[X] My Assistant

Isn't website administration trying to make itself directly illegal in country instead of being questionable, and claim that they blame that country's law enforcement (which RKN isn't - it a ministry type agency without law enforcement powers)?

What's the difference?

More exactly: what's the difference between you saying what's legal and me doing it?

Which part of the logical conclusion that we reached is incorrect?

A = Russian IPs cannot access EH
B = Russia forbids the use of non Russian IPs to access content outside Russia
C = VPN usage
D = EH requires you to click a button to report content

B => !C
A | B => !D
A ^ C | B => D

Therefore

B => !D

most of those predicates are completely untrue. Right set of predicates:

A = EH blocked russian IPs
B = Russia forbids ISP to give access to certain urls, if contanet on that page was flagged by RKN
C = EH IP address is accessible from Russia, EH wasn't flagged for IP block (which happens only by trial)
D = EH requires you to click a button to report content
E = EH limits usability of public VPNs
F = Russia forbids use of unlicesned VPNs and requires all logs from VPN service, that is only public VPS are allowed

What's the difference?

More exactly: what's the difference between you saying what's legal and me doing it?

Having questionable content isn't illegal.. it must require age restrictions, just like in any other country, and you should ask: what's the difference between you saying what's legal and me doing it AND claiming that I follow law?

This post has been edited by rimefox: Jan 17 2017, 00:26

Having questionable content isn't illegal.. it must require age restrictions, just like in any other country.

If you manage an idea on good enforcement of age restrictions on the internet please poke me. That would make a research project for some 3-5 papers.

That's you talking what's illegal, I can simply do the opposite and we are back at the start.

btw, which of the predicates are untrue? You did not perform a single "=>" (implication) operation.

If you manage an idea on good enforcement of age restrictions on the internet please poke me. That would make a research project for some 3-5 papers.

That's you talking what's illegal, I can simply do the opposite and we are back at the start.

btw, which of the predicates are untrue? You did not perform a single "=>" (implication) operation.

Not my major plus notation we were teached in University are different.. well ... I guess I get it.. Is ^ a union?

B ^ C => !A

making website inaccessible wasn't necessary, B and C doesn't lead to A

A | D => !F

IP block and requirement to report gallery on website leads to requirement of illegal access. IP block wasn't legal requirement

PS. About age restriction I wholeheartedly agree.. there no sure way aside of doing background checks\storing personal info (which might be questionable), plus I believe that legislature on that account really goes out of hand sometimes. But ironically, in _most_ jurisdictions, even here, giving proper warning and providing metadata for "kid control" usually is enough.

This post has been edited by rimefox: Jan 17 2017, 00:43

more complex, lol. Plus left branch actually doesn't exist, becuase Russian doen't block EH, so it is illegal only if EH requries illegal VPN. If EH was blocked by russian, it is illegal in ether case, but without VPN requirement it is untraceable

Plus left branch actually doesn't exist, becuase Russian doen't block EH, so it is illegal only if EH requries illegal VPN. If EH was blocked by russian, it is illegal in ether case

The implication seems to have been that if E-H hadn't blocked Russians, Russia would have blocked E-H, though of course details on what/why can't be discussed.

The implication seems to have been that if E-H hadn't blocked Russians, Russia would have blocked E-H, though of course details on what/why can't be discussed.

No, blocking Russia addresses from accessing flagged content would not prevent block by RKN, that actually explicitly stated in that law. Site should be in working state and accessible within 24 hour to present that content _was removed_, blocking access isn't supposed. If within 24 hour content is still there or is not accessible, that _url_ (not IP, not domain) would be listed as _restricted_ permanently. Next, ISPs must to do blockade, but to decide if they block only that restricted url, domain or IP. The letter from RKN isn't mandatory and is just required information ( other law requires them to _inform_ owner about actions taken agaist him).They are free to send to to DNS registrar, hosting or actual website owner, whatever info they have. they consider what is written in 'whois' absolute truth, and gconsider all those to be responsible for content (even registrars), which cause all sort of conflicts lately. IP is flagged by RKN only if site uses only https to access that content, and https in form that RKN can't hack (they do some hacking, but mostly it's pipe dream of our legislature). Bill was written by those who have no idea how actually internet is structured, thy base it on the most common practice here (where registra, hosting and server owner is same company).

