Hong Kong painter says Shenzhen police released a VPN user after he explained to officers that 'using a VPN is not illegal'

🔊 A Chinese audio reading of this record is available on the Chinese page. 简体中文

According to the Epoch Times on October 18, 2026, Chinese authorities have continued tightening internet controls this year, with multiple reports of netizens punished for circumventing the firewall. A Hong Kong painter recently said he travelled to the mainland to help a friend who had been detained for using a VPN. After he repeatedly explained to the police station the legal definition of VPN use — stressing that it was compliant — the local police eventually released the person. [1]

Why it matters

This report is worth recording for two reasons. First, it sits in the context of tightening internet controls in 2026: the Epoch Times says multiple cases of netizens punished for 'climbing the wall' have emerged this year, and the boundary of whether circumvention is a crime is becoming a public question — the painter's claim that 'using a VPN is not illegal' is one concrete cut of that boundary dispute. Second, it offers a rare 'successful negotiation' case: not a record of a fine, a warning or criminal detention, but an account of someone getting a person out of a police station by arguing the law — a civic response narrative that has documentary value whether or not his legal argument holds. A conservative note: the report does not name the painter, the friend, the police station or the dates; 'illegal detention' is the painter's own characterisation, and the direct cause of the release has no police or third-party corroboration. This record documents the Epoch Times' reporting of the painter's account — hence 'under ongoing verification'. [1][2]

Full report

According to the Epoch Times on October 18, 2026, Chinese authorities have continued tightening internet controls this year, with multiple reports of netizens punished for circumventing the firewall. A Hong Kong painter recently said he travelled to the mainland to help a friend who had been detained for using a VPN. After he repeatedly explained to the police station the legal definition of VPN use and stressed its compliance, the local police eventually released the person. The report discloses neither the painter's name, the detained friend's identity, the police station involved, nor the specific dates. [1]

The legal status of 'climbing the wall' in China has a clear statutory basis. According to UpToGo's April 2026 summary of current Chinese law and official notices, using a VPN or other circumvention tools to bypass internet regulation without authorisation remains illegal — the 2025 online rumour that circumvention had been 'legalised' was false, and a policy loosening dedicated lines for foreign-trade companies was misread as applying to ordinary citizens. But between the severity of the letter of the law and the leniency of actual enforcement lies a grey zone determined by administrative cost and economic considerations: the common consequences for a person caught merely browsing the foreign internet (research, videos) are a verbal warning, forced deletion of the software, or an administrative fine of 500 to 1,000 yuan; enforcement focuses on sellers of circumvention tools and citizens who use VPNs to spread content endangering national security. This 'strict letter, grey enforcement' pattern is consistent with the painter's account of release after explaining the law — but it cannot substitute for independent verification of this case's facts. [2]

Verification note: this record documents the Epoch Times' reporting of the Hong Kong painter's account. The identities of those involved and the details of the detention and release (including the dates, places and the direct cause of the release) have no second-source corroboration; the police have issued no public statement on the matter. This record is therefore graded 'under ongoing verification', and this site will continue to look for cross-checkable information. [1][2]

Primary sources

Links above point to the original publishers of the cited reports or assessments. Their conclusions are attributed in the text and do not imply that this site has independently verified every factual claim.