• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      456 months ago

      No they won’t. Virtually every tech company in the world uses them. If any legislation was proposed then companies from the likes of Google and Microsoft down to hundreds of companies with fewer than 100 employees would all fight it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        236 months ago

        You make it sound like our lawmakers are wise and would make an informed decision and not just write an exception for companies that lobby for exemption.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 months ago

          You make it sound like our lawmakers are wise and would make an informed decision and not just write an exception for companies that -lobby- pay their greedy asses for said exemption.

          There, FTFY.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        156 months ago

        Virtually every tech company in the world uses them

        Virtually every company (tech or not) and every government uses a VPN…

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          56 months ago

          Can’t say anything about China, but why do you think vpn’s are illegal in Russia? Sure, the big vpn companies inside the country might be influenced by the government to limit your access to some banned websites. However, you can freely use a vpn if you wish.

          Again, I remind you that you could always set up your own vpn server for personal use.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            46 months ago

            Only “government approved” VPNs are “legal” in Russia. Guaranteed that none of them bypass country censorship.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        I took their comment to mean “companies offering VPN services as a subscription for the purpose of privacy”.

        It wouldn’t be hard to target those companies specifically while leaving every other “legitimate” (in their view) use cases for VPNs alone.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          A lot of people aren’t aware that VPNs are used to connect to internal networks, just “it’s this thing that I see commercials about that says it protects my privacy and allows me to access content not available in my country”. Hell, if you asked them what VPN stood for 90% of them would be like 🤷‍♂️

          I work in IT and can tell you that most people have zero clue about technology, even the things they use every day.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      206 months ago

      You can literally host your own vpn, nothing illegal about that. And, as someone else mentioned, work would be impossible for many companies, as almost any company that works with sensitive data uses vpn to some extent.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        And, as someone else mentioned, work would be impossible for many companies,

        Especially those who have moved to a work from home model.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        And you think lawmakers would make a wise informed decision? You think that they wouldn’t make a decision that would strip away your capability to use a VPN while protecting themselves and big tech that lobby for exemptions?

        Their Profit or Your Privacy, what do you think they’ll pick?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          I don’t have to assume they’re wise. The uproar would be enough to kill the bill before it gets out of committee.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 months ago

                You know I cannot quantify damages from a program that forces compliance without transparency through gag orders. I can point out that preventing the use of a VPN does not halt an entire company, you can still connect and work exactly the same as with a VPN it’s just not in a secure and private manner but what are you trying to hide? /s

                No matter what you and I believe it’s irrelevant, if privacy goes on the chopping block than a VPN access would need to go with it and the technology is currently irreplaceable as-is but that doesn’t negate the possibility that it can become regulated. Privacy should be a human right but you and I both know that equality isn’t always equal and there’s a large portion of government over numerous groups that all have their own agendas and understand the advantages of knowledge and the power it can bestow. You’re trying to fight greed and greed only cares about getting more.

                Thank you for coming to my Ted talk and best of luck to you frezik, I hope you’re right but I’m not going to hold my breath.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I don’t think it’s even possible to for anyone to stop someone from using a VPN. Sure, in theory, they could affect VPN providers’ businesses, but you’re always going to be able to connect to a VPN if you want to. They’d have to block or heavily limit internet access in order to stop users from connecting to some remote server.

          Also yes, I do think lawmakers are aware that vpn’s are not a threat to anything, thus there is absolutely no reason to ban them.

          Edit: Someone else mentioned a good point. Even if we consider them blocking vpn as a possibility “The uproar would be enough to kill the bill before it gets out of committee.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      Encryption is a constitutionally protected right. The only debate is whether it falls under the first or second amendment.