Hacker News Reader

Comment by 794CD01 | Hacker News Reader

The headline is sensationalized and inaccurate.

The actual law reads:

>“Whoever uses a fraudulent computer network protocol address (IP address) by using a false address or a third-party address by any other means for the purpose of committing a crime or preventing its discovery, shall be punished by temporary imprisonment and a fine of no less than Dhs 500,000 and not exceeding Dhs 2,000,000, or either of these two penalties.”

Key point being "for the purpose of committing a crime or preventing its discovery". It's a way to throw the book at people already committing crimes. Rather than being outraged at this, it would be more appropriate to focus on the things that are crimes and should not be, like their moronic VoIP laws.

View on HN

Well, a part of the problem obviously is that it's "throwing the book at people already committing crimes" in a place where the definition of a "crime" is not very reasonable.

For instance, a woman getting raped is defined as "extramarital sex" which is a crime.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/hundreds-of-wo...

Yes, but it's very simple and very common to use a VPN to circumvent their block on voip services, whereas I do not know of a way to use a VPN to rape someone, so I went with what I found to be the more reasonable example.

> For instance, a woman getting raped is defined as "extramarital sex" which is a crime.

He literally ended his comment with that point. You're not adding anything here.

Literal: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

https://www.google.com/search?q=you+keep+using+that+word

Except 794CD01 did literally end his comment with that point:

> it would be more appropriate to focus on the things that are crimes and should not be, like their moronic VoIP laws.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that throwing the book at people for bullshit crimes and the bullshit crimes themselves are both bullshit.

I guess some commenters with a sense of nuance don't find weird VoIP laws to be remotely similar to caveman era rape and monogamy laws and find the conflation somewhat distasteful.

I admit, I don't know why ptaipale bought that up as an example of their laws, since there are plenty of electronic examples that are relevant to the VPN issue.

For instance, posting vacation photos on Facebook. If you don't get permission from someone in a photo, even in a public space, it's illegal in the UAE. And if you were posting to Facebook through a VPN, stack on an extra half million dollars.

That part was previously covered under this law, with the new additions being to cover VOIP and other blocked services. Regardless of the recent changes, the UAE is awfully far down on the list of places I'd ever consider traveling.

I brought that up simply because it was the most recent, and perhaps most illustrative, example that came to my mind that shows how different ideas people have about what should be a crime.

Works for me, I suppose the photography thing requires more explanation. I had to google the specifics.

It baffles me how your ignorance fuels you to connect two unrelated things, cyber crime vs sexual offenses. The problem everyone trying to discuss here is "Whether any usage of VPN" is banned in the UAE?

Next time you go see a doctor for a throat rash are you going to get colonoscopy too?

A good discussion here on same topic: https://www.quora.com/Is-using-a-VPN-in-the-UAE-illegal

UAE is not USA where anyone can use/say/do anything by anyway they like. It is a sovereign state, a monarchy. She welcomes people to live there in a very healthy and free lifestyle as long as you dont step out of your bounds. Trouble makers are going to find troubles to make even they live on an isolated island. I hope UAE govt come through and make an official elaborated statement that VPN usage for business/work related purpose is not discouraged.

"She welcomes people to live there in a very healthy and free lifestyle as long as you dont step out of your bounds."

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with that statement...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/series/modern...

>connect two unrelated things, cyber crime vs sexual offenses.

Are you absolutely sure they are that unrelated?

Anyway, my point was that some of the things classified as "crimes" -- more explicitly, sexual offences -- in UAE are just a vile miscarriage of actual justice. Therefore, just referring to something not being a problem because it's "throwing the book at people already committing crimes" is not that good.

I don't know if people misread my comment because I did not elaborate too much about the case I linked. The problem is not that a sexual offence is a crime in UAE. The problem is that when a group of men rapes a woman in UAE, it is a sexual offence committed by that woman when she makes the mistake of reporting it to authorities. I find that approach reprehensible. Yes, I know I'm applying my own Western norms to other people. When visiting places like UAE, I of course respect the local practices to avoid committing offences there, but I still do think some of their ideas of sexual offences what are backwards, reactionary and reprehensible.

