| ▲ | singpolyma3 7 hours ago |
| Why is no one filing lawsuits over this yet? |
|
| ▲ | Symbiote 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Against what person or entity? |
| |
| ▲ | inigyou 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sometimes the first step of a lawsuit is discovering who you're suing. It's not unusual and there are processes for it. You could bring something like an access log to a court and receive an order for all ISPs involved to unmask the corresponding users. | |
| ▲ | singpolyma3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Whoever is doing the abuse. If we don't know who that is we should find out | |
| ▲ | johneth 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bright Data et al. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bright Data's business is legal, but they could be subpoenaed to find out which customer is making these requests, but first you would have to prove they were actually involved, because there are many residential proxy providers. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mmooss 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Indeed. The solution isn't technical but legal. It's clearly abusive of - really stealing - other people's resources; there's no question about it. For some reason, like with fraud via email, text, and phone, we don't do anything about it. All this brazen crime and government does nothing; we don't even imagine government doing anything. |
| |
| ▲ | akersten 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The brazen crime of asking for a resource and receiving it. You have the power, and should exercise it, to rate limit bad actors | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do you know who the bad actors are, if you don't use the legal process to unmask them? |
|
|