Geekly Articles each Day
📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

Aftershock: how we will live after the notorious bill. Tips experienced



More letters were written about the bill passed yesterday than in the novel War and Peace. I don’t know about you, but I already have a disgust for everything connected with it: starting from the photo of Deputy Mizulina, ending with general hysteria in “all Internet” about total censorship. Thank God for Habr this is not so much spread as on some other sites.

I thought that it would be right to draw a line and collect the most sober comments for all the time it was discussed, and also, not without the help of lawyers, calmly and clearly state a number of possible measures that can be taken now, without waiting for the main part of the bill to come into force with November 1, 2012. There will also be a number of proposals for the improvement of the law and its pros and cons in the broadest possible sense.
')
The post turned out to be voluminous. But for those who are too lazy to read, there is a mindmap map convenient for parsing and discussing . So sit back and get ready for the "dive." I hope that a long, thoughtful reading will have a calming effect on the nervous system of Habr users after all these emotional discussions.



First of all, I immediately refer to the main law, adopted on December 21, 2010, and to the amendment document itself, which was adopted yesterday. It is not necessary to read, below, and so will be given understood comments.

The basic Law:



Amendments (I don’t give links to the Duma’s website, it always works unstable):



The second thing I give a link to the archive with a clear mindmap-card in different formats (PNG, PDF, MMAP, MM, MIND), if anyone is too lazy to read the rest of the post:


The image is clickable:


If someone is registered on mindmeister, then edit and share your versions:

www.mindmeister.com/185068740

Thirdly, I give a link to this article in PDF format for easier reading, if you do not want to read from here:



Read more



Well, now the text for those who want to understand more. For a start, let's see how this bill is presented to citizens. Here that speak main TV channels (I hope, will sustain a habraeffekt):

  1. Channel One: www.1tv.ru/swfxml/newsvideolist/11.07.2012/11
  2. Channel "Russia 1": www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=432796
  3. The NTV channel: www.ntv.ru/novosti/311866


One archive of three stories from these channels can be downloaded here:

narod.ru/disk/56166653001.a8f1e1ef9bdda9e98189568797a1597c/TV.zip.html

I will not speak about the substantive part of the plots, each will make his own conclusions about their degree of adequacy / competence. I note only that it is interesting to invent a clear separation of the Internet community from the majority of citizens. The Internet community is referred to as some kind of separate class, which is the only one against, and the rest of the citizens are allegedly, of course, for this bill. This opposition is somewhat alarming.

Before proceeding to the consideration of the notorious draft law, it makes sense to describe the mechanism for the adoption of controversial and resonant draft laws, as described in textbooks on public policy, and in accordance with which the state operates. At the same time, it should be noted that the policy that is alien to Habr cannot be avoided in the following paragraphs, but I think it is necessary to know this for a more sober technical view of the draft law.

Let's start with an explanation of a simple mechanism. For a long time in the sphere of business negotiations there is a reception of excessive demands.

Receiving excessive demands


Starting negotiations, a partner sometimes wants to dishonest you immediately. To do this, he overstates the requirements by several times, or puts obviously impracticable conditions. For example, when selling a house, its owner requested 200 thousand dollars from you. What he counted on is not clear. However, it is clear to you that the house, the sale of which is being discussed, is clearly not worth such an amount. His maximum, from your point of view, the price of 50 thousand dollars. By long negotiations and mutual concessions, you negotiate a price of 50 thousand dollars, although if the partner initially stated this amount, you would still disagree and you would have to negotiate a lower price. Some could agree and, say, 100 thousand.

Receiving overstated and obviously impracticable requirements is often used to either get away from the negotiations, referring to the fact that you do not make concessions, do not fulfill the requirements put forward by your negotiating partner, or win the negotiations by deceiving you, counting on the most maximum possible result. Receiving overstated demands is most often used against you, if you are not sufficiently informed, incompetent, the task is to bring negotiations to a dead end and break. And if in one-to-one negotiations you can simply leave this person and no longer communicate with him, then in the case of state-society negotiations, the population will not go anywhere.

As for the law 89417-6 directly, in the first reading it was the most draconian requirements with a huge number of shortcomings and limitations. Then, of course, according to the scenario, as it is written in the manual, the deputies agreed to mitigate it and, indeed, some points were removed or mitigated (just below there will be a specific analysis of the changes).

A similar mechanism, by the way, is somewhat more vividly traced with the draft law on rallies, when the fines were initially raised to unprecedented heights, which immediately provoked talk of lowering them from all parties, but none of the public representatives even spoke of its abolition. It is not difficult to guess that if a bill was initially introduced with “relatively normal” fines, depending, for example, on the average salary, then the question would immediately be put differently: “ Cancel the bill or not? ” Rather than: “ Lower fines or not? "

At the same time, it is necessary to understand the side effect of democracy, that if the majority of the population is for or against certain measures, this does not mean that the country will develop more effectively. For example, it is not difficult to guess that the majority of the population would be in favor of lifting immunity from deputies (I’m not even talking about more stringent measures). But this will lead to unpredictable consequences, since each deputy can be blackmailed on all sides from the investigative committee and the police, to provocateurs, and thus the basic principle of independence will be grossly violated. Of course, I do not claim that with immunity deputies are much more independent and not subject to any “lobby”, but that’s another story. I do not like the example of the immunity of deputies, take the example of the death penalty or life imprisonment for corruption.

Why there was such a rush with the bill is also understandable. The argument of the League of Safe Internet staff that the bill was posted on their website in December, I propose to consider invalid simply because if you keep track of all the bills that lie on certain sites that are supported by Roskomnadzor and other government agencies, you can get bogged down in a pile of papers and it is absolutely unclear which of them will be accepted for consideration.

Some users of Habr put forward the following versions:

Chelovekdimka
I think that this bill was created in order to divert Internet bortsuny from the real problem - the WTO.

Orion189
It always begins with the words: “This is for your own safety” (c)

I think Comrade Orion189 subtly hinted at the adoption of this law in order to simplify the political struggle on the Internet for the ruling party, however, this is only my conjecture.

Let's return to our sheep bills



Let's start with a preface from atomAltera (spelling and punctuation preserved):
In general, the Duma members are great, they formulated the law in such a cunning way that by opposing him you are compromising yourself.

So, what does this talmud prepare for us:
  1. The extrajudicial procedure for closing access to information is introduced only for the case of the spread of child pornography, drug propaganda and calls for suicide. At a minimum, there is no policy and, thank God. However, the work “Anna Karenina” or an article in Wikipedia about some substances still legally fall under its action. In practice, of course, this is a big question. Here the situation is the same as using unlicensed software. I think the overwhelming majority use it in their daily work, but the facts of actual administrative or criminal cases are few
  2. The law clarifies that the illegal information contained in the comments created by the readers of online publications themselves cannot be a reason for entering the register (Article 11, paragraph 7).
  3. The law establishes that other cases of entering into the register are only by a court decision (on the issue of blocking politically objectionable websites without a trial).
  4. The law provides for an appeal procedure by the owner of the fact that his site is entered into the registry.
  5. Sites that are hosted abroad blocking will also concern

In general, this bill can be considered the first pancake, which is lumpy. The disadvantages of this bill overlap all the advantages with a vengeance. The bill in this form can not be taken in any case.

Regarding the third point outlined by me above, Aingis is well pointed out:
About the court decisions in Habré also passed: "A terrible guess: more than 2,200,000 Russian blogs were simultaneously recognized as extremist by the decision of one of the district courts of Ulyanovsk"

Regarding the "pedophile lobby". In my opinion, this is a struggle with windmills. In real life and on the Internet, who and where in their right mind can call for the dissemination of these materials and even less to say that they should not accept the law for these reasons? In the open, no one will do this because of fear for himself. I must admit that such materials are quite difficult to find. If they are, then by chance.

The alcohol lobby, for example, is quite possible to sense, say, alcohol advertising. Or the presence of a special deputy in the State Duma www.lobbying.ru/persons.php?id=2722

If Ms. Mizulina is so fiercely struggling with the pedophile lobby, then you should not look at the Internet first of all. Pay attention, for example, at the fashion studio. Fashion widely uses children's photos "in bathing suits." Take control of model studios. Where it all begins. When a young girl sees in a magazine or in a movie a half-naked otfotoshoplennuyu beauty, she involuntarily wants to be the same to be admired with her beauty. Isn't it necessary to ban it first of all?

In cinemas there is no restriction for children to enter films with frank content. I have repeatedly visited cinemas, where they seemed to be like the action movies and comedies, but there are frank scenes in almost all of them. And, of course, in the hall most of the visitors were just the same children. This is where the corruption begins. In fact, it is necessary to prohibit it to start. At least in everyday life. Only then will publishers of magazines and film distributors protest, but this cannot be compared with the entire Internet community.

Regarding suicides, Northbear said well :
3) At the expense of the methods of suicide ... Let's start with the fact that people commit suicide not at all because they read about the methods of suicide, but because they lose the meaning of life and / or do not feel able to cope with the load of problems . Descriptions of scenes of murders and suicides are a common thread throughout classical literature and are even mentioned in the Bible. In this regard, it is not entirely clear why this is the Internet. Then it is necessary to ban world literature altogether and burn the Lenin Library. And by the way, I propose to finish the Russian Orthodox Church with its bible and crucifixion first. I feel the topic is already overdue ...

