Slashdot Mirror


Australia Pushes Ahead With Website Blocking In Piracy Fight

angry tapir writes As part of its crackdown on unauthorized downloading of copyright material, the Australian government will push ahead with the introduction of a scheme that will allow rights holders to apply for court orders to force ISPs to block websites. (Previously Slashdot noted that the Australian government had raised such a scheme as a possibility).

59 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Fucking Morons by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Look up "proxy", you simpering halfwits.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Fucking Morons by Mr0bvious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They were considering punishing users (three strikes and you're out type shenanigans) but their popularity is sinking fast and I see this as an alternative that they're thinking "We know it won't work, and the public know this so they won't care, but we can say we're doing something to the interested industry lobby groups."

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    2. Re:Fucking Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, this is Australia... They'll just make it illegal to pay for an encrypted anonymous proxy or vpn service ;)

    3. Re:Fucking Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one. Murdoch's control of the media is what got the current government in power. So they just do what he wants. Doesn't have to buy off anything.

    4. Re:Fucking Morons by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, why? Let them do their thing, man! It's just another challenge to overcome. I don't see the problem.

      And don't call them halfwits... The halfwits and corrupt bastards are the people that vote for them. There is nothing halfwitted about winning...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Fucking Morons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Simpering halfwits? Look up "they control the routers in and out of the country" you simpering no-wit.

    6. Re:Fucking Morons by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      and how is that supposed to stop someone routing through a vpn or proxy? or are you suggesting they will go on a mad campaign to block the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of ways around it, not even chinas great wall has managed that.

    7. Re:Fucking Morons by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You underestimate them. They want to become like the UK, where companies can block anything they don't like with a High Court order. As well as torrent sites many UK ISPs also block proxies and sites selling fake goods. The list is ever expanding. Since many of these sites are based outside the UK or run as non-profit they can't easily challenge the blocks.

      Basically, corporations now have the power to censor the internet in the UK. That's what they want in Australia too. Just wait, they will soon be blocking foreign sites selling goods cheaper than Australian retailers, or VPN providers allowing you to watch US Netflix. Proxies and sites detailing how to circumvent the blocks will be on the list too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. This is a good thing. by GloomE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This way they will end up with actual evidence of how useless these schemes are.

    1. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I for one am looking forward to .gov.au sites being blocked by court order because they contain copyright images being used without permission. [Rights holders, start your inspections now!]

    2. Re:This is a good thing. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never underestimate a government's ability to keep doggedly charge forward with a policy even in the face of obvious failure. After all, we've been conducting a "war on poverty", "war on drugs", and more recently, a "war on terror" for many years without effective results. No, they'll just claim that they're not getting enough funding to do a proper job, or that new laws are needed to close loopholes.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:This is a good thing. by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      After all, we've been conducting a "war on poverty", "war on drugs", and more recently, a "war on terror" for many years without effective results.

      What do you mean without result? The divide between rich and poor people is getting bigger every year, drug lords are making humongous amounts of money, because they're selling something that's in high demand, but unregulated and illegal, ensuring very healthy profit margins and for the war on terror, looking at the revelations of torture recently, Al-Qaeda couldn't have done a better marketing campaign themselves, which means more terrorists, which means more profits for arms manufacturers regardless which side they're supplying.

      If you look a bit further and or are somewhat more cynical/paranoid, it looks like things are exactly going as planned

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    4. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After all, we've been conducting a "war on poverty", "war on drugs", and more recently, a "war on terror" for many years without effective results.

      I can tell you the current Australian government has a "make more poverty" policy rather than a "war on poverty" policy.

    5. Re:This is a good thing. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      I can tell you the current Australian government has a "make more poverty" policy rather than a "war on poverty" policy.

      Yes, blocking pirate movies is among the least offensive things this government has done since coming to power.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:This is a good thing. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      More like "War on Poor People/Pensioners","War on Small Business", "War on Manufacturing", "War on Wind Farms", "War on Students".

      But of course, the fact that this government has announced an intent to do this is almost certain death for the idea. They are so disorganised and so incompetent that they could never get it done.

  3. Slippery Slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slippery Slope meet the Australian Government. This is going to be a wild ride all the way down.

