Some notes on VPNs

A summary of things in general through ggl search:

A VPN, which stands for virtual private network, protects its users by encrypting their data and masking their IP addresses. This hides their browsing activity, identity, and location, allowing for greater privacy and autonomy. Anyone seeking a safer, freer, and more secure online experience could benefit from a VPN.

At the time of writing, using a VPN in the UK is completely legal, and using one to bypass the new age checks should not be considered a crime. BBC iPlayer, for example, detects VPN usage primarily through IP address analysis and geolocation discrepancies. They check for shared IP addresses used by multiple devices, which is a common characteristic of VPNs.

Additionally, if your IP address suggests you're in a different location than your device's GPS indicates (on mobile devices), it raises a red flag. Here's a more detailed breakdown: 

IP Address: VPNs assign a different IP address to your device, making it appear as if you're browsing from a different location. BBC iPlayer monitors IP addresses and can identify VPNs by detecting shared or blacklisted IPs.

Geolocation: On mobile devices, BBC iPlayer can compare your IP address with your device's GPS location. If these locations don't match, it suggests VPN usage.

One VPN con is the fact that routing your traffic through a secure server often leads to slightly lower internet speeds. Your data has to physically travel over a longer distance to reach a VPN server, and the encryption process causes slowdowns as well.

Thankfully, there are ways to mitigate any speed reductions:

First, VPN users can connect to a local server rather than one that’s farther away. You can also set up split tunneling to keep certain websites or apps unaffected by a VPN. This feature allows selected trustworthy pages and apps to bypass your VPN connection while keeping the rest of your internet traffic protected.

Unfortunately, not all devices are compatible with VPNs. Some smart TVs, game consoles, and other internet-connected devices may not directly support VPN connections, limiting your ability to secure certain apps and online services. This issue can easily be remedied by setting up a VPN on a Wi-Fi router. With a VPN covering your router, any device connected to your network enjoys an encrypted private network. You get all-around network security, including on devices that otherwise aren’t VPN-friendly.  

Not every VPN can deliver the same level of protection. Without robust encryption protocols, your browsing data and real IP address can leak. VPNs that lack security features like a kill switch or double VPN can also lead to a riskier online experience.

In many cases, underperforming VPNs are free ones. Apart from weak encryption and limited features, free tools can flood you with ads and force you to connect to slow, congested servers. Finding a reputable service with an extensive server network is key to getting VPN protection that actually works.

Many internet users see a VPN’s price as a disadvantage, but paid services are generally a better choice than free options. On top of data caps and slower speeds, free VPNs might even put your privacy at risk by selling user data to advertisers and other third parties. For a reliable and secure VPN, consider subscribing to a trustworthy paid provider. Many offer long-term plans at a lower cost per month, so budget-conscious buyers can still find tools that are both high-quality and affordable.

Like any software, running a VPN can consume additional resources on your device. This is usually a bigger issue for things like smartphones and laptops that frequently rely on battery power. Encrypting data adds to a device’s workload, which can lead to shorter battery life and slower performance. However, modern VPNs are optimized to minimize processing power and resource usage, so the extra security and privacy tend to outweigh any trade-offs in performance.

While VPNs are legal in most countries, some governments have chosen to restrict or ban them outright. Violating these VPN laws may result in fines or other legal consequences.

In Case, You're Asking, Durham Constabulary, Yes, You Are The Baddies....

The police demanded to know why she had visited Israel, whether she was planning to go back and whether she felt safe to go there. ‘I asked them, “What do you think happened? That the Jews kidnapped me?”’ said Ms Passmore, who has had an interest in Jewish people after studying the Holocaust for her degree.

What ever gave the police the impression that they were entitled to knock on any citizen's door and question them about their interests?

‘I kept saying to them, “I don’t understand why you are here” and they said only that they were there to check on me.’ She said when the officers first knocked on the door of her County Durham home and explained they were there to talk about safeguarding, she worried it was about her autistic son. ‘But then they mentioned Israel and said, “We aren’t here about your son, but about you, we’ve had a complaint”. I was absolutely gobsmacked,’ said Ms Passmore of the July 4 visit.

This is, of course, a Prevent initiative. That project set up because of all the Islamist terror attacks, which has now branched out - due to the lack of Islamists? Or due to the desire of politicians to try to pretend that there are other equally valid threats out there? 

