As a guy from Russia, I must admit that vpns are not a big problem for censors. They can be easily blocked, including self-hosted ones by protocol detection. And DNS would not do much with IP and clienthello-based blocks. And most users are not enough tech-savvy to constantly switch to new protocols as old ones get blocked.
Https does not actually make difference here. You can still detect VPN usage by unencrypted clienthello, encryption-inside-encryption, active probing, obscure libraries that vpn protocol depends on, etc.
At first, please, be a little bit more patient and no, I am not a LLM.
All https traffic is https-encapsulated by definition. And you can look inside https just fine. The problem is that most of data is TLS-encripted. However, there is so-called “clienthello” that is not encripted and can be used to identity the resource you are trying to reach.
And if you are going to https-encapsulate it again (like some VPN and proxy protocols do) data will have TLS-encription on top of TLS-encription, which can be identified as well.
And about libraries: VPN protocol Openconnect, for example uses library gnutls (which almost no one else uses) instead of more common openssl. So in China it is blocked using dpi by this “marker”.
However, there is so-called “clienthello” that is not encripted and can be used to identity the resource you are trying to reach.
Yes, so how is it going to inform you that this is a VPN server and not anything else? You put your little website with kitties and family photos behind nginx on a hosting somewhere, and some resource there, like /oldphotos, you proxy to a VPN server, with basic auth before that maybe.
And about libraries: VPN protocol Openconnect, for example uses library gnutls (which almost no one else uses) instead of more common openssl. So in China it is blocked using dpi by this “marker”.
Ah. You meant fingerprinting of clients.
Banning everything using gnutls (which, eh, is not only used by openconnect) is kinda similar to whitelists.
Both applicable to situations like China or something Middle-Eastern, but not most of Europe or Northern America.
It is going to show the censor that you are trying to reach different banned websites (and, probably, google, facebook, etc), all hosted on your server. Your beautiful website is all fine, but in clienthello there is still google.
It is not necessary fingerprinting of clients, you can fingerprint the server as well. GnuTLS for this particular purpose is used only by Openconnect and that is just an example. This tactic is very effective in China and Russia and collateral damage is insignificant.
And various western anti-censorship organizations wrote articles, that such methods are not possible in Russia as well, but here we are. China’s yesterday is Russia’s today, American tomorrow and European next week. Here it all started in the exact same manner, by requiring ISPs to block pirate websites. And between this and blocking whatever you want for the sake of National Security (for example, against Russian hackers) is not such a long road as you think it is.
It is going to show the censor that you are trying to reach different banned websites (and, probably, google, facebook, etc), all hosted on your server. Your beautiful website is all fine, but in clienthello there is still google.
WTF? No, in clienthello there is www.mysite.com . I’m talking about encapsulating traffic in an encrypted tunnel. We are assuming that FSB can’t decipher your TLS traffic.
The beautiful website I’ve imagined for a situation where some DPI robot will, say, visit it to check that there really is a website there. Or where you have to show that it’s a real website to get into a whitelist. Or something like that.
I don’t get it, you seem to be interested in the subject, but say weird things.
You also seem to be mixing up such entities as VPNs, proxies and encapsulation.
GnuTLS for this particular purpose is used only by Openconnect and that is just an example.
I’ve definitely seen more things using it even for similar purposes. Can’t remember anything specific, but I suppose a search in pkgsrc will yield something.
This tactic is very effective in China and Russia and collateral damage is insignificant.
BTW, I’m using VPNs in Russia from time to time. Something doesn’t work, something does.
And various western anti-censorship organizations wrote articles, that such methods are not possible in Russia as well,
I’m describing a specific kind of encapsulation. What you can do to guess that it’s a VPN is to analyze the amounts of data transmitted. That’d just require sending garbage from time to time. I think I’ve even seen a ready piece of software to make such tunnels.
I’m talking about encapsulating traffic in an encrypted tunnel.
As I I have previously mentioned, if you are encapsulating all traffic in an encrypted tunnel, then most of the data would have two layers of encryption. This can be detected, and, in fact is being detected in China and, experimentally, in Russia.
The beautiful website I’ve imagined for a situation where some DPI robot will, say, visit it to check that there really is a website there.
That is a good protection against active probing, but active proving is not the only detection method, available for censors.
You also seem to be mixing up such entities as VPNs, proxies and encapsulation.
How did you come to this conclusion?
BTW, I’m using VPNs in Russia from time to time. Something doesn’t work, something does.
What are you trying to say here? What does work? What does not?
