Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using VPN in UAE Could Cost You $545,000 (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on from the they-call-the-shots dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The President of the United Arab Emirates has issued a series of new federal laws relating to IT crimes, including a regulation that forbids anyone in the UAE from making use of virtual private networks to secure their web traffic from prying eyes. The new law states that anyone who uses a VPN or proxy server can be imprisoned and fined between $136,000-$545,000 if they are found to use VPNs fraudulently. Previously, the law was restricted to prosecuting people who used VPNs as part of an internet crime, but UK-based VPN and privacy advocate Private Internet Access says that the law has now changed to enable police in the UAE to go after anyone who uses VPNs to access blocked services, which is considered to be fraudulent use of an IP address.

109 comments

  1. that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    freaking scary. Of course, the good ol' U.S.A. will never get that scary. Not ever. Not even in the next 5 years or so. Never.

    1. Re:that's by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we have been, the difference is there is real scandal with clinton and the DNC, right now the morons are freaking out over a sarcastic remark, and calling him a sexist for telling a reporter who wouldnt shut up and let him speak to shut up....non issues

      im not voting for trump, but the sad truth is trump and "trump" are 2 different people. one the real person and the other a troll created by faux media outrage. the attacks on him only make him stronger

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:that's by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Troll

      which is why im not a GOP member. but who scaresme more? hillary by a long shot

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:that's by Rob+Y. · · Score: 0

      the sad truth is trump and "trump" are 2 different people. one the real person and the other a troll created by faux media outrage. the attacks on him only make him stronger

      It's not as though that faux media outrage were not Trumps intention. It serves Trump's purpose of diverting attention away from his many shortcomings - and his opponent's many strengths being put forward by this week's Democratic infomercial. Yep, we're all talking about whether "Trump" is committing treason, and by virtue of being distracted from questioning it, accepting the underlying meme that there's something nefarious to find in the emails Clinton deleted in the course of, y'know, dealing with an email inbox. No matter that there's zero evidence that there's anything beyond the more or less routine stuff that's already been found - and found not to merit prosecution.

      It's a 'brilliant' strategy that only works because the media is so stupid and predictable. Whether or not it will backfire and destroy any shred of credibility Trump may have will not be known until November.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:that's by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      If your think the DNC is scary, you haven't been looking at the republican nominee.

      He is at least still trying to hide it. The DNC is banking on no one caring.

    5. Re:that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything Drumpf does is a "non-issue". Whether it's his campaign manager roughing up a reporter (assault) or wishing for a foreign government to crack government computers (treasonous intent) or banning newspapers from public rallies (attacking the First Amendment), Drumpf's fans and apologists belittle all the instances that demonstrate how stupid, ignorant of the law, and malevolent he is. Instead, to those people, those are examples of _everyone_else_ ganging on up Trump. This convinces me even more of the theory that conservatives suffer from (severe) cognitive dissonance and only see an alternate version of reality that jibes with their opinion.

    6. Re:that's by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't think the RNC is doing the same stuff? They're both corrupt, don't delude yourself.

      No, actually, I don't. Or if they are, they're not very effective at it, because if they were, Trump wouldn't be the nominee now. It's been no secret at all that the RNC does not like Trump, and never wanted him to be their nominee. They wanted Jeb! or Little Marco or Lyin' Ted. Blowhard Trump was not at all what they wanted, but because they weren't remotely as effective in rigging things as the DNC, that's what they got.

      Trump even used their new winner-takes-all primaries rules against them, which is how he got so many delegates. They only enacted those new rules recently so they could avoid brokered conventions, but it blew up in their faces, with Trump winning the nomination with a minority of votes. It probably didn't help that the media gave so much free air-time to Trump just because he was such a spectacle, and perhaps also because they (correctly) reasoned that with Hillary to be coronated by the DNC, that her only chance of winning the general election was if Trump was the nominee.

      So sure, the RNC may be "corrupt" too, but completely inept corruption just isn't a problem the way competent corruption is.

