should that be possible. But even if you ran your own software on your TV, would you run a proxy service? Given you already have a residential ISP, you wouldn't need to hook your TV up to a botnet and buy residental ISP access for your scrapers via your own, or other unwitting suckers', TVs. Your hypothetical of wanting to run a Tor exit node is silly. Most Tor exit node operators run them knowingly on dedicated hardware, usually in a datacentre, not their own home, and prepare themselves legally for when they inevitably get emails from law enforcement, or worse, raided. You'd almost certainly firewall the destinations it can reach, you wouldn't let it have access to your own network, and you wouldn't run it on your TV.
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      It very much is the case. Your own quote contradicts you. A smart tv is definitely a computer (one of the selling points is literally that it runs arbitrary apps) and LG is declaring that this "is not an intended use for LG smart TVs" and banning it. There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding consumer protection laws, the nature of an appliance, and the trade-offs thereof but this is not that conversation and I don't think you engaged in good faith with the comment you replied to.

windward 3mo ago

It all comes back to this. I pay for the network, I'm liable for it: I decide what comes through it.

ozlikethewizard 3mo ago

The difference is the user. Your average smart TV user doesn't know what a residential proxy is, hell who's installing/playing the games but children? Consumer regulation to protect consumers from a knowledge disparity that leads to uninformed consent isn't a bad thing imo.

quotemstr 3mo ago
[flagged]
- ethbr1 3mo ago
  [dead]
- ozlikethewizard 3mo ago
  Did I say that? Regulate the companies that produce the products not the products themselves.
- beamy 3mo ago
  Isn’t this like arguing we shouldn’t have food standards because people should be free to decide what they put in their bodies? Sure, in principle that’s true. But in practice, is it really fair to expect everyone to understand the health risks of every possible ingredient? Likewise here, is it fair to expect the average consumer to understand what it means to host a residential proxy? Or even what a residential proxy is?
  - soraminazuki 3mo ago
    The industry has proved again and again and again over the past two decades that surveillance, manipulation, and profiteering is all they care about, and the public is wising up to this fact. "We're screwing you clueless people for your own sake" is no longer effective as a thought terminating cliche and can only create stronger animosity towards the industry.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Note that residential proxies are not a surveillance technology, but an anti-surveillance technology. They defeat IP-address-based surveillance.

account42 3mo ago

We're not talking about people voluntarily installing proxies, we're talking about proxies piggy backing on apps that are marketed for an entirely different purpose.

quotemstr 3mo ago
The article is clear that LG is talking about banning all proxies, even voluntarily installed ones. A smart TV is a computer. Why should the owner of a computer not be allowed to run any program he wants?
- amiga386 3mo ago
  That is not the case. The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA: > “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor said. “If this option is not removed, these apps will be suspended.” This says nothing about your own software installed on the TV, should that be possible. But even if you ran your own software on your TV, would you run a proxy service? Given you already have a residential ISP, you wouldn't need to hook your TV up to a botnet and buy residental ISP access for your scrapers via your own, or other unwitting suckers', TVs. Your hypothetical of wanting to run a Tor exit node is silly. Most Tor exit node operators run them knowingly on dedicated hardware, usually in a datacentre, not their own home, and prepare themselves legally for when they inevitably get emails from law enforcement, or worse, raided. You'd almost certainly firewall the destinations it can reach, you wouldn't let it have access to your own network, and you wouldn't run it on your TV.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    It very much is the case. Your own quote contradicts you. A smart tv is definitely a computer (one of the selling points is literally that it runs arbitrary apps) and LG is declaring that this "is not an intended use for LG smart TVs" and banning it. There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding consumer protection laws, the nature of an appliance, and the trade-offs thereof but this is not that conversation and I don't think you engaged in good faith with the comment you replied to.