“The law banning VPN services will not stop experienced Internet users. Access zone: the law on anonymizers came into force in Russia
If you need a time machine to find out the details of the events of two years ago, then investigation is simply not your calling. However, you can refute something from his recent videos for the same 1000 euros. But nevertheless, you prefer to claim that it is not possible to prove truth or falsehood.
We have moved to the level of requiring proof of the non-existence of something. From the experience of debates on religious topics, I only assume that further arguments from the area of “you weren’t there” should come into play, I decided to preface them.
Are you serious? Don't you see the difference between information that is not trustworthy and information that is patently false? The first one has yet to be confirmed or refuted, but with the second everything is clear.
That's why I emphasized the functional difference.
Let's think logically. Shariy wanted to clearly show that this was a paid rally. To do this, he was not too lazy to highlight the wallets on the records, although, as we found out, the wallets themselves are not unambiguous evidence. Now the question is - if he had the truth reliable information about 200 hryvnia - what reasons could he have for not including it in the video about this rally? Why would there be then these worthless wallets, if here it is - reliable and verified information accurate to the hryvnia?
You are quite familiar with the reasons for dislike for Navalny in general within the framework of this discussion. Shariy adds to his claims that Navalny and his crowd are spreading false information about him personally.
You know, I learned that Navalny actually said something about Shariy only in this discussion with you. And I’m the one who more or less follows Navalny’s content. At the same time, Shariy himself produces incomparably more content about Navalny, even judging by the banal headlines. So there's Internet drama on display.
You either prove that there were not 200 of them, or do not mention this fact at all. If you, having watched the part of the video where this amount is mentioned, still do not understand what it means, then you should not focus on it.
You know, I didn’t even immediately realize that this amount was even mentioned in the video itself. But in the end it turned out to be a figure literally pulled out of thin air. This raises the question: what can be protected here?
Why does it have to be me? You tried to attach a similar label to Shariy with a proposal to refute it. Have you already forgotten?
This was a response to your accusations of me idealizing Navalny. And by the way, I didn’t call Shariy a Kremlinbot. Moreover, I fully explained my attitude towards him in this context.
Are you seriously? Slavyansk and Kramatorsk? It’s not just your lies, you even need to rub your nose into the map.
Or do you live in one-dimensional space? I repeat to you for the “one hundred and first” time, from Slavyansk and Kramatorsk to Mariupol, where they walked fighting, no one seemed to care about demilitarization, although it is obvious that these are precisely the people who understand how and what such decisions influence. But at the same time, people came from equally distant Melitopol and even Kharkov, where people have no idea what they are talking about and this will not affect their lives at all. Are you able to compare two situations without trying to mix things up and lead the discussion astray?
And you very delicately didn’t quote the rest of my quote? Well, let me do it for you:
In what locality did the rally in question take place? In Mariupol. Whaaaaat locality is it 200 kilometers away? Melitopol (about 200 kilometers away, but it doesn’t matter). What settlement 200 kilometers from Mariupol are we talking about in Shariy’s video under discussion? About Melitopol. When did the fighting take place in Melitopol? Never.
Well, let me immediately ask one more leading question - who and after what even remembered about Slavyansk and Kramatorsk? Mmm?
You have not found out anything, because you are not able to refute this information, you are absolutely unarmed and helpless in this issue. And in the case of Kamikaze, he has already received a lawsuit for his lies and fled the country. You have “veils before your eyes.”
As it turned out, there was nothing to refute there initially. And this story is about the veil before our eyes, mmm... I have straight Vietnamese flashbacks about people who use similar phrases “woke” and all that...
Those. I take it you are not an atheist? If this is a matter of faith, then everything is clear with you. IN in this case you don't need any proof? And the absence of a reason does not hint to you that this is just an attempt to “hype” empty space? Once again you refuse to draw obvious conclusions.
Should you talk about atheism after all this apologetics around Shariy?
If I hurt your tender feelings so much by using the phrase “I believe,” then let me rephrase - based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that this is an organized process. However, I don’t quite understand the reason for your overexcitement from this word, because I just answered your question in style, in which you also used the phrase “believe.” If it was a deliberate provocation, then ugh to do that, it’s somehow pathetic and really at the kindergarten level.
Don't you forget that he is absurd specifically in technically? But in terms of logic, everything is clear with him, the desire for total surveillance. Yes, it is technically impossible under current conditions, but the desire of the authorities to have it is absolutely logical and understandable. And I, in turn, suggest that you think logically.