    7. Re:that's by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should I give a shit about the President being xenophobic, racist, etc.? The important thing to me is if they're going to start another war like Bush did. There's every indication that Hillary will do just this, probably in Syria. With Trump, who knows. He's been playing the nationalist and isolationist card, and saying some nice things about Putin, so it seems much less likely; more likely, he'll tell Putin to do whateverTF he wants in Syria as long as it results in ISIS being obliterated, as that's the *only* thing I've heard him say in favor of any kind of interventionism. Hillary, by contrast, has a long history of supporting interventionism.

      If that means I have to put up with a "xenophobe" in the White House to avoid thousands of Americans being killed in yet another stupid war in the middle east, I'm OK with that.

      And if you think Hillary isn't also narcissistic, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    8. Re:that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is just another Bush-ism...

      CAP === 'fashions'

    9. Re:that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you doing posting on /., that is way too insightful a comment...

      Definitely, HrC will be very bad for the U.S.; she supports TPP (despite
      saying she didn't).

      CAP === 'design'

    10. Re:that's by sjames · · Score: 2

      It's not like they didn't try. It's just that they've been serving up turd sandwich for so long, giant douche looked like a breath of fresh air and Trump had enough money to render the usual bag of dirty tricks ineffective.

  2. UAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah, had to read the summary to find out that UAE != Universal Amiga Emulator.

    1. Re: UAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have been a much more interesting article.

  3. Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and how does one define the use of VPNs fraudulently? Not very enlightened or informed.

    1. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      It says in the summery! "the law has now changed to enable police in the UAE to go after anyone who uses VPNs to access blocked services, which is considered to be fraudulent use of an IP address." You do not even need to click the link!

    2. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private Internet Access says that the law has now changed to enable police in the UAE to go after anyone who uses VPNs to access blocked services, which is considered to be fraudulent use of an IP address.

      Seriously, that's even in the summary. It's not like you need to click a link to find the answer.

      Now, this quote from the summary may be completely false, this is Slashdot after all, but there was an answer to your question right there.

    3. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and how does one define the use of VPNs fraudulently? Not very enlightened or informed.

      According to the article (which I assume you read), use of a VPN fraudulently would be connecting to blocked services in the country in question, like Snapchat, WhatsApp, etc. that have VOIP capabilities.

      The government is basically protecting the revenues of the state telecoms that are threatened by this technology...and oh yeah, 'security'.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    4. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      All suspects are guilty! Otherwise, they would not be suspects, now, would they?

    5. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "It says in the summery!"

      Summery? Yes, in the Northern Hemisphere. And?

    6. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by aethelrick · · Score: 1

      ... (which I assume you read) ...

      Hehe... you must be new here :P

    7. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there would have to be some proof of intent. eg a corporate VPN would have a logical ip address end point (eg microsoft, oracle) that can be proved to belong to the company while an "illegal" VPN might have a Tor endpoint (piracy, whistle-blowing), or an endpoint that leads to a "VPN" service sold as a way to circumvent geo-restrictions.

      As an example, Turkey blocks twitter and youtube from time to time, and attempts to block porn. So someone using a commercial VPN to watch youtube or porn would likely run afoul of this law, even if it can't be proven they were watching youtube , just using it to play WoW or something that might not actually be illegal.

    8. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same logic as with porn: I know it when I see it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Given the brief time I was there, I'm guessing the primary common-but-"criminal" use is to block prohibited content.

      i.e. Porn, but possibly non-Islamic religious sites (was only there 48 hours, and was working or sleeping for most of it. . .)

    10. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall reading something about that, involving Narus, before they got bought by Boeing. . .

      Example of the Saudis doing it:

      http://www.businesswire.com/ne...

