I wonder if all of the journalism on Epstein would be considered "Sexual content" and if journalists would be forced to self-doxx to report in these states
Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
51–60 of 419 posts
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#52>So when Wisconsin demands that websites "block VPN users from Wisconsin," they're asking for something that's technically impossible. Websites have no way to tell if a VPN connection is coming from Milwaukee, Michigan, or Mumbai. The technology just doesn't work that way. https://youtu.be/Pr4v725LPOE?si=ih3gfTSpiHumtrFs&t=79 "That's not how apps work" "Then make it work you think we are stupid but we are not, we kno…
IPs aren't necessarily even geolocatable. Sometimes they are, sometimes AT&T Mobile routes you six states over and exits through a CGNAT IP
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#53A device-side IP filter locked behind a password that parents can configure in the device's settings would be much more effective and easier to implement than censoring the Internet. This should be the default solution, yet it's never brought up for whatever reason. Not to mention these online content censorship laws for kids are wrong in principle because parents are supposed to be in control of how they raise each…
I think putting parents in control is the right path, but will reveal a sad fact. Many parents aren't taking time to be in control, and no amount of legislation will fix that.
[deleted]
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#54>Businesses run on VPNs. Every company with remote employees uses VPNs. Every business traveler connecting through sketchy hotel Wi-Fi needs one. Companies use VPNs to protect client and employee data, secure internal communications, and prevent cyberattacks. Oh look, someone's conflating business VPNs and consumer VPNs again. This time to legitimize consumer VPNs. The cited laws propose to ban pornography for minors…
The only way to block a VPN is to have the knowledge that certain IPs are used by VPN providers. It's pretty trivial for someone to run a script/app that spins up a server somewhere, installs VPN software on it, and uses that for the connection. Now there's no way to separate whether a user is connecting via a VPN or not.
Is this related to my comment at all? I do have another comment about the technical feasibility of this ban though.
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to block a VPN is to have the knowledge that certain IPs are used by VPN providers. It's pretty trivial for someone to run a script/app that spins up a server somewhere, installs VPN software on it, and uses that for the connection. Now there's no way to separate whether a user is connecting via a VPN or not.
It's pretty trivial for you or I. The average 12 year old who this law aims to protect doesn't know how to do that.
I think you misunderstand the comment you are replying to, it's talking about the perspective of the sysadmin of the adult website, and how it would detect a VPN user.
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#56>So when Wisconsin demands that websites "block VPN users from Wisconsin," they're asking for something that's technically impossible. Websites have no way to tell if a VPN connection is coming from Milwaukee, Michigan, or Mumbai. The technology just doesn't work that way. https://youtu.be/Pr4v725LPOE?si=ih3gfTSpiHumtrFs&t=79 "That's not how apps work" "Then make it work you think we are stupid but we are not, we kno…
IPs aren't necessarily even geolocatable. Sometimes they are, sometimes AT&T Mobile routes you six states over and exits through a CGNAT IP
IPs are geolocatable yes, not with a perfect accuracy, but with a jurisdictional accuracy.
First of all, IP addresses are issued in blocks and the IPs are distributed within regional proximity. This is how connections are routed, a router in say, Texas, knows that it can route block, say 48.88.0.0/16 to the south to mexico, 48.95.0.0/16 to the west to Arizona, and so on.
whois/RDAP data will tell you the precise jurisdiction of the company that controls the block. It's entirely sensible to use that for geographic bans, the mechanisms are in place, if they are not used, a legislative ban will force providers to use that mechanism correctly. I wouldn't say it's trivial, but it what the mechanism has been designed to do, and it will work correctly as-is for the most part.
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPs aren't necessarily even geolocatable. Sometimes they are, sometimes AT&T Mobile routes you six states over and exits through a CGNAT IP
IPs are geolocatable yes, not with a perfect accuracy, but with a jurisdictional accuracy. First of all, IP addresses are issued in blocks and the IPs are distributed within regional proximity. This is how connections are routed, a router in say, Texas, knows that it can route block, say 48.88.0.0/16 to the south to mexico, 48.95.0.0/16 to the west to Arizona, and so on. whois/RDAP data will tell you the precise juri…
I know how it works. I know how it doesn't.
In the context of jurisdiction within a state in the U.S., I don't think it's accurate or reliable enough when taking mobile phones into account.
Country-level is much more accurate
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#58I've been thinking a lot about VPNs lately, mainly for 2 reasons:
1) In my home state I can no longer access Pornhub
2) Last month I visited Mississippi and could not access BlueSky, even though I can from my home state.
[I personally blame this on the "holier then thou", "don't tread of me" conservatives who cannot resist the urge to try to rule over the activities of others.]
I haven't selected a VPN provider because I have heard that a lot of websites create barriers to people who use VPNs. For example, I've seen people say that couldn't access Reddit via a VPN.
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#59And cue the rise of self-hosted VPNs. 1 click to get a VPS instance, install VPN software, and make a connection. Automatically destroy the instance with another click or after a certain amount of time.
I've been considering doing that, because it seems a lot of VPN owned IP addresses are being flagged.
Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs
#60"Here's what happens if VPNs get blocked: everyone has to verify their age by submitting government IDs, biometric data, or credit card information directly to websites—without any encryption or privacy protection."
Can someone explain how this is true? Even if there is not a VPN, there should be https encryption and privacy protection.