Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal
from the if-you-don't-want-me-to-watch... dept
I mentioned recently that, for some idiotic reason, Hulu has stopped letting me view any of its content. That's because I use WiTopia's VPN service for security reasons. It seems that plenty of other WiTopia users are discovering this, as well, and are getting annoyed. The issue is that Hulu wants to block people from outside the US from viewing its content (for licensing reasons, even if they're pretty pointless in today's world). But, for some bizarre reason, it's been decided that anyone who uses any sort of VPN or proxy can't use Hulu at all because they might be coming from a foreign country. I'm sitting here in California and Hulu tells me I might be illegally accessing its content, so it doesn't allow it. So, instead, I don't give Hulu any additional ad views and I don't watch the content I wanted to watch. How does that help anyone? It appears to make everyone worse off. And it's not like WiTopia is some free anonymous proxy -- it's a pay-service that has been around for ages and is used regularly for WiFi security purposes. Many of its users are US-based (the company is based in the US, and most of its servers are in the US as well). So, because (gasp!) a small group of people outside the US might dare to catch a video (with ads!!), all of Witopia's US customers can't watch any content at all? This is the same ridiculous content industry mindset that drives so many people to unauthorized file sharing: they treat you as a criminal first and force you to prove you're not (or sometimes, don't even let you prove otherwise). The problem the industry is facing isn't due to some guy in Europe catching The Colbert Report from across the sea. It comes from turning off legitimate customers and users who are sick of being treated like crap.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content, security, video, vpn
Companies: hulu, witopia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the most infuriating is comedycentral! I can't remember how many times I tried to follow a link to a "funny" video or segment only to find myself blocked and CURSE comedycentral to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw TV aggregators
I'm using a VPN service to connect http://www.vpntelevision.com
ps Hulu - I would be willing to pay to get access from overseas!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they don't fix it, that would be unfortunate and not so understandable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"there is no money in piping ads around the world".
Then you get to reality.
Meanwhile, there is money in driving interest to your show by giving people better access (aka online).
Lots of people are on BBC's ass about it, especially people in other countries who wish to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hulu is a commercial enterprise that isn't just blocking foreign users from accessing it, but also USA users as well. That's not a good business plan. Business being getting as many people as possible to consume your product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overseas viewers
"There is no money in piping US ads and bandwidth to countries around the world. Hulu isn't treating you as a criminal any more than anyone else in the world. It's unfortunate that they don't have a means to monetize traffic to other countries, but I think it's difficult to blame them for honoring their advertising partners by not allowing this gaping hole. You can't access a lot of BBC media directly... Nobody is on their back."
I wouldn't be so sure that's there's no money in piping ads across the globe. Ask McDonalds, Nokia, Sony, Ford, Toyota, Microsoft, Apple etc. These are global brands and would surely want to take every opportunity to reach the widest audience. If there was no money in reaching overseas audiences, why when I visit US based web sites do I see ads for Toyota or Burger King? These aren't just US products, they can be bought around the world.
Sure, Joe the used car sales guy out on Route 19 isn't going to see any reason to worry about it, but is he likely to be an advertiser on Hulu anyway?
In defence of Hulu, I think that you'll find that the US national broadcasters like NBC & CBS also prevent overseas viewing of content via their web players. Not to say that it isn't stupid, but it does appear to the current model.
As for the BBC, it is worth remembering that they are owned and financed by taxpayers - not advertisers. Their license which is governed by parliament forbids some media being offered outside the UK. Why should the local taxpayers subsidise overseas viewers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ads
> bandwidth to countries around the world.
Sure there is. You just don't use the same ads. The system is already detecting the user's location. Just ad one more step. If the user is in the USA, they get a Coke ad. If they're in Britain, they get an ad for BBC News or whatever. If they're in Russia, they get an ad for a Russian mobile phone company. If they're in Australia, they get an ad for vegemite.
Seems pretty simple to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You can't access a lot of BBC media directly... Nobody is on their back."
