the linked article CNBC of 11 march 2018 (How to surf the web safely on public Wi-Fi networks):
and so? the comparison with ‘bongs’ is extremely nonsensical.
in any case, the moderators here will be like the police and the prison guards who swear the black or the arabe are the natural criminal class, because of course in their work they only see that aspect.
Since they wish to be more holy in their fearful respect, more than even the website actually owned Universal (an owner which we can say has the lawyers and the substantial economic interest in the issues they are so fearfully rspectful of, to take action), the board will have another subject where the discussion, on its margins, gives another encouragement to go elsewhere, for no current real rational.
You’re just looking at the part I bolded? The sentence right before the bolded part: P2P discussions are not permitted at all on the SDMB.
I quoted but didn’t bold: they have advertised it along with P2P.
Is seems as long as the VPN mentioned P2P at all in advertising, it wasn’t allowed. But again, we’re now not allowed to mention the name of any VPN provider.
My argument is that recommending a VPN that, among other things, *allows p2p is not the same as discussing, advertising or recommending p2p. I think every paid VPN I’ve seen allows p2p, so by that logic we can only discuss the free, ad-ridden, insecure services that any intelligent person would avoid.
Also, I still haven’t been shown any evidence that VPN’s have previously been included under the p2p rule. Engineer_comp_geek has stated that he chooses to include it, but the only evidence is a single post, 16 years ago, on a different topic (ip-spoofing). If they are going to ban it from now on they need to come up with a better excuse.
Engineer_comp_geek has made it clear in his posts that he still thinks of VPN’s as primarily used for filesharing, despite multiple cites showing that is no longer the case. In fact they are now a mainstream service, almost essential for anyone who’s concerned about online security and privacy. Well known newspapers, tech sites & blogs recommend that everyone use one, but apparently because 10-20 years ago they were used by pirates they’re not allowed.
Not that I’m an expert, but I did some research before picking which to go with.
“I want a good hammer for smashing things.” Okay then.
“I want a good hammer for smashing peoples’ head in.” That’s not right.
Re: Not wanting brand names named? Come … on.
“Is Stanley a good hammer for smashing things.” What’s the problem here?
Just take a step back. Forget that VPN has anything to do with computers and such. It’s only a tool. A quite useful one for regular folk. How do we treat discussions of tools in general here?
The hammer analogy isn’t an apt one. It would be if there were hammer companies whose primary purpose and advertising was geared toward smashing heads in. Let’s look at comments ECG made:
I don’t agree with ECG that a VPN service that didn’t mention file sharing at all in all of it’s advertising, but made one mention of “P2P Support” as one of its 12 features, is “aimed towards file sharing.” That ECG believes that is so is the problem and the hammer analogy isn’t likely to sway him.
Can the mods please actually write VPN rules in the rules? Claiming this rule:
means the following is forbidden (claimed by ECG):
is quite a stretch, considering ECG claims the mere mention of P2P once by a VPN provider is advertising “P2P for file sharing.” And now ECG said we’re not allowed to mention any P2P service by name at all. If this is a rule now, it would help if it were added to the rules.
Just so we’re all on the same page here, in the thread that spawned all of this, the VERY FIRST REPLY contained this:
I’ll pass something around the mod loop regarding explicitly calling out VPN discussion restrictions in the rules so that there will be less confusion regarding this in the future.
This is the rule change that I have proposed. I am posting it here as well so that everyone may comment on it:
VPNs - Discussions of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) are generally permitted here, but there are some restrictions. Discussions about VPNs for illegal purposes or for purposes of file sharing and other copyright violations are strictly prohibited. Questions about legality and debates about legal and other issues are permitted. Specific VPN service providers should not be mentioned by name or linked to without permission from the moderation staff. Discussions about using a VPN to hide your identity for security purposes are permitted, but discussion about using a VPN to hide your identity for purposes such as ban evasion, socking, trolling, and spamming are strictly prohibited.
The construction of this sentence makes it seem as if file sharing is necessarily a copyright violation. Whether or not there will be a change regarding talk of legal file sharing being allowed, for accuracy’s sake that sentence should be altered as to not perpetuate inaccurate information.
There are already plenty of good posts in this thread explaining why this sort of ban is outdated in 2018. You claimed a provider simply mentioning P2P means it is “aimed towards file sharing.” That very provider was mentioned by name in the links in the following post:
If this doesn’t change your mind, I doubt anything will.
This post perfectly exemplifies how silly the discussion of this topic has become.
One guy observes that he makes use of a legal tool, that is used for many legitimate purposes, in order to do some possibly illegal things. And that guy’s post was the “VERY FIRST REPLY” to the thread! OMG! I’m getting the vapors, it’s so distressing! I guess that if I make the first reply in a car recommendation thread, and note that I like my car because it so easily exceeds the speed limit, you would also shut down that thread?
The two highlighted sentences are stupid and pointless.
The first is stupid and pointless because, if you can’t ask about specific providers, and the features they offer, you’re cutting off a significant portion of the legitimate discussions of the subject. Note that mentioning the providers by name, and discussing the specific features and services they offer, is NOT the same as discussing the possibly nefarious uses to which their services might be put by some hypothetical person. Nor does the fact that some services might make an overt attempt to appeal to copyright violators or spammers negate the legitimate uses for which other people might use the services.
The second sentence is stupid and pointless because many of the features and services of any particular VPN provider, and the capabilities of VPN more generally, are inherently capable of being used for both legitimate and nefarious purposes. That is, there is no real way of telling, from a person’s discussion of VPN, which side of the line their intended use of the service is. All your second sentence does is provide a nod and a wink to the user: “Just make sure you say you’re using VPN for “security” purposes, and we’re cool.”
