where to buy L-Faster motors -- which are sold only on Aliexpress, and contact pg imposes reCAPTCHA

xtinctionRebeller · Apr 16, 2020

What's the deal with L-Faster? I can't find these motors anywhere except their own Aliexpress store. I really doubt a manufacturer would be their own exclusive retailer, particularly when they're so bad at running a shop themselves. Their "online store" redirects to Aliexpress, and their contact page pushes a Google reCAPTCHA. I find it rather backwards that a merchant expects customers to solve a CAPTCHA to communicate -- it misplaces who is serving who in the supplier-customer relationship. I'll never solve a CAPTCHA to reach a supplier. I'd rather deal with a different store.

Does anyone know if "L-Faster" motors are labeled as something else by the factory, so I might search for other shops that carry these?

amberwolf · Apr 17, 2020

I guess you haven't noticed that practically everything over there is clones of clones and rebrands of other clones, and stores call their stuff whatever they feel like, while the next one over uses totally different names and specs for the same garbage.

Besides, I thought you had already refused to use any of those kinds of sites and companies because of security / etc concerns. What changed your mind?

Regarding the "brand name" you're looking for, a simple google search finds these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22L-Faster%22
if it's helpful at all. Absolutely no idea if they're different places or not; haven't visited any of the sites (I wouldn't be buying the random brandnames of whatever cloned junk is out there anyway).

john61ct · Apr 17, 2020

> misplaces who is serving who in the supplier-customer relationship

You obviously have not done much business in Asian cultures.

The merchant does not "serve" customers, he is doing them a favor allowing them to buy, and you going elsewhere is just fine with them.

I think you should just limit your shopping to what you can find in stock at your local Main St brick & mortar shops.

xtinctionRebeller · Apr 17, 2020

amberwolf said:
I guess you haven't noticed that practically everything over there is clones of clones and rebrands of other clones, and stores call their stuff whatever they feel like, while the next one over uses totally different names and specs for the same garbage.

I did notice. This is why I asked 'Does anyone know if "L-Faster" motors are labeled as something else by the factory'. I am looking to find out what L-faster was rebranded from.

amberwolf said:
Besides, I thought you had already refused to use any of those kinds of sites and companies because of security / etc concerns. What changed your mind?

Indeed I do. This is in fact the reason for this thread. If buyers can avoid Aliexpress let's get the info out there.

amberwolf said:
Regarding the "brand name" you're looking for, a simple google search finds these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22L-Faster%22
if it's helpful at all. Absolutely no idea if they're different places or not; haven't visited any of the sites (I wouldn't be buying the random brandnames of whatever cloned junk is out there anyway).

I've not used Google for over 10 years.. won't go near it generally, but I just tried your link and it gives me a reCAPTCHA. I will not dance for Google and solve puzzles for them. So I searched "l-faster" on startpage.com (who supplies google results) and got "Sorry, there are no results for this search."

When I searched for "l-faster" on search.disroot.org, metager.de/en, & ecosia.org, the only shops are Aliexpress, Amazon, & eBay, none of which I'm willing to use. And at the same time, Aliexpress and eBay are unwilling to work with me (due to Tor-hostility) - which leaves (unethical) Amazon.

I should also point out that I searched these forums for "l-faster" and the phbb instance stripped off the leading "l-", making the results useless. When I search "l-faster site:endless-sphere.com" on search.disroot.org there's nothing that covers this.

BTW, please consider boycotting Google. Google now supplies the fossil fuel industry with machine learning tools to help them find more oil to dig. Google has also been caught using dark money to finance the climate denial movement. Every time you use a Google service you help them profit which ultimately supports climate denial -- not the sort of thing I imagine most cyclists are keen to support. Try ecosia.org.

The L-faster specs also do not match the specs of any other motor I've looked at (posted here).

john61ct said:
> misplaces who is serving who in the supplier-customer relationship

You obviously have not done much business in Asian cultures.

The merchant does not "serve" customers, he is doing them a favor allowing them to buy, and you going elsewhere is just fine with them.

Indeed I haven't. I am quite familiar with this role reversal having lived in Europe. But that discussion is irrelevant here because I'm buying in the US. If the webshop is in English, they quote in USD, and they accept USD, and most importantly they ship to the US, then they're doing business in the US where US laws and customs are in play. And as such they cannot expect their culture to work well for them when they do business outside of Asia. This thread is proof of that. I'm looking to buy the motor from someone else.

john61ct said:
I think you should just limit your shopping to what you can find in stock at your local Main St brick & mortar shops.

