fbpx

Day: June 22, 2023

COMMENT ÉCHAPPER À LA CENSURE GOUVERNEMENTALE ?

Un outil se démocratise qui permet d’accéder à plus de contenus… tant que l’Etat ne s’en mêle pas directement. 

De plus en plus de consommateurs utilisent des VPN sur leurs appareils qui accèdent à Internet. Ce qui était autrefois une technique plutôt obscure permettant d’accéder à des sites différents par l’intermédiaire de serveurs virtuels est devenu un outil de plus en plus courant, qui a suscité l’intérêt des utilisateurs d’internet et des autorités de régulation.

Un VPN (Virtual Private Network), en français RPV (réseaux privé virtuel) permet à ses utilisateurs de se connecter à un serveur différent de celui où ils se trouvent actuellement. A travers diverses techniques cryptographiques, le VPN masque l’adresse IP de l’utilisateur et lui donne accès à d’autres contenus.

Déménager sans bouger

Il existe différentes utilisations d’un VPN : l’une d’entre elles, très courante, est l’accès à des contenus vidéo en streaming. En effet, alors qu’une nouvelle émission de télévision populaire peut être disponible aux Etats-Unis, il n’est pas possible de la regarder depuis la France. En connectant votre VPN à un serveur situé à New York, vous aurez accès au contenu qui peut être vu de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, depuis le confort de votre propre maison.

Les fournisseurs de services de streaming tels que Netflix ou Amazon Prime n’aiment pas cette pratique, car ils craignent d’avoir des problèmes avec la réglementation sur les droits d’auteur. La raison pour laquelle certains contenus télévisés ne sont pas distribués en France est que ces chaînes n’ont pas acquis les droits pour ces émissions dans l’Hexagone – parfois en raison du prix, parfois parce qu’elles ne pensent pas qu’une certaine émission suscitera beaucoup d’intérêt en France, par rapport aux Etats-Unis.

Cela dit, l’utilisation des VPN dépasse de loin les avantages qu’il y a à regarder Game of Thrones sur son canapé. En masquant votre adresse IP, ils réduisent considérablement les risques de piratage ou de surveillance lorsque vous vous connectez à un réseau Wi-Fi public. Au fur et à mesure que les VPN sont devenus plus populaires, les fournisseurs de services VPN ont trouvé d’autres moyens de protéger vos données lorsque vous êtes en public.

Certains services VPN proposent également une fonction appelée « Internet Kill Switch ». Dans le cas où votre connexion VPN est interrompue ou déconnectée, cette fonction protège votre appareil et ses données des regards indiscrets. Elle bloque tout le trafic Internet vers votre appareil jusqu’à ce que la connexion avec votre VPN soit rétablie.

Quand l’Etat adopte les VPN

Les VPN sont également un bon moyen d’échapper à la censure gouvernementale. Bien que cela soit moins problématique dans de nombreux pays européens, les VPN sont couramment utilisés par les consommateurs en Autriche pour contourner les réglementations gouvernementales. Pendant longtemps, Wikipédia n’a pas été accessible en Turquie sans l’utilisation d’un VPN. Les VPN sont également très utilisés dans les dictatures, car les utilisateurs accèdent à des services d’information internationaux qui seraient bloqués dans leur pays.

Toutefois, bon nombre de ces Etats se sont ralliés à cette tendance. Il est légal d’utiliser un VPN en Chine, mais le gouvernement impose de nombreuses restrictions. Les VPN nationaux doivent être approuvés par le gouvernement et ceux qui ne le sont pas sont interdits. Les citoyens peuvent faire l’objet de sanctions, contrairement aux étrangers, qui peuvent rester impunis s’ils sont pris en train d’utiliser des VPN non autorisés. Evidemment, vous pouvez vous imaginer que les VPN locaux chinois sont contraints de ne pas débloquer du contenu interdit par le parti communiste.

En Europe, l’utilisation des VPN n’est pas limitée. Cela dit, le monde occidental a connu des textes législatifs susceptibles d’enfreindre l’utilisation des VPN.

Par exemple, un projet de loi récemment proposé aux Etats-Unis dont le but principal est d’interdire l’utilisation de TikTok fait vaguement référence à la possibilité pour les utilisateurs de contourner cette interdiction. Bien que la loi ne mentionne pas les VPN en tant que tels, Reason Magazine explique que « cette formulation laisse encore plus de place à la loi RESTRICT pour toucher un large éventail d’activités. Peut-être qu’un tribunal finirait par la juger inutilisable contre des personnes essayant simplement d’échapper à une interdiction de TikTok, mais cela ne signifie pas que les procureurs n’essaieraient pas, ni que les autorités n’utiliseraient pas des mesures de surveillance invasives pour essayer de détecter une telle évasion. »

Des services inégaux

Il y a un dernier point dont les consommateurs doivent être conscients. Si les VPN garantissent une plus grande sécurité en ligne, ils sont loin d’être une panacée. De nombreux VPN populaires vous promettent que vous pourrez « surfer sur le web de manière anonyme » ou que vous serez « complètement à l’abri de la surveillance gouvernementale ». Malheureusement, le simple fait de payer pour un VPN ne vous mettra pas totalement à l’abri de la surveillance et des menaces de piratage.