This law isn't actually pointed directly and some content\file hosting services, it most pointed at newspaper\blog\mass-media kind of resources, to prevent "extremist" outbursts in media. Often they send those letters but then flagging is being removed, often they send notice to wrong party, while still being within the law. Rest of "restricted" content types are just bone for those dogs who want more censorship and control, before they were added, that billwasn't approved

This post has been edited by rimefox: Jan 17 2017, 01:11

No, blocking Russia addresses from accessing flagged content would not prevent block by RKN, that actually explicitly stated in that law. Site should be in working state and accessible within 24 hour to present that content _was removed_, blocking access isn't supposed. If within 24 hour content is still there or is not accessible, that _url_ (not IP, not domain) would be listed as _restricted_ permanently. Next, ISPs must to do blockade, but to decide if they block only that restricted url, domain or IP. The letter from RKN isn't mandatory and is just required information ( other law requires them to _inform_ owner about actions taken agaist him).They are free to send to to DNS registrar, hosting or actual website owner, whatever info they have. they consider what is written in 'whois' absolute truth, and gconsider all those to be responsible for content (even registrars), which cause all sort of conflicts lately. IP is flagged by RKN only if site uses only https to access that content, and https in form that RKN can't hack (they do some hacking, but mostly it's pipe dream of our legislature). Bill was written by those who have no idea how actually internet is structured, thy base it on the most common practice here (where registra, hosting and server owner is same company).

This law isn't actually pointed directly and some content\file hosting services, it most pointed at newspaper\blog\mass-media kind of resources, to prevent "extremist" outbursts in media. Rest of "restricted" content types are just bone for those dogs who want more censorship and control, before they were added, that billwasn't approved

We have been there

So we can conclude that your problem is with the current (and past to a certain extent) Russian judicial and executive regime, not this website.

You should talk to them.

We have been there

Why past lol? This wasn't actual until 2013 yeah, hehe. Only _current_.

And you're on circular logic.. it's not my problem (in this particular case), it's not even Ten's problem if he didn't do _anything_. But he did something that caused problem, that is he did blocked access.

But he did something that caused problem

As far as I am aware Tenb does not govern the legislative system in Russia.

I may be wrong though.

As far as I am aware Tenb does not govern the legislative system in Russia.

I may be wrong though.

What if Tenboro actually *is* Putin secretly running a hentai site so no one would suspect the machoman to be a closet otaku? #russianconspiracytheories

F = Russia forbids use of unlicesned VPNs and requires all logs from VPN service, that is only public VPS are allowed

You are completely wrong.

You are completely wrong.

Interesting, where that info is from? JUst last summer ago they had shut down VPN service because they didn't logged data. From Sembtember a new bill is active everything required to be logged, even SMS and phone calls. Even having blog with more than 5000 hits requires lecense (and paying tax for being mass-media) since 2013.

As far as I am aware Tenb does not govern the legislative system in Russia.

I may be wrong though.

Legislature in Russia didn't required Tnb to shut down access to site, provided that site is outside country they actually can't demand that. If it was inside they had to have a trial first.

RKN doesn't block that site currently.Information about blocked urls and IPs is public. reasons aren't (and they tend not to give reasons to site owner too, they just say: remove page ...., we had flagged it). It's preliminary action, they have right to do that even on legal content if it may be considered "dangerous" or "questionable". FInal word is decided in trial if the trial ever happens.

