You are getting downvoted, but this is a fair point. The only other country with a higher estimate for illegal immigrant population is Russia. The next closest Western European country is France, with barely over half the rate of the US. [0]
In the poorer parts of the world, people absolutely detest illegal immigrants (or basically most working migrants as well) because they are taking jobs from the locals. They hate refugees because there's not enough resources to go around to use in feeding and housing them.
Welcoming people in because "no-one wants to do those jobs" is very much a luxury belief of the well off.
No, but subnets can't be as easily associated with unwanted traffic. If IPv6 gets blocked you just get another IP. A VPN or hosting provider can't simply rent, or god forbid buy IPv4 addresses and subnets, arbitrarily. The IPs they use are rather static and easy to discover. Rather trivial to block all them, preemptively. Residential IPv4 VPNs are not legal offerings and their use is limited.
VPNs can fight traffic analysis, they can't fight preemptive IPv4 blocking.
See, it doesn't matter if it's somehow possible to control IPv6 traffic, factually, it is sooo much easier to control and observe IPv4. IPv6 adoption isn't going great at all and now there are new strong business incentives against it.
The direction we're moving right now isn't free intergalactic mesh networking, but holistic control and centralization by the tech oligarchy. IPv6 is good things... we can't have those.
> How do you think VPNs are getting past VOD providers’ VPN block lists?
In my experience, they most often don't. If you got more insights, please enlighten me. I presume VPNs which get past VPN block lists, are just not yet on the radar, or don't provide the privacy claimed, not actually fully in control of their infrastructure.
> What’s illegal about them?
Where do you think residential IPs are coming from? It's often botnets or otherwise compromised devices, or people tricked into sharing their connection. In any case, it's most certainly breaking the ISP's TOS. Because of the effort behind providing residential IPs, these VPN services are rather expensive. And certainly not trustworthy in regard to privacy. If offering residential IPs would be legal, every VPN service would provide them.
> And does it matter to uncooperative/aggressive bots?
No. They are used for mostly shady/criminal activity, where the limitations and legality don't matter. I doubt commercial LLM crawlers and data intense campaigns aren't bothered by legality, stability, connectivity or (upload) bandwidth limitations. Like, you wouldn't crawl the web on a mobile connection.
Or it could end up like some Asian countries with a large afterschool tuition industry. I guess at a minimum you don't want the kid to get shot up at school though.
> That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other,
If that's the VOIP thing, yes, lots of people came to similar methods. That particular thing was for exchanging state, not VOIP or tunneling, so as long as participant groups overlapped it didn't really need a fixed server to be the middle which was handy for our purposes, although long network interruptions could make reconvergence take a while.
Does make me chuckle that so many people had to be working around NAT for so long and then people are like "NAT is way better than the thing that makes us not have to deal with the problem at all." Just had a bit of NAT PTSD remembering an unrelated, but livid argument between some network teams about how a tool defeating their NAT policies was malware. They had overlapping 10.x.y.z blocks, because of course they did :)
If there are multiple ads (and why would there not be multiple ads?), deleting the one advertised using keyword X does nothing to the one advertised using keyword Y.
Hawala is such a simple, effective, and relatively anonymous system that bypasses banking that the government had to convince the populace that anyone who uses it is a terrorist. It also helps they use the arab name even though it is of Indian origin.
reply