201–210 of 228 posts
I wonder if people would be interested in dedicated browsing VM. Unfortunately there is no good mobile client.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. This policy fight isn't a fight to regulate the market (like the automobile regulations you mentioned). It's a fight for a fundamental right to privacy. Any technology improvement that can protect privacy can be made illegal, and enforced by a boot on the face (see China). If the government makes encryption without government key escrow illegal (not at all outlandish, has been discussed in many c…
Maybe nitpicking, but: > a fight for a fundamental right to privacy Many don't consider this to be a fundamental right. > A tech that takes 100 years to develop can be made illegal in a day. As the recorded history goes, I think it was always the other way around - a new technological development suddenly invalidating a set of laws, and lawmakers playing catch-up with its use. I wish governments of the world got thei…
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
There is Warren and Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy", 1890, which specifically addresses the publication of private aspects of citizens' (and residents') lives:
* Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone" [10] Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops." For years there has been a feeling that the law must afford some remedy for the unauthorized circulation of portraits of private persons;[11] and the evil of invasion of privacy by the newspapers, long keenly felt, has been but recently discussed by an able writer.[12] The alleged facts of a somewhat notorious case brought before an inferior tribunal in New York a few months ago,[13] directly involved the consideration of the right of circulating portraits; and the question whether our law will recognize and protect the right to privacy in this and in other respects must soon come before our courts for consideration.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Privacy_(articl...
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priv...
The only possibly validity to your nit is that it might be applied to any subject of human discernment: some will differ.
Those differences are quite frequently exceedingly poorly founded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a fight for a fundamental right to privacy. Where did this right come from? and since when is this a thing? Don't mean to be condescending but "the right to privacy" isn't really a thing in this particular domain (legally speaking)
I really don't understand this line of logic on fundamental rights. If you're referring to the UDHR, it's a piece of paper put together by Eleanor Roosevelt a little over half a century ago. It's a human document of arbitrary concepts put together by people who believed enforcing those would improve the world in aggregate. The idea of basing our sense of right on what is law, rather than basing the laws we write on o…
Another archaic concept, I fear, most days.
Does anyone sell a router for the home that has a VPN built in? So that I dont have to have every computer in my home hook into the VPN when I start it up. Just one account for my whole house? I imagine you could setup a linux box to do that for you, but I am lazy...
Though your kids won't be able to snoop you from the internal interface.
Until a better solution is found, I think the way the recent IOT botnet stuff + this ISP privacy deregulation is portrayed in the media opens the opportunity for a startup that sells a secure, smart home router + VPN subscription plan.
Clearly I'm mistaken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you would trust the startup with your traffic because...?
You have to trust someone at some point if you want to use the internet at all. Do you trust any VPN providers? Or your ISP? Or the programmers of the browser that you're using? Or your CPU manufacturer? It's turtles all the way down. Perfect is the enemy of good. If that protocol was open, it might foster a way to fold VPNs into the everyday person's internet connection, with the possibility to easily change VPN pro…
Adding more players to a game that perverts and corrupts virtually every player on the field doesn't strike me as a particularly wise and enlightened approach.
It's strange to see the evolution of the technology versus policy debate. We started out with "the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it." A little later we had Lessig saying "code is law." And now the refrain is "VPNs are not the solution to a policy problem." I miss the idealism and optimism of the past. The only hopeful thing I can find in the new "quote" is that it seems that the tech world is…
The problem in this case is that morality (Norms) has gone AWOL, architecture is insufficient, and market incentives are buying statutory cover to pursue privacy eviceration with impunity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_and_Other_Laws_of_Cyber...
No, they're not. The solution is getting strong, enforced laws that protect our privacy and punish those who break them. But for the moment, with advertisers viewing themselves as gods gift to the internet who think that all your information belongs to them simply by virtue of existing, and who will go to great lengths to acquire and store it all (for perpetuity), a solution is needed, and part of that is VPN's.
Data you release can never be recovered. Even if we were to chuck out the entire House and reverse this change in 2018, VPNs would still be a key part of the solution. It would only take one medical search sold to insurers (as a random example) to seriously affect you, so I agree that downplaying technical defenses is unreasonable.
If there are blisteringly strong penalties to holding and trading in personal data, the incentives to do so will largely disappear. Unfortunately, statutory regimes, particularly in the United States, seem to be going in the opposite direction.
With the ability to seek out and purge disclosed data, at least some of the damage can be mitigated. Considering that there is far too much information for humans to ever process but a small portion of it, that might actually be sufficient -- we won't be needing the Men in Black eraser pens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But now the VPN provider can just track you and sell all your browsing history instead of the ISP, so how is this better?
It's not. There's no way to verify the VPN provider is not keeping logs and tracking you.
Audits and reputation may help.
There are a few schools of thought on where responsibility should lie in protecting user privacy. The first that it is a role of government and policy - in the same way the government sets standards for automobile and road safety they can set and enforce policies for user privacy. The second school of thought is individual responsibility. Users should take steps to protect their own privacy on a case-by-case basis, i…
While I disagree with you in many particulars, I'm grateful for the depth of this comment. Regarding VPNs, one issue that I'm sure you're aware of but didn't discuss, is that VPNs aren't really a technical privacy solution. Rather, they're a technical solution for moving your privacy concerns from one policy jurisdiction to another that you see as more favorable. That can be private policy (your VPN provider has a be…
Now that is a very insightful and illuminating observation.