Literally impossible to enforce. Any business worth a damn uses vpns. Blocking such would be bad for business. Also, ssl vpns are as far as I'm aware, indistinguishable from regular https traffic.
They'll ban the known IPs of any well known VPN provider. It'll not really affect 90% of VPN users that are tech literate, but the 80% of the People that are Tech illiterate shall be punished and the Politicians shall pretend it works. This is how all the Countries blocking VPNs do it now.
Nah it's far more stupid than that. They want to ban some (most?) VPN apps from the iOS and Android stores. You would still be able to sign up for any VPN from your browser, and manually set it up on your phone.
That's the current proposal anyway, soon they'll understand how moronic it is and either double down and try to "fix" if or quietly drop it.
This kind of nonsense is only mandated out of fear, but in reality it's not only colossally stupid, but also really difficult to enforce. Any proper business uses one. Anyone who wants privacy, and ad network anonymity uses one. There's plenty of other uses people would want one, obviously
I just think it's corporate interests, not fear, that's driving this. Terror and Children are just the easiest excuse to ensure a lot of people go blindly along with it.
There aren't any real corporations left in Russia, that aren't either government owned, or actively circlejerking around the president for any praise. But otherwise you're right
I fear that the UK might try to join this list not just out of authoritarianism, but out of a fear of technology they do not understand. Worse yet, the Conservative party once threw around the idea of banning encryption in its entirety and acted like WhatsApp is only used by criminals.
It's almost like certain members of the cabinet associate encrypted messages with misdeeds because of all the misdeeds they do through these apps. If I were a sceptical man.
I've taught my daughter to use a VPN here in the U.S. There's "Kids Online Safety Bill" making it through congress, and if it passes, kids won't be able to access all kinds of websites. Porn, yes, but also just websites about LGBT+ stuff which are perfectly safe for kids. As I have a queer daughter, I want to make absolutely sure she can access those sites if she needs them.
I don't know. From what I can see, that hasn't been made clear yet. I am guessing, like porn in several states, IDs will be required to access things like TikTok or maybe even YouTube because it requires them to filter content for minors.
But even if that doesn't happen, it allows for parental surveillance, and I want her to know that I don't have the option to do that to her even if I wanted to. It should go beyond mere trust.
If she VPNs to Canada, none of those issues will be things she has to care about.
Oh it's such a fun and novel and not at all dystopian idea they've come up with.
Content requiring an adult will just require some kind of identification, surely you can't be against providing your ID to any website that hosts adult content or that website checking/accessing/logging with a national archive that you visited said website, right?
So far, no concrete things put forward, but all of them seem to be related to an ID-required system.
It's not just France, it's EU based politics too. There's certain liberal & center right parties & politicians that heavily push for shit like this, just like the chat control crap.
Russia isn't prohibiting the use of VPNs but it is making it increasingly more headache inducing (protocol based blocking, ip bans of popular vpn providers).
It's not a total ban of VPNs, I went to read a bit on the subject (easier since I'm french), it's just that some politicians came up with a few amendments relative to the bill called "SREN" which very literally translates to "Securing and regulating the digital space". As you may guess that bill also ticks the "child porn" box as a reason why it came to existence.
One amendment proposes to ban mobile VPNs that do no comply with European or french regulations in the context of app stores. So it's only on mobile, nothing about desktops.
Of course it's inapplicable in practice.
Several amendements already failed due to backlash, one was about preventing people from posting on social networks if they use a VPN.
Yeah was also just listening to a podcast about this. So yeah not a straight total ban. But from what I heard, it would ban people from using VPNs outside of Europe, which obviously is not OK.
The UK also recently tried banning VPNs. It simply isn't possible. However, it'll make prosecuting dissidents and people with good opsec a lot easier because they can just say "well you might not have anything incriminating on your hard drives but you DO have a VPN client" and use that to get a tiny victory against someone who would otherwise go free.
Russia, China & UAE are quite successful with blocking VPN's. I wouldn't be so sure that in near future UK or any EU country censorship or heavy restrict VPN's.
I don't support this, but you don't need VPNs for remote logins. SSH exists, it's just that VPNs are a better solution for companies among other things.
VPNs are not illegal in China, Russia, UAE, or the DPRK. That's 4 out of 5 where you didn't research it properly. In China, VPN use is legal, setting up your own VPN for domestic use is legal, but renting nodes to foreign companies is illegal unless you can document what the nodes are being used for which VPN providers can't. In Russia, VPN use is legal, but VPN providers must comply with censorship laws and deny access to their blacklist. In the UAE, VPN use is legal, but using a VPN while committing a crime is illegal (So you get a stricter sentence than if you had just committed the crime). In the DPRK, VPN use is legal, but kinda pointless since they have a nation-wide intranet. If you want to access the internet, you use the PUST-run VPN. If you're a tourist, you can use it to connect to your home or work VPN.
That's not what a ban is. A ban is when you aren't allowed to do something. This is just regular regulation, and not particularly strict. Except in the case of the DPRK where it's not regulated but simply unavailable.
You're propagating the misinformation. You should try to verify things before repeating them. The tweet didn't provide sources and isn't made by someone with credentials.
Your article even says it's legal. The problem with this as a source is that their sources are two different CIA fronts. China Digital Times and Radio Free Asia. As it always is whenever it's one of these news stories. RFA just makes up things wholesale but CDT posts bad faith readings of social media posts. For example the user in question was getting mocked and called a liar by everyone in the comments but the CDT article neglected to mention that. For the time being, it's just some rando trying to stirr outrage to get out of a fine. Yes the police report correctly documented that he used a VPN, but that's not why he's being fined.