There's no such thing where I live. Just one bike shop selling complete e-bikes not kits. Your suggestion seems to imply that there are enough B&M shops selling mid-drive kits around to be a viable option, and I find that surprising. I would only expect to find such a specialized shop in a quite large city like LA or NY.

john61ct · Apr 17, 2020

Re-labelling sellers can just change their OEM supplier anytime, so the enormous detetective work trying to identify the reality behind "brands" is IMO not a productive use of time.

xtinctionRebeller said:
BTW, please consider boycotting Google.

Like saying "boycott profit-making firms" about as practical as trying to be fully self-sufficient, really requires nearly completely withdrawing from mainstream society.

> If the webshop is in English, they quote in USD, and they accept USD, and most importantly they ship to the US, then they're doing business in the US where US laws and customs are in play.

No. Again that is just legalistic theorizing, in fact fantasizing.

john61ct said:
I think you should just limit your shopping to what you can find in stock at your local Main St brick & mortar shops.

> There's no such thing where I live.

Yes exactly my point.

Sane people adapt to our reality as it is, rather than tilting at windmills.

Again, you need to find other hobbies if you want to live within those principles.

Anything to do with alternative energy, EV, ebikes etc there really aren't many options outside the sales channels you are "boycotting".

> they cannot expect their culture to work well for them when they do business outside of Asia.

The west is such a miniscule market for them, I doubt they care.

xtinctionRebeller · Apr 17, 2020

john61ct said:
Re-labelling sellers can just change their OEM supplier anytime, so the enormous detetective work trying to identify the reality behind "brands" is IMO not a productive use of time.

It's unclear why you think there's significant effort. I discovered three such cases without even looking (that "EBBS02" is a rebadged "Lingbei MM29.250" which is an enhanced "Bafang BBS02", "AFT" is a rebadged & enhanced "Cyclone", and "GNG" and "CYC" are likely the same OEM).

It's unlikely that a seller will keep the same model name & then replace the OEM, which requires maintaining the same specs. This is highly unlikely when the original product is under $500, as the replication effort is cost prohibitive. Nor would I care anyway. It's not like paying for an iPhone or high-end Android and getting knockoff that's missing Playstore (as the knock-off droids tend to).

john61ct said:
xtinctionRebeller said:

BTW, please consider boycotting Google.

Click to expand...

Like saying "boycott profit-making firms" about as practical as trying to be fully self-sufficient, really requires nearly completely withdrawing from mainstream society.

Boycotting Google is nothing like boycotting "profit-making firms". Being profit-driven does not inherently entail unethical conduct. You can use Google and consequently support:

xenophobia (Google bent over backwards to help CBP).
privacy abuse:
- "OK Google.." voice recordings leaked
- $200k spent to fight the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA")
- support for CISPA (a bill to undermine privacy rights in the US)
- support for CISA (a bill to undermine privacy rights in the US)
environmental harm:
- partnership with Total oil
- machine learning development to support fossil fuel exploration
- caught spending dark money on climate denial movement
Anti-workers' rights -- sacked an engineer for telling colleagues they had a right to organize a union.

You can solve a Google CAPTCHA and consequently support:

discrimination against people with disabilities. Websites that use CAPTCHAs do not comply with WCAG 2.0 principles
CAPTCHAs put humans to work for machines when it is machines that should work for humans.
CAPTCHAs are defeated. Spammers find it economical to use third-world sweat shop labor for CAPTCHAs while legitimate users have this burden of broken CAPTCHAs.
The reCAPTCHA puzzle requires a connection to Google.
1. Google’s reCAPTCHAs compromise consumer security as a consequence of surveillance capitalism that entails collection of IP address and browser print. Anonymity is compromised (to Google)
2. Users are forced to execute non-free software, which as a consequence denies service to those who run LibreJS (that is, those who either distrust non-free s/w or simply find it unethical)
3. The reCAPTCHA requires a GUI, thus denying service to users of text-based clients.
4. Google Inc. benefits financially from the puzzle solving work, giving Google an opportunity to collect data, abuse it, and profit from it. E.g. Google can track which of their logged-in users are visiting the page presenting the CAPTCHA.
5. The reCAPTCHAs are often broken. This amounts to a denial of service, which looks something like this:
  - E.g.1: the CAPTCHA server itself refuses to give the puzzle saying there is too much activity.
  - E.g.2:
6. The CAPTCHAs are often unsolvable.
  - E.g.1: the CAPTCHA puzzle is broken by ambiguity (is one pixel in a grid cell of a pole holding a street sign considered a street sign?)
  - E.g.2: the puzzle is expressed in a language the viewer doesn’t understand.
7. Network neutrality abuse: there is an access inequality whereby users logged into Google accounts are given more favorable treatment by the CAPTCHA (but then they take on more privacy abuse).