    11. Re: Corporate VPNs too? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Most countries don't bother too much with that whole "burden of proof" thing. Just think about the thin evidence that puts people behind bars in the US, and then consider that we have some of the *best* protections in the world. In many countries the trial is focused on the content of the crime, and what the appropriate punishment should be.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    12. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      True, but since it doesn't actually ban the use of VPNs, a better question would be how would they *know* whether I was using a VPN to access a site they had blocked or just accessing some perfectly legal resource that they haven't proscribed like a corporate server? From the UAE's perspective VPN traffic leaving the UAE is VPN traffic leaving the UAE, no more no less - they have no way of knowing the ultimate end point, only the address of VPN server I'm connected to.

      I suspect if there is an answer it's going to involve some morally bankrupt company like Blue Coat Systems, isn't it?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    13. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It is a tack on crime. When they bust in and you are on unveiledteens.com that will tack on the VPN crime as well as all the rest.

    14. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not corporate interests. MUSLIM interests, to make sure you're not doing anything to erode their Islamic culture. It's literally headed toward panopticon-style thought police.

      Muslims are inherently against freedom, unless it is the kind of "freedom" the desert paedofile prophet's modern cabal approves of.

      -captain

    15. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually about revenue. All those pesky social networks are bleeding state-owned telecoms dry.

    16. Re: Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Muslim countries had no police state laws and military style jackboot police services, then they would be as free as God's America.

    17. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamic culture in UAE and Dubai! Have you ever stepped outa your hood?!!

    18. Re:Corporate VPNs too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFS - "including a regulation that forbids anyone in the UAE from making use of virtual private networks to secure their web traffic from prying eyes."

      A corporate VPN is necessary to secure "web traffic from prying eyes." QED, VPNs are forbidden by the regulation. Non?

      Captcha = "bastards" (apt!)

  4. Coming to your country too by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't think this will come to YOUR country, you are mistaken. Eventually everyone will need to connect to the Internet using only approved devices and software. You don't think this is possible? It is technically possible to do. It will be done in the name of piracy/terrorism/children/et al.

    1. Re:Coming to your country too by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      There is no need to go that far. If you control the pathway, you control the data. The next step will be local mesh, and they will try to regulate that. In the US it will be hard because the freedom of assembly is kinda classically important, but I wouldn't put it past them. Look what they did to the 2nd...

    2. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Business would naturally be excluded, of course.

    3. Re: Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. Serious question. What does his reply have to do with millennial snowflake stuff? I mean, I'm generally against millennial snowflake type shit but my take on that Includes shit like anti vaccine, gluten free, Toyota Prius, dr oz, etc

    4. Re:Coming to your country too by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      As much as conservatives get emotional about trusting The Gov't with regard to guns, I'm surprised they've been relatively eager to hand over privacy to them.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eventually everyone will need to connect to the Internet using only approved devices and software.

      This might actually have been practical back in the day when essentially 99% of users connected via a Windows PC or a Mac. ISPs could have been required to only accept certified connections from these operating systems and these operating systems locked down. This might have been achiveable in (say) 5 years.
      Now there are millions of constantly changing and rapindly multiplying devices ranging from tiny IOT devices upwards running a multitude of operating systems, and connecting via multiple pathways, and nailing all this down in a highly developed country when the internet is central to everyday life would be virtually impossible and would at least take many, many years.

      Much more likely is stuff like (e.g.) all ISPs in the UK might be legally required to make their best efforts to block access to services like TOR and 'unlicensed' proxies/VPNs (i.e. VPNs which refused to block access for UK customers to the same things UK ISP have to block, and refused to log their UK customers' activities).
      The ISPs are the real pinchpoints for controlling and restricting access, not the devices and their software.

    6. Re:Coming to your country too by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But of course, they'd never do anything illegal!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Coming to your country too by edtice1559 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you are referring to the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, gun ownership rights are expanding in the US, not contracting. Twenty years ago, the general consensus was that the 2nd amendment did not constitute an individual right to own firearms, but rather the right of individual states to maintain a national guard. Now it has expanded to the right to individual weapon ownership and we're exploring the boundaries of that protection. If other freedoms expand the way the 2nd amendment has, the US will be a libertarian utopia.

    8. Re:Coming to your country too by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      Uh, what exactly have they done to the second amendment?

