I would be careful of anything ‘smart’.

It’s a privilege lol

Fair. Pulling rules makes sense. Code wouldn’t. (I wouldn’t consider regex as code.)

Thanks for the details.

Google is Mozilla’s dad so I’m not sure how long we will be able to use FF with v2.

Why does it need to run remotely hosted code though?

As someone who works on data anonymization, I never trust anonymization.

What’s the behavior before this option was added? Would websites track you or not?

Meanwhile, our lawmakers in the US focus on other/presumed higher priorities.

It’s their interest, not yours.

Only the ‘free’ services. I bet amazon.com won’t ban you from shopping on vpn.

Just avoid using them. Expecting free services without giving out anything is naive.

Why do you think charging stations will be immune? Plus with all the ‘smart’ ‘connected’ cars it’s not impossible for them to push ads directly to your car.

I think outlook iOS has been storing credentials on server since day one, even before it was acquired by Microsoft. I’m not sure what the new outlook app means.

I don’t feel I understand it when the two words social and privacy are put together.

I see. Then it makes sense (just an inconvenience).

so they at least need to know who you are once?

Edit: looks like I misunderstood.

Does this law apply to Apple and Google?

I don’t believe governments are capable of hosting anything securely though.

And they still want your phone number.

Back to Facebook messenger?

Do you mean Tesla?

I don’t disagree with you, nor am I trying to blame people who didn’t know. I didn’t know myself either 20 years ago. I’m just stating a fact and hope people can learn these, and if they still choose one thing over the other, don’t come and cry.

When you chose to use their free service, you already sold your soul to devil.

They are expensive to run. Why would someone pay the cost and offer it for you to use for free? When it appears free it’s most likely not free.

The word privacy based in your post probably explains it.

let’s say you use weeds and weeds is legal where you are, but it’s illegal to drive after using weeds.

Now you’re arrested for DUI. Next day you make to the headline: “Man arrested for using weeds”. Is it the fact? Yes. Do you think it’s all the necessary facts?

Your opinion is based on the assumption that everyone should be allowed to use VPN to do anything. I may agree with you, but it doesn’t change how bad the article is.

I’m not sure if I understand your point.

If you say their law sucks, their LE agency sucks, they freely interpret their laws in prosecution, etc. , I completely agree with you. But if you’re trying to say using vpn to browse internet in China can risk a big fine, which is what the title of the article is saying, I don’t think it’s accurate. News agency should state the facts, not their ill formed opinions.

“Man’s income of 1m was confiscated due to using VPN for work’ would be accurate.

‘Man is fined 1m for using VPN’ is not.

There’s no evidence (yet) that someone will be fined this much by simply using vpn in China to browse otherwise banned sites.

Intentionally misleading by summarizing partial facts is simply evil. Not sure if anyone may be satisfied with this approach, but even if some do, I’m willing to bet they will become unsatisfied if missing part of the facts is actually what they care about.

The 1m was confiscated because it was ‘illegal income’, not because he used VPN. Yes, it’s still shitty that using VPN to access GitHub makes his income illegal, and yes Chinese government just sucks. But it’s amused that those news agencies intentionally use misleading titles. They are no better than the Chinese government.