I live in California, a state that requires all-party consent to record a private conversation. And yet most American states just stick to federal law on this issue, requiring only one-party consent to record a private conversation. That’s how Stormy Daniels was able to legally record her conversations with various administration officials without their knowledge or permission. What would you do if someone on this message board asked about the best Android app for recording phone calls? Would you shut the thread because some people, somewhere, might be able to use the app to violate a state law? Or would you allow a legal discussion of a legal technology, and accept that what people might do with that technology when they’re away from the SDMB is something that does no harm to the board itself, and is really none of your goddamned business?
I just went back to BearNenno’s thread to read it and see what the original kerfuffle was about, and you didn’t do yourself any favors with your first contribution to that thread. You began with this observation:
The first mistake here is that you conflate illegal activity, on the one hand, with a circumventing of a private company’s business contracts and terms of service, on the other. Those Netflix agreements about what can be shown in which country are agreements between Netflix and the content providers. A user spoofing their location cannot, by definition, violate an agreement to which the user was not a party.
Now it is possible that a user spoofing their location does violate the agreement between the user and Netflix, the Terms of Service that govern each person’s Netflix account. But even if that’s true (and my reading of the Netflix Terms of Use suggests that it’s not completely clear), all the person has done in such a case is violate the Terms of Use; they have not broken the law. And, as Netflix themselves say, the penalty for violating their Terms of Use is simply that they “may terminate or restrict your use of our service.”
We’ve had a few cases on this board regarding violating the Terms of Service or Terms of Use of private companies. Here’s one example, and it’s worth noting that YOU were the mod who decided to re-open the thread after having the distinction between violating the law and violating a private company’s terms of service explained to you in ATMB. It’s a shame you can’t maintain a grasp on this relatively simple concept. I can understand wanting to prevent getting the SDMB embroiled in violations of the law, but as I said in that discussion, the SDMB is not, and should not be in the business of enforcing the terms of use or the consumer policies of private corporations.
Your inability, in the discussion of VPNs, to distinguish between what you think many people do with their VPNs, what the providers promote on their websites, and the actual uses that actual SDMB members make of their VPNs and might want to discuss, is similarly misguided. “Other unknown and unnamed people do this thing we don’t like with this technology” is not a reason to shut down or unreasonably limit a discussion on that topic.
Other unknown and unnamed people? Like the first responder in that thread who mentioned illegal file sharing, avoiding takedown notices from the ISP, and provided a VPN service unambiguously geared towards torrenting (to the point that it even had TOR in its name)?
If we hadn’t had similar problems like this in the past, we would never have put the ban on mentioning names in place originally. Or are you going to claim that a sleazebag VPN service operating out of Moldavia (I think) that advertised that they were outside of the U.S. and therefore immune to U.S. copyright rules is a legitimate VPN service that we should allow discussion of?
Most SDMB users who use VPNs use them for legitimate purposes. But there’s a reason we have had to put these rules in place.
I understand that. My point is that the construction of that sentence implies to the reader that a claim is being made that all file sharing necessarily violates copyright laws: “Discussions about VPNs for illegal purposes or for purposes of file sharing and other copyright violations”
So warn or mod-note the one guy, if you think he’s violated the rules. Or just admonish him not to talk about specifics or to explain how to violate the law.
Again, are you going to shut down discussion of a thread about cars if I admit that I’m an inveterate speeder? Do you shut down a discussion of recording apps if one person admits that they recorded a conversation in violation of their state law?
I have no knowledge of the company you’re talking about, but to be quite honest, I don’t see why we can’t talk about the company.
I’m not even sure what they mean when they advertise themselves as “immune to U.S. copyright rules.” If someone takes my work, and reproduces it in another country, in violation of my copyright, I can’t sue them here in the United States under American copyright law. Copyright law is national, and copyright violations, whether they occur in Moldova or the United Kingdom or China or South Africa, must be pursued in the courts of the nation in which the infringements occur. In that sense, all other countries are “immune to U.S. copyright rules.”
International copyright enforcement relies, in the main, on international treaties like the Berne Convention. Moldova is a signatory to the Convention, and thus is covered by it like the other 170-odd countries involved.
The fact that this company might be “sleazebags” who make a lot of their money from customers seeking to violate copyright doesn’t mean that their services can’t be used for legitimate purposes, and nor does it mean that discussion of such services on the SDMB is for the purposes of nefarious activity. People launder their money illegally using banks and legal instruments like incorporation and trusts; it doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about banking and limited liability corporations and trusts.
And the contradiction between your last two sentences is precisely the problem here. If the people here want to use VPNs for legitimate purposes, and you know that very well, then there is no need to put such rules in places, as long as people avoid specific efforts to explain how to circumvent the law.
Newsflash: the parent company is somewhat more concerned about certain topics, relative to others. I know: weird.
It is within their rights and frankly sounds like a really good idea to direct moderator attention towards borderline issues where they are more likely to be sued, rather than less likely to be sued. Or even threatened to be sued.
Mods: are you going to shut down discussion of puppies, if I admit I run an illegal puppy mill?
A: No.
Look, there are legit reasons for wanting a VPN that doesn’t log its data. There are even legit reasons for wanting a VPN operating out Backhackistan. But there are also non-legit reasons, and the lawyers-that-be have reasonable reasons to steer clear of such situations. As a poster, I encourage consumer-friendly discussions of VPNs. I’m just saying it would be best to take them elsewhere. It’s a big internet after all.
Indeed, it is indeed the route to survival to restrict the conversations pointlessly for the risks non existent.
Then the permanent pretension to high intellectual discussions will continue round and round in permance among the elite club, ever more worthy in their level.
I’d be more inclined to agree with you if the actual likelihood of such legal action bore any remotely reasonable relationship to the types of conversations we’re talking about here.