The terms "blindingly obvious," "logical consequence," and "that is not how it works" appear nowhere in the government handbook of internet legislation. In particular, the discovery that imposing age access controls on websites has pushed users to VPNs has come as a huge surprise to legislators in the UK, the EU, Canada, and Australia. Nobody here knows how old VPN users are, be they kids unwilling to lose access or adults unwilling to disgorge personally identifying data to who knows what.As they recover from this shocking discovery, these fine people are looking at ways to control VPNs, whether by adding age verification here too or by some magical "digital age of consent" technology that somehow evades the paradox that demanding more personal information in the name of safety itself reduces safety. Yet here, as in so many ways, the rest of the world is lagging behind America – more specifically, the great state of Utah, which has just enacted an anti-VPN law.
This law makes it compulsory for any site that the state says needs age verification – por
... Show more...The terms "blindingly obvious," "logical consequence," and "that is not how it works" appear nowhere in the government handbook of internet legislation. In particular, the discovery that imposing age access controls on websites has pushed users to VPNs has come as a huge surprise to legislators in the UK, the EU, Canada, and Australia. Nobody here knows how old VPN users are, be they kids unwilling to lose access or adults unwilling to disgorge personally identifying data to who knows what.As they recover from this shocking discovery, these fine people are looking at ways to control VPNs, whether by adding age verification here too or by some magical "digital age of consent" technology that somehow evades the paradox that demanding more personal information in the name of safety itself reduces safety. Yet here, as in so many ways, the rest of the world is lagging behind America – more specifically, the great state of Utah, which has just enacted an anti-VPN law.
This law makes it compulsory for any site that the state says needs age verification – porn, basically – to impose those checks on anyone physically in Utah whether or not they are using any VPN. Those would be the same VPNs whose sole purpose is to prevent the geolocation of their users. Which would seem, and is, another paradox.
I'd not go online without a VPN. There's absolutely no reason my ISP needs my browsing history. And at about $6/month, it's not exactly breaking the bank.
What I'd not use is any VPN provider that sponsors YouTube content. A free VPN has to make their money from somewhere.
pcouy
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Don't know what ISP you have or what VPN you're using, but it's just a transfer of trust. Whoever your VPN provider is, they now see everything your ISP previously saw. I host my own VPN servers when I need one, and even then I still have to trust the datacenter operators to not snoop on my DNS requests (almost everything else tends to be encrypted with SSL/TLS by default nowadays)
Also, the "Private" in VPN is about it being for private use, not about privacy
Powderhorn
in reply to pcouy • • •like this
HarkMahlberg likes this.
pcouy
in reply to Powderhorn • • •When I said I host my own, I mean on cheap VPS that cost me way less than 6$/month.
But yeah, mullvad is pretty much the only commercial VPN provider I'd trust more than my ISP
Powderhorn
in reply to pcouy • • •pcouy
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Powderhorn
in reply to pcouy • • •TehPers
in reply to pcouy • • •FYI DNS supports DNS-over-HTTPS. You still need to trust the DNS server, but you can run one yourself at least if you're worried about it.
protocol to run DNS queries over HTTPS
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)unitedwithme
in reply to TehPers • • •Do people not know about Quad9? DoH & Quic
quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-enab…
Quad9 | A public and free DNS service for a better security and privacy
Quad9Kichae
in reply to Powderhorn • • •LadyMeow
in reply to Powderhorn • • •like this
Zier and Quantumantics like this.
Courtney (she/her/they)
in reply to LadyMeow • • •megopie
in reply to LadyMeow • • •I think in the case of Utah it’s something beyond just wanting to spy on people. I think the LDS(Mormon) church legitimately wants to stamp out porn all together among it’s members. The first step to that is of course, getting a comprehensive list of everyone viewing porn, via ID collection. Then hand that list over to the LDS church, who can name and shame members they find on it.
Now, they probably will not be able do this everywhere, but, in Utah, it is absolutely with in their power given how much power it has over the state government.
teawrecks
in reply to LadyMeow • • •partofthevoice
in reply to LadyMeow • • •Korhaka
in reply to Powderhorn • • •clifmo
in reply to Powderhorn • • •t3rmit3
in reply to Powderhorn • • •teawrecks
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •t3rmit3
in reply to teawrecks • • •