> Many providers build their proxy pools by partnering with device owners who agree to share their bandwidth, while others use embedded SDKs in free apps or VPNs.
Mmm... your quote (IDK where it's from) mentions them having consent from device owners, but your FBI link cautions on how to avoid getting infected by malware.
If they have consent, they're not really botnets. Botnets involve infecting devices without the owners knowing.
With consent, it wouldn't be much different from e.g. open WiFis at restaurants and hotels, companies using a single ISP and single public IPv4 address for all their employees, and most VPN services.
And even if you spent a minute explaining the proposition to a user off the street, it still wouldn't be fair unless you laid out the drawbacks. Which leads me to a question.
There must be countless individuals all over the world who suddenly can't log into their Gmail or create any new accounts because a fraudster sent spam from their IP. I wonder: has anyone has tried to quantify that problem?
> There must be countless individuals all over the world who suddenly can't log into their Gmail or create any new accounts because a fraudster sent spam from their IP.
Places with open WiFi like hotels and restaurants would be having the same problem. People on CGNATs would be having the same problem. An IP doesn't correspond with a single user.
Thank you. Gmail must not be like our fellow HN users we see here, quoting a couple:
“I'm tiny and only run little personal stuff. I just block vast IP address blocks.”
“Apologies. :( Since you say you've never visited the website before, then that means you're either in one of the countries or in one of the residential IP ranges that I've had to block.”
Although Google isn’t afraid to completely block iCloud private relay from Google scholar. Other sites may reject the first iCloud private relay visit, then reopen site in new tab and often automatically assigns new unblocked IP. Anyway, I would’ve thought it’s an acceptable cost from e.g. Google’s perspective to block ranges that did something bad once in spite of collateral damage.
> Anyway, I would’ve thought it’s an acceptable cost from e.g. Google’s perspective to block ranges that did something bad once in spite of collateral damage.
Almost nobody is on a static IP. ISPs have an interest to keep their customers connected and not affected by other customers, so they'd probably use as large address pools as possible for their dynamic IP rotations. "Did something bad once" is short-lived unless address ranges are large.
Tech companies like Google are interested in being global monopolies to dominate markets and also having as good and large-sampled statistical data as possible from everyone. Blocking thousands of users for each bad user that can likely easily switch to another block if they really want to doesn't seem effective. It would also affect their reputation. Who wants to rely on an email service that may block you because of other users on your IP block? Having a reputation for being reliable is important for businesses.
With small personal sites/blogs like the ones you mentioned, they can just block most of the planet without a problem. There's not as much reason to be as reachable as possible (some may be satisfied with an audience of a handful of people), and they're also more budget conscious.
In the case of Google blocking an Apple service, they not blocking users; they're blocking Apple. The users can just not use Apple's service.
If they have consent, they're not really botnets. Botnets involve infecting devices without the owners knowing.
With consent, it wouldn't be much different from e.g. open WiFis at restaurants and hotels, companies using a single ISP and single public IPv4 address for all their employees, and most VPN services.