183
Chinese programmer ordered to pay 1m yuan for using virtual private network
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
183 points (93.0% liked)
Privacy
32173 readers
478 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not spelling out the whole story to your satisfaction in the headline is no better than capricious law enforcement giving out penalties for something that shouldn't be a crime ranging from nothing, to a $27 fine, to confiscating 3 years of income, to 13 years in prison?
The headline isn't simply just a bad summary of what happened, it's a gross, intentional misinterpretation of the facts to spread an agenda
Isn't it illegal because he used a VPN? Seems like semantics.
let’s say you use weeds and weeds is legal where you are, but it’s illegal to drive after using weeds.
Now you’re arrested for DUI. Next day you make to the headline: “Man arrested for using weeds”. Is it the fact? Yes. Do you think it’s all the necessary facts?
Your opinion is based on the assumption that everyone should be allowed to use VPN to do anything. I may agree with you, but it doesn’t change how bad the article is.
I do assume people have the right to believe what they want and to seek life, liberty and happiness
Intentionally misleading by summarizing partial facts is simply evil. Not sure if anyone may be satisfied with this approach, but even if some do, I’m willing to bet they will become unsatisfied if missing part of the facts is actually what they care about.
How is it misleading? Based on the info we have it seems accurate.
“Man’s income of 1m was confiscated due to using VPN for work’ would be accurate.
‘Man is fined 1m for using VPN’ is not.
There’s no evidence (yet) that someone will be fined this much by simply using vpn in China to browse otherwise banned sites.
Chinas court system isn't controlled by the people. Punishments in China can be whatever the party wants then to be
I’m not sure if I understand your point.
If you say their law sucks, their LE agency sucks, they freely interpret their laws in prosecution, etc. , I completely agree with you. But if you’re trying to say using vpn to browse internet in China can risk a big fine, which is what the title of the article is saying, I don’t think it’s accurate. News agency should state the facts, not their ill formed opinions.
It is saying that VPN use was the only excuse given by the authorities when he was "ordered to pay" them a large amount of money. While I don't know for certain that it's true, I still haven't seen anything here or elsewhere to contradict that.
You're just being pedantic... and calling this "simply evil" sounds like satire it's so extreme