On 20/01/2016 18:47, "uknof on behalf of Tom Hill" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>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!" Mostly made easier by VPN companies pimping this sort of thing but in the overall scheme of netflix customers I imagine its a tiny proportion! > >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.) I did this and nearly got booted out of uni for it! However, in my view aren’t comparing apples with apples, in the cases above the user gets something he wants. I suggest that the majority of users will care less about about this issue as long as they can post cats falling off trees on Facebook or download their latest episode of Cat on the Internet a week before Dave shows it. > >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. I don’t agree on this point but I agree on the always, and yes SPOT ON! there will always be someone who engineers things and works around things. >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." Unfortunately that’s the path we are on, irrespective of this bill. >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**. Holy mis-representation Batman! I’m absolutely not enthusiastic about mass surveillance, I am enthusiastic about engineering challenges. > >* 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 strongly don’t agree. History teaches us to fight the arguments on the right front rather than some BS about it not being able to be done or that it will be too expensive - because there are smart engineers all over the world that can and will make it happen and happily take government or other money. If you want to live in the “lala" world of its impossible knock yourself out :-) I make no apologies for taking on tough engineering challenges! Silicon can be respun and optimised, software re-written. If it wasn’t for our engineering drive we’d still live in caves. > >** I still haven't forgiven anyone for backing-down to the 'default-on >porn filter' demands. That set a shocking precedent. Actually it didn’t set any precedent - feh - its a 2 second job to turn it off? And I think if you look at the other filtering that has been imposed, I think you’ll find the big four have fought it, at significant cost, more than any other organisations. Regards, Neil.
