8 ms·

Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

85 points by yanmaani 5y ago

YaBomm 5y ago
chakhs 5y ago
So china banning western media is not censorship and if Russia bans all western media it's not censorship too. Or does it work only one way? Not really surprised by the double standard but it's pretty obvious this time. If it's western it's "news" and if it's non western it's "propaganda". This is the modern equivalent of Stalin's iron curtain
woodruffw 5y ago
This is a pretty good example of Betteridge's Law[1]. The EU's ban on disseminating RT through a medium does not amount to a ban on the medium itself. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- yanmaani 5y ago
  If you like laws, how about Cunningham's Law? :) No, but I am aware of this, I even thought to mention it, and I sorely hope that I am proven wrong. However, my concern is that the ban explicitly does apply to the medium itself. In particular, article 12 bans participation in "activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions". Can you think of any reason for why Tor would not be considered to circumvent the ban?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The simplest answer to this is to look at what the previous regulation (the one being amended by this one) says[1]. Article 12 is completely unmodified except for the scope of parties involved. Since the original (2014) regulation didn't ban Tor, I think it's a safe assumption that this one doesn't either. The more detailed answer: the article actually reads as follows: > It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, [...] "Knowingly and intentionally" is the operative phrase here. In order to show that this article poses a threat to Tor's legality, you'd need to show at either Tor's operators or Tor itself intentionally provides service to RT. This is a stronger standard than passive service, the kind Tor actually provides. [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0833 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
    - yanmaani 5y ago
      The previous regulation didn't ban broadcasting, or anything relating to it. Re: "knowingly and intentionally," I will repost my comment <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537459>: > "Knowingly and intentionally" seems to apply to the operation (e.g. "you know that you're running a Tor node") - "circumvention" is on the basis of "object or effect". (For ESL speakers: "object" means "goal", "effect" means "result", and Tor obviously has a final, de-facto result of unblocking RT)
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I responded to the second part above, below your linked comment. For the first: broadcasting is an intentional media activity. You're right that this new regulation adds a ban, but it's not clear that said ban undermines the intent required in Article 12. To be clear: it's a form of government censorship. But, on my reading, it's not a particularly broad form or itself a stepping stone to banning Tor. The EU seems perfectly content to broach that problem with separate regulation.
  - swores 5y ago
    > Can you think of any reason for why Tor would not be considered to circumvent the ban? Because plenty of people use Tor for accessing things which aren't covered by this particular ban? Sure, many of them may be illegal in other ways, but not all of them. If using Tor isn't enough in itself to prove you're buying drugs, why would it be enough to prove you're accessing banned content here?
Razengan 5y ago
How does this complete silencing of a country not disturb anybody?
- YaBomm 5y ago
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  Because it’s economic warfare and pretty fuckin based. All they can do is brutalize civilians with military force. The West (aside from arming local militias to the teeth) is mobilizing the civil society. No boots on the ground, not even much impact to our lives beyond the inevitable supply shocks. We are sticking it to Putin from our sofas, via democratic government.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  Because if we don’t remove Russia from the world completely we are approving their invasion and keep the door open for further invasions. Only solution is to segregate whole country and all their allies from the world until they remove their leaders from positions of power
  - yanmaani 5y ago
    My concern is that with this, you're not just segregating Russia from the world, you're segregating the EU from the world. You're going to get a new Iron Curtain, only this time, the restrictions are going to be on both sides.
    - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
      We don’t need Russia. Even China has told Russia to stop the war. Only thing Russia has is gas and we shouldn’t be using fossil fuels anyway. Building of new green nuclear plants should have already been started. If you have fucked that up (like Germans) then that means you need to start hurrying
darkengine 5y ago
I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer, but "knowingly and intentionally" sounds to my lay self like it's a test of mens rea. If I were operating a Tor node in the EU, I would probably assume until stated otherwise that operating a Tor node remained legal, as long as I wasn't operating that node with the intention of circumventing the ban on RT.
- yanmaani 5y ago
  "Knowingly and intentionally" seems to apply to the operation (e.g. "you know that you're running a Tor node") - "circumvention" is on the basis of "object or effect". (For ESL speakers: "object" means "goal", "effect" means "result", and Tor obviously has a final, de-facto result of unblocking RT)
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    This is an overly broad reading. The hypothetical Tor operator's object (i.e. intent) is to run a Tor node, the contents of which they are entirely agnostic to (and may be formally agnostic to, if the traffic is additionally encrypted). To use some abductive reasoning, think about how this would apply generally: the law is clearly not written to ban encryption, even though your interpretation would suggest that any encryption amounts to intentional circumvention. If that sounds wrong to you, it's because you've confused the intent/object that the law is concerned with.