And it’s probably logical for the authorities to want to live forever and have endless benefits. All that remains is to wait for the corresponding bill to be adopted so that you can say that everything in it is logical. And what was this for?
What do you think about the possibility that the whole situation itself is a lie and nothing special is happening with their videos in comparison with other authors on YouTube? Is this all just empty PR? Is this option really not possible for you?
I followed other bloggers not from Russia, I know that this is not the first time such a situation has happened, so the very fact of such a precedent does not particularly surprise me. That's why I mentioned Youtube policy. However, I am not particularly convinced that it is not carried out under the influence, for the reasons stated above.
Well, you can look through them and see the contents for yourself. The main point is that YouTube is already creating problems for political long time, but they mainly concern the monetization of video data. The drop in profits touched the blogger Kamikaze to the core and he began to complain everywhere about the “tricks of the Kremlin,” however, as usual. Then the whole “non-systemic party” decided to pick up the topic, because... The problem with monetization is actually well-known and global, so we decided to come up with our own, albeit rather absurd one. But which of their fans will think about causes and consequences? Something is happening - which means the Kremlin is to blame, the goal has been achieved.
Well, excuse me, such a narrative is not very consistent with the fact that the Kremlin (in in a broad sense) is the leader in removal requests on Youtube. However, I admit this option. And just as this was condemned before, I see no reason not to condemn it now. Why shouldn't Shariy focus on this? By the way, it would be interesting to know - what percentage of Shariy’s videos are monetized? Do you know if this was mentioned somewhere?
Questions should arise for everyone.
They appear to everyone :) By the way, I wish the same for you.
But it is not that these statements convey reliable information.
Definitely. It would be very interesting to check the reliability of this information, wouldn’t it?
If we speak beyond the criteria of absolute conviction or questions of evidence beyond doubt, what do you yourself think is more likely? Since you are using these kinds of criteria in relation to the rally in Mariupol, I think it would be fair to apply them to Usmanov as well? How convinced are you of Usmanov’s crystal honesty and that such accusations cannot be based on anything? Which probability do you think is more significant?
This is not just a “technical inaccuracy”, it is a deliberate manipulation to heat up the situation. Don't you understand this?
It seems to me that the very fact that people are imprisoned for expressing their opinions in in social networks That in itself is enough to heat up the situation.
It’s not difficult to find, nor is it difficult to read the contents of these “reposts”. You will be imprisoned for this in any developed democratic country.
And indeed, for example here - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Chudnovets
But as far as “they’ll put you in prison in any developed democratic country,” I’m not particularly convinced. I can agree that there were such precedents, but not that this is a criterion characterizing a developed democracy in the country.
We have already discussed this issue; the film deliberately contains false information that Usmanov is supposedly a criminal. But this cannot be so in accordance with the law until the relevant court decision. And the demand for witnesses will not change this fact. Within the framework of this trial there was not and could not be a task to clarify all the details from Usmanov’s past, but the task was to establish the fact of slander, which is done without special problems. Navalny used a deliberately losing formulation, quite possibly intentionally.
If within the framework of this trial there was no task to clarify the details of Usmanov’s past, this only proves that Navalny, in principle, was not entitled to protection. Which, in general, was what needed to be proven :)
In your wallet? Not the best place to store such desserts.
So they immediately ate the cupcake right on the spot. The tracks were covered.
In Sokolovsky’s case, if only “only”, but no.
So why not?
This means that you cannot claim that she eats them, as well as appeal to this investigation as evidence of anything.
Without a doubt. What practical conclusion can be drawn from this? It is possible to prove that Yarovaya eats children only through court (apparently?). But what if we assume that the court is biased (we won’t discuss the reason for such doubts? Let me just throw in the name Turovsky, and then we’ll do our own thing)? How then to prove that she eats children?
Aren’t you surprised or where are the bad relationships?)
Unscrupulous? How is that? Such concepts do not exist in geopolitics. Do not try to compare relations between states with human relations, this cannot be the case, not on our planet.
A good excuse for any savagery, such as invading a neighboring country.
If by “lost” you mean that we will not return to cooperate within the next 6 years, then yes, prove it. Otherwise, this is only a suspension of cooperation, and not its loss.