    1. Re:Slippery Slope by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Slippery Slope meet the Australian Government. This is going to be a wild ride all the way down."
      Yes the tracking of ip and files would be legal.
      The linking of an ip found to an isp and account would be legal.
      Sending a letter would be legal.
      Requesting who got the letters as part of discovery would be a free reverse look up to start finding accounts and files.
      Every step of keeping a web history would be legal for the security services, police to any court requesting or allowing discovery on the letters sent.
      Any ip from a isp in Australia connected to any file of interest could result in a real time database for later review.
      Time for a good VPN.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. pirate bay un|blocked by bigtreeman · · Score: 2

    took a few minutes to circumvent the block yesterday
    justfuckingoogleit

    https://proxybay.info/

    take your choice

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      As of now, none of these work for me. Even over VPN.

    2. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by muphin · · Score: 1

      thats because TPB was raided and is now down, same with EZtv.it

      --
      It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    3. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      They aren't blocking anything yet, piratebay was offline because it was raided.....again.

    4. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You fucking idiot, TPB was back online within the hour it got raided.

      Magical things, 'mirror servers' can be. Perhaps you should fucking learn to utilize them.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      Except that isn't the case. As reported on TorrentFreak those mirrror servers do let people access some of the older content but they aren't updated with new content. So they will become ever more useless if the main system isn't brought back online.

    6. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by Fusen · · Score: 1

      Why are you so angry? Also, The Pirate Bay isn't "back" as per https://torrentfreak.com/can-p... - "Update: Just to be clear, thepiratebay.ee, thepiratebay.cr, thepiratebay.mobi and others are mirrors not affiliated with the original site. They serve old content (no new uploads) and are not TPB resurrections. If the site reappears it will be on the original .se domain."

    7. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by Khyber · · Score: 1

      TorrentFreak doesn't run one of these mirrors - I do. I see all of the new content, including Windows 10 build leaks.

      Perhaps you should listen to someone actually involved with the stuff instead of a sensationalist reporting site.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:pirate bay un|blocked by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Update: Just to be clear, thepiratebay.ee, thepiratebay.cr, thepiratebay.mobi and others are mirrors not affiliated with the original site. They serve old content (no new uploads)"

      Except that is wrong. .cr has ALL the latest shit.

      Quit listening to sensationalist TorrentFreak, whom knows nothing about TPB. I run one of those mirrors. It's showing all new content down to fucking Windows 10 build leaks, and has been as of ONE HOUR after the primary site went down.

      You do understand that the only thing TPB lost was the front-facing server, which we had mirrored CONSTANTLY, right? Like, every two hours.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  5. As an Australian resident by LaZZaR · · Score: 2

    I don't think this is half bad. Copyright holders need to go to court, rather than allowed to go straight to the ISP under previously proposed schemes.
    Of course this is ignoring other possible agendas... and we know the block is useless anyway, but that isn't the point.

    --
    I lost me sig.
    1. Re:As an Australian resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Australian federal government has already proven their departments can't be trusted when it comes to blocking sites e.g. they incorrectly blocked an IP address responsible for hosting multiple sites. They can't be trusted when it comes to limiting the scope of blocking. I don't see any information giving the web-site holder the option to contest the charges; defend their ability to stay online; or protect innocent sites caught up in a block whose scope is too wide

      The government is also proposing graduated response and the ISPs will be required to facilitate discovery of the identity of IP address's account holder. Once the rights holder has this information, it would then likely be used by to threaten the account holder to either pay a 'fine' (way in excess of the value of the copied material) or be sued in court.

      The rights holders also expect the ISPs to foot all or part of the bill, even though the ISPs aren't responsible for the actions of their users.

    2. Re:As an Australian resident by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Yes. Of all the plans floated so far (by either of the major parties over the past decade or more) this is the least worst.

    3. Re:As an Australian resident by TropicalCoder · · Score: 2

      "The rights holders also expect the ISPs to foot all or part of the bill". From the FA "Cost of the scheme should be divided "fairly" between ISPs and rights holders." WTF - "fairly"??? Why is this the ISP's problem? What does it have to do with them? Why should they foot any part of the bill?

    4. Re:As an Australian resident by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      ISPs will have to foot part (probably the largest part) of the bill because of "campaign contributions", or whatever the correct term for legal bribery is Down Under.

  6. block everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, they could prevent all downloading of copyrighted material by blocking all sites with copyrighted material on them. That'd work...

  7. Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Australian here.

    This is all pretty hilarious, since Australian's are already being encouraged en masse to take up VPNs to get around geoblocking etc.

    http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/computers-and-online/networking-and-internet/shopping-online/navigating-online-geoblocks/page/how-to-circumvent-geoblocks.aspx

    (Choice being one of the leading consumer advocate groups in Australia).

