[freedomben]

VPNs are just tools that sketchy people use for sketchy means. There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law. Allowing these tools let's underage people access porn, and do all manner of undesirable behaviors like accessing region locked content.

I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that, including site operators who run nontrivial websites.

There are of course some people on the other side who think VPNs are a guarantee of privacy and secrecy on the internet, but that's pretty rare in my anecdatal experience. I largely blame the rampant ads on podcasts for this view.

[yreg]

Probably should have put a `>` before the first paragraph, because it reads like an 8/8 bait and most people won't continue to the next one.

Regarding the misleading podcast claims, at least all the podcast and youtube ads made the VPNs popular on the mass market so now they are more difficult to be silently outlawed.

[freedomben]

Oops yes, definitely should have done that. Looks like it's too late to edit though

[yreg]

Haha, if it wasn't even on purpose that makes it more funny.

Your comment was even dead for a while, before I (and others?) vouched for it.

[jaapz]

A whole thread could have been prevented with " and ", haha

[Narishma]

Putting a '>' would make it look like it's a quote from the article, which it isn't.

[yreg]

Well yeah, it's a strawman, but not unattached to reality.

[lightningdev1]

Lol your comment made me do a double take, I had stopped reading after the first sentence

[jerf]

I think an issue VPNs face is that while your first paragraph is not objectively true, it ends up being truer than I might like because the other use cases are not well covered. If you've got one of the things the HN gestalt would call a non-sketchy use case, you've also got the problem that it's rather hard to verify that any VPN you are using actually fulfills your goals. They can say they do, but you have a very hard time proving it.

On my current fiber provider, I'm already behind a very large CGNAT install. To a large degree, de facto that's already a lot of the "non-sketchy" use cases for VPN covered for me. IP addresses are already one of the weaker signals for tracking people as it is. Mobile networks have been letting you shift IPs for years just by how they work. Other internet providers that don't slap thousands of people at a crack behind one IPv4 with CGNAT didn't necessarily guarantee stable IP addresses, hence the need for dynamic DNS for decades.

The hole VPNs plug is necessary, but not even remotely sufficient if you are trying to actually protect yourself from some attack. Slapping a default Windows 11 install on a VPN to a first approximation protects you from nothing.

And since the "non-sketchy" uses are rather dubious, that really does sort of leave just the sketchy ones. I don't think it's a coincidence that when they pay a YouTuber to advertise them, the YouTuber generally ends up talking vaguely about the protections but fairly concretely about the sketchy uses, with screen shots showing them using Netflix in a different country. The companies know what they're getting used for and what they can provide.

[dzink]

VPN is what a smart person uses when they are at an internet cafe or somewhere else with public internet where you can’t trust that the traffic isn’t sniffed by someone for giggles and your bank credentials are going to leak.

[cbg0]

How would your banking credentials leak? Every banking app uses encryption. In fact, I'd wager every app uses encryption nowadays.

[kmeisthax]

Not only that, but the iOS and Android APIs for HTTP requests make it really difficult to accidentally use unencrypted HTTP:

* By default, only secure connections are allowed

* You have to enumerate allowed exceptions to this policy in your app manifest XML / Info.plist

* Exceptions are only permitted for specific use cases where mandatory encryption is infeasible, like browsers, podcast players, embedded device clients (which will also require the local network access permission), etc. If you're shipping a banking app and you exempt your own site from encryption, App Review will tear you a new one.

[dzink]

Let’s say a hacker hooks up the hotel internet to a firewalla and opens a free wifi spot. You log in and it sees from your traffic that you’re a customer of ABC bank and Gmail and ATT from the traffic - next thing you know you get a text message from your “bank” that someone has stolen your credentials in “XYZ Arizona” and you have yourself a phishing attack. The exposure scenarios are only limited by the imagination of humans and modern LLMs.

[cbg0]

This doesn't seem novel in any way, given the amount of data available online you can already be targeted by fake bank texts, no need for the free wifi hotspot.

[dorkypunk]

I've also argued this on the past, it just seems redundant, but people eat the VPN ads like they were gospel.

[kenniskrag]

I just use my home router as VPN to not care if the 100 apps om my phone have a working encryption. I also use it to access my home services so that they are not exposed to the internet. I also use it to limit exposure on my VMs on a cloud hoster.

[Group_B]

thats why we have https and certs. VPN is redundant

[f6v]

Redundancy is not detrimental to security and privacy. On the contrary, having more layers would protect you in case one of them fails (zero-day, bugs, etc.)

[streetfighter64]

If there's a zero-day in TLS there would be a huge amount of problems that a VPN wouldn't protect you against. Even if you're using a VPN (or just a trusted ISP from your home), as soon as your data leaves their hands it would be vulnerable.

Like, suppose I want to send a physical letter to my bank. I can either ensure it can't be opened (using TLS), or I can get a trusted mailman to bring it to the mail central (using a VPN or trused ISP), but only one of those measures are going to protect me against a malicious mailman carrying it from the mail central to the bank.

[bee_rider]

I’d expect the mail carrier who goes from the mail center to the bank to be slightly more trustworthy than the one who visits me off in the middle of nowhere. Or at least, if that carrier is untrustworthy, it is a big problem for a lot of rich people who have the time and money to think about this sort of stuff.

[streetfighter64]

> it is a big problem for a lot of rich people who have the time and money to think about this sort of stuff

Because banks famously love spending time and money on IT security... Anyway, if TLS was broken, that would be a big problem for everybody.

Using a VPN to protect against a zero-day in TLS, is sort of like hoarding gold to prepare for a collapse of society, in that it's a very unlikely scenario, and if it actually were to happen you'd have a bunch of other problems that aren't solved by gold / a VPN.

[Hikikomori]

TLS exists.

[1718627440]

Logging into my work computer, to work in the company network: yeah very sketchy.

[inigyou]

That isn't the one they're banning. The law isn't as autistic as nerds think it is.

[1718627440]

But the argument that VPNs are inherently evil, to support such legislation, is.

[freedomben]

Exactly. I disagree with the law, but it's obviously not about corporate VPNs

[chmod775]

Many people reading this are going to stop at the first sentence without realizing you're paraphrasing a position you apparently don't agree with.

[idonotknowwhy]

That's amazing. I didn't even realize but it seems I read the first paragraph and the last sentence, concluded "moron" and scrolled down.

It's only because of your comment that I re-read the their post.

[1718627440]

What is the sign, that he does not?

[yreg]

"I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that"

Meaning the poster finds it surprising that intelligent site operators would honestly think that.

[1718627440]

Or saying that his view is also shared by people he considers intelligent, and thus can only be rejected by others, who first need to proof to him, that they are actually intelligent. Aka. an indirect ad hominem.

[bee_rider]

If the poster agreed with the opinion, they wouldn’t have included “actually” (indicating that they think the reader will be feeling incredulous at that point) and “otherwise intelligent.”

[freedomben]

Yes correct, I vehemently disagree with people who say things like the first paragraph. I definitely should have been more clear that that was not my opinion, but it's too late to edit now

[PetitPrince]

Meta: your first paragraph could really use a quotation indicator / mark. I suspect it was intentional: the ragebait was very effective on me before reading the rest of your comment (I was ready for defend my usage of tailscale to access my iot stuff).

[quietfox]

This is going to get some interesting responses by people commenting immediately after only reading the first paragraph.

[outime]

>I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that, including site operators who run nontrivial websites

This is an illusion we really need to remove from our collective consciousness. Running a popular website while being an ops genius, being a neurosurgeon who saves lives every day or being the world's best architect doesn't mean someone has sound opinions on topics right outside their area of expertise.

In fact, nowadays it seems to be all about appeals to authority which IMHO makes us more ignorant because many people seem to not think critically anymore. Instead, it's just "an expert said so" - then you look into the "expert" and in many cases they either aren't actually an expert or they're a paid shill. But that's a topic for some other day.

[bee_rider]

I want to applaud your choice to not include anything like quotes here. That would be misleading because it isn’t an actual literal quote. And, we’re too used to just skimming posts here before jumping right in to argue against them.

[trklausss]

I use a VPN to have access to my HomeAssistant instance at home, where I can control every aspect of the house. Without this, I would have to pay for a domain name, manage the certificates, and exposing myself to external attacks. So, for me, a VPN reduces massively the attack surface.

There is this law, where if you don't see the purpose of something, is probably because you never needed it. Which is fine, but don't gatekeep others wanting to use them.

Edit: OP forgot to format text, so my anger should be directed to however said the quote...

[freedomben]

Yes agreed. I use tailscale for the same purpose, and it's so much simpler than having to properly ingress everything from the internet. I have a few older devices on the LAN that have reached EOL as well and would be a terrible idea to expose them directly to the internet (not so much because I don't want someone turning off my light, but more so I don't end up as part of a botnet)

[f6v]

> Allowing these tools let's underage people access porn

You can't imagine how much crime I committed in my teenage years. You don't wanna end up like me, punks! Stay off that crap!

[xpct]

I wanted to respond with something of substance (I still don't understand if it was a paraphrase or not) but every reply here is a meta reply, so hello to all fellow meta reply guys.

