Liberty, equality, filtration. Igor Ashmanov about the scandalous law on black lists on the Internet

On Thursday, July 12, "Vedomosti" published a column Sam Green's "Defenseless RUnet" about the new law on the register of banned sites, the State Duma adopted. In the article for some reason, as if thrown to the rumors, "information media" about me and my company (which I just did horrible filtering of Liberty on the order of "Rostelecom"), so I also asked to speak in "Vedomosti" — not only to refute "rumors", but also to convey to the same audience an alternative point of view on the law and the problem of filtering.

I wrote a long angry text from unparliamentary expressions and arrivals on the Green and the liberals, who did not have a chance to get into the "Vedomosti", and then stings him to calm a column for a few thousand characters. It was published in the newspaper on Tuesday, July 17. There I denied "information from the media" about the AIP and said a few words about the law. Next on the site under the article, of course, all hell broke loose in the comments, of which I was educated on the forum audience, "Vedomosti" learned how disgusting and I paid a bloody gebnya. I wrote "Here you are with Putin think that …", "here you are there take the law …". I laughed and explained to the audience that the state — is not for me, but in vain.

But in any case, place the newspaper objectively few requirements of academic language are tough. Now "Vedomosti" column and comments have already closed (subscribers only).

And the thought of something, thinking what to do? Feel sorry for them though. Therefore, the long version of the same article I sent Jura. For length and language — at the time. Here is the text below. Caution: lots of beech trees and rough meanings.

To begin an article about Mr. Green's (and then about the law.) The article is simply a collection of classic (or source) memes ideological stereotypes and myths are widely distributed in RuNet in the last couple of weeks.

Mythology around the law on filtering

Myth number 1, from which all dances. Internet — a zone of complete freedom. And it should always be, and should be fixed in special Russian laws, according to Green. Yes, why would it suddenly? What is this new elementary, basic value, along with our favorite Higgs boson — the absolute freedom of the Internet?

Imagine that someone will tell you that as of tomorrow Lefortovo Troparevo or, better Rostov region — a "zone of freedom", and there can vandalize, steal, sell drugs, slander, rape and defile without punishment? Would you like to create a "free" carnival area, inflamed sore on the body of the country? No, of course, the law should operate everywhere, otherwise it does not work anywhere else. All the villains in the space immediately lomanutsya impunity for secreting loot concealment of debts and justice.

So why the Internet should not act the same laws as all?

In fact, the era of zero gravity and impunity on the Internet ends, while in developed countries (including the U.S., England, etc.) — is over. In fact, an era of even distribution laws. Internet bubble is gradually filled with legal gas.

We are here to Runet slightly behind, as usual.

Myth 2. In other countries, respect the freedom of the Internet. "Few places in the world to pass such laws," says Mr. Green. Alas, here we see a typical case of the so-called lies, as mentioned by Mr. Voland. Everywhere in the "world democracy" on the Internet is to tighten the screws, as opposed to us.

In England, the cradle of modern democracy, providers and mobile operators (British Telecom, Orange etc.) Have filtered access to the sites or blogs on a blacklist, and that there is in these lists — no one really knows quite innocent blocking entire sites. Read the British media and blogs about filtering — just moan is worth.

British Telecommunications uses to block access to websites containing child pornography system Cleanfeed, which allows to block all requests to banned sites, the Internet provider keeps track of the number of connection attempts, but personal information such subscriber is not registered. The system locks the daily Cleanfeed 10,000 attempts to access banned sites.

With a view to the suppression of obscene information (including pornography) among children in the UK there is a rule according to which all mobile operators are responsible for the preset on mobile phones filtering software that blocks access to potentially dangerous for children materials intended for adults (18 +) and full moderation (personal or technological) online gaming and communication minors in chat rooms and networks served by the operator [1]. Most of the mobile operators in the UK enables filtering and moderation at the request of the owner, registered after confirmation of age as a minor who is under 18 years of age — a child (child) or young (adult).