Nobody is berating the BBC for blocking video content from users outside of the UK because BBC programming isn't ad supported like US terrestrial channels - it's paid for by the British people. All households must pay $236 a year to the BBC for the "privilege" of watching TV; whether we choose to watch the BBC or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was under the impression that if your household didn't have a TV you didn't have to pay the TV fee. You're saying that's not true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, the licensing authority do tend to assume that you do own a TV and make it difficult for you to prove that you don't. You don't have to pay if you don't have one, but everyone I know who doesn't tends to go through an annual ball-ache trying to avoid the charge,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if you don't have a TV you have to prove it? I'm curious, how does one go about proving such a negative? Is everything like that there? I mean, if they decide to accuse you of murder, do you have to be able to prove that you never killed anyone or do they have to prove that you did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way, check out how they've expanded their remit on the below link. If it's even possible for you to do any of those things, they will tend to assume that you will, hence the difficulty in getting an exception.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except, that wouldn't prove any such thing.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
According to that page, "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast." That wouldn't even require that you own a TV. How could you prove that you never even inadvertently glance at a TV broadcast? Would you have to gouge your eyes out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No American products are sold outside of the US? News to me...
As for the BBC, their budget is paid for directly by the British taxpayers. No ads, therefore, no way to recoup costs from overseas viewers. it's also worth noting that some shows broadcast on the BBC (such as Family Guy) are unavailable on the iPlayer due to licensing issues (e.g. miss an episode? Tough shit, you have to pirate it if you watch it again. US idiocy wins again!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For movie & TV show fan Ironically "Watches" Hulu
Hulu
12312 W. Olympic Blvd
Los Angeles, CA, 90064
Please include your Hulu Username, a copy of a birth certificate, drivers license and recent utility bill (no more than 90 days old) to ensure you are a legal user located the USA.
/sarcasm
In all seriousness, I don't know what you should do. Don't actually send them this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiTopia
These guys sound quite a bit like you Mike, I wonder if they've ever perused your blog. Refreshingly honest and transparent about their service, such a crazy business strategy I can't believe anyone actually implemented it. It's almost insane.
From their site (emphasis mine)
Why should I trust WiTopia?
... Keeping it real, compared to your ISP, a hotspot/network owner, or even a government, we have a vested interest in vigorously maintaining your data security and privacy.
After all, that is what you pay us to do.
Not to be too capitalistic or simplistic about it, but that really is quite an incentive. This is how we earn our livelihoods. We don't sell ads. We don't have side jobs. This is it. You pay us money and we do everything we can to provide you the best service and protection possible.
If we don't do it well, or somehow betrayed your trust, we'd guess you'd go elsewhere in an Internet minute. Knowing that, we will strive to earn your trust every single day and, hopefully, year after year....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WiTopia
I think a client should give a public key to the server(ssl-in-the-browser). client side encryption makes alot more sense. no more man in the middle attack with ssl certs since I have the keys(Of course, won't solve phishing, but only paying attention will do that now). And most importantly: the connection is secure from endpoint to endpoint.
hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WiTopia
Actually, there are things such as SSL that allow end-to-end secure connections on the Internet. So it's really not "a fundamental flaw with the internet in general". The problem that you describe is probably with the sites that you surf not caring to offer optional HTTPS connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
And the fundamental flaw in the internet is the fact that, unless the site use ssl or a javascript encryption, everything you do on the internet is plaintext. that should be so. like sending everything, from "im doing fin letters" to state secrets using a postcard. not too safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
Doesn't your browser warn you if the URL doesn't match the certificate? All 3 of the browsers I use do. Get a new browser if it doesn't. If you're saying the DNS could get hijacked, I don't see how there's anything you could do about that.
How would keeping the certificate on the client side help? You would still be initiating a secure connection with some server on the internet. How would you be any more certain what server it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
The reason for having client side cert has nothing to do with the endpoints themselves, but the path between endpoints. you isp, any gov, their isp would oblivious to the information you are passing. Even with the current server side encryption you have no real idea what is on the other side. At least this way you know that the end to end connection is secure.