I’m describing a specific kind of encapsulation.
What I understood from you is that you are talking about encapsulating TLS-encripted traffic in https, TLS-encripting it again. If I understood you wrong, please correct me. There are countless software solutions for that, but they are not panacea, because double layer of encryption can be detected and your beautiful website does not need encryption-on-top-of-encryption. It is obvious that you are reaching something else.
As I I have previously mentioned, if you are encapsulating all traffic in an encrypted tunnel, then most of the data would have two layers of encryption. This can be detected, and, in fact is being detected in China and, experimentally, in Russia.
Please explain how are you imagining that.
because double layer of encryption can be detected and your beautiful website does not need encryption-on-top-of-encryption. It is obvious that you are reaching something else.
I think I’ve mentioned before one solution of having a constant amount of data transferred.
What I understood from you is that you are talking about encapsulating TLS-encripted traffic in https, TLS-encripting it again.
I do not have right now links to articles about that exactly, but here is an old article about somewhat similar tactics that China uses to block encrypted proxy protocols like shadowsocks, for example: gfw.report/publications/usenixsecurity23/en/
As I said earlier, it is only somewhat similar to TLS-in-TLS blocking. I do not have exact articles right now, and it is not easy to google them, since almost all of them are in Chinese.
It is incomplete and I do not know if it uses the same methods as Chinese censors, but it still proves the possibility.
If you still require more concrete proff, then, I will try to find an article in my free time and if I do, I would reply to your comment again after that (it is not going to be in the nearest future.
OK, I’ve looked at this thing and read about it. It can be real. It should be solved by what I said earlier, but apparently in real life they solve it a bit more efficiently.
VPNs can’t be categorically banned in the US without major first amendment issues. It’s not a huge technical issue, but unless the courts just throw out the Constitution (a risk that we’re seeing too much of, but still a meaningful bar to cross), there are huge legal barriers to doing so.
Your government doesn’t need to care about legal barriers because you have a dictator who can act unilaterally.
VPNs are not categorically banned in Russia either. Just 95% of them. Categorical ban is not actually required here. Government can just create licensing procedure and license only those VPNs, which follow “rules”. I do not see how this is different from ISP bans.
The government can shut down specific illegal acts, such as sharing other people’s intellectual property. They can’t ban tools or protocols, or do things that are functionally bans. There’s plenty of precedent of the government trying to restrict encryption and being shut down. Removing the ability to communicate securely is a first amendment violation.
By the same logic they should not be able to force ISPs to ban sites, but here we are. If they can enforce bans with ISPs, why can’t they do the same with VPN providers?
They may or may not be able to require ISPs to block specific sites. Piracy isn’t protected speech. It’s going to be a moot point because it’s not something that can get actually passed.
They cannot require ISPs to block VPNs. General tools for/access to the internet are protected speech. They could require VPNs that have physical servers in the US to block exits to specific sites (if the first part is valid), but that doesn’t do anything when it’s trivial to have exit nodes elsewhere and structure your service/corporate structure so the exit nodes are not subject to US jurisdiction.
Hmmm, yes. Build a whole generation of tech savvy people with knowledge of VPNs and that activelly hate your guts. I cannot foresee any way this could backfire.
Companies “demand” shit and then just literally write the laws and hand them to legislators who pass them.
Well, Congress only hears one side, they don’t read Lemmy to get the other side.
They have no respect for their constituency, because they think their constituency doesn’t care enough to engage them about it, and are ‘dumb’ enough to vote them back in the office again.
There was a study recently that showed legislators’ votes are affected by like .3% by input from constituents. I’ll try to find it again, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
There was a study recently that showed legislators’ votes are affected by like .3% by input from constituents. I’ll try to find it again, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
I’ve seen it (there’s always one person who shares the link whenever I make this kind of argument), but that study doesn’t take into account what would happen if a large percentage of the electorate that actually participated in the system were to start communicating with their elected legislators.
Right now there is so little interaction done by the electorate with their representatives.
I guarantee you that if a large amount of the voting electorate all started contacting their senators and house reps often, on different various issues, things would matter/change.
So my point still stands.
If you just sit at home reading Lemmy, they’re not going to take you seriously, and they’re not going to look out for your best interests, but instead they’re going to look out for their own best interests, which is usually getting money from corporations that they use to win elections, because they know they can still get re-elected even when they disrespect their electorate.
Fundamentally, they do what they do because they can get away with it, they are not policed by their voters.
