Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

eff.org

221–230 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#221
All it does is make it easier for the Government to monitor VPN connections. They already can request logs from providers. Most, if not all VPNs require a proof of identity which is used to subpoena your data. Next up is device security itself. Most phones can be remotely compromised with man in the middle style certificates. Most sites do not use certificate pinning and there is always a master key for decryption built in at the certificate authority level. Unless you have banking level certificates with certificate pinning between sites, a random VPN not tied to your identity and secure devices, a VPN just sells you the illusion of security.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#222
post #212

> 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…

Unless the government decides to ban all cryptography, or forcefully install their own certificates on every device, it should be possible to avoid any restriction attempts. If they're doing deep packet inspection to detect specific protocols, then those can be tunneled via encrypted protocols they do allow, such as TLS or SSH. This is certainly more inconvenient to use, but not impossible. If they're blocking all tr…

re: SSH - I once heard that in China they can throttle SSH speed so it's usable for terminal work, but not for copying files or browsing web.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#224
post #211

> 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…

I think us software people tend to think in absolutes. Yes, completely banning VPNs is very difficult. But for a totalitarian government, reducing VPN usage by say 60% is a win. You only have to make it difficult enough for the layman.

I keep citing, as an example of this, speed limits.

You can literally break the law by just pushing your foot down harder. It's that easy! Therefore they're pointless.

Or, the TSA. They might have taken away my knife, but putting a rock in a sock and hitting someone in the head is an easy workaround. Therefore it's pointless.

(Arguing that the law is easy to break has no effect on whether the law is a good idea, should exist, or is effective.)

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#225
post #98

Of course, what if I use an SSH tunnel instead as that normally suffices a lot easier for me. It's basically the same underlying libraries? They would have to regulate the use of libssl, libcrypto, etc. This makes no sense lol. Am I going to find myself in jail one day for "Unregulated use of a private/public key pair?"

That depends on if you are poor and/or considered a political enemy. Where is the party of small government?

> Where is the party of small government?

"Small government" in all its forms and variations is smoke.

If you hear someone who says they desire small government, they are either lying to your face because they want their despot to have power, or haven't given their position enough interrogation to ask themselves the question "If the government isn't powerful, what is preventing a power-hungry despot from seizing power?"

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#226
post #212

> 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…

Unless the government decides to ban all cryptography, or forcefully install their own certificates on every device, it should be possible to avoid any restriction attempts. If they're doing deep packet inspection to detect specific protocols, then those can be tunneled via encrypted protocols they do allow, such as TLS or SSH. This is certainly more inconvenient to use, but not impossible. If they're blocking all tr…

Take a look at the tools Chinese people use to evade the national firewall. They're extremely sophisticated, and need to advance all the time because the GFW constantly becomes more sophisticated. There are a lot of encryption technologies that the government also allows to work until they block them at a critical moment. All of the VPNs you've ever heard of in some advertisement on YouTube or whatever are easily and totally blocked in China.

Governments can make evading their censorship very difficult, painful, and risky, if they want to. It can have a huge impact.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#227
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just a VPN ban, the word VPN in the context means proxy, and you can setup a proxy with something as basic as a SSH command. It's basically a restriction on communication, i.e. the government decides who you're allowed to talk to, not just a privacy issue.

Not really, that’s just the type the EFF gins up. The problem is the regulation of speech and requiring verification.

The VPN stuff is a misapplication of security “best practices”. Tech companies are amoral and happily facilitate the use of their technology for oppression in other places.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#229

Considering many of these VPNs are operated by shady groups that probably sell data to intelligence services, I suspect efforts to ban them will mysteriously fail.

It's also possible to write legislation that makes it difficult for new or independent entrants, which funnels more business and traffic to the honeypots.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course, what if I use an SSH tunnel instead Are you a child? Probably not, so you are just accessing legally available content by alternate means. It's strange how many people think they are out-smarting a system when said system is explicitly designed to allow them access. These laws are primarily intended to stop children browsing the internet from being exposed to porn and gore when they're simply browsing the…

Did you read the article? Firstly, the article makes it clear that the definition of "harmful to children" is being systematically expanded to mean "makes conservatives a bit uncomfortable." And secondly: > It's strange how many people think they are out-smarting a system when said system is explicitly designed to allow them access. The whole point of the article is to draw attention to the fact that certain regions…

I agree with you, except maybe 'using an SSH tunnel would indeed be "outsmarting the system."'

Not sure how you meant that, but I'm sure that using an SSH tunnel to get around VPN restrictions will be determined to be illegal. They'll just say an SSH tunnel IS a VPN in the legal sense.

Of course, this won't matter for the vast majority that they don't prosecute - it will only matter for the few they do, which hopefully isn't you or me. But you never know. You get pulled over for a broken taillight and then - "hey, is that a NordVPN sticker on your laptop there..." and next thing you know you're doing 10-life.

Post reply on HN