[sigmoid10]

False. Like all member states, the Swedish government has officialy ceded jurisdiction and enforcement of certain laws to the EU. Only VPN providers who do not comply with such international court orders get shut down. Look at what happened to vpnlab: The police literally write on their seized domain that they have forcefully attained access to everything, because the provider would not give it away freely: https://vpnlab.net/

Consequently, you can assume that all other VPN providers who are still doing business in Europe are freely giving away their data to government agencies.

[berkes]

You presume that a) all governments are bad, b) law is controlled by these governments and c) we only have to hide from governments.

Neither are absolutely true.

I mostly trust my (western european) government to not fuck me over when I am abiding the laws. Which I mightn't always do. I mostly trust them to be proportional: e.g. not beat me up or throw me in prison for smoking a spliff or drinking in public.

A court order is handled by courts. Which, at least in most European countries, is independent. This is shifting in some countries, but that's a rather big deal. "Cut of from EU benefits" big. Regardless what police or governments want, they have to abide by laws. And courts decisions on allowing access to my internet usage.

While in many countries governments are truly life threatening to minorities, that's not the only privacy concern. I have much more to "fear" from my ISP selling out, my datacenter getting bought by a FAANG or just those FAANGs spying on my every move.

What I'm trying to say is: you are spreading FUD by inventing some absolutisms that are really a spectrum for most common VPN users.

Also: VPNs have always known to be detrimental to your security when browsing "really" secure: through TOR.

[mrangle]

>Regardless what police or governments want, they have to abide by laws

I can't tell if this person actually believes what they wrote, or if it is some kind of attempted public social pressure technique meant to adjust the Overton Window from a rational place.

Be it 2024 or 1624, to assert that one trusts the gov to "not fuck them over" takes a special type of naivete. It certainly takes a general obliviousness to the news cycle, willful or otherwise. As well as an obliviousness to the logic of self-interest, bureaucratic expediency, State survival, profit motivation, corruption, party politics, and more. It takes an obliviousness to history.

I doubt that few people in law enforcement, public bureaucracies, or even in most elected offices would agree with the statement under discussion. In fact, the most best (or most just) system seems to be mostly built on fail-safes against being fucked over in this manner, even if all systems arguably eventually fall to corruption. Which underscores such government motivation.

If your take is that "in many countries governments are truly life threatening to minorities", then the rest of the Profession of Trust makes no logical sense for the population generally: if the bar is the threat to life. And while that is a sensible ceiling for a "do not trust" conclusion, I would argue that the bar doesn't need to be that high.

[berkes]

I believe what I wrote.

Do note that this applies to Western Europe (more precisely: the Netherlands). And do note that "to be f#ed over" is rather broad and personal. While one person might feel they are truly "f#d" by police" when they get a ticket driving their bike without lights at night, that's obviously not what I mean.

I am by conviction an Anarchist (though certainly not libertarian), and I do see the times and places where government did absolutely f# over minorities here¹. But: hear me out: those are cases where the government, through democratic mandate, made (extremely) bad laws. And then had to abide by their own laws. Sometimes forced by the -independent- courts². Democracy works: "we, the people, voted for incompetent and blasé governors, racists even, who then turned out to be imcompetent and blasé. And in doing so f*d minorities". It's not the government, really, but the will of the people!

Do I trust the police force (the institude)? Not really. But I don't need to, because it is kept in check by a functioning democratic system and courts. Again, this is not the US. Nor Somalia or South Africa. Do I trust a police officer (a human)? Quite probably; in the Netherlands a majority isn't power-tripping nazi scum but rather people with a (imo weird) calling to help.

¹ e.g. a still ongoing case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_childcare_benefits_scand...

² e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_crisis_in_the_Netherl...*

[DEADMINCE]

> those are cases where the government, through democratic mandate, made (extremely) bad laws

Yes, due to democracy.

You think more democracy is the answer?

[CRConrad]

Yes, because those cases are fortunately rather few. And usually (far!) fewer than in places with less democracy. So it seems plausible that they were caused by not enough (or otherwise "bad") democracy, not too much of it.

[DEADMINCE]

I absolutely think they were caused by too much democracy. Most people are not equipped and may never be so to vote or have a say on the most important issues. They need to be managed by those that are capable.