    9. Re: Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trollers troll best not to feed them

    10. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what world do you live in? i had no problem buying or owning guns 20 years ago. about 23 years ago you didn't even need a background check prior to buying one. it has gotten more difficult to buy them.

      i suppose assault weapons got harder to acquire then easier again because of the federal ban from about 1993 to 2004

    11. Re:Coming to your country too by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You lock down the modems and edge routers, not the device itself. You just dont let the devices connect if they arent approved.

    12. Re:Coming to your country too by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The next step will be local mesh, and they will try to regulate that.

      Yeah, I have to admit, radio signals are easy to locate and jam. We are in a bit of a pickle, aren't we?

      The cat wins this round. Let's see what shakes out. Maybe we'll get our sub-space secure channels sooner than originally thought. There has to be a way to render them harmless. What happened the miraculous 3D printers to make our own electronics? Then maybe we can overwhelm the with millions of relays floating in the wind like confetti. And maybe we can piggyback on the jammers also. All we have to do is modulate the signal to suit.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cat wins this round. Let's see what shakes out. Maybe we'll get our sub-space secure channels sooner than originally thought. There has to be a way to render them harmless. What happened the miraculous 3D printers to make our own electronics? Then maybe we can overwhelm the with millions of relays floating in the wind like confetti. And maybe we can piggyback on the jammers also. All we have to do is modulate the signal to suit.

      Way easier than that, quantum entanglement provides you with a, currently non-jammable, connection anywhere, make your local meshes with that and good luck to the attackers.

    14. Re:Coming to your country too by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Heh, good luck making a working system out of quantum entanglement...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:Coming to your country too by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Limited it. Significantly. How about free assembly also being limited to people who have not been felons? After a background check? Only allowed with a permit in most states? And so on... No PAs at meetings unless you are law enforcement...

    16. Re:Coming to your country too by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The next step will be local mesh, and they will try to regulate that.

      Yeah, I have to admit, radio signals are easy to locate and jam. We are in a bit of a pickle, aren't we?

      But full jamming block police communication too...
      The will start by turning off the cell networks. Then people will get a wifi mesh app to get around it. And so on... Just more rat race, but we have more rats!

    17. Re:Coming to your country too by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Also, Rap music will be banned. All music playing devices will only be able to output encrypted waveforms from digitally signed audio files to DRMed speakers. Think this can't happen? It is technically possible to do so. Nobody is going to be willing to risk listening to rap music if the punishment is a bullet to their head from a police drone.

    18. Re:Coming to your country too by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Why not just have a death penalty for anyone who breaks the law? That would be even more effective.

    19. Re:Coming to your country too by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      "Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

      From 1984, by George Orwell.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    20. Re:Coming to your country too by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that it's now radically easier to own and/or carry a gun in a lot of places where back in the 70s it was basically impossible. IIRC, concealed carry was not allowed very much in most states back then, that's actually a somewhat new thing.

    21. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this conservative Republican: I favor VPN uasge as much as gun ownership.

    22. Re:Coming to your country too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened the miraculous 3D printers to make our own electronics?

      3D printers are under attack as well. Lawmakers are already looking at a form of DRM to lock you into printing approved, licensed designs only.

    23. Re:Coming to your country too by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Orwell was an optimist.

  5. AMERICAN SPY DREAM IS THIS SAME THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they go to Hell instead.

    Make everything unencrypted, then make it illegal to use encryption. Having this story on front page Slashdot means CIA been here.

    Read this and kill a spy today.
    https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9435259&cid=52586189

  6. Makes sense... by mi · · Score: 1

    enable police in the UAE to go after anyone who uses VPNs to access blocked services

    That using a VPN to work-around the blocks is made illegal makes perfect sense. The blocks' existence is the real outrage here, not the fact, that it is illegal to evade them.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could save a bunch of money by using hide my ass vpn. Or switching to Geico.

