VPNs are basically useless as confirmed through testing.

[starsmine]

12 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

nobody ever uses vpn for "privacy" only reason to use vpn is to illegally watch or consume region restricted content.  hope this helps ~

I wonder how much you had to stretch your ass to pull that out of it. 

[Mark Kaine]

8 hours ago, starsmine said:

I wonder how much you had to stretch your ass to pull that out of it. 

did you read the thread...? im not the only one saying that... its pretty well known why majority of normies use "vpn"...

[bcredeur97]

This actually got a CVE number lol

CVE-2024-3661

And a name.... "TunnelVision"

Pretty wild for something that's just always been there....

[Lurick]

40 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

This actually got a CVE number lol

CVE-2024-3661

And a name.... "TunnelVision"

Pretty wild for something that's just always been there....

Exactly, it's in the RFC for the protocol even as a possible risk, lol

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Exactly, it's in the RFC for the protocol even as a possible risk, lol

CVE-2024-9999 "Fire is hot"

[Sauron]

On 5/7/2024 at 9:21 PM, YoungBlade said:

Best as I can tell, you need to be on the network in order for this to work. So in your own home, you'd be pretty safe, unless someone in your house is trying to snoop on you, someone gets your WiFi password, or someone breaks into your house and connects to an Ethernet port. Basically, this attack won't work without some degree of access to the router.

 

I suppose that, in theory, your ISP could use this against you if you are using their provided router, as they could maliciously update the firmware to make such an attack possible from their end. However, this could be easily circumvented by simply having your own router.

 

The one place where this seems to be a real concern is unsecured WiFi networks, as anyone can connect to them. So in theory, someone at an airport or restaurant could be using this method. Which means that, if you are using a VPN to stay safer at random WiFi locations, you're out of luck.

 

Is my understanding here correct?

As far as I can tell, yes.

 

Although to be honest the "safety" aspect in a random hotspot scenario is pretty minimal. HTTPS traffic is already encrypted and protected from man in the middle attacks - at worst a malicious actor would be able to log which websites your IP connected to. And if you're using your personal device at, say, a random bar, they wouldn't necessarily be able to trace it back to you.

 

As for this making VPNs "useless" as OP claims... I've always maintained that most of the marketing claims VPNs make are bullshit to begin with since, as mentioned, https itself already protects you in many ways and VPNs only "hide" your traffic from your ISP, if that. One legitimately useful (where legally permissible) application of VPNs however has always been accessing region locked or otherwise regionally unavailable content, which isn't affected by this vulnerability.

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

WRONG. thing tested the wrong thing. nobody ever uses vpn for "privacy" only reason to use vpn is to illegally watch or consume region restricted content.  hope this helps ~

If you paid for it its hardly illegal anymore.......

[starsmine]

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

If you paid for it its hardly illegal anymore.......

thats not how anything works.

[jagdtigger]

15 minutes ago, starsmine said:

thats not how anything works.

It is exactly how it works. Lets say i go over to Austria for shopping (i like mezzo mix but cant buy it locally). They dont have any right to stop me at the door after i paid just because im from Hungary. Same rule applies online. Paid for the goods so they can bugger off with their BS........

Edited May 9 by jagdtigger

[starsmine]

27 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

It is exactly how it works. Lets say i go over to Austria for shopping (i like mezzo mix but cant buy it locally). They dont have any right to stop me at the door after i paid just because im from Hungary. Same rule applies online. Paid for the goods so they can bugger off with their BS........

If you paid for a DVD you did not pay for a blu-ray
If you paid for a streaming service you didnt pay for any perpetual use. 
If you paid for a book, you did not pay for an audio book. 
If you paid for a book you did not pay for a different version of the book. 
If you paid for a MP3 album you did not pay for CD quality album. 
If your streaming service of choice has not paid for the license to distribute a piece of media in your area. You did NOT pay for it either. 

Etc, etc, etc. 