List of currently flagged urls (that's individual images actually) [reestr.rublacklist.net] https://reestr.rublacklist.net/search/1?q=g.e-hentai.org

if EH was blocked, I coudn't access this forum - whole site is by definition blocked by IP AND domain, so forum would be blocked too. One shouldn't be surprised by amount of urls in list, they may blcok everything and wh they are paid bonus per url at end of month (I know someone who worked there before this circus began). They even keep adding flagged pages on completely blocked websites, because it is $$$. They also getting cut from selling the filters to ISP. Do you see pattern? That's why they intersted to send notices to wrong party if they think that flag can be revoked - this way they allow the flagged entry to stay.

it's one of ISPs - Komstar , and their daughters - Yota, Akado - had blocked site's domain, because RKN had some urls flagged (one of flagged urls do not even exist now, those galleries were removed). That's Komstar's policy, they often block even non-existing stuff. It's a cheapo ISP which doesn't have proper firewall\filters (and awful routing).Other IPSs do allow access to website, except when certain flagged page is displayed, the placeholder page is displayed instead.

This post has been edited by rimefox: Jan 17 2017, 15:18

Interesting, where that info is from? JUst last summer ago they had shut down VPN service because they didn't logged data. From Sembtember a new bill is active everything required to be logged, even SMS and phone calls. Even having blog with more than 5000 hits requires lecense (and paying tax for being mass-media) since 2013.

Which one? They sometimes block some web proxy sites but only because they are low hanging fruits for local prosecutors who want to grind their statistic since no one would bother defending some random free proxy site in a provincial Russian court, not because of lack of logs.
If you're referring to the Yarovaya law the FSB already said that the use of certified encryption tools is only required for transferring state secrets and not for common day applications like messengers or VPNs.
[www.fsb.ru] http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/science/single.htm&#...esearchart.html
ISPs will have to store traffic in a few years, but in case of VPN it's encrypted and you don't have to use only approved VPNs. Then again, it probably won't be properly enforced anyway.

RCM specifically said that using proxies and VPNs is not illegal and the current law doesn't even have those terms defined.
[rublacklist.net] https://rublacklist.net/bypass/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpbYvCrSjXc

Legislature in Russia didn't required Tnb to shut down access to site, provided that site is outside country they actually can't demand that. If it was inside they had to have a trial first.

And there you go again: "You fight for me 'cause i'm too lazy". Or closer to the text above: "No one demanded you to not help me so i demand that you help me". You're not entitled to anything, access is not a right and not a commodity.

And that is the main and only reason we enjoy so much beating the shit out of you.

So, admins decided to block users because of some stupid law (a law that's going to be ignored by majority of russians anyway)?
But since you guys want us to gtfo so much, wery well then. No point running h@h anymore either, right? Thanks for the fun, it was nice while it lasted...

"I don't wanna get into trouble with the Russian law, you do it." - Whiners

Lol, you can't get into trouble with anyone's law if you're not citizen, resident and don't operate within jurisdiction of that state, you silly (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) …Unless we're talking about insulting islamist fanatics.

All this stuff looks like 10b got threat from some petty overenthusiastic RKN official to send KGB assassins to chop off his dick if he doesn't submit and doesn't want to announce such embarrassing fact. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
After all, all those modern fairytales about Russia being Mordor on Earth definitely must be true, right? So said assassins must be real too, right? Not like RKN's purpose is merely acting as local russian distraction and cover-up for political censorship with its ultimate power being (tremble in fear now!) putting some web-pages in the blacklist registry russian (and only russian) internet providers are obliged to comply with.

Well, nevertheless, folks, you can continue on with your “pining” now, oblivious to the history of this fine establishment dealing with dodgy stuff (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by nekolor: Jan 17 2017, 18:10

Lol, you can't get into trouble with anyone's law if you're not citizen, resident and don't operate within jurisdiction of that state, you silly (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) …Unless we're talking about insulting islamist fanatics.

I wouldn't agree. Depends on crime. Also jurisdiction is very broad term.

If as you say RKN is simply acting to cover political censorship, and don't even really care, then they also don't care with you using VPN to acess some porn site. So no problem then. Orcs don't care about non-enforced law.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] http://i.imgur.com/8uzPCo4.jpg?1)

It's already been mentioned that this conversation has long since run its course and devolved into what's little more than a kind of lurid entertainment for everybody else, right?

And I do feel bad about all this, very bad for that matter...... but yeah, just sayin' is all.