Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Indian Police Open Case Against Hundreds in Kashmir For Using VPN (techcrunch.com) 46

Local authorities in India-controlled Kashmir have opened a case against hundreds of people who used virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent a social media ban in the disputed Himalayan region in a move that has been denounced by human rights and privacy activists. From a report: Tahir Ashraf, who heads the police cyber division in Srinagar, said on Tuesday that the authority had identified and was probing hundreds of suspected users who he alleged misused social media to promote "unlawful activities and secessionist ideology." On Monday, the police said they had also seized "a lot of incriminating material" under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the nation's principal counter-terrorism law. Those found guilty could be jailed up to seven years. "Taking a serious note of misuse of social media, there have been continuous reports of misuse of social media sites by the miscreants to propagate the secessionist ideology and to promote unlawful activities," the region's police said in a statement. The move comes weeks after the Indian government restored access to several hundred websites, including some shopping websites such as Amazon India and Flipkart and select news outlets in the disputed region. Facebook, Twitter and other social media services remain blocked, and mobile data speeds remain capped at 2G speeds.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indian Police Open Case Against Hundreds in Kashmir For Using VPN

Comments Filter:
  • Starlink (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @03:12PM (#59744188)

    This is why we need Starlink. This is why we should never use anything other than end to end encrypted communications â"- even if you have nothing to hide. Because there are people that need to use it and if it isnâ(TM)t standard they can be prosecuted. That means staying away from RCS. Use Telegram, use Signal. Even WhatsApp is OK for now.

    • They will just make owning and/or operating and/or even being near a Starlink transceiver an offense justifying incarceration.

      Absolute control of information is vital to authoritarian governments and they won't give up on it that easy.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Starlink won't do shit for this or anything else, it just pads Musk's bank account while ruining orbital aces for a generation and astronomy long enough for an unobserved asteroid to hit and make that irrelevant.
    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      This is why we need Starlink. This is why we should never use anything other than end to end encrypted communications. That means staying away from RCS. Use Telegram, use Signal. Even WhatsApp is OK for now.

      Starlink wouldn't help. These people were charged with posting messages to social media that the government didn't like. It wants to control the information coming out of Kashmir. Whether folks post to social media using VPN or Starlink, they're still posting to social media, still falling foul of the same laws, same investigative techniques, same penalty.

      They could switch to using anonymous forums to post their material. That would unfortunately reduce their credibility, and police would still be able to g

    • Starlink isn't going to solve the issue at hand, why would you think that? It would be trivial for any government to triangulate users of these sats if a ban was in place. The real issue here is suppression of free will, expression and speech. The world has many governments drunk on power and enslaving people, that is the real issue. "unlawful activities and secessionist ideology." lol give me a break. We will never become a peaceful type II with shit like the Gulags existing and destroying human rights.
  • Oh the irony (Score:2, Insightful)

    So, what have we here? People who are (1) spreading misinformation on social media, (2) promoting separatism (I smell Russia here), (3) behavior that is clearly illegal, by (4) literal terrorists.

    How many times have I heard that when there is a clear and present danger like this, we don't just need censorship, but it is a moral failing if we don't censor.

    Why do I get the distinct feeling that there will shortly be a "we have always been at war with Eurasia" moment where these same people will suddenly di

  • Seriously, this is what Trump wants more than anything- the ability to imprison people at will for something they may or may not have done. Look for him to ramp up his rhetoric about 'deep state' actors using VPNs to 'subvert america' or some such nonsense.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Ignore Trump. He is not a problem, so long as he is voted out in November and steps down in January. If he isn't voted out, the Electorate failed. If he doesn't step down, then we see what happens after. I expect him to declare the election invalid, and claim he won't step down. Then the SS informs him after the inauguration that he's not the president, and if he doesn't leave the Oval Office, he'll be shot. I think he will literally attempt a coup, and the SS will simply say "no", and he'll step down
      • Ignore Trump. He is not a problem, so long as he is voted out in November and steps down in January.

        Let's assume for a moment he's voted out. Do you or anyone else really see him admitting he lost and stepping aside gracefully?

        No way. He'll insist the elections were rigged and refuse to step down. He may go so far as to declare martial law based on his claim that the elections were 'unfair' or 'illegitimate'. He's already talked repeatedly about getting a 3rd term, and he's said we should consider the whole "president for life thing" like with President Xi of China. He's not joking about this.

        But again, a

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

          Do you or anyone else really see him admitting he lost and stepping aside gracefully?

          I explicitly stated: "I think he will literally attempt a coup,"

          I just think that nobody will follow him. He'll huff, and he'll puff, and he'll move to Mar a lago and require the Secret Service buy the condo next to his, and profit from that, for as long as he can. Other ex-presidents have refused secret service protection, but he'll be the first "fired" by the SS. After 6 years or so. Then he'll claim he fired them to save money.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    But in this case, China might follow India.

    The country is run by two incompetent bigoted men - Narendra Modi and Amit Shah - catering to the Hindu right wing fantasies of world domination.

    If you are in USA and in IT look around you..the average Indian software programmer is an upper caste Hindu and does not understand the freedom he/she gets here is based on the US constitution. They don't understand Indian constitution.

    The reason for posting as AC...the Indian security apparatus is getting into th
  • Wait until 1 web and starlink hit the market. Good luck to police trying to find them
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "Good luck to police trying to find them"
      Most nations could hurt for spies using very different advanced radio and later emerging sat tech going back decades.
      A consumer using this decades low cost consumer sat tech? Not so hard for the gov of India to detect.
      Both in terms of who is selling, importing by using police informants to shop for and buy.
      To detect any consumers using the consumer sat tech for hours every day :)
  • Does that make illegal things illegal or something?
    • by BranMan ( 29917 )

      This also caught my eye - with the slant that would an Act that prevents unlawful activities actually by Constitutional in the US?

      Consider - we have a Rule of Law that specifies consequences for a whole host of offenses of various types. But is it in keeping with this body of law to actually *prevent* people from breaking the law?

      Is it Constitutional to pass a law requiring every car to detect the local speed limit (through whatever means) and simply prevent anyone from ever speeding, under any circumstanc

"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"

Working...