    - yanmaani 5y ago
      No, encryption isn't going to help, because they can still block on IPs. Encryption plus eSNI helps, and if, for example, Yandex.Cloud sets up a big "shared host," I fully expect that to get the Kharkiv treatment, like Roskomnadzor tried a few years ago with Telegram. Tor operators can see the IP, they can see the DNS, and their operation has the effect of unblocking RT.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Who can still block on IPs? An interior Tor node doesn't have the information available to do that. I think you missed the point of the abductive argument: you're describing a cat and mouse game, one that is fundamentally unrealistic. The more realistic scenario is that the intent described in the article has nothing to do with encryption, Tor, or anything like that.
randomhodler84 5y ago
Nah. But in all seriousness, this is totalitarian ruling. Wtf eu? RT might be a trash fire propaganda news but the EU ain’t at war with Russia. If the people want to listen to the propaganda, and I’m sure there were listener equivalents in neutral places either via SW or MW broadcast in ww2. Making it illegal to route packets to them and to circumvent the block? Garbage tier laws.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Those who need garbage propaganda and are trained to handle it without manipulation, can use a VPN. Most people don't give 2 thoughts.
  - yanmaani 5y ago
    Where will you go when they block the VPNs?
    - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
      A Web3 blockchain distributed serverless onion network
      - yanmaani 5y ago
        Yes, and I earn money to pay my bills from global business dynamic economy enterprise trading. How are you to get on the Tor network?
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    This article is about such VPNs being potentially banned.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      China couldn't block tor. Russia can't block tor.
- 5y ago
3np 5y ago
IANAL but to me, this looks (hopefully unintentionally) much more insidious (emphasis mine): > It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed. So one way to interpret this is that all ISPs are currently violating this simply by enabling end-to-end-encrypted communication. Any service that would enable or facilitate sending RT streams (ie encrypted communication) are violating this. Heck, even hosting a blog platform where someone posts a screenshot of the RT website would be in trouble. Cloud providers might have to close the accounts of a significant portion of their customers to cover their behinds. This article must be revised (or even revoked). I’m certain that it is unconstitutional in more than one EU country.
- yanmaani 5y ago
  IANAL, but as far as I know, EU laws are more important than national laws (you can search "Supremacy of EU law") except in Germany, so the question is if it violates the equivalent of the constitution of the EU. According to EU officials, it does not. I've sent out some e-mails, if what you say is true I will amend it.
  - arlort 5y ago
    There are some significant asterisks The first is that it's not that EU laws are more important, it's that by ratifying the EU treaties the members have ceded the power to act in some areas to the EU as a whole. This applies uniformly to all member states, Germany included. The issue that can arise is when there's a disagreement on whether or not a specific power was ceded or not, the problem being that on the one side we have the national constitutional (or equivalent) courts which are the ultimate authority for the member in question, while on the other we have the ECJ which is defined as the ultimate authority in what the Treaties say What you're probably referring to is the recent case in which the German ConstCourt said that a judgement by the ECJ was incorrect and adopted its own, it was then resolved by some judicial diplomacy. That issue remains and it's arguably inevitable whenever multiple levels of government share power. A further asterisk is that this is a freedom of expression issue, which is handled at three distinct levels. At the EU level the law is likely to be found partially in contradiction with the Charter of Fundamental rights (which only applies to EU law and EU institutions or national institutions executing EU law), I don't think the broadcasting ban in itself would be but I'm pretty sure that someone posting clips of RT for instance would be found protected by the charter However there's also a national level since the EU doesn't actually have any own enforcement, therefore the individual countries will have to adopt actual punishments and enforcement mechanisms which are then subject to respecting the national freedom of expression requirements (fundamental rights are generally of constitutional significance, so they're at least equal in precedence to EU treaties), technically the EU commission could start an infringement procedure if it deems the actions taken unsatisfactory and that process ultimately ends at the ECJ, however while the ECJ could tell the member state it has to effectively ignore their own court (which the member state can't do anyway) but since that would lead to an unresolvable constitutional crisis the ECJ is unlikely to pick that hill to die on and it has a pretty convenient clause in its mandate saying "we will respect each country's constitutional identity" which would be easily applicable here Finally there's the ECHR, which is another international court, integrated in the member states legal system by its own treaty (confusingly the acronym is the same for the court and for the treaty) with the sole purpose of serving as a baseline for fundamental rights. The EU is not a party to the ECHR treaty (accession stalled) but all of its members are, so if any member were challenged in this court and said "we're violating article 10 because of this EU law" the ECHR would say "cool story, don't care" (if it finds a breach). This is not immediately a precedent for other countries, but others would likely file similar motions More realistically however this is just going to be interpreted to prevent the sanctioned entities from setting up shells companies to evade it
nbzso 5y ago
[flagged]
- nbzso 5y ago