Or you search using Ecosia.org and support tree planting. And you can walk away from reCAPTCHA puzzles, which are never essential to solve. Even when a government service is imposing enough to force a reCAPTCHA, there's always an offline way to obtain service.

john61ct said:
> If the webshop is in English, they quote in USD, and they accept USD, and most importantly they ship to the US, then they're doing business in the US where US laws and customs are in play.

No. Again that is just legalistic theorizing, in fact fantasizing.

You can accept the facts or remain delusional.

Business is done at the delivery address. You can form a company in Portugal and do business locally, in which case you are doing business in Portugal. The instant you start shipping your product to customers in the US, you are doing business in the USA (even if you have no other ties to the US and regardless of where you're calling your headquarters). Your business transaction is bound by US law in that case. You are doing business in every country where you ship your product. And to make this quite clear, let's say you're selling heroin in Portugal because local law permits. You may not sell it in the USA even if you never set foot there. There are also scenarios where a business produces products that are illegal locally but legal elsewhere (e.g. firearms, stun guns, liquor, pharmacuticals, fireworks, etc). It's often permitted to do so as long as the products are for export only and not sold domestically. It is never legal to peddle something that breaks the laws of the destination jurisdiction.

More importantly, if the seat of your company is in China and you want to do business outside of China but you don't accept the cultural norms and expectations of the place where you opt to do business, you are competing with businesses who do rise to the standards of that region. It's delusional to not accept this reality. The customer in the US or Canada doesn't give a shit about whether a China-based merchant adheres to Chinese standards and customs.

john61ct said:
> There's no such thing where I live.

Yes exactly my point.

Sane people adapt to our reality as it is, rather than tilting at windmills.

It's a useless point because my own ethics and standards does not limit me to local procurement. You're the one struggling to accept reality -- that some companies are more ethical than others and ethical non-local companies exist.

john61ct said:
Again, you need to find other hobbies if you want to live within those principles.

Nonsense. Not all remote bike parts shops are relatively unethical or below my standards.

john61ct said:
Anything to do with alternative energy, EV, ebikes etc there really aren't many options outside the sales channels you are "boycotting".

While some motors are wholly chained to boycotted entities, some are not. And some of the motors that seem to be exclusively in Aliexpress or Amazon may not be, but rather lack discovery. It's very unlikely that L-faster is a jack of all trades doing their own manufacturing and exclusive retailing. Either they are getting the motors from another supplier and relabeling them, or they are selling them to retailers under another brand.

john61ct said:
> they cannot expect their culture to work well for them when they do business outside of Asia.

The west is such a miniscule market for them, I doubt they care.

If they didn't care there'd be no reason to deploy the site in English with USD pricing, and arrange for USD payments and deal with US shipments and research and deal with US customs. Of course they care or they wouldn't waste the money and effort to do it. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter to me if they care. The whole point in the thread (forum, in fact) is to find the merchants who are worthy. If they meet my q/a & ethical standards they win my business. If not, I'm looking for their more worthy competitor.

amberwolf · Apr 17, 2020

I wish I knew what company originated the stuff you're looking for.

However, the L-faster "brand" covers a whole lot of stuff, some of it not even ebike-. ev-, or even bicycle-related, so you would have to specify exactly which system or specific parts you're looking for for me to be able to help poke around for another seller of it, or at least something similar.

xtinctionRebeller said:
I've not used Google for over 10 years.. won't go near it generally, but I just tried your link and it gives me a reCAPTCHA.

I don't get any of those, but I'm using Ublock Origin, Noscript, etc. on an older Firefox version, and only allow the things I wish to. If pages require something like that to access them, then generally I simply don't go there. Most of the time I can simply block the stuff I don't want to deal with and hte rest of the page is accessible (like google's search page).

So I searched "l-faster" on startpage.com (who supplies google results) and got "Sorry, there are no results for this search."

I think there may have been something wrong at the time you searched, or perhaps there is something in your browser that's misbehaving, because when I go to
https://www.startpage.com/do/search
and use
"l-faster"
with or without the quotes, I get essentially the same result set that google provides. A partial quote of the text portion of the first page is below:

L-faster.com: Electric Solutions For Bike / Scooter / Skateboard
https://www.l-faster.com/
Anonymous View

Mar 23, 2018 ... L-faster supply many solutions for your electric vehicle even rickshaw, go cart or ATV. Let's be a DIY expert and green driver, be yourself. (^o^)/
Electric Bike Motor Kit | L-faster.com
https://www.l-faster.com/e-bike-motor-kit/
Anonymous View

Electric Bike Motor KitAafsou2016-11-21T03:14:20+00:00. All; Hub Motor Kit; Mid-drive Motor Kit; Side-drive Motor Kit. electric bike general conversion kit -3 ...
L-faster - Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/stores/L-faster/node/14103784011
Anonymous View