Now I need a time machine to go to the future? Or will we discuss the assessments of various experts, which are obviously contradictory, and therefore do not clearly indicate any position? Be that as it may, this moment There are no prerequisites for restoring cooperation. So suspended cooperation is functionally identical to the loss of Ukraine for us. Which brings us back to the original argument.
Where did you get this? I am saying that regardless of the past, there will be no obstacles to restoring the relationship, everything depends on the need for these relationships as such. You can have a long, cloudless history of mutually beneficial cooperation between countries, or you can drop an atomic bomb on some country and still make it your reliable strategic partner, it makes no difference, it all depends on the need and the situation.
How possible do you think mutually beneficial cooperation between Israel and Palestine is?
The dispute was that his quick departure is not guaranteed; he is just as likely to be re-elected for a second term; so far there is no basis for clear conclusions.
Didn’t you notice that you disagreed with me from both directions and in the end both lines converged into one big, bold uncertainty?)
This is if we omit the arguments on the topic of who needs Poroshenko at all...
External players can lose control over the puppets, at the latter's request. The goal is to prevent such a desire from arising.
Again, operating with some abstract incomputable probabilities...
You will study the issue in more detail. To reintegrate Donbass, Ukraine needs to carry out a constitutional reform aimed at decentralizing power; this is the same demand for “federalization” that was raised by Donbass initially. U of this region there will be a right to form one’s own policy enshrined in the constitution, as well as the opportunity to veto controversial decisions affecting the entire country. Disagreements, the resolution of which is enshrined in law, are not a problem.
There is an opinion that the issue of self-government of Donbass is still at the forefront here. And this in no way answers the question that two diametrically opposed groups are being formed in the country, which will obviously not agree with each other on any issue, which will only lead to the paralysis of all and any foreign policy decisions. As a result, someone will have to cave in and I see no reason for the current government of Ukraine to adopt such a policy. It must be assumed that this is why these decisions are torpedoed. Yes, the situation for the residents of Donbass is unenviable, to say the least.
And yet you chose not to reveal it. This is, of course, your right, but it is also a conscious decision for which there are objective reasons.
Undoubtedly. Objective reasons is that I see no reason to switch to ad hominem arguments. If you disagree, that is your right.
So you yourself are not interested? Then why do you reserve the right to say something on this topic? I have previously given you sources of food for thought, here are more recent ones:
https://youtu.be/HY90JIqbsUs
https://youtu.be/gqbKvEOk7JY
https://youtu.be/edHNNhL71EEYou can always get up-to-date information about the Middle East on the Internet from Dzhangirov, Vidishenko, Finko and Kedmi, in most cases it is even free.
This is all undoubtedly entertaining, but to be honest, I don’t have the time to listen to 3 hours of abstract lectures about the Middle East for the sake of a sarcastic answer to you. Let's take the conversation in a more constructive direction, shall we? You have undoubtedly read the said content? Perhaps you can briefly outline what the essence is? Perhaps even with links to timestamps? Then we will be able to discuss the theses directly presented.
What is the connection between German turbines and the USA? Everyone solves their own problems; they do not always act as a united front, but in Lately especially.
The connection is simple - both of them are pursuing a policy of sanctions against Russia. And the idea was precisely their unity on this issue.
The sanctions are the same, but the reason will change slightly. In your opinion, are the sanctions for allegedly interfering in the American elections somehow related to the reality in this matter? Russia in the United States is always positioned as an opponent, even as a probable enemy, for this reason, using sanctions against it for one’s own benefit is the simplest and most effective solution, which does not raise any questions in the USA.
Are we really going to argue that if all these events related to us in Ukraine had not happened, then such pressure would not have been put on Russia and there would not have been so many sanctions as now? Or are you trying to reduce the argument to: Maybe V parallel universe, where these events did not happen, the United States would still have unleashed sanctions, because it is impossible to prove or disprove, and the fact that for some reason sanctions were not imposed before 2014 does not mean anything?
What a scene it was, Yanukovych set the theme for the play and immediately ran away when he saw the participation of foreign actors. The blame for the tens of thousands killed in the military conflict lies directly with the revolutionaries and the European leaders who supported them, who considered a military solution possible of this conflict and approved of bloodshed in Europe. And in Europe they are fully aware of their mistake, but, of course, they will never admit it.
Well, it’s a little strange to expect any other events from the first act from a play on the theme “Bloodshed and Revolution,” isn’t it?
Reduced the number of these violations. It also documented that there are violations on both sides, and not as official Kyiv claims.
Number of violations associated with OSCE surveillance? Where does this information come from? Did documenting violations on the part of Ukraine entail any consequences?
They don’t provide it? Do you not see the difference between the active phase of hostilities and rare violations? And for those who “don’t get it,” they will “explain” it properly.
It does not, according to the OSCE, which during its monitoring has repeatedly observed both an increase and a decrease in the number of violations. And who will explain to those who don’t get it? Who is the interested party there? Ukraine with radicals who, if they start explaining something to them there, will pump up their rights in Kyiv? Or are we with our troops, who supposedly aren’t there at all? Or militias who have nowhere to go?
But this is an absurd example for the sake of “an owl is not a globe.” Doesn't this bother you?
The very need to explain why the repetition of condemned actions is a double standard offends me.
What a question? Will you also ask other YouTube channels? On television, the rules are much stricter.
Are there any cool stories about journalistic ethics or good source Is there still any point in recalling information if the canal is known to be jaundiced?
In this discussion, this label is visible a mile away.
So evaluate yourself “by your desires and actions” to label your opponent with labels, whether they are visible to you or not.
Videos related to this topic are obvious. Do you have anything to say about the case?
Will we cling to slander about “all” of his videos, like you and Navalny? No? Nevermind.
Let's go back to the previous message:
I am extremely unhappy with the wording that runs throughout his videos, which sounds like “there are also normal people among people from the Caucasus.” It carries a completely different message than the usual formulation “there are also abnormal people.” I regard his deliberate distortion of this phrase in this way every time in public speeches as extremism without a shadow of a doubt.
What exactly doesn’t suit you about this formulation? Do you not agree that there are also normal people among people from the Caucasus? And what was the distortion of this phrase? Well, it’s somehow jaundiced to use the connotation of public speaking in the case of video blogging...
What do you mean by not sign? I was interested in the question of the justice of his accusations of extremism, and for this I had to familiarize myself with him and find confirmation of the justice of such accusations, I found them, I am not interested in his further activities.
This is exactly what interests me, moreover, I am familiar with him to exactly the same extent. So what did you find so extremist there?
This sentence does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation in any way.
Well this is quite some kindergarten with negation and “la-la-la, does not contradict, does not contradict.” You should at least give an argument. Yes, I know that it is further, consider this a stylistic quibble.
The Constitution defines the foundations of government, but regulates them by the criminal code. The court found that Sokolovsky violated Article 148, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by denying the existence of God with the aim of insulting the feelings of believers. The constitution does not give rights to such actions. Are you smart? Maybe rewatch his video and make sure that his goal was precisely insult, and not denial itself?
With pleasure, let's give an example. At the same time, please explain to me how in general the denial of the existence of God can be offensive and for what specific reasons are those offended not judged in this case for inciting hostility and denying the constitutional rights of other people to their freedom of religion. The very concept of someone declaring that people who claim to have a different faith are the first to be insulted, doesn’t it seem a little unhealthy to you? How would you react to a situation where, in response to a statement that you are not a fan of any football club, you were accused of being an insult to Spartak fans by your lack of fandom?
You are in vain hoping for their death. From the point of view of an individual, that’s where they belong. But no one will leave society as a whole without control and the media will not go anywhere.
It’s not in vain, but the trend is quite observable. Especially in the west. As we know, we follow him in all trends with a delay.
Not everything, but what he allows himself for now. Let's do without manipulation.
The fact that he still allows himself to other people completely fits the article. At the same time, the question of his parliamentary immunity is not even raised. And yes, let's not manipulate.
This is what parliamentary immunity is for. Deputies should have the right to say what someone does not like and not be held responsible for it. If they go too far, they lose their mandate and keep their mouth shut or bear responsibility. This is an absolutely normal state structure.
And again, what he says would bring other people under criminal charges. It turns out that parliamentary immunity is a very interesting thing, isn’t it?
Formal adherence to procedures is important. If such a formality looks absurd, but nevertheless allows you to comply with the law and save face, then they use it. In short, it’s not pretty, but it’s legally clear.
Ooooh, how they started talking. And since formal compliance with procedures is important, why was the status of believers who acted as offended not checked at Sokolovsky’s trial? At least even according to the criteria voiced by the court, if not according to the standards of the declared religion? Because we are not talking about justice, but purely telephone law and obscurantism? And no one even thought that in our country someone might be outraged by obscurantism?