  I have done my research. Please watch and listen to this lecture from 2015. https://bit.ly/36OOzqW https://bit.ly/36OOzqW
- akvadrako 5y ago
  The only country instigating war against Russian speaking ordinary people is Russia, since most Ukrainians speak Russian.
- tgv 5y ago
  > Do your research Ukranians are not nazis. There.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If we want to be charitable, they are not referring to Ukraine at large but to groups like Azov, Right Sector, C14, etc..., That are indeed Nazis and that have been armed and trained by Western forces in full understanding of who they were and enthusiastically.
    - Tajnymag 5y ago
      Still not a reason to bombard Kyiv.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Of course not. There isn't any good reason to invade a country outside of self-defence or genocide.
    - freemint 5y ago
      Is Russia used the armies that are currently in the Ukraine to kill all Azov members there would still be objectively more Nazis in Ukraine then before the invasion. Any military force I have looked into has a lot of Nazis and Russia also. Instead of denazification of Ukraine Russia added Nazis on Ukrainian ground by having soldiers invade. The only reason why you aren't aware of battalion names of Nazis in Russian army is that the fact that the presence of Nazis is totally irrelevant for the argument the west is making while Russia argument totally depends on so RT pushes that narrative.
proctrap 5y ago
Why do people here cry for freedom of speech ? We've had fake information laws in about every state in the last years. And now that it's not only banning some youtube accounts about covid but also fake information of russia about the war they are waging (and people they kill), you're surprised ?!
- gruez 5y ago
  1. many (most?) people here are American, which has very pro free speech laws 2. fake news sucks, but do you really want a government agency deciding what speech is approved or not?
  - proctrap 5y ago
    You surely do have laws against incitement of the masses, don't you ? One example: In Germany it's forbidden by law to deny the holocaust, use nazi symbols, greetings or other media from that era. And some state sponsored TV telling your they're saving people or helping some states while raiding their homes, killing them and using thermobaric weapons is ok ? That this won't create an uproar among all families and relatives ? You have at least laws against defamation and this is nothing else than lying and laughing into the face of people. What you certainly do is restrict youtube channels of joe rogan, trump and facebook ads for elections. And nobody did sue for free speech or won a case. So the general direction is pretty clear.
    - BeefWellington 5y ago
      While I'm often one to point out the flaws in "ultimate freedom of speech" that many people parrot here, there is a tangible difference between being politically and philosophically pro-free speech and the way the laws are written. You can simultaneously believe that free speech is important but that you shouldn't be able to just print lie after lie after lie about a person without repercussion.
      - proctrap 5y ago
        I think that's an attitude I can support.
rosmax_1337 5y ago
Regulation: > it is necessary, consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular with the right to freedom of expression and information as recognised in Article 11 thereof, to introduce further restrictive measures to urgently suspend the broadcasting activities of such media outlets in the Union What. Don't gaslight me with sentences like this in a official document from the EU. They are saying x and !x at the same time in one paragraph. Freedom of expression, and information?! I suppose we should remember that it's not censorship if a private company does it. Private companies are free to conduct business with whoever they want, and the EU is not a government institution and as such is not capable of performing censorship. /s
- causi 5y ago
  Censorship does not have to be public. Private companies can and do censor things all the time. They have that right. Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    > "Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship." I really detest this line of thought. What good are the concept of human rights when people declare that private companies by definition cannot infringe on them?
    - causi 5y ago
      Because your rights end where other peoples' begins, and controlling what a company allows or doesn't allow on its platform is compelled speech, which is unconstitutional in the US. For example, a baker has the right to censor you by not allowing you to order a cake that says "Heil Hitler" on it.
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        This is not about the US and you are misinterpreting the baker's Supreme Court case anyways
ggg45678923 5y ago
- arroz 5y ago
  Funny, last time I saw a totalitarian government they would imprison you just for saying what you are saying. You know like the arrested people for protesting against the war in Moscow. Calling the banning of a foreign broadcasting company “totalitarism” seems a bit like overblowing it. Probably you have no idea what totalirism means on your skin.
  - dtech 5y ago
    It seems like a modern trend to label any restriction on anything in the west as dictatorship and therefore 100% equivalent or worse to non-western less free countries. I wonder how much of this is fuelled by non-western propaganda agents ("troll factories")
random_upvoter 5y ago
It's depressing how utterly normal this level of censorship has become in Western society. Ten years ago there would have been at least a modicum of ho-hum about decisions to ban foreign media. I've watched RT on a few occasions and I never thought their reporting outright propaganda. It does have a clear non-pro-West bias which gives you a dose of awareness that Western reporting is biased too.
- arroz 5y ago
  What is your point? That Russia state TV should be available everywhere so everyone can watch Russian propaganda?
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Who are you to decide what’s propaganda for me?
  - random_upvoter 5y ago
    Something makes me suspect that you never ever watched RT for even 5 minutes. Am I right?
