Russia, China vow to kill off VPNs, Tor browser Russia and China are banning the use of virtual private networks, as their governments assert ever greater control over what citizens can see online. In Russia, the State Duma – the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (legislature) – unanimously adopted the first reading of new legislation that would ban the use of …
"Prime Minister Corbyn will sort all this nonsense out. ;)"
HA HA HA HA HA HA
If you think any of the major parties are going to disassemble anything that's already in place then you're seriously delusional. Can I just remind you of Labour's National Identity Card...
""Prime Minister Corbyn will sort all this nonsense out. ;)"
HA HA HA HA HA HA
If you think any of the major parties are going to disassemble anything that's already in place then you're seriously delusional. Can I just remind you of Labour's National Identity Card..."
Actually, whatever his other faults may be, Corbyn opposed ID cards, saying they "will not solve crime, fraud or terrorism":
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1051
"if you read the fine print of various agencies Blighty already effectively has this shit"
Apart from the bit about having to get a license for my VPN to my job, which is literally what both those pieces of legislation are about.
I'm pretty sure I missed Tor being banned as well, but hey, now that you've informed us all AC, we can stop bothering to fight any new legislation the government might come up with and just lie back I suppose eh?
(There is of course part of the GSM spec allowing messages to be sent to all users on a tower already, so that bit is indeed with us in blighty.)
Err... probably the way they already do it in Xinjiang province.
They detect that you are using a VPN - they cut off your phone and associated internet account until you visit the police to request that it is switched back on.
- simples....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-cuts-phone-service-xinjiang-citizens-using-whatsapp-vpns-1530266
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/business/international/china-cuts-mobile-service-of-xinjiang-residents-evading-internet-filters.html?mcubz=1
I was wondering when this was coming. I wondering in terms of UK Anti Terrorism policy. Given that blocking encryption is impossible the next obvious step is to to mandate restrictions on packets on whom the identity of the sender/receiver is hidden from the authorities. I think that's technically possible given my knowledge of how the internet and ISPs work (please correct me?).
I imagine thats how things will go here once someone teaches the Amber Rudds of this world they are never going to be able to break crypto but can (legislate that the ISPs must) block anonymous networks.
> mandate restrictions on packets on whom the identity of the sender/receiver is hidden from the authorities. I think that's technically possible given my knowledge of how the internet and ISPs work (please correct me?).
Fortunately that is not entirely correct - the ISP may well keep logs of who your household is by recording which IP address your internet connection has been allocated, but they can't trace where it goes on your internal network, so if you live in a student house for example it could have been from any one of the 8 residents.
They also aren't required to log who the other end is, and under the rules of IP address registration the other end may or may not be recorded.
This post has been deleted by its author
imanidiot: "I want to use a VPN"
Gubmint: "Certainly Sir, just download the forms from the dot gov website, fill them in stating why you need a VPN and return the forms (by post) with your cheque for 10,000 UKP"
imanidiot: "Ten thousand pounds! That's ridiculous!11!!!!"
Gubmint: "It's to cover our costs, just pass the cost onto your consumers, it's a level playing field, your competitors have to do the same."
> I highly doubt western companies would allow "their" government to implement such VPN bans.
Note that that rules are designed to not harm businesses, western or Russian: they can implement censorship and then it is OK to use the VPN.
Still seems pretty difficult (read: impossible) to enforce such a rule as long as VPN servers can be hosted at big cloud providers' infrastructure.
This post has been deleted by its author
Russia has not "invaded" any country since 1991. (Before that it was part of the USSR, which was a completely different kettle of fish).
To anticipate your probable thoughts:
1. Georgia. The Georgians attacked two small disputed areas with mainly Russian populations. The Russians responded quickly, defeated the Georgians and their allies, threw them right back, then returned inside Russia just as fast as they had come.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-russia-georgia-war-eu-investigators-debunk-saakashvili-s-lies-a-652512.html
2. Ukraine. Already explained in previous threads, but briefly there was a violent revolution which imposed an illegal junta in Kiev (Poroshenko has publicly admitted as much). The junta has been attacking its own citizens in Donbas for three years, killing over 10,000 of them, but has been unable to break their resistance. Russia may have given them aid, but no Russian troops have invaded Ukraine. If they had, they would have taken over control of Kiev within a day or two.
