• redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      IIRC Pakistan also do this (vpn is blocked by default and you’ll need to submit documentation to justify using VPN if you want to use VPN in your company), though their main reason is to reduce VoIP spammers.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It has got to be better to just make phone authentication better than to hope that nobody in the country is going to spam and then block VPNs to the outside.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This has nothing to do with phone security though. Pakistan is the source of spam calls in many developed nations. Those spam call center operators was able to operate on the cheap from Pakistan due to cheap labors and cheap access to international calls via VoIP, so by blocking unregistered VoIP and VPN, they hoped to kill the spam call center industries (or at least that’s what they tell people when they started cracking on vpn a few years ago, might be legitimate if they’re getting pressure from western goverments to control the spam situation). This will also increase tax revenue because legitimate call centers will have to use licensed VoIP services that pay tax to Pakistan government.

          • tal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, okay, I gotcha. I figured that it was the other way around, that people spamming from outside Pakistan were targeting people inside.

    • Axiochus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see! So, to quote the sources you provided:

      “Despite widespread speculation, the law does not directly ban the operation of VPNs and anonymisers. However, it does restrict access to banned websites with the help of these tools.”

      I.e. the VPN providers themselves are not illegal, though the VPN providers technically have to not allow users to access content listed by rospotrebnadzor. That’s responsibility on the side of the providers, not a ban on use. Practically speaking it still is attempting to censor content, but neither of the three sources claim that VPN use is illegal in Russia.

      • avater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can argue as much as you want, but the full usage of a vpn is illegal in russia by law, because you could access real informations instead of their bullshit propaganda.

        Yes you can install it freely and “use” it to a certain degree to browse on pages uncle Putin allows you, but you can’t use it completely without any restrictions, e.g the definition of real usage in my opinion. So in my understanding the (full) usage of a vpn is prohibited by law in russia.

        And they are now actively blocking protocols…so 🤷‍♂️

        • Axiochus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t get me wrong, I think those restrictions are horrible and Putin is a tyrant, but it’s irresponsible to say that VPNs are illegal. They are not. People should use them to access alternative media like Meduza instead of accepting that there’s only state media. VPNs are still incredibly useful and we shouldn’t play into the scare tactics of the Russian government by insinuating that you can end up in jail by using VPNs. I think that’s coming, too, but these tools are still available to get around lots of the censorship. As you yourself noted, most of the VPN providers aren’t actually complying with the law, so you can access way more material, without current legal repercussions to the individual, at least based on the sources you provided.