L’anonymat complet en ligne est très difficile à atteindre, car il nécessite une vaste gamme d’appareils et de logiciels de brûlage qui vont bien au-delà de votre utilisation quotidienne.

Lors de la mise en place d’un VPN, il est important de s’informer sur le produit que vous achetez. Il est également conseillé de s’abstenir d’utiliser des VPN « gratuits ». Si le VPN est gratuit, vos données sont le produit. L’utilisation d’un VPN devrait devenir un comportement banal en ligne, mais elle continuera à exiger que vous fassiez vos propres recherches.

Originally published here

Pool-sharing battle in Montgomery County is pure liberal NIMBYism

The sounds of summer are a thing of joy for most people. The birds, the splashing, dogs barking, and the neighborhood kids playing outside. Warmth and life return to the streets. But then there are places such as Montgomery County, Maryland . 

The Washington, D.C. , suburb and home to Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Rockville, and Takoma Park is a liberal stronghold within an already liberal region. It’s the kind of place where you can spot a progress pride flag in any direction and feel the welcoming presence of signs reading “No Human Is Illegal” every few yards. Of course, this won’t apply if you’re an “outsider” visiting a Montgomery County neighborhood with the hopes of swimming in a privately owned backyard pool.

A fast-growing app called Swimply has been causing a stir in communities nationwide, but most of all on the posh streets of Montgomery County, where residents are voicing anger and fear over private pools being rented out to strangers looking to beat the heat. It’s a “tremendous nuisance” that has “disturbed” residents and led them to call for a local crackdown on the service, which operates much like an Airbnb but for pools. The function of pool-sharing is simple in a world where app-based, short-term rental markets are now a mainstream idea.

Instead of consumers having to shell out $500 per season to access a private community pool, Swimply allows families and individuals to connect with homeowners who rent out their pools on an hourly basis. Rates average between $45 to $75 on Swimply. It’s a pretty good deal for everyone involved.

But then again, this is happening in a neighborhood that infamously sought to ban dogs from barking in 2019. The town of Chevy Chase naively thought it could drop $134,000 to turn a mud pit into a dog park without an outcry from residents, who similarly called it a “nuisance” bringing in outsiders to the neighborhood.

This language feels awfully coded for the 86.7% white suburb in a county where 60% of residents are Democrats and merely 14% are registered Republicans. It’s doubtful the worrisome outsiders they speak of in town meetings are similarly homogeneous. 

It’s understandable that some homeowners find it annoying when a pool party is being held next door. Thankfully, Montgomery County has tools already in place to help residents manage disturbances in their area, such as a web portal for submitting noise complaints. There’s also the bare minimum of neighborly behavior, which is verbal communication and conversation about community matters. The shortcut more often taken is to harangue town council members into banning these services in hopes of making innovations in the sharing economy go away. But they won’t.

That’s because none of this is new, thanks in large part to Airbnb’s success in advancing the commonsense idea that homeowners maintain the right to earn additional monthly income by sharing their property with others, if they so choose. Swimply will most likely win the right to equal protection under the short-term rental policies already in place for bigger players such as Airbnb.

The amenities being offered by Swimply, private pools and now pickleball courts, are already part of what an Airbnb user can enjoy when they rent out a whole property for a short stay. They can’t be denied to a Swimply user under a different set of arbitrary rules.

The wannabe regulators next door can’t decide on what the concern really is. In a letter to Councilman Will Jawando, 36 residents leaned on everything from noise and drownings to dog poop, strains on the sewer system, and, yes, the inherent racism of sharing economy apps as reasons to ban them. On paper, these “In This House We Believe” types aren’t anxious about visiting renters from the inner city; instead they say, “These pools do NOT have to comply with laws covering discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religious belief, etc. This means, of course, that the owners renting these pools will be able to refuse to rent on these bases. Does the County really want to promote activities that are permitted to discriminate?”

No one believes this is their genuine concern.

One of the concerned citizens told the local media about dog parks, “I’d like to be able to sit on my deck and maybe read a book and chat with a friend or have a glass of wine, and the dogs are barking.” Another co-signer to the letter told the Washington Post that she once had to close her window because of occasional noise.

Pool-sharing is just the latest addition to the growing network of peer to peer services that bring so much flexibility, fun, and adventure to the modern economy. It certainly won’t be the last. Consumers love it, as do countless homeowners with private property they wish to share. Let the people swim.

Originally published here

Parliament’s Health special select committee needs to be independent from MOH’s influence

THE Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) is calling for a clear timeline for the Dewan Rakyat’s Special Select Committee on Health’s (SSCH) to review the Control of Smoking Product for Public Health Bill 2023 to ensure that the process can be done thoroughly and holistically.

