It's not like we can capitalize on commerce in China anyway, so I think it's a fairly pragmatic approach.
If it works for my health insurance company, essentially all streaming services (including not even being able to cancel service from abroad), and many banks, it’ll work for you as well.
Surely bad actors wouldn’t use VPNs or botnets, and your customers never travel abroad?
The blocks don't stay in place forever, just a few months.
In my experience running rather lowish traffic(thousands hits a day) sites, doing just that brought every single annoyance from thousands per day to zero.
Yes, people -can- easily get around it via various listed methods, but don't seem to actually do that unless you're a high value target.
Re: China, their cloud services seem to stretch to Singapore and beyond. I had to blacklist all of Alibaba Cloud and Tencent and the ASNs stretched well beyond PRC borders.
I say that because I can't count how many times Google has taken me to a foreign site that either doesn't even ship to the US, or doesn't say one way or another and treat me like a crazy person for asking.
The only way of communicating with such companies are chargebacks through my bank (which always at least has a phone number reachable from abroad), so I’d make sure to account for these.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is related somehow. Like maybe these are Indian corporations using a Seychelles offshore entity to do their scanning because then they can offset the costs against their tax or something. It may be that Cyprus has similar reasons. Istr that Cyprus was revealed to be important in providing a storefront to Russia and Putin-related companies and oligarchs.[2]
So Seychelles may be India-related bots and Cyprus Russia-related bots.
[1] https://taxjustice.net/faq/what-is-transfer-pricing/#:~:text...
[2] Yup. My memory originated in the "Panama Papers" leaks https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/cypr...
So the seychelles traffic is likely really disguised chinese traffic.
There are some that do not provide services in most countries but Netflix, Disney, paramount are pretty much global operations.
HBO and peacock might not be available in Europe but I am guessing they are in Canada.
it wont be all chinese companies or ppl doing the scraping. its well known that a lot of countries dont mind such traffic as long as it doesnt target themselves or for the west also some allies.
laws arent the same everywhere and so companies can get away with behavior in one place which seem almost criminal in another.
and what better place to put your scrapers than somewhere where there is no copyright.
russia also had same but since 2012 or so they changed laws and a lot of traffic reduced. companies moved to small islands or small nation states (favoring them with their tax payouts, they dont mind if j bring money for them) or few remaining places like china who dont care for copyrights.
its pretty hard to get really rid of such traffic. you can block stuff but mostly it will just change the response your server gives. flood still knockin at the door.
id hope someday maybe ISPs or so get more creative but maybe they dont have enough access and its hard to do this stuff without the right access into the traffic (creepy kind) or running into accidentally censoring the whole thing.
[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/350973-man-connected...
Netflix doesn't have this issue but I've seen services that seem to make it tough. Though sometimes that's just a phone call away.
Though OTOH whining about this and knowing about VPNs and then complaining about the theoretical non-VPN-knower-but-having-subscriptions-to-cancel-and-is-allergic-to-phone-calls-or-calling-their-bank persona... like sure they exist but are we talking about any significant number of people here?
The internet has become a hostile place for any public server, and with the advent of ML tools, bots will make up far more than the current ~50% of all traffic. Captchas and bot detection is a losing strategy as bot behavior becomes more human-like.
Governments will inevitably enact privacy-infringing regulation to deal with this problem, but for sites that don't want to adopt such nonsense, allowlists are the only viable option.
I've been experimenting with a system where allowed users can create short-lived tokens via some out-of-band mechanism, which they can use on specific sites. A frontend gatekeeper then verifies the token, and if valid, opens up the required public ports specifically for the client's IP address, and redirects it to the service. The beauty of this system is that the service itself remains blocked at the network level from the world, and only allowed IP addresses are given access. The only publicly open port is the gatekeeper, which only accepts valid tokens, and can run from a separate machine or network. It also doesn't involve complex VPN or tunneling solutions, just a standard firewall.
This should work well for small personal sites, where initial connection latency isn't a concern, but obviously wouldn't scale well at larger scales without some rethinking. For my use case, it's good enough.
hostpapa in the US seems to become the new main issue (via what seems a 'ip colocation service'... yes, you read well).
I was in UK. I wanted to buy a movie ticket there. Fuck me, because I have an Austrian ip address, because modern mobile backends pass your traffic through your home mobile operator. So I tried to use a VPN. Fuck me, VPN endpoints are blocked also.
I wanted to buy a Belgian train ticket still from home. Cloudflare fuck me, because I’m too suspicious as a foreigner. It broke their whole API access, which was used by their site.
I wanted to order something while I was in America at my friend’s place. Fuck me of course. Not just my IP was problematic, but my phone number too. And of course my bank card… and I just wanted to order a pizza.
The most annoying is when your fucking app is restricted to your stupid country, and I should use it because your app is a public transport app. Lovely.
And of course, there was that time when I moved to an other country… pointless country restrictions everywhere… they really helped.
I remember the times when the saying was that the checkout process should be as frictionless as possible. That sentiment is long gone.
Traffic should be "privatize" as much as possible between IPv6 addresses (because you still have 'scanners' doing the whole internet all the time... "the nice guys scanning the whole internet for your protection... never to sell any scan data ofc).
Public IP services are done for: going to be hell whatever you do.
The right answer seems significantly big 'security and availability teams' with open and super simple internet standards. Yep the javascript internet has to go away and the app private protocols have too. No more whatng cartel web engine, or the worst: closed network protocols for "apps".
And the most important: hardcore protocol simplicity, but doing a good enough job. It is common sense, but the planned obsolescence and kludgy bloat lovers won't let you...
Soon: chineseplayer.io
CloudFront is fairly good at marking if someone is accessing from a data centre or a residential/commercial endpoint. It's not 100% accurate and really bad actors can still use infected residential machines to proxy traffic, but this fix was simple and reduced the problem to a negligent level.
In fact, I bet it would choke on a small amount of traffic from here considering it has a shitty vCPU with 512 MB RAM.
How so? They did not let me unsubscribe via blocking my IP.
Instead of being able to access at least my account (if not the streaming service itself, which I get – copyright and all), I'd just see a full screen notice along the lines of "we are not available in your market, stay tuned".
In several European countries, there is no HBO since Sky has some kind of exclusive contract for their content there, and that's where I was accordingly unable to unsubscribe from an US HBO plan.
Capitalism is a means to an end, and allowable business practices are a two-way street between corporations and consumers, mediated by regulatory bodies and consumer protection agencies, at least in most functioning democracies.
This is a perfectly good solution to many problems, if you are absolutely certain there is no conceivable way your service will be used from some regions.
> Surely bad actors wouldn’t use VPNs or botnets, and your customers never travel abroad?
Not a problem. Bad actors which are motivated enough to use VPNd or botnets are a different class of attacks that have different types of solutions. If you eliminate 95% of your problems with a single IP filter them you have no good argument to make against it.
Unless maybe you're from the east end of london.
We have been using that instead of VPN and it has been incredibly nice and performant.
I have first-hand experience, as I ran a company that geoblocked US users for legal reasons and successfully defended chargebacks by users who made transactions in the EU and disputed them from the US.
Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration process, not the rubberstamped refunds they are there.
(It sometimes comes to funny situations where malware doesn't enable itself on Windows machines if it detects that russian language keyboard is installed.)
I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion.
a hospital
an hour
a horse
It all comes down to how the word is pronounced but it's not consistent. 'H' can sound like it's missing on not. Same with other leading consonants that need an 'an'. Some words can go both ways.
Your mobile provider was routing you through Austria while in the US?
Due to frosty diplomatic relations, there is a deliberate policy to do fuck all to enforce complaints when they come from the west, and at least with Russia, this is used as a means of gray zone cyberwarfare.
China and Russia are being antisocial neighbors. Just like in real life, this does have ramifications for how you are treated.
When I was in China, using a Chinese SIM had half the internet inaccessible (because China). As I was flying out I swapped my SIM back to my North American one... and even within China I had fully unrestricted (though expensive) access to the entire internet.
I looked into it at the time (now that I had access to non-Chinese internet sites!) and forgot the technical details, but seems that this was how the mobile network works by design. Your provider is responsible for your traffic.
This isn’t the bar you need to clear.
It’s “if you’re comfortable with people in some regions not being able to use your service.”
Yes, the issuing and acquiring banks perform an arbitration process, and it's generally a very fair process.
We disputed every chargeback and post PSD2 SCA, we won almost all and had a 90%+ net recovery rate. Similar US businesses were lucky to hit 10% and were terrified of chargeback limits.
> I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion.
Are you sure? More likely, the vendor didn't dispute the successful chargebacks.