For the record on Twitter and FB in the UK provide real time, last time — 4 years in prison for incitement to two teenagers in FB loot during the riots. Just two months put the student for racist abuse on Twitter black football player. Right? Right. For offenses must meet, wherever they are committed. But what about the basic value — freedom of the Internet in England?

Germany. In Germany, most search engines and other large Internet projects, including Google, Lycos Europe, MSN Deutschland, AOL Deutschland, Yahoo!, T-Online and T-info, accepted the agreement "Voluntary self-control for multimedia service providers" ("Voluntary Self-Control for Multimedia Service Providers ") [2]. These organizations are filtered Internet sites based on a list that is generated (Warning) by the Federal Department of media resources, harmful to young people (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons).

To get a grasp again: "content harmful to young people." Not only DP. And the list determines the state organizations.

Voluntary self-control! Without coercion of the state, according to Mr. Greene. Yep. But what about the "zone of freedom"? Where is the righteous anger of Mr. Green?

No, well, it w Germans. Ordnung muss zein, everything is clear.
France passed a law against a blacklist filtering, blocking pedophile websites without trial, criminal responsibility for hiding your IP on the Internet (hello, TOR!), Setting a police spy software on computers of suspects:

February 15, 2011 by the Constitutional Council of France adopted a law LOPSI-2 "The law aims to ensure the internal security of the country" (published in the OJ № 62 dated 15.03.2011). The law, in particular, provides for the introduction of the following measures of regulation and control of the network:

— implementation of mandatory Internet filtering to prevent the spread of child pornography, drawn up on the basis of the French Interior Ministry in cooperation with NGOs "black lists" as well as the immediate blocking of resources containing child pornography on the proposal of Ministry of Internal Affairs of France (without the need to submit the judgment).

— introduction of criminal liability for the use of fake IP-addresses for Internet access (sanction, imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to 15,000 euros);

— criminalizing the use of the Internet for an action on behalf of third parties, if this resulted in a violation of their (third parties) of tranquility or impinged on their honor and dignity of the (penalty: imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to 15,000 euros );

— a ban on the production and distribution by any means, including through the media, messages and other appeals, aimed at young audiences to take part in their games, pose a threat to their physical safety;

— legalization of remote installation on computers police units suspected of committing crimes of special programs to capture and transmit data to the police about the actions committed by users of personal computers (only by court order.)

How do you free France, the author of the "Declaration of Human Rights"?

Well, in the other countries of Europe almost everywhere there is a blacklist filtering, tracking users, the penalties for libel on blogs, etc.

But perhaps, in the United States is not so? It's true country, uncompromising freedom? Homeland forever free Internet? And here and there, when concerns about its territory, the Americans are determined and no philosophical abstractions like "an area of freedom," they do not interfere.

Americans are already doing what we are just going to do it.

In the United States, according to the "Act on the Protection of Children on the Internet", adopted in 2001, (Children's Internet Protection Act, CIPA) [3] is limited access to a number of online resources that provide information obscenity in public places such as schools and public libraries. For filtering filtering commercial software packages, however, in several states, for example, Pennsylvania applicable blocking IP-addresses at the provider. Some filtering software have been seen in over-filtering. "Act on the Protection of the privacy of minors" from 1998 establishes the rule, according to which the distribution of private information about children under the age of 16 are permitted only with the consent of their parents. Minors can not have their Internet addresses and personal channel.

In general, for a market in the U.S. network can be answered by fate. Only in the United States:

— gave her ex-husband a few months in prison for his ex-wife request to add a friend on Facebook, clicked the "request to add" — welcome to the prison;

— blogger sentenced to pay $ 2.5 million for defamation in a blog;

— do not let the two British tourists for humorous writing on Twitter (a day kept in the bullpen in handcuffs and sent)

— Arizona Legislative Assembly approved a law that libel on the Internet put a prison sentence,


For threatening to kill the president, with the support of Jihad and al-Qaeda (in words, in the forum, a blog) — in the United States are arrested, put on a thunderous period. Google recent cases — will experience cognitive shock.

