VPN Providers Consider Exiting France Over 'Dangerous' Blocking Demands (torrentfreak.com) 20
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:3)
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.
You know what they say in France (Score:2)
Vive la censure!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you translate it.
VPN's still OK? (Score:1)
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:2)
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)
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: (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.
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 wi
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:1)
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: (Score:2)
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?