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

231–240 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#231

Post by pessimizer »

teddyh wrote: post #133
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?

Yes. Chekhov's gun always fires. Even if it happens after the resolution and it turns out to be a water gun.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#232

Post by EasyMark »

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.

Ultimately information is power, especially now. Governments naturally gravitate to wanting more and more power. Authoritarian types are all around, and their power is growing in the current political climate of America as they see a method that works, turning Americans against each other and creating national scares which in turn can be used to gain more control over every aspect of our lives

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#233

Post by Jweb_Guru »

tim333 wrote: post #117
hdgvhicv wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0epennv98lo https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/digital-id-cards-ill-stop-ille... Terrorism still crops up occasionally but the rhetoric has certainly expanded.

I was querying that the motivation is control and power abuse more than protecting children. I live in the UK and know people that go into politics. A lot want to protect children. People can be over cynical about assuming everyone is evil.

I'm sure your friends want to secure a future for children, but unfortunately this motive is not mutually exclusive with being evil.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#234

Post by SoftTalker »

imiric wrote: post #212
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…

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…

The thing is, you're still breaking the original law, which is "you must prove your age to access this content."

Using a VPN, or any other technical workaround you can think of, doesn't negate that the law in your state says you must prove your age to access the content.

States require proof of age to purchase alcohol. You can ask someone who is of age to buy it for you, that doesn't make it legal for you to have it.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#235

Post by SoftTalker »

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…

> parents are supposed to be in control of how they raise each of their own kids

You realize that a lot of parents support this sort of thing because they are not technically sophisticated enough to control it themselves? Or they simply think that it has no place in polite society? That is why politicians enact these laws, because they are hearing from constituents that they want it.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#236

Post by dang »

Alex2037 wrote: post #188
LadyCailin wrote: post #144

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.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#238

Post by jamzer »

treebeard901 wrote: post #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 bu…

Huh?

> All it does is make it easier for the Government to monitor VPN connections.

That is not all it does. We're talking about them banning VPNs.

> They already can request logs from providers.

Most claim they do not keep logs. This has been proven for certain providers. Providers operating in different jurisdictions are not necessarily obligated to provide these logs.

> Most, if not all VPNs require a proof of identity...

I have never been asked by a VPN for proof of identity.

> Next up is device security itself...

This is by far a separate issue. Yes it is true mitm attacks are still possible when using a VPN, they do however provide an extra layer of security and shift trust to an entity you should consider trustworthy (your VPN) from a possibly untrustworthy LAN, ISP, or country.

This is ignoring the primary use which is of privacy. Governments have shown time and time again when possible they will implement blanket surveillance and often not follow due process. Just as someone, some organization, or some government should require a very good reason to open your mail, or obtain a warrant to search your house, they should too require this to eavesdrop on your digital communications.

VPNs and similar technology are also useful to those under oppressive regimes to communicate privately. While this is not currently the case in the US, the mechanisms to retain the freedoms currently enjoyed should be upheld in case they are ever required.

Further, you ignore the benefits VPNs provide in terms of geoblocking.

Finally, VPNs are also useful in corporate, education, and other networking settings including accessing your home network from elsewhere or remote services you host.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#239

Post by thaumasiotes »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #224
cedws wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, shou…

Your examples are unlike each other.

What stops people from speeding more than they already do is enforcement. The law isn't doing anything.

But the TSA isn't a law. The TSA is, notionally, the enforcement. And it doesn't do anything either.

So the TSA really is pointless. If you drive around at 30 mph over the limit, you're going to get a ticket, and this traffic cop presence stops people from speeding "too much". If you smuggle explosives onto an airplane, you may die in the crash, but that would have happened regardless of the TSA. The TSA hasn't added any value.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#240

Post by whydoineedthis »

pxc wrote: post #226
imiric wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I dont think so. I run a VPN whitelabel and its parent company is based in China.
Post reply on HN