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
Related Stories
Apple has removed major VPN apps from its mainland China app store:
China appears to have received help on Saturday from an unlikely source in its fight against tools that help users evade its Great Firewall of internet censorship: Apple. Software made by foreign companies to help users skirt the country's system of internet filters has vanished from Apple's app store on the mainland.
One company, ExpressVPN, posted a letter it had received from Apple saying that its app had been taken down "because it includes content that is illegal in China." Another tweeted from its official account that its app had been removed.
[...] In a statement, Apple noted that the Chinese government announced this year that all developers offering VPNs needed to obtain a government license. "We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations," the company said. "These apps remain available in all other markets where they do business."
Also at TechCrunch, CNET, Newsweek, and TorrentFreak.
Senators Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy have written to Apple CEO Tim Cook to ask ten questions about Apple's recent removal of VPN apps from its Chinese app store:
Two US senators have written to Apple CEO Tim Cook asking why the company reportedly removed VPN apps from the company's store in China. "If these reports are true," the senators wrote, "we are concerned that Apple may be enabling the Chinese government's censorship and surveillance of the Internet."
[...] On or around July 29, Apple removed many of the most-used VPN applications from its Chinese app store. In a short email from the company, VPN providers were informed that VPN applications are considered illegal in China.
"We are writing to notify you that your application will be removed from the China App Store because it includes content that is illegal in China, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines," Apple informed the affected VPNs.
[...] Now, in a letter sent to Apple CEO Tim Cook, US senators Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy express concern at the move by Apple, noting that if reports of the software removals are true, the company could be assisting China's restrictive approach to the Internet.
"VPNs allow users to access the uncensored Internet in China and other countries that restrict Internet freedom. If these reports are true, we are concerned that Apple may be enabling the Chines[sic] government's censorship and surveillance of the Internet."
Leahy and Cruz were cosponsors of the USA Freedom Act.
Previously: Apple Capitulates, Removes Unlicensed VPN Apps From China App Store
Russia Bans VPNs and Tor, Effective November 1
Submitted via IRC for takyon
This week, representatives from Google, Facebook, and Twitter are appearing before House and Senate subcommittees to answer for their role in Russian manipulation during the 2016 election, and so far, the questioning has been brutal. Facebook has taken the bulk of the heat, being publicly called out by members of Congress for missing a wave of Russian activity until months after the election.
[...] The point is clear enough: if you're fighting Russian interference on social media, anonymity is a big problem. In some ways, it's the original sin, creating space for that first lie that lets trolls enter the conversation unnoticed. "Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social media companies must work immediately to confirm real humans operate accounts," Watts told the committee. "The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits." It's a common insight among bot-hunters, and one that's become particularly popular amid this week's hearings.
[...] The problem is social. We're used to anonymity on the internet, particularly on the services where it's still available. It's hard to know what an anonymity backlash would mean for services like Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan — all of which are named in Watts' testimony as playing a role in Russian disinformation.
In the background, there's an even harder question: is anonymity still worth saving? It's foundational to many people's idea of the internet, but amid widespread online harassment and Facebook itself, it's come to mean less and less. Even without Russian influence campaigns, the web's online spaces are largely associated with the ugliest parts of humanity. (4chan is a prime example.) With new pressure from Congress, bot analysts, and the public, online anonymity may not have any defenders left. In the face of that, Twitter, Reddit, and others might decide a real name policy is a small price to pay for forestalling federal regulation.
Source: Russia's Social Media Meddling Could Spell the End of Online Anonymity
Previously: Russia Bans VPNs and Tor, Effective November 1
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday July 31 2017, @09:37PM (12 children)
In the end, just a bunch of national LANs. Yay. Glad we allowed that.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @09:48PM (11 children)
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 ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:03PM (6 children)
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)
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
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)
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)
" 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)
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
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)
I'm a Funyuns addict, you insensitive clod!
