Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 31 2017, @09:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the someone's-watching-you dept.

Russia has banned VPNs capable of circumventing website blocking, and will require users of chat apps to have a phone number associated with their accounts:

Vladimir Putin has banned virtual private networks (VPNs) and Tor in a crackdown on apps that allow access to websites prohibited in Russia. The law, signed by Mr Putin, was passed by Russia's parliament last week and will now come into force on 1 November. A second law to ban anonymous use of online messaging services will take effect on 1 January next year.

It would make it easier for the state to snoop on citizens' browsing habits, one internet security expert suggested.

The laws signed by Mr Putin are meant only to block access to "unlawful content" and not target law-abiding web users, the head of the lower house of parliament said, according to the RIA news agency.

One feature of the second law is the provision to require internet operators to restrict users' access if they are found to be distributing illegal content.

Also at Engadget, ZDNet, RT, TechCrunch, and CNET.

Related: Apple Capitulates, Removes Unlicensed VPN Apps From China App Store


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @09:48PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @09:48PM (#547382)

    True.

    But only as long as we keep using centralised protocols.

    Swap them out for self-organising naming, addressing, routing and encapsulation protocols, and cross-border communications reduce to the problem of layer 1 and 2 in the OSI model. Sales of Pringles might boom near national borders ...

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:03PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:03PM (#547389)

    While I agree the centralized nature of the modern internet is bad, we don't have the activism, participation, or sufficient technical resources to RUN a distributed 'mesh' inter-network, especially one with sufficient bandwidth to provide even high latency reliable communications between geographically distant nodes.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:22PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:22PM (#547396)

      Not really true.

      All we need is FaceGooZon to realise that national border breaks are strongly against their interests, and they'll support it out of the goodness of their twisted little hearts - or sheer avarice. Whichever.

      What you need most is a software layer, because the hardware already exists. You can build a router in your home that can shuffle bits between half a dozen ethernet devices, no problem. Long haul can be a bit more challenging, but with a little ingenuity, not nearly as bad as one might think. Even contested borders are not impermeable, and between relatively friendly nations it would be more porous than a tissue paper umbrella.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @07:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @07:29AM (#547547)

        All we need is FaceGooZon to realise that national border breaks are strongly against their interests

        But they're not. Without borders, how will they do their tax shopping?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:42PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:42PM (#547414)

      Yeah, about that. I have three kinds of internet service to my house. One I pay for and two that I don't.

      The first connection, which I pay for, is completely above board, and it always works.

      The second connection, which I don't pay for, is mobile broadband without a data plan. It works as long the mobile network operator doesn't expire my unpaid SIM card, which so far hasn't happened. Even though I'm not paying, it always works.

      The third connection is a node in the neighborhood mesh network. My connection to the mesh network fails whenever the neighbors feel like moving their nodes around, or the connection fails in bad weather, or my connection fails whenever the neighbor has a power outage.

      Mesh networks are crap. I'd rather tether my home network to a phone.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:28AM (2 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:28AM (#547444) Journal

        " I'd rather tether my home network to a phone "

        no privacy, VPNs or TOR for you, in Russia (or China, or P.R.U.S.A., soon?)

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:59AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:59AM (#547462)

          That's OK; I can use steganography to make it seem like I'm spending all day listening to the USSR national anthem. Or if you prefer, Lana Del Rey. National anthem. Putin's so handsome. Music is the anthem of success.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @08:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @08:34AM (#547561)

            Yup... once the badge-hats go to threatening everyone caught sending encrypted files, they will start sending hidden ones in full view.

            How about hiding stegfiles in private girlfriend porn for restricted groups ( just so everyone can see the badgehats viewing porn on company time, great for their public relations ), or maybe publicly posted and terribly boring vacation movies posted to YouTube, where only certain people are privy to how to extract the payload from the carrier file. The stegged file plays just fine; if heavily burdened with a payload file, it will just look like a cheap noisy camera took the video. ( the noise actually is the encryped payload file which has to be understood how to decrypt before it can even be shown the file exists in the first place! Otherwise, it looks just like noise. )

            Audio files of things like recorded classroom lectures are great... because no one has the original file to compare to, and a poorly recorded terribly noisy recording does not stand out as unusual. Never steg into anything that you did not create the master of and know there are no other copies of the master exist.

            Personally, I do not like the idea of sending encrypted files unless to known businesses where the need for encryption is well understood. For me to be publicly sending and receiving numerous encrypted files would raise a red flag amongst the badge-hats, much like carrying a attache case in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco will put a target on you. If one is carrying several hundred dollars cash, don't advertise it with a locked box. Hide the stuff in a diaper or something similar. Using above-the-table file transfers is only going to get someone onto the TLA's hot sheet.

            I guess what I am trying to say is that the cat is already out of the bag as far as trying to restrict covert communications. Anyone can do it. And I see no way anyone can force anyone else not to do it. By its very nature, steganographic communication takes place right under one's nose without them being aware communication is even happening.

            With encryption, someone at least can get metadata on the transfer. Drive it into steganography, and one cannot even get metadata. Nothing!

            I get the idea someone with lawmaking power has no idea what he's up against.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:47PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:47PM (#547420)

    Sales of Pringles might boom near national borders ...

    I'm a Funyuns addict, you insensitive clod!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:51AM (2 children)

      by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:51AM (#547454)

      Funyuns don't come in a tube lined with foil like Pringles. As far as I know no one actually eats Pringles but the cans are known for being the basis for a very good directional WiFi antenna. you should turn in your geek card if you haven't seen this: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1242048/build_your_own_wireless_signal_booster_with_pringles/ [metacafe.com]

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:02AM (#547466)

        Does it work in the rain? What happens when the chips get soggy?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @07:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @07:42AM (#547550)

        I can't afford WiFi because I spend all my money on Funyuns.