06-17-2024, 02:57 PM
Ultimately, this is the inevitable 'disconnect' between the design of networking frameworks, and the utter incompatibility with the true purpose of networking, which is an open communication channel between devices. The internet was established to make a connection between disparate entities, not to "preclude' communications.
The internet was about 'sharing' not 'restricting.'
"Bad actors" and abusive exploitation was not part of the design intent.
VPNs are necessary because of the notion of 'concealed' data exchanges... and as we can all see, it's the 'secret,' 'back channel' approach to connectivity that engender the 'need' to encrypt - not the end-users themselves. ISP's take "advantage' of that 'new' reality to layer "other' services which can be charged to the users either directly or indirectly. This is just one reason why the internet was fertile ground for commercial exploitation.
It's akin to the development of "push" technologies that offer "control" to data sources in the guise of necessary 'handshaking' between systems. Suddenly, you're experiences online are subject to "cookies" and "java scripts," and "HTML codes" you can only 'witness' and 'subject yourself' to... truncating services should you refuse. Anyone who 'blocks' any of these things can experience crippled "functionality" like pages not loading, and apps not functioning unless you "allow" the service provider some level of control of your browsing data... and what data they can access, store, and relay.
With VPN's this is supposed to 'encapsulate' your data... but it is an illusion. If your data is there, someone else can see it now. The process of encrypting could be isolated... except to your ISP, of course. And if the ISP has open exploitable opportunities, you are now subject to their exposure... like how 90% of all exploitation happens at the industry level, not personal users. (But that doesn't stop them from charging money to "secure your safety" with "data protection claims.")
This tech is not bulletproof. It NEVER was. (But don't tell their marketing departments that, they'll refuse to discuss it.)
The internet was about 'sharing' not 'restricting.'
"Bad actors" and abusive exploitation was not part of the design intent.
VPNs are necessary because of the notion of 'concealed' data exchanges... and as we can all see, it's the 'secret,' 'back channel' approach to connectivity that engender the 'need' to encrypt - not the end-users themselves. ISP's take "advantage' of that 'new' reality to layer "other' services which can be charged to the users either directly or indirectly. This is just one reason why the internet was fertile ground for commercial exploitation.
It's akin to the development of "push" technologies that offer "control" to data sources in the guise of necessary 'handshaking' between systems. Suddenly, you're experiences online are subject to "cookies" and "java scripts," and "HTML codes" you can only 'witness' and 'subject yourself' to... truncating services should you refuse. Anyone who 'blocks' any of these things can experience crippled "functionality" like pages not loading, and apps not functioning unless you "allow" the service provider some level of control of your browsing data... and what data they can access, store, and relay.
With VPN's this is supposed to 'encapsulate' your data... but it is an illusion. If your data is there, someone else can see it now. The process of encrypting could be isolated... except to your ISP, of course. And if the ISP has open exploitable opportunities, you are now subject to their exposure... like how 90% of all exploitation happens at the industry level, not personal users. (But that doesn't stop them from charging money to "secure your safety" with "data protection claims.")
This tech is not bulletproof. It NEVER was. (But don't tell their marketing departments that, they'll refuse to discuss it.)
