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

Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#181

Post by djhn »

ignoramous wrote: post #172
lan321 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is not a hurdle for your local LEA you think it might be Everything is possible, of course, but in no world is it > That's your assumption, not an assertion Mullvad makes? IDK what they have to say about it, but the ISP has a hardware line to my home, my name on a contract and recurring card payments. Mullvad has some money with no clear source and an ID with 3-4 people on it that jump ID every other month. I can't…

> They can absolutely parse things and follow me across IDs to put me in a big log So, VPNs do not protect against surveillance. Both of us agree. > some data magic The EU e-Evidence Regulation requires this of EU & EFTA based providers. Make what you will.

According to Mullvad they do not keep logs, so whatever data they can be compelled to give up should include very little.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#182

Post by sph »

remus wrote: post #135
sph wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass surveillance and living in a police state is an ingrained part of British culture. It is no wonder to me that police procedurals are the most popular genre of TV shows in UK by quite a margin. They really are high-quality, but it does really feel like thinly-veiled propaganda (often commissioned by the BBC) portraying the State and police as the good guys in their endless quest against the baddies. Thank god the…

Have you lived in the UK? I have, and it doesn't feel like a police state.

Almost 15 years, yes. Were you born in the UK, or do you have outside perspective?

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#183

Post by sph »

tim333 wrote: post #159
remus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you lived in the UK? I have, and it doesn't feel like a police state.

Indeed "totalitarian state controlled by a political police force" is not the thing - Brit here. Iran maybe.

I didn't use the word "totalitarian", which the UK still isn't for the time being. A surveillance state doesn't necessary have to be totalitarian (the CCTVs were in good conscience put there to protect us from the baddies). But it certainly is a precondition to become that over time.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#184

Post by SparkyMcUnicorn »

dpatterbee wrote: post #154
SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is whataboutism. It doesn't address any of the points made above.

The point I was replying to used the existence of a Wikipedia article as proof that there is a problem in the UK regarding surveillance. By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. It certainly wasn't whataboutism, I don't even think the user I was replying to is from the US.

> By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence.

How does linking similar articles help demonstrate that? That doesn't seem like very strong (counter?)evidence.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#185

Post by OJFord »

sph wrote: post #182
remus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you lived in the UK? I have, and it doesn't feel like a police state.

Almost 15 years, yes. Were you born in the UK, or do you have outside perspective?

Not GP but I was born in the UK, and from 'CCTV on every corner' even as an exaggeration I'd question if you stepped outside London in those 15 years, not counting 'London' airports.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#186

Post by OJFord »

pydry wrote: post #38
Animats wrote: post #20

Strange ad for a VPN. Without the controversy, would people get it?

I was a customer before they started advertising. I saw the ads saying "and then?" and still didnt get it. I like the product but i think their ad campaigns suck. If they want exposure and controversy i think they should run adverts to kill new proposed laws, target privacy hating politicians, etc.

Me too, but I don't think one's supposed to 'get it', the hope is that people wonder what it's all about and search 'mullvad ad "and then"' or whatever. Which as pre-existing customers we're probably already less likely to do.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#187

Post by OJFord »

gib444 wrote: post #177
tim333 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in central London and there are protests pretty much daily about all sorts of things. The problem is more no one paying attention to them rather than their being illegal.

"that has any real effect". All the words I wrote were to be read

How do you want to be able to protest (for 'real effect') that is currently illegal?

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#188

Post by akimbostrawman »

Anamon wrote: post #173
akimbostrawman wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see how much those EU charter papers are worth when you get arrested for a tweet, which happens a lot. Vague Hate speech laws alone can utterly remove any of those "human rights". In Germany and the UK people get charged for jokes or sarcastically criticizing politicians all the time. That is not free speech or even free expression regardless how much you want to cope to own musk or whoever the news told you to…

People get arrested for tweets like calling for the homes of asylum seekers to be set on fire. Something like this, clear and direct calls for violence and criminal acts, usually turn up when you research any of those cases brought as examples for censorship in the EU or UK.

>People get arrested for tweets like calling for the homes of asylum seekers to be set on fire.

No but nice strawman straight out out of the eu oligarch handbook. Threats and calls to violence are already a crime even in the US and rightfully so.

10 seconds of research would show you criticism and jokes will get you prosecuted and raided:

https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/11/german-police-raid-mans-ho...

https://www.mainzer-medieninstitut.de/erfolglose-verfassungs...

Looking forward to your on topic justification.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#189

Post by akimbostrawman »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #175
akimbostrawman wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see how much those EU charter papers are worth when you get arrested for a tweet, which happens a lot. Vague Hate speech laws alone can utterly remove any of those "human rights". In Germany and the UK people get charged for jokes or sarcastically criticizing politicians all the time. That is not free speech or even free expression regardless how much you want to cope to own musk or whoever the news told you to…

It's too bad I can't block users who think offending their interlocutor is a form of debate on HN. I do not "cope" and I don't give a shit about Musk, he's the one who has faithful followers who parrot his ignorant bullshit on social media, which btw I do not follow. Don't sound like him and I won't wonder whether that's what you're doing. Oh, and also Paul Graham.

What great counter to all my points and not deflection and tone policing instead of engaging in the actual discussion.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#190

Post by dpatterbee »

SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #184
dpatterbee wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was replying to used the existence of a Wikipedia article as proof that there is a problem in the UK regarding surveillance. By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. It certainly wasn't whataboutism, I don't even think the user I was replying to is from the US.

> By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. How does linking similar articles help demonstrate that? That doesn't seem like very strong (counter?)evidence.

If only one country has an article about something you'd probably think it's an outlier. If every country has the article then you'd more likely think it's just part of life. I didn't make an assertion, I'm not providing evidence.

I don't even disagree with the post, I just don't like seeing shallow dismissals where someone could've actually put effort in to make a point. So I did the same.

Post reply on HN