L-faster 6X2 Inflation Tire Wheel Use 6" Tire Alloy Hub 160mm Pneumatic Tyre Scooter F0 Pneumatic Wheel Trolley Cart Air Wheel… $9.99. Prime.
L-faster Newest 450W E-Bike Motor Kit Electric ... - Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/L-faster-Electric-Multiple-Conversion-Multi-speed/dp/B07385XSXH
Anonymous View

Amazon.com : L-faster Newest 450W E-Bike Motor Kit Electric Multiple Speed Bicycle Conversion Kit Electric Engine Kit for Multi-Speed Bicycle (24V Thumb Kit) ...
L-faster - Amazing prodcuts with exclusive discounts on AliExpress
https://l-faster.aliexpress.com/store/632724
Anonymous View

Discover the wide range of Sports & Entertainment,Racquet Sports,Golf from AliExpress Top Seller L-faster.Enjoy ✓Free Shipping Worldwide! ✓Limited Time ...
L-faster | eBay Stores
https://www.ebay.com/str/lfaster
Anonymous View

Results 1 - 48 of 236 ... L-faster. 66followersaafsou(229aafsou's feedback score is 229) 97.1%aafsou has 97.1% Positive Feedback. Welcome to my eBay Store ...
（L-faster) Electric Conversion Kit For Common Bike Left Drive Motor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dDEep9pu2U
Anonymous View

Jun 20, 2017 ... ... be mounted on most of bike, sprocket mounted on spokes, motor with freewheel. Any question please feel free to contact me: laurie@l-faster.
(L-faster) Mid-drive ebike motor kit 48V 400W - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjnDDDHKmQ
Anonymous View

Apr 16, 2016 ... L-faster: provide DIY ebike solution Any question please send to my email: xfujiang@hotmail.com.
L-Faster Electric Bikes // New & Popular 2017 - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smbFPTMoRGA
Anonymous View

Oct 21, 2017 ... Black Friday / Cyber Monday 36V48V 1000W scooter brush motor controller Motor Controller For Tricycle Scooter Brushed by L-faster
2020 L Faster Newest 450W E Bike Motor Kit Electric Multiple Speed ...
https://m.dhgate.com/product/l-faster-newest-450w-e-bike-motor-kit-electric/404360317.html
Anonymous View

L-faster Newest 450W E-bike Motor Kit Electric Multiple Speed Bicycle Conversion Kit Electric Engine Kit For Multi-speed Bicycle. US $148.75 - 196.95.

The L-faster specs also do not match the specs of any other motor I've looked at (posted here).

Keep in mind that "specs" are typically up to the seller to "invent", in this particular line of business. It's not right, but it is extremely common. The only specs for things like this that you can really trust are the ones you have personally determined in real-world testing.

Even USA sellers are guilty of this--just look at Lunacycle; they have a history of this recorded here on this forum, although they may have erased it wherever they have control over it. Other such sellers do the same kind of thing, but people still buy from them, so they don't change.

One example is that there are plenty of "500w" motors out there with much higher labels on them by some sellers; sometimes also sold as kits with controllers or batteries that couldn't possibly create the kind of power described.

Another is batteries that couldn't output the current specified without such severe sag that any bms they might have would shut off (so some don't come with one for that reason), or they'd actually heat up enough to catch fire if you did pull that much current for any significant amount of time. Or they specify absurd capacity ratings (this used to be mostly a problem with *fire cell vendors, but now it happens with complete batteries from more and more sellers more and more frequently).

xtinctionRebeller said:
It's unlikely that a seller will keep the same model name & then replace the OEM, which requires maintaining the same specs.

We *expect* that...but it isn't the case with this kind of stuff. Various sellers frequently advertise a specific set of items, even something that is given a name and model number in their "catalog", but then ship you something different, because they can't get that stuff anymore, so they got something different and sold it as the same thing...whether or not it has anything to do with the specifications they originally advertised. They don't generally change the ad regardless of complaints or problems caused by this practice.

It's unethical...but they don't care. It makes them the same money either way.

If the webshop is in English, they quote in USD, and they accept USD, and most importantly they ship to the US, then they're doing business in the US where US laws and customs are in play.

If you can get a lawsuit or other legal action pushed thru into China or wherever those sellers are actually located, when you run into problems with such sellers, I'd love to see the results be positive...but i don't expect that they would be.

About the only consequences most of the people posting here on ES have managed to get imposed on such sellers when problems arose was to sometimes be able to get their credit card company do a chargeback, or sometimes be able to get paypal (etc) to refund the buyer. Even those don't always work, depending on the specifics of the situation (for instance, sometimes they're required to ship the item(s) back to the sellers on the buyer's dime, and get confirmation from the seller that they were received, etc., and that isn't always possible, for various reasons, or practical from a cost standpoint, as the return shipping may cost more than the item(s)).