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Sure, as long as Russians have access to the rest of the world's news for a contrasting dialogue.
  - xtian 5y ago
    Would you apply the same standard to BBC? If not, what's the difference?
    - dsabanin 5y ago
      The difference is, RT is pure, unadulterated, lie. It's government-sponsored infowars. It's under complete control by FSB/KGB and serves exclusively as a platform for launching russian PsyOps.
danielktdoranie 5y ago
Yeah this is censorship and at best it's indicative of a "nanny state" and at worse it's Orwellian. In short, it's bullshit.
BeefWellington 5y ago
No. You have misunderstood. For starters, it'd be hard to argue that RT is "operating" within the EU if the only way to access their content was via TOR. It's not; you can still just view their website as far as my colleagues are telling me. The thing that's being denied here is their ability to operating business and broadcast - already a very highly regulated thing in most (all?) countries, within EU borders. In practical terms this means having to access RT servers probably outside of the EU, broadcast signals can't be sent within it for that channel, etc. The internet is not broadcasting. Were this intended to stop people from viewing it online as well, it would specifically call out RT as Illegal content in some way, so as to invoke one of the possible reasons to actually block their website.[1] EU rules on open internet give you the right as a user to access and/or distribute any online content and services you choose. Your internet provider cannot block, slow down or discriminate against any online content, applications or services, except in 3 specific cases: - to comply with legal obligations, such as a court order blocking specific illegal content - to preserve the security and integrity of the network, for example to combat viruses or malware - to manage exceptional or temporary network congestion Relevant bit is in [2] (13); I couldn't find the more up-to-date post-review regulation. [1]: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-telecoms/internet-access/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-tel... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
- shkkmo 5y ago
  You seem overly focused on the term "broadcast" while the text of the law seems to pretty explicitly include any means of distribution, including video hosting sites, video watching apps (including P2P?) And ISPs: > transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed. Since this is a legal obligation, I fail so see how EU protections against ISP censorship would apply. The "court order blocking illegal content" is an example, not an exhaustive list of the ways a legal obligation to censorship could pertain.
  - BeefWellington 5y ago
yrgulation 5y ago
I believe those propagandising on behalf of an enemy - ideological or armed - without fully understanding their goals are called "useful idiots". Watch and marvel at how this term gains meaning on this thread.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Like spreading a meme about a fighter ace that never existed? I’ve seen a lot of that, it’s wild to see misinformation spread like wildfire.
  - yrgulation 5y ago
    Pardon me, but how exactly is spreading an image of a war time hero - that frankly if real or not is needed - the same as spreading the notion that the west needs to be unraveled, the american capitalism destroyed (sure it needs improvement, but total obliteration?), countries erased, and that entire ethnicities shouldn't exist?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      “that frankly if real or not is needed” You may be cool with people lying to your face because they think you need it. I expect more from a democratic government
imwillofficial 5y ago
I have been blasted with propaganda and lies from the west for almost a week now. Things that never happened: - Ghost of Kiev - Sunflower Seed Lady - Snake Island Defiance - Miss Ukraine Airsoft Fighter Then I get sources of info closed off to me, I find that exceedingly concerning. The west is winning the information war, but at the cost of the truth? I’m of a mixed mind for sure.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  What is actually concerning you? I don't think we actually need all the information at all right now. Ukraine is fighting an uphill battle and they are holding longer then anyone expected. If that's the price of the truth, im happy to pay it. The truth will get out eventually anyway.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    > The truth will get out eventually anyway. same thing can be said about so-called "news" from RT, no?
    - dncornholio 5y ago
      The fight is happening in Ukraine and what happens there is what is important. I don't care what is being posted / reported and what is not, I care about the people of Ukraine and that democracy will prevail.
    - Markoff 5y ago
      sure, nobody says all Western news are lies, same goes for RT, but only one side is being censored here for me as third party getting information from all sources and making my own mind
- Miner49er 5y ago
  I don't think all of the things you have listed have been proven to be false? Do you have sources on any of this? I'm pretty sure sunflower lady is definitely real, there was a video.
t0bia_s 5y ago
Western fight against Russian rules by implementing that rules. This is pure hypocrisy and will do more harm in future, just like covid propaganda and censorship around vaccines. We are loosing our freedom and values every day. Because of our safety, of course.
dncornholio 5y ago
I don't get the problem. You won't be prosecuted for childporn that happened to go through your node as well right? So why would you be prosecuted for having Russian traffic?
jarbus 5y ago
In a time of active war, people's opinions shift. I wonder if this is a temporary or permanent ban. It seems like a short-term solution to keep a lid on Russian propoganda, which seems sensible if it is to be lifted after the conflict. Seems silly not to fight in the same propoganda battle Russia is so willing to engage in, it's like not developing cyber weapons when your opponent is using them against you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

