3 ms·
The legislation is aimed at fighting child abuse/porn websites, drug use promotion, and similar content. (it never states to block copyrighted content nor can b
by cabirum 14y ago
The legislation is aimed at fighting child abuse/porn websites, drug use promotion, and similar content. (it never states to block copyrighted content nor can be used to block opposition presence in the internet media). Please read the actual document before discussing it.
The opposing factions overreacted and tried to distort the point of legislation by comparing it to the Great Chinese Firewall (there will be no centralized infrastructure to control all traffic flow).
This is the same kind of "censorship" used in western countries to block TPB and others, yet it deals with really criminal and abusive content.
- barrkel 14y agoWhen the UK introduced Cleanfeed to block child porn, it was supposed to only be used for that. But when cases came up in court, ISPs could not deny that they had the capability to block individual websites, so it got repurposed to block things like TPB - which I think is wrong[1]. The fact that Western countries also misuse censorship is no excuse. All I expect that will be required is a compliant court, and further censorship may be applied once the infrastructure is in place. [1] More widespread use also works against its original motivation, because it encourages people to work around the blocks with VPNs, proxies, etc. But that's generally restricted to very motivated and half-ways technically adept people.
- obtu 14y agoJust to clarify, both courts and an as yet unspecified government agency will have the power to order content removed (by site operators, web hosts, and ISPs). Looking at http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=ru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%E2%84%96_89417-6 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&... , the criteria are open-ended (the list starts with objectionable stuff for the sake of framing the debate; the last bullet point says anything deemed unsuitable can be suppressed; links to the same content are disallowed as well). In practice I expect the motivation for this law is to crack down on political dissent, alternative candidates, and any platforms that may support them.
- anghyflawn 14y agoSorry, this is not quite correct. The draft law states that any information prohibited for distribution by a Russian court can be blocked, and Russian courts are notorious for banning all sorts of data under the rubric of "anti-extremism" laws. The criteria in the draft law are extremely subjective, and coupled with the near-total absence of recourse (and such recourse as is given is to Russian courts, which does not inspire confidence in many) this is a very dangerous thing indeed.
- cabirum 14y agoNow, please, could you list any banned websites I cannot access?
- guard-of-terra 14y agohttp://www.minjust.ru/nko/fedspisok http://www.minjust.ru/nko/fedspisok This list contains some URLs that ISPs are supposed to block. Most of those are either dead or not blocked in practice (it's really hard to force it on ISPs), but it might become reality one day.
- cabirum 14y agoISPs are not required to block this. It's a list of so called extremist materials, mainly some radical religious books, nationalist and racist propaganda and such. Basically, to break the law you have to publish or distribute them, but I can access every url listed.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoI think the idea of the law is that now they would be required to block those lists.
- anghyflawn 14y agoCorrect. In any case, I would not trust the government and courts of any country with such a huge loophole ("anything that might become banned in the future"), let along those of Russia.
- cabirum 14y agoAlso, Wikipedia was blocked without any notice in advance. It was an initiative of Russian administrators with voting taking place on July, 9-th. Vote quickly passed and Wikipedia was blocked on the next day (10-th). It is an organized attempt to use Wikipedia as a tool for opposition's political means, not a people's fight for freedom.
- van_gogh 14y agoYou look like pro-Putin "Nashi" youth organisation member trashing the Internet with their prepaid comments.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoGuess what. Wikipedia does what it wants to do. You do not like it, you might use any other wikipedia.
- cabirum 14y agoExactly this. But Russian admins do not own Wikipedia and abused their power to pursue their own goals.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoWho owns Wikipedia? It's the people who spend time on it, whether we like what they do or not. If they chose to oppose the law, maybe it tells us something, don't you think?
- cabirum 14y agoLike I said, they did not give people time to vote, nor did they provide any notice of the planned actions beforehand.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoWe'll be more than happy to hear any real wikipedia contributors' points on the subject. We're not happy to hear for random people who aren't active contributors to wikipedia but still think wikipedia owes something to them. They don't technically need to have all the "85 rouble party" crowd to do the voting before deciding anything. It's not how wikipedia works.
- azov 14y agoIt effectively lets the government block any site that allows any kind of public submitted content. All it takes is to post a few offending comments and then blacklist the site for hosting them. You don't even need a court order to do it.
- xentronium 14y ago> Создаётся некая информационная система «Единый реестр доменных имен и (или) универсальных указателей страниц сайтов в сети Интернет и сетевых адресов сайтов в сети Интернет, содержащих информацию, запрещенную к распространению на территории Российской Федерации федеральными законами» (далее — Реестр). > Оператор связи, оказывающий услуги по предоставлению доступа к сети Интернет, обязан в течение суток с момента включения сетевого адреса сайта в Реестр, ограничить к нему доступ. Тот факт, что на одном IP-адресе может находиться несколько тысяч сайтов законом не учитывается. The fact that technically it will be slightly different, doesn't matter. We're going to have a Great Russian Registry of Forbidden Information, which can be extended by the means of Registry Operator (without any need for trial decision) and which every ISP should respect. Western countries, by contrast, can't force every ISP to block TPB and others without trial.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoWell, the UK has the IWF, which ensures Child Pornography is blocked. If TPB had anything even resembling it, there's a chance it could be blocked UK-wide automatically. Of course, TPB already is thanks to that court order...