I am surprised by the following. These problems and themes with deputy initiatives and bills have been raised for several years. Work Duma committees. Including the committee headed by Mrs. Mizulina.

If the deputies worked there so hard and for so long, exchanged views with representatives of the Internet industry, organized a safe Internet league, poured budgets and didn’t they have thought of a more serious solution of the issue for many years?

Apparently not. Because the result is this:

lenta.ru/articles/2012/07/12/zakon
In the first edition of the law allowed to stop the work of any sites "containing harmful information for children." However, by the third reading this vague wording was replaced with more specific ones. The state will be entitled without a court decision to block sites for posting pornography involving minors, for promoting drugs and information about the methods of committing suicide.

At the same time, amendments to the draft law were made late Tuesday evening in order to be in time for voting. The amendments were discussed by committee members via email; full meeting was not held.

That is why in the final part of the article I cite a few of my ideas and urge the habrasoobschestvo also to present their ideas in the comments and constructively discuss the existing ones. Ideas are very raw - in the comments run-in and inventing new ideas. Then it will be possible to poll with the best of them. It would be more logical if the administration of Habr would make it to attract attention.

And then the result of the activity to convey to the minister that it will not be so difficult, especially since a topic was recently announced with a request to ask questions to it.

Regarding Mrs. Mizulina, there are rather big doubts about her competence in these matters. Of course, we cannot recall the deputies, but it may be possible to somehow turn to her, explaining in a normal and adequate language what and how. She has a twitter , give her a link to this post in the end.



At the same time, I do not in any way urge to recognize her as a person of nongrath, dismiss, etc. I sincerely hope that the Internet community will not scoff at an elderly woman and certainly will not persecute them, as they used to persecute comrades from RAO, Mikhalkov, etc.

It can be seen that the person is very interested in the problem, has a lot of experience, but simply does not fully understand all aspects of the issue. I think you need to contact her personally with an explanation of the main issues without any negative, calmly and intelligibly state the position of the community. It may even be an open letter. Then we will issue it with a separate post with the name “Open Letter to Deputy Mizulina” and will be friendly distributed. That's all. It is not necessary to make trouble and swear, you can simply friendly and constructively apply your position.

What to do now



Technically it is possible
Upper House Reject Law
And although it is treacherously difficult,
Presidential veto on the law to impose.

And there is still the possibility of cancellation
Him in the constitutional court
You see, we need a change!
And not just circles on the water.
Epigraph from MaGIc2laNTern

The eternal question is what to do. Firstly, there is a chance that nothing will be done. In addition to the Internet community on the same side are large Internet companies, the National Association of Television Broadcasting, the Presidential Council on Human Rights and the Minister himself, who does not know how you are, but makes me feel quite competent and adequate person. All of the above parties stated that they would initiate the revision of the bill.


Therefore, the option that the law will come into force in the form in which it is now is extremely unlikely.

However, in the framework of interest, I still propose to consider the option when nothing will really change, and recent events with resonant bills suggest that this is possible.

What else can be done: send letters to the Council of the Federation and personally to the President. I think the president has already received enough such letters, but the Federation Council does not.

I know that you will say that it is useless. Most likely, it is really useless, we remember the last bills. But what is it worth to go to the site and press Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V?

True to begin with, you may need to hold out a virtual queue:
Failed to deliver to 'stateduma@duma.gov.ru'
LOCAL module (account stateduma@duma.gov.ru) reports:
account is full (quota exceeded)

You can write a letter to the editors of the federal channels with a request to highlight the opinions of all sides of the case in the stories. Let them interview representatives of the TV channels themselves, representatives of Internet companies. You can ask for a sound investigation involving a variety of experts. And to point out the importance of competently covering this issue, because previous plots covering the affairs of "these of your Internet sites" are, to put it mildly, doubtful. So that did not work out as with BolgenOS , God forgive me.


Do not be lazy to write there at least a couple of lines from yourself. If we spam with the same text, then either everything will be filtered out, or simply will not be read and will be ignored.