How is any of that a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
That's a fundamental flaw with the foolish user that's willing to send sensitive information over insecure links. Don't do it. Or get yourself a nanny if you just can't help yourself otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WiTopia
"Usung HTTPS is like sending $0.02 across town in an armour'd car."
And he was right, but at this point I want my $0.02 cents protected. I am not sure what your argument was. Remember, all information not "protected"(with its flaws) by https is wide open. Even ajax on pages with https may be unsecure. My idea is to make the whole connection secure, regardless of the subject matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't worry...
...the credit card might actually have been stolen by a criminal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't worry...
Your credit card might have been stolen by a criminal that doesn't live in the USA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously, and I don't think anyone said otherwise. Did you have a point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue 'em for Profiling...
Can you imagine if everytime Sheriff Joe saw a Mexican in Arizona that he just tossed him/her over the border - you're a Mexican, must be here illegally - off with you.
Must really be nice to totally exclude a segment of users just because they are using a VPN of some sort.
Mike - welcome to other side of profiling!
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a Mike sort of a world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a Mike sort of a world.
If you really believe that, then I want to know what kind of fantasy world *you* live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if they had some unfortunate, unintended outcomes of their licensing control (and I respect the desire to fulfill your obligations no matter how unreasonable they are), they really should have considered how they worded the message to their viewers. "Since you're probably a thief anyway, screw you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes downloading the videos more and more reasonable every time a restriction is put in place. All the excuses in the world can be made, but I can get the same shows for free over the air from US signals on my TV... are they going to jam those signals now too, just because I might watch some broadcast TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about the ads
But, I'm not. I'm in the same damn state as their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about the ads
It really *is* about the content industry and the way they do distribution.
You see back in the olden days they used to contract with a local distributor in each country to distribute the reels and collect the royalties. It kind of made sense when they had to load all those canisters onto a steamer and ship them across oceans. Everyone was happy and most people wore an onion on their belt (which was the fashion at the time).
As far as the 'content industry' is concerned the olden days never ended and Hulu can only show the content in the country they have licensed it. If they want to show it in Canada they need a license from the Canadian rights holder. They haven't done that (yet) so blockedy block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's all about the ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about the ads
and why can't they sell UK ads for UK viewers to see? because of contracts they have with... wait for it... the content industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's all about the ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about the ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? A man in the middle just watching the whole conversation already won't be able to read anything (with any encryption). A man in the middle that can intercept and replace all traffic works will be unstoppable unless the parties have exchanged some information previously. It makes far more sense that your browser store the one certificate from your bank than it does the for your bank to store the certificates from all its' customers browsers.
Though I suppose in your system banks could force customers to call them up every time they want to access their account on a new computer, but that would be a pretty big inconvenience for the security gain, given that there are very few man in the middle attacks of the sort described.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. But I'm in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, how are they to know he isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
>>But you're behind a proxy, so how are Hulu to know you're in the US?
>Umm, how are they to know he isn't?
They don't know, thanks to the VPN. That's the point.
They are under no obligation to provide access to everyone in the US.
They *are* under obligation to prevent access by anyone outside the US. (Unfortunately. I'm in Australia, and would love access.)
What do you suggest they do to meet their obligations when faced with untraceable users?
Seems to me they have no choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are under no obligation to provide access to everyone in the US.
They *are* under obligation to prevent access by anyone outside the US. (Unfortunately. I'm in Australia, and would love access.)
What do you suggest they do to meet their obligations when faced with untraceable users?
Seems to me they have no choice.
First, you need to understand that IP addresses don't prove identity or location of users in the first place. You generally can't really tell if *any* IP address is being used as a proxy or otherwise forwarding information to and from another location.
So, by your reasoning Hulu should "have no choice" but to cut off ALL IP addresses. But they don't, do they? So sorry, I don't buy your, or Hulu's, excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
RTFA, dumbass.
The identified IP address will belong to Witopia. it should be possible for Witopia to assign IP addresses to US customers that Hulu accepts as valid US addresses. they have a chocie to work with VPN providers, but have instead decided to block them completely. Stupid choice, therefore valid criticism in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo fricking hoo hoo.
