Putin Bans VPNs in Russia Starting in November

[straycat19]

The Chinese government is laser-focused on wiping out the ability to remain anonymous on the internet. So by February 2018, China will block all VPNs. But as TechCrunch reports, they are not alone. Russian President Putin just approved a new law that will ban the use of VPNs in the country beginning in November.

 

Virtual private networks offer a convenient and cheap way to hide your internet activity, protect your privacy, and overcome any location-based blocks. So you can see why China wants them banned. For Russia, the law is banning all means of accessing the internet anonymously because the government believes anonymity allows access to illegal content.

 

According to Freedom House, the so-called Yarovaya's Law was presented as a package of "antiterrorist legislative amendments," but ultimately allows much greater access by the Russian government to users' data as well as undermining the security of encrypted communications. In other words, if the Kremlin doesn't like content, it can more easily take it down and take action against the individual who posted it once this law goes into effect on November 1.

 

How well such a ban works depends on how it is policed. China will place the responsibility of blocking all VPNs on local ISPs. The Russian government will likely do the same considering last year it passed a law demanding ISPs retain a record of user data for a year. Another law passed in 2015 also demanded all Russian citizen user data be stored on servers within Russia. Taken altogether, it's very difficult to hide online in Russia, and it's only going to get harder come November.

 

UPDATE: The VPN ban in China resulted in Apple removing VPN apps from its App Store there. During an Aug. 1 earning call, Apple CEO Tim Cook said "We would obviously rather not remove the apps, but like we do in other countries, we follow the law wherever we do business.

 

"In this particular case...we're hopeful that over time the restrictions that we're seeing are loosened because innovation really requires freedom to collaborate and communicate, and I know that that is a major focus there," he continued.

 

Article

 

Russia Bans VPNs and Proxies

[steven36]

Putin didn't ban VPNs..   Three parliamentary caucuses did .  A very misleading title! PCmag dont even understand how the law works over there .

 

Quote

 

Putin Signs Controversial Law Tightening Internet Restrictions

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed controversial legislation prohibiting the use of Internet proxy services -- including virtual private networks, or VPNs -- and cracking down on the anonymous use of instant messaging services.

The law on proxy services, signed by Putin on July 29 and published by the government on July 30, was promoted by lawmakers who said it is needed to prevent the spread of extremist materials and ideas.

Critics say Putin's government often uses that justification to suppress political dissent.

Almost all of the changes under the law are set to take effect on November 1, months ahead of a March 2018 presidential election in which Putin is widely expected to seek and win a new six-year term.

Under the law, Internet providers will be ordered to block websites that offer VPNs and other proxy services. Russians frequently use such websites to access blocked content by routing connections through servers abroad.

A second law also signed by Putin on July 29 -- and published July 30 -- will require operators of instant messaging services, such as messenger apps, to establish the identity of those using the services by their phone numbers.

This law, set to take effect on January 1, 2018, will also require operators to restrict access to users at the authorities' request if the users are disseminating content deemed illegal in Russia.

Russian authorities in recent years have escalated efforts to prosecute Internet users for online content considered extremist or insulting to religious believers.

In one recent high-profile case, a Russian blogger was convicted of inciting hatred and insulting religious believers' feelings with videos he posted on YouTube -- including one showing him playing Pokemon Go in a church.

The blogger, Ruslan Sokolovsky, was handed a 3 1/2 year suspended sentence that was later reduced by more than a year.

Sokolovsky was also added to an official list of "terrorists and extremists" maintained by Russia's Federal Financial Monitoring Service.

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-signs-vpn-law-internet/28648976.html

The UK  are doing the very same things as China and Russia but the mainstream media don't  be reporting about it very much .Only privacy news sites be reporting about it.

[steven36]

Quote

 

'Real people' do not want secure communications, claims UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd

 

Dangerous talk.

 

    "Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security."

Hmm.. "real people" voted a few weeks ago in the United Kingdom's snap general election, stripping away the ruling Conservative party's majority, and leaving us with a hung parliament.

Amber Rudd herself was feeling the shock after the majority in her own parliamentary seat was slashed to just 346 votes.

    "Real people" don't want Amber Rudd.