Now about the technical means. Do not do without the precious comments (spelling and punctuation preserved):

Shevmax
By the way, again, the whole thing is technology. Legal server with nginx, which pulls data from another server. In fact, the data does not exist on the frontend, but it is his domain and ip is lit. And any check will show that the banned information is missing on this server, for this reason it can’t be legally closed, but at the same time it will safely distribute the banned materials. And any requirement to remove illegal content cannot be fulfilled due to the absence of this content. And access to the server can only be through the court. But again, the encrypted volume. If you turn off the power of the server, it will not work out anything. Blaming the fact that the server was used as an intermediate mechanism is impossible, because then any network device (including backbone routers) will be an intermediate one.


trilodi
Now it remains to wait when they block any major resource that will be on the same ip with the extremist, and after blocking, you can try to write to the constitutional court about a violation of the freedom of information law.


ocelot
Links do not seem to fall under the law. But there is a way out: we register the domain of the form: synthesis.methamphetamine.execute.through.heating.ephedrine.s. with a red.phosphorus.rf
It, naturally, bring in the register of the sites which are subject to blocking. Voila! Directly in this registry is now an instruction on the preparation of drugs. So, according to the law, you must either close access to this registry, or remove the address of our site from it. Here is such an entertaining injection.


Brainhacker
So, who is the XSS vulnerability specialist? I think it's time to start posting "unwanted" information on government sites (if you have such an opportunity) in large numbers, write about it wherever possible and demand the closure of these sites. Let them feel in their own skin what law they passed.


Gearhead
Gentlemen, do not forget that we live in Russia. Simply providers will soon begin to provide an innocuous service for a separate denyuzhku - VPN through zabugore.


In general, it is not necessary to bathe, but it is worth looking soberly at the situation and adapting to it.

One more thing.

Children themselves will be strongly opposed . Here you have a parallel. The Internet community for the most part is now sharply against the bill, and so the children will also be sharply against censorship, they simply have far fewer mechanisms to prevent this and, excuse the pun, generally report.

Based on the previous paragraph, it is not difficult to understand that children cannot always answer for themselves, therefore some decisions need to be made for them by adults. And now the question "to think about." Or perhaps a large part of the Internet community is not competent enough to discuss the feasibility of applying such laws. I do not think so, and I’m not talking about the technical part, but about the practical, but purely theoretically, because we can assume such a development of events ... And sometimes without knowing all the pros and cons that the state can not always say, we stand for what our interests contradict. Purely theoretically. True, I do not believe in this for the reasons described below in part of the cons of the bill.

The situation is that the more you remember something, the more interesting it is. The Forbidden fruit. If I were a child, I would be very interested, and what they say about it in all the news. I have not yet seen that posters with a call not to swear made someone not swear. And we all swear and the presidents as well. The same with the list. Here it will be open - what we get. That's right: the base of all the dangerous content for children, which they first of all will learn to study. I would do that if I were a child.

Our children have already seen quite a lot of bad things. And maybe more of ourselves. The train left. It must be admitted.
And this is certainly a very good reason to take the bull by the horns and address the issue of their protection.

The terrible question is - how cruel is the video you need to watch, so that there is a shift in the psyche? Everyone has different thinking, the materials are different too and you can’t predict what is tougher. Therefore, there is only one option - to ban absolutely all such materials indiscriminately, and not only for children.

It is interesting to ask the question - why is it that child porn is mentioned everywhere? There is also an adult who is also extremely undesirable to show children. Of course, just like that pornography is not prohibited. That is why filtering is important at the OS and browser level, as many have said. By the way, the phrase about child porn is used from purely political considerations - this way more voter punches and this justifies all tough actions on the issue in question.

Although it would be very good to simplify the situation of transferring pornographic and near-pornographic sites to the same domain zone XXX, as already suggested. But this is no longer a purely Russian, but a world question, which the authorities of one or another country still cannot raise for discussion.

So, we decided that the best blocking would be at the OS and browser level. But here is the competence of the parents. Some parents clearly can not cope, as many argued in the comments. Children often understand computers and smartphones more than their parents. The computer in the family is often bought at the request of the children, and not according to the need of the parents. Need to inform and instruct. And to create the appropriate services that the call would help set up the computer accordingly. Somewhere there are even such, but I doubt that most know about them.

While this is all a dream-dream. Therefore, for children who have already had the misfortune to be impressed by the excessive rollers, it would be necessary to propose a procedure for mental correction. At the same time, it should be understood that even without this, the child can be quite normal, here how the card will fall.

One more thing. When people are forbidden, it is advisable to offer them an alternative. Who will give a guarantee that completely eradicating child pornography, some dependent person will not take to the streets. I honestly can not even imagine how you can offer an alternative to child porn. But let people do it with stronger nerves, my brain refuses to work in this direction because of disgust. How are they over the hill? Allowed, but in the form of cartoons. And look how much you want. Suggest perverts move to hentai? What am I saying, God forgive me ...

Advantages and disadvantages



Before identifying the pros and cons of the current version of the bill we will proceed from its main goal.