But during the trump years, those figures spiked big time. Especially with services like resistbot. The amount of form letters and shitty Republican legislators using my contact as some sort of consent on my part to join their fucking mailing lists?
Not to mention, these legislators are insulated from their constituents pretty effectively. If you do manage to get someone on the phone (I never did. Ever.), it’ll be an aide that might summarize the general tone of the calls and e-mails in a couple seconds worth of walk n’ talk. I mean…the system is rigged for people with money.
I get the feeling of wanting to change that. But I don’t think the system that has been further and further adulterated to those ends will ever just hand us the tools to upend that system. It was built this way.
I mean, how many times and how many ways do they have to display their wholehearted willingness to watch us all starve and slaughter countless of us in service of capitalism? They’ve made it abundantly clear.
But moreso, they are not policed. If they started losing elections because the electorate actually participated in the system, with more than just sometimes voting, that would change. It truly comes back to them being able to get away with doing their jobs poorly because they are not held responsible for their (bad) work.
But I don’t think the system that has been further and further adulterated to those ends will ever just hand us the tools to upend that system.
The whole point of my argument is that we have those tools today, we’re just too lazy/not-caring to use them.
Umm…have you ever tried contacting your representatives? You seem to think it’s so easy to get them on the phone. Why. How can you possibly think that? Those numbers don’t ring in their pockets. Their aides are the only people receiving and sorting through those calls and emails and letters.
There are a great many ways to petition the government, including with actual petitions, but, short of showing up in person, the one reputed to be the most effective is picking up the phone and calling your congressional representatives. In the weeks following the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump, so many people started doing so that, in short order, voice mail filled up and landlines began blurting out busy signals. Pretty soon, even e-mails were bouncing back, with the information that the target in-box was full and the suggestion that senders “contact the recipient directly.” That being impractical, motivated constituents turned to other means. The thwarted and outraged took to Facebook or Twitter or the streets. The thwarted and determined dug up direct contact information for specific congressional staffers. The thwarted and clever remembered that it was still possible, several technological generations later, to send faxes; one Republican senator received, from a single Web-based faxing service, seven thousand two hundred and seventy-six of them in twenty-four hours. The thwarted and creative phoned up a local pizza joint, ordered a pie, and had it delivered, with a side of political opinion, to the Senate.
Americans vote, if we vote at all, roughly once every two years. But even in a slow season, when no one is resorting to faxes or protests or pizza-grams, we participate in the political life of our nation vastly more often by reaching out to our members of Congress. When we do so, however, we almost never get to speak to them directly. Instead, we wind up dealing with one of the thousands of people, many of them too young to rent a car, who collectively constitute the customer-service workforce of democracy.
That doesn’t offer cold data, but it’s a pretty well known fact that this was an explosion of sudden political participation. And I don’t remember things going particularly well. Do you.
Umm…have you ever tried contacting your representatives?
I did it just a few days ago, actually.
You seem to think it’s so easy to get them on the phone.
You contact them, not call them. I never said call, I said contact.
Let them know you’re watching, let them know your opinions on issues, let them know you’re engaged, and you’re not just mindless cattle that they can manipulate in whatever way they want. If we all do it, if they feel the ‘Eye of Sauron’ on them, they act differently.
All you have to do is use one of their online email forms. They even respond back, letting you know they registered your email on what subject you’re talking about. They track this stuff internally.
From the article that you linked…
Unlike call volume, the data on mail sent to Congress is public, and it suggests that, at least among the politically active, the U.S. Postal Service remains popular; the Senate alone received more than 6.4 million letters last year. Contrary to popular opinion, those written communications are an effective way of communicating with Congress, >>>as are their electronic kin<<<. “Everything is read, every call and voice mail is listened to,” Isaiah Akin, the deputy legislative director for Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden, told me. “We don’t discriminate when it comes to phone versus e-mail versus letter.
So, even in the article you linked, even the aides of Representatives state that contacting them is effective in making them aware that they’re being seen by their constituency.
There’s a volume/ratio problem of citizens to a single representative, so of course theyir aides are going to triage the calls coming in.
If you have a serious problem, some legal or administrative issue with the government, you actually are able to get elevated past the aides and talk to your actual representative. That happens all the time to citizens here.
But again, what I’m advocating is contacting them, you don’t call, you email (which is actually easier for us citizens to do anyways). They usually even have a link on their website where you can just web email them directly.
Their aides are the only people receiving and sorting through those calls and emails and letters.
And what, the aides never talk to their senators or their representatives? They never track why people are calling? B.S., they do both.
You’re not being intellectually honest. No one ever said you get personal one-on-one meetings whenever you want, and it’s weird how you’re purposely trying to motivate people not to engage in the political system they live in. Almost like you have an agenda/motives of your own.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
On January 2nd, House Republicans voted in secret to defang the Office of Congressional Ethics; less than twenty-four hours later, following what seemed at the time like a deluge of calls but later turned out to be just that loud patter you hear on your window before the storm really begins, they reversed their decision.
On January 24th, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a proposal to sell off 3.3 million acres of federal land. Barely a week later, on February 1st, he withdrew it, after getting an earful. “Groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message,” he explained. “I hear you and H.R. 621 dies tomorrow.”
Dude. I just think you’re being naive as fuck. An aide. Talking to the press. Of course they’re going to say, “oh yes, we take constituents’ opinions to heart.” Any time an election comes up, the politicians will always tell you how much they care. If an aide were saying to the press, “I take calls all day. But it’s a bunch of angry people, and it’s my job to basically absorb them and listen for any threats. I rarely get half a second to tell representative X about what I hear. And when I do, it’s not like it matters,” well…that just wouldn’t happen. Because it’s the fuckin press and an aide.
But you said you’ve seen the study as well! The data has shown that their votes are not influenced by constituents contacting them. And then you said while that’s true, it’s just because not enough constituents contact them. I showed you how that spiked during the trump years. But their votes didn’t change.
How often do they say in campaign speeches, “well, you know right before coming out here I was reminded of Shana O’Malley, a single mother of four…” They couldn’t give two microscopic fucks about that when it’s time to vote. But when it’s time to make themselves look good? Sure. That’s where it’s useful.
Now, maybe on some smaller issues that aren’t as politically important—and surely this depends on the election cycle, whether they have someone challenging them hugely in the polls, they will take constituent contact into consideration…for their own ends.
But look at Biden right now. He can’t stop arming Israel to the teeth. People aren’t happy—especially those who would be voting for him. And he is still doing it. This is an incredibly touchy issue. And people are beyond upset over it. But people’s opinions don’t matter. Lockheed’s opinions? Sure.
Now, again, to clarify a little, when you get down to local politics, yes, I believe there can be some impact from contacting them. Also, when a freshman politician is trying to govern according to their values, they will take constituents opinions into consideration. There are instances in which I do believe it can have an impact.
But on the whole, you yourself have seen the study that shows that it doesn’t have a measurable effect on the way they govern. And you’re still arguing that it does, that it’s just not enough of us doing it. It’s nice you’re so idealistic about our political landscape. Maybe you’re young, I dunno. But it just feels like you’re being foolishly optimistic, with the data in your face refuting your point, and you’re still saying, “yeah, but…”
Dude. I just think you’re being naive as fuck. An aide. Talking to the press. Of course they’re going to say, “oh yes, we take constituents’ opinions to heart.”
Its from your article, dude. Can’t pick-and-choose what you want out of it, especially since you supplied it.
But on the whole, you yourself have seen the study that shows that it doesn’t have a measurable effect on the way they govern.
It does when enough of us do it.
You want to advocate for a better alternative? I’m all ears. …
I wasn’t trying to ignore something in the article. I was calling into question your naïveté for taking what some representative’s 20-something year old aide is saying to the press as proof that your point somehow had been proven.
It does when enough of us do it
[Citation Needed], right?
Got a better alternative? Yeah. Praxis. Direct action in your community to directly benefit those in need around you.
Vote, sure. Especially when trying to keep fascists from the door. But don’t expect inside the box, paint by numbers, establishment solutions to really have a true effect on a broken system. It’s broken for a reason.
But don’t expect inside the box, paint by numbers, establishment solutions to really have a true effect on a broken system.
No one is advocating holding hands and singing Kumbaya and everything magically starts working again perfectly.
It’s broken for a reason.
It’s broken for a reason, because we let elected officials get away with breaking it. Everyone sits on their ass and just make Lemmy comments. That does nothing to police the elected officials.
The system truly is designed to work when we all participate in it (also known as voting the assholes out of office, even with jerrymanding), and it’s hard for it not to work if you have full participation.
Got a better alternative? Yeah. Praxis.
Elaborate? Honestly asking.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
On January 2nd, House Republicans voted in secret to defang the Office of Congressional Ethics; less than twenty-four hours later, following what seemed at the time like a deluge of calls but later turned out to be just that loud patter you hear on your window before the storm really begins, they reversed their decision.
