4 ms·

Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this

Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this way is so much easier.

mellavora 4y ago
Looks like you missed forum_ghosts point, "in some sense, this is even better in the US, as First Amendment applies to governments, they shouldn't be able to censor your communications" It is illegal for govnt to censor communication, it is not illegal for Comcast to do so. Likewise, if govnt wanted to criminalize personal VPN access, they just pass a law. They don't need to own the infrastructure to do this. However, if Comcast decides it doesn't like personal VPN, what are you going to do? So, actually government-owned internet is the best protection against the harms you warn of.
sobkas 4y ago
> Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this way is so much easier. You mean much harder, because when government (ISP) is blocking sites it's censorship, that is against constitution, while corporations can do whatever they want (especially if it is heavily "encouraged" by government), so your only action is to change ISP(good luck with that in land of the freedom). And even when there is a competing ISP in your area, odds are that it also was "encouraged" by government.
- fareesh 4y ago
  In theory sure but in reality merely 2 days ago I saw calls from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for governments to adopt more internet censorship. I don't have confidence that the new crop of lawmakers are in sync with the constitution, particularly on the subject of free speech. Ultimately this becomes reliant on the judiciary, which is also political.

4 ms·

Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this

by fareesh 4y ago

Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this way is so much easier.

mellavora 4y ago
Looks like you missed forum_ghosts point, "in some sense, this is even better in the US, as First Amendment applies to governments, they shouldn't be able to censor your communications" It is illegal for govnt to censor communication, it is not illegal for Comcast to do so. Likewise, if govnt wanted to criminalize personal VPN access, they just pass a law. They don't need to own the infrastructure to do this. However, if Comcast decides it doesn't like personal VPN, what are you going to do? So, actually government-owned internet is the best protection against the harms you warn of.
sobkas 4y ago
> Seems like one step along the way for the government to criminalize personal VPN access and ban the websites they don't like. They could already do it but this way is so much easier. You mean much harder, because when government (ISP) is blocking sites it's censorship, that is against constitution, while corporations can do whatever they want (especially if it is heavily "encouraged" by government), so your only action is to change ISP(good luck with that in land of the freedom). And even when there is a competing ISP in your area, odds are that it also was "encouraged" by government.
- fareesh 4y ago
  In theory sure but in reality merely 2 days ago I saw calls from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for governments to adopt more internet censorship. I don't have confidence that the new crop of lawmakers are in sync with the constitution, particularly on the subject of free speech. Ultimately this becomes reliant on the judiciary, which is also political.