you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Contrary to the general opinion, I think this law is positive: it's teaching everyone how absolutely needed a VPN is nowadays.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    until critical mass and vpn access or usage is criminalized :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'd love to see them try and realize why that is such an incredibly bad idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    what will they care? they’re capitalists. they purchase the forces and they don’t understand the tech and we’re all too distracted, poor, tired, and one check away from death anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Every company and its mother uses a vpn for a variety of work related stuff. And I'm not talking about remote working, but secure connections, remote assistance, communications between different work sites... Banning vpns as a whole is so stupid that I'd love to see them try and crash the economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    lol this legislation might be trash from top to bottom but it sure don't mean commercial VPNs are a good thing

    contrary to the general opinion i think attaching social media accounts to real identities anonymously (which is remarkably easy to do) will go a very long way to solving the bot, troll, commercial and foreign influence issues with social media. while still being private and anonymous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To someone in e.g. the USA, doing as you may may literally be the difference between life and death, when agents show up at your door for exercising the incorrect opinion. I presume here that the "anonymous" part is only what is shared with the public, but since you mentioned "real identities" that is the part that is dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    for it to work the government must not be able to access the public website's database that associates, say, your online activity with your government id token, and the public website must never have access to the government database where your personal information is associated with the government id token

    this means the website, for example, would only know that you are the same human (or someone with access to that human's government id documents), if you sign up with a different avatar. the government only knows that you use a certain website

    if that is not the case then yes this information can be abused

  • source
  • parent