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:51AM (2 children)
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]
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:02AM
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
I can't afford WiFi because I spend all my money on Funyuns.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday July 31 2017, @09:50PM (3 children)
Apple put up a very public fight with Comey last year to protect its users' privacy. Apple won't bow down to the US government. So don't expect Apple to bow down to any foreign government like Russia when it comes to compromising users' privacy.
(*cough* China *cough*)
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 31 2017, @10:05PM
Yup: as long as a dollar could be lost Apple will fold.
(and you should take care of that cough!)
:)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Monday July 31 2017, @10:09PM (1 child)
It's all about money. People in the USA were reeling from the NSA revelations and all the privacy issues which followed. Apple taking a stand for users privacy wasn't about fighting for the little guy. No, it was to give the little guy the impression that Apple cares thereby creating demand for their product. The situation in China perfectly illustrates this. If they really cared they would pull out of the Chinese market in protest and show the world they got guts. But they didn't because there is a fuck load of money to be made.
In fact, I'll even go as far to say I bet Apple unlocked that phone for the FBI in secret and the rest was a nice little marketing show.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Tuesday August 01 2017, @04:27PM
It more complicated than that: effectively every I-thing is made in China.
If China suddenly slaps on a tariff, or, worse yet, has a sudden problem with the export paperwork so nothing can cross the border of the country, Apple's business is toast.
Apple is like a man with a taut noose around his neck, standing on a plank over a large drop.
Just a little twitch from China and Apple is in massive pain.
'Nice little business you got here, be a shame if something happened to it.'
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday July 31 2017, @09:51PM (17 children)
We were told by the crypto weenies that an absolutist position was possible because of the magic powers of strong crypto. Governments were powerless in the face of it so go ahead and push for absolute privacy and dens of inequity like Silk Road. Raise a middle finger when they demand lawful access via a court order. Warrants are for meat space, our iPhones are sacred and must never be violated. There is nothing they can do, the crypto anarchists have all the cards now, yea technology!
Well it turns out there is quite a bit "they" can do. And of course now that it is dystopian societies like China and Russia pointing the way to taming the Internet, very bad things will become standardized. Because you fucks LET THEM LEAD by your refusal to even consider any more reasonable measures. Your all or nothing stance is now going to get you nothing.
You should have seen the handwriting on the wall years ago. How can you hope to have any freedom or privacy online when we accepted the vendors locking our hardware with they very crypto you thought would "liberate you"? You trusted Apple and Google to stand strong? Ha! Ha!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Fnord666 on Monday July 31 2017, @09:58PM (5 children)
Real world cryptography via oblig. XKCD [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:21PM (4 children)
With Clipper, anti-RSA/PGP stuff, Palladium, etc.
What changed is all these countries got authoritarians in power because the easily swayed plebs got access to the internet and as a result it became easier to manipulate them with single source media sufficiently to influence the passing of unpleasant and potentially illegal legislation without the discontent of the 'consenting'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:28AM (1 child)
Plebs are easily swayed mainly because of deficient minds. It's not like no internet and instead broadcast media + newspapers were solving it.
Besides there is a Russian tradition of samizdat and they might just revive it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:38AM
>Plebs are easily swayed mainly because of deficient minds.
You say this, and you give your life an example:
You, a white man, oppose men taking cute sweet pretty female children as brides.
Instead you wish for men to be ruled over by women.
You oppose your own interests. A young girl is prettier, nicer, and easier to control for you, but you reject this.
You are a white man. A golem of the white woman.
A beast of burden for her.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday August 01 2017, @06:05AM
I'd have thought it would be easier to control television and newsprint sources (which largely have to be produced in the country or physically imported) than N worldwide websites.
Sure, many people choose to get all their news from one web source (e.g. Facebook) these days, but that's no worse than getting all your information from a single tabloid newspaper.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:08PM
I guess some youngsters are forgetting about the Tee Vee technology - push only and centralized. Far easier to control than the internet.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday July 31 2017, @10:28PM (3 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday July 31 2017, @10:33PM (2 children)
If you are in prison for sending the packets encrypted so they can't see what's in them, does it really matter they can't decrypt them and arrest you for the contents? Either way you are in prison.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday July 31 2017, @11:46PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Tuesday August 01 2017, @08:21AM
How long before UK, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada and the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar) start doing the same thing ??
