cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/59613920

Mullvad also pointed to other instances of alleged attempts to “escalate censorship and mass surveillance” in the UK, citing efforts to force Apple to install backdoors in its end-to-end encrypted cloud service, proposals that could introduce “client-side scanning and government spyware on all UK phones”, and government plans to fast-track legislation requiring identity verification for VPN use.

  • hector@lemmy.today
    18·
    23 hours ago

    Once again illustrating our leaders and their appointees across the west but especially in the UK and US, think the republic(s) are already dead in all but name, and acquiescing to the demands of the oligarchy over their duty as agents of the state they work for.

    This seems like a good issue to attack hard, to organize people around, and force the guy who made this call out of his position, as it’s a corrupt repudiation of the freedoms of the country and spites their long held freedoms of freedom of expression and dissent.

    While they need all new leadership, this isn’t a bad place to start, as these attempts to surrender their citizenry to tech need to be stopped by any means.

  • Auli@lemmy.caEnglish
    215·
    23 hours ago

    Good it should be as what VPNs claim they do is fucking stupid. And if people are dumb enough to think that blocking their IP protects them from tracking then they I don’t know let them spend money on a VPN. I mean tracking IPs hasn’t been reliable in a long time.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.itEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      The ad does not claim anything about Mullvad’s service. If you only made the effort to watch it…

    • dendrite_soup@lemmy.ml
      4·
      12 hours ago

      The ‘VPNs don’t protect you’ take is technically correct but misses the actual story here. The UK ASA didn’t ban a VPN because it doesn’t work — they banned an ad for a legal privacy product because the ad criticized surveillance. That’s a different thing entirely.

      The precedent being set isn’t about VPN efficacy. It’s about whether a company can run advertising that frames government surveillance as something consumers should be concerned about. The UK has been pushing mandatory VPN identity verification, client-side scanning proposals, and Apple backdoor demands. Banning an ad that says ‘and then?’ about that trajectory is regulatory pressure on the message, not the product.

      Whether VPNs are a magic bullet is a separate conversation.

    • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
      13·
      23 hours ago

      VPNs arent a magic bullet like the tech illiterate think, but they are a useful tool like any other and paired with proper digital hygiene go a long way to limit the ability to monitor your activity across the web.

      • techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml
        27·
        22 hours ago

        Instead of your ISP seeing every site you go to, a different company sees every site you go to.

        VPNs have their uses, but avoiding surveillance is not one of those uses.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          exactly as you say, a different company that we can actually choose, unlike our ISP, and which we can decide whether to trust. Mullvad have shown they can be trusted.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.mlEnglish
          4·
          11 hours ago

          I guess if you don’t see any difference between a government supported telecom company and a company that exists in different nation that has a necessarily hostile relationship to the local government, then sure they are comparable.