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

311–320 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#311

Post by triceratops »

JustExAWS wrote: post #310
ACCount37 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And are you aware of what exactly has changed? One notable change is: reinforced cockpit doors that can't be forced open from the outside easily. Good luck hijacking with that. But another notable change is that plane crews and passengers all understand now that plane hijacking is a life or death situation, and would fight hijackers to the bitter end. Which is what happened on the very day of 9/11, on Flight 93.

With reinforced doors - pilots still come out to use the restroom. Flight attendants usually just block the aisle. People will fight back in the case of knives. But how much fighting back dk you think is going to happen if people have guns? How long do you think it’s going to be before a pilot opens the door if a hijacker starts shooting people? Airport security is by far not just in America with the only exception i…

Why would they have guns? Even pre-TSA airports used metal detectors.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#312

Post by yatopifo »

drysine wrote: post #293
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…

>simply cut international connections (as is already practiced temporarily and locally) No, international connections are not cut. The mobile internet gets cut locally and temporarily when the Ukraine attacks Russian cities trying to terrorize population. Several essential or popular Russian services are whitelisted. All the rest of Russian internet is as inaccessible as foreign servers.

The name is Ukraine. There is no “the”.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#313

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #304
JustExAWS wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really unaware of how often plane hijackings use to occur?

Plane hijackings used to occur because the SOP was to not resist and try to negotiate with the hijackers for the safe release of the passengers. After 9/11 the assumption has to be that they're going to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone, so now if you try to hijack a plane all the passengers and crew are going to beat you to death with their fists and shoelaces like their life depends on it, which makes…

Yes and how well is that going to work if people can get guns on board? Flight 94 they had knives.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#314

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

triceratops wrote: post #311
JustExAWS wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With reinforced doors - pilots still come out to use the restroom. Flight attendants usually just block the aisle. People will fight back in the case of knives. But how much fighting back dk you think is going to happen if people have guns? How long do you think it’s going to be before a pilot opens the door if a hijacker starts shooting people? Airport security is by far not just in America with the only exception i…

Why would they have guns? Even pre-TSA airports used metal detectors.

And security was run by private contractors at the airport. So you are opposed to the TSA but not security. What’s the difference?

No you don’t pay for TSA out of taxpayer money. The airlines do bu adding a cost to your ticket.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#315

Post by josephg »

drysine wrote: post #293
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…

>simply cut international connections (as is already practiced temporarily and locally) No, international connections are not cut. The mobile internet gets cut locally and temporarily when the Ukraine attacks Russian cities trying to terrorize population. Several essential or popular Russian services are whitelisted. All the rest of Russian internet is as inaccessible as foreign servers.

> The mobile internet gets cut locally and temporarily when the Ukraine attacks Russian cities trying to terrorize population.

It’s hard to feel sympathetic when Russian bombs have been “accidentally” hitting Ukrainian civilians since day 1 of the war.

Has the war been affecting civilian life in Russia much? I hear Ukraine has been targeting the Russian power grid lately.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#316

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

Filligree wrote: post #309
idiotsecant wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barely ever? I don't see any evidence to suggest that the TSA has any level of effectiveness in preventing them, either.

What prevents them is the reinforced cockpit door, and the passengers’ knowledge that they’ll die if they don’t stop the hijackers. The TSA just happened to be made ac the same time as that changed.

Guns? If you don’t have security. It’s a lot easier to overpower someone with knives than guns

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#317

Post by majormajor »

flexagoon wrote: post #259
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…

Is it working in Russia? I'm Russian and basically every single person I know has and actively uses a VPN with no consequences. WireGuard also works just fine - I was able to selfhost and use it without any extra obfuscation. They only blocked a few largest providers, but that's seemingly it.

I'd be concerned there about the combination of "loggable" with "practically everyone breaks the law every day" (the latter is generally true in many countries, but not always in ways that are easy to record). You can get away with it but if you ever displease someone, then the consequences could show up suddenly then.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#318

Post by hereme888 »

gilli wrote: post #273
hereme888 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is not even remotely similar to the U.S.A. in terms of freedom, rights, and infrastructure. Politicians will never be able to ban VPNs or vetted e2e encryption (like signal, and now X) in the US. Especially with this strongly pro-American, strongly pro-privacy admin and Supreme Justices on the watch.

Tell me another joke..

Here's one: How successful was the combined efforts of politicians + 3-letter agencies + universities, at banning computer encryption in the past? Not successful at all, hahaha.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#320

Post by AnthonyMouse »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #313
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plane hijackings used to occur because the SOP was to not resist and try to negotiate with the hijackers for the safe release of the passengers. After 9/11 the assumption has to be that they're going to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone, so now if you try to hijack a plane all the passengers and crew are going to beat you to death with their fists and shoelaces like their life depends on it, which makes…

Yes and how well is that going to work if people can get guns on board? Flight 94 they had knives.

Guns are trash on a plane. The use of a firearm is to be able to incapacitate someone from far enough away that they can't counterattack. Planes are densely packed with people. You'd have people surrounding and disarming you long before you could get control of the plane. How many shots do you expect to get off when anyone you're not currently aiming at can put their hands on the gun while someone else grabs your other arm to pull you in the opposite direction and a third person comes up behind you and kicks you between the legs?

Also notice that even if you somehow managed to kill everyone on the plane, you'd then be left with just a plane full of terrorists for the government to blow out of the sky. And if all you wanted was to kill a bunch of random people then being on a plane has nothing to do with it.

Post reply on HN