85 points by yanmaani 5y ago

So china banning western media is not censorship and if Russia bans all western media it's not censorship too. Or does it work only one way? Not really surprised by the double standard but it's pretty obvious this time. If it's western it's "news" and if it's non western it's "propaganda". This is the modern equivalent of Stalin's iron curtain

woodruffw 5y ago

This is a pretty good example of Betteridge's Law[1]. The EU's ban on disseminating RT through a medium does not amount to a ban on the medium itself. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

yanmaani 5y ago
If you like laws, how about Cunningham's Law? :) No, but I am aware of this, I even thought to mention it, and I sorely hope that I am proven wrong. However, my concern is that the ban explicitly does apply to the medium itself. In particular, article 12 bans participation in "activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions". Can you think of any reason for why Tor would not be considered to circumvent the ban?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The simplest answer to this is to look at what the previous regulation (the one being amended by this one) says[1]. Article 12 is completely unmodified except for the scope of parties involved. Since the original (2014) regulation didn't ban Tor, I think it's a safe assumption that this one doesn't either. The more detailed answer: the article actually reads as follows: > It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, [...] "Knowingly and intentionally" is the operative phrase here. In order to show that this article poses a threat to Tor's legality, you'd need to show at either Tor's operators or Tor itself intentionally provides service to RT. This is a stronger standard than passive service, the kind Tor actually provides. [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0833 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
  - yanmaani 5y ago
    The previous regulation didn't ban broadcasting, or anything relating to it. Re: "knowingly and intentionally," I will repost my comment <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537459>: > "Knowingly and intentionally" seems to apply to the operation (e.g. "you know that you're running a Tor node") - "circumvention" is on the basis of "object or effect". (For ESL speakers: "object" means "goal", "effect" means "result", and Tor obviously has a final, de-facto result of unblocking RT)
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I responded to the second part above, below your linked comment. For the first: broadcasting is an intentional media activity. You're right that this new regulation adds a ban, but it's not clear that said ban undermines the intent required in Article 12. To be clear: it's a form of government censorship. But, on my reading, it's not a particularly broad form or itself a stepping stone to banning Tor. The EU seems perfectly content to broach that problem with separate regulation.
- swores 5y ago
  > Can you think of any reason for why Tor would not be considered to circumvent the ban? Because plenty of people use Tor for accessing things which aren't covered by this particular ban? Sure, many of them may be illegal in other ways, but not all of them. If using Tor isn't enough in itself to prove you're buying drugs, why would it be enough to prove you're accessing banned content here?

