this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

789 readers
2 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://torrentfreak.com/italy-approves-piracy-shield-vpn-dns-proposal-risk-of-prison-for-isps-intact-241001/

As title. Italy is decided to pass a law that basically creates a chinese-type firewall in the country. The question is simple: even if I'm not doing anything illegal, my VPN provider will have to know what am I doing to report it in case it's illegal, or face jail.

So how could my traffic remain private in this scenario?

Can a VPN provider with no logs policy be held accountable of anything? Can it actually know what I'm doing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So you are basically saying that root CAs are unreliable or compromised?

Not exactly. They are pointing out that HTTPS assumes all is well if it sees a certificate from any "trusted" certificate authority. Browsers typically trust dozens of CAs (nearly 80 for Firefox) from jurisdictions all over the world. Anyone with sufficient access to any of them can forge a certificate. That access might come from a hack, a rogue employee, government pressure, a bug, improperly handled backups, or various other means. It can happen, has happened, and will happen again.

HTTPS is kind of mostly good enough for general use, since exploits are not so common as to make it useless, but if a government sees it as an obstacle, all bets are off. It is not comparable to a trustworthy VPN hosted outside of the government's reach.

Also, HTTPS doesn't cover all traffic like a properly configured VPN does. Even where it is used and not compromised, it's not difficult for a well positioned snooper (like an internet provider that has to answer to government) to follow your traffic on the net and deduce what you're doing.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not exactly. They are pointing out that HTTPS assumes all is well if it sees a certificate from any "trusted" certificate authority. Browsers typically trust dozens of CAs (nearly 80 for Firefox) from jurisdictions all over the world. Anyone with sufficient access to any of them can forge a certificate.

Great thing, that you can remove them and only trust those you trust.

Also, HTTPS doesn't cover all traffic like a properly configured VPN does.

Pls explain what https is not covered? The SNI on tbe first visit? A VPN just moves the "exit point" of your traffic. Now the Datacentef and VPN provider sees what you ISP saw.

it's not difficult for a well positioned snooper (like an internet provider that has to answer to government) to follow your traffic on the net and deduce what you're doing.

No. I never said otherwise. But they cannot spy on the traffic. And since the SNI is not encrypted anyway they do not even nerd to "follow the traffic". But what sites you are visiting and what you are doing on them are 2 different things.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lol OK. Every US company has to legally provide their private keys (or a subordinate CA) to the US government if asked, due to NSL laws. We have examples of the US doing this historically, only because some companies broke the law and spoke out publicly.

So go ahead and remove all CAs issued from US companies. Verisign, cloudflare, akamai, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.

Now 80% of the Internet is broke.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago
  1. And? If you cannot trust then you should not use them when you want to do something that is private and should not get looked on.

  2. And if there were signs of misuse of the trust, then they would get removed.

It is actually really easy to monitor thanks to CT.