Hell, sellers frequently don't even ship items legally. Batteries and other hazmat stuff doesnt usually get shipped that way, it is often just called "toys", and as one of the consequences, may never make it to the buyer due to random customs checks.

It might be nice if the business rules and laws were all strictly enforced, but they're not, and I can't imagine they ever will be. There's just too much stuff being sold and shipped around for there to ever be enough people to keep track of it, and you can bet anything you like that buyers aren't going to tattle on the sellers, most of the time, because it benefits them greatly not to do so, with lower prices, etc.

Sure, there are ethical sellers. But they're not the majority, and they can be hard to find.

And because most people dont' actually care about anything other than getting a good deal (at least what looks like one on the surface), that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

I do understand you'd like to change that. So would I. I've tried in the ways I can...but too few people care to make much of a dent in it.

Sunder · Apr 25, 2020

xtinctionRebeller said:
I've not used Google for over 10 years.. won't go near it generally, but I just tried your link and it gives me a reCAPTCHA. I will not dance for Google and solve puzzles for them.

The only time I get a reCAPTCHA from Google is when I use an anonymising VPN. If you're not using one of those, you may be with a cheaper ISP that uses a transparent proxy or seriously overuses CGNAT to reduce their costs. Google has algorithms to detect over-use of their search engines, and if you're sharing an IP address with too many other customers of your ISP, you'll keep getting prompted with reCAPTCHA.

On that note, I've also answered in your other thread about Aliexpress blocking business information. I just realised that when I am on my mobile (cell phone), I get the slide to confirm you're not a robot prompt a bit, but I never get them from a home or work PC. Mobile carriers use CGNAT a lot more than home ISPs, and CGNAT is never used for business grade connections. Add to the fact that Business Licensing/Contact information would be very lucrative for marketing companies and spammers to harvest from Aliexpress, and I'm building a picture here that says to me you're using using a cheap ISP or anonymisation tools that's causing you grief.

If none of the above makes sense to you, apologies for using technobabble, but I'm not going to take the time to give you a primer on internet security basics. Just turn off your anonymisation tools and switch to a premium ISP if it's bothering you much. I'm sure there will be a knee jerk reaction of "Why should I pay more to get basic internet services", but hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Those who pay more generally get better service - directly or indirectly.

xtinctionRebeller said:
Business is done at the delivery address. You can form a company in Portugal and do business locally, in which case you are doing business in Portugal. The instant you start shipping your product to customers in the US, you are doing business in the USA (even if you have no other ties to the US and regardless of where you're calling your headquarters). Your business transaction is bound by US law in that case. You are doing business in every country where you ship your product. And to make this quite clear, let's say you're selling heroin in Portugal because local law permits. You may not sell it in the USA even if you never set foot there. There are also scenarios where a business produces products that are illegal locally but legal elsewhere (e.g. firearms, stun guns, liquor, pharmacuticals, fireworks, etc). It's often permitted to do so as long as the products are for export only and not sold domestically. It is never legal to peddle something that breaks the laws of the destination jurisdiction.

Not sure if you're speaking hypothetically or idealistically, or if the basis of law is very different in America (America is known to have more over-reach laws than most other countries), but as a general rule, you'd be incorrect. The buyer of the drug would be charged with possession and importation for larger quantities. The US would not be attempting extradition of the seller for doing something illegal (as far as I know) If they did, it would be considered legal over-reach.

Over-reach is a legal concept where you try to implement laws beyond your jurisdiction. There are select cases which make sense - E.g. Sex tourism. Australia has a pedophilia law that says if you commit pedophilia anywhere in the world, even in jurisdictions where it is legal, you can be prosecuted upon your return. The US does something similar with citizenship. If you are a US Citizen, you must pay your taxes regardless of where you are in the world - but at least they can threaten you with loss of US Citizenship if you do not.

Most countries are more pragmatic when it comes to consumer laws. For example, if I buy a battery from an Australian manufacturer, and it burns down my house, they are liable. If I buy a battery from an Australian importer of Chinese batteries, the Australian importer is liable, because it is almost impossible to sue a Chinese company that has no presence in Australia. If I buy a Chinese battery directly and it burns down someone else's house while my bike was parked there, not only can I not sue the Chinese manufacturers, I am liable for my friend's losses.

This is the law and reality in most countries. You could tell me it's different in the US, but without proof, I wouldn't believe you, and with proof, all that it'd do is lower my respect for the US legal system. It already has a very bad reputation for being overly litigious and awarding insane amounts of money for trivial losses.