[dec0dedab0de]

Region locking content is the undesirable behavior. Accessing it is very desirable.

[sharperguy]

I'm genuinely considering whether the people replying to you are bots now.

[idonotknowwhy]

Bots wouldn't miss the middle paragraph.

[wongarsu]

Maybe put some quotes around that first paragraph. Seems like some people downvote you before they get to the part where you reveal you don't think that way

[testfrequency]

TIL every corp in the world are sketchy people for using VPN.

[inigyou]

That isn't what they're banning, and you know it.

[testfrequency]

Of course, but if the argument is VPN = Bad, then it feels a bit deaf to ignore use cases for VPN…which is exactly why this law didn’t pass.

[cyanydeez]

yes, assuming your laws are like "Only blue eyed males are allowed to have internet"

[croes]

How do you think you can work from home with a VPN for access of the companies network?

Edit: missed the second paragraph

[Markoff]

flagged for intentional ragebait, if this wasn't ragebait you would have used quotes

[freedomben]

I considered it, but it wasn't a direct quote so quotes felt misleading. It was a paraphrase of opinions I've heard expressed by various people in the past

[asdfsa32]

This is the must absurd take possible. Most business use VPNs for their day to day operations.

[MSFT_Edging]

I think you need to read the second sentence.

[1718627440]

His whole comment contains a view, that some people, including elected officials hold. I don't see an aspect, that actually hints, that he means that in a sarcastic way(, besides that he is on HN).

[tiagod]

You guys really need to finish reading the comments before you reply...

[1718627440]

I did, and I still don't necessarily understand his comment that way.

[mulr00ney]

"I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that" I think that is the indicator.

[NotHereNotThere]

His second sentence is "There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law."

I'm not trying to break the law, I use it for my corporate usage, therefore it is legitimate use.

What are you trying to say?

[f6v]

I think they're trying to say you need to read the whole comment before taking it apart.

[latexr]

> What are you trying to say?

Pretty sure they meant “second paragraph” instead of “second sentence”.

[gpvos]

Yeah, that comment is a textbook example of failure to communicate.

[MSFT_Edging]

Yeah, basically. To me it sounded like he was doing a sarcastic quote, then shutting that opinion down.

[sajithdilshan]

This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while

[anon48293]

You didn’t manage to read the entire comment, did you?

[soco]

"You don't have to eat the whole egg to know that it is rotten." (G. B. Shaw)

[anon48293]

You do in this case, since he was quoting somebody

[II2II]

> I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that, including site operators who run nontrivial websites.

First of all: thank you for using the word say, rather than think or believe or anything of that ilk. Too many of these discussions reduce to attributing or misattributing motivations to people.

That said, I still have issues with that statement. Let's assume that you are talking about an intelligent person who works in tech. Chances are something was taken out of context because they probably know what VPNs are for and that they have legitimate uses. Sometimes they miss context because they are not expressing their ideas clearly. Sometimes we miss context because we hear something we violently oppose to, and ignore the rest.

Another issue is that categorizing and vilifying people genuinely doesn't help the cause. At best, people will ignore the counter points. At worse, it will push people further away. We have to listen and educate based upon issues that are relevant to the audience.

Simplistic responses like, "freedom of speech" won't solve anything because those words have lost meaning. Too many people scream "freedom of speech" to excuse what they are saying, while they are active in suppressing the freedom of speech of others. Too many people use the freedom of speech as a tool to intimidate others, to restrict the speech or legal actions of others, because they are more interested in imposing their values on others rather than challenging the values of others. We should be illustrating ways that freedom of speech are relevant using examples that are relevant to the people we are speaking to. In the case of framing freedom of speech for people who are concerned with abortion: pro-life people may respond better to presenting freedom of speech as a safe stage to promote the sacredness of life, while pro-choice people may respond better to framing the freedom of speech as a safe way to seek out information relating to getting an abortion.

Likewise, people can see through simplistic attacks like accusing others of using children for leverage in an argument. Most of the people who say "think of the children" are trying to dismiss people who are trying, legitimately, to protect a vulnerable class. There are plenty of good reasons why the policy mechanisms to protect a vulnerable class may be objectionable, yet framing one's opposition with a reductionist interpretation of intent pushes people apart when they ought to be seeking out better solutions. For example: two people may agree that underage access to porn has to be dealt with, but disagree on the role that VPNs play in circumventing restrictions. So talk about how VPNs are not an age-based access control mechanism. Talk about the misclassification of information about gender and sexuality as pornography, assuming it is relevant to who you are talking to. Talk about the other benefits that VPNs offer in maintaining a free society. In other words, get them on your side and start seeking out better solutions.