Remix.run Logo
lebuffon a day ago

India is kind of cute.

In the late 90s I attended a Telephone industry conference while working for a telephony test equipment company. A rep. from the Indian government gave a talk on their telephone system regulations. During the question period I got up and asked how India was dealing with voice over internet protocol (VOIP). With a straight face the speaker replied "We will not allow it". :-)

kube-system a day ago | parent | next [-]

And it's also cute when people imply the internet is unregulateable. There are plenty of tools that countries use to regulate internet traffic. They can require ISPs to DPI the traffic and block it. They can MITM traffic. They can shut off the internet entirely. They can throw people in jail. etc.

This stuff happens in many places, including in India.

gruez a day ago | parent | next [-]

>And it's also cute when people imply the internet is unregulateable. There are plenty of tools that countries use to regulate internet traffic. They can require ISPs to DPI the traffic and block it. They can MITM traffic. They can shut off the internet entirely. They can throw people in jail. etc.

I don't think there's any country that can keep a lid on the internet. The best they can do are leaky blocks (china's gfw is probably the best in the world, but still quite leaky), or complete shutdowns (eg. iran).

SoftTalker a day ago | parent [-]

As I understand it, China's GFW is intentionally leaky, balancing as much control as they can get away with but not enough to forment open revolt. As with a lot of things, the best control is not total control.

inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-]

Also not revealing their capabilities. During normal times, some VPNs work. Whenever there is a protest in Beijing, suddenly, none of them work any more.

infinite_spin a day ago | parent | prev [-]

except this implies total control, and a willingness to use that control to gaslight your citizens into believing they have some control

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

Neither of those is a problem for any government on the planet, I promise.

iamnothere a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They could even just shoot people for using the internet! It’s hopeless. Anyone who wants freedom should probably just give up now before it’s too late.

kube-system a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not suggesting people should give up, I'm suggesting that some countries can resort to doing very uncute things when faced with noncompliance.

When someone with the monopoly on the use of force says they will not allow something, that isn't something cute to ignore, it is serious.

iamnothere a day ago | parent [-]

Fair enough, yes people should be ready to fight for their rights (physically if necessary). The tone of your post came across as an attempt to demoralize. Intentional or not, my comment was a pushback against that.

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
inigyou a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Reminds me of FSF versus some Uyghur. Summary:

FSF: if you use PGP your communications will be unreadable by outsiders.

Some Uyghur: bruh, the government assigned a Han Chinese person to live in my house and watch me whenever I use technology.

hootz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There are workarounds for all of those things up until the point of you suffering violence for just using any encryption. But if you are at that point, then your country is completely fucked.

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then the question gets much more political: how to make the government prefer not to shoot me for using encryption? There are some strategies that are better discussed with e.g. communists than with tech nerds, as they have more experience and thinking on this as it becomes primarily a political thing not a tech thing.

One example - the government would lose infinite respect if it martyrs some normal guy who bought business supplies with foreign (TLS-encrypted) online banking. So it won't do that. So how far can that line be pushed? i.e. what is the least normal thing the government won't punish?

kube-system a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It is trivial for a law to simply ban workarounds. The vast majority of countries can and do censor the internet in some ways, and they all use violence to compel compliance with it. The only thing that varies is the extent to which it is censored.

satvikpendem a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's funny considering the scale of WhatsApp now in the country.

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent [-]

As I understand it's primarily an anti spam thing. They will allow apps to spam you but the telephone network is sacred.

golemotron a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reminds me of Elon's answer to the question of what various countries can do about StarLink: "They can shake their fists at the sky."

kube-system a day ago | parent | next [-]

India's solution is that they put anyone who has a starlink ground station in jail.

josefresco a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Starlink can be jammed.

kristjank a day ago | parent | next [-]

Jamming can be defeated quite funnily, by digging a pit and putting the antenna at the bottom of it.

josefresco a day ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for sharing, very interesting: https://www.technology.org/2023/08/01/did-russia-learn-to-ja...

everfrustrated a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you think China is putting lots of satellites into space.... All those tons into orbit isn't for the lolz.

Terr_ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That stops working when the jamming is coming from a hostile satellite that's also in the sky.

close04 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Or fly a plane or drone overhead and see [0] where the terminals are. After a few fines most people would decide it’s not worth the risk.

I remember how the Uber rollout worked in Berlin. Uber said they don’t need to comply with anything the city asked for and enjoyed their position in the safety of an ocean away so the local authorities instituted eye watering fines for drivers caught providing Uber rides. Uber decided to comply.

[0] https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/quadrf-can-spot-drone...

iamnothere a day ago | parent | next [-]

Depends on how many terminals there are and whether or not the neighborhoods they are in are sympathetic to the operators. It’s very easy to move them.