I found confirmation of extremism. And you know, if I look in more detail, I’ll probably find a call for genocide, because Sokolovsky didn’t follow the words at all, youthful maximalism just rushes on. But, in view of the disgusting manner of presenting information, I think I’ll leave this question open and won’t mock myself.
And what kind of call to extremism was this? You guess that this argument will fall apart if you put it next to the features of extremism?
Of course, you should also be responsible for the form in which your attitude is presented. One and the same relation can be expressed by many different words and their combinations. For example, Posner for regularly denying the existence of God in live on Channel One, however, there is nothing to attract, a wise person knows how to formulate thoughts correctly.
Based on the formal criteria you mentioned, it is quite possible to attract him. And him and any other atheist and all representatives of non-Abrahamic religions (and even some of them). Posner himself, obviously, believes something approximately similar, taking into account his own wise formulations -
These are the wordings
I consider it necessary to warn you that I may be brought to trial and sentenced to prison. This is as surprising to me as it is to you, so let me explain.Last Thursday, the Verkh-Isetsky District Court of Yekaterinburg sentenced blogger Ruslan Sokolovsky to three and a half years probation. He was found guilty, in particular, of insulting the feelings of believers. According to judge Ekaterina Shaponyak, the insult to the feelings of believers was formed, I quote, “Through the denial of the existence of God, the denial of the existence of the founder of Christianity and Islam, Jesus Christ and Muhammad.”
I would like to remind you that when the law on insulting the feelings of believers was adopted a little over three years ago, many warned that it would be used to persecute opponents of the church. That's what happened. A person denies the existence of God, that is, he is an atheist. Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for denying the existence of God, that is, for atheism; in particular, the “Holy Inquisition” was passionate about this. I have no doubt that to this day there are people who regret that this method of fighting heresy is no longer used, I will not name names, otherwise they will be brought under Article 248 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for inciting hatred, but I cannot help but refer in response to the words of the Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Hegumen Serapion, who, commenting, I quote: “Such a lenient sentence,” expressed the hope that Sokolovsky would take it as a sign that “there is mercy in this world and that there is a source of this mercy - God". Where was God when they burned at the stake... well, that’s the question.
I am known to be an atheist. Therefore, I believe that there is no God. It’s not that I run around and shout “no, no” from morning to evening, but I don’t hide my convictions either. I would like to receive a comprehensive explanation: by professing this view, am I violating the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation? Maybe Patriarch Kirill will say whether I offend his religious feelings by claiming that there is no God? Perhaps the Chairman of the Constitutional Court will tell me whether I have the right to think what I think and express what I express? Perhaps the head of state will clarify whether I am awaiting trial and, God willing, excuse the pun, a lenient sentence?
This is all water, the main idea remains the same - the absence of evidence of a fact deprives the right to assert it.
Oh, and now it’s all just water. Comfortable. You would like more uniformity of approach regarding what is water and what is not.
Deputies Maxim Kudryavtsev (United Russia), Nikolai Ryzhak (A Just Russia), Alexander Yushchenko (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) introduced a bill to the State Duma that proposes to ban the use of any special means and services with which you can bypass blocking.
The document proposes to prohibit the use of “information and telecommunication networks, information systems and computer programs to gain access to information resources, including sites or pages of sites on the Internet, access to which is limited on the territory of the Russian Federation.”
In addition, the authors of the initiative propose to amend the Code of Administrative Offenses, according to which search engine operators will be punished for failure to fulfill obligations to gain access to the Roskomnadzor information system and stop issuing links that it contains. This “entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials - fifty thousand rubles; on legal entities- from five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand rubles.”
They also propose to fine the owners of “information and telecommunication networks, information systems or programs for electronic computers, which can be used on the territory Russian Federation to bypass access restrictions, or the owner of an information resource, including a site on the Internet, through which access to such information and telecommunication networks is provided, information systems or programs for electronic computers."
In fact, this means that owners of VPNs and any other means of tunneling and proxying traffic will be fined. Punishment for them “entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from fifty thousand to three hundred thousand rubles.” Or, in case of repeated commission of an administrative offense, “the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to thirty days.”
In the explanatory note, the authors of the bill write that “the practice that has developed since 2012 has revealed the insufficient effectiveness of blocking” and on the Internet you can still find links to blocked resources in search engine results, and you can also use technologies that allow you to gain access to blocked information resources :
“Technologies for directing the traffic of Russian Internet users through foreign servers, anonymous proxy servers, virtual private networks are legal, there is a wide range of possibilities for their lawful use, but these technologies are used to gain access to information resources, access to which is legally limited.”