You have the right to strip/digitize your copy of a thing and do whatever you want with your copy. you dont have a right to OTHER copies. you only paid for yours. 

[LAwLz]

59 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

If you paid for it its hardly illegal anymore.......

That's not how it works. Like, actually not how it works, at all.

 

You might think it is how it should work, but that doesn't mean it works that way. When you subscribe to for example Netflix, you are only allowed access to the library for the country you reside in. Using a VPN to trick Netflix into thinking you are in a different country is against the terms of service, as well as the contracts signed with Netflix and the content providers.

You are breaking the terms of service if you use a VPN, and you are potentially committing an act of piracy as well since you are using techniques to circumvent DRM protection. You are accessing material you did not rightfully pay for. You paid for the content library that is available in the country you are physically located in, not the content library for a country you are pretending to be in.

I know it sucks that it works this way, but just because we disagree with the contracts doesn't mean we are free to break them.

 

Think of digital goods as being shipped into the country. There is a substance very similar to Zyklon B that you can buy in certain countries. Just because it is legal to buy in those countries doesn't mean you can just buy it online and have it shipped to your country (presumably the US) and go "well I paid for it so you can't say I can't have it".

[Holmes108]

Not exactly the same, but reminds me of the "if you can't own it, it's not piracy" meme. Drives me nuts. I mean, I get what they're saying, but it's such a flawed concept in so many ways. And I'm by no means holier than thou... I buy lots of stuff, and I'll sail the seas plenty often when it suits me too, but I digress.

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

If you paid for a DVD you did not pay for a blu-ray
If you paid for a streaming service you didnt pay for any perpetual use. 
If you paid for a book, you did not pay for an audio book. 
If you paid for a book you did not pay for a different version of the book. 
If you paid for a MP3 album you did not pay for CD quality album. 
If your streaming service of choice has not paid for the license to distribute a piece of media in your area. You did NOT pay for it either. 

Etc, etc, etc. 

You have the right to strip/digitize your copy of a thing and do whatever you want with your copy. you dont have a right to OTHER copies. you only paid for yours. 

None of the examples relate to this case. Paid for streaming got streaming. End of story.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That's not how it works. Like, actually not how it works, at all.

 

You might think it is how it should work, but that doesn't mean it works that way. When you subscribe to for example Netflix, you are only allowed access to the library for the country you reside in. Using a VPN to trick Netflix into thinking you are in a different country is against the terms of service, as well as the contracts signed with Netflix and the content providers.

You are breaking the terms of service if you use a VPN, and you are potentially committing an act of piracy as well since you are using techniques to circumvent DRM protection. You are accessing material you did not rightfully pay for. You paid for the content library that is available in the country you are physically located in, not the content library for a country you are pretending to be in.

I know it sucks that it works this way, but just because we disagree with the contracts doesn't mean we are free to break them.

 

Think of digital goods as being shipped into the country. There is a substance very similar to Zyklon B that you can buy in certain countries. Just because it is legal to buy in those countries doesn't mean you can just buy it online and have it shipped to your country (presumably the US) and go "well I paid for it so you can't say I can't have it".

It is how it works, if i decide to go out to XY country to get something and pay for it there the companies have no say in the matter even if its not available in my country. They got the mmoney, i got the product. End of story.

[starsmine]

28 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

None of the examples relate to this case. Paid for streaming got streaming. End of story.

 

 

It is how it works, if i decide to go out to XY country to get something and pay for it there the companies have no say in the matter even if its not available in my country. They got the mmoney, i got the product. End of story.

If your streaming service of choice has not paid for the license to distribute a piece of media in your area. You did NOT pay for it either. 

If you want to pay for and import a DVD/Bluray for your personal use/NOT distribution, then so be it. 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

It is how it works, if i decide to go out to XY country to get something and pay for it there the companies have no say in the matter even if its not available in my country. They got the mmoney, i got the product. End of story.