Resistance against totalitarianism is a duty.

close04 a day ago | parent [-]

I wasn’t thinking of totalitarianism but rather a country objecting to Starlink operating on its territory. This is why I brought up Berlin and fines, not the secret police breaking in your house at night.

After living under one of those totalitarian regimes, all Incan say is that everything sounds easy in an HN comment typed from the safety of a democratic society.

iamnothere a day ago | parent [-]

National firewalls and other such things are tools of totalitarianism. Except possibly in wartime, or if they are causing harmful interference, or if Starlink refuses to pay taxes, I don’t really see a good argument against things like Starlink.

close04 a day ago | parent [-]

Or if the country already operates another system on the same frequencies, or just hasn’t validated and authorized Starlink on their territory, something countries really like to do.

Not everything is about “fighting the power”, there are plenty of good reasons to want to validate and approve these systems.

Musk was as usual likes to talk big and brave but same as with his fight in Brazil over X, or the Tesla factory in Germany, if he wants to operate there he needs to follow the rules. And there’s no moral argument (saving freedom) he can pull out of his wig in most parts of the world that can make him money.

mothballed a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I can see how that worked in Berlin. In USA or someplace with a healthier culture of resistance that would fail laughably. Americans will drive with no license, registration, in cars they've stolen back from the repo man because they refuse to pay anything to anyone. When my car was totalled by an illegal alien, the police didn't even show up, wisely because they were surely driving without license, identity documents, insurance, registration, or any sort of recoverable assets or any way to punish them but to throw them in an overflowing jail. You could try fining them but it would be like trying to draw blood from a stone. I suppose could try to jail them, but you'd find our jails are already full, and we already let violent criminals out on bail.

In much of the world including USA poor people will slang crack for $5 under threat of life in jail and fines higher than they could ever hope to pay. Suffice to say there's an endless line of people willing to uber for roughly crack slinging wages without the risk of life imprisonment even if the fines are as bad -- because their alternatives are worse.

ted_dunning a day ago | parent | next [-]

Albania and Georgia have much healthier culture of resistance than the US.

The US has almost entirely lost this culture except for short moments in isolated places. Minneapolis is nearly a proof by exception in this. Very, very few people need to be detained or killed to get the mass of Americans to stay inside and self-censor. Much less is required to get businesses to put their head down and play nice with the government.

mdgld 20 hours ago | parent [-]

FR lol, people in the US love to talk a big game but most of us take the freedoms for granted and will fold at the drop of a hat when real consequences are on the line

inigyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let American police crush any car violating traffic rules into a cube, and then see how quickly people obey traffic laws.

close04 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you wanted the opportunity to beat that “healthy culture of resistance” drum. Every tweaker, every inbred, every starved person acting out of desperation is Rosa Parks now.

You name things and decide that‘s “resistance”. People break the law because there’s no real consequence or because they just have nothing to lose. They’re not “resisting”, they’re surviving. The US society decided that a large class of people will be forced to operate at that level their whole life and are incentivized to do worse by the insane punishment model applied only to them.

The only people doing the “resisting” in the US are those who can afford a good lawyer. Everyone else does what the cracks in the system allow, or what they need to do out of desperation.

No German Uber driver is desperate enough to risk their whole livelihood especially for that meager payoff. Most civilized countries make sure that people have something to lose which will keep people acting straight rather than always act on desperation. Depending on your goal, having people exercise self restraint works better than restraining them with tasers, chokeholds, and bullets to the back.

> because their alternatives are worse.

Ah, ok. So not “a healthy culture of resistance” but more “desperation because the country made sure that’s driving them”.

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

>Ah, ok. So not “a healthy culture of resistance” but more “desperation because the country made sure that’s driving them”.

This is logical fallacy, but you've tried hard to pull a gotcha out of it.

Resisting because you are desperate is perfectly valid and doesn't create a contradiction.

It's not something reserved to "those who can afford a good lawyer." Desperation is one of the hardest drivers of resistance, not something reserved to rich people with lawyers and something to lose. And even if we suppose there's not resistance in USA, I said in USA or someplace with a healthier culture of resistance, which means even if you don't consider USA a place of resistance it still meets the logical test of falling within my statement.

>[now deleted] If you hear this for the first time, hello white male with plenty of money for a lawyer.

Lol you couldn't resist adding that in. Your little racially charged bits about why we're not allowed to call it resistance when a poor black person does such acts. While ignoring your very example of Rosa Parks who was a black woman, child of a teacher and itinerant worker and before activism working largely in domestic work for white families. The contradiction is yours.

close04 a day ago | parent [-]

Resistance is a choice. “No other choice” is just surviving. The gotcha was already in the fact that you started by proudly waving a flag of “healthy culture of resistance” and immediately switched to desperate people having no other options. The healthy culture of resistance as you see it is made of the most desperate and dilapidated people doing desperate things.