The creators of the bill propose to provide owners of relevant networks and programs with access to the information resource of Roskomnadzor, which contains information about resources to which access is limited in Russia. If Roskomnadzor’s demands for a ban are not met within 30 days, it is proposed to limit access to information resources that provide the ability to “bypass blocking.”
Adviser to the Russian President on Internet development issues, German Klimenko, has already expressed his opinion regarding this initiative. In a conversation with Lenta.ru journalists, he clarified that the bill submitted to the State Duma does not imply complete ban VPN services and anonymizers such as Tor.
“A good question is whether this law will be effective, since most of the services that provide such services are located outside of Russia,” Klimenko noted.
Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on the Internet Dmitry Marinichev, in a conversation with RBC, called the bill banning technologies for viewing blocked sites “madness.”
“All this goes against common sense. The bill talks about technologies that allow you to bypass the blocking. First of all, these are VPNs and anonymizers. How will they separate a VPN that is used for commercial purposes from a VPN that is used to bypass blocks? It’s impossible to determine,” Marinichev said.
An interesting commentary on what was happening was also published by Sarkis Darbinyan, lawyer, head of the Defense Center digital rights"and leading lawyer of Roskomsvoboda:
“Recently, many bad laws regarding Internet regulation have been introduced and adopted in the State Duma, but this one is one of the worst. It fits well into the trend of illiterate pressure on the network and infringement of digital human rights. But this time his legs grow not from the special services and the regulator, but from media lobbyists, MKS and Rostelecom, who are also not averse to following government agencies in monitoring users and censoring content.
The authors of the bill essentially propose to assign additional responsibilities to search engines, the same as telecom operators, for the daily unloading of domains that must be removed from search results, and to block technical services (for example, those described on openrunet.org) if they do not provide restricting access to sites included in numerous Roskomnadzor registers. If the law is passed, tools such as VPN and TOR will be completely blocked at the carrier level, since it is obvious that service administrators will not filter anything.
The legislative initiative is absolutely unviable. The experience of Asian countries with repressive political regimes shows that even blocking sites with distributions will not completely limit user access to VPN services, TOR exit nodes in different parts of the world and other means of traffic proxying.
The initiative looks especially funny in the light latest news, that due to the vulnerability of the blocking system and the actions of Roskomnadzor, users were massively deprived of access to completely legal sites. If these tools did not exist, it is unclear how users would even exercise their rights to access information. When the Constitution fails to protect, they come to the rescue software. Now they want to limit us in this too.”
Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation voted for laws regulating the work of instant messengers and banning means of bypassing site blocking.
These laws are published on the website of the Automated System for Supporting Legislative Activities of the State Duma of Russia.
VPNs and anonymizers
Services were also required to provide the ability to transfer emails at the initiative of government agencies in accordance with Russian legislation.
The head of the relevant State Duma committee on information policy, Leonid Levin, commented on the information about possible ban, according to this law, access to instant messengers for individual users.
“The introduced regulation provides for sanctions only against instant messenger operators if they contribute to violation of the law. There are no plans for any fines or direct bans against users,” he said.
According to the new law, information about the subscriber number of messenger users can be transferred to third parties only with the consent of the first. The law also establishes the obligations of the messenger to identify users by subscriber number operator on the basis of an agreement with the operator. In addition, the law stipulates that instant messengers belonging to legal entities or Russian citizens registered in Russia have the right to be identified by their subscriber number.
The document notes that if messengers fail to comply with the requirements regarding restrictions on sending messages with information that violates the requirements of Russian legislation, it is possible to restrict access to the messenger in the country.
Removing links from search engine results, VPN connection to the Roskomnadzor register and other methods from the new bill.
To bookmarks
On June 8, deputies submitted a bill to the State Duma demanding a ban on the use of anonymizers, proxy servers and VPN solutions to bypass blocking of sites contained in the register of prohibited sites.
In the explanatory note to the bill, deputies indicate that the current mechanism for restricting access to sites is ineffective.
According to parliamentarians, this is due to the ability to detect links to blocked sites in search results, as well as using technologies for directing traffic of Russian users through foreign servers.
Monitoring anonymizers and VPNs
The bill proposes to oblige Roskomnadzor to monitor solutions that can be used to bypass blocking - anonymizers and VPN services.