The main goal, as far as the words of the deputies are, I personally understand: to protect children and impressionable people from content that could harm their mental and physical health.

It is clear that there are additional and hidden goals, but we will not discuss them now.

It will be interesting to hear the opinion of the habrasoobshchestvo in the comments about changing the goal or clarifying it.

The positives are quite obvious:
  1. Upon detection of dangerous content for children, it will be possible to destroy it really quickly.
  2. There will indeed be less such resources on the Internet.
  3. Moderators of Internet resources will be more active to introduce “abuse” mechanisms on their sites and to moderate more actively.

The obvious negative sides were stated by me above in the analysis of the bill. Implicit negative sides will help us to reveal all the same comments (as it was said, they completely overlap the positive ones):

  1. Along with the closure by IP will be closed and quite normal sites that will harm their users
  2. gorynych_zmey
    This law opens the door to corruption in relation to internet business. If earlier in order to create trouble for Internet business, it was necessary to DDos a site, now it is enough to organize a formal reason to include this site in the registry. , , , «» . , , , . . , , , - . — . — . , , .
  3. Shsmad
    > , « , .
    > , ».
    , , CP//?

    Frig
    Hmm. rss . , !
  4. Stick
    ,

    Nerten
    -? , :D
  5. UncleAndy
    ? - . . .
  6. koshak_gav
    ? — , , ? , , 2.0 , .
  7. xnim
    , , ( «») «» . So? So. — ??? , ( ), … …
  8. The Presidential Council on Human Rights (despite the name, unfortunately, it is only a consulting body without any real authority, as its head has repeatedly said, Mr. Fedorov):
    www.president-sovet.ru/council_decision/council_statement/zayavlenie_chlenov_soveta_v_otnoshenii_zakonopeto- ceteeo. php


What bills can be passed in the future?



The problem is not even in this law. The problem is that others may appear. It all starts small. And we will not even have time to challenge them somehow, as is the case with this. All of the following should be considered marked "theoretically possible."

In the future, tariffs for Internet access are possible ... If you want torrents, pay one amount, if you want something else, another. Video of the head of Rostelecom at the conference:



Links with explanations too:



AlexanderS
About 5 years ago we fantasized and I predicted the development of the Internet through a bundle: the current one, which was also parallel, which would be under tight censorship control. In this, the second part of the Internet would be located the websites of state institutions and enterprises, official stores and the global trend would be aimed at the reputation of this part of the Internet. Serious offices would have official sites there. By accessing such a site, a user, for example, would be confident that he would not be a victim of fraud. There would be no counterfeit material, etc. etc. Those. if you want to receive verified material and official guaranteed information - classes.


Ideas for discussion



Raw, stupid, provocative, but each of them can be brought to mind, of course, with the help of you, dear users of habrabra:

  1. NickPasko
    You really do not understand what is the difference between porn on a separate porn resource, which can be blocked by the parental control program, and porn on a social network, where youngsters spend a little less than 99.9% of their time online?

    Hence the idea - special control should be for sites where children spend the most time. Here you can make the rules harder. Such is the price of peace of our children.
  2. . , , . 100% , ( , – -), .. - «» . . , , «» ..
  3. . — . - - . – , . ? . . - ? . . , :

    hotline.ligainternet.ru

    , . , Speed Dial. , - . , .. , .
  4. , – ( ), ( ), ( ). , , , .
  5. . - . . , . , . – , . , .
  6. , . , - ( ). . . , . – , , - , ( , , ) .

    , . .
  7. - - . , .
  8. i2p, perfect dark . - , , . , « » . .
  9. psman
    — « » .


Let's be organized, comments on ideas and suggestions are better written in a special structure (of course, you can give a damn about this wish and write as you like). If you propose an idea, then at the beginning of the message, insert the word “Idea:” (without quotes naturally), it will be easier to keep track of. If you want to improve the existing idea, then in the beginning of the message, insert the number “Idea1:”.

I would like to summarize the words of the respected gorynych_zmey :
. . (.. ) , . - ( ) , ( ) . , , , . — ( ), — . , .

It’s good to think before you write and take responsibility for your words. It is bad to have self-censorship, to deliberately bypass the side of a topic from a certain list. Self-censorship is practically a “status civilization” in action.

Self-censorship is coercion in potential. No one forces a person to express or not to express his opinion, but it is clear that if he expresses his opinion, which will differ from the opinion of the censor, then the consequences will not keep themselves waiting.

But I must note that self-censorship occurs only when a person accepts such an order of things and himself agrees to act as a censor of himself.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/147704/

More articles:


All Articles