July 5th, 2024

War on citizens: How the junta's VPN ban is strangling communication in Myanmar

The military regime in Myanmar tightens control by banning VPN services, affecting social media access. Concerns arise over monitoring capabilities. Public skepticism towards regime's promoted app. Ongoing efforts to maintain communication channels.

Read original articleLink Icon
War on citizens: How the junta's VPN ban is strangling communication in Myanmar

The military regime in Myanmar has intensified its control over communication channels by banning VPN services, following previous restrictions on Facebook and other messaging apps. The ban on VPNs has led to difficulties for residents in accessing social media platforms. Ma Wai Phyo Myint from Access Now highlighted concerns about the regime's monitoring capabilities and the impact on people's access to information. Despite the ban, efforts to share information persist through alternative channels. The regime's promotion of a social media app called MySpace faces skepticism from the public. International attention and support are urged to help Myanmar's citizens maintain access to the internet and communication channels. The regime's actions reflect its struggle to control information flow and the resistance it faces from anti-regime forces. Despite the challenges posed by the VPN ban, there are ongoing efforts to circumvent restrictions and ensure communication channels remain open.

Link Icon 5 comments
By @zoomTo125 - 5 months
I wish VPN also considers DPI when they design their protocol. It just sucks that every self-claimed decentralized app can easily be blocked. They can block faster than you can host another new instance & migrate users.
By @Log_out_ - 5 months
Every annonymized communication strategy that touches state owned isp as endpoint is bound to fail. which is why starlink is such a game changer.
By @xrd - 5 months
I'm in Berlin. We just watched Germany lose to Spain. We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen, and it looked like a good picture to me. I was about to take it, and my friend said "You cannot take pictures without permission from those people." I had no intention of posting on social media because I don't use that.

Then we had a fascinating discussion about how photos without consent are outlawed. And, how video cameras are outlawed in public places. You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages.

I was really struck by the "news" I get about Europe. I hear incessant discussions about GDPR, which is a very abstract thing about collecting data. I'm for it, I think, but it is abstract. If I ever heard a reporter saying "You know, in Europe they are having a very different conversation about people taking pictures of your kids without your consent" well, damn, I would be very excited and interested in that article.

The fact that I don't read those articles makes me think my "news" is very controlled by social media companies, or should I say, anyone who has business in making sure data collection is unimpeded, which means Google, Facebook, probably Amazon.

Is my friend wrong? Is this more complicated? Or am I right that the discussion of what happens in Europe is framed in a way that keeps me uninformed about what is really possible?

By @pyuser583 - 5 months
The article was originally published by The Irrawaddy - an amazing, high quality online-paper.

The Irrawaddy does detailed and ethical journalism about Burma/Myanmar, a part of the world ruled by an authoritarian regime.

There's no Irrawaddy for Venezuela, Afghanistan, or North Korea. We only see them by the shadows they leave on other countries.

But because of the hard work of The Irrawaddy, Burma/Myanmar is much more visible to English-speaking audiences - a touchy demographic in the country being covered.

The least you could do is link to the original publisher, especially when they are such an amazing group.