You know the old joke about the traveling US law professor teaching about US law in <whatever country the joke teller is in> and during question time, a student asks if it's true that you can sue for millions for tripping over sidewalks? When the professor says "Yes, it's a key part of our civil liability system to keep cities responsible for maintaining public infrastructure. Are you thinking of practicing law in the US?" and the student replies "No, I'm considering moving to the US to trip over a sidewalk". It's only funny when there's an element of truth to it. Maybe that joke isn't shared in the US, as it hits too close to home.

xtinctionRebeller · Apr 26, 2020

Sunder said:
The only time I get a reCAPTCHA from Google is when I use an anonymising VPN. If you're not using one of those,

I'm using Tor. It doesn't generally make sense to use Google to start with, but if you're driven to use Google search it doesn't generally make sense to do so without anonymity unless perhaps you want to be in the filter bubble for some reason.

Sunder said:
Google has algorithms to detect over-use of their search engines, and if you're sharing an IP address with too many other customers of your ISP, you'll keep getting prompted with reCAPTCHA.

Bingo. I think you understand the nuts and bolts of it but you're giving Google too much credit by crudely charactorizing Tor users as an "over-use", when in fact Google knows full well what a Tor IP is -- beyond the possibility of playing dumb in the face of collatoral damage arising out of a collective punishment policy.

Sunder said:
On that note, I've also answered in your other thread about Aliexpress blocking business information. I just realised that when I am on my mobile (cell phone), I get the slide to confirm you're not a robot prompt a bit, but I never get them from a home or work PC.

Try it on a desktop over Tor.

Sunder said:
Add to the fact that Business Licensing/Contact information would be very lucrative for marketing companies and spammers to harvest from Aliexpress, and I'm building a picture here that says to me you're using using a cheap ISP or anonymisation tools that's causing you grief.

Since the vendor licensing records are denied to me, I can't see what data is there that they consider vulnerable to spammers. Obviously there's a competency problem because Aliexpress could protect email addresses separately. It's a disservice to consumers to hinder access to public records indicating who the merchant is. The email address is supplemental and unimportant, but a competent way to disclose email is to render the email address in a distorted CAPTCHA style (as opposed to baracading a raw address with a GUI CAPTCHA and a precondition to solve it).

I must also point out that your underlying premise entails blanketing all robots as malicious. I personally write non-malicious bots all the time. I wrote a bot that found me a house I ended up buying. I've also written bots to lead me to interesting airline tickets.

Sunder said:
If none of the above makes sense to you, apologies for using technobabble, but I'm not going to take the time to give you a primer on internet security basics. Just turn off your anonymisation tools

If the advice is to disable security, then it's preferable if you not give people security tips.

Sunder said:
I'm sure there will be a knee jerk reaction of "Why should I pay more to get basic internet services", but hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Those who pay more generally get better service - directly or indirectly.

I do generally oppose suppliers who impose extra cost on privacy in situations where there is no extra cost on their part. As an ethical consumer, I do not roll over as you're suggesting. I don't have to accept that. I vote with my feet. And I vote with my feet not just because Google is a privacy abuser but also b/c they push fossil fuel among other unethical conduct.

Sunder said:
Not sure if you're speaking hypothetically or idealistically, or if the basis of law is very different in America (America is known to have more over-reach laws than most other countries), but as a general rule, you'd be incorrect. The buyer of the drug would be charged with possession and importation for larger quantities. The US would not be attempting extradition of the seller for doing something illegal (as far as I know) If they did, it would be considered legal over-reach.

Let's not conflate prohibition with enforcement practicalities thereof. You're generally incorrect if you believe foreign vendors are not bound by the law in the jurisdiction where the transaction transpires. This is the same across developed countries. *Enforcement* is a separate matter. The US is indeed well-equipped to use power and influence to take action but this is a red herring, as my comment was regarding legislative relevance not the executive or judicial aspect of enforcement.

Sunder said:
Over-reach is a legal concept where you try to implement laws beyond your jurisdiction.

Way off-topic. Yes the US has that very long-arm jurisdiction, but when it comes to a Chinese company doing business in the US that does not entail long-arm jurisdiction. The US of course has jurisdiction over US transactions, and that's no different than other countries.

Sunder said:
If you are a US Citizen, you must pay your taxes regardless of where you are in the world - but at least they can threaten you with loss of US Citizenship if you do not.

Citation needed on loss of citizenship. Perhaps you're confusing the US with the UK. The UK has been known to revoke citizenship even without trial. The US has a reputation for citizenship being quite hard to lose. The US does not take citizenship away unless you formally renounce it, in writing, in a US embassy, and only if you show that you also have another citizenship. The US ignores verbal renunciations and the US will not allow a citizen to become stateless. Moreover, it's actually illegal to renounce US citizenship on the basis of tax avoidance. One of the reasons it's hard to lose US citizenship is precisely so that they retain a right to collect taxes.

