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

EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 467 posts

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#231

Post by spwa4 »

xg15 wrote: post #47
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of governments give tax exemptions to selected industries (film comes to mind) or even companies (Foxconn/TSMC); I don’t support this behavior, but I don’t see what makes Ireland special in this regard.

Well, that was the original question of the thread: > How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized?

And the answer is simple: because countries sabotage each other's tax income when they can, even within unions (like US or EU, hell I'm told it even exists in Russia).

And with mobile capital, like multinationals, they can.

Ireland violated international treaties, multiple, to do this. Oh and they call it a huge success (despite that this will obviously suddenly crash and burn when other countries either block it or give better deals).

Oh and it cements the power of American multinationals over local EU companies, when the Irish government publicly and loudly claims they intend the opposite, and for reasons I don't understand, people seem to actually believe them.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#232

Post by darqis »

u8080 wrote: post #145
nirui wrote: post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

Just a recap how it happened in Russia: 1. First, year ~2015 legal framework was created under disguise of banning pirated media(specifically torrents.ru)(legislative push). State-wide DNS ban introduced. Very easy to circumvent via quering 8.8.8.8 2. Then, having legal basis, govt included extra stuff in banned list(casinos, terrorist orgs, etc)(executive push). IP bans introduced, applied very carefully. 3. Legal e…

and yet my friend in Moscow is able to use VPN to get around all this

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#233

Post by thomasingalls »

palata wrote: post #90
chii wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seriously want to stop adolescents from watching porn no, they want to pretend this is the issue, so that pervasive monitoring or permission and/or deanonymization is normalized. It is to serve the state apparatus, rather than any actual protection.

If it is possible to "pretend that they want something reasonable", it means that there is something reasonable somewhere. Maybe some want more control, but most certainly not everybody. > so that pervasive monitoring If you haven't gotten the memo, pervasive monitoring already exists. To sell ads. > or permission and/or deanonymization is normalized For age verification, it's possible to do it in a privacy-preservin…

what i personally don't like about privacy-preserving age verification is the single subsequent law change that would criminalize individuals for "improperly" doing age verification.

it'd be so easy to do, and would immediately make obsolete any measures taken digitally to preserve privacy

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#234

Post by rvnx »

cybercatgurrl wrote: post #208
rvnx wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don’t like criminals, no matter where they come from, it’s quite ok but yes selecting immigration is a socially slippery topic

my personal opinion is it’s an all or nothing thing for immigration. you either reduce entirely for all groups or it’s racism and unfair treatment. everyone deserves an equal chance

There's something in-between that could work: allow everyone, kick criminals permanently, and give a path to permanent residence to others, or something like that.

Seems moderate.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#235

Post by jllyhill »

darqis wrote: post #232
u8080 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a recap how it happened in Russia: 1. First, year ~2015 legal framework was created under disguise of banning pirated media(specifically torrents.ru)(legislative push). State-wide DNS ban introduced. Very easy to circumvent via quering 8.8.8.8 2. Then, having legal basis, govt included extra stuff in banned list(casinos, terrorist orgs, etc)(executive push). IP bans introduced, applied very carefully. 3. Legal e…

and yet my friend in Moscow is able to use VPN to get around all this

This is very up to chance. Sometimes the VPN works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's fine on the home Internet, but fails on the cell data, sometimes it's otherwise. And it is fine if you're somewhat tech savvy and okay with tinkering with settings, but a huge pain for the older relatives.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#237

Post by bigstrat2003 »

ozgung wrote: post #141
nirui wrote: post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

But you are asking logical questions. You are thinking and talking too much for a World citizen in 2026. "Reasoning" is a reserved word for chatbots now, so we humans are not allowed to do that anymore. We can only obey like a bot and pretend all the lies they tell are the truth. BTW I live in Turkiye where the government banned ALL the adult websites around 2008. Even as an adult you can't access them. This year the…

[flagged]

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#238

Post by delusional »

carlosjobim wrote: post #230
delusional wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.

Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. And that means anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity, registered by the government and other organizations, and used against you as an individual. Do you understand now? Or will you only understand when you get fired from your job and they won't tell you the reason?

> Age verification will be implemented as identity identification.

Thank you for bringing an argument.

I want to start by tackling your argument head on. What if it's not though. What if it's implemented by attestation and signatures rooted at your local national government? Nobody will be able to tie whatever you watch or write to your identity, because they won't have it. To my understanding, that's what's proposed here, and that won't feasibly lead to any of the spooky consequences you're predicting.

There's another leg to it also. "anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity" is already true right now. Google is already, at this second, tracking my every move online and using it against me in a targeted advertisement campaign to change my spending habits, but my political affiliations too. If you're truly afraid of that outcome, I believe there are much more prescient and immediate things you should oppose than this.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#240

Post by bigstrat2003 »

oneshtein wrote: post #9
jraby3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Isn't your age verified when you renew your drivers license? Purchase something on Amazon? When I was a kid, child programming and commercials were heavily scrutinized. Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. That's a blight. Not age verification.

> Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. Before Internet they used paper.

Before the Internet you had to work fairly hard to get a Playboy centerfold where the model just had her breasts out. Now you can effortlessly find endless depictions of anything, including the most depraved sex acts you can possibly imagine. The ease of access and breadth of content available to kids today makes it qualitatively different than when we were kids.

That does not, of course, mean that age verification laws are the appropriate solution. You could even argue that it's not a problem that kids have access to all this stuff (though I don't think I would agree with that). But you can't just hand wave it away by saying "we looked at porn on paper when we were kids". The situations are not at all the same.

Post reply on HN