(2) and using VPN "for WiFi security reasons"
(3) why not just skip the VPN when watching Hulu? There's no sensitive information of your to be stolen, after all - Hulu is not like iStream that uses credit card information to verify your location.
The only need to use a VPN to watch shows on Hulu is to pretend to be from the US if you are not.
Murdoch is already complaining about Hulu only making dimes where NewsCorp is used to making dollars - if Hulu has to rebate ad revenues because of no-revenue ads streamed overseas, it only makes the hand of the NewsCorp faction arguing to go to subscriber content stronger.
The ad-based free-stream model runs on margins that are too narrow to give free rides to leech streams for viewers outside the advertising market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Proxy Coming Up!
They need to study the simple principles of water and gravity. Water flows downhill. If you try to block it, it simply builds up until it either bursts the blockage or flows around it. The Internet is the same way. Resistance is futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're off on this one, Mike.
It may or may not be stupid for rights holder to demand this condition, but blaming Hulu just isn't fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're off on this one, Mike.
It is if Hulu agreed to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're off on this one, Mike.
And that makes it okay? I disagree. Anytime someone says "oh that's a standard clause" without giving a reason why, I know that they're full of it. There's simply no reason that Hulu should be agreeing to block VPN site access.
Rights holders demand it. Sometimes they are legally bound to demand it since they have already sold distribution rights in some territories.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with territories. I'm in the same state as Hulu. I understand regional blocking, but this is not regional blocking at all. This is VPN blocking because some tiny % of VPN users *might* possibly be from another country.
So, if Hulu wants to have shows like "The Office" and movies like "Wind Talkers," then they've must agree to block people using VPNs and proxy servers.
You never have to agree to anything. The content providers need Hulu more than Hulu needs them. Fine, let The Office not be on Hulu, and then watch what happens.
It may or may not be stupid for rights holder to demand this condition, but blaming Hulu just isn't fair.
Sure it is. They agreed to this (and the VPN blocking was just turned on recently -- it never used to be a problem). They should take the blame for agreeing to a ridiculous policy that makes no sense and does nothing to help them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're off on this one, Mike.
There's probably a great reason: They might not get a lot of the content that attracts users to Hulu.
You never have to agree to anything.
If you want something (i.e. a license for content), then you do.
The content providers need Hulu more than Hulu needs them. Fine, let The Office not be on Hulu, and then watch what happens.
Perhaps you have more information than I do, but that statement seems to be pure conjecture. I think you may be right in the long-term, but right now I believe that The Office would still do pretty well without Hulu. That's just my opinion.
I really believe that you're dramatically oversimplifying this, and your seem to be totally ignoring any practical considerations. I've met lots of movie makers, for example, that pretty much sold a kidney to fund their films. If Cannal+ comes along and offers one of them beau coup bucks for exclusive European rights, then you'd better believe that the movie maker is going to agree to many of the terms required by Cannal+, even if those terms are stupid.
The companies that license content to Hulu may have limited options because of other agreements. For Hulu, the question may be: Do we want to keep VPN users so badly that we'll walk away from content that will make our site valuable to millions of other users? Your post and response suggests that you think rights holders and Hulu should make servicing VPN users show-stoppers in all of their multi-million dollar agreements. Mike, you're a smart guy and you have a great blog, but that just seems ridiculous to me. Blocking a relatively small number of VPN users may be stupid; however, loosing important contracts because you didn't agree to something ridiculous, but has relatively little downside, may be far more stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're off on this one, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just dont use a VPN then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just dont use a VPN then...
Talk about geniuses. You obviously don't know much about computer security (but that doesn't keep you from popping off about it anyway).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
calm down..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: calm down..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only you could put complainers in containers and put 'em all on an island. Am I right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Complaining about complainers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you are complaining about Mike commenting on Hulu's business practices? Here's an idea for you: If you want to control what gets talked about, then maybe you should go set up your own blog.