Sunder said:
Most countries are more pragmatic when it comes to consumer laws. For example, if I buy a battery from an Australian manufacturer, and it burns down my house, they are liable. If I buy a battery from an Australian importer of Chinese batteries, the Australian importer is liable, because it is almost impossible to sue a Chinese company that has no presence in Australia.

That's not why the importer is liable. An Australian importer is a 3rd party and as the product passes through their hands, they are in fact the merchant who sold the product to the consumer. It's basic contract law. It's not because of complexity of international lawsuits that the importer is held liable. It's simply because the importer is the one who sold the product to the user.

Think about what you're suggesting. The Chinese supplier could just as well point the finger their suppliers in Malaysia, who then points to a raw material supplier in India. No matter how long the supply chain is, the party liable to the consumer is the entity that the consumer bought from. In your example, the importer is liable to the end-consumer, and the importer's supplier is liable to the importer.

Sunder said:
If I buy a Chinese battery directly and it burns down someone else's house while my bike was parked there, not only can I not sue the Chinese manufacturers, I am liable for my friend's losses.

Insurance shifts liability. I have a homeowners policy that covers the scenario you mention. Anyway, it's wrong to say you cannot sue the Chinese manufacturer. You *can* sue them and you can get a judgement, but good luck collecting. If the defendant doesn't pay on the judgement, and the defendant has no assets in your country to appropriate, then your only option is to try to get the foreign judgement "domesticated" in a court of the country of the defendant in order to make use of the collection options available in the defendant's country.

It's not that you can't take action.. it's down to a practical matter of cost-benefit. When the insurance company rebuilds the house, the Chinese battery maker is then liable to the insurance company who paid out. If many homes burn down it may indeed be worth it for the insurance company to pursue all damages under a single large case.

Sunder said:
This is the law and reality in most countries. You could tell me it's different in the US

Consider Dow Chemical, who put an insecticide plant in India. The plant had a massive chemical spill that killed 30,000 Indians in the neighboring cities. Based on your idea that cross-border lawsuits don't exist, Dow could run away from that disaster and remain untouchable outside of India. What actually happened was an out of court settlement compensating a mere $550 per person killed. If there were no means for cross-border lawsuits Dow would have paid zero. The threat of lawsuit was real enough that Dow was compelled to settle. The absurdly small settlement speaks to the huge effort of cross-border lawsuits, which are costly but feasible.

Sunder · Apr 26, 2020

xtinctionRebeller said:
I'm using Tor.

Tor is to catch the inexperienced criminals and those wanting a false sense of privacy. 4 years ago, I presented a paper to a local law enforcement conference on how to de-anonymise TOR users. I had no hand in writing the paper, just helped them evaluate whether it was worth their effort or not and start setting up the tools to do so.

Okay, so the kid at your local ISP is not going to be able to see what you're viewing, and it's a cheap but painful way of hiding your IP address from the smaller websites you visit, but certainly it won't protect you from law enforcement, intelligence agencies or even private companies willing to throw enough resources at it. I have no idea if you're Kim Jong Il or Richard Branson, but in the absence of data otherwise, I couldn't guess at why a private company would be that keen on throwing money at de-anonymising you.

Worse still, if a police officer ever requests your metadata from your ISP, using TOR is a red flag that draws you out for attention. It's like leaving empty drums of nitroethane in front of your garage... I guess you *could* be into modifying and racing cars... Or you could be making meth, but either way, for law enforcement it's worth another look.

Personally, I just pay for an anonymising VPN.

xtinctionRebeller said:
Bingo. I think you understand the nuts and bolts of it but you're giving Google too much credit by crudely charactorizing Tor users as an "over-use", when in fact Google knows full well what a Tor IP is -- beyond the possibility of playing dumb in the face of collatoral damage arising out of a collective punishment policy.

I actually didn't know you were using TOR when I made that comment. It was in relation to cheap CGNAT or cheap VPNs that overuse a few of their exit nodes.

xtinctionRebeller said:
I must also point out that your underlying premise entails blanketing all robots as malicious. I personally write non-malicious bots all the time. I wrote a bot that found me a house I ended up buying. I've also written bots to lead me to interesting airline tickets.

No, I write bots and screen-scrapers as well. My underlying premise is actually that most eCommerce sites blankets all robots, except crawlers from known 3rd parties are malicious or at least unwanted. Except those from competitors. In that case, they are an opportunity to feed misleading information. Your competition airline is screen scraping your fares? Don't block them, feed them airfares between 10% cheaper to 10% more expensive, depending on what strategy you're employing. Yes, companies do that.

