spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

InternetJanuary 26, 2022

Do you really need a VPN?

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

YouTubers and podcast hosts are constantly extolling the virtues of a VPN. For IRL, Dylan Reeve weighs up the pros and cons. 

If you’ve watched many videos from high-profile YouTubers, or listened to popular podcasts, you’ll almost certainly have heard promotions for various Virtual Private Network (VPN) providers. “Without a VPN, your internet browsing data can be tracked by your ISP, cellular provider, ad companies and hackers,” YouTuber Jon Tron warns his 15 million viewers in one video.

But contrary to the dire warnings about hacking, tracking and scamming, it’s far from clear that most people require a VPN to browse the web. In fact any selling point beyond “it’ll help you watch Netflix stuff from overseas” is stretching the truth in most cases. That overseas viewing thing might be enough, though. 

First, a little technical background: When you’re using the internet, the data exchanged between your computer and internet sites, commonly called traffic, passes through a large number of third parties on its way.

In the most basic sense, this could look like a website request leaving your computer, reaching a server at your internet provider and then being directed to a large web hosting company before reaching the website’s server. In practice, there are even more companies in the middle. Think of this like passing notes in class – it passes through a lot of hands, and maybe you’re worried that people might sneak a peek on the way. 

YouTubers and podcast hosts are always shilling VPNs.

A virtual private network is a technology that collects the information you’re sending, combines it into an encrypted package, and sends it across the internet to some other server operated by the VPN provider. When it arrives, the data is unpacked and sent on its way, and does the same in reverse for the replies. Basically, the notes you’re passing back and forth in class are now in very well-sealed envelopes.

In principle, this means that your ISP can’t see what you’re sending, or where. Everything going to and from your computer is an indecipherable stream of encrypted data going into a tunnel to some mystery location. And, on the other side of the connection, the server you’re talking to can’t see where the data came from originally – they just see the VPN’s exit point, with no idea of where on the internet (or in the world) the data originated. Stretching the note metaphor a little too far, the last person in the chain takes the note out of the envelope and passes it to the recipient, without saying exactly where it came from.

So, about those privacy and security claims:  They are fundamentally untrue or, at best, are significantly misstating the reality of just how the internet works normally. 

The vast majority of websites now use Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), indicated by the little padlock in your browser’s address bar. This means that your connection with the website is encrypted and can’t be intercepted by anyone in between you at the website: put simply, your ISP already can’t see what you’re doing. The best they can hope for is to know what servers you’re connecting to – so they can see you went to Wikipedia, for example, but not which page and what you searched for while you were there.

What advertisers can determine is more complex. They generally aren’t relying on data intercepted by your ISP or other providers, but rather tracking cookies embedded on the websites you visit. The nature of advertiser tracking is worthy of an article of its own, but in general if you’re using the same computer and web browser you normally do, it doesn’t matter if you’re using a VPN or not, advertisers can track you just as efficiently. 

The world at your fingertips: a VPN control panel waiting to transport you around the world.

So that leaves security. Are VPNs more secure? In short, no. As mentioned above, the data you send between your browser and most of the sites you visit is encrypted by HTTPS. This includes everything from your login name and password, to the credit card data you provide when shopping online. Adding another layer of encryption to this transaction doesn’t make it any more secure.

As for whether a VPN will protect you from hackers? There is really only one scenario in which that may be the case: public wifi.

Public wifi is typically unencrypted, so it’s theoretically possible for someone in the same physical area to “sniff” your network data out of the air — you’re sitting in a cafe innocently browsing the web and some sneaky hacker sitting nearby is snarfing down all your passwords and your Snapchat messages.

That may have been a risk years ago, but now most of the technologies you’re using on that network are encrypted, such as the HTTPS websites mentioned above. But there are still occasionally network connections your computer or phone might make that aren’t as secure, such as some older email systems or websites that aren’t using the HTTPS system.

In that very specific circumstance – connected to a public wifi, using an insecure internet protocol or application, with a malicious hacker cowering nearby – a VPN would add a layer of protection. But that’s a pretty specific and unlikely circumstance these days.

A VPN probably isn’t necessary to protect you against this guy. (Photo:
shironosov / Getty)

So then, what use is a VPN?

Basically the most practical use for a VPN for the vast majority of users is: pretending to be somewhere else. 

