Slashdot Mirror


China Tells Carriers To Block Access to Personal VPNs By February (bloomberg.com)

China's government has told telecommunications carriers to block individuals' access to virtual private networks by Feb. 1, people familiar with the matter said, thereby shutting a major window to the global internet. From a report: Beijing has ordered state-run telecommunications firms, which include China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom, to bar people from using VPNs, services that skirt censorship restrictions by routing web traffic abroad, the people said, asking not to be identified talking about private government directives. The clampdown will shutter one of the main ways in which people both local and foreign still manage to access the global, unfiltered web on a daily basis. China has one of the world's most restrictive internet regimes, tightly policed by a coterie of government regulators intent on suppressing dissent to preserve social stability. In keeping with President Xi Jinping's "cyber sovereignty" campaign, the government now appears to be cracking down on loopholes around the Great Firewall, a system that blocks information sources from Twitter and Facebook to news websites such as the New York Times and others.

5 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Business VPNs by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How will business users be impacted, since they will typically need to use a VPN if working remotely?

    At the same time I wonder how long it will be before the mouse works out how camouflage the VPN access? It really is a cat and mouse arms race.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Business VPNs by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, if they block VPNs, then the people will just start tunnelling over SSH. Can they block all VPN an SSH connections? That would basically disable a huge portion of the internet.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Business VPNs by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not protecting citizens from bad memes and crude jokes, but protecting themselves from dissenting views being visible to their people.

      Which is why I now like to ask the people working in calls centers in China when they call trying to scam me:
      If they are aware of the book sellers in Hong Kong that have turned up in mainland Chines jails
      If they know that Tibet was a sovereign nation until it was invaded and now its native population is being replaced.
      If they are aware of the Uyghur issues
      Asking if they know about the June 4th incident or the student protest of 1989 in Tienanmen Square.
      Personally I am hoping to get the Chines government to shut down these scam call centers by bringing up issues it doesn't want discussed as there is a whole list of things one can bring up. Anything else is a side benefit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  2. Re:Jail if they catch you by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any Chinese person I know would scoff at that threat, only Americans are so dedicated to law and order. Breaking the law is a way of life in many places (and in some places in the US, ask any NYer).

    Yes, it's still illegal and if they decide to come after you, you are totally in trouble, and this is a horrible oppressive regime we really ought to hate and stop doing business with. But the reason the regime stays in power, and the reason it has managed to become successful in spite of itself, is because it is impotent and corrupt in all the right places. If their government were to ever fix that, and effectively police itself, I imagine the people would revolt in mere days and they wouldn't need the "free" world to tell them anything.

  3. Re: Biggest Surprise by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, you sure are opinionated for a topic you know fuckall about.
    Marx believed communism wouldn't be viable unless it was part of a democracy. It was later communists who came up with the "state" owning things "on behalf of" the workers - and while they were the ones who took over the Soviet Union and then spread their version world-wide they weren't even the majority until some 20 years AFTER the Russian revolution. The majority of communists were democrats or anarchists - whose version had no state at all, merely the ownership of the means of production vested in the actual workers in the form of coops.
    Such anarcho-communists ran Andalusia in Spain for 20 years (and it was a successful, industrial city. George Orwell fought on their side in the Spanish civil war and described them as the closest thing to a perfect society he had ever witnessed - and a society where there was no hunger, poverty or suffering). Nor an overbearing state - in fact, no state whatsoever.

    Communism, capitalism and socialism are all, really, collective nouns for dozens of different philosophies (each) which contradict each other on many key points. In each situation - only having one thing actually in common.
    In capitalism the means of production are owned by investors ("capitalists"), and in communism it is owned by the workers. This is the only part that applies to all versions of either. Socialism was originally a synonym for what came to be called communism, then Marx defined it as the end-state communism is supposed to one day achieve, currently it's best thought of as "capitalism but with a rock-solid social safety net", another word for "welfare state" as that's how it's mostly used these days.

    So yes, communism is actually quite rife in the US - and government has nothing to do with it. America's largest carpet factory, and largest robotics factory, and LA's largest bakery are all worker-owned coops. A worker-owned coop is the very definition of communism - and everyone of those workers will tell you they are MORE free than they would be in any other company since, in this company, they get an equal share of the profits (it doesn't go to outside investors - it all goes to the people who actually did the productive work that produced the profits), and they all get a vote in management decisions. Does the company need a new slogan ? Should we open a new location in Albuquerque or would it be better to reinvest that capital locally in more staff and higher wages for us all ?
    Instead of hoping and praying that a bunch of wall street stockholders who have no actual understanding of what they do will direct the CEO to make the best decision (and thus secure their livelihoods) - they can vote on that decision themselves, relying on their actual experience in the business and the wisdom of crowds to guide them. Because it's their business -they own it. And while, of course, every decision has risks - they never have to feel that they are being punished because of somebody else's idiocy in making a terrible business decision. They made that decision, they were part of it - and the decisions that determine whether they can feed their families tomorrow, are decisions they are themselves responsible for.
    That's more freedom than most anybody else in the world gets. And it's communist to the very heart and soul of it, in fact, I would say it's much MORE communist than what the Soviet Union did - since those workers never truly owned the means of production - the state did, and without democracy, that state couldn't EVEN legitimately claim to be representing the workers.

    By the way - more than 80% of companies in Argentina are worker-owned coops now, representing well over 90% of all employment (the remainder being almost exclusively civil service jobs). This came about after a complete economic collapse led to absolute capital flight and every shop, factory and office in the country was shut as the owners fled with their hoards. The workers just showed up and took over the abandoned businesses and ran those bus

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *