• 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Good luck banning something that any computer in the world can run. You have wireguard vpn built into the Linux kernel. :)

    • alakey@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      And have you tried running said built-in wireguard on ISPs that block it? Spoiler: you can’t.

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    This article seems a little misinformed: VPNs are still regularly used in business and are necessary for companies to function. That’s still probably their primary use if I had to guess.

    People who are trying to ban them clearly have no clue what they’re doing as banning VPNs would be an absolute disaster, not just for privacy minded people or folks who want to watch something region locked, but for the basic tech functions of just about any sizeable business.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 hours ago

      “New legislation mandates that we no longer offer the VPN connections necessary for our remote workers to access the company intranet off premises. Starting immediately, all employees are to return to office 7 days a week. If this does not work for you, please reach out to HR and they will accept that as your resignation in lieu of a written document.”

      — Meta (the corp pushing the age verification laws), probably.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Legal, probably. Whichever corporations push that hypothetical bill are going to write it very specifically to ensure that it excludes their use cases.

          Here’s an example of how they could do it:

          S.A.V.E.K.I.D.S:
          Support Age Verification Environments Keeping Internet Detectable Signals

          Blah blah pretext and background information…

          Blah blah surface-level purported reason for the bill is to prevent kids from bypassing age verification checks by using a VPN to pretend they’re a resident of another country…

          No entity operating in or doing business within <jurisdiction> may provide services or make available technology that irreversibly redirects, masks, or otherwise obscures internet-destined traffic to appear as originating from any source other than the internet-connected network in which it was generated.

          Site–to-site VPN? Fine, it’s destined for the intranet.
          NAT? Also fine, it is the originating internet-connected network.
          HTTP reverse proxies? Still fine, they pass the origin IP along.

          VPN that routes all traffic through it? You’re getting locked up and they’re throwing away the key.

    • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I know right? Egypt, Tanzania, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkminestan, The UAE, Belarus, and Russia all have laws outright banning or restricting (you know, not business but individuals [yes, they can do that]) VPN usage.

      But it won’t happen here! You can take that to the bank.

      • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They’re legally banned but that has not stopped the use of VPNs in the countries that tried to ban them, there are already multiple ways around the efforts to stop them.

        • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Legally banned = electronics seized, fines, and jail time when they catch you circumventing it and decide they want to make an example out of you.

          I’m sure that won’t ever be used negatively or to target specific groups like investigative journalists and whistleblowers.

          You not taking it seriously and trying to convince others to not take it seriously won’t make a better outcome.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I mean, they could just require businesses to register their gateways. That’s a pretty easy caveat to implement.

      • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They’re not doing so great, but also, if someone really wants to use an encrypted connection there’s ways around it even in places like Russia and China.

        • alakey@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Ultimately the end goal is going to become using whitelists, as what some of the aforementioned countries have implemented/are implementing as we speak. Do not delude yourself into thinking that just because there will be at least some way to send a very short, lightweight message out into the world and receive a similarly small response while remaining undetected, then it has to mean that you as an everyday Joe will be able to browse yourfavourite.site as if it didn’t get blocked. Stop this while you still can, don’t count on incompetence or existing circumvention methods.

          • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            I am all for stopping it, but the politicians suggesting these bans have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about or how damn near impossible it would be to actually accomplish: Fight it? Absolutely! It’s stupid as hell and will be a complete waste of time and money.

            It will 100% not stop anyone with even moderate technical ability, but yes, it should still be fought against.

  • lelovsky@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The headline is a slippery slope argument in action.

    If the Internet traffic becomes deeply surveilled, this won’t be by ”ban” means, but by the great firewall means. If it already isn’t surveilled this way.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Best guess about the downvotes: UK lawmakers have already discussed VPN crackdowns. Not sure at what stage the proposals are. So it’s not a slippery slope argument. Such laws are part of what builds a Great Firewall.

      • richmondez@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        At some point the argumemt that it’s to “protect the children” rather than to control and monitor what adults do will fall flat when more and more difficult to use work arounds keep getting banned that realistically only adults would employ.

      • lelovsky@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I have never denied the possibility of VPN ban, I have just pointed out the clickbait in the headline.

        It’s not like some random article is going to save us from government oppression. Also, does anybody remember ACTA? It was a big deal like 15 years ago and was supposed to end digital piracy. lol

        Either the governments don’t really care what we all click at on our personal devices or the technology develops at a faster pace than law. Either way, we are safe. That is, until the the more power-hungry people get in charge.