On 20/01/16 13:01, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> How many customers will buy VPNs though? How many actually have a clue what 
> DNS is?

I was quite surprised to see just how many Netflix customers have learnt
about VPNs, just by the prevalence of "hey if you run this at the same
time as watching Netflix, you get to see the US version!"

In the same vein, I recall the stories of kids pre-building distros with
VPNs, on to USB sticks to take to school. All so they could bypass the
restricted software on the machines there (or at home). Some of them
will be adults now, and I'd be surprised if they felt any different
about it. (And as if most of us don't have similar stories from our youth.)

But even if VPN use isn't that widespread now, the more the Government
encroaches on home communications (be it with filters, or snooping) the
greater the reaction will be from the general public to find ways around
it. And there will /always/ be a vendor.

And of course, the age-old argument; criminals. The minute the
Government realise that they can't see 'into' VPNs terminating in
$other_country, is the minute they'll want to mitigate their use. "We're
not breaking encryption, we're just blocking criminals from using it.
There will be no safe spaces for criminals and terrorists! The IP Bill
2016 says we can interfere with whatever we like, so suck it up."

> Neil.
> (who isn’t in favour of a lot of this bill but loves engineering challenges).

Steady-on Spiderman. I sincerely hope you weren't this enthusiastic
about mass surveillance* when the HO came and asked BT what was possible
to implement. The ramifications of what BT say (and the big four, in
general) could seal the fate for the rest of us real quickly**.

* Because even if you were gravely mortified on purpose, it's quite
perturbing to see how excited about it you are here. Despite being
Engineers, history teaches us that we all need a sense of morality above
all.

** I still haven't forgiven anyone for backing-down to the 'default-on
porn filter' demands. That set a shocking precedent.

-- 
Tom

Reply via email to