Weirdly, in certain expressions I say "before mine eyes" even though that fell out of common usage centuries ago, and hasn't really appeared in literature for around a century. So while I wouldn't have encountered it in speech, I've come across enough literary references that it somehow still passed into my diction. I only ever use it for "eyes" though, never anything else starting with a vowel. I also wouldn't use it for something mundane like "My eyes are sore", but I'm not too clear on when or why I use the obsolete form at other times - it just happens!
There also might be similar solutions for other cloud providers or some Kubernetes-adjacent abomination, but I specifically want something generic and standalone.
In ublock -> my filters
# HN Block Karma View
news.ycombinator.com##.comhead .score:style(overflow: hidden; display: inline-block; line-height: 0.1em; width: 0; margin-left: -1.9em;)
news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody > tr:first-of-type table td:last-of-type .pagetop:style(font-size: 0!important; color: transparent!important;)
news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody > tr:first-of-type table td:last-of-type .pagetop > *:style(font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.45em;)
news.ycombinator.com###logout::before:style(content: "|"; padding: 0.25em;)
news.ycombinator.com##form.profileform tbody tr:nth-child(3)My public SFTP servers are still on port 22 and but block a lot of SSH bots by giving them a long "versionaddendum" /etc/ssh/sshd_config as most of them choke on it. Mine is 720 characters long. Older SSH clients also choke on this so test it first if going this route. Some botters will go out of their way to block me instead so their bots don't hang. One will still see the bots in their logs, but there will be far less messages and far fewer attempts to log in as they will be broken, sticky and confused. Be sure to add offensive words in versionaddendum for the sites that log SSH banners and display them on their web pages like shodan.io.
Same is true for RP English.
Therefore, for both accents/dialects, the correct phrases are "a hotel", "a hero", "a heroine", and "an hour".
Cockney, West Country, and a few other English accents "h drop" and would use "an 'our", "an 'otel", etc.
For the record, my website is a front end for a local-only business. Absolutely no reason for anyone outside the US to participate.
But "merchant does not let me cancel" isn't a fraud dispute (and in fact would probably be lost by the issuing bank if raised as such). Those "non-fraudulent disagreement with the merchant disputes" work very similarly in the US and in Europe.
What's true is that in the US, the cardholder can often just say "I've never heard of that merchant", since 3DS is not really a thing, and generally merchants are relatively unlikely to have compelling evidence to the contrary.
But for all non-fraud disputes, they follow the same process.
I can only assume you are from the US and are assuming your experience will generalise, but it simply does not. Like night and day. Most EU residents who try using chargebacks for illegitimate dispute resolution learn these lessons quickly, as there are far more card cancellations for "friendly fraud" than merchant account closures for excessive chargebacks in the EU - the polar opposite of the US.
Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US.
Then they're making the claim that those binaries have botnet functionality.
So no. It's not.
When you posted this, what did you envision in your head for how they were prevented from unsubscribing, based on location, but not via IP blocking? I'm really curious.
I was thinking I would put your site into archive.org, using ArchiveBot, with reasonable crawl delay, so that it is preserved if your hardware dies. Ask on the ArchiveTeam IRC if you want that to happen.
This is a naive view of the internet that does not stand the test of legislative reality. It's perfectly reasonable (and in our case was only path to compliance) to limit access to certain geographic locations.
> I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers.
In our case, our customers were trying to commit friendly fraud by requesting a chargeback because they didn't like a geoblock, which is also what the GP was suggesting.
Using chargebacks this way is nearly unique to the US and thankfully EU banks will deny such frivolous claims.
Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit?
Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? Then the fair thing would usually be a prorated refund when they change country. A chargeback is bad but keeping all their money while only doing half your job is also bad.
Thank you. :)
That's true, but "fraud" and "compliance" aren't the only dispute categories, not by far.
In this case, using Mastercard as an example (as their dispute rules are public [1]), the dispute category would be "Refund not processed".
The corresponding section explicitly lists this as a valid reason: "The merchant has not responded to the return or the cancellation of goods or services."
> Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US.
Repeating your incorrect assumption doesn't make it true.
[1] https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n...
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Codearchiver https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Software_Heritage https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/
And you are right, kernel anti-cheat are rumored to be weaponized by hackers, and making the previous even worse.
And when the kid is playing his/her game at home, if daddy or mummy is a person of interest, they are already on the home LAN...
Well, you get the picture: nowhere to run, orders of magnitude worse than it was before.
Nowadays, the only level of protection the administrator/root access rights give you, is to mitigate any user mistake which would break his/her system... sad...
a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules,
and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy.
We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside the US, unless they are genuinely fraudulent.