I do find it interesting that your underlying premise is that Google implements "collective punishment", rather than just protecting their services against overuse and misuse by bots though. If you wanted to punish users not playing their game of offering personal information, why not just block services entirely? After all, personal information is the commodity that they sell to advertisers. If you're not paying, just don't offer service.

xtinctionRebeller said:
If the advice is to disable security, then it's preferable if you not give people security tips.

Cheers. I'll let my boss know. Not sure he'll do anything about it though. He charges clients $3500 for 8 hours of my time. 90% of the time the advice is to put more security in, but 10% of the time, it's to disable "security" which doesn't materially reduce risk. I guess he'll have to cop the loss in revenue for that 10% of the time.

I won't answer the rest. I am not a lawyer after all, just experienced with law due to my work with law enforcement. I'm definitely not well versed in international or US law. However, I can tell you're not a lawyer either, so perhaps it's best we don't go down that route. I can see you have some strong views of how things are supposed to be (at least in your world view), but at least you recognise that's not how it is, so I think we can let it go at that.

xtinctionRebeller · Apr 26, 2020

Sunder said:
Tor is to catch the inexperienced criminals and those wanting a false sense of privacy. 4 years ago, I presented a paper to a local law enforcement conference on how to de-anonymise TOR users. I had no hand in writing the paper, just helped them evaluate whether it was worth their effort or not and start setting up the tools to do so.

Okay, so the kid at your local ISP is not going to be able to see what you're viewing, and it's a cheap but painful way of hiding your IP address from the smaller websites you visit, but certainly it won't protect you from law enforcement, intelligence agencies or even private companies willing to throw enough resources at it. I have no idea if you're Kim Jong Il or Richard Branson, but in the absence of data otherwise, I couldn't guess at why a private company would be that keen on throwing money at de-anonymising you.
Worse still, if a police officer ever requests your metadata from your ISP, using TOR is a red flag that draws you out for attention.

You obviously have no clue about threat models. Why do you think a legitimate shopper needs protection from law enforcement? You seem to have no clue about choosing the right tool for the job at hand. A bicycle parts buyer and Snowden have very different threats to control for.

Sunder said:
Personally, I just pay for an anonymising VPN.

The fact that you're paying for it is your first mistake. To suggest "paying" for "anonymity" is an obvious display of ignorance. The money is tracable and then you're foolishly giving visibility to both sides of your connection to a single entity. Not to mention the VPNs exit node network is shadowed by that of Tor network's catalog of exit nodes, making your unique browser print trivially distinguishable in a small set of surface traffic. At the same time, you're also neglecting to create cover traffic that human rights activists depend on through their use of Tor.

Sunder said:
No, I write bots and screen-scrapers as well. My underlying premise is actually that most eCommerce sites blankets all robots, except crawlers from known 3rd parties are malicious or at least unwanted. Except those from competitors. In that case, they are an opportunity to feed misleading information. Your competition airline is screen scraping your fares? Don't block them, feed them airfares between 10% cheaper to 10% more expensive, depending on what strategy you're employing. Yes, companies do that.

You're still rationalizing collateral damage to non-malicious users -- customers, to be clear. The sympathy card won't work here - try something else. I really don't care if their anti-competitive drive is their excuse -- why should I? There are shops that have figured out how to serve their customers *without* blocking bots and without hassling customers with CAPTCHAs, and they've earned my business.

Sunder said:
I do find it interesting that your underlying premise is that Google implements "collective punishment", rather than just protecting their services against overuse and misuse by bots though.

Your false dichotomy is failing you here. Of course it's both collective punishment and protecting their bottom line at the same time. They need not use a blunt and crude technique that results in collective punishment. And when they do, I don't need to support them.

Sunder said:
If you wanted to punish users not playing their game of offering personal information, why not just block services entirely?

What's the point?

Sunder · Apr 26, 2020

Uh. Right.

I thought you were a bit weird when you criticised me for

xtinctionRebeller said:
crudely charactorizing Tor users as an "over-use", when in fact Google knows full well what a Tor IP

When you hadn't mentioned TOR before that... But this thread has now totally lost the plot.

I'm not sure if I should be bemused or just plain amused... But I do know I shouldn't waste any more time on this.

Enjoy.

john61ct · Apr 28, 2020

where to buy L-Faster motors -- which are sold only on Aliexpress, and contact pg imposes reCAPTCHA

xtinctionRebeller

10 W

amberwolf

Administrator

john61ct

1 TW

xtinctionRebeller

10 W

john61ct

1 TW

xtinctionRebeller

10 W

amberwolf

Administrator

Sunder

10 MW

xtinctionRebeller

10 W

Sunder

10 MW

xtinctionRebeller

10 W

Sunder

10 MW

john61ct

1 TW

Similar threads