    We've been shafted by geoblocking / staggered releases (or non releases) and exclusive licensing locking up shows/movies for so long, that 'pirating' is basically a cultural norm here. People from all walks of life, from every cultural background do it. Louise CK explains it fairly well:

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/06/louis-ck-explains-why-all-australians-pirate-things/

    We've already got 'mum and dad' users who know about VPNs (they don't know exactly what they are or how they work, but they know that they are a good idea).

    In other words, Australia as a nation is much better equipped to circumvent such trivial 'blocking' than your average nation.

    Also funny is the government's mandate to ISPs and content providers- they've got 120 days (over a holiday period too) to agree on something that has been argued about for the last...5 years.

    Expect this to fail spectacularly at every level.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's some of the Louis CK transcript for those interested:

      "Like when I was in, ah, Australia, everybody told me that they watch my show. And uh... I figured that they must be getting old versions of it 'cause it doesn't air there - but they were watchin' the show like, the week before because the whole country... pirates, there."
      *interviewer laughs*
      "Here, weirdos pirate... there's not that many pirate here,"
      "Yeah..."
      "...but in Australia, Moms and Dads pirate video. Because we're not... letting them buy it. Because we're keeping it from them."
      "Oh yeah, really? Yeah?"
      "We have shows that have been on the air here for like, three years? And we won't even give them-- if they're given the option? Like... everybody in the world is like, "Take my fucking credit card and just let me have the thing and I'll pay, but if you're gonna be a pain in the ass... FUCK YOU, I can steal ALL of it! So the whole country of Australia rips TV. So when I learned this, so when I put my beacon special, one of the big important things to me was that it was globally available, right away... and they're happy to buy it. Right? So I told FX they should sell my show on my website. And they said that we can't do that because we can't let other countries see it before..."
      "Oh boy..."
      "And I'm, but the-- what they're doin', all those companies and this... piece of shit fuckin' company,"
      *interviewer laughter*
      "--that we're talkin' on right now? Is they're keepin' money out, it's a cage it's keepin' money out, it's not keepin' it in, right? They think they're keepin' money in, but they're keepin' it out."

    2. Re:Good luck with that by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they don't want other countries to get it before through internet because they want to sell the show to the TELEVISION NETWORKS of the other countries. that's why they can't sell them online to anyone who wants to buy them.

      not to the viewers. but to the television networks - and they make those networks bid stupid amounts of money for the shows. they don't want to piss them (murdoc in case of australia?) off because of this lump sum money exchange program they got going on, with this lump sum money exchange program they also get to sell the shows in packages so they need to buy the shitty shows too to get the good shows.

      of course, the solution that the viewers do is fairly simple, they just copy it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. This will not end with blocking piracy websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blocking piracy websites isn't the endgame here. The bigger picture here is using the guise of piracy and the clout of media rights holders to force all ISP's to implement a system capable of blocking the whole of Australia from accessing specified content. Pair this with enforcing all records to be held for a minimum of two years and the Australian government has just staged a coup on the online community. With these two moves they can block and track anything in the future as they introduce ever restrictive laws. This isn't a move to prevent piracy, it's a thinly veiled step towards government enforced censorship of the entire internet within the country, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will only hasten this.

    1. Re:This will not end with blocking piracy websites by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem unqiue to Australia. It seems right in line with what The UK, France, the US, etc. are doing.

  9. Shooting yourself in the foot by snowsnoot · · Score: 1

    I'm convinced that all these hardline tactics by governments and corporations is only going to fuel a backlash which will be fought in the IETF Working Groups with the goal of end to end encryption and anonymization of all internet traffic. Oh I hope I live to see the day.

  10. Re: Halfwits indeed by jaa101 · · Score: 1

    The term "piracy" has been used for illegal copying for over 200 years. Not saying it's appropriate but it's definitely established usage.

  11. Follow the money by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    It all leads back to Rupert and his Foxtel service.

  12. Re: Halfwits indeed by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 1

    [citation required]

    --
    A sig is placed here
    To display how futile
    English Haiku is
  13. Re: Halfwits indeed by jaa101 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I was posting from a mobile so citing was not practical. See:

    "A Treatise on the theory and practice of Seamanship", Richard Hall Gower, 1808, p. v-vi.

    https://books.google.com/books...

