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.
“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.
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.
The 1m was confiscated because it was ‘illegal income’, not because he used VPN. Yes, it’s still shitty that using VPN to access GitHub makes his income illegal, and yes Chinese government just sucks. But it’s amused that those news agencies intentionally use misleading titles. They are no better than the Chinese government.
Agree. But practically they may claim using such data to improve their systems. This is a valid LI justification. But still it provides no benefits to users to whom those data are collected from, while at the same time increases their risks (such as mishandling of their data - which is common since it’s very difficult to handle data 100% correctly).
Legitimate interest is their interest, not yours.
there will be far more losers who will happily hand over their data in exchange of free service
The explanation of auto-renew says: “On expiration, new port forwardings will be created. The source port will be chosen randomly.”. How will that work with bt client?
Including cars?
Understand. I was simply joking.
wait i thought they don’t have a government at the moment
this is surprising…
Well if you care about privacy, avoid all Meta products. Otherwise go ahead and use them. I thought it would be simple.
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.