VPN Providers Consider Exiting France Over 'Dangerous' Blocking Demands (torrentfreak.com) 38
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: In France, rightsholders have taken legal action to compel large VPN providers to support their pirate site blocking program. The aim is to reinforce existing blocking measures, but VPN providers see this as a dangerous move, leading to potential security issues and overblocking. As a result, some are considering leaving France altogether if push comes to shove. [...] Earlier this month, sports rightsholders Canal+ and LFP requested blocking injunctions that would require popular VPNs to start blocking pirate sites and services. The full requests are not public, but the details available show that Cyberghost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark are listed as respondents. [...]
The blocking request has yet to be approved and several of the targeted VPN providers have reserved detailed commentary, for now. That said, the VPN Trust Initiative (VTI), which includes ExpressVPN, NordVPN and Surfshark as members, has been vocal in its opposition. VTI is part of the i2Coalition and while it doesn't speak directly for any of the members, the coalition's Executive Director Christian Dawson has been in regular discussions with VPN providers. From this, it became clear that VPN providers face difficult decisions. If VPN providers are ordered to block pirate sites, some are considering whether to follow in the footsteps of Cisco, which discontinued its OpenDNS service in the country, to avoid meddling with its DNS resolver.
Speaking with TorrentFreak, VTI's Dawson says that VPNs have previously left markets like India and Pakistan in response to restrictive requirements. This typically happens when privacy or security principles are at risk, or if the technical implementation of blocking measures is infeasible. VTI does not rule out that some members may choose to exit France for similar reasons, if required to comply with blocking measures. "We've seen this before in markets like India and Pakistan, where regulatory requirements forced some VPN services to withdraw rather than compromise on encryption standards or log-keeping policies," Dawson says. "France's potential move to force VPN providers to block content could put companies in a similar position -- where they either comply with measures that contradict their purpose or leave the market altogether." "This case in France is part of a broader global trend of regulatory overreach, where governments attempt to control encrypted services under the guise of content regulation. We've already seen how China, Russia, Myanmar, and Iran have imposed VPN restrictions as part of broader censorship efforts."
"The best path forward is for policymakers to focus on targeted enforcement measures that don't undermine Internet security or create a precedent for global Internet fragmentation," concludes Dawson. "As seen in other cases, blanket blocking measures do not effectively combat piracy but instead create far-reaching consequences that disrupt the open Internet."
The blocking request has yet to be approved and several of the targeted VPN providers have reserved detailed commentary, for now. That said, the VPN Trust Initiative (VTI), which includes ExpressVPN, NordVPN and Surfshark as members, has been vocal in its opposition. VTI is part of the i2Coalition and while it doesn't speak directly for any of the members, the coalition's Executive Director Christian Dawson has been in regular discussions with VPN providers. From this, it became clear that VPN providers face difficult decisions. If VPN providers are ordered to block pirate sites, some are considering whether to follow in the footsteps of Cisco, which discontinued its OpenDNS service in the country, to avoid meddling with its DNS resolver.
Speaking with TorrentFreak, VTI's Dawson says that VPNs have previously left markets like India and Pakistan in response to restrictive requirements. This typically happens when privacy or security principles are at risk, or if the technical implementation of blocking measures is infeasible. VTI does not rule out that some members may choose to exit France for similar reasons, if required to comply with blocking measures. "We've seen this before in markets like India and Pakistan, where regulatory requirements forced some VPN services to withdraw rather than compromise on encryption standards or log-keeping policies," Dawson says. "France's potential move to force VPN providers to block content could put companies in a similar position -- where they either comply with measures that contradict their purpose or leave the market altogether." "This case in France is part of a broader global trend of regulatory overreach, where governments attempt to control encrypted services under the guise of content regulation. We've already seen how China, Russia, Myanmar, and Iran have imposed VPN restrictions as part of broader censorship efforts."
"The best path forward is for policymakers to focus on targeted enforcement measures that don't undermine Internet security or create a precedent for global Internet fragmentation," concludes Dawson. "As seen in other cases, blanket blocking measures do not effectively combat piracy but instead create far-reaching consequences that disrupt the open Internet."
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. The reason I use proton vpn is because semi-static IPs are pretty bad for privacy. Wouldn't be surprised if it's the reason google loves to captcha VPN users; they probably figure they get their money back in the form of users training their stupid robotaxi service. When I torrent shit, I don't even use a VPN, it's done completely over the clearnet.