    — Graham Cluley (@gcluley) August 1, 2017

The suggestion that services like WhatsApp should stop using proper encryption because the only beneficiary are terrorists is bonkers.

Encryption is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Encryption protects our privacy from hackers and organised criminals. It defends our bank accounts, our shopping, our identities.

There are too many data breaches involving online companies who have failed to properly secure our data.

Too many hacks where criminals and state-sponsored hackers have intercepted sensitive information and used it to their own advantage.

Too many instances where security services and intelligence agencies have spied on their country's citizens either with the approval of authoritarian regimes, or broken the law to illegally collect vast amounts of personal data without proper oversight or the public even being aware of what was going on.

Real people care about their privacy. They close the door when they go to the bathroom. They put on clothes before they step outside on the street. They protect their online accounts with passwords.

It's not as if "breaking" WhatsApp's encryption would really help the fight against terrorism and organised crime anyway (WhatsApp is - for some reason - seemingly the service most commonly in the UK Government's firing line).

Criminals would simply use other services if WhatsApp no longer provided secure end-to-end encrypted messaging, or "roll their own" sending them even further out of the reach of intelligence agencies.

So, in summary, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd argues that people would be happy with imperfect, breakable security.

I believe that most "real people" would be concerned that such a step would increase the chances of their privacy being invaded, and criminals taking advantage of weakened security.

 

https://www.grahamcluley.com/real-people-not-want-secure-communications-claims-uk-home-secretary-amber-rudd/

 

[knowledge-Spammer]

things like this is easy to get passed i mean lets say i have a friend in the uk and i use teamviewer  and then use some tricks then not need a vpn 

 

[jtmulc]

12 hours ago, steven36 said:

Putin didn't ban VPNs..   Three parliamentary caucuses did .  A very misleading title! PCmag dont even understand how the law works over there .

 

He signed it, he had the final say on the legislation.  Furthermore, Putin has been the effective (if not titular) head of the Russian Federation for almost 20 years.  His Prime Minister is his former campaign manager and leader of the ruling United Russia party, which holds a 75% majority in the State Duma.  I think it's safe to presume that very little legislation reaches him without his explicit approval.

[steven36]

2 hours ago, jtmulc said:

 

He signed it, he had the final say on the legislation.  Furthermore, Putin has been the effective (if not titular) head of the Russian Federation for almost 20 years.  His Prime Minister is his former campaign manager and leader of the ruling United Russia party, which holds a 75% majority in the State Duma.  I think it's safe to presume that very little legislation reaches him without his explicit approval.

Show me link too were he proposed  this law  i bet you cant ? in fact VPNs are not really banned  there at all ..it just blocks some websites that sell them.

 

Quote

 

The Russia VPN ban doesn’t forbid personal or business use of VPNs at all

Putin has signed a new law that increases internet censorship dramatically and has been marked as the beginning of the Russia VPN ban, but does the new law actually ban and perhaps punish VPN use as some English language news sites are reporting? Will Russian VPN users find their connections randomly dropped, the way that Chinese VPN users have suffered under the Great Firewall of China for years? There’s been a lot of buzz surrounding how the Russia VPN ban will be technologically implemented and how the Great Firewall of Russia will be built. That largely stems from too-general reporting that the law is a blanket ban on VPN technologies as opposed to a block to the websites of proxies and anonymizers and also of non-compliant VPN services and Tor.

A lot of the confusion can be traced back to one English report on the Russia VPN ban released by ABC news where the title incorrectly claimed: “Russian parliament bans use of proxy Internet services, VPNs” even though the body of the article’s text does clarify that the bill “would oblige Internet providers to block websites that offer VPN services” not block VPN traffic.

One thing to note is that compliance with the new law will be enforced by the FSB and Ministry of Interior instead of the Roskamnadzor. The FSB will be in charge of identifying owners of VPN services, and anonymizers, and asking said owners to implement Russia’s internet censorship blacklists for their users – most of which use VPN services to avoid those very restrictions. Denis Krivosheev, an Amnesty International director in the region, commented:

    “With the Russian authorities increasingly intolerant of dissent, technologies that help internet users evade censorship and protect their privacy are crucial for freedom of expression online. Today the authorities have given themselves an instrument to ban the use of VPNs and other technologies that help people to freely access information online.”