I rented a vehicle, so I paid for it I must be allowed to do what I want because I am in legal possession of the property for that time [let me blindly ignore the fact that the contracts pretty much specify that I can't take it to do off-roading and claim I have the right to because I paid for it].

 

If the service contract you signed with the company says you can't allowed to do specific things then no you can't.  It's like people who have residential internet and whine about not being allowed to host websites off of it [or rather they get kicked off for doing it].  The issue becomes whether or not the contract allows you to do such a thing.

 

I say this as someone who does engage in downloading stuff, but I'm not going to try arguing that I am full on entitled to such rights [I buy DVD's, Blu-rays, etc but still rip them to consume which is still technically not allowed].  I can justify it morally to myself, but it's not like I can really claim it's not violating the terms.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

When you subscribe to for example Netflix, you are only allowed access to the library for the country you reside in. Using a VPN to trick Netflix into thinking you are in a different country is against the terms of service, as well as the contracts signed with Netflix and the content providers.

I actually was a bit curious on this, I'm not sure it technically is against the TOS/contracts.  From what I gather you still have to primarily access it from the country you are from, but there isn't additional clauses saying that you cannot use technological measures to appear in a different country.

 

I mean, I could be wrong and could have missed a few things but overall looking through it there isn't any provision that would cover VPN access [actually the way it's written some of the lines appear as though they wrote it in such a way that the assumption of the word country would be one where you are connecting through the country].

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You are breaking the terms of service if you use a VPN, and you are potentially committing an act of piracy as well since you are using techniques to circumvent DRM protection

I think it would mostly just stay in the land of contract law, and tort.  The DRM circumvention in this case I don't think applies as the DRM itself isn't circumvented.  The detection mechanism would be in Netflix's end, not on the client end.  Now if the Netflix app checked for VPN's and refused to connect only for you to use a VPN that tricks the app then it would I think apply.

 

The thing is, if it was considered something that would circumvent DRM then I think VPN's would legally not be allowed to be sold as a service [as it prohibits the sale of such "devices"/"services"].

 

Either way, it always made me curious on things such as ad-blockers in that it's the willful breach of contract which would be a civil action [but iirc Google tried and failed...but I don't think they used that argument].

[Sauron]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Either way, it always made me curious on things such as ad-blockers in that it's the willful breach of contract which would be a civil action [but iirc Google tried and failed...but I don't think they used that argument].

The difference being, websites can't just enforce any condition they wish on you just because you visited them. They can ask nicely, but ultimately what you do with the data on your end is your business, unless you're breaking DRM protection (which may or may not be illegal depending on your local laws). When you pay for something there's a stronger case to be made that you've accepted some type of contract, although again you can't just have anything in the terms of service and expect it to be enforceable.

[wanderingfool2]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The difference being, websites can't just enforce any condition they wish on you just because you visited them. They can ask nicely, but ultimately what you do with the data on your end is your business, unless you're breaking DRM protection (which may or may not be illegal depending on your local laws). When you pay for something there's a stronger case to be made that you've accepted some type of contract, although again you can't just have anything in the terms of service and expect it to be enforceable.

In this case though, yea they could (especially if you are logged into your google account).  While they can't just put anything in their terms of service, by visiting a site and continued use of it you accept to an extent the terms of service.  The biggest issue being that YouTube would have to sue each individual person and only be able to recover what was lost [i.e. maybe a few dollars in ad revenue], and depending how the law looks at it maybe even having to sue for each instance instead of combining into one.

 

You are in effect consuming a service.  Although again, any type of enforcement would cost places like YouTube more...which is why I mentioned going after ad-blockers themselves...something that I think they could have done a lot more effectively back when the ad-blockers were charging Google to whitelist the ads [which I would argue if they sued then it would be much easier to show intent for the ad-blockers to do it knowing it would breach a contract].

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

None of the examples relate to this case. Paid for streaming got streaming. End of story.