The Malaysian CCC chapter representative Tarmizi Anuwar said the authorities need to announce a clear timeline to give room for the SSCH to conduct a detailed and holistic study in preparing a feedback report to the Control of Smoking Product for Public Health Bill 2023.

“It is important to ensure that this committee has adequate time to prepare its report,” he pointed out in media statement.

In the meantime, Tarmizi urged the government to prioritise regulating the vape industry that has long operated in the grey area.

“Regulating the vape industry must be the government’s utmost priority. In the interim, while the SSCH reviews the said Bill, the government can look into expanding existing legislations to include vape,” he suggested.

“This is even more vital now that nicotine has been exempted from the Poisons Act. In the long-run, efforts must be made to distinguish vape from tobacco. These are two very different products and work in completely different manners.”

Read the full text here

Consumers need alcohol facts, not misleading warnings

Last month, on World No Tobacco Day, federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Carolyn Bennett announced on Twitter that Canada would become the first country in the world to mandate that each individual cigarette sold carry a warning label, mirroring what consumers already see on the front of the pack. This would seem to be the end of the road in terms of warning labels for tobacco: there really isn’t much left to put a label on — unless someone can figure out a way to make exhaled cigarette smoke spell out “C-A-N-C-E-R.”

Unfortunately for consumers, this push doesn’t end with tobacco. There is a very active lobby for tobacco-style health warnings on alcohol, too. What started in Ireland is slowly spreading in Canada, with regional health authorities and groups like the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) advocating mandatory health warnings.

The issue here isn’t whether or not consumers should be given the facts about when drinking can be harmful to your health. The issue is whether they are presented in a truthful manner that realistically explains how drinking can cause negative health outcomes.

Those lobbying for enhanced warnings invariably quote the relative rather than absolute risk of drinking. For example: “Fourteen drinks a week for women increases the risk of breast cancer by 27 per cent.” Taken at face value that is a jarring figure, one that will likely spook some drinkers. To many people, it will sound as if drinking two drinks a day produces a 27 per cent chance of developing breast cancer.

But looking at that increase in absolute rather than relative terms, starting with the baseline risk for each illness, communicates a very different and much less shocking message. Using the CCSA’s own data, breast cancer is responsible for 17.3 premature deaths for every 100,000 Canadian women, which is a baseline of 1.7 one-hundredths of a per cent. A 27 per cent increase in that risk takes it to 22 premature deaths for every 100,000 women, or 2.2 one-hundredths of a per cent, which is still very small.

That extra risk — which is from drinking 14 drinks a week, remember — is similar to the breast cancer risk associated with taking birth control, as pointed out by Chris Snowdon from the Institute for Economic Affairs. Understandably, the researchers who studied that slight change in risk arising from use of the pill concluded that “Such risks need to be balanced against the benefits of using contraceptives during the childbearing years.” For hundreds of millions of women, avoiding an unwanted pregnancy evidently is more than worth the small change in breast cancer risk.

For men, the same relative risk versus absolute risk difference holds true. Take colorectal cancer, for example. It accounts for 13.9 premature deaths for every 100,000 men. According to the CCSA, men drinking 14 drinks per week increase their risk of colorectal cancer by 20 per cent. But again, when looking at absolute risk, 14 drinks per week shifts the baseline risk from 13.9 deaths per 100,000 to 16.7 — an increase of 2.8 deaths per 100,0000. In terms of percentages, the increase is 2.8 one-hundredths of a per cent.

Ironically, the CCSA’s report contains a piece of information that fundamentally undermines the “no safe use” narrative that it and other temperance groups are pushing. For men, consuming up to seven drinks per week actually reduces the risk of premature death from intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke and ischemic heart disease. This is important because ischemic heart disease is responsible for 47.5 premature deaths per 100,000 men. Seven drinks per week lowers the risk of premature death from ischemic heart disease by five per cent, moving that baseline figure down to 45.12, a decrease of 2.38 deaths per 100,000.

Heart disease is the largest premature killer of men among all 19 health issues evaluated in the CCSA report. It accounts for more premature deaths in Canada than liver cirrhosis, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and oral cancer combined. Should the health benefits from reducing its deadliness not also be included on a health information label?

There are two different ways to inform consumers about the risks associated with drinking. One is with the largest, scariest number the data will sustain that while technically true doesn’t do much to educate consumers or encourage informed choices. The other is giving consumers the full depth of absolute risk information available. Better yet, we can communicate this information to consumers without following the tobacco playbook, which falsely equates smoking and drinking. Europe has already started this process, where beverage alcohol can have a QR code on the bottle that links to information about nutrition and alcohol risks and abuse. Given that the program is still new, we don’t have data on how frequently it is used, but it is a good step forwards for consumers wanting more information.

More information is generally a good thing for consumers, but only when that information isn’t misleading — which is what cancer warnings on bottles would be.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN