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

201–210 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#201

Post by quectophoton »

stavros wrote: post #108
CGamesPlay wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Random trivia: Memes in that format are known as "speed of lobsters" memes, where you take a screenshot of some text/post/tweet/whatever and then delete/hide words and letters to make up completely different sentences.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#202

Post by numpad0 »

suslik wrote: post #87
txrx0000 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider SoftEther, which is VPN over Ethernet wrapped in HTTPS. It's open-source. It has a server discovery site called VPNGate. You can host a server to let somebody else use, then use a server soneone else is hosting. https://www.vpngate.net/en/ We're really only missing a few things before there's decentralized VPN over HTTPS that anyone in the world can host and use, and it would be resistant to all DPI firewall…

Using this tech, all the CP traffic would detectably flow towards my ip, right? I’m sure I’m not the only one who would find this worrisome.

SoftEther isn't Tor, it's just like modernized client-server L2TP style VPN, same deal as WireGuard. The volunteer public gateway thing is completely optional and voluntary add-on.

The reason it exists is just that it predates WireGuard by ~decade.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#203

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

billy99k wrote: post #176

Still not as bad as the previous administration colluding with Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube to censor American citizens and in many cases, get them fired from their jobs.

Yes instead now we have a president accepting bribes from companies - Paramount, Disney, Google, Twitter and Facebook.

Trump also called out someone to be fired from Microsoft he didn’t like and let’s not forget that the FCC threatened ABC because Kimmel dare speak bad about a racist podcaster.

States also were firing teachers because they said mean things about the same podcaster.

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article312903...

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#204

Post by martin-t »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #110
haxiomic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Voting doesn't work because people are not smart enough to think multiple steps ahead of people who are professionals at this.

Voting doesn't work because everybody votes on everything, not just people who understand the subject matter.

Voting doesn't work because it's impossible to express nuanced choice - you vote for a candidate or party as a whole, not on specific policies. The number of parties is much smaller than the number combinations of policies so some opinions can't be expressed at all.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#205

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

codedokode wrote: post #155
ktallett wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is tech isn't as simple as that, vpn's are key in many jobs, are they banned? It is the same issue when they ask for backdoors in every messaging app. It is rational if you don't think any deeper than surface level but once you dig an inch deep, it is clear why it isn't rational.

The companies using VPN for work can file an application for an white list exception, if they provide an application with a list of employees having access. I think this is how it works in my country. You are making an elephant from a fly (proverb meaning exaggerating minor issues). For better security, a signed obligation to observe law might be collected from every employee, and an access log kept, with records sig…

And it’s amazing you think this is okay.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#206

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #40
skeledrew wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to block a VPN is to have the knowledge that certain IPs are used by VPN providers. It's pretty trivial for someone to run a script/app that spins up a server somewhere, installs VPN software on it, and uses that for the connection. Now there's no way to separate whether a user is connecting via a VPN or not.

It's pretty trivial for you or I. The average 12 year old who this law aims to protect doesn't know how to do that.

You’re right, because laws against underage drinking and drug use have really been affective over the years. It only takes one smart 12 year old to show everyone else how to do it. Heck if I were 12 now with 1TB u/d internet connection, I’m sure I would have set some type of proxy up for my friends.

If I could figure out 65C02 assembly programming at 12 in the 80s without the Internet and some books, I’m sure the 12 year old me in 2025 could set up a proxy.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#207

Post by rpdillon »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #101
skeledrew wrote: post #31

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.

Headscale can help here, if you're willing to host it.

https://github.com/juanfont/headscale

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#208

Post by pessimizer »

LadyCailin wrote: post #144
defanor wrote: post #140

> 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 circu…

It won’t even work* *without resorting to complete Russian style government control The US is not (yet) Russia. The rule of law is definitely being destroyed as we speak, so who knows 5, 10 years down the road, but there are still several prerequisite institutions that need to be destroyed before the US could reliably enforce a VPN ban.

> there are still several prerequisite institutions that need to be destroyed before the US could reliably enforce a VPN ban.

Ah, the "institutions." I didn't think about those. Very convincing.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#209

Post by adventured »

pksebben wrote: post #84
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…

It is the objective, it's always been the objective. The worst part is that I bet these people don't even think of themselves as authoritarian so much as they stumble into it through a combination of selfishness, ignorance, and complete disregard for ethics. They like money and power, more information means more of both, darn the torpedos, tap the lines, hit the gas and all of a sudden it's oops all facism.

[flagged]

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#210

Post by fwip »

Okay, I'm generally a fan of the EFF, but what they say in this article is untrue?

> Their solution? Entirely ban the use of VPNs.

> Yes, really.

Which is then followed by the actual explanation:

> an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing [...] “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN.

This doesn't ban VPNs - it requires age-verified sites to block VPN users.

Which makes 3 of the 4 categories they describe basically unaffected by the change to the law. Business users, students, journalists protecting sources - all can turn off their VPN to access porn when they want to, and enjoy the use of their VPN at any other time. (The fourth category is "people who want privacy," who are in fact negatively affected by the law.)

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a bad bill, but it's also a bad article that is basically lying.

Post reply on HN