When it comes to anything technical, lawmakers are typically unqualified to make any assessment on how best to protect the public. They constantly want to introduce back doors, ban encryption, or other nonsense because they think they’ll magically uncover hackers, pedos, and terrorists. In reality they’re just making the technology less secure or flat out breaking how things are supposed to work.
Years ago, there was an issue similar to this that came up and at the time the article's author made a great point about 4 items that should be asked of any politician considering policy regarding the internet.
The question is: "Explain the differences between the internet, the World Wide Web, a browser and a search engine, and can you do so without one of your assistants telling you."
If any politician can't correctly identify what each is, they really have no business trying to regulate the technology.
I think your view of it is honestly a little positive. In reality, I think a lot of it is an intentional erosion of privacy to eventually implement a surveillance state and control the population completely.
@saltnotsugar@schnurrito
Introduce back doors = Give Chinese hackers direct access to infrastructure
Ban encryption = Break online banking
ID verification = Provide government IDs to scammers
Disable VPNs = Disable remote work
Block websites = Break your entire region’s internet access
It needs to be spelled out in specific examples rather than hypothetical concepts.
So how I see this will be implemented in the UK is that your work vpn endpoints will need to be registered with ofcom.
The big providers like proton or Nord will have to declare their endpoints if they want to remain compliant.
All the smaller providers will just skirt detection for quite some time, eventually they will crackdown on them, if Sky can manage a slow but steady block so can Ofcom. No they will never get anybody but that was never ever the intent, just to get most.
The main aim will be to use using an unauthorised VPN as a means to further smear people and confiscate their equipment, you have to have reasonable grounds in the UK.
Its never been about criminals or pedos, most already use other means to secure themselves.
Bad article, made even worse by being written as if the author understands a thing about VPNs.
Websites have no way to tell if a VPN connection is coming from Milwaukee, Michigan, or Mumbai. The technology just doesn't work that way.
Maybe, if you're writing about such stuff, you're first supposed to research that "the technology just doesn't work this way" and websites don't see VPN connections. They terminate on the VPN server and the websites have no reliable way to know whether a packet used to travel through a VPN or multiple before.
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.
Since the latter is plain impossible, there is no choice.
13 Comments
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 298d
“Sorry boss, I can’t log into the server until they repeal a stupid law”
omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 298d
Sorry sir, all of our off-site servers are unreachable because 100 year old politicians don't understand how networks function.
generallynonsensical@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 297d
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 298d
That wont stop them from fucking everything up anyway
saltnotsugar@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 298d
When it comes to anything technical, lawmakers are typically unqualified to make any assessment on how best to protect the public. They constantly want to introduce back doors, ban encryption, or other nonsense because they think they’ll magically uncover hackers, pedos, and terrorists. In reality they’re just making the technology less secure or flat out breaking how things are supposed to work.
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 298d
Years ago, there was an issue similar to this that came up and at the time the article's author made a great point about 4 items that should be asked of any politician considering policy regarding the internet.
The question is: "Explain the differences between the internet, the World Wide Web, a browser and a search engine, and can you do so without one of your assistants telling you."
If any politician can't correctly identify what each is, they really have no business trying to regulate the technology.
snooggums@piefed.world · 5 pts · 297d
"I consider input from specialists in the field."
Ok, at least they acknowledge their limits and look for professional input.
"Industry leaders have told me..."
There it is!
Zetta@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 298d
I think your view of it is honestly a little positive. In reality, I think a lot of it is an intentional erosion of privacy to eventually implement a surveillance state and control the population completely.
scumbag US politicians want what China has lol
ClickyMcTicker@hachyderm.io · 3 pts · 297d
@saltnotsugar @schnurrito
Introduce back doors = Give Chinese hackers direct access to infrastructure
Ban encryption = Break online banking
ID verification = Provide government IDs to scammers
Disable VPNs = Disable remote work
Block websites = Break your entire region’s internet access
It needs to be spelled out in specific examples rather than hypothetical concepts.
Lexam@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 298d
And suddenly everyone's work computers stop working.
tankplanker@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 298d
So how I see this will be implemented in the UK is that your work vpn endpoints will need to be registered with ofcom.
The big providers like proton or Nord will have to declare their endpoints if they want to remain compliant.
All the smaller providers will just skirt detection for quite some time, eventually they will crackdown on them, if Sky can manage a slow but steady block so can Ofcom. No they will never get anybody but that was never ever the intent, just to get most.
The main aim will be to use using an unauthorised VPN as a means to further smear people and confiscate their equipment, you have to have reasonable grounds in the UK.
Its never been about criminals or pedos, most already use other means to secure themselves.
monk@lemmy.unboiled.info · 4 pts · 297d
Bad article, made even worse by being written as if the author understands a thing about VPNs.
Maybe, if you're writing about such stuff, you're first supposed to research that "the technology just doesn't work this way" and websites don't see VPN connections. They terminate on the VPN server and the websites have no reliable way to know whether a packet used to travel through a VPN or multiple before.
Since the latter is plain impossible, there is no choice.
Boo-o.
ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 298d
come and take it
heavy@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 297d
So fucking stupid these people