Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

eff.org

101–110 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#101

And 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.

Tailscale makes this trivial, which is why I'm worried about governments starting to block the Tailscale control servers. Which I think China already does.

I don't know if Tailscale has any plans to make their service more censorship resistant, but I hope they do.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#102
post #88
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can't freely force social networks like HN to tie nicknames to a state IDs. Just because some politician said that doesn't make it so.

You can, though. That's what laws are.

laws and enforcement are different things.

I get your overall point, but conflation of the two is inaccurate.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#103
post #95

After Wisconsin finds out how to reliably filter vpn, they can then teach Netflix and Akamai how to do it. Last time I checked modestly reliable geoblocking existed, and completely unreliable vpn blocking. A friend told me that when he comes across a site for which Nordvpn is blocked, he just changes IP. Latest the third one always works, even on YouTube (he is all about privacy).

It’s different if you have influence over the network, like a government might. I spend a lot of time in China, and they’ve done a good job of blocking VPNs in recent years, including my personal WireGuard connection to my home network. Not that any technical solution is impossible to bypass, but a motivated state government could make VPN use difficult if it wasn’t for the whole Constitution thing.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#104
Part of the problem is that in order to prove your age you need to hand over a bunch of unrelated data about yourself. Why do they need to know my name, address, signature, and what I look like? They don’t even need to know my actual age, just that I’m over 21. Laws like this would go down a lot better if there were privacy-respecting ways of verifying age.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#105
post #95

After Wisconsin finds out how to reliably filter vpn, they can then teach Netflix and Akamai how to do it. Last time I checked modestly reliable geoblocking existed, and completely unreliable vpn blocking. A friend told me that when he comes across a site for which Nordvpn is blocked, he just changes IP. Latest the third one always works, even on YouTube (he is all about privacy).

It is a cat and mouse game, it is whether the service provider do or not. I remember AWS WAF can block VPN ages ago, according to this announcement, it is 2020.

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/03/aws-waf-a...

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#106
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? Pretty close. > (b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law. > (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting…

May not reject individual letters? You know that's there because someone did it before.

> Evers’s veto is part of a dubious Wisconsin tradition. In 1975, Gov. Patrick Lucey struck the word “not” from the phrase “not less than,” reversing its meaning. In the 1980s, Govs. Tony Earl and Tommy Thompson crossed out individual letters to create entirely new words. And in 2005, Gov. Jim Doyle reappropriated over $400 million from its intended use by striking all but 20 words from a 752-word passage, creating a new sentence bearing no resemblance to the language approved by the legislature.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#107
post #102
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, though. That's what laws are.

laws and enforcement are different things. I get your overall point, but conflation of the two is inaccurate.

I agree, but they're highly correlated, so it's not that this doesn't affect anything.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#108
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May not reject individual letters? You know that's there because someone did it before.

> Evers’s veto is part of a dubious Wisconsin tradition. In 1975, Gov. Patrick Lucey struck the word “not” from the phrase “not less than,” reversing its meaning. In the 1980s, Govs. Tony Earl and Tommy Thompson crossed out individual letters to create entirely new words. And in 2005, Gov. Jim Doyle reappropriated over $400 million from its intended use by striking all but 20 words from a 752-word passage, creating a…

Wow, I have no words. I could strike some off your comment to make something, though.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#109

"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. We already know how this story ends. Companies get hacked. Data gets breached. And suddenly your real name is attached to the websites you visited, stored in some poorly-secured database waiting for the in…

Commercial third parties intermediating use of the web don't solve problems of "privacy"

They might interfere with the businesses of other third party intermediaries like "Big Tech"

Paying the middleman (intermediary) might in theory discourage it from conducting commercial surveillance but it doesn't solve the problem presented by using third parties as middlemen

The possibility to profit from surveillance remains

An effective solution would remove the possibility, and thereby the incentive, by removing the third party

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like that'd take a level of surveillance that's technically unsustainable. But then again, sustainability isn't a consideration when it stands in the way of "better" control.

AI is the perfect low cost tool to enable that. Plantir knows this and has been making strategic moves to build this Seems quite achievable and sustainable to me Every human carries dense compute and sensors with them. If they don't they stand out while still surrounded by dense compute and sensors held by others at all times Not nice to think about but it is the reality we are moving towards – vote accordingly

Voting doesn’t help. You need to win hearts and minds, and the synergy of resources available between the trillion dollar industries like AI and Marketing and you makes that a losing battle too.

People want this stuff. People want ring doorbells, they want age verification, they want government control. Think of the children/criminals/immigrants.

Voting won’t help.

Post reply on HN