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:54PM (3 children)
That's not what happened and I suspect you know that. The government should not be allowed to make companies into indentured servants and put backdoors into their own products or defeat their own security. That case would have set terrible precedent, too. Proper security via strong encryption often makes it impossible to comply with such requests. Also, not all warrants or court orders are constitutional, so mindlessly complying is not reasonable.
The government can, however, try to defeat the security on their own, which they did.
Because these countries were known for respecting human rights before those dirty crypto nerds doomed everyone? Right.
And even these countries don't have the power to truly ban all VPNs and Tor; they can only play cat-and-mouse games.
No one should be trusting Apple or Google or even using their services. Your hasty generalizations will get you nowhere.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:38PM
It's jmoris... generalizations have gotten him through life just fine thus far!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday August 01 2017, @02:06AM (1 child)
This is a perfect example of the defective mindset I'm talking about. I can promise you everyone important watched that Apple vs US Gov vs Terrorist case and drew the correct conclusions. They all know Apple was lying its ass off for PR purposes. And Putin and Xi don't give a damn about Apple's PR problems, and besides they will agree to keep it on the downlow and THEY DON'T LEAK LIKE SIEVES.
Apple wants to play both sides. On the one hand they are the stalwart defender of their customer's privacy. On the other they have total cryptographically secure control of every device they put in the field. The government was willing to accept that a master key was overreach and only demanded they supply a firmware image that would only run on that device's unique identifier and unlock that one phone. To say a company must comply with a search warrant makes them an indentured servant is the sort of rhetoric that loses your side a seat at the big kids table. Apple can't retain sole possession of a device and then object when they, as the owner, gets served. And besides, have you seen the regulatory compliance department at any non-trivial corporation?
So what will happen now? No leader in the West wants to take up the issue, the tech industry still has its head up it butt thinking governments are a passing thing, no need to worry about legacy issues on the rush to the Brave New World. But of course they are whores so they have been rolling over and happy to comply with every tinpot dictator who wants them to censor because they can't afford to lose the sales and eyeballs. Well once dozens of countries are routinely getting Big Tech to censor or rat out users on command the EU will want in on the oppression. Remember, no 1st Amendment there and they love putting nice old pensioners in prison for Crime Think. So that will just leave the U.S. being chumps. Next Democrat administration will put an end to that, remember they LOVE holding up Europe as the example of the Sunny Uplands of History; where we should be going if we weren't still too full of racist gun clinging white people who love Jesus.
What is the compromise we could have worked out between tech and law enforcement? I don't have the answers, I just know by refusing to even allow the question to be debated we ceded the decision to some really bad people. We could have perhaps started by quietly trying to prevent end to end encrypted chat from getting into mass deployment. It should have been obvious that wouldn't end well. Because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. Perhaps the mad rush to encrypt absolutely everything, often in multiple layers, wasn't the winning move? Especially since it does not appear to have improved security all that much.
And if Apple, Google and Microsoft are going to own all our hardware they could admit it and accept the responsibility that goes with it. Maybe if everyone were clear on that point we would demanded a different reality, one where we had the option of owning our own stuff or it could go horribly wrong and Clipper 2.0 could have be birthed. But we didn't have the discussion and we apparently still do not want to. As Rush (the Canadian band) explained it, "If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice" We choose poorly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:24PM
Also, the federal demand was ridiculous. It created not only a security flaw in the iPhone, but it also created a lot of unpaid work for Apple. It's not too much to ask law enforcement to do their job rather than break important communication tools.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:14AM
No, you were told by people smarter and more informed that an absolutist position was merely an egotistical framing of simple mathematical truths. It's not that it is possible, it is that it is the only way. These "magic powers" you refer to are better known as mathematical principles. There are "wizards" that understand them and work them to a degree that is admittedly out of the reach of small minds. Hence, your conflation of encryption algorithms with magic.