The agency will have to monitor hosting providers that provide services to anonymizer sites and sites that allow you to download VPN services. Deputies propose the following scheme for the department:
- Roskomnadzor sends a request to the hosting provider, who within three days will have to disclose the data of the owners of VPN services and anonymizers using its site;
- Roskomnadzor demands that owners of anonymizer sites and similar services cease their activities in Russia or stop giving users the opportunity to bypass blocking;
- The owner of the anonymizer has 30 days to respond, during which time Roskomnadzor will have the right to block the service.
Chief Analyst Russian Association Electronic Communications (RAEC) and co-founder of the Internet Research Institute Karen Kazaryan points out that if a hosting company is registered abroad, it can ignore Roskomnadzor’s request.
The mechanism for blocking programs that provide access to prohibited sites is also not explained in the bill. Kazaryan is confident that, for example, TOR and its analogues cannot be blocked.
List of prohibited sites
VPN services can avoid blocking if they cooperate with Roskomnadzor and prohibit their users from visiting sites on the agency’s “black list,” the law says.
Deputies propose that Roskomnadzor provide owners of solutions for bypassing blocking with access to the list of blocked sites. The current version of the bill does not specify how exactly this system will work.
If anonymizers and VPN servers do not agree to connect to the registry after a request from Roskomnadzor, they will face blocking.
Kazaryan believes that it is impossible to force a VPN or anonymizer to restrict access to a particular site. “A commercial VPN service with encryption cannot do this technologically. Otherwise, it’s no longer encryption,” explains the analyst.
Corporate VPNs
The document excludes from its scope those VPN services that are used by “persons who are in an employment relationship with [VPN owners].”
However, the bill does not detail how to separate a VPN that is used for commercial purposes from a VPN that is used to bypass blocks.
Limitations for search engines
Anonymizers and VPNs, according to the bill, will be able to decide for themselves whether or not to connect to the list with information about blocked sites. At the same time, legislators left search engines virtually no choice.
Deputies propose giving Roskomnadzor the right to demand that companies join the register of sites banned in Russia. Yandex, Google and other similar services will have to remove links to blacklisted web pages from search results.
Fines
Search engines for failure to comply with Roskomnadzor requirements, unlike anonymizers and VPN services, face fines rather than blocking.
The authors of the document also made amendments to the Code of Administrative Violations (CAO), according to which search engines may be fined for links to blocked sites.
For legal entities, the amount of the fine will be from 500 to 700 thousand rubles, for officials - 50 thousand rubles, for citizens - 5 thousand rubles.
A similar penalty is provided for refusal to connect to the Roskomnadzor system with information about prohibited sites.
Canceling bloggers
In addition, the text of the bill talks about the abolition of the so-called law on bloggers (97-FZ), which has been in force in Russia since 2014. Legislators considered this provision ineffective. The deputies do not provide any other justification for rejecting the rule on bloggers.
In the register of bloggers, according to current legislation, Roskomnadzor includes authors whose daily audience is at least three thousand people.
Bloggers included in the list must comply with rules that partially apply to the media. In particular, they must verify the accuracy of information before publishing it and disclose their real name. However, the law does not provide for any sanctions for non-compliance with these requirements.
Roskomnadzor has already tried to reach an agreement
In April 2017, Vedomosti wrote about Roskomnadzor reaching an agreement with VPN services to block sites banned in Russia. In particular, the department turned to the HideMy.name project (formerly HideMe.ru) with a request to check “ technical feasibility» restrictions on access to sites that are on the “black list”.
In January 2017, HideMe.ru was due to availability on home page input lines for visiting any site. Despite the fact that the service eliminated the violation, Roskomnadzor was in no hurry to lift the block and asked to introduce a ban on visiting sites blocked in Russia via VPN.
Then Roskomnadzor press secretary Vadim Ampelonsky, in a conversation with Vedomosti, said that to resolve issues with anonymizers, separate regulation is needed.
Opinions about the initiative
One of the authors of the bill, Maxim Kudryavtsev, explained to Novaya Gazeta that the document does not imply a ban on anonymizers and VPN services in Russia.
We will not block any services. We insist on more intensive and high-quality implementation of the bill, we close additional channels exit.
Maxim Kudryavtsev
Member of United Russia
Internet Ombudsman Dmitry Marinichev called the bill “madness” in a conversation with RBC.
All this goes against common sense. The bill talks about technologies that allow you to bypass the blocking. First of all, these are VPNs and anonymizers. How will they separate a VPN that is used for commercial purposes from a VPN that is used to bypass blocks? It's impossible to determine.
Dmitry Marinichev
Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on the Internet
Presidential Internet Advisor German Klimenko explained to Lenta.ru that the document does not imply complete blocking anonymizers and VPN.
Advisor to the President German Klimenko in 2016 at the lecture “ Information Security Russia” in Russia spoke about the prospects for the development of Internet censorship in our country as follows:
"The only way is Chinese version . Of course, control is needed because there is no way to prevent this. China is less sensitive to public opinion; they assessed the threat and limited the Internet. Now they don’t have such problems.”
On July 29, a decree was signed banning funds for visiting sites blocked in Russia. But no country in the world, except North Korea, has yet managed to completely ban Tor, VPN and other anonymizers.
Even in China, VPNs are used by 20% of the Internet audience. Although the authorities have been taking steps since 2012 whole line measures that make life more difficult for fans of prohibited content. Perhaps some of them will be used in Russia.
Rospotrebnadzor has been sending its employees to China for several years to “exchange experience.” And in 2016, Lu Wei himself, who is called the “father of the Great Firewall of China,” came to us.
So, let’s look at the example of China to see how the new law could turn out in reality.
1. Licensing of VPN services
According to the decree of the Ministry of Industry and information technologies China, since January 2017, all VPN providers who want to operate in China must obtain a government license. Also, permission is required for companies that use their own VPN servers for business.
The exact cost of such a license is unknown. Most likely, it is determined individually. Perhaps services should pay for “legality” not only with money, but also with customer traffic data.
2. Blocking VPN service sites and mobile applications
Services for logging into prohibited resources or sites with links to anonymizer programs are blocked in China in order to curb the growth of the number of new users. And at the end of July 2017 Apple of the Year At the request of the Chinese government, it began removing VPN applications from the App Store.
Isolated cases of blocking of anonymizer services were observed in Russia back in 2012, and in the fall of 2016, several dozen such sites were added to the Rospotrebnadzor register.
3. User fines
At the end of March 2017, the Chongqing Public Security Bureau (population of the urban area is 50 million people) issued a decree providing for a fine of up to 15 thousand yuan ($2231 at the exchange rate of 08/01/2017) for anyone who illegally uses VPN to bypass blocks.
China has far from the most stringent methods of combating anonymizers. For example, in the UAE in 2016, a law was passed according to which the use of VPN to break the law faces a fine of up to $2 million. But when using a VPN There are no restrictions for legal business purposes.
And a 2014 report on the activities of the Iranian cyber police FATA reported several cases of arrest of people who were involved in the distribution of VPNs.
But despite similar laws in Iran and the UAE, millions of people use means to bypass blocking.
4. VPN service interruptions
The golden rule of VPN users in China: pay for the service for the shortest possible period. So many of them periodically stop working and we have to urgently look for a replacement. For example, in 2015, the world's largest VPN providers StrongVPN, Astrill and GoldenFrog (VyprVPN) were temporarily down.
But providers very quickly find a way to mask their traffic from the Golden Shield and resume work. And in response, the Chinese government is once again improving its traffic analysis methods. This fight has been going on since 2012. So far, VPN services are winning.
To fully implement the fourth point, Russia will need its own “Golden Shield”. Rospotrebnadzor has not yet shared with the population plans to create such a project. But there are already a lot of rumors about him. Correspondents from The Guardian newspaper six months ago gave the future Russian firewall the nickname Red Web.
How do such measures affect people's lives?
Not too noticeable. They simply force you to make unnecessary movements when choosing a VPN provider and searching for a new one when the old one suddenly stops working. The risk of getting a fine is very low, since in countries with strict Internet censorship, millions of people use means to bypass blocking and it is impossible to punish them all.
But it is very beneficial for any state to “fight anonymizers”:
1. The government can make money by selling licenses to VPN providers and companies that require this technology to operate.
2. Blocking of free anonymizer sites and interruptions in the operation of “illegal services” forces people to switch to paid “legal” VPNs, which pay for the state license and generate income for the budget.
3. Exemplary fines random users VPN - additional source income and a way to keep the population “on their toes.”
Let me note again that all four points from the article are an analysis of news from China and other countries. IN Russia does not yet have any of the above. But it is unknown how the situation will change in a few years.