Abstractions about freedom of speech is not the way. Area of freedom on the Internet — this is for third world countries, including Russia. Because they (ie us) do not put information sovereignty.

Myth 3. This law now introduce censorship. From what paragraph of the law to make such a conclusion — is unclear. The law specifically says what categories of content will be blocked (drugs, suicide, DP, politicians among them) — but they are something Mr. Green is just not discussed. Just a professional interest in author — "the growth of dissent", and so he takes the conversation about censorship. Which may appear later. Who's what, as they say.

Is there a reality in the law is a danger — see below.

Myth 4. Filtering is not needed, it is necessary to treat the cause: Internet criminals to catch the regular police. It sounds very good, a kind of like a man, but it is wickedness: we can not traditional police measures to clamp down on offenders (pedophiles, supporters of suicide, drug dealers), whose sites — in the West. And Interpol us no help here, because this is often the criminals according to our laws, and not according to the world. Motivation Russian teenagers to commit suicide in the United States — do not recognize the crime. "Harmful to Young content" harmful only in Germany, but not here. Therefore, these sites out there, we can not close, we can not extradite the owners — we can only block at home, on the approach.

Myth 5. Site filtering destroy online business and the country's GDP will fall to 2%. Here is an invention is particularly remarkable for its uncomplicated, crystal nonsense. I wonder what he thought Mr. Green, when he wrote this? After all, 2% of Russia's GDP — a few tens of billions of dollars. What exactly should fall in RuNet to cause such damage? That kind of money does not earn all Internet companies Runeta put together a long time and will not make money. Is this loss of providers and mobile operators, equal to the volume of their business? This means that users will no longer pay them, they will close their channels out of business and we did not have internet at all? And it's all due to the blocking of sites pedophile? What a nightmare.

But Mr. Green writes that the filtering bad websites SUDDENLY have an impact on the entire business and the economy as a whole! That is, exports of gas, oil, wood, weapons, all transport, space, milk, grain, meat, machinery and vehicles, services will be seriously affected by closures pedophile websites? Here is a real flight of creativity.

Myth 6 of slowing down the entire Internet filtering from 20% to even discuss not want to, it's such nonsense chepushinaya that its author should be ashamed of what I am, however, not very hopeful. Vanya Zassoursky it also led to Chaskore. However, it's no wonder he's colleague in the Green "Center for Public Opinion and the Internet" at NES. However, as discussed in the Looking Glass, we have heard from our liberals such nonsense, compared with which that — Dictionary.

Okay, enough about the myths and cliches, but there is still full of them. A few words about the author and other opponents of the law.

About the opponents of the law 

The author signed up as a member of the Center for the Internet at the New Economic School. This somewhat blurs the real situation, in my opinion. "Rumor" and "information media" in the NES Mr. Green is studying "the influence of the Internet on the growth of the protest movement in Russia" and was in close contact with the U.S. Ambassador McFaul, a specialist in the Orange Revolution. Green in Russia since 1999, a journalist, analyst, political scientist and expert on "support independent media," etc. I personally obviously (value judgments), that Mr. Green — career intelligence, an expert on the organization of the protest movement itself, and that the motives of his serious concern about the "freedom" of our Web — is quite clear.

In parallel and simultaneously strong concern about the new law formally expressed at the State Department and the U.S. Wikipedia, Google, etc. In general, all of America is very concerned about our law.

Here is a revealing quote from an article by the Green:

The attempt of the presidential administration and the Russian State Duma in the name of protecting children from online threats to establish control over the Internet in Russia has caused a flurry of righteous anger. But anger is not enough to try to stop this. "

Look: we have to deal with angry righteous who want to "stop" despicable "attempt" of our legislators miserable! For our own good to you, obviously.