What would happen if I used used a script to type N**GER over and over again...
So, what does "N**GER" mean? Is it "people who annoy you"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why don't you try calling me a NAGGER to my face!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alternative
It is still annoying (for the linux users at least) that they use secure flash and thus you can watch it only with the adobe flash, but it is better then nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US military overseas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US military overseas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turn off the VPN and stop cruing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The networks haven't found out
You can't use Hulu and watch the ad-supported shows, so you can only go to piracy. It's as if they WANT you to pirate.
If Hulu was smart, they'd strike a deal with Witopia, and only allow Witopia users that are originating from the US. I'm sure that Witopia could set it up like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "Qualifying Out"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/sales/qualifying/qualifying_out.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn off your VPN.
Enjoy Hulu.
Quit whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Turn on your VPN
Enjoy your security
Quit being disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
I'm going to have to side with those who question why you're using VPN to connect to Hulu.
I'm going to be blunt here, but you remind me of these people who log onto their computers using an administrator account only to whine and bitch when something goes wrong because of the open vulnerability they placed themselves in.
VPN is designed for security, and should be used for secured purposes. There's absolutely *no reason* why you should be using it to surf Hulu's website (or any other non-secured website, for that matter).
Doing so opens possibility for vulnerabilities within the VPN world. You, of all people, should know there's no such thing as 100% security.
I'm a bit surprised to see an article like this when it's quite clear who is truly to blame. Sure, you may not like the fact Hulu's blocking you, but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.
All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability. The less you take those chances, the more likely your computer remains secured.
Side note: while you're at it, log off the admin account as well. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
I have seen you make awesome arguments before, but this is not one of them.
You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense.
but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Hulu doesn't require a secured connection, so why use a secured channel to access it.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
Yes, I gathered this from the article. But the VPN connection isn't the issue as much as *why* the connection is refused.
I agree with Mike's assessment the reason for blocking the VPN is stupid, but I can't understand his position when a simple change of connection, which also protects his VPN, would be the *better* choice.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
I'll try. VPN connections are used on the premise that a remote computer can connect to another using secure protocols which do their best to prevent unauthorized access to either system.
The *sole* purpose is for a secured connection, but it shouldn't be used outside of this purpose. In other words, a VPN shouldn't be used to access systems which the VPN wasn't intended.
Yes, some will argue that it's to protect the connecting machine, but this is why I related it to the administrator account.
To me, it makes *absolutely no sense* to use a VPN to establish connections for which the VPN wasn't intended to do.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I would assume the VPN is used to establish the connection between Mike's laptop and the Floor64 servers, such that he can securely work from anywhere in the world. Maybe connections to other businesses as well.
The entire *purpose* of security is to prevent unauthorized access, so (again, my perception) it makes no sense why a machine designated for security would be used in a non-secured role.
What's ironic are the articles Techdirt posts about government employees losing their laptops containing sensitive data and then posing the question why these laptops were allowed out of the building to begin with.
Same concept. Mike *shouldn't* be using a secured laptop to access an unsecured site. Ever.
But, admittedly, this is just my viewpoint as I consistently see people making this same mistake daily (hence the "log out of the admin account").
I guess I'm just a bit more cautious in this type of situation. I'd never use a VPN connection to hit a site it wasn't designated to secure itself over.
There's *no reason* to use VPN to hit the Hulu site.
Get a netbook to surf the web. Leave the secured laptop to its primary secured role.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
When you access a site it gets information about you, a lot of people isn't okay with that, so there are many ways to hide your identity. But companies are not okay with anonymous visitors, for economic reasons they *need* to know who is on the other side.
The real problem is both parties have incompatible seemingly opposed needs: Companies need information and customers need privacy. People is in their right to keep privacy and companies are in their right to demand information before giving a service.
So, people like us who wants to keep their private info private (and are in our right to do it) are no longer target market for Hulu and the like. Big deal, I'll just find other ways to watch it or not watch any series at all and just go read a good book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
So, you're saying that using encrypted connections *makes* one vulnerable? You're losing credibility. Fast.