  8. Use the TPP lawsuits to stop this as this hurts bi by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Use the TPP lawsuits to stop this as this hurts business use

  9. Hughes by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Hughes and other satellite internet providers are going to be happy.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re: Hughes by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      Then the UAE will require Hughes to block based on geolocation of the transmitter, or forbid use if satellite services without a government license. You're assuming there is some sort of limit to the authority of an authoritarian regime.

    2. Re: Hughes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They can't possibly check for everything. If you want to hide your communication, with modern electronics, there's just too many ways for DIY subversion of any measures such a regime could to impose on you. And the means to spy on people with human resources anywhere close to 1:1 are astronomical for any state.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  10. UAE? Black Gold? Texas Tea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the first thing you know old Ackbar is a billionaire
    Kinfolk said, Ackbar, get a VPN from there

    How many cement ponds you reckon Ackbar has?

    Whate's a half million to Ackbar?

    Bleed your hearts, /., but don't cry for me.

  11. Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these guys are shown to be behind the times and outlaw everything that makes their tiny ego get hurt.

    1. Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like the FBI trying to get backdoors in encryption legislated?

  12. Free Markets by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Those who have an issue with these laws will simply move to nations that do not have them.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Free Markets by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Because it's just so simple to move to another country of your choosing.

    2. Re:Free Markets by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It really is. Join a terrorist organization, get yourself onto an operation that requires long-term infiltration of the United States or UK or such, use your contacts in the organization to move into the target zone, and then defect.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:Free Markets by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Care to inform us what genuinely free countries remain? My bags are packed, I'm just looking for a destination.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: Free Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sealand is probably still accepting reasonable offers...

    5. Re:Free Markets by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Free market huh? I guess that's why its also not legal to murder someone, because the country isn't a Free Market?

    6. Re:Free Markets by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm just looking for a destination.

      You will have to find another solar system. This one and a bit beyond is entirely occupied. And considering the nature of all life forms (the rules of the universe are constant. Might makes right), you probably won't have much luck anywhere else.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Free Markets by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Well the concept of a country implies a government which is inherently authoritarian. If you want genuine freedom, you need to live in a territorial anarchy. There are several uninhabited islands that are effectively anarchies, even if there are nations that claim nominally ownership of them. You can live your whole life there without anyone ever knowing. And if a government does come to evict you, you have the option of moving somewhere else, or attempting to defend yourself with deadly force.

    8. Re:Free Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somalia. Bring a gun, carve out your own fiefdom. Do it at the expense of the muslims and the UN probably won't even care.

    9. Re:Free Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple

    10. Re:Free Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life wouldn't have got very fair if might makes right was any kind of natural law. Evolution tends to favour altruism with instincts wired to preserve the species. Furthermore the rules of the universe may be constant-ish (spacetime is not remotely uniform), but the laws of life as we know it are purely local.

    11. Re:Free Markets by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So my choice is between a police state and a state devoid of police?

      I have this socialist paradise dream of a state with a police that protects my interests...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. "fraud" by e432776 · · Score: 1

    Looks like the key issue is "..if they are found to use VPNs fraudulently". This is a lower bar compared to the previous "(using) VPNs as part of an internet crime". Is the VPN itself even relevant here? Sounds like internet "fraud" (apparently defined in UAE as including connecting to unauthorized services) is the issue.

  14. Well that's OK then by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2

    Still, they buy an awful lot of our weapons so we'll just keep on turning a blind eye to all this stuff.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  15. Sad, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest part of this is the sponsored ad right above it for hidemyass vpn.... really... really?

  16. More Assholes Trying To Tell People What To Do by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    People just can't be happy unless they are telling someone else what to do. Fuck you and you inclination to control.

  17. VPN by Max_W · · Score: 1

    There is not much difference. As we know from Edward VPNs are a sham. A VPN has got a backdoor anyway, so without a VPN it is just a bit less electricity.

  18. Why complaining? by aglider · · Score: 1

    You can still keep your head on your neck!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  19. Trump same shit since McCarthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    im not voting for trump, but the sad truth is trump and "trump" are 2 different people. one the real person and the other a troll created by faux media outrage. the attacks on him only make him stronger

    Bullshit--The real Trump was Roy Cohn's protege; it's in his own damn book. And that makes him more dangerous than the media spins it.

    1. Re:Trump same shit since McCarthy. by schwit1 · · Score: 2
      Failures by president Trump will have the MSM reporting every detail on the front page.

      Failures by president Clinton will be pushed to Saturday nights and the back page, if it's reported at all.

    2. Re:Trump same shit since McCarthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failures by president Trump will have the MSM reporting every detail on the front page.

      Failures by president Clinton will be pushed to Saturday nights and the back page, if it's reported at all.

      More bullshit. Just because they aren't continuing to make up shit about Benghazi and email servers doesn't mean they aren't reporting on either Clinton.

      When there's dirt to be found you better believe CNN and MSN are going to splash it all over their headlines; but unlike FAUX they aren't going to get people like Steve "Birmingham is a Caliph" Emerson or Wayne "Benghazi!/could end ISIS in a week" Simmons to just make shit up.

  20. There are no human rights in the UAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That pretty much sums it up.

    Don't travel there unless you have a diplomatic passport.

    Most of the Arab world is the same.

  21. Monarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people do realize this is country is ruled as a Monarchy and the people of that country have no freedoms whatsoever. I don't know why this is even a story.

  22. So, IPsec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it can be used for point-to-point between arbitrary IP addresses, and not just as a means of securing an IP-IP tunnel?

    Yes, it'd add a hell of a lot of latency to connection initiation, and you'd have to use DNS to distribute public keys for services. Still, it'd work around the letter of this particular law...

  23. Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free people are hard to rule.

  24. Amiga Emulator by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    So if I configure my emulated Amiga to use VPN it's gonna cost half a million? That's just crazy.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  25. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this a story - UAE is a country that shares its neighbours love of democrcy, human rights and civil society so now they have a legal reason to kick us. I think this is a good sign - killing trough lawful although rather silly process instead of just killing.

  26. No more business with the catbox countries by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It's time for us to stop buying anything from or selling anything to these countries. As soon as they have to apply their remaining capital to growing their own basic necessities, there will be less left over for international terrorism. If Obama's successor lets Canadian oil back in again, we will be 'terrorism free' in that commodity.

  27. Airports? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? by NotAPK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone know if this will apply to use of VPNs while at the Dubai or Abu Dhabi airports?

    I fly through there regularly and as part of my standard policy I always use a VPN on unknown networks.

    It would really suck to be laying over for a couple of hours and being picked up by the cops while surfing the net.

    I also wonder how this will impact the many foreign contractors who must visit regularly and need VPN access back to head office.

    Any thoughts? Or is this just another pointless unenforceable law?

    1. Re:Airports? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, just don't visit any "blocked" sites. You better check which these are... Oh, there is no list available? Now thats a shame....

    2. Re:Airports? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      supposedly only subscription service VPNs are impacted by this. (need more confirmation on this)

    3. Re:Airports? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as you don't pass through immigration, the regular coppers aren't going to bother you.
      Aside from that, VPN use is still legal, UNLESS they catch you using inappropriate software, which you would be stupid to do, because they'll throw away the fucking key. Your own company will make sure that you behave anyway.

      Friends don't let friends use "Bad Apps". :)

    4. Re:Airports? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      I hope you're joking.

      WTF is "inappropriate software" or "Bad Apps"?

  28. Re:Use the TPP lawsuits to stop this as this hurts by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    Yes, all you now need to do now is have the UAE shoot themselves in the foot first and join the TPP...

  29. Malware using Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen to an internet user if his machine happens to be infected by one of those malwares which connects to C&C thru Tor?
    C&C blocked by UAEs ISP proxies, but your machine evades those UAE proxies by using Tor.

    Automatically you will be fined half a million USD?

  30. Didnt know there was a client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this just on UAE or WinUAE as well ?

    N

  31. What about enterprise networking? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    What if you use a corporate VPN to connect to company servers in, for example, the US, but tunnel all traffic through it?