Do you like what foreign national wants to "prevent attempts righteousness" of our State Duma to pass laws? I personally — no. Actually, it's boorish language and prompted me to write these mnogabukov.

Note that the law — not "attempt", and the new law — was nominated by all four factions of the State Duma. And adopted unanimously, without a single abstention!

This is talking about?

You can, of course, to "turn the fool", and as would be naive and rukopozhatno suggest that U.S. and European officials and businessmen the most in my life want the good and happiness of our country, and our legislators — the polls are illiterate and vicious zombies, no one is present, illegitimate, 100% idiots always do everything wrong, 100% of bloody puppet regime stranglers freedoms, etc. Well, why not? Every fact happens.

But the principle of Occam's our old tells us that the first still need to consider a more simple and lying on the surface of the explanation — that the Americans, as usual, are pursuing their own interests, and deputies still somehow represent our society and its interests.

Our liberals in fact have a claim to the 5% or 10% of 50% of votes won Edrom in elections to the Duma. Hardly any of the craziest demshizy say that 100% of the vote in the Duma elections were rigged, is not it?

So what is there to other factions? Why ardent revolutionaries and street fighters Gudkov and Ponomarev voted "yes"? Suggest, by the way, read the explanation Ponomariov in his blog informative.

In this situation, American support against the law — smells bad and has a great disservice to those who want to do something with this law, fix it, etc.

In general, if these people are against it, then I — "for" (c).

Discuss the rejection of the law online industry has no place here, and already discussed many times. Internet industry has repeatedly expressed to the effect that they themselves online projects anything moderate in its content discarded simply because it is expensive.

Why in Germany Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others consider it possible to voluntarily join the agreement on filtering "of content harmful to young people," and we have — no? But why?

Well, the industry and waited for: those who can not manage a self begin to manage others.

Now, about the law itself.

On the law and its shortcomings 

1. The train had already left. The law was adopted. Why do defenders of freedom woke up so late? The law is a set of amendments to the recently adopted law on the protection of children from harmful information (analogous to Western laws, by the way). Amended the bill itself has been known for several months. I was personally involved in its deliberations in April, is now July.

Why cry in the media and blogs were increased only in the last week, after the first reading? It is not clear. If the "industry" and defenders of freedom like his commitment to stop or correct the law itself, make noise and work on a fix should have been before, not after the first reading. It looks that the liberal media and bloggers need just infopovod, not a real fix the law.

2. The law has clear procedural flaws. First of all, it is his blanket. That is, the absence of many parts, complete description of the procedures for its operation, including the rules of the "authorized organization" leading black lists by compiling lists, under the rules of "output from the filter," etc. This means that we need more regulations or amendments and clarifications.

3. The law is not very technically literate. Proposed technical filtering methods, is not likely to earn. So consider virtually all experts in Internet traffic. As we can see, for the third reading these comments largely left out — the law significantly modified, references thrown IP-addresses, the words "harmful information", etc. Shifted to the provider's decision, as it is technically "illegal to restrict access to information." The regulations of the service providers, blacklists, specific technical implementation mechanisms — should continue to be discussed and corrected.

4. Is there a possibility of censorship in the law? Obviously, the law — no. This is the cunning opponents of the law: the law itself does not impose any censorship, but if desired, it can be assumed that the technical performance requirements of the law may set up a technical mechanisms that could also be used to block the "dissent", so accommodating Messrs. Greene and McFaul.

And it can be set up as such? Well, suppose we are.

Yes, obviously, such a mechanism of "war" on top of "peace-time filtering" can be created. A kind of "off button Internet." And, characteristically, off of this kind would not even be illegal: in case of the need to "turn off Twitter / Facebook / Internet" at first, is likely to be adopted, relatively speaking, the law of a State of Emergency in RuNet, half an hour until the shutdown.

This is horrible and unacceptable? In my opinion, no.