So when the scientists, mathematicians, and crypto "weenies" get together and tell you that backdoors are not possible, it's not because they don't like you and simply don't want to, it's because it's logically and mathematically precluded. No egotistical posturing, or silverbacks running around grunting and pummeling their chests declaring that crypto must and always be free.
Just people much smarter than you trying to explain how it works, and how it can't work. No emotions involved, just the immutable mathematical truths like 2 + 2 = 4.
Riiiiigggght. It was all the crypto weenies and those intractable, anti-American, immutable bastards that are mathematical laws. If only infinity wasn't so fucking unreasonable and could be locked down to a finite numbers, and why the fuck do we have to keep writing out Pi for so many damn numbers? Can't we shorten it?
I've often been mad to at math too and how unreasonable it is.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 01 2017, @11:55AM
What "reasonable measures"? As it stands, I don't see the point of your post in the first place. There isn't a need (by us) for governments to meddle in the internet, much less control what we think and say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:33AM
Fuck you jmorris.
You, like all white men, are opposed to men taking female children as brides.
Fucking faggot
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:13PM (3 children)
Coming soon to your western countries as well, because, you know, terrorism and children!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:58AM (1 child)
Unfortunately, it seems likely that net neutrality will be repealed. If it is, watch the ISPs block VPNs, as that is one of the easiest ways to bypass their blocking, throttling, and general shenanigans. Watch them block TOR so that they have more browsing data to sell advertisers. Same effect as the Russian law brought to the US, not by the government, but by the "free" market, and private companies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @01:03PM
Good luck blocking Tor. Iran tried it a few years ago; it gave birth to obfsproxy enabled bridges, which essentially use steganography over network channels to make tor traffic look like benign xmpp packets to the deep packet inspection firewall, and that same software should work just fine now in Putin's Russia.
And honestly, I doubt Putin doesn't know this. But this new law sure does put a damper on the vpn industry in Russia, as well as others who were making money via sites banned in Russia. It pushes encrypted anonymized traffic back underground. And I think that's exactly what Vlad wanted. Better to have 50 criminals to keep in check than 50,000.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @09:37AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40788180 [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:10AM (7 children)
If i was a Russian (Russianite?) I'd be thinking "time to move".
Then i'd be thinking "Where is it better?"
More and more, Governments around the world are turning this way. Canada is still "The land of the free", but it is a hard slog keeping it that way.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:42AM (6 children)
Canada has blasphemy law on the books [wikipedia.org], also called Motion 103. proposed by Iqra Khalid and passed by a vote of 201–91 on March 23, 2017.
Just realize the planet is full of morons and it's hard to escape them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:44AM (5 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday August 01 2017, @02:14AM (1 child)
Law One: SJWs Always Lie.
Whether that resolution actually criminalizes "blasphemy" or not, it it clear it established Islam as the State religion of Canada, i.e. the one you can't criticize. The criminal penalties will ramp up until people accept their new masters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:58PM
Ya know, I should know better than to respond to jmorris, but calling a the interm leader of our right wing party a SJW is freaking hilarious.
The Conservative Party of Canada is on the moderate right for Canada (there are no significant parties right of them) and Ms. Ambrose is NOT a SJW. Probably one of the furthest from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @03:30AM
Humans amuse me to no end.
One religion that worships Abraham's god enacts blasphemy laws, and it's good and right.
Another religion that worships Abraham's god enacts blasphemy laws, and it's scary and wrong.
(There are a lot of Christians where I grew up that would celebrate a jurisdiction passing an actual free speech ban on blasphemy, as long as it was their idea and not big, scary Sharia law. I have a suggestion for the lulz. Since Christians want the 10 Commandments in front of every courthouse, let's post them in both English and Arabic!)