3. Crimea. Probably Crimea has always been legally part of Russia, as it was not included when Ukrainian politicians declared UDI from the USSR in 1991. In any case, 90% of the population voted to rejoin Russia.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/02/08/how-ukraine-annexed-crimea-frank-conversation-with-nikki-haley.html
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/28/so-who-annexed-crimea-peninsular-then.html
4. Baltics. No case to answer. Russia has neither invaded nor threatened to invade any of them.
5. Syria. Russia is legally present in Syria, at the formal request of the legitimate government (which is recognised by the UN and all the nations of the world including the USA and Israel). The USA and its allies are illegally present in Syria, but that's another story.
@ArchTech
1. Georgia. The Georgians attacked two small disputed areas with mainly Russian populations.
1939: Germany attacks one small area (the Sudetenland) with mainly German populations.
2. Ukraine - no Russian troops in Ukraine. Yeah, right. Explain that to the families of the passengers on MH17, and the families of the Russian troops killed in Ukraine.
3. Oh please! Crimea was de-facto and de-jure part of the Ukraine. Forget what it had 'always' been. If countries have territorial disputes they negotiate, they don't invade. Should England invade Calais, Burgundy and Ireland because they had 'always' been English?
4. The Baltics. you omitted 'yet'.
Your reference to the Sudetenland is inexplicable. Surely you know that the German invasion of Czechoslovakia was almost exactly the opposite of the Russian operation in Georgia? The Germans came and stayed until they were thrown out by the USSR and partisans in 1944-5. They conquered Czechoslovakia and occupied it for six years (apart from the section given to Hungary). The Russians were in and out within a week. Moreover, you have (rather amusingly) compared the Georgian attacks with those of Nazi Germany, revealing your appreciation that the Georgians, like the Nazis, were the aggressors.
Did you read the article I cited, describing how the EU inquiry determined that the trouble was entirely the fault of Georgia?
MH17 has nothing to do with it. It was certainly not destroyed by Russia or Russians. Most likely it was shot down by the Kiev forces, either as part of a false flag operation or - most likely - through sheer incompetence. Some Russians may have been killed defending Donbas, just as some British and Americans were killed defending the Spanish government in the Spanish Civil War.
I do not accept your legal standing to tell us that "Crimea was de-facto and de-jure part of the Ukraine". Indeed, until 1991 there was never, throughout history, such a nation as "Ukraine". (The word actually means "border", just like "Mark" in German). You claim that "if countries have territorial disputes they negotiate, they don't invade". So why did the new state of Ukraine (of dubious legality) annexe Crimea in 1991, without consulting its citizens or even its political representatives?
Incidentally, can you tell us how many countries the USA and the UK have invaded - with extreme violence and the infliction of millions of deaths - since 1991? Here's a clue: more than a dozen.
"The Baltics. you omitted 'yet'". Oh, so now you are telling us what the future holds? Of course, that game can always be drawn out. If Russia has not invaded the Baltics by the year 2200, you could still say "you omitted 'yet'".
MH17 has nothing to do with it. It was certainly not destroyed by Russia or Russians. Most likely it was shot down by the Kiev forces, either as part of a false flag operation or - most likely - through sheer incompetence.