On January 24th, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a proposal to sell off 3.3 million acres of federal land. Barely a week later, on February 1st, he withdrew it, after getting an earful. “Groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message,” he explained. “I hear you and H.R. 621 dies tomorrow.”
Again, I just feel like you’re being naive. And fuckin Chaffetz? That piece of shit? You think he gave half a fuck about what his voters had to say? He famously shut them out and hid from them, didn’t he? I don’t feel like searching that putz’s name. And he even said himself that it was “groups” that made him change his mind. That wasn’t citizen’s groups. That was interest groups.
But yes, I agree, let’s move on to something positive. Praxis is the concept among anarchists/socialists of smaller scale, direct action. You get a group of likeminded people together and go provide direct aid. FoodNotBombs is probably the most famous example. Instead of putting a bunch of effort into trying to change the minds of politicians and rallying likeminded people to put pressure on them to cast their vote to build a program that would, after being rewritten and amended and lobbied, amount to far less than anyone wanted and is thought of as a “step in the right direction.” It’s incrementalism. And all of that effort and time gets wasted.
Our entire concept of success in politics centers around incrementalism, and it’s led us down the exact path we’ve been on and has moved slower than the negative progress of the world changing for the worse under capitalism. Problems will always continue to mount faster than incrementalism will ever be able to put a dent into. But praxis is living your values directly. Believe in helping people? Help people. Don’t put all of your time and effort and resources into trying to get selfish motherfuckers that have only their own interests and the interests of those with money at heart to help people. In practice, any effort in trying to get politicians to help people only ends up helping the politicians.
Take all that time and effort and those resources and give them directly to the people who need it. That is praxis. And even though it’s on a smaller scale, the idea is that if everyone did this, the scale suddenly turns from local solutions to global ones. It’s a founding principle of anarchism.
I can give you some good books to read on the subject if you’re interested.
I can give you some good books to read on the subject if you’re interested.
Thank you for the education. If you want to suggest any books please do so, I would honestly be interested in reading more about it.
As far as the other part of your comment, the first thing that jumped in my mind is “Why does it have to be an either/or thing?” One can attack the problem from both ends, and have a better chance of success.
With respect, I honestly believe my approach can affect positive change, it’s not either a 0% failure or a 100% success, with nothing in between, as you suggest. I don’t believe I’m being naive, it’s just I’ve seen it work effectively in the past, as that article you linked aptly shows, by describing examples of such.
If nothing else, where we’re at now is because of apathy. Apathy has proven itself to be not be effective to affect positive change. To advocate for involvement in the system is not a waste of time.
Based on your description, what you advocate for is a positive change. But it seems too micro of a change to really ‘move the ball down the field’, to borrow a phrase. To be fair though, I know very little about it at this point, so I may end up having to change my mind about that once I’m more educated about it.
Finally, I would challenge you though to not give up on engaging in the current system, if you’re willing to think outside of your box, as I am of mine.
He also told the audience that pirate-site operators "aren’t teenagers playing an elaborate prank. The perpetrators are real-life mobsters, organized crime syndicates—many of whom engage in child pornography, prostitution, drug trafficking, and other societal ills.
I’m honestly surprised they didn’t throw the word ‘terrorist’ into that description as well.
Are we surprised that the people that make up fantastical scenarios are selling a fantastical scenario? The people pirating are every day people that don’t want to pay so much for entertainment. You inept dolt.
Are we surprised that the people that make up fantastical scenarios are selling a fantastical scenario? The people pirating are every day people that don’t want to pay so much for entertainment. You inept dolt.
I’m upset at the movie executive that is inept. Not you.
The way you bolted that on to a comment that was directed at me, and have it meant for someone else, seems a little unusual, but fair enough.
…Many of whom engage in child pornography, prostitution, drug trafficking, murder, terrorism, poisonings, Hentai, bad DIY, unsolicited advice, telling women to smile, wearing JNKOs, hacking banks, and NOT FLOSSING!
Aren’t those things already illegal? Wouldn’t the solution be to just go after the pirate-site owners for those reasons? Then the only pirate-site owners remaining will be regular people—the vast minority, they would have you believe.
Especially eye-roll-inducing considering the pedophile problem in Hollywood hasn’t really gotten better, let alone been solved. Many of the exec types demanding things change are likely to be either perpetrators themselves, or sympathisers with the perpetrators of this behavior, and they tell us what we should believe is right or wrong based on the almighty dollar? Fuck Hollywood in general, but especially fuck the movie industry executives in charge. Greedy bastards.
Add comment