VPN Providers Laugh Off Netflix's New Futile War On VPNs

from the Whac-a-mole dept

Last week, we noted that the press spent much of the week hysterically claiming Netflix was waging a massive new war on VPNs and proxies to crack down on out-of-region viewing. Of course if you bothered to actually read Netflix's blog post on the subject, you'd note that Netflix wasn't actually implementing anything new. It was simply taking the same, modest attempts to block VPNs it has been using for several years into the 130 countries it just expanded into. These are, it should be noted, the same systems that Netflix's Neil Hunt just got done telling CES that they don't actually work:

"It’s likely to always be a cat-and-mouse game. [We] continue to rely on blacklists of VPN exit points maintained by companies that make it their job. Once [VPN providers] are on the blacklist, it’s trivial for them to move to a new IP address and evade."

So yeah, Netflix knows a war on VPNs and proxies is futile, it's just trying to placate broadcasters in new partner countries. Those broadcasters are (quite correctly) nervous about Netflix coming to town and utterly demolishing the kind of power and influence they've enjoyed for a generation or more. As we saw in Australia, many of these companies aren't really familiar with what competition looks like and don't really understand how technology works, so they've been pressuring Netflix and governments to wage war on VPNs -- as if this is going to somehow save them from the looming Internet video revolution.

And, right on cue, VPN providers are noting that what Netflix is doing may be annoying, but it's relatively trivial to bypass, since they can simply switch IP ranges and avoid Netflix blacklists:

"TorGuard is monitoring the situation closely and we have recently implemented new measures that can bypass any proposed IP blockade on our network. VPN users who encounter Netflix access problems are encouraged to contact us for a working solution,” he adds.

SlickVPN takes a similar stance and says that the static IP-addresses they offer are less likely to be blocked.

“We work tirelessly to ensure our customers have access to the entire internet. If we find that our IP addresses start to become blocked we’ll migrate to new IPs as needed. We also offer the option of static IPs which eliminates the problem entirely,” SlickVPN’s Greg Lyda says.

So in short, Netflix isn't really engaging in a massive new war on VPNs. It would be more accurate to say it's making a token effort to thwart VPNs it knows won't work, to appease necessary broadcast partners who don't really understand the technology they're whining about. None of this is to say that what Netflix is doing is good for the Internet or for its users, but it's a temporary hiccup on the path toward Netflix's eventual goal: uniform, consistent content licensing that looks the same in every country, instead of the bizarre, fractured content availability many of the new Netflix launch countries experience today.

Filed Under: geoblocking, proxies, streaming, vpn
Companies: netflix

Netflix Pretends It Will Crackdown On VPNs Just Days After Admitting It's Futile To Do So

from the international-whac-a-mole dept

For a few years now, broadcasters have whined endlessly about the use of VPNs to access Netflix in markets where the streaming service had yet to launch. You'll recall that Australian broadcasters in particular loved to throw hissy fits over the use of VPN technology, accusing customers (paying for both Netflix and a VPN) of being "pirates" for refusing to adhere to regional viewing restrictions. Of course, ignored amidst all this whining (and the futile attempts to ban VPNs) was the fact that these users wouldn't be going to these lengths -- if they liked the existing services being made available to them.

Last week, Netflix surprised everybody by announcing the service was now available in 130 additional countries, bringing the grand total of available countries to 190. And while this will certainly force many broadcasters to stop whining about VPNs and start competing, the fact remains that thanks to geographical licensing restrictions, the content being made available to Netflix customers in Canada will look dramatically different to the catalog available to users in Germany. As such, there's been renewed interest in the use of VPNs to engage in what's effectively global Netflix content tourism.

Netflix has made a few token gestures over the last year to appease broadcasters, such as fleeting efforts to thwart VPNs and geo-restriction avoidance tools. Those efforts were already in play in the 60 countries Netflix operated in before this recent expansion. But speaking at CES, Netflix exec Neil Hunt basically admitted that there's not really all that much Netflix can do to stop VPN use, unless they want to waste calories on an international game of Whac-A-Mole:

"We do apply industry standard technologies to limit the use of proxies,” (Netflix chief product officer Neil) Hunt says. “Since the goal of the proxy guys is to hide the source it’s not obvious how to make that work well. It’s likely to always be a cat-and-mouse game. [We] continue to rely on blacklists of VPN exit points maintained by companies that make it their job. Once [VPN providers] are on the blacklist, it’s trivial for them to move to a new IP address and evade."