By pushing all your internet traffic through a VPN, you can control where in the world you appear to be to the servers you’re talking to. There are a few practical applications for this, such as doing online shopping overseas, but the one most people care about is lying to Netflix. 

If you can make Netflix’s servers believe you’re in the USA then you can watch the shows and movies available to US Netflix users. And it’s not just the US, of course, the streaming service has different content offerings all over the world.

And it’s not just Netflix either. The BBC’s iPlayer service is only available to people in the UK, or at least people who appear to be in the UK. Hulu is just for Americans, or for people whose internet connections are in the US.

Now, in most cases getting access to overseas services requires lying during your signup process, and in some cases where payment is required that creates another hurdle, as foreign credit cards may not be accepted. But the first challenge for any of these things is the technical one of having your connection appear to be in the right place in the world, and that is what VPNs are for.

Of course, the companies that run these services are not supposed to show their content to people outside the regions they’re licensed to serve, so there does tend to be a bit of cat and mouse – VPN users sometimes find themselves cut off from a show mid-episode when streaming providers detect VPN use – but VPN companies are usually quick to make changes to keep things working, and so the game continues. 

There are drawbacks to consider, too. A VPN isn’t free – well, some VPNs are free, but you should probably stay clear of them; VPNs aren’t cheap to operate so free ones are doing something sneaky to make money. You’ll be paying $5-10 a month for most of the more reputable providers. And they can be a hassle to set up, sometimes slow down your browsing and occasionally cause weird technical issues that can trigger minor bouts of hair-pulling.

So, do you need a VPN? Well if you’re in the mood to binge Zooey Deschanel’s absolutely flawless seven-season sitcom New Girl then you’ll need a VPN in order to convince Netflix you’re watching from the US. But if you’re just worried about your ISP seeing your searches for Zooey Deschanel trivia, or Russian hackers intercepting your credit card while you’re buying Zooey Deschanel air fresheners, then I wouldn’t worry.

Keep going!
Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

InternetJanuary 25, 2022

No, five kids didn’t collapse at a vaccination site. So who said they did?

Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

Viral rumours about collapsed children at a Covid vaccination site spread quickly online, but where did they start? For IRL, Dylan Reeve finds that all roads lead back to one source. 

As part of my role at IRL, and as a hobby even beforehand, I’ve spent a long time watching conspiracy theory groups and diving down strange online rabbit holes. Occasionally I spend a little time trying to get to the bottom of a claim. 

Last Monday, as Covid vaccinations for the 5-11 year-old age group started, rumours began swirling within anti-vax and Covid denial groups that five children had collapsed at the North Shore drive-in vaccination site. Instead of calling ambulances, the vaccination centre staff told parents to drive their children to the hospital – or so the rumour went.

Health officials have unequivocally denied the claims. So how did this rumour even begin?

I’ve spent a while on Facebook, Telegram and other platforms frequented by conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers – I monitor more than 50 of these online channels – trying to get to the bottom of this claim. It was widely reported in those places as evidence of a conspiracy of silence between the government and the media, and in most cases, posts about the rumour were accompanied by one of two videos of former newsreader and journalist Liz Gunn confronting a 1News crew as they were departing the site; demanding they investigate the claim. 

And, as far as I can see, that’s all there is to it: all roads lead back to Liz. 

Former newsreader and journalist Liz Gunn confronting a 1News crew as they were departing a North Shore vaccination site.

But, as with any claim within these groups, the story echoes out and back again, so while the very first stories included the video of Gunn chasing the news crew, there were soon versions of the story being shared from overseas groups. “Auckland pharmacy 5 children have collapsed,” said one post from an Australian group that was then widely forwarded around New Zealand groups. 

Newshub journalist William Hewett, having seen Gunn’s video, reached out to her for more information or evidence. No useful details were forthcoming, only a long rant from which Newshub ran extended excerpts. (Liz Gunn didn’t respond to emailed questions about the sources of her claims for this story, and attempts to arrange a telephone interview on the subject were unsuccessful before publication.)

Another reply to Hewett was published on the website of FreeNZ, a group that opposes Covid-19 restrictions and is associated with Liz Gunn. It’s from this reply, attributed to FreeNZ staffer Onyx, that we get the closest thing yet to an actual source for the claims. 

And that source is, still, Liz Gunn.

According to the response on the site: “What Liz Gunn went to the vaccination tent to do was to find out what was going on, from an independent media POV. Whilst there she had heard that there was the issue with some of the children in the cars.”

Gunn’s description was a little different when speaking on Counterspin, an online TV show. In that interview, she said “this buzz came up the line” from the protesters outside the vaccination event “saying that up to five had collapsed.” Gunn described this as happening immediately before her confrontation with the 1News crew, while she was at the far end of the road away from the event location.

In the written response on FreeNZ’s site, and also in a video Gunn posted on her Facebook later, she rejected the claim she was “spreading” the allegation, instead saying that she was just asking the news crew to investigate it. Regardless of Gunn’s intentions, though, the claim has since spread online, and I’m convinced the video of Gunn “just asking questions” is the key source: of more than 65 instances of the claim I encountered in these groups, all appear to refer back to Gunn’s video with none pre-dating it, and no independent evidence or sources for the claim are provided. 

Stadium CEO Brian Blake has denied Liz Gunn’s claims.

In the days since the North Shore drive-in event, there don’t appear to have been any developments that substantiate Gunn’s claims, either. None of the parents of the alleged five children have come forward to say they were sent off to hospital by centre staff; nor, to my knowledge, have any other people emerged claiming to have heard or witnessed anything like this at the event. On the other hand, people close to the event have denied Gunn’s version of events, with stadium CEO Brian Blake describing it as “a load of crap” in one Facebook comment.

And yet, days later, the claim is still echoing widely around conspiracy theory groups online, in New Zealand and internationally, like a circle of kids playing the whispers game

Independently, I was able to locate the parent of one child, vaccinated at the North Shore site about an hour before Gunn’s encounter, who had a mild vasovagal syncope reaction immediately after vaccination – according to Cedars Sinai, a nonprofit academic healthcare organisation in the US, this is a fairly common reaction to stress, including blood draws or even the sight of a needle, and presents as light-headedness or fainting. It is not a reaction to the vaccine itself, just the stress of the situation.

The parent described to me, in a direct message conversation, the immediate support from on-site vaccination staff and said that their child recovered quickly with no other effects. They were not directed to hospital and no further care was required. It is possible that protesters outside the centre witnessed this from afar and amplified the story without context, including speculation about the seriousness and the number of children involved.

Asked for clarification, the Auckland DHB’s Northern Region Coordination Centre clinical director Dr Anthony Jordan said: “We do not have any reports of adverse reactions, including anyone fainting, at the drive-through centre at Eventfinda Stadium on Monday 17 January. If someone is feeling unwell after receiving their vaccination, or from any other medical issue, there are staff on hand to respond.”

Jordan also pointed out that many sites have on-site first aid staff that can recognise and treat any conditions that may arise. “If anyone needs more urgent medical attention, staff will call an ambulance,” he confirmed.

In another video, posted on Friday afternoon to the FreeNZ Facebook page and other social media channels, Liz Gunn interviewed an anonymous Christchurch couple who described witnessing a child vomiting outside an unnamed Christchurch East vaccination centre on Thursday before then seeing a second child suffering a violent seizure inside the venue.

The Canterbury DHB said that nothing of the sort had been reported. “We’ve spoken to vaccination teams and no-one has heard of anything like this happening,” a CDHB spokesperson told me by phone. Further to that, Dr Helen Skinner, the CDHB’s senior responsible officer for the Covid-19 response, told me by email that “Canterbury DHB has not received any reports of adverse events related to administering the paediatric vaccine”.

In that instance, it’s possible that these claims were in reference to an image that had been circulating widely on Telegram which appears to show a child collapsed on the street outside a Rangiora vaccination centre. The CDHB spokesperson confirmed to me that the event in question took place before a vaccine was given: “The incident you refer to is completely unrelated to the Covid-19 vaccine. To protect the privacy of the individual, we will not be providing further comment.”

As for Gunn’s claim that, in the initial video encounter, she just wanted the 1News crew to investigate the story, at no point in the recording does she offer them any details about a source they might speak to or witness they should contact; meaning there was very little of substance for journalists to actually investigate. I’ve been burrowed down this rabbit hole for the better part of a week now, and the one event I was able to identify bore little resemblance to the claims made by Gunn, and was absolutely not evidence of the vaccine-related harm that was widely suggested.

Are there any other strange internet mysteries or dubious claims you’d like IRL to get to the bottom of? Get in touch with us at irl@thespinoff.co.nz.