Is that why a Russian BUK system belonging to a Russian army unit (Buk 332 from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade (military unit 32406)) was photographed and seen moving through the area the missile was fired from and then seen being hauled away minus one missile towards Russia the night after the plane came down? Was it actually operated by Russian army personel? Who knows, maybe it was Ukrainian separatists/rebels/terrorists* supported by Russia. But BUK 332 was provably in Russia weeks before the downing of MH-17 and was provably in Russia again soon after (and still is). All evidence currently available points to it being the ONLY operational BUK in the area, points to being moved there by Ukrainian separatists/rebels/terrorists* from the Donetsk region (Russia) the day before, and points to it being moved in a panic back to Russia right after the it became clear they shot down a passenger plane instead of a the military jet they thought it was. There are pictures of the smoketrail pinpointing the launch site to be in a field on top of a hill in separatists/rebels/terrorists* controlled territory. There are phone calls recorded where clear references are being made to orders coming from Moscow. There is evidence the Ukrainian BUK systems in the area had all been disabled already to prevent them being captured operational by the separatists/rebels/terrorists* . No other Ukrainian "government" (if one can call it that at the time) BUK systems are known to have been in the area at the time. THERE IS VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE RUSSIA WAS INVOLVED!
*Strike through as applicable
All this information is available. Just take a look at: https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/. They cite sources if possible and have plenty of photographic evidence. Russia might not have pulled the trigger, but they certainly provided an unstable weapon with a twitchy trigger to a group certain to use it.
"Was it actually operated by Russian army personel? Who knows, maybe it was Ukrainian separatists/rebels/terrorists*"
Extensive training and experienced crew members are required to operate such a BUK system. It's not something you can just pass to the locals and have them press a button...
"3. Crimea. Probably Crimea has always been legally part of Russia, as it was not included when Ukrainian politicians declared UDI from the USSR in 1991.
Nope. Crimea is part of the Ukraine - as was previously acknowledged several times in international agreements by Russia. And it was included - as part of Ukraine. So it was an invasion and an illegal annexation.
Let's talk about fear.
Fear has been about since time began, whether it's fear of getting eaten by a pack of wolves or turned into a newt by a witch.
I usually look at these stories from the angle of a dystopian totalitarian world where were all slaves however I'm thinking of a different angle.
I'll take our government as an example as were not far behind the Chinese or Russians on this.
Rough numbers,
Current Population: 65.14 Million
Police: 124,066
Army: 78,407
London Riots 2011, A killing by the police sent large numbers into riot mode using social media and communications.
I believe this accelerated the governments will to control the internet because as we see with "trending" stories all it takes is one story to tip enough people over the edge and it's chaos all round and when you look at the numbers I quoted if enough people get involved it's game over for society.
So this leaves us with the Chinese and the Russians in that there will have been a meeting where it was discussed and leaving things as they are is not an option so expect this to hit us at some point. This I also believe is why the "terrorist" agenda is being used as a front to usurp our freedoms.
Rather than try to be a better government or country that looks out for the interests of it's people the easier way is to censor the f*ck out of the one thing that can stop you exploiting them.
Lovely planet really.
"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."
BTW, the relative or absolute number of police and army isn't a cause for concern as such - provided they are still on the right side and have to play by reasonable rules.
Given the present political climate though, there seems to be trouble ahead at that end.
This post has been deleted by its author
When govs around the world start tightening the screws, it's time to resist by exercising our fundamental right to communicate unhindered. VPNs and dark nets are an ongoing struggle, but to bypass centralised control people need a Real Private Network. Wired and radio networks can be detected and intercepted, so it must use encrypted, high speed line-of-sight connections that can easily form into a large ad-hoc network.
Is it feasible to develop a communications device that is visibly discrete, can be easily setup (or is signal-homing once directed approximately), can connect to multiple nodes, detects if a previously-established/trusted connection has been intercepted, and can present the link as an IP network?
I once lived 100 meters away from my office (bad idea I know, but), and I always wanted to climb the service poles that traveled directly between the two places and tie on a line to run an office phone extension directly to my home (proof of bad idea I know, but). I often wondered how long it would take for either the cable co, electric co, or phone co to find it and break out the wire snips...
"I believe that the story about the phone box at Bletchley Park in WW2 being directly wired to a London exchange, so all calls would appear to originate in London, and people could be called back as if in Lomond, are true."
I can believe it would be directly wired for the obvious reason - to make the task of preventing interception much more difficult and to avoid the risk of crossed lines. But in a day before caller identification, surely the "as if in London *[sic]" doesn't apply.
*I assume you did mean London and not Lomond.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