VPN is designed for security, and should be used for secured purposes.
Wait. I thought you said it opened up vulnerability. Make up your mind.
Cedibility: still sinking. Course change: unlikely.
Doing so opens possibility for vulnerabilities within the VPN world.
There you go, flip flopping again like a fish out of water. When I see someone doing that it makes me wonder what agenda they're trying to hide.
Credibility level: practically nil.
You, of all people, should know there's no such thing as 100% security.
Indeed. Who said otherwise?
I'm a bit surprised to see an article like this when it's quite clear who is truly to blame. Sure, you may not like the fact Hulu's blocking you, but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.
Uh, WiTopia *sells* secured connections. That kind of makes it *Mike's* connection, now doesn't it? And watching Hulu is perfectly within their acceptable use policy. So what was your point again? Or rather, what's your *real* agenda?
All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability. The less you take those chances, the more likely your computer remains secured.
So, the less security you have the more secure you are? [jaw hits floor]
Credibility: completely gone.
You know, I looked for any sarcasm tags in your post and didn't see any. Really, I did. So, what are you, some kind of Hulu shill or just an idiot? Or maybe a troll playing the part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Mr. Hypocrite, it's best if I dumb down my post, as I appear to have written it confusingly. I'll take the blame for this, so allow me to expand even further.
You own a lock box which holds all your secret information. The goal of this lock box is to transfer contents from your home to the bank. There is only one key, so its security is confined to you.
Now, would you take this lock box down a dark alley where thieves hold tools and will waste no time trying to break open your lock box? Or worse, steal your key?
Of course you wouldn't. But this is what Mike (and many others) do. They're taking their lock box down the dark alley because they continually believe the key will keep them safe, and worse, should open other things besides the lock box.
The purpose of security is to ensure the contents of the lock box gets to the bank. Not Hulu, YouTube, or any other non-secured website. By *purposely* going down the dark alley is inviting the failure of security.
Of course, it's Mike's choice to do so, but it completely boggles my mind he's upset when his key isn't working where he expects it to, but not intended for.
If anything, Mike has set a precedent on why security fails so often. Too many times, people want the lock box to do everything while trying to remain secured.
Kind of similar to installing P2P software on government computers, open to the world, in which the content is to be secured *from* the outside world.
I would have drawn pictures, but I wouldn't have been able to post them.
Hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
I see, so you're suggesting using a separate computer for each website. That *is* idiotic.
Furthermore, if you're using a bank that authenticates you using such a scheme then I suggest that you find another bank, quickly, because they're also idiotic and incompetent.
And none of that explains your previous claims that using security makes you less secure. But go ahead, tell yourself whatever you want, I suppose. But if you start trying to spread it around then you can expect people who know better to point it out.
Of course, it's Mike's choice to do so, but it completely boggles my mind he's upset when his key isn't working where he expects it to, but not intended for.
You keep making claims about how WiTopia intends for their service to be used, but you never present any evidence to back it up. Please quit making stuff up.
Kind of similar to installing P2P software on government computers, open to the world, in which the content is to be secured *from* the outside world.
Uh, no, installing a VPN is *not* "kind of similar to installing P2P software". You really have no idea what you're talking about. Not that everyone should be computer security specialists, but to go around just making stuff up like that is inexcusable. Not only is it ignorant, it's dishonest.
I would have drawn pictures, but I wouldn't have been able to post them.
Thank goodness. What you wrote was bad enough; I really wouldn't have wanted to see a bunch of crayon drawings as well.
Hope this helps.
Ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Just look at what Witopia explains as reasons for using it:
http://www.witopia.net/index.php/support/why/
It makes no sense to have to log out of the VPN just to watch Hulu. That would then limit what else I could do while I was on Hulu. Why would that make sense?
Besides, there's nothing about using Witopia widely that makes it less secure. I don't understand that argument at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
I'm not making any claims, Mike.
Techdirt featured a recent article about government employees being banned from using P2P software on government computers. You attributed the cause of leaked files to the lack of education of P2P software (settings), correct?
