Privacy

2926 readers

206 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

155

Wisconsin VPN bill is 'going to be a disaster for everyone,' says online privacy nonprofit (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 4 days ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/privacy@programming.dev

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Due to the UK's Online Safety Act implemented earlier this year, accessing my Bluesky DM's now means I need to allow a third-party service to scan my face, ID, or bank card. Understandably, that gives me the willies. So I can either simply never look at my messages again, whip out the likeness of Norman Reedus, OR I can log on via a VPN. However, the days of this vastly preferable third option may be numbered.

US states Wisconsin and Michigan have already proposed VPN crackdown bills aiming to close off this workaround—and the UK may be looking to follow suit. Online privacy nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation recently criticised this strategy, taking aim at Wisconsin's bill in particular, saying that blocking the use of VPNs is "going to be a disaster for everyone."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 38 points 4 days ago (13 children)

I do wonder how they're going to even try to enforce this. VPNs aren't exactly blockable without a great firewall type apparatus. If they block major providers then you can just setup your own, and if they block VPN protocols outright then it ranges from ineffective to outright destroying the internet. I just don't really get how this is going to work practically. Which is good... hopefully it doesn't pass though.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 4 days ago (9 children)

If they block major providers then you can just setup your own

The major providers have "no logging" policies. They generate no data linking your payment information to your activity, so they have no data to turn over if requested. Your activity is traceable from the sites you visit back to the VPN's endpoint, but the no-logging policy prevents further tracing back to you.

Any VPN you setup on your own is going to be tied to you just as closely as a facial scan, ID, or bank card.

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As apex32 pointed out, it isn't about logging, it's about your ISP either ratting you out or outright blocking the domains and IP blocks of major providers and that's why I said you can setup your own. Ofc even hosting one yourself your ISP can probably still determine you're using a VPN through traffic analysis even if you're using TCP 443 to blend in but it makes it harder.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My point is that setting up your own, you have a second ISP for the VPN endpoint. Traffic from/to that endpoint is traceable to the operator of that VPN, but now that operator is you, rather than a major provider.

The no-logging feature of the major ISPs provides anonymity by leaving them unable to correlate traffic on the endpoint to an actual person. That feature is the core function of a VPN, but it is not something that you can setup for yourself.

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago

So what do you propose? Just not using a VPN? If you're that worried you can run a second public VPN on top of your private one. The point of the private one is to avoid ISPs outright blocking known major providers.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)