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

81–90 of 419 posts

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#81

Post by duskdozer »

ktallett wrote: post #63
codedokode wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually act perfectly rationally. Media post articles about how easy it is to bypass the law using VPN, mock the government, and what the law author should feel reading this? "Ok let them break the law"? Of course, the reasonable response is to close the loopholes.

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.

Some company would surely jump in and get an exception written for certain corporate VPNs. But if not, it can be that those who contribute to the right people get exceptions and those who don't, don't. Rational or logical consistency just....don't have to apply

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#82

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

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.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#84

Post by pksebben »

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.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#85

Post by stavros »

rileymat2 wrote: post #60

"Here's what happens if VPNs get blocked: everyone has to verify their age by submitting government IDs, biometric data, or credit card information directly to websites—without any encryption or privacy protection." Can someone explain how this is true? Even if there is not a VPN, there should be https encryption and privacy protection.

They mean "no privacy protection from the website", presumably. Websites getting compromised and leaking IDs is a big deal, now that we've decided that websites should be seeing our IDs.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#86

Post by stavros »

gizmo686 wrote: post #17
conartist6 wrote: post #11

Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? One of the most bizarre legal opinions I've ever heard of, but if they used any digits in the writing of the law those are up for grabs. Law makes a 30 day window or something? The governor can just change it to a million days with a stroke of the pen and then sign the edit into law with the same pen!

> Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? Pretty close. > (b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law. > (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting…

May not reject individual letters? You know that's there because someone did it before.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#87

Post by suslik »

txrx0000 wrote: post #67
Crontab wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been considering doing that, because it seems a lot of VPN owned IP addresses are being flagged.

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.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#88

Post by stavros »

tim333 wrote: post #69
create-username wrote: post #5

Why ban VPNs when you can freely force social networks like HN to tie nickname registration to an state issued digital ID certificate to guarantee freedom of speech and legal accountability? https://old.reddit.com/r/XGramatikInsights/comments/1ovd88s/...

Because you can't freely force social networks like HN to tie nicknames to a state IDs. Just because some politician said that doesn't make it so.

You can, though. That's what laws are.

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#89

Post by stavros »

nijave wrote: post #48
ManuelKiessling wrote: post #22

Well, let’s be honest — users of VPNs regularly don’t know what they are doing, too. Can’t count how often I‘ve heard otherwise technologically literate people saying how they use a VPN (NordVPN e.a.) because „something something security“.

Irony being trusting random VPN providers and arbitrary foreign (exit) countries potentially makes security _worse_ than without the VPN

Sure, but the laws weren't supposed to make you more secure, they were supposed to make "kids safer".

Re: Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

#90

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

Crontab wrote: post #59
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.

I've been considering doing that, because it seems a lot of VPN owned IP addresses are being flagged.

I logged into reddit from my local library wifi and immediately got a contagious ban that spread to all my reddit accounts.
Post reply on HN