What you say about UAE as a sovereign state is of course quite true: She welcomes people to live there in a very healthy and free lifestyle as long as you dont step out of your bounds.

The same could be said about any country, every repressive dictatorship. Life is fine as long as you don't step out of your "bounds". The "bounds" in UAE are less unreasonable than in DPRK, for instance, but I consider some of them still problematic. As such, this statement "throwing the book at people already committing crimes" is not really saying anything. The VPN rules just add to the injury of having some very, very unreasonable laws.

(UAE is not USA, and I'm not from USA, either, so perhaps you are now making too many assumptions.)

I didn't say it was not a problem, I said the headline was inaccurate and misleading, because it was, and that their other bad laws deserve more focus, because they do.

If they only outlawed things that deserved to be criminalized, like theft or fraud, would the VPN surcharge still be a problem? Contrast with the scenario where VPN usage does not increase your 1 million Dh fine for using Skype to 3 million.

ptaipale perhaps I did misinterpret your comment and jumped too quickly on stating things. My whole point was let's stick to the thesis of the problem here i.e. VPN ban. People who want to use VPN for work related purposes what is going to happen to them?

UAE like many other countries in that region have left a breadcrumb of problems behind them. In order to fit in to global fraternity they have to make drastic changes. Changes that cannot be made overnight. For example they recently introduced a law about fining employers who withhold paychecks for more than ten days etc. Neither I am an Emirati or live in that region. LIke many, I would simply get affected as a frequent traveler if such ban becomes a harsh reality.

You think they can't decriminalize being raped overnight? It's easy, strike that law from the books. Done.

In a monarchy simply decriminalizing something can happen with the stoke of a pen. There's no roadblock other than a lack of desire.

You lost us at the "healthy and free" part, where press and media is actively censored. Don't get me started on freedom of religion. Where's the freedom in that, again?

What counts as a crime though? Is reading anti-government articles a crime? Is viewing women in bathing suits (say you were shopping for your wife) a crime? Is unintentionally viewing a NSFW image on Reddit a crime?

It would be interesting to know how this law is really enforced - it could range from legitimate and fair to very authoritarian.

(Note: I've heard the laws in the UAE can be strict, but I have no idea if this is factual.)

Crime is anything that someone, with whom the powers of the day are unhappy with, does.

Using voip services like Skype is a crime. I would guess that is the main target of this law, since using VPNs to circumvent the present ban on such services is very common.

> What counts as a crime though? Is reading anti-government articles a crime?

If you'd finished reading his comment, you'd have come across this sentence:

"Rather than being outraged at this, it would be more appropriate to focus on the things that are crimes and should not be".

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious ("outraged" is perhaps too strong a word) of both.

So, "preventing its discovery": does "its" refer to the discovery of the crime or the discovery of the IP address? Because by definition, a VPN prevents the discovery of the originator's IP address. So if interpreted that way, yes, that would effectively make VPNs illegal, as merely masking one's IP address would be considered a crime.

Exactly, "preventing its discovery" as in preventing the discovery of the device.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12176837 is another HN thread that is highly relevant. 2 + 2 = UAE wants national MITM enforcement techniques and do not want VPNs ruining it.

Interpretation of "preventing its discovery" and what they consider fraud is the concerning bit to me. It's not clear whether they consider using a VPN to access Netflix as fraudulent.

Accessing Netflix is not a crime, so using a VPN to access netflix would not be. If you used a VPN in a different country to access Netflix in order to circumvent their licensing restrictions, it probably becomes a complex matter of international copyright agreements. But that is already against the netflix terms of service no matter which country you are in, so complaints that you should be allowed to do that should be primarily directed at Netflix themselves, not the UAE.

Note that the U.S. considered something somewhat analogous to this several years ago. (I worked on that issue and testified at the Sentencing Commission hearing.)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/03/extra-jail-time-f...

The rationale and legal posture of the proposal were different from this legislation, but the consequence would have been that people who used a proxy or VPN in the course of committing a Federal crime would be punished more harshly. The proposal was ultimately rejected.

if they ever find evidence of the crime, they can tack this on then

Reply on news.ycombinator.com