Razengan 5y ago

How does this complete silencing of a country not disturb anybody?

YaBomm 5y ago
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
Because it’s economic warfare and pretty fuckin based. All they can do is brutalize civilians with military force. The West (aside from arming local militias to the teeth) is mobilizing the civil society. No boots on the ground, not even much impact to our lives beyond the inevitable supply shocks. We are sticking it to Putin from our sofas, via democratic government.
nextlevelwizard 5y ago
Because if we don’t remove Russia from the world completely we are approving their invasion and keep the door open for further invasions. Only solution is to segregate whole country and all their allies from the world until they remove their leaders from positions of power
- yanmaani 5y ago
  My concern is that with this, you're not just segregating Russia from the world, you're segregating the EU from the world. You're going to get a new Iron Curtain, only this time, the restrictions are going to be on both sides.
  - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    We don’t need Russia. Even China has told Russia to stop the war. Only thing Russia has is gas and we shouldn’t be using fossil fuels anyway. Building of new green nuclear plants should have already been started. If you have fucked that up (like Germans) then that means you need to start hurrying

darkengine 5y ago

I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer, but "knowingly and intentionally" sounds to my lay self like it's a test of mens rea. If I were operating a Tor node in the EU, I would probably assume until stated otherwise that operating a Tor node remained legal, as long as I wasn't operating that node with the intention of circumventing the ban on RT.

yanmaani 5y ago
"Knowingly and intentionally" seems to apply to the operation (e.g. "you know that you're running a Tor node") - "circumvention" is on the basis of "object or effect". (For ESL speakers: "object" means "goal", "effect" means "result", and Tor obviously has a final, de-facto result of unblocking RT)
- woodruffw 5y ago
  This is an overly broad reading. The hypothetical Tor operator's object (i.e. intent) is to run a Tor node, the contents of which they are entirely agnostic to (and may be formally agnostic to, if the traffic is additionally encrypted). To use some abductive reasoning, think about how this would apply generally: the law is clearly not written to ban encryption, even though your interpretation would suggest that any encryption amounts to intentional circumvention. If that sounds wrong to you, it's because you've confused the intent/object that the law is concerned with.
  - yanmaani 5y ago
    No, encryption isn't going to help, because they can still block on IPs. Encryption plus eSNI helps, and if, for example, Yandex.Cloud sets up a big "shared host," I fully expect that to get the Kharkiv treatment, like Roskomnadzor tried a few years ago with Telegram. Tor operators can see the IP, they can see the DNS, and their operation has the effect of unblocking RT.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Who can still block on IPs? An interior Tor node doesn't have the information available to do that. I think you missed the point of the abductive argument: you're describing a cat and mouse game, one that is fundamentally unrealistic. The more realistic scenario is that the intent described in the article has nothing to do with encryption, Tor, or anything like that.

randomhodler84 5y ago

Nah. But in all seriousness, this is totalitarian ruling. Wtf eu? RT might be a trash fire propaganda news but the EU ain’t at war with Russia. If the people want to listen to the propaganda, and I’m sure there were listener equivalents in neutral places either via SW or MW broadcast in ww2. Making it illegal to route packets to them and to circumvent the block? Garbage tier laws.

Bancakes 5y ago
Those who need garbage propaganda and are trained to handle it without manipulation, can use a VPN. Most people don't give 2 thoughts.
- yanmaani 5y ago
  Where will you go when they block the VPNs?
  - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    A Web3 blockchain distributed serverless onion network
    - yanmaani 5y ago
      Yes, and I earn money to pay my bills from global business dynamic economy enterprise trading. How are you to get on the Tor network?
- ttybird2 5y ago
  This article is about such VPNs being potentially banned.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    China couldn't block tor. Russia can't block tor.
5y ago

3np 5y ago

IANAL but to me, this looks (hopefully unintentionally) much more insidious (emphasis mine): > It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed. So one way to interpret this is that all ISPs are currently violating this simply by enabling end-to-end-encrypted communication. Any service that would enable or facilitate sending RT streams (ie encrypted communication