4 ms·

This whole situation baffles me. I understand that the Hola service is not well executed in the slightest and should most likely be avoided if you do not want y

This whole situation baffles me. I understand that the Hola service is not well executed in the slightest and should most likely be avoided if you do not want your net connection shared, but this is going way over the top IMHO. The FAQ page had always mentioned that resources were shared unless you paid for the premium service. Yes, it could have been a lot clearer, but they have never out right denied it as many people seem to be making out. People complained that their FAQ and information pages were not up to scratch to explain the details behind their network. So they update it with more information and now people complain that they updated it? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The service they provide is obviously targeted at non-technical users so it is completely understandable why they wouldn't be mentioning the technical details. This scares and baffles the users. If they were purposely deceiving the users with flat out lies then that wold be another thing but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The exploits are serious and extremely stupid in the way they had developed launching the binaries and people should be made aware. However it does seem like Hola is getting a lot more flack than most others would.

joepie91_ 11y ago
> The FAQ page had always mentioned that resources were shared unless you paid for the premium service. Yes, it could have been a lot clearer, but they have never out right denied it as many people seem to be making out. It completely glosses over the drawbacks of said approach. That's what the problem is. It doesn't provide enough information for informed consent. > People complained that their FAQ and information pages were not up to scratch to explain the details behind their network. So they update it with more information and now people complain that they updated it? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. We complain that they updated it quietly, and then presented it as if it had always been there. The update wasn't the problem, the manner in which it was made was. Indeed, now that they have released a more transparent update, it's pointed out as such on adios-hola.org > The service they provide is obviously targeted at non-technical users so it is completely understandable why they wouldn't be mentioning the technical details. This scares and baffles the users. If they were purposely deceiving the users with flat out lies then that wold be another thing but that doesn't seem to be the case here. "That doesn't seem to be the case here"? How about them completely leaving their users in the dark about the possible legal ramifications? Why does something need to be a "flat out lie" to be highly deceptive? There is such a thing as lying by omission. > The exploits are serious and extremely stupid in the way they had developed launching the binaries and people should be made aware. However it does seem like Hola is getting a lot more flack than most others would. They're not. Hola is getting a lot of flak because every aspect of their business is completely and irreparably fucked up - the technical side and the ethical/business side.
leppr 11y ago
They are using the connections of unsuspecting users as a literal botnet, and sell access to this botnet to people that use it to carry out DDoS attacks.

joepie91_ 11y ago

> The FAQ page had always mentioned that resources were shared unless you paid for the premium service. Yes, it could have been a lot clearer, but they have never out right denied it as many people seem to be making out. It completely glosses over the drawbacks of said approach. That's what the problem is. It doesn't provide enough information for informed consent. > People complained that their FAQ and information pages were not up to scratch to explain the details behind their network. So they update it with more information and now people complain that they updated it? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. We complain that they updated it quietly, and then presented it as if it had always been there. The update wasn't the problem, the manner in which it was made was. Indeed, now that they have released a more transparent update, it's pointed out as such on adios-hola.org > The service they provide is obviously targeted at non-technical users so it is completely understandable why they wouldn't be mentioning the technical details. This scares and baffles the users. If they were purposely deceiving the users with flat out lies then that wold be another thing but that doesn't seem to be the case here. "That doesn't seem to be the case here"? How about them completely leaving their users in the dark about the possible legal ramifications? Why does something need to be a "flat out lie" to be highly deceptive? There is such a thing as lying by omission. > The exploits are serious and extremely stupid in the way they had developed launching the binaries and people should be made aware. However it does seem like Hola is getting a lot more flack than most others would. They're not. Hola is getting a lot of flak because every aspect of their business is completely and irreparably fucked up - the technical side and the ethical/business side.

leppr 11y ago

They are using the connections of unsuspecting users as a literal botnet, and sell access to this botnet to people that use it to carry out DDoS attacks.