Hacker News Reader

Comment by x86_64Ubuntu | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but think that VPN providers all eventually have to cave to law enforcement. If they don't, they will experience pressure from credit card processors, the same way that sex workers do and OnlyFans did.

View on HN

There are good VPN providers such as mullvad that accept payment in cryptocurrencies, but HN said those were useless... They also accept cash in an envelope if you are extremely paranoid.

I’d never seen anyone simultaneously invoke a straw man and make a case in its favour.

Even if HN had a monolithic opinion on the uselessness of cryptocurrencies, your example illustrates a case where they are indeed not necessary, with the alternative satisfying even the “extremely paranoid”.

Not even close. Crypto handily beats cash here.

Cash has slower transaction speed (snail mail vs <30 min). Requires additional supplies to use (pen, stamp, envelope). It’s illegal in the USA to send cash in the mail. No way to get delivery confirmation without risking deanonymizing yourself.

It is not illegal to send cash in the mail. Thats just silly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sending-cash-u-s-mail-ille...

All it takes is Square and Stripe preventing CC transactions from known VPN node IP addresses to de facto make that happen; they're like the Cloudflare of ecommerce

This has been the case for years already, nothing has happened.

Why? CC processors are not in cahoots with the cops.

But they are gatekeepers. Which are a morality police. And we're quickly aligning all the powerful interests in society to remove anonymity of any kind online.

Here is the type of pressure they apply. PornHub already caved all that meant is more pressure came[0]. Hedge fund manager pokes credit card company to poke a consumer.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-ackman-says-visa-tomorro...

VPNs will never be a popular issue like porn is.

As they should, unless they believe law enforcement is acting outside of their authority or the government in their opinion is illegitimate (not, "I don't like the regime") or foreign to their resident jurisdiction. Else, they are criminals.

> unless they believe law enforcement is acting outside of their authority

Not just "acting outside their authority". Law enforcement can ask for a lot of things where the answer can be no. There are lots of cases where caving is optional, and it's better when companies don't cave.

Responding to court orders is different from generically responding to law enforcement.

Also civil disobedience is a legitimate response to being forced to log browsing activity.

> or foreign to their resident jurisdiction

Which they are.

Law enforcement personnel are not the law. The police makes "unlawful" requests and demands all the time, it's common for investigations. The desire to not cooperate unless forced to (by law) does not make you a criminal, that should be perfectly clear.

"No" is a fine and acceptable answer to many cooperation requests by law enforcement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com