Is a VPN that gives you a non-Russian IP, but still shows you the Russia-approved internet a real VPN? It certainly isn’t helping people freely access information online at the least.
Russia and China are both booting VPN services out of the country – but what’s the difference?

When the Russia VPN ban law was first proposed in April, Putin had just gotten back from the G20 summit where he had publicly defended China’s domestic internet censorship; however, he also stated that Russia would not be implementing China’s Great Firewall policies and instead follow their “own path” when it comes to internet censorship.

Russia’s “VPN ban” will be enacted on November 1st, 2017, while China’s similar ban on unregistered VPN services will be enacted by February 1st, 2018, and has already resulted in apps being removed from the Apple App Store. However, the domains of VPN services and Tor have long been blocked in China. Another main difference is that China has been “unofficially,” actually blocking VPN traffic with the Great Firewall for several years now without any official law in place at all. They do this through the use of deep packet inspection (DPI).

Back in 2016, when the Yaroyava Law – which Edward Snowden dubbed “Russia’s Big Brother Law” – was passed, Russia’s ISPs and telecoms were required to store a minimum of six months of metadata. On the 29th, Putin also signed another law that will force owners of messaging apps, even end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, to associate users with real identities which thereby makes that metadata all the more useful – that law goes into effect on January 1st, 2018. With the Russia VPN ban likely in full force by then, all in all, Putin’s proprietary form of internet censorship is starting to take shape.

 

So what’s really coming next with the Russia “VPN Ban?”

The newly signed law will likely be used to compel VPNs to go against their ethos and censor what the Russian government wants. Vedomosti has reported that some Russian based VPN services have already acquiesced to censoring the same content that ISPs do. The url blacklist is called the Unified Register of Prohibited Information and is already added to the firewalls of each ISP and telecom in Russia as a blocklist.

Simply put, Russia likely plans to block the domains of VPNs and proxies that don’t comply with Russian authorities to enforce their internet censorship filter. They could accomplish this goal by adding domains such as privateinternetaccess.com to the Unified Register of Prohibited Information – where the domains of over 100 VPN services already sit – and having ISPs, telecoms, and compliant VPN services, block access to the URL. The law does not prohibit personal VPN use and doesn’t specify use of any of the DPI techniques used by the Great Firewall of China – and Putin himself has indicated earlier this year at the G20 Summit that Russia will take a separate path from China in terms of internet censorship.
Where does Private Internet Access stand?

Private Internet Access removed servers from Russia in July of 2016 after several of our servers were seized by Russian authorities without due process or notification. Since then, Russians have still been able to sign up for our service and access our network – and we have no intentions of implementing the Unified Register of Prohibited Information to comply with Russian censorship demands. We will always work tirelessly to make our network accessible to users anywhere in the world. Our commitment always has been and will always be to our users – the same users that understand the need for privacy and expect nothing less than the Open Internet when they use PIA. Privacy is our Policy.

 

 

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/07/russia-vpn-ban-doesnt-forbid-personal-business-use-vpns/

Quote

Though the legislation passed in both houses, many legislators are now claiming never to have seen the actual documents. Communist lawmakers complained going into the vote that they received drafts only hours before. With Federal Council votes traditionally unanimous, 16 senators either voted against or abstained from the vote. Even the president's own human rights chief, Mikhail Fedotov, is appealing to Putin to delay final approval of the legislation. This sort of dissent has been unheard of in the past decade.

According to Putin's spokesman, the president will take the widespread pushback into account. Despite his continued high popularity, Putin faces a divide among his loyalists, some of whom believe Russia needs stricter laws while others believe the country is growing too repressive. Putin has long attempted to balance the two sides. But with the economy in recession and pressure building from outside the country, the Russian leader must choose a path — a choice that will shape Russia for years to come.

https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/putin-faces-tough-choice-over-anti-terrorism-bill

And the choice he made was too go along with the house majority and now he has too live with his choice .

 

here is what really  happened

Quote

In April 2016 Irina Yarovaya, together with Aleksei Pushkov, and Nadezhda Gerasimova and senator Victor Ozerov introduced a project of legislation that would toughen penalties for extremism and terrorism. On 13 May 2016, the act passed after the first reading. Prior to that, it had received support from the prime minister's cabinet. On 7 July it was signed by the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Most of the act's amendments came into effect on 20 July 2016. Amendments that require telecom operators to store recordings of phone conversations, text messages and users' internet traffic up to 6 months were announced to come into place on 1 July 2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law#Legislative_history

I 1st posted a few articles on  this in 2016 a year ago  so everyone knew it was coming that reads the privacy news   Only the dates changed a little from 2016  and they couldn't get it pushed ahead too 2023 like they wanted.

 

If you understood how the law works  the President of Russia can pass any law he wants and if he wanted to ban VPNs  he can without all this due process from the Government  if it was his Idea ..

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-type-of-government-does-russia-have.html

 

[jasonliul]

15 hours ago, knowledge said:

things like this is easy to get passed i mean lets say i have a friend in the uk and i use teamviewer  and then use some tricks then not need a vpn 

 

You must be on the top of blacklist of evil user.

 

[steven36]

The thing is the UK has been doing this sort thing for along time. If they really wanted too push it they could arrest people for using VPN  that  bypasses there internet censorship filter. And it may happen one day it's just a law they not enforced yet as soon as they leave the EU  they better watch out because this is all that is stopping them atm.

 

 

Quote

 

Current situation
Internet customers in the UK are prohibited from accessing a range of web sites by default, because they have their Internet access filtered by their ISPs. The filtering program has applied to new ISP customers since the end of 2013, and has been extended to existing users on a rolling basis. A voluntary code of practice agreed by all four major ISPs means that customers have to 'opt out' of the ISP filtering to gain access to the blocked content. However, the complex nature of the active monitoring systems means that users cannot usually opt out of the monitoring and re-routing of their data traffic, something which may render their data security vulnerable. The range of content blocked by ISPs can be varied over time. Categories blocked across the major ISPs include: Dating, Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, File sharing, Gambling, Games, Pornography, Nudity, Social networking, Suicide and Self-harm, Weapons and violence, Obscenity, Criminal Skills, Hate, Media Streaming, Fashion and Beauty, Gore, Cyberbullying, Hacking and Web-blocking circumvention tools

 

 

Overblocking

Wide-scale inadvertent 'overblocking' has been observed since ISP default filtering was introduced at the end of 2013. Legitimate sites are regularly blocked by the filters of some UK ISPs and mobile operators. In December 2013 the UK Council for Child Internet Safety met with ISPs, charities, representatives from government, the BBFC and mobile phone operators to seek ways to reduce the blocking of educational advice for young people. In January 2014 UKCCIS began constructing a whitelist of the charity-run educational sites for children that had been overblocked. The intention was to provide the list to ISPs to allow unblocking.

Examples of overblocked categories reported include:

    sex education and advice on sexual health
    help with sex and pornography addiction
    support services for rape and domestic abuse
    child protection services
    suicide prevention
    libraries
    parliament, government and politicians
    drug advice

The identification of overblocked sites is made particularly difficult by the fact that ISPs do not provide checking tools to allow website owners to determine whether their site is being blocked.In July 2014 the Open Rights Group launched an independent checking tool blocked.org.uk, a revamp of their mobile blocking site to report details of blocking on different fixed line ISPs and mobile providers. The tool revealed that 19% of 100,000 popularly visited websites were being blocked (with significant variation between ISPs) although the percentage of sites hosting legal pornographic material is thought to be around 4%.

Significant underblocking has also been discovered, with ISPs failing to block up to 7% of adult sites tested. A study commissioned by the European Commission's Safer Internet Programme which tested parental control tools showed that underblocking for adult content ranged from 5-35%

 

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

 

[Jogs]

Some day they will make a law which will term locking doors illegal. 

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

The UK will block online porn from next year. Here's what we know

 

Age verification of all pornographic content will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas

 

Plans to force all pornographic websites behind an age-verification wall will be formally announced by the government on Monday. Critics of the plan have hit back, saying it will "fundamentally change the internet" both in the UK and oversees.

 

 

In a statement, Matt Hancock, the minister of state for digital and culture, said the pornography block would be "fully in place" by April 2018. Today, parliament will appoint a regulator who will draw up guidelines as to how the legislation will be enforced.

 

Jerry Barnett, founder of campaign group Sex & Censorship, said the legislation would “fundamentally change the internet in the UK and possibly globally”. For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

 

 

Quote

 

Here's everything we know so far

---

Verification

All pornography sites must use age-verification software of some kind to block under 18s from accessing their content.

Regulations

A regulator, likely to be the British Board of Film and Classification (BBFC), will oversee the implementation of the regulations.

Blocks

Internet service providers will be forced to block any websites that do not comply

 

 

How age verification will be deployed

The government will leave this up to industry, which could opt for credit card authorisation, as gambling sites do. But any savvy teenager can borrow a credit card and if no transaction is required, the card owner may be none the wiser.

There are also concerns credit card verification could create giant databases of people accessing pornography. Pornhub, the world's most-visited pornographic website, had 64 million visitors per day in 2017, and the UK is its second biggest traffic driver. Such a database would be an obvious target for hackers, hoping to hold pornography sites to ransom. Just ask the owners of Ashley Madison, who recently offered customers $11 million in compensation after their details were published online by hackers.

 

Some are looking to capitalise on the new law by creating methods of age verification that promise to protect individual privacy and make logging-in as frictionless as possible. The Digital Policy Alliance, a “politically neutral” policy advisory group, called for a verify once, use many times system, that could potentially mean users register once and then use a token to access all pornography sites, rather than having to register over and over.

 

How it will be enforced

The BBFC - if it becomes the age-verification regulator - currently has limited powers that fall in line with its responsibilities of setting age limits for films and computer games. It can make recommendations to cut content, or deny a certificate and reject the media’s right to circulate in the UK. Censoring the internet is, naturally, somewhat more complex. If a site is run on funds supplied via massive payment providers, such as Visa, those ancillary services could be notified their client is breaking the law, and ordered to terminate payments.

 

Internet service providers could also be made to block sites that fail to comply. How a regulator would force ISPs to comply is unclear. The age verification regulator does have the power to fine porn sites that are in breach of the law (a sum no greater than £250,000 or five per cent of their “qualifying turnover”). But could ISPs be accused of breaking the law if they fail to block sites? It’s unclear exactly where the responsibility will ultimately lie, and where the lines will be drawn.

 

What type of content will be blocked

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett is concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”. The law also covers works “produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal” - the inclusion of the term “principally” seems subjective, and will require the BBFC to use its judgment, possibly creating its own rulebook of what is and is not NSFW. "This is legal content, and creating barriers for adults to access that legal content is in itself damaging to freedom of speech and access to information," says Paul Bernal, a lecturer at UEA Law School and author of Internet Privacy Rights: Rights to Protect Autonomy.

 

Will it make any discernible difference?

The creation of the law was justified by stats compiled by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), which found that more than half of children and teenagers that accessed pornography “stumbled upon” it. The proposed regulations, if fully and successfully implemented (it’s unclear how the BBFC can censor the entire internet single-handedly) could prevent the ‘stumbled upon’ factor, where young children that have no intention of accessing pornography inadvertently do.

For anyone else actively seeking out the content, there will always be plenty of ways around the law. In the case of illegally downloaded media, for instance, it is not the government mandated ISP blocks that have had the greatest impact, but the rise of legal streaming sites. TorrentFreak’s annual report on the state of the sector attributed the stabilising of traffic to torrent sites to this rise.

 

“It’s unlikely to really work,” said Bernal, referring to the age verification regulations. “A ‘playground black market’ for credit card details is a highly likely consequence of this approach – which has even more risks attached.” He added that the persuit of pornography websites was a distraction from other, possibly bigger issues such as revenge porn and sexting. “Educating kids can help deal with all of this much better. Educating them, that is, both in terms of sex and relationships, and in terms of the risks of the internet.” Bernal would instead recommend better sex-ed from a young age, dealing with these issues head on. This is an approach extolled by the likes of EU Kids Online, which has been studying children's online experience and education since 2006 and been recommending the same steps to government.
Will social networks be subject to the same laws?

At a debate on child online safety held in January, several industry representatives voiced concerns that the likes of Twitter are massive purveyors of pornographic material, yet are rarely mentioned in government debates. “My concern is that with Twitter, kids are going there; 13-year-olds can get a Twitter account and they allow hardcore imagery on their site without any checks whatsoever,” said David Cooke, director of digital and new media at Mindgeek, which runs Pornhub. BBFC CEO David Austin did say the organisation would “ask Twitter to close down an account that had hardcore pornography”, and classed it as an ancillary provider like payment providers, but added that it would not have “the power to compel it and we don't know how Twitter would respond”.

A lot of uncertainties remain. The BBFC said it was not yet ready to speak about exactly how the system will work. A spokesperson explained it was just starting what is due to be another lengthy consultation process with relevant parties and experts, to formulate a best practice framework ahead of the April 2018 deadline.

Then there's the issue of censoring huge chunks of the internet. This has already been shown as flawed policy with default opt-out ISP pornography filters, a measure mandated by the Conservative government under David Cameron that inadvertently blocked thousands of unrelated, educational and artistic sites. This showed that attempts to widely block content can be totally ineffectual and, at their worst, damaging in their restriction of free speech.

The age verification element of the Digital Economy Act is driven by moral arguments. This is not in itself a bad thing, and there is plenty of ongoing research exploring the impact of online pornography on children and teenagers. But when potentially millions are due to be spent in staffing up the BBFC and creating new technologies to implement age-verification systems, a bit of qualitative and quantitative research would not go amiss.

 

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/porn-block-ban-in-the-uk-age-verifcation-law

 

[Agent 86]

19 hours ago, straycat19 said:

Putin just approved a new law that will ban the use of VPNs

Another step backwards in the IOT. Too bad. I fear my country (home of the free and the bla bla bla....) also will be much more oppressive soon. 

[pc71520]

2 hours ago, Jogs said:

Some day they will make a law which will term locking doors illegal. 

For the sake of...Public Interest...

[steven36]

6 hours ago, Agent 86 said:

Another step backwards in the IOT. Too bad. I fear my country (home of the free and the bla bla bla....) also will be much more oppressive soon. 

The fact is it dont ban the use of VPN.. the law says they  will block the domains of VPNs and proxies that don’t comply with Russian authorities to enforce their internet censorship filter. They will be able too use a VPN that do comply. For a  few years now Russia has been trying too block  Russian P2P sites and Russian warez sites that host TV shows Movies and Music  they are hardly any p2p/ warez sites that use RU domain now  they all migrated too non Russian domains  and the people have been able too access these blacklisted websites for a long time with a VPN  rendering there blocks noneffective.They never really cared about using cracked software it's the other stuff they try too block as of now.    Also they are other sites on the blacklist that have nothing too do with warez but piracy is part of what is blocked. 

[knowledge-Spammer]

On 8/4/2017 at 8:02 AM, steven36 said:

The fact is the dont ban the use of VPN the law says they  will block the domains of VPNs and proxies that don’t comply with Russian authorities to enforce their internet censorship filter. They will be able too use a VPN that do comply. For a  few years now Russia has been trying too block  Russian P2P sites and Russian warez sites that host TV shows Movies and Music  they are hardly any p2p/ warez sites that use RU domain now  they all migrated too non Russian domains  and the people have been able too access these blacklisted websites for a long time with a VPN  rendering there blocks noneffective.They never really cared about using cracked software it's the other stuff they try too block as of now.    

uk block much things to

 

[steven36]

1 hour ago, knowledge said:

uk block much things to

 

I know they do and it is were most of Europe  got the idea  too  start  blocking websites. It's not uncommon for countries too adopt other countries ways of doing things .The last time the USA tried this they adopted France's  ISP warning system too send out warnings to downloaders from P2P and it was a big failure and they stop doing it now. But this dont mean Rights holders cant still send you a letter and take you too court they can . And this dont mean they are not working on a new plain with isps  too get p2p users they most likely are.  