Clearly Netflix got some blowback for admitting the futility of VPN bans, however, as the company has since posted a new blog post full of non-statements that try to walk back Hunt's comments a little bit:

"Some members use proxies or “unblockers” to access titles available outside their territory. To address this, we employ the same or similar measures other firms do. This technology continues to evolve and we are evolving with it. That means in coming weeks, those using proxies and unblockers will only be able to access the service in the country where they currently are. We are confident this change won’t impact members not using proxies."

Now most of the media read this statement to mean Netflix is implementing some severe new assault on VPNs, but if you read the statement carefully all Netflix is saying is it's going to continue using the same tools they've always used. The same tools one of their key executives just got done publicly admitting don't actually work. It's simply not possible to really ban VPN use, but Netflix wants to make partners in its 190 service countries feel comfortable while it slowly but surely works toward eliminating geo-restrictive licensing entirely. Also said by Hunt at CES:

"Our ambition is to do global licensing and global originals, so that over maybe the next five, 10, 20 years, it’ll become more and more similar until it’s not different"..."We don’t buy only for Canada; we’re looking … for all territories; buying a singular territory is not very interesting any more."...“When we have global rights, there’s a significant reduction in piracy pressure on that content. If a major title goes out in the U.S. but not in Europe, it’s definitely pirated in Europe, much more than it is if it’s released simultaneously,” Mr. Hunt says.

More consistent licensing reduces piracy, but it also forces legacy companies to compete and upsets the status quo by weakening local broadcaster power, so expect 2016 to be jam-packed with oodles more hand-wringing over VPN and proxy use by companies terrified of change.

As an aside, if you were curious just how fractured Netflix content availability is by country (often because content rights are sold before Netflix can even bid), Finder this week released a pretty amazing breakdown of what's available by country, an accompanying map highlighting global availability, and a breakdown of what percentage of the U.S. catalog is available in each country.

Filed Under: geoblocking, proxies, streaming, vpns
Companies: netflix

UK ISPs Now Filtering Websites That Simply List BitTorrent Proxy Websites, But Don't Host Any Infringing Content Whatsoever

from the is-this-real-life? dept

It's almost as if the UK is trying to be a shining example of the "slippery slope" we often refer to when talking about the dangers of filtering the Internet. Either that, or they're secretly creating absurdist art. Whether it's the government's porn filter architect getting arrested for child porn, the UK's filters blocking useful and entirely legal websites, or the desire to expand Internet filters to include ambiguously defined "extremist content," the UK has finally achieved high comedy with its stumbling, bumbling foray into trying to clean up the Internet of its naughty bits.

With the country's Pirate Bay filters going so well (as in not really well at all), the UK is engaged in a heated game of whac-a-mole to stop users from accessing the Pirate Bay specifically and BitTorrent websites in general. Despite years of effort and expenditures it remains relatively simple for most UK residents to dodge these bans, quite often by either changing simple DNS settings or by using a proxy server. The Pirate Bay has made it easier by often switching IP addresses, and when that doesn't work, users can still access the website via dedicated proxy sites. UK ISPs were already being forced to filter these proxy sites.

Now, in an added wrinkle, UK ISPs have started filtering websites that simply list these proxy websites. That's right, for good measure ISPs are now filtering websites that simply list other websites, but host no copyrighted material themselves whatsoever:

"Among the blocked sites are piratebayproxy.co.uk, piratebayproxylist.com and ukbay.org. Both sites are currently inaccessible on Virgin Media and TalkTalk, and other providers are expected to follow suit...TF spoke with Dan, the operator of UKBay.org, who’s baffled by the newly implemented blockade. He moved his site to a new domain to make the site accessible again, for the time being at least.

"The new blocks are unbelievable and totally unreasonable. To block a site that simply links to another site just shows the level of censorship we are allowing ISP’s to get away with," Dan says. "UKBay is not even a PirateBay proxy. It simply provides links to proxies. If they continue blocking sites, that link to sites, that link to sites.. there’l be nothing left,” he adds."

The filters include websites like piratebayproxy.co.uk, which features BitTorrent related news but also happens to list available proxies in a sidebar. What's next? A filter on the websites that list the websites that list the websites that offer proxy access to BitTorrent websites? Maybe for good measure UK ISPs should start filtering forums where you can discuss even so much as thinking about piracy just to be safe? It makes one wonder: when does a slippery slope stop being a slippery slope -- and just become an outright waterfall?

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, filters, proxies, uk

Russia Reaches The Censorship Endgame: Banning VPNs, Tor And Web Proxies

from the ghouls,-all-gathered-in-one-place dept

We have been tracking for some time the increasingly repressive measures that the Russian authorities have brought in to censor and control the Internet. Of course, Techdirt readers know that an easy way to circumvent both censorship and control is to use tools like VPNs and Tor. Unfortunately, the Russian authorities also know this, and are now calling for action against them, as TorrentFreak reports:

Speaking at Infoforum-2015, Russian MP Leonid Levin, who is deputy head of the Duma Committee on information politics, indicated that access to anonymization and circumvention tools such as TOR, VPNs and even web proxies, needs to be restricted.

Levin also called for Roskomnadzor, the state agency that oversees communications and the Internet, to be given more powers to intervene. If the views of Vadim Ampelonskogo, Roskomnadzor's chief press officer, are anything to go by, that is likely to have serious consequences for online freedom:

Describing the Tor network as a "den of criminals" and "ghouls, all gathered in one place", Ampelonskogo said Roskomnadzor would find a solution to block anonymous networks if it was supported by a relevant regulatory framework.

What's troubling about this latest call for even tighter control is that it was entirely predictable. Once governments start blocking sites and restricting freedom of speech online, people inevitably respond by using VPNs and Tor to circumvent these measures. And that means that if governments want their laws to be effective, at some point they will take direct action against circumvention tools. That's why it's particularly worrying that Western governments have started down this road: it implies that they, too, might one day try to ban VPNs and Tor.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship. vladimir putin, free speech, leonid levin, proxies, roskomnadzor, russia, tor, vpns

Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason

from the you-had-one-job... dept

Friend (and frequent Techdirt contributor) Derek Kerton passed along a screenshot of his own recent experience trying to follow a Techdirt link at the Toronto airport and having it blocked: The block here is clearly not directed at Techdirt, but rather at Google's Feedproxy service -- which was formerly Feedburner, a company Google bought years ago. Many, many, many sites that have RSS feeds use Google's service as it makes it much easier to manage your RSS feed and to do some basic analytics on it.

In this case, it appears that Air Canada has (for reasons unknown) wasted good money on a company called "Datavalet" which offers "Guest Access Management" for companies who offer WiFi access to customers. Datavalet proudly highlights Air Canada and famed Canadian donut chain Tim Hortons among its customers.

And yet, despite its sole business apparently being building systems to let people access the internet, Datavalet's tech geniuses can't figure out that Google's RSS feed service is not, in fact, an "Anonymizer" but merely a system for hosting RSS feeds.

These sorts of stupid false positives are not at all uncommon in the filtering business -- and Datavalet is not alone in stupidly filtering out and blocking access to things it should totally allow. This story just demonstrates, once again, the ultimate stupidity and futility of trying to block internet access. No matter how well-meaning you might be, you're going to do it wrong and you're going to block plenty of legitimate content, including (in this case) tons of well known news publishers who rely on Google's feedproxy service to serve up links to RSS readers, Twitter, Facebook and more.

Filed Under: blocks, filters, proxies, rss
Companies: air canada, datavalet

Russia Prepares To Block Tor And Anonymizing Proxies

from the don't-give-them-ideas dept

As more and more countries start introducing Web blocks, some people console themselves with the "at least there's always Tor" argument. Politicians may be slow, but they are not all completely stupid, and they are beginning to get the message that Tor and other anonymous services potentially render their Web blocks moot. It's then not a huge leap for them to move on to the next stage -- banning or blocking Tor -- as Russia now seems to be contemplating, according to this article on Russia Today:

The head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) has personally ordered preparations for laws that would block the Tor anonymity network from the entire Russian sector of the Internet, a Russian newspaper reported.

FSB director Aleksandr Bortnikov announced the initiative at a recent session of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee, saying that his agency would develop the legislative drafts together with other Russian law enforcement and security bodies, the widely circulated daily Izvestia reported.

In fact, according to the Izvestia story (original in Russian), along with Tor, all anonymizing proxy services would be banned too. No prizes for guessing what's behind the latest move:

The news was disclosed after the Russian civil movement 'Head Hunters' wrote a letter to the FSB with a request to block Tor, as it is one of the favorite software tools for distributors and users of child pornography. The FSB replied that the request was directed to the wrong body, as crimes against public health and morals fall under the Interior Ministry's jurisdiction.

However, the FSB graciously decided to get involved anyway:

The FSB official said that the agency initiated the move as internet anonymizers were used by weapon traffickers, drug dealers and credit card fraudsters, giving the FSB an obvious interest in limiting the use of such software.