She had a second visit ten days later after she complained about her doorstep interrogation to local Reform councillor and former television presenter Darren Grimes, who wrote to Durham Constabulary. This time Ms Passmore, who posts on X as @MummyisTired and has nearly 17,000 followers, faced a Prevent officer and a police superintendent. It was the first time she learned someone had reported her to Prevent.

And she'll never be allowed to know who. 

Ms Passmore said that on the second visit she was told the investigation wasn’t about her trip to Israel, even though that is what all of the questions on the earlier interrogation were about.

Yes, the police lying again. No matter how many times they are caught doing it, they keep on. They just don't ever appear to get any better at it!

A Durham Constabulary spokeswoman said: ‘Each Prevent referral is reviewed to determine whether further action is required including, where appropriate, assessment to determine if there is an immediate security threat, or whether a vulnerable person is at genuine risk of radicalisation.’

Well, you clearly failed here. Assuming your goal was to do all that in the first place, anyway. 

It’s not what you write on the placard

To be unaware of what’s going on around the west, even the world, does not help us understand just how similar the playbook is, how coordinated.  Yes, note the things going on in our own land for sure, in detail … but keep one eye open for similar happening thousands of miles away:

More Red Flags There Than A Communist Rally

It seems the 'Guardisn' for once, have found reason to be sympathetic to a small business owner. And being the'Guardian', they have of course picked the wrong one:

“He had a bank account, he was already working when he came to work for us, he’d had a university education and we were paying back the loan for him,” said Sullivan. “Where were the red flags for us?”

Well, Mark, apart from why someone with a university education wanted to work in a chip shop, a foreigner to boot, there is this: 

When the man was hired in early 2023, he provided the chippy with a national insurance number, proof of student loan payments and housing benefit receipts from the local council. He also provided a photocopy of his British passport and was paid via pay as you earn (PAYE) through HMRC.

Accepting a  photocopy, not seeing the original, which Mark describes as a mere 'clerical error'. 

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) said there was widespread worry among small business owners about falling foul of complex Home Office rules, which could lead to potentially “fatal” fines for companies. It called on ministers to “accept that the size of employer now gets reflected in Home Office fines and systems”.

It's mostly small businesses, that don't have large HR departments, that fall for the chancers and scammers, so this isn't surptising. And it's only going to get worse:

Enforcement against illegal working, which has already ramped up, looks likely to increase further. Earlier this month, speaking after announcing an agreement with France over small boat crossings, the prime minister, Keir Starmer, said the government was undertaking a nationwide crackdown on people working illegally, which he claimed was happening “on a completely unprecedented scale”.

It's about time. Maybe the Federation of Small Businesses should be campaigning to have illegals sent back straight away instead? 

A government spokesperson said: “Employers are responsible for carrying out right to work checks and there is comprehensive guidance and support on how to do this. The checks are free and take minutes to complete, with businesses able to utilise digital ID verification technology to support the process.”

So, no excuse Mark, you were caught bang to rights. 

The Online Safety Act

Sometimes, tech difficulties mean that text and links are fraught and only copy and paste works:

Found that elsewhere ... poor chap's gone simple ... started rabbiting on about flowers and things.  A once noble mind now o'erthrown.

Maximum exposure required … locally

Just thinking it’s the most effective way … local protest in every town with a taken-over hotel … make its name infamous … also applies to schools … and in both cases, the head honchos given max exposure.

With something super-localised, e.g. just up your street there, the chances of a couple of hundred residents turning out is far better than having to arrange travel, plus overall numbers actoss the nation are higher. I for one might be prised out of my sbode, go up and protest … hotel, school, hospital, whatever.

No! No More Pointless Laws And Legislative Bureacracy!

We’ve had too many of these! Are there no genuinely accidental deaths anymore?

Sspeaking after the conclusion of the inquest, Benedict's mother Helen Blythe said: 'Three and a half years ago, we lost our son. Benedict died in a place where he should have been safe - his school. 'Benedict's death was preventable and was caused by a cascade of failures -individual, institutional, and systemic.'

Actually, no. For once, there’s no one to blame except fate, cruel nature and happenstance. 

Factors which the jury found 'probably caused' Benedict's death include the delayed administration of his adrenaline, opportunities for cross-contamination or mix up of milk, and that his allergy plan was not shared with teaching staff.

On Wednesday, the foreperson of the jury at Peterborough Town Hall said: 'We deem the probable source of the allergen that caused the fatal anaphylaxis is the ingestion of cow's milk protein, most probably from his own receptacle during break time.'

So, did staff stanfd around with their thiumbs up their arses, doing nothing? Reader, of course not. 

The inquest heard Benedict's adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) was administered twice by a teaching assistant, before CPR and a defibrillator were attempted but he died later that day at Peterborough City Hospital.

They had the equipment, they had the training, and it still didn't help. And of course, the grieving parents want something to change.

'We demand change. We call on this government to protect our children with Benedict's Law, making it mandatory to have an allergy policy in every school, staff allergy training including understanding allergies, how to manage them and identify signs of a reaction, and respond quickly in an emergency, and spare adrenaline allergy pens in every school.

They had all that, and it still didn't work. So how about you campaign for a law that all children with such life-threatening allergies be raised well away from normal life instead? It'd make more sense. 

Please check blog policies numbers 4 and 5

After reading those, dear readers, please consider these:

Compare the two known commenters at the top to the three sniping from behind Anon/Unknown protection. Need I add anything further?

There’s a strong case, of course, that a moniker such as Mark’s or Andy’s can be just as Unknown or Anonymous … we ask for no proof, we just accept in good faith, do we not?  Honour system … remember honour?

Again I ask … compare the tone of the two gentlemen at the top and that of the three below.

“Monikers” circumvent censorship

The thorny old ggl or blgr problem of “Anonymous” in comments has raised its head … thought it might one day do so.

It had been all right at Orphans until recently but now reader Redacted has said that someone is signing comments “R” … which could well be trolling it’s quite possible on ggl blgr, less so on WP.

In short, it is criminal, esp. with increased censorship of blogs coming from globopsycho and the EU, which means Starmer … if someone falsely uses another’s name or gives the strong impression someone else said what he said, not him …  that is fraudulent, it’s misdirection and defamation, which gives Labour’s new stasi an opening to come in and censor us, press charges etc.

There’s a simple enough way around it though, which I’ll call “monikers”, which circumvents such censoring.

As you know, OoL comments are on moderation, through Julia and she uses a light touch, that is … comments generally get through … almost always actually, as befits a site concerned with liberty.

The whole point of the honour netiquette of using a self-constructed “moniker” is that you are not registering personal details, not joining a club, not going on a list, the details of your name do not go to any govt oversight.

That moniker is whatever you wish, it can change, it can be your own name if you wish but need not be … we’re not interested in that side of it. We are interested though that someone known by a certain moniker, e.g. Mark the Skint Sailor, Lord T, whatever you call yourself, stays consistent with that name, out of respect for readers.

You can change it at your whim if it’s giving you grief … on X, people add to or change their profile names all the time … for example, I’m Pureblood James there for now.

We can’t force you to, it’s an honour system, but it’s wise as it holds the official censors at bay, allowing us to regulate ourselves.  That’s it.  If you comment at Orphans, please use a name somewhere in your comment you’d like to be known by and stay with it for sometime, so readers get to know who’s who in their minds.

Two issues of liberty

Two issues today from me, both loosely connected with the theme of liberty.  Firstly, check out these two items:

Just as with Brexit or going way back, the 1975 EU precursor … the public debate was either near non-existent or highly slanted, with the only “facts” getting out being for what one side was pushing … this is the side which bangs on about “democracy” whilst at the same time having zero commitment to it, except as a weapon.

This is far more clearly outlined in the Obama matter, in a quote about why Obama and his political kind act as they do … that quote’s about to go up at UHC across the way.  Coming back to this matter … the secretive and calculated way such outright treasonous behaviour by govt, with utter impunity, dismissive of any opposed view, a view which values the long time people of that nation … the way they have been able to force this upon a nation which largely rejects DEI … can only lead to violence.

They know it full well, they’ve planned it this way, they’re ready to launch all out attack on any brave enough to put the head above the parapet.

As for Essex police … nuff was said last evening.  Now it’s Canary Wharf.

……

The second issue I’d like to address … and I’m discussing it with Julia … is the thorny old ggl or blgr problem of “Anonymous” in comments.

It had been all right until recently but now reader Redacted has said that someone is signing comments “R” … which could well be trolling, quite possible with ggl blgr, less so with WP.

In short, it is criminal, esp. with increased censorship of blogs coming from globopsycho and the EU, which means Starmer … if someone falsely uses another’s name, that is fraudulent and it gives our new stasi an opening to come in and censor us, press charges etc.

There’s a simple enough way around it though, which I’ll call “monikers”, which circumvents censoring.  I’ll do a second post now on it, to explain.