 

6 hours ago, starsmine said:

If your streaming service of choice has not paid for the license to distribute a piece of media in your area. You did NOT pay for it either. 

Actually this one is.

 

Long story short you not liking something doesn't make you in the right 

 

As much as I hate global content licensing this is actually why you cannot watch something anywhere you like regardless of your citizenship status or primary residence location because that has absolutely nothing to do with content licensing at all.

 

Not that I care what anyone does with a VPN, but that's a personal thing not your legal right to be doing what you are doing.

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Paid for streaming got streaming. End of story.

Paid for streaming, yet still pirated it. End of story. 

 

 

just because you can doesn't make it right or legal. 

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

just because you can doesn't make it right or legal. 

Dont get me wrong,  i actually think it should be your natural legal right,  but we do not have that kind of unifying global laws for content licensing,  hence it's not. 

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If the service contract you signed with the company says you can't allowed to do specific things then no you can't.

A civil contract is no law. And if thise dinisaurs want so badly to enforce borders where there is none it is only fair to have the right of digital travel. And that is all i have to say about the hipocricy of the so called "entettainment industry".......

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

A civil contract is no law. And if thise dinisaurs want so badly to enforce borders where there is none it is only fair to have the right of digital travel. And that is all i have to say about the hipocricy of the so called "entettainment industry".......

these are not civil contracts mate.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

A civil contract is no law.

The issue is not between you and the service you pay for, which isn't a 'civil contract' in the way you put it either.

 

If Netflix is deemed to be allowing you to stream Avengers in a region that Disney+ has the right to then Disney+ can sue Netflix. What you are doing is actually a legal liability to Netflix which is why they block VPNs, not because they just want to. If Netflix has the content then they actually do want as many people to be able to view it to create the most appealing service possible to get the most subscribers possible.

 

Until exclusive content rights are outlawed this is just how it's going to be because none of the stream services want to share and just fight to the death with each other.

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If Netflix is deemed to be allowing you to stream Avengers in a region that Disney+ has the right to then Disney+ can sue Netflix. What you are doing is actually a legal liability to Netflix which is why they block VPNs, not because they just want to. If Netflix has the content then they actually do want as many people to be able to view it to create the most appealing service possible to get the most subscribers possible.

 

its actually more complicated than that. the EU actually forbids "region blocking"... so since Netflix operates in EU they should simply not be allowed to block content based on region in the first place.

 

However, there might be international laws regarding movie rights allowing such blockage, not sure, also not sure which of those rules would take priority then.

 

PS:

 

 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/geo-blocking/

 

SO, if i understand this correctly,  its not allowed for member states... but since Netflix is American who knows really...

 

 

[starsmine]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The issue is not between you and the service you pay for, which isn't a 'civil contract' in the way you put it either.

 

If Netflix is deemed to be allowing you to stream Avengers in a region that Disney+ has the right to then Disney+ can sue Netflix. What you are doing is actually a legal liability to Netflix which is why they block VPNs, not because they just want to. If Netflix has the content then they actually do want as many people to be able to view it to create the most appealing service possible to get the most subscribers possible.

 

Until exclusive content rights are outlawed this is just how it's going to be because none of the stream services want to share and just fight to the death with each other.

honestly, the more I have done tangential work in the area, the more Im mostly fine with regional licensing. There is work done in localizing a work, and building a distribution that both matches local culture and local laws. 

Like Japan's distribution of anime in Japan is unhinged, and while that model has been done in the US, it does not create much revenue. they need someone who knows NA Law and culture to create a version of a piece of media that is palpable to us. (lol selling 30 USD DVDs that only contain 3 episodes (the Japan model)) Every area is going to be different. like SEA for a while really liked Video CDs... If I made media here, I would never in a million years have made a version of it to best fit a video CD. 

I do agree that it cant be to atomized, but thats why BD had only three regions vs DVDs 7

But having your regional distribution contractors for your work start competing against each other makes for bad business relationships and infighting.