Belgium has adopted an “official” app so that anyone can signal for help, so long as they belong to this exclusive group:
-
Must have a smartphone (presumably recent).
-
Must be a trusting patron of Google or Apple.
- Consequently, must also have a mobile phone number and the will to trust surveillance advertisers with it (even though the app can make emergency contact without phone service).
-
Must install and execute proprietary closed-source software (thus must trust closed software and be ethically aligned with it).
-
Must be willing to leave Tor to access the 112.be website.
That’s a useful tip about Mullvad taking cash. I have a gratis VPN which offers some degree of pseudo-anonymity, but generally VPNs do not give anonymity because there is just one relay and that relay sees both sides, and worse: VPNs have a limited number of users and browser fingerprints trivially distinguish users among the small pool of those using a particular VPN.
A VPN would be secure enough for the case at hand, but in my case the VPN blocks Tor, which means Tor and the VPN are mutually exclusive. Thus I have the hassle of disrupting Tor sessions to switch the VPN on. And again, it’s not a /me/ problem. This public service is discriminating against the Tor community in an obnoxious way (packet dropping). The problem is not whether or not one marginalised person can circumvent the blocks. The problem is that a public service is not serving the whole public.
Mullvad partly addresses this issue by having their own browser with a default fingerprint. Users wanting to have anonymity can use that and benefit from other users (which don’t even have to use Mullvad VPN to use the browser)
See my comment about the highways. Or fireworks in cities that people in the countryside cannot see. Or even worse, money transfer from one region to another. Public money usually does not serve the whole public.
That’s interesting and uncommon. The scarcity of that arrangement not to mention the non-gratis factor makes it unsuitable as a reason for rationalizing a Tor block. Good to know it’s an option for individuals looking for a circumvention.
Perhaps fireworks are not justified if they aren’t significant enough to bring outsiders in (who then spend money locally). A proper analogy would be if there are public-funded fireworks, but you’re arbitrarily blocked from the viewing area for not having a Facebook account. Or worse, you are denied police protection in Brussels for not having a Facebook acct.
Apart from that, everyone has equal access to the venue, just like the commune or hospital can only be at a finite number of places (economics and laws of physics apply). If someone chooses to live in country, they accept the consequences of travel.
If someone chooses not to become the pawn of a privacy-abusing surviellance advertiser, they inherently accept the consequences of their boycott cutting them off from the associated frills in the private sector, but they do not give up their rights to public service. They do not give up their human rights to have equal access to public healthcare resources.
I don’t see what you mean. If you can’t transfer money to certain regions, that’s a broken infrastructure which would have a rippling effect on everyone because it would mean merchants could not import goods from that region, which affects local pricing for everyone.