• EldenLord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    7 days ago

    I can‘t wait to get arrested for connecting to my PC via SSH because geriatric lawmakers are too far up their own ass and want to enslave everyone else. Yay!

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s as if the USA and UK are locked in a perpetual “hold my beer” moment with their legislation.

    Then again, Europe is also pushing some boundaries with it’s chat snooping laws.

    A bad time to be an internet user really…

  • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 days ago

    Let’s be clear here: lawmakers need to abandon this entire approach.

    The answer to “how do we keep kids safe online” isn’t “destroy everyone’s privacy.” It’s not “force people to hand over their IDs to access legal content.” And it’s certainly not "ban access to the tools that protect journalists, activists, and abuse survivors.”

    If lawmakers genuinely care about young people’s well-being, they should invest in education, support parents with better tools, and address the actual root causes of harm online. What they shouldn’t do is wage war on privacy itself. Attacks on VPNs are attacks on digital privacy and digital freedom. And this battle is being fought by people who clearly have no idea how any of this technology actually works.

    If you live in Wisconsin—reach out to your Senator and urge them to kill A.B. 105/S.B. 130, and if you know someone who lives in Wisconsin—tell them to do the same. Our privacy matters. VPNs matter. And politicians who can’t tell the difference between a security tool and a “loophole” shouldn’t be writing laws about the internet.

    • Guitarfun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      If the government really wanted to protect children from the internet they’d provide locked down devices with spyware to each kid or they’d force parents to buy locked down devices. They’d punish parents if a child used a device that isn’t locked down. If they actually cared about protecting children they’d monitor their parents with spyware too. Why stop with government provided safe devices and spyware though, they could install cameras in every house that has kids just so they can monitor kids 24/7.

      Obviously they’re not going to do any of that. There probably already is spyware in most devices and it’s not like they’re using it to protect them now. Banning VPNs for the sake of protecting children is just as stupid.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Hey guys, remember when these same countries ragged on China for being against freedom of expression?

    The sad part is, banning VPNs for most users is extremely doable now.

    Source: I have been to China not that long ago and VPNs are mostly cooked now :(

    Luckily my state government seems to encourage VPN use (despite the federal government’s horseshittery): https://www.vic.gov.au/using-public-wifi-networks-safely

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think we need some kind of limiting principle applied to restrict what individual jurisdictions can do to fuck up national or global systems.

    Overzealous lawmakers in Michigan or Wisconsin shouldn’t be able to force global companies to operate their websites differently.

    California shouldn’t be able to force Glock to discontinue and re-tool its entire product line, etc.

    • balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      California isn’t forcing Glock to do anything. Glock wants the central valley and orange county market so they do what they need to do.

      (I actually have no idea about the specifics of this, but I’m assuming it falls in the general shape of California trying to restrict access to murder tools and the murder tool vendor responding by finding ways around the law rather than just admitting their hobby and business kills people)

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      It could be argued that this is a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      The US can prohibit VPNs and encryption all it wants, doesn’t meant he rat of the world will

    • BanMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      By the same logic social issues would be distributed to the states, civil rights. Which is what’s happening now. The interstate commerce act is a stroke of brilliance tbh, it allows the states to work as a greater system without there being a patchwork of laws and regulations. I don’t think dropping it would be wise just because we’ve reached this level of stupidity… time to suffer consequences.

  • zaki_ft@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Yes, keep taking more and more away from people who have nothing to lose and nothing to live for.

    I’m sure that will end well for them and their families.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’s only a matter of time before some protocol is invented that bypasses all of this with some simple code or some plugin.

    You can’t just ban your way to compliance.

    • Ironfist79@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      There’s already several of them. You can even run things like cjdns which is entirely encrypted and p2p routed.

        • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Sure, but with a VPN. If my government wants to ban VPNs, I guess it’s pretty easy to see that 99,9% of my requests go to single IP that belongs to a VPN server

          • mechoman444@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            There are ways around that kind of stuff even for the most stringent of governments. Of course inherently there’s always a risk you asked me if I’m willing to take it and I said yes.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Didn’t we have this discussion like, a month ago, when this happened somewhere else? And a month earlier than that? And another month earlier than that?

    Hopefully, the pushback will keep coming alongside with it. That’s shitfuckery level of a stupid proposal.

  • starman2112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Nobody’s reading tfa. They aren’t banning VPNs, they’re banning websites that allow access to users using a VPN. Which is stupid, of course, but it isn’t going to get in the way of your piracy. 1337x does not care about Wisconsin state law.

    Websites subject to this proposed law are left with this choice: either cease operation in Wisconsin, or block all VPN users, everywhere, just to avoid legal liability in the state. One state’s terrible law is attempting to break VPN access for the entire internet, and the unintended consequences of this provision could far outweigh any theoretical benefit.

    If anything, they’re effectively going to build a Great Firewall around Wisconsin. Much easier to just not serve the approximately 10 users from that state than it is to implement the measures they’re demanding

    • Xotic56@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      This is just step one of them trying to absolutely ban VPNs.

      A website can’t determine VPN use very effectively, won’t be long until they “need the governments help” for compliance.

      Edited to add: they aren’t going to ban business VPNs people use your critical thinking skills here.

      China outlaws VPN use and has an exemption for businesses. It would be easy to follow the same guidelines anywhere else.

      • starman2112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Yeah, they’ll absolutely ban VPNs and then literally every business that uses them will move out of the state. Do you think VPNs exist only for piracy and bypassing region restrictions??? Like literally every business uses them

        • Xotic56@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          You know how the FOIA isn’t applied to Congress?

          It’ll be just like that, but with exemptions for businesses using VPNs.

          China literally does this already. There is already a precedent set.

          Everyone is always so obtuse when it comes to this discussion like they wouldn’t absolutely protect economic interests while fucking over the ability for the common man to use VPNs and similar technology.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I read tfa and banning use of VPNs is, in fact, a possibility to be compliant. Because how exactly do you determine a visitor to Pornhub is actually a VPN user from Wisconsin? The website can’t, presumably, trace the user’s location (defeating the entire purpose of the VPN), so that leaves VPN providers as the next responsible party.

      • starman2112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Nothing in this bill would lead to the use of VPNs being banned. Any given website could hypothetically ban the use of VPNs to access it, but that’s not a ban on VPNs the way the headline makes it out to be.

        how exactly do you determine a visitor to Pornhub is actually a VPN user from Wisconsin?

        It’s impossible, which means that in order to be compliant, websites would have to simply stop serving Wisconsin, like they already have with several other US states. There is nothing preventing either you or Pornhub from sending whatever 1s and 0s you want to some random Mullvad server in Canada. They can’t even punish Mullvad for this, as the text of the bill explicitly “prohibits business entities from knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing material harmful to minors on the Internet,” and any good VPN has no idea what material you’re accessing via their servers.

        • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          You’re making a very technical, logical interpretation of the bill. The problem is that the bill was written by illogical, naive people. This brand of government has already proven they want to hold VPNs accountable and have tried to force tracking into them. Having a bulletproof defense doesn’t mean governments can’t try to drag them through court anyway, especially when VPNs have already been publicly vilified as something only bad people use.