Re: (Score:3)
I have fully static IPs which have not changed since 2007, and yet google is very bad at tracking my various devices...
It's a myth that these companies track by IP, they track based on cookies and other metadata from the browser. The only thing they use the IP for is to guess your location and set the language (which in itself is stupid because they should be using the http accept-language headers).
The reason you get captchas on a public VPN is because most providers NAT all traffic out through a single add
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and sites have no way to differentiate between multiple users behind a single address or a single malicious attacker unless they track you via cookies
It does not even take "malicious" activity without a VPN to make Google suddenly start requiring Captchas. A few successive web searches in a row will do it. Like when using Google as a calculator and sending 3 or 4 different queries over a few minutes that alone is enough for it to start sending you to their dumb Capcha system.
Perhaps the intention is
Re: (Score:2)
IP does not exist, it's like water-sellers complaining that people drink from puddles when it rains.
You know what they say in France (Score:2)
Vive la censure!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you translate it.
VPN's still OK? (Score:1, Troll)
Are these reconcilable? Is it that we want the dumb masses to be lead in a safe direction while us special people can still get we want because we can handle it? Do we just feel safer with smaller, clandestine movements since they are out of sight and out of mind?
Re:VPN's still OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it difficult to take your argument seriously. Combined with other security measures, VPNs allow individuals to have some hope of maintaining their privacy and security in unfriendly situations. Journalists working in totalitarian countries would be one example of that. Social media, on the other hand, are dominated by a handful of billionaire owners who can (and do) put a thumb on the scale to manipulate perceived reality for millions of people. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have both done exactly that with their social media platforms.
Your comment misrepresents the situation and asks questions that are based on false assumptions.
Re: (Score:3)
So I'll just say, if there is no tension here, why do governments either seem to come down against anonymity in favor of government censorship, or else end up with things falling into the hands of monied interests?
Who is getting it right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rise of the internet has coincided with threats to democracy around the world, the internet is the greatest propaganda tool ever created. It is a threat to everyone given the right circumstances.
Free speech is not unlimited, it does not grant the right to say anything under any circumstance. Absolutists are wrong regardless of which side they take, the right answer is always in the middle. Internet privacy absolutists like hyades1 are wrong, just as oppressive governments and billionaires are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point is that VPNs enable a person to circumvent censorship, and popular opinion on slashdot seems to be in favor of censorship lately. I've seen more than a few rsilvergun posts falsely claim that Nazis were demanding free speech in the beginning get moderated highly here, so I think it's safe to say that more than a few people are on board with his dog whistling.
Re:VPN's still OK? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that VPNs enable a person to circumvent censorship, and popular opinion on slashdot seems to be in favor of censorship lately. I've seen more than a few rsilvergun posts falsely claim that Nazis were demanding free speech in the beginning get moderated highly here, so I think it's safe to say that more than a few people are on board with his dog whistling.
Erm no you haven't.
This kind of argument comes from the far right who want to pretend the Nazis were good. If anyone here is dog whistling it's you.
Re: (Score:3)
"VPNs allow individuals to have some hope of maintaining their privacy and security in unfriendly situations."
Sure, whether you're a freedom fighter in Iran or a freedom fighter in the US. Or you're a terrorist in Iran or the US. Whether that sounds good depends on your politics.
"Journalists working in totalitarian countries would be one example of that."
So would serial killers in democratic countries.
"Social media, on the other hand, are dominated by a handful of billionaire owners who can (and do) put a
Re: (Score:2)
You can choose a social media platform that fact-checks and censors the way you want it to. A free-for-all would be a toxic sewer of spam that nobody would want to visit.
It is different where you don't have a choice and you are forced to live with someone else's censoring decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In an ideal world there should be no fact checking or censorship, people should have full access to information and would be able to make their own informed decision about what information is false. The problem is that people have become lazy and are trained to believe what they read because the mainstream media liked it that way, now that people have access to media which is less centrally controlled that lack of critical thinking is coming back to bite.
Also giving the user the ability to filter is much be
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure you understand what a VPN is. A VPN allows something to post a message. It has nothing to do with someone else fact checking the output.
I support you to say whatever it is you want in any way. And I equally support other people to call you out on it and mod you down. It is important for the world that you have a chance to speak, and equally important for your specific words to be fact checked, and if actively dangerous, muted. You have the freedom to speak, not the freedom to have your message
Re: (Score:2)
"Fact checked" or "Countered." The former presumes that there can be no nuance...only truth or falsehood. The latter presumes that opinions may vary, even on largely agreed points. I prefer the latter.
Why would VPNs leave over this? (Score:1)
Looks like France is trying to make so that, when I VPN into France with, say, ExpressVPN, I can't connect to, say, TorrentFreak. Maybe just DNS blocking is required.
So why would the VPN services dump their French network presence, or do they mean also dumping all their French customers? There are a heap of other reasons for wanting to VPN into a country. This doesn't appear to be a case of a government attempting to snoop on encrypted traffic. If ISPs in France have to block, it seems no surprise that
Re:Why would VPNs leave over this? (Score:4, Informative)
If ISPs in France have to block, it seems no surprise that VPNs providing a French IP address have to do the same.
Its harder for ISPs to leave unless they are multinational, they are kind of stuck there. VPN servers can be anywhere though, there is nothing special about France.
Re:Why would VPNs leave over this? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they're trying to prevent the French from getting their shows or sports from elsewhere (as in over torrent or various "alternative" streaming sites), although it's unclear how that can work. Many VPN providers are (certainly on purpose) all kinds of Cayman Islands, Panama and similar entities, they might have a snarky comment here and there for show but certainly won't care much about some Canal+ complaints. You can't easily block payments nowadays, and certainly network access towards these entities without becoming China or at least Russia (note that these aren't just some domain names but a sprawling ever-changing pool of IP addresses).
I have a question (Score:1)
Suppose I have a VPN business and I am incorporated in Cayman Islands. Further suppose that to buy my service, you go to my website, located on a server in CI and enter your credit card info or whatever.
I have no employees or facilities in France.
I tell the govt of France to go fuck itself.
What is the govt of France's enforcement mechanism against me?
Legit question, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you describe is what is used for plenty of gambling sites. In those cases as long as you never enter France or some place that will extradite you are safe.
Re:I have a question (Score:4, Informative)
The enforcement mechanism is banning local banks from allowing your customers to transfer money to you.
Most people aren't going to mess around with crypto.
Stupid discussion (Score:2)
Change your DNS server. No more censorship! Wait, what?
The real reason? (Score:2)
Remember the French forcing Google to pay, in order to index French news sites? The obvious technical solution is called "robots.txt". However, France is very protective of their industries, and insisted that Google pay up. When Google responded by simply removing French content, publishers got a court order prohibiting that. This is France.
With that background, I expect that the real motivation behind the VPN legislation is prevent users from circumventing geo-blocking. For example, if there is a sports
NOT an example (Score:2)
double speak (Score:3)
"This case in France is part of a broader global trend of regulatory overreach, where governments attempt to control encrypted services under the guise of content regulation. We've already seen how China, Russia, Myanmar, and Iran have imposed VPN restrictions as part of broader censorship efforts."
This partisan can allege that it is "regulatory overreach" but that doesn't mean it is. To argue that it is you'd have to argue that controlling encrypted services is wrong. It has never been wrong since it has existed and it is not under any "guise". Smearing the effort by associating it with oppressive governments is lazy and in bad faith.
"The best path forward is for policymakers to focus on targeted enforcement measures that don't undermine Internet security or create a precedent for global Internet fragmentation..."
So he says, but no argument is made for such a conclusion. Instead, it appears to be the obvious position for a corporate interest.
"As seen in other cases, blanket blocking measures do not effectively combat piracy but instead create far-reaching consequences that disrupt the open Internet."
Disrupting an open internet isn't an unseen consequence, it is an intended one. People may not like entering a slippery slope, but the enemy definitely likes the status quo.
legal fallacy (Score:2)
We seem to run into this more frequently as time goes on. Law enforcement has a problem that they can't find a legal solution to, or is being inconvenienced by an existing legal protection (like the 4th amendment here in the USA) so they conclude that the only way to solve it is to take away some more rights.
I disagree. Find another way. Or deal with it. In many cases it's simply a matter of them wanting an easier way to do the same thing they've been doing. Officer / detective convenience is a horribl