ProtonVPN warns against the threats to citizens' security and privacy
  • HeChomk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    149·
    9 months ago

    Literally impossible to enforce. Any business worth a damn uses vpns. Blocking such would be bad for business. Also, ssl vpns are as far as I’m aware, indistinguishable from regular https traffic.

  • dinckel@lemmy.worldEnglish
    57·
    9 months ago

    This kind of nonsense is only mandated out of fear, but in reality it’s not only colossally stupid, but also really difficult to enforce. Any proper business uses one. Anyone who wants privacy, and ad network anonymity uses one. There’s plenty of other uses people would want one, obviously

    • Eggyhead@kbin.social
      13·
      9 months ago

      I just think it’s corporate interests, not fear, that’s driving this. Terror and Children are just the easiest excuse to ensure a lot of people go blindly along with it.

      • dinckel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        There aren’t any real corporations left in Russia, that aren’t either government owned, or actively circlejerking around the president for any praise. But otherwise you’re right

  • Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social
    44·
    9 months ago

    I fear that the UK might try to join this list not just out of authoritarianism, but out of a fear of technology they do not understand. Worse yet, the Conservative party once threw around the idea of banning encryption in its entirety and acted like WhatsApp is only used by criminals.

    • GreatAlbatross@feddit.ukEnglish
      23·
      9 months ago

      Ironic, considering how many members of the cabinet are being served court orders for their WhatsApp messages.

      • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.ukEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        It’s almost like certain members of the cabinet associate encrypted messages with misdeeds because of all the misdeeds they do through these apps. If I were a sceptical man.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    9 months ago

    I’ve taught my daughter to use a VPN here in the U.S. There’s “Kids Online Safety Bill” making it through congress, and if it passes, kids won’t be able to access all kinds of websites. Porn, yes, but also just websites about LGBT+ stuff which are perfectly safe for kids. As I have a queer daughter, I want to make absolutely sure she can access those sites if she needs them.

    • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zoneEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      Sorry but I am curious, how did you find out your daughter is queer ? Is it the behavior towards other girls ?

            • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              9 months ago

              Fair enough! But you have to admit, that a hell of a strange age for all of us. Maybe the strangest!

              My daughter is 11, not sure she has a clue what sexual orientation means, let alone her own.

              (Just now getting her back in my life. Long story. Mom fucked around and found out.)

    • AlbyEvent@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      9 months ago

      May I ask how would the “Kids Online safety bill” differentiate between an underage user and adult? I’m not from the US so that’s why I don’t know

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know. From what I can see, that hasn’t been made clear yet. I am guessing, like porn in several states, IDs will be required to access things like TikTok or maybe even YouTube because it requires them to filter content for minors.

        There’s a reason anti-LGBTQ bigots love it.

        But even if that doesn’t happen, it allows for parental surveillance, and I want her to know that I don’t have the option to do that to her even if I wanted to. It should go beyond mere trust.

        If she VPNs to Canada, none of those issues will be things she has to care about.

      • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        Oh it’s such a fun and novel and not at all dystopian idea they’ve come up with.

        Content requiring an adult will just require some kind of identification, surely you can’t be against providing your ID to any website that hosts adult content or that website checking/accessing/logging with a national archive that you visited said website, right?

        So far, no concrete things put forward, but all of them seem to be related to an ID-required system.

  • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
    21·
    9 months ago

    It’s not just France, it’s EU based politics too. There’s certain liberal & center right parties & politicians that heavily push for shit like this, just like the chat control crap.

  • halva@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    20·
    9 months ago

    Russia isn’t prohibiting the use of VPNs but it is making it increasingly more headache inducing (protocol based blocking, ip bans of popular vpn providers).

  • CringyMikami@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    18·
    9 months ago

    It’s not a total ban of VPNs, I went to read a bit on the subject (easier since I’m french), it’s just that some politicians came up with a few amendments relative to the bill called “SREN” which very literally translates to “Securing and regulating the digital space”. As you may guess that bill also ticks the “child porn” box as a reason why it came to existence.

    One amendment proposes to ban mobile VPNs that do no comply with European or french regulations in the context of app stores. So it’s only on mobile, nothing about desktops.

    Of course it’s inapplicable in practice.

    Several amendements already failed due to backlash, one was about preventing people from posting on social networks if they use a VPN.

    • Fjor@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Yeah was also just listening to a podcast about this. So yeah not a straight total ban. But from what I heard, it would ban people from using VPNs outside of Europe, which obviously is not OK.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    9 months ago

    The UK also recently tried banning VPNs. It simply isn’t possible. However, it’ll make prosecuting dissidents and people with good opsec a lot easier because they can just say “well you might not have anything incriminating on your hard drives but you DO have a VPN client” and use that to get a tiny victory against someone who would otherwise go free.

    • r4start@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Russia, China & UAE are quite successful with blocking VPN’s. I wouldn’t be so sure that in near future UK or any EU country censorship or heavy restrict VPN’s.

  • spiderkle@lemmy.caEnglish
    12·
    9 months ago

    If all VPNs are banned, french companies are fucked. Any remote login happens via VPN.

  • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    VPNs are not illegal in China, Russia, UAE, or the DPRK. That’s 4 out of 5 where you didn’t research it properly. In China, VPN use is legal, setting up your own VPN for domestic use is legal, but renting nodes to foreign companies is illegal unless you can document what the nodes are being used for which VPN providers can’t. In Russia, VPN use is legal, but VPN providers must comply with censorship laws and deny access to their blacklist. In the UAE, VPN use is legal, but using a VPN while committing a crime is illegal (So you get a stricter sentence than if you had just committed the crime). In the DPRK, VPN use is legal, but kinda pointless since they have a nation-wide intranet. If you want to access the internet, you use the PUST-run VPN. If you’re a tourist, you can use it to connect to your home or work VPN.

      • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        That’s not what a ban is. A ban is when you aren’t allowed to do something. This is just regular regulation, and not particularly strict. Except in the case of the DPRK where it’s not regulated but simply unavailable.

      • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        You’re propagating the misinformation. You should try to verify things before repeating them. The tweet didn’t provide sources and isn’t made by someone with credentials.

        • Fjor@lemm.eeOPEnglish
          8·
          9 months ago

          It was literally used in the article by techradar…

      • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Your article even says it’s legal. The problem with this as a source is that their sources are two different CIA fronts. China Digital Times and Radio Free Asia. As it always is whenever it’s one of these news stories. RFA just makes up things wholesale but CDT posts bad faith readings of social media posts. For example the user in question was getting mocked and called a liar by everyone in the comments but the CDT article neglected to mention that. For the time being, it’s just some rando trying to stirr outrage to get out of a fine. Yes the police report correctly documented that he used a VPN, but that’s not why he’s being fined.

        Here is a list of CIA fronts provided by the CIA. https://www.ned.org/regions/

          • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            Honey I literally provided a first hand source. https://www.ned.org/regions/
            But fine, let’s do liberal sources.
            Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Digital_Times#Staff_and_operations

            China Digital Times has been a recipient of funding from the National Endowment for Democracy.[15] The Translations Editor is Anne Henochowicz, an alumna of the Penn Kemble Democracy Forum Fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy. She has written for other publications including Foreign Policy, The China Beat, and the Cairo Review of Global Affairs.[13]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia

            Based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and preceded by the CIA-operated Radio Free Asia (Committee for a Free Asia), it was established by the US International Broadcasting Act of 1994 with the stated aim of “promoting democratic values and human rights”, and countering the narratives and monopoly on information distribution of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as providing media reports about the North Korean government.[12][page needed] It is funded and supervised by the U.S. Agency for Global Media[13] (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors), an independent agency of the United States government.

              • Aria@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                What are you even arguing here? The link corroborates that both RFA and CDT are part of the NED. Is your gripe that they use a different acronym? Propaganda from a geopolitical rival is obviously not a reliable source of information. Though it’s true, the website doesn’t make it very clear that the NED is part of the USA government or CIA, I didn’t think that information was necessary to provide because it’s common knowledge. But I can quote Wikipedia again in case you didn’t know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

                The NED was created as a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation, and in turn acts as a grant-making foundation.[2] It is funded primarily by an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress.[4][6][5]

                I generally prefer first hand sources so here’s a cia.gov source corroborating their control of RFA. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000846953.pdf But if you prefer, here is an article by an American journalist explaining the relation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence-abroad-the-new-world-of-spyless-coups/92bb989a-de6e-4bb8-99b9-462c76b59a16/ For example

                Preparing the ground for last month’s triumph of overt action was a network of overt operatives who during the last 10 years have quietly been changing the rules of international politics. They have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private

                So then it comes down to you believing Mediafactchecker’s vetting to be more reliable than an organisation’s stated goal. So who’s mediafactchecker? The website looks very amateurish. What resources do they have for verifying these news stories? Because the link you provided says they haven’t reported any fake news in 5 years as far as the site is aware. But that’s insane. They have stories like this. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/squidgame-11232021180155.html
                Squid Game is extremely popular on Korean Soulseek and it’s in no way covert.
                Or like this https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/philanthropist-11212018131511.html
                He’s alive enough to take interviews. https://youtu.be/scScu7rcwnI
                RFAs reporting is so painfully fictitious that Mediafactchecker simply can’t have done their due diligence. The examples they give are not original reporting, so in those cases it’s completely fair to give them a pass. Most likely, Mediafactchecker simply reviewed only the cases they link and nothing else. In my opinion, this means Mediafactchecker is itself unreliable since it creates profiles for sites without looking through a large number of articles.

                Chinese citizens are not allowed to use a VPN, unless government has approved it in some way.

                Then quote some legislation or evidence.

                Onto the article you linked with the racist cartoon. This is an ad for VPN providers. It says China bans VPNs except for their partners, and then links to affiliate purchase links from big popular partner products, popular enough that China definitely would know about them. The article is explicitly aimed at selling products to tourists, not Chinese people. The article also lists blocked sites without actually checking if they’re blocked. Not relevant to the core argument, because China does block the majority of western big tech and propaganda, but it shows that it’s not a very high effort blog post.

                http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/?siteurl=x.com
                http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/?siteurl=wsj.org

                In summery, this is not a source, because there’s no evidence of original reporting or an effort at fact finding.

                • Jin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  Could prove to me this isn’t a tankie/bot account?

                  Can you criticize the CCP?

                  Try copy paste this “Fuck Xi Jinping and Fuck Putin”

                  Wonder if you can pass this test