Mniot

To someone watching network traffic, a VPN connection looks like two machines exchanging encrypted packets. You can't see the actual data inside the packet, but you can see all the metadata (who it's addressed to, how big it is, whether its TCP or UDP, when it's sent). From the metadata, you can make guesses about the content and VPN would be pretty easy to guess.

When sending a packet over the Internet, there's two parts of the address: the IP address and the port. The IP address is a specific Internet location, blocks of IP addresses are owned by groups (who owns what is public info) and there are many services that do geo-ip mappings. So if you're connecting to an IP address that belongs to a known VPN provider, that's easy.

The second part of the address is the port-number. Servers choose port-numbers to listen to and the common convention is to use well-known ports. So, for example, HTTPS traffic is on port 443. If you see a computer making a lot of requests to port 443, even though the traffic is encrypted we can guess that they're browsing the web. Wikipedia has a list (which is incomplete because new software can be written at any time and make up a new port that it prefers) and you can see lots of VPN software on there. If you're connecting to a port that's known to be used by VPN software, we can guess that you're using VPN software.

Once you're running VPN software on an unknown machine and have configured it to use a non-standard port, it's a bit harder to tell what's happening, but it's still possible to make a pretty confident guess. Some VPN setups use "split-tunnel" where some traffic goes over VPN and some over the public Internet. (This is most common in corporate use where private company traffic goes in the tunnel, but browsing Lemmy would go over public.) Sometimes, DNS doesn't go through the VPN which is a big give-away: you looked up "foo.com" and sent traffic to 172.67.137.159. Then you looked up "bar.org" and sent traffic to the same 172.67.137.159. Odds are that thing is a VPN (or other proxy).

Finally, you can just look at more complex patterns in the traffic. If you're interested, you could install Wireshark or just run tcpdump and watch your own network traffic. Basic web-browsing is very visible: you send a small request ("HTTP GET /index.html") and you get a much bigger response back. Then you send a flurry of smaller requests for all the page elements and get a bunch of bigger responses. Then there's a huuuuge pause. Different protocols will have different shapes (a MOBA game would probably show more even traffic back-and-forth).

You wouldn't be able to be absolutely confident with this, but over enough time and people you can get very close. Or you can just be a bit aggressive and incorrectly mark things as VPNs.

Responsibility lies with "The Democrats" (some sort of far away secret group that I can't influence) and not with any American. If those Democrats can't give me my perfect candidate, then I'll just give up and let the fascists win. Also, I can't figure out why they won't do this--my ideal liberal candidate would appeal to the majority of Americans!

It's a bad headline: seems easy to believe that there's just a lot more journalists around today than there were in the world wars.

Much better would be to highlight from the body of the article that the death toll is also more than have been killed in the invasion of Ukraine. That one's modern, well-covered by media, Russia has repeatedly targeted civilians, and Russia's been attacking for longer. So to have still killed more journalists makes it clear that it's deliberate.

Torture isn't useful as an intelligence-gathering tool, but that's not what it's being used for here. Torture works quite well for manufacturing confessions to use as propaganda to justify further killing/torture/other crimes.

I notice you asked for an explanation and then only sort-of read the first sentence.

The national parks are amazing. But who knows if they'll still be around since we're firing everyone who maintains them. Not sure if the plan is to destroy them or to give them to some oligarch as a little play-area.

There's substantial Israelis who aren't calling for genocide. But it's like the US after 9-11 and they've mostly gone into hiding because the right-wing media presence is so overpowering and successful on the "with us or against us" message.

Consent in a situation like this is difficult to establish, to the point of it being pointless. Your comment implies to me that you think if the person said "OK" to a search request then whatever happened next is their own fault.

Consider just the situation where you're in the immigration line and two uniformed officers walk up to you and say, "please come with us." If you go with them, is that voluntary? If you say "yes" I just think "voluntary" doesn't hold much meaning. What happens if you don't volunteer to go with them? Surely, they say, "come with us now or you'll be arrested." And if you don't volunteer at that point, they'll physically restrain you and take you away.

Since most people are able to understand the subtext of the situation, they're able to tell that, "please come with us" actually means "you are required to come with us now. You may either walk of your own accord, or we will take you captive and punish you beyond whatever we initially intended." So, there's not any consent happening. Just deciding whether being beaten and dragged away in public would be helpful to you, and in many cases it is not.

You might be confusing US law around unlawful search and seizure with US law around border crossings. While the ACLU's position is that the 4th amendment trumps CBP, CBP's position is that it does not and that you cannot stop them.

I have no idea how well it works in reality, but I can imagine the Lifetime Pass being a good business model for them: only the most enthusiastic user will pay for 3 years up front (lifetime currently costs 3x the yearly). So when they get a Lifetime pass they're getting 3 years paid up front and an evangelist who will probably tell their friends about Plex. If that Lifetime subscriber gets even one person to sign up for a yearly sub who otherwise wouldn't have, then Plex came out ahead.

Sure, I'm not saying Plex has to do a single-payment model. Just that it's a think that's been done successfully (and for longer than Plex has existed). Everyone's pushing subscription models so hard that it's easy to think "this is the only possible way that anything can work".

I like my Shield TV: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/shield-tv/

I did need to install a custom launcher on it when the standard AndroidTV launcher added ads.

Lots of businesses have and do exist without a subscription model. I'm fond of the Paprika Recipe Manager, for example, which asks a one-time payment for each major version. All commercial software worked this way in the 80s.