I personally believe that:

A) so the button should now be in any state. Otherwise, it is, in fact, does not have a digital sovereignty — the right to decide what happens in the information space. Without digital sovereignty now does not. This button and the digital sovereignty, of course, there is the United States, Britain, Germany, France and other developed countries.

B) This "button" we now missing, and we must understand that it will be created by the state in any case and without much regard to this particular law. Mr. Green about it, actually, and wrote — something you can filter and without any law.

B) In the "peacetime" no censorship will not. No one filter for political reasons will not — bad dumb, none of the PR government does not want to disentangle the rabid defenders of freedom cry that rises at the first proven precedent of censorship under the umbrella of the law.

But with organizing mass riots, coup attempts, etc. — Obviously, this button can and should be used.

5. The purpose of the law is different, it is camouflaged. Can it be said that the government hypocritically smuggles law to deal with pedophiles and drug dealers, and she wants to build off that button? Well, maybe the government is such a ulterior motive. It is quite natural for the government of any country. I do not know, the government did not ask. Yes you do ask him.

Well, the hypocrisy of our defenders rukopozhatnyh liberals and their American-British advisers who scream about the "area of freedom," the damage to ordinary people and loss of business, and yourself just want obstacles to his struggle with the current government — it is better that right? Well, carnival ends when you could come up and smash the power to give a slap in the media space, and she clapped eyes only.

What Internet industry with the law? 

Internet industry to stop beating on the floor in hysterics, "let me razvidet it clear this terrible law!". Business needs to stop playing political games. Otherwise, legislators and government through the beating your body just step over and go on. What, in fact, they have already done so.

Extreme hard line "you are there all you bastards, come quickly kick it back" — nedogovoroprigodna.

The law was adopted. Yes, taken in a hurry. If it is you (the players and industry professionals) seems technically illiterate, unprofitable and full of risks — you need to be involved in the process of correcting the law.

It is necessary to work out the technical aspects of its implementation to make it really work and without harmful side effects. In order to understand how it will work these lists: will slow down, will close social networks and large sites entirely.

Find out what will be the financial participation of the state, what is the responsibility of the participants of the process, each of them (ISP user registry operator).

Go from screaming, fantasies about a terrible future in the spirit of the tale of Elsa and stupid wholesale rejection to a reality. Thus are born normal laws.

We need to develop the regulations of the Registry Operator (as in the register of sites fall, how to get the site out who is responsible for the damage to the business at a false alarm, etc.) and choose the statement.

Here Andrei Kolesnikov, director of the Coordinating Center of the Russian Federation has already expressed his organization may be authorized by this organization to keep the register. Excellent already have the choice between KC and the League of BI. Or maybe someone else stated in this "tender"? We need to create a supervisory board over the registrar and enter their representatives.

In general, we need constructive.

The human rights council, liberal society and our American-wishers do not give — and they know perfectly well without me what to do, and do already.

PS Oh, and last about Sam Green's fiction about me. The fact that "according to media reports, Rostelecom is considering buying a network filter, developed by Igor Ashmanova for Vietnam … up to 80% of all Internet requests are filtered in Vietnam."

In short: no, this is nonsense in almost every letter. For more information:

A) media did not write this, because is not the fact. With me such negotiations are not conducted. I'm not selling anything Rostelecom.

B) No, I have not "developed a filter for Vietnam." We have a commercial product for organizations — Remparo filter in the classic format http-proxy. This semantic filter that determines on the fly subject kazhdyo requested web page (unfit for filtering large fast traffic on a national scale, on highways). We have a commercial pilot with a large Vietnamese mobile operator to produce 3G-modems "Clean Internet" for parents (but it is not finished, nothing does not work.) Note that such services in Russia for a long time provide users with all the mobile operators.

B) No, in Vietnam so far nothing is filtered. They sometimes on behalf of the party are blocking Facebook and Youtube, as a whole, as they are able, spots (in expensive hotels, for example, often it works), but to filter Internet content on the fly, page by page, until posaytno can not and have not started.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: