Use Of VPNs Banned Completely For Millions Of People By Chinese Authorities
from the can-we-live-without-them-now? dept
Following the Congress vote to dismantle privacy protections for broadband subscribers, VPNs have suddenly become a very hot area, despite the complex issues surrounding them. We've reported on various instances of authorities around the world either banning VPNs, or flirting with idea of doing so. But there's no doubt that the main battleground over VPNs is in China, where the government has been clamping down on their use with ever-greater rigor.
For example, back in 2012, China started blocking VPNs, but in a rather ad hoc and piecemeal way. As Karl reported in January of this year, the authorities have now taken a much harsher line, requiring all VPN providers to obtain prior government approval in order to operate. Although that still allows people to use VPNs, it places them under strict control, and means they can be turned off by ordering suppliers to shut them down. The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reveals that in the major city of Chongqing, the local authorities have taken these measures to their logical conclusion -- banning VPNs completely:
Security authorities in the Chinese city of Chongqing have expanded regulations that govern web access, in a bid to plug holes in the Great Firewall that separates mainlanders from the global internet.
…
They ban individuals and organisations from establishing or using channels to connect to international networks, and target businesses that help users to connect to such services.
According to the SCMP article, the rules came into force last year, but have only just been published on the local government's website. The regulations are valid until July 2021, and impose fines of up to $2000 on companies offering VPNs. Individuals caught using them are ordered to disconnect, and receive an official "warning," which is probably not something to be taken lightly. Although this seems to be a purely local initiative, the numbers affected are considerable. According to Wikipedia's entry on the metropolis:
Chongqing's population as of 2015 is just over 30 million with an urban population of 18.38 million. Of these, approximately 8.5 million people live in Chongqing city proper;
Those figures are equivalent to the population of a typical small country elsewhere. As such, the move to ban VPNs in Chongqing could act as a rather handy test run to find out what the knock-on effects are, particularly for important classes of internet users like businesses and researchers. Whether or not this latest move was ordered by the authorities in Beijing, they will doubtless be watching its roll-out with keen interest.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Until more privacy invasions are prevelant and standarized, citizens will not take notice. And when the consumers take notice, the companies from which the consumers purchase their services will not change and in turn, will continue to secretly collude with the governments. More invasive measures will force companies to come up with better, unbreakable encryption products. Sometimes you need to break the jar to get the pennies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We need more shootings, because only with emergency rooms full of shooting victims will our ER doctors get the hands-on training they need!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We already have those. I mean, why do you think they're banning VPNs in the first place? But they don't do you any good if the government bans them.
It's rather difficult to come up with security that is unbreakable, can be used by the masses, AND is undetectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The more controversial fight is about giving the executive part of society a right to force companies to comply to more and more extreme measures to make it easier to increase surveillance data stores. That is where encryption and backdooring comes in. VPN is usually a way to make it harder to uniquely identify a computer, but it is not worth much without encryption or geographical legal restrictions to circumvent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The invevitable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To its own citizens? Maybe not.
Historically, to citizens of other countries? Damn right it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business VPN
Will this affect those? Will it affect Site-to-Site VPN's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business VPN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD beat them to it (sorta)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD beat them to it (sorta)
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
You're probably just one of those trolls/shills who keep bitching about being "censored." (Which also doesn't mean what you think it means.) Shut up, or if you're honest, get a better VPN.
I use the site with a variety of VPNs, TOR, what have you, and never once have my comments ever been sent to moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TD beat them to it (sorta)
I feel I stated quite clearly how the moderation delay creates a chilling effect- if you take away the usefulness of communication, you take away the motive to communicate. That IS a chilling effect. I've lost my motivation to post here, because posting is no longer a viable means to take part in the conversation.
What do you think Chilling Effect means? I looked it up, just to make sure I didn't have my foot in my mouth- I care about that sort of thing; and it does happen on occasion. Not seeing it in this case though.
I continue to give TD the benefit of the doubt that whatever they're doing that always puts my comments in moderation is the 'least evil' solution to a legitimate problem. It would be nice if there where more transparency around it though- which is exactly what's prompted this, and one other post in another thread- I"m hoping for a response from TD, and perhaps an explanation of what's going on, and if there's any hope of things going back to how it was at some point.
I'd suggest if your 'anonymous' comments are never being held for moderation, then you should probably ask yourself why that is. Especially since you mention TOR- There is likely something in your browser that uniquely identifies your computer to the comment system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]