My “very example” about which you are now quoting Wikipedia to me was resistance, not desperation. It wasn't a tweaker selling $5 crack because he literally has nothing better to look forward to. It wasn’t a mother driving without a license because she couldn’t afford the court taxes for a few traffic tickets. It was a woman who did it out of principle alone. That’s resistance, and it’s rare. Your speech fell on its face as soon as you had your big boy proud moment because you’re missing something important to back it up [0]. You were never taught enough pst that proud song and dance.

If you thought calling you privileged for your dissonant and ignorant line of argumentation is racist then let me add not educated enough[0] too. Read a book to understand these concepts, don’t expect you can just throw words around and people will bow to your wisdom. You make it impossible for me to take you seriously when you make junior level confusions like “resistance” and “desperation” all for a shitty national pride moment.

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

Your rebuttal rests upon a logical fallacy of false mutual exclusion that one cannot exercise resistance as a means of survival. You believe resistance comes from rich white people with lawyers; I believe it largely comes from the hungry and those with no other choice. The truth is it comes from a bit of both.

mothballed a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It would be easier to shoot it out of the sky than try and jam a whole country from starlink

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Might be easier to jam the uplink. Just modify some starlink units to transmit nonsense and place them around the country.

verdverm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Putting aside the geopolitics of satellite destruction, we're likely moving to the realm of microwave based disablement instead of kinetic. It's the thing that can scale and provide some plausible deniability while the numbers are low.

inigyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is still the case. I looked up this law. It is strictly forbidden to ever connect the POTS network to an IP network. End of story.

toast0 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Lots of countries ban voip in some way or another. Not allowed to connect to the PSTN. Disrupted by licensed ISPs based on traffic inspection. Large vendors yelled at. Etc.

em-bee a day ago | parent | next [-]

isn't phone tech itself digital over the internet nowadays just like VOIP if it isn't using VOIP directly?

on the other phone calls are getting replaced by video chat with the various messengers, making VOIP a dying technology, at least the part that end users access directly.

toast0 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but PSTN using voip is paying all the telecom fees and taxes and respecting the government surveillance mandates which is what the Indian Government is concerned about.

> on the other phone calls are getting replaced by video chat with the various messengers, making VOIP a dying technology, at least the part that end users access directly.

Not so much in countries where it's banned and the ban is enforced.

inigyou a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not the tech they care about, it's the network structure.

em-bee a day ago | parent [-]

sure, but i as a user care about the tech, and what i am trying to say is that VOIP as tech for endusers is no longer interesting because we use video chat now.

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

Not on the PSTN you don't. The PSTN is a parallel internet whose main difference is that you need a verified identity to connect to it. It also simulates circuit switching and costs a lot.

em-bee 14 hours ago | parent [-]

i don't get your point. that does not matter. what i mean is that as a user i care about the tech that runs on my phone, not how the connection is made. i don't make phone calls anymore. nowadays everything is done with video chat. neither PSTN nor VOIP offer that, so their use will eventually decline unless they start offering video. phone numbers are also a privacy nightmare. they need to be replaced with something that allows me to pre-authorize who can call me. this is unlikely to happen any time soon, but the point is that VOIP in particular is hardly relevant except in a few specific use cases.

inigyou 12 hours ago | parent [-]

What do you use - WhatsApp? That's VOIP.

em-bee 5 hours ago | parent [-]

that depends on how you define VOIP. strictly going by the term any voice sent over the internet is VOIP. but since PSTN can be routed over the internet too, that would be included as well. but i am talking about the system that uses a standardized protocol over a federated network with a VOIP or SIP client with a public address that allows you to reach any other public address on the internet, just like email.

whatsapp is a private network, not federated and only works with a whatsapp owned client. to qualify i would have to be able to call someone on whatsapp with a generic VOIP client.

this is comparable to googles text messaging system that is built on xmpp. it used to be possible that i could use any xmpp client on any xmpp server to reach people on google. at that point google was xmpp. but when they removed public access it stopped being standard xmpp but became a custom fork of it.

inigyou 5 hours ago | parent [-]

VOIP is any voice sent over IP. It can be the internet or the PSTN. I assume India doesn't forbid telcos using IP internally, because they surely do that because TDM switches are obsolete technology, but they Shall Not Connect to a public IP network.

em-bee 2 hours ago | parent [-]

so when india is talking about banning VOIP they can not mean any voice sent over IP, which makes that distinction matter.

SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev [-]

voip is pretty effectively banned, or at least marginalized, in the USA. Can't use a Google Voice number for most payment services, for example.

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

Does jmp.chat work?