    "In justice to the Author, it becomes necessary for him to state, that during his late voyage to India, Mr. Steel*, a bookseller, of Union-row, Little Tower-hill, republished nearly the whole of the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th chapters of the first edition of this work, in a voluminous Compilation termed, "Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship." However illiberal such treatment must appear to the truly generous mind, the Author Would the more freely forgive Mr. Steel had he not* by artfully endeavouring to evade the piracy, been guilty of such misrepresentation, as has a tendency to bring his professional knowledge in question. Several deviations of this sort are contained in the 2d volume, 4to, of Mr. Steel's work, and are produced to shew that the Author has just reason for complaining."

  14. Great plan by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    It has certainly stopped piracy dead everywhere else they've done it :|, Oh wait, the other thing, has had very little if any effect.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  15. VPN already on the list by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That VPN you suggest was already on the radar before this was announced. The Australian Government has been discussing blocking VPNs to stop those "cheaters" who are using Netflix etc instead of the local, very expensive, Fox cable network. The owner of that network, Murdoch, has been a cheerleader for the current Government so long as they do exactly what he wants.

  16. Re: Halfwits indeed by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's not quite 200 years but the forward of "Three Men in a Boat, and not to mention the dog" goes on about "pirates" in Chicago who reprinted the book for the US market without giving the author anything. The US publishing industry was infamous for that sort of thing.

  17. You are looking too deep by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No it is actually about selling out to donors who want copyright enforced brutally. You are looking for deep motives in a very shallow government. Murdoch wants this, Tony will provide.

    1. Re:You are looking too deep by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But that does not mean that phase 2 censorship will not come in soon afterwards.

      I think that the extent that Labor got burnt by the anti-censorship back lash will give the Liberals pause. Most of them don't know or care, but Turnbull does understand.

  18. Very easy to redirect proxy and block VPN by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Proxy - very easy - see the games network providers have played with DNS for an example of redirecting anything on a port to where you want it to go. If you think because I mentioned DNS it can't be done on another port then look up "transparent proxy" for a http example, or those fucking insane https "accelerator" boxes where users give their banking details to whoever owns and manufactures the "accelerator" boxes.
    VPN - there's a move to restrict those as part of the current mess that's being complained about, so that could mean blocked ports, protocols and blocking any packets on unblocked ports that look like they belong to a VPN.

    hundreds of thousands of ways around it

    In this case there are less than a dozen ways in and out, and the "hundreds of thousands" of potential tunnels have to got through those and can be blocked if the means is draconian enough, which is the intention. Even a VPN tunnelling via a "safe" port is likely to show up with some packet inspection.

    An earlier time this came up there was a suggestion to block all encrypted traffic and do deep packet inspection on everything else, and it was seriously considered.


    So the answer is not to say "ha ha, they can't stop the net", the answer is to oppose these attempts to stop the net because they can get pretty close to stopping it if they don't care about upsetting the people who are using it. Murdoch is calling the shots and an internet slowed to a crawl by insane filtering and packet inspection is less competition for his cable network.

  19. The carot works better than the stick by jonwil · · Score: 1

    If the government and media companies REALLY want to stop piracy they need to make the content easier to legally acquire without needing to pay a lot of money for content you dont want. This applies to both new content and older content.

    Some examples of how the local industry makes it harder:
    1.Scorpion (2014 TV show). Channel 10 (local FTA network) aired up to episode 10 straight after the US airing. However, to see Episodes 11 and 12, you will have to wait for a few months. Episode 11 is already available online to download and episode 12 will likely follow shortly after its US airing next Monday.

    Its a good bet a bunch of Aussies are going to pirate those 2 episodes rather than wait for TEN to air them. And its a good bet that when Episode 13 airs on TEN, it too will be weeks behind its US airing and have already been pirated by a fair few people.
    If TEN aired these episodes straight after the US (and continued to put them on their catch-up-TV website), there would be basically zero reason to pirate them.

    2.The films of Yahoo Serious. Aussie actor who was in 3 films, none of which is particularly popular but all 3 of which have their fans (myself included). Young Einstein is available on DVD overseas (and importing that DVD is technically illegal under Australian parallel import legislation I believe). Reckless Kelly is not available on any physical media format. No clue about Mr Accident. All 3 films seem to be available on the US Amazon digital store. None of the 3 films are available in Australia on either physical disk format or digital store.

    3.Halt & Catch Fire (AMC TV series). As far as I can tell this show has yet to air on any Australian TV network (Foxtel included) and is unavailable on disk or digital in this country.

    4.X-Planes (old Discovery Channel show about the X series of experimental aircraft). Totally unavailable in any form.

    All 4 items above are items I would happily consume legally if there was an option to do so.