In other words, banning Tor and anonymizers is a real crowd-pleaser, since politicians can point to lots of bad people that use them. Just like they use the Internet, or postal service: and just as there are lots of good uses of the postal service and the Internet, so Tor and anonymizers are also vital for a wide range of non-evil people, notably activists and political dissidents, both of whom are already under pressure in Russia. But what is a bug for some is a feature for others: blocking Tor -- "for the children" -- would also have the knock-on effect of making it even harder for dissidents and political groups to access information and organize in secret.

Assuming that the proposed law is passed, as seems likely, the worry has to be that other countries will take note and start to think about following suit, probably playing the same populist card of fighting child pornography that Russia's 'Head Hunters' are now employing.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: anonymity, filters, internet, online, proxies, russia, tor

Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website

from the well,-there's-that dept

The various ways in which the big ISPs would implement their version of the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System had mostly been leaked over the past few months, but there had been nothing coming out of Comcast. AT&T planned to block "frequently visited websites" after the fourth strike. Verizon planned to throttle speeds so low that it would drive users crazy. It looks like Comcast is doing something similar to Time Warner, which means that after four accusations (not convictions, not proof of guilt, just accusations), anyone using the account of someone who hits that strike will have all of their browsing hijacked and sent to a landing page that they cannot get around. Oddly, for reasons that don't make much sense, the page that TorrentFreak links to on Comcast's site disappeared. If I go to it, I get a 404 not found. But if I do a search on the keyword "mitigation," it still shows up in the index. Then I click, and the page is still gone. Either way, while it's technically true that they're not "cutting off" people, they are clearly cutting them off from the wider web.

"If a consumer fails to respond to several Copyright Alerts, Comcast will place a persistent alert in any web browser under that account until the account holder contacts Comcast's Customer Security Assurance professionals to discuss and help resolve the matter,"

No information is given on what it means to "resolve the matter." It's hardly a surprise that Comcast would choose the most extreme option, considering that it owns NBC Universal, whose execs supposedly drove much of the discussion around the CAS system. In the meantime, are we still supposed to believe, as per the cheery video that the Center for Copyright Information put out, that this is all for the benefit of ISP users?

Filed Under: cas, copyright alert system, pop ups, proxies, six strikes
Companies: comcast

Hulu Continues Its War On Users

from the this-is-not-good dept

We've wondered in the past if it's really possible for Hulu to survive in the longterm, given its awkward position between consumers who want to watch content, and content providers who want to put massive limits on how people can access content. This got plenty of attention in the ridiculous (and totally unnecessary) fight to block Boxee. In that case, even Hulu admits that it would like to allow Boxee (which is nothing more than a different type of browser), but that its content providers won't allow it (despite the fact that anyone who uses Boxee can simply open up another browser and watch the same content).

One of the biggest complaints with Hulu is that its content is limited only to people in the US, so those trying to access it from elsewhere get a message saying "too bad." Of course, there have been rather simple workarounds, using proxy servers to access the content. A couple months ago, when I was in the UK, I wanted to watch something on Hulu, but was blocked because of the location. Luckily, I just logged into my VPN, and Hulu let me through. Yet, today that might not work. Apparently Hulu has started blocking various anonymous proxies, saying that to watch Hulu, you need to log out of the proxy/VPN and "prove" that you're really in the states. Beyond being ridiculous, this can be a security risk. Many of us use VPNs for security reasons.

Again, my guess is that this is due to pressure coming from Hulu content providers, rather than Hulu itself. It makes little to no sense for the company to waste time and resources blocking people from viewing their content. However, it's that ongoing split, whereby Hulu has to waste time and resources making its service worse that may eventually spell doom for the company. Those who are blocked are likely to just go elsewhere -- such as BitTorrent -- to find the content they want, and thus the content providers won't get any ad revenue, whereas on Hulu they do share in the ad revenue. It's difficult to see how it makes any sense. Sure, some might point out that there are "rights" questions involved -- since the content providers may not have licenses to display the content outside the US, but given the basic geographic restrictions the site has set up, you'd think that Hulu had passed a sufficient bar that no court would accuse the company or the content provider of willfully violating any license agreements.

There's a pretty simple maxim that Hulu may be unable to follow: if you have to spend time and money making your product worse, you're going to have a hard time surviving. I recognize that Hulu has been something of a success to date, but it's hard to keep that up when you keep screwing over your users.

Filed Under: content, proxies, video
Companies: hulu