Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#131

Post by j-bos »

duxup wrote: post #50
txrx0000 wrote: post #32

A 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.

A technolo-- legislative solution to a social symptom.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#132

Post by [deleted] »

hellotheretoday wrote: post #127
duxup wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is 100% the response. I work with kids in mental health and the “kick the can to the parents” response is so shortsighted Apple and android controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Roblox parental controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Could it be simpler by unifying these things under one framework? Sure - I’ve worked with tons of parents who fall under the trap that Roblox is safe because they set…

[deleted]

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#133

Post by teddyh »

pona-a wrote: post #26

As someone born in a post‑Soviet country with rather many odd digital laws--including one requiring that any use of encryption be registered with the department of commerce and the secret service (meaning no TLS unless you get a permit)--I can clearly see the endgame of similar proposals. These laws aren’t meant to be followed. Their text is deliberately vague, and their demands are impossible by design. They aren't…

> Chekhov's gun that may or may not fire over your head

A more apt metaphor might be Damocles’ sword?

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#134

Post by immibis »

nijave wrote: post #47
throw7 wrote: post #28

Wisconsin "porn" websites will just move out of Wisconsin. The bill reads like you would think from someone who's been talking with the ceo of an age verification company. The bill gives the website two options: use a _commercial_ age verification product tied to gov't id checking, or "digitize" the web user's gov't id.

Holding out for government IdP that can return verified but anonymous data (like age)--like a JWT that has no identifier besides an age claim. Seems highly unlikely it would ever happen (at least in the U.S.) but seems like it'd solve a decent amount of verification problems. With a JWT, the IdP wouldn't even necessarily need to know the recipient since the validity could be verified by the consuming party using asym…

Yep and I'd just have to automate the process and give out my own JWTs to other people for $2 each

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#135

Post by sigmoid10 »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #82
txrx0000 wrote: post #32

A 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…

The goal is controling the flow of information online. "protecting the children" may or may not be a sincere concern but ultimately censorship is what is desired here.

Same way the government needs to read all your emails because some terrorist on the other side of the world may or may not be using email as well to communicate.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#136

Post by zerof1l »

I'm curious how they plan to enforce it lol, because I don't think they can. Unless they plan to build something similar to the Great Firewall of China. But it will have to be nationwide. I don't think one state can do it.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#137

Post by [deleted] »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #116
kbrkbr wrote: 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).

You misunderstand. When they "ban VPNs", it's not that the VPN police will be patrolling your neighborhood trying to catch you using Mulvad or whatever. Instead, the AG will send a letter to the VPN provider, threatening to prosecute them for selling an illegal service. And they will comply and shut down. Once the commercial services are gone, it won't matter that you could hide your own VPN usage in a practical sens…

[deleted]

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#138

Post by kbrkbr »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #116
kbrkbr wrote: 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).

You misunderstand. When they "ban VPNs", it's not that the VPN police will be patrolling your neighborhood trying to catch you using Mulvad or whatever. Instead, the AG will send a letter to the VPN provider, threatening to prosecute them for selling an illegal service. And they will comply and shut down. Once the commercial services are gone, it won't matter that you could hide your own VPN usage in a practical sens…

The text we are discussing says: "It’s an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing material that could conceivably be deemed “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN." That's what I was discussing. Not sure where AG and vpn providers come in.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#139

Post by sandbags »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #106
stavros wrote: 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…

I'm not in the US so I've no dog in this race only curiousity.

I can understand allowing a governor to change the text of a bill. But I cannot understand allowing them to sign those changes into law. It seems like that would mean they could creatively reverse the meaning of any bill.

It seems like a governor should be able to approve the text as written, or change it and send it back.

What am I missing?

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#140

Post by defanor »

> It Won’t Even Work

I heard similar sentiments about censorship efforts in Russia, but it does seem to work, unfortunately. So far they have outlawed and blocked major VPN providers (and keep blocking more, including non-commercial ones, like Tor bridges, and foreign hosting companies' websites), blocked major detectable protocols used for those (IPsec, WireGuard), made usage of proxying ("VPN") an aggravating circumstance for the newly-introduced crime of searching for "extremist" information. That seems to deter many people already, and once the majority is forced to use the local approved (surveilled, censored) services, it is even easier to introduce whitelists or simply cut international connections (as is already practiced temporarily and locally), at which point the ban is successfully applied to everyone.

Post reply on HN