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday August 01 2017, @03:42AM (1 child)
Then what does it do? What purpose does m103 serve?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 2, Informative) by Codesmith on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:53PM
M-103 is a private member's motion, which is a "proposal moved by an MP to draw attention to an issue considered urgent or of public interest"
from Motion 103 wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org].
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:45AM (4 children)
It's ironic that the Russians are banning Tor. It's unlikely to change much because Tor was originally designed to be used in repressive countries such as Iran that heavily restricted access to the Internet. As Russia becomes more repressive Tor use is likely to rise, not drop.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:20AM (3 children)
No to mention how small these devices can be now. It's not like a Russian has to hide something the size of a small recreational vehicle in a garage.
The Pocket CHIP is a very small system and I suspect that there will be many such systems in place. Most likely with hacked wireless connections to businesses and residences. If I was a Russian and still needed to communicate, creating such illicit and hidden connections would be the first thing on my To-do list.
Just how are the secret police going to round somebody up when the real trick might be finding the device first? Think of all the electrical closets and dmarcs that are just waiting to be hijacked.
PoE ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday August 01 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
It is ok to be dumb, but advertising it is rarely a good idea.
Russia is a nation state with the resources that go with that and almost no concerns with what we would call "civil liberties." If they actually outlaw TOR and mean it, it is done in Russia. Use their control of the entry and egress points, plus any internal ISP they care to monitor plus the power of "big data" to generate a map of TOR/VPN IP addresses engaging in traffic. They can't know who is doing what unless they have an exploit but they do not need that, they simply want to end it. Throw most of those addresses off the network, most of the remainder will get the hint. The problem is now a lot smaller, consisting almost entirely of hard cases. Wait a month and simply arrest every one of them still using TOR/VPN. No, your antics won't stop a nation state's secret police long, especially once the chaff of the casual users is removed. Examine their computers. Forget encryption, rubber hose crypt-analysis is cheap and effective. Execute the "most dangerous" thousand traitors. Move on to the next problem, because TOR ain't one anymore and won't be anytime soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:41AM
" Execute the "most dangerous" thousand traitors. Move on to the next problem, because TOR ain't one anymore and won't be anytime soon."
Then the USA will carpet nuke Russia, because of killing USA's guys.
USA has all important infrastructure outside of cities.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 01 2017, @04:28PM
Just like about anywhere in the world, this law is not going to be used against *everybody*. It will be used selectively, when the government wants to incarcerate someone but has no other crime to pin to him. When you know who the person is, it is not too difficult to locate all the illegal routers and VPNs - just power up his PC and see what interfaces it has configured... It's not like everyone is going to run around with Tails on a CD.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @02:22AM (1 child)
Pretty petty posing President Putin purely as "mister".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 01 2017, @03:44AM
Russian Dictator Vlad Putin
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @02:31AM
This all began because the MAFIAA insisted that Russia censor warez sites, stuff just slid down the slippery slope from there (once certain people had a west-approved excuse for censorship they could get away with as demonstrated in the EU).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by lars on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)
To an ISP, does it not just look like any other encrypted traffic? How do you block it without blocking all encryption?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lester on Tuesday August 01 2017, @06:34PM
Well, probably they can have list of suspicious IPs etc.
But the most important is that they don't need to prove that you are using encrypted communication for illegal activies. Just using VPN or Tor you are a criminal. Are you going to take the risk of jail just for reading a blog?. It is a deterrence law. Most people won't take the risk, so what now is a common public topic, will be known by marginal underground conspirers.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Tuesday August 01 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)
Governments don't like encryption. For the moment in west countries, encryption is legal, but I think that it is because they have other means to access data (backdoors, etc) and don't want to start a battle liberty vs security. But strong encryption is reaching mainstream and makes impossible or too expensive to break security, so they are making legal movements like Apple and FBI [wikipedia.org].
We are going there, but in the grounds of fight against terrorism, drug dealers and child porn.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:45AM
Making the world safe for the white woman.
And you white men love it because you worship the cunt.
Make sure no man ever gets a cute sweet young girl bride. That would be against the white woman's interests.