  20. You do not understand by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Murdoch doesn't control the internet

    He has a vast amount of influence on the Australian government who control all the links from Australia to the global internet. Is it making sense now?

    nothing compared to the real business traffic that relies on VPN's,

    So where is you VPN licence citizen? No licence? No hole through the firewall on the undersea cable for you.
    That bit make sense now?

    Yes, all very authoritarian but that's exactly what is being pushed - tight control. Expensive, draconian and stupid certainly, but look at the way refugees are treated by the current government and you'll see that such things do not matter to them on the way to their goals

    1. Re:You do not understand by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      ummmm no, the Australian government doesn't control all the global links from Australia, most are controlled or owned by the various telecommunications companies, you really have no clue what your talking about. Not even going to bother commenting on your clueless VPN rant. hint unless they are also going to ban SSL sites there is NO WAY to prevent VPN's

  21. Ever heard of laws? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    They control it all right. They can, and frequently do, legislate for what the carriers can and can't do.

    hint unless they are also going to ban SSL sites there is NO WAY to prevent VPN's

    Exactly. Take one guess as to what Australian Intelligence organisations want done with SSL traffic in and out of the country. Yes it's bull in a china shop territory but the major donors to the ruling party do not care.

    1. Re:Ever heard of laws? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      As per the Chinese government, even if the Australian government went all communist and banned everything they cannot stop it, it is not technically feasible. China spends billions trying to do it and fails, yet you somehow believe the Australian government with a fraction of the resources, far less legal authority to do so and no direct control of the links will do it. seriously you need to see someone, it is not normal to have such insane levels of paranoia.

  22. You just don't get it by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There are only a handful of links and all but a couple are run by Telstra, which has very extensive involvement with the government.
    The technical requirements would be far less than firewalling all links into a typical US city.

    1. Re:You just don't get it by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      sigh it is pointless arguing with you, you obviously have very little understanding of IT or government beyond what you see over your tinfoil hat, the world is obviously too scary a place for you to exist in. even firewalling all links in a single US city it would be near impossible to stop VPN's, I can tunnel a VPN over HTTP traffic if I need to.

  23. At least read before you post by dbIII · · Score: 1
    It's not as if the first steps have not been done before. There's even a wikipedia page that mentions the blocked addresses in the 2009 trial. Internet censorship in Australia is the title.

    I can tunnel a VPN over HTTP traffic

    I mentioned "packet inspection" at least twice way above did I not? How did you miss it? I suggest you learn what it means before foaming at the mouth and declaring that we are all idiots to be worried about what can be done with draconian laws enforcing what can and can not go through a very limited number of routes.

    1. Re:At least read before you post by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      they DID NOT block in 2009. they removed the DNS entries, they are not stupid enough to believe they could block. packet inspection is hideously processor expensive, it would cost billions to effectively do this, and even then it would be easy to get past.

    2. Re:At least read before you post by dbIII · · Score: 1

      packet inspection is hideously processor expensive

      Yes, but they are on record about not caring about the likely slowdown.

      it would cost billions to effectively do this

      Come down off whatever you are on, consider something more realistic and then remember that it's the ISPs and ultimately the consumers that have to bear the cost so it's no skin off the government's nose. The people they would upset probably didn't vote for them anyway.

      even then it would be easy to get past

      Only in a situation where the majority of traffic is allowed and exceptions are blocked - it's being looked at from the opposite direction here (blocked if you don't have a good reason) and driven by intelligence agencies, media companies who think copyright is worth a destroyed internet and cable tv interests that wish to halt competition. It may be utterly stupid and draconian but it's being pushed by people that so not care about performance, cost or even the demographic that would be pissed off by crippling the internet.

      You just do not seem to get that they do not care if things are rolled back to 1995. They are actively wrecking an internet infrastructure provided by the former government just to remove a legacy and pretend it was never going to work. It's about pleasing donors and following some of the advice of intelligence agencies who really do want VPNs that they cannot backdoor into halted.

    3. Re:At least read before you post by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry to double post but this has been frustrating - do you REALLY think that draconian measures taken by those with full control of the links in and out of a country are going to be painless to the internet users in that country even if it doesn't get 100% of traffic they want to stop?
      I don't think you do so please stop acting that way.

      Also think about what you know about VPNs and how you would go about finding one yourself and if you can't think of a few ways to identify them with wireshark or similar you really are in no position to lecture me on the topic. If you need a clue then an unusual amount of traffic between two addresses is a very obvious point to start. Doing some tricky endpoint changing thing on port 80 or similar and hiding it for years is well beyond the reach of most computer users.