Think about this a moment. Really.
How is your VPN usage *any* different, Mike?
Are you going to write a Techdirt article against Witopia should one day you hit a site and your VPN is compromised because of *your* actions?
It boggles my mind people do this. I fully understand the purpose of Witopia. It's the users who think "security" is 100% guaranteed that get compromised.
I certainly hope your laptop doesn't contain information you don't want others to have.
You're just begging for someone to take it.
That would then limit what else I could do while I was on Hulu.
Bingo!!! Just what a VPN should do in the first place, Mike.
Keep throwing up those IT articles about security failure.
When you do, I'll simply link back to this one and point out the failure caused when people want to do unsecured actions using a secured system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
What a maroon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
What a maroon.
You need reading comprehension lessons.
Of course they're not the same. The point, since you missed it, is that *you don't put P2P software opened to the world on a secured computer and expect it to remain such* just as one shouldn't use VPNs to establish a PRIVATE connection to a PUBLIC server.
Get it now, or are pictures required?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Of course they're not the same.
Well, you're the one who asked how they were any different. If you don't remember that, you can look right up above at what you wrote. Or do you "need reading comprehension lessons" to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Uh, no. I was relating the *security* with the question, not the applications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
OK, so *using* a VPN is the same as *using* a P2P application, according to you.
Still a maroon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
There are many unsecured websites out there that you are putting in a password, whether it be a forum or a bank (although if you bank isn't using https, I would recommend a new one). Or even on facebook. Gmail is able to be run with https or without, are you recommending that since it can be run without, it should be? The point of the VPN is to add an additional layer of security. Just like https. Is it 100% secure? No, nothing is. But if this prevents people from getting my facebook password, then it is a step in the right direction.
I don't personally use a VPN, but I have used SSH Tunneling in the past, and it takes some work to go from unsecured to secured and back. First you have to make the connection then you have to change your browser to use that connection. If VPN's are anything like that, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to log out.
And to go along with your lock box/key analogy, on the internet you are always walking down a dark alley... There is always the possiblity that someone is lurking over you. Why wouldn't you want to protect everything possible? Whether it is your car keys or a couple million dollars worth of stock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?
Yes. Absolutely.
Are you going to write a Techdirt article against Witopia should one day you hit a site and your VPN is compromised because of *your* actions?
No, why would I do that?
It boggles my mind people do this. I fully understand the purpose of Witopia. It's the users who think "security" is 100% guaranteed that get compromised.
Huh?!? What are you talking about. I do not use Witopia because I think it gives me 100% security. I use it because it is more secure than not using it. Period.
You seem to be suggesting that no one should use security products because if htey use any security products they'll think they're secure and do stupid stuff. Really? You want to go down that path?
Do you wear a seatbelt?
When you do, I'll simply link back to this one and point out the failure caused when people want to do unsecured actions using a secured system.
There is nothing wrong with going to regular sites with a secure connection. Nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A programmer's simple solution
{
$torrents = true;
}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A programmer's simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A programmer's simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's Hulu?
It's been so long that I can't hardly remember anymore. They don't even register on my radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies are in their right to withhold service unless you identify yourself. anonymous users well have to go elsewhere for the service *COUGH*torrent*COUGH*, it is a sad thing, break ups, but they do happen. When the parts can't coexist the whole disolves, simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the crappy service and loathing of customers without the pesky interference from the FCC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just walk away.
What these ppl don't get is if watching their crap is not a habit then they are even LESS likely able to extract money from that content.
So just walk away. Screw 'em. Let them die just like newspapers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN not working
There are plenty of VPN providers that have not had their IPs blocked by Hulu. The good ones, like the one I provide constantly add more servers as our user base grows.
In essence, it's our job to add servers each month.
Shop around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CHALANGE TO HACKERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
At the very least Hulu should provide them with a method to proof they are in US and/or US citizens. This can be as simple a entering your credit card just so they can verify it's issued to someone in US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution - just try another anonymous VPN service!
www.vpntelevision.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cool down ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]