Comment by delusional a day ago
The exhausting "well actually" masks a corrosive argument, that if you can't enforce the rules in a rigid and rigorous fashion, the rule is fiat.
It's not that he doesn't know the difference. He's making the argument that since there's no _technical_ difference there can be no legal difference.
And this is rather an anemic take. The (proposed) UK VPN ban that was recently discussed here have a definition on what exactly is a "VPN" for the purposes of the ban (basically "VPNs generally advertised to normal consumers") but a lot simply shouted "ssh go brr" (and definitely did not read the proposed law). These "let's go techical" thinking never flies with the poeple who makes such legislation, and in (probably unpopular!) opinion we should talk to them in terms that they can understand. Yes, we don't want that law, but having a purist take would probably alienate regular people.
It doesn't really matter that a single person has found a loophole because many, many other people don't have such a luxury, and that's what the lawmakers are aiming for.
I have worked for fintech companies that mandate VPN use as a security measure.
It's going to be interesting when the majority of the UK accesses the internet via VPN because of the increasingly ridiculous hoops that the UK makes them go through, and the government tries to stop them while also allowing VPNs to be used by the tech sector.
I agree, these are two separate legal processes powered by the same technology. But the internet doesn't have any awareness of legality (thankfully) so we're stuck with only the technical meaning.
No obviously not. There are specialist products for this, and it's not hard to roll your own if you want.
The tech is the same, though. That's the point.
> The (proposed) UK VPN ban that was recently discussed here have a definition on what exactly is a "VPN" for the purposes of the ban (basically "VPNs generally advertised to normal consumers")
It’s not taking about IPsec tunnels between networkers, or a connection back to your home. It’s talking about surfshark
Yeah, it's an ignorant and arrogant take on the legal system.
In most places the law is exercised pragmatically, interpreted by presumed intention. That's why legal precedent is important. You likely won't convince any judge being anal about the wording (maybe if the law gets applied for the first time). You can derail anything semantically. Furthermore, despite apparent belief, laws are frequently formulated in such a way that a particular wider term is extended to help interpretation. Eg. "It is prohibited to use a VPN in a way capable and intended to obscure one's physical internet access point identification". (Not a lawyer, not a native speaker, don't get anal with this wording, either.) I very much doubt any legally binding document would even use the term 'VPN' primarily to describe the technical means for anonymization, but rather describe it functionally.