 

Back a few years ago it was very easy for me too find Russian warez sites trough Google for Movies and TV shows many of witch have English and Russian audio ..Google for some years have been censoring  these sites were they don't show up even though they still exist because i have some bookmarked and run across new ones from time too time. Everyone knows the software sites because they still show up on Google without knowing any Russian . Google no longer list Russian video releases with the English only ones like they use too.

[jasonliul]

i feel absurd that Indonesia, Russia join censorship country club.

 

Since Indonesia, Russia provide so many anonymous service/proxy service to the world, there're lots of geek be good at such technique.

 

i'm waiting something to infuriate them, then we have more brillent
anti censorship software & free service...

 

Anyway, that's good news. Sry for my selfishness. LOL

[tao]

On 8/3/2017 at 9:42 AM, steven36 said:

Putin didn't ban VPNs..   Three parliamentary caucuses did .  A very misleading title! PCmag dont even understand how the law works over there...

In jest: 

So many misleading titles?   The world is out to annoy you, eh?

(No use to PCmag if you don't let them know, directly, eh?)

The world's magazines, with their aptitude-deficiency are out to annoy you, also, eh? 

[steven36]

28 minutes ago, jasonliul said:

Indonesia

They are doing this trough DNS hijacking  it can easy got around by changing DNS .. They started this in 2016 they blocked some piracy sites and they just changed domains and some warez sites in there country they didn't touch  i find it strange  how they do this there because i belong too a forum there and it still has a Indonesia domain .

 

Here is  more info on it.

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/state-internet-censorship-indonesia

 

13 minutes ago, adi said:

In jest: 

So many misleading titles?   The world is out to annoy you, eh?

(No use to PCmag if you don't let them know, directly, eh?)

The world's magazines, with their aptitude-deficiency are out to annoy you, also, eh? 

Yes it annoys me,  just like it it annoys 7 out of 10 people  in my country  that USA mainstream media is not trustworthy .

[jasonliul]

i guess jumping dxxxed wall now officially become new Olympic project via internet.

 

Thanks some spanish/Portuguese freeware guys help, i've found a anti censorship softwareRe -Qrypt, from Brazil,  now we have a whole map of all those Wall Builder country.

 

[tao]

12 minutes ago, steven36 said:

Yes it annoys me just like it annoys me just like it it annoys 7 out of 10 people  in my country  that USA main stream media is not trustworthy.

(I'm afraid you are in for a long stretch of annoyance.  My sympathies.)  

 

Contemplate, only if you like:

“Wanting to reform the world without [...self]  is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.”  ~ Ramana Maharshi

 

 

[steven36]

8 minutes ago, adi said:

(I'm afraid you are in for a long stretch of annoyance.  My sympathies.)  

 

Contemplate, if you like:

“Wanting to reform the world without [...self]  is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.”  ~ Ramana Maharshi

 

 

Well not really as when i read most news i only go too sites i trust if i don't see it on here ..I'm not like most of the socialites in my country who get there news from social media sites and forums  but certain subjects  that effect me like privacy , security  and software really interest me a lot..  so i want too learn all I can and I'm only searching for the the truth .What's wrong with wanting too be told the real truth?

[tao]

40 minutes ago, steven36 said:

... USA mainstream media is not trustworthy.

The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of … any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face. … The sinister fact about literary censorship in [.] is that it is largely voluntary.  ~ Orwell

[tao]

1 minute ago, steven36 said:

... What's wrong with wanting too be told the real truth?

And "What is the Truth?"     

[steven36]

14 minutes ago, adi said:

The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of … any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face. … The sinister fact about literary censorship in[.] is that it is largely voluntary.  ~ Orwell

That still dont have nothing too do with me searching only for the truth..If it is not the truth or half truth it is full of lies and we be better off with no news at all. I was raised up too be a honest person and not tell lies and that if i think I have too lie it's better to not say nothing at all. If you go too court and you lie and they find you out you get charged with perjury . If News journalists lie there viewer rates decline  . Everyone pays a price for not being honest even if they dont realize it.

[tao]

10 minutes ago, steven36 said:

That still dont have nothing too do with me searching only for the truth..If it is not the truth or half truth it is full of lies and we be better off with no news at all.

Sorry, in a democracy we can't blame anyone but ourselves for our problems.