Maybe the problem is trying to govern a global space with sub-global governments.
EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
201–210 of 467 posts
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#202In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…
> In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too.
People don't remember because it didn't happen and the license wasn't about protecting the children. But it's so convenient to just blantantly lie on the internet nowadays, isn't it?
Just like the title of this article blatantly lies about "EU" doing something.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a recap how it happened in Russia: 1. First, year ~2015 legal framework was created under disguise of banning pirated media(specifically torrents.ru)(legislative push). State-wide DNS ban introduced. Very easy to circumvent via quering 8.8.8.8 2. Then, having legal basis, govt included extra stuff in banned list(casinos, terrorist orgs, etc)(executive push). IP bans introduced, applied very carefully. 3. Legal e…
DPI = Deep packet inspection?
yes
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU enshrined privacy in its charter of fundamental rights. GDPR was and still is a major protection. US, from its biggest companies to the whole of Silicon Valley culture has done the exact opposite. Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. Not perfect, but when you come down to laws, EU bureaucrats gave EU citiz…
> Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. If 51% of people want to do something wrong, they should do it to themselves and leave the other 49% alone. Democracy is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing and going "oh well, guess people want it".
You need to learn what democracy is then.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU enshrined privacy in its charter of fundamental rights. GDPR was and still is a major protection. US, from its biggest companies to the whole of Silicon Valley culture has done the exact opposite. Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. Not perfect, but when you come down to laws, EU bureaucrats gave EU citiz…
> EU enshrined privacy in its charter of fundamental rights. GDPR was and still is a major protection. GDPR does not protect you from governments snooping on you. The same way it does not stop governments from collecting data on you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive It sometimes even forces governments to collect more data on their own citizens like in Romania. The only difference between the US…
If you want protection from the government, you should most likely emmigrate to countries that really care about that - like United States of America. They spent a lot of time adding laws to protect themselves against the government.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the way, nearly all your comments on HN are about politics and all trying to sow dissent on Western (and especially European) democracies. Disclaimer first: I'm not trying to protect him and I'm not tied to him in any possible way. But since when constantly expressing your own opinion (that's what I assume given the age of the account; maybe I'm wrong, but this seems rather like a person than a bot) is a deliber…
I appreciate the support but I am not surprised. Even on HN there is been a surge of users who instead of defending their arguments or positions on certain sensitive topics such as the EU prefer to simply smear the opposition. I write about the EU a lot because I live there and I am especially interested in what the EU is doing regarding tech. I am especially critical of policies that target my private life and it ir…
Calling out blatant lying and bot propaganda isn't "smearing the opposition".
It's disgusting that people run here, write utter complete lying bullshit and then you attack folks that say "hey, this is complete bullshit".
Be better.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as the EU wants X . There are huge differences between what the European Commission, the European Council, and the majority of the European Parliament want. Most of the anti-privacy crap hasn't happened thanks to the EU . Particular countries and lobbying groups have been pushing this through the Commission and Council and most attempts have been rejected by the EP. If we didn't have the EU, so…
> There is no such thing as the EU wants X. There are huge differences between what the European Commission, the European Council, and the majority of the European Parliament want. Of course there is such a thing as EU wants X. The commission drafts laws and presents them to the MEPs who vote on them. The MEPs do not have the ability to propose their own laws. So all these bullshit laws that are voted on originate fr…
What does this rant have to do with the linked report in this article?
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I just don’t like criminals, no matter where they come from, it’s quite ok but yes selecting immigration is a socially slippery topic
my personal opinion is it’s an all or nothing thing for immigration. you either reduce entirely for all groups or it’s racism and unfair treatment. everyone deserves an equal chance
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#209In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…
> In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. People don't remember because it didn't happen and the license wasn't about protecting the children. But it's so convenient to just blantantly lie on the internet nowadays, isn't it? Just like the title of this article blatantly lies about "EU" d…
One of you ought to find out what really did happen, and tell us. I can only do the lame thing and quote Wikipedia:
> China had no such legislation until 1997. That year, China's sole legislative body – the National People's Congress (NPC) – passed CL97, a law that deals with cyber crimes, which it divided into two broad categories: crimes that target computer networks, and crimes carried out over computer networks. Behavior illegal under the latter category includes, among many things, the dissemination of pornographic material, and the usurping of "state secrets."
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#210I have a question that's been going through my mind - Why is age verification connected with identity verification? I understand why the former is not possible with the latter, but my question is - Whichever entity is responsible for the verification can just pass on the age verification confirmation without passing through any of the other details, right? Am I mistaken here? Because if this was possible, I could sti…
You are right, it is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. Feels like most people being very vocal against the idea don't know about that. At least most complaints I see here are assuming that age verification means tracking. Too bad, there could be interesting discussions about privacy-preserving age verification, if people just bothered getting informed before complaining.
We already have privacy preserving age verification: the website asks for your age (or just whether you're over 18), and lets you through.
There's no issuing party to collude with to deanonymize users, no hard requirement on owning a Google- or Apple-vetted smartphone, and generally no way to identify me besides my choice of random numbers.
You move past that, and people rightfully tell you that your scheme outright breaks privacy, or that it makes too many assumptions or is too complex to easily verify it actually preserves privacy.