3 ms·
That's not "disconnecting the Internet". It's oddly enough the reverse. From what it looks like, the idea is to try and make sure that the country's IT infrua
by eps 8y ago
That's not "disconnecting the Internet".
It's oddly enough the reverse.
From what it looks like, the idea is to try and make sure that the country's IT infruatructure and its essential public services - email, web, search, etc. - remain functional, should it be ever cut off from the Internet for whatever reason. It's a doomsday thinking, it goes against the very essence of the Internet, but this is something aimed at asserting country's independence.
I'd prefer this would've not been needed, but given the current state of affairs I can't say I'm shoked they are doing this.
- theon144 8y agoYes, but as is also implied in the article, the practices that allow you to withstand an "outage" are also practices that allow you to temporarily close yourself off on demand. Without the context, purely infrastructure-wise, what kind of scenario does "Roskomnazor will inspect the traffic to block prohibited content and make sure traffic between Russian users stays inside the country" imply to you?
- eps 8y agoIt's the same scenario that causes severe pushback against Huawei. No country wants their data to flow through other country's infrastructure, period. It's just that many don't have any say in this and can't do much about it, but most realize this now. This is clearly a concern for both security and control reasons, which are two sides of the same coin. Any control can be abused. For every Roskomnadzor there's the US governement denying SWIFT to Iran and forcing EU to deploy a new system to work with the latter. So to me this looks more about power tugging at a country level with a freebie of a simpler censorship thrown in. Not the other way around.