Honestly, I think you have no experience with card processors outside the US (or maybe at all) and you just can't admit you're wrong, but anyone with experience would tell you how wrong you are in a heartbeat. The idea you can "defeat" geoblocks with chargebacks is much more likely to result in you losing access to credit than a refund.
> Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website?
In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.
I can imagine a merchant to win a chargeback if a customer e.g. signs up for a service using a VPN that isn't actually usable over the same VPN and then wants money for their first month back.
But if cancellation of future charges is also not possible, I'd consider that an instance of a merchant not being responsive to attempts at cancellation, similar to them simply not picking up the phone or responding to emails.
It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpretation, being very different between the US and other countries) isn't accurate.
Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) seems like an easy win for the issuer.
As a response to someone talking about customers traveling and needing support. But yeah geoblocks can occur in different situations with different appropriate resolutions.
> In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.
If you provided zero service at all, they should get their money back. And calling a chargeback in that situation "friendly fraud" is ridiculous.
If they weren't even asking for a refund and using a chargeback out of spite, that's bad, but that's a different problem from fraud.
For someone that did sign up via VPN, would they be able to access the cancellation page via VPN?
ArchiveTeam Codearchiver is quite a bit different, it does one-shot archiving of repos into VCS-native export formats, like git bundles. There is some deduplication based on commit hashes I think.
It’s usually phone support only, or some horrible web chat that leaves only the company with a permanent record of what was said. (I suspect that’s on purpose.)
I'm very open to a different perspective if it's grounded in reality. I'm only judging you on your comments, which to date have been factually inaccurate (to the point that I wonder if you're trolling?),
> Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks,
At vastly different rates (~10% vs ~80%)
> but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions)
Geoblocking a region is not being unresponsive and will not result in a breach of network rules. Lots of precedent and completely uncontroversial but yet you believe otherwise.
> seems like an easy win for the issuer.
Seems is the operative word here, but it only seems so from your uninformed position. Even after quoting the MC terms that show that you're incorrect, you're still not open to new information.
No, if a company upholds their side of a contract, the customer must too, within the bounds of the law.
A chargeback in that situation is the _definition_ of "friendly fraud" and is actual criminal fraud.
> If they weren't even asking for a refund and using a chargeback out of spite, that's bad, but that's a different problem from fraud.
That's also criminal fraud.
US consumer are often shocked that "customer is always right" customer service doesn't extend beyond their borders and that they can't chargeback their way out of contracts they've signed.
> For someone that did sign up via VPN, would they be able to access the cancellation page via VPN?
It doesn't matter. If our terms prohibited VPN use to avoid geoblocking (which they did), it's irrelevant whether your VPN can or cannot access the cancellation page on a given day. You can email or write to us. All perfectly legal, lawful, and backed by merchant account providers.
Is that your observed rate or an industry-wide trend?
If it's the former, I'll stick with my theory – you're extrapolating from a pretty specific scenario to a different one. My guess would be that you're conflating geoblocking of content (what you seem to have experience with) with geoblocking of the cancellation method (what this thread is about).
If it's the latter, you're wildly off base:
> Merchants win an average of 50% of representments, though there are differences by country: U.S.: 54%, U.K.: 49.1%, AU: 46.7% and Brazil: 36.9%.
(from https://www.mastercard.com/us/en/news-and-trends/Insights/20...)
In fact, this is the opposite of what you're claiming (i.e. a higher win rate for merchants outside the US).
How do I find your email or postal address if you're blocking every request from a given region? My original point was about companies that do that.
If you're not, I agree that there's much less of a problem (some jurisdictions require online cancellation methods, though).
The company upholding their side by... doing nothing? Just give a refund if you're not providing service. And what is this about upholding your side if you're legally unable to provide the service in the first place?
> A chargeback in that situation is the _definition_ of "friendly fraud" and is actual criminal fraud.
They have to get the thing and then chargeback. Your definition is nonsense if it doesn't include them getting the thing.
> That's also criminal fraud.
It might be if they lie about something. But this isn't worth going on a tangent.
> It doesn't matter. If our terms prohibited VPN use to avoid geoblocking (which they did), it's irrelevant whether your VPN can or cannot access the cancellation page on a given day. You can email or write to us. All perfectly legal, lawful, and backed by merchant account providers.
Do they know who to email while the site is blocked? At least that's something.
But I'm not even asking about things fluctuating from day to day, I'm worried about a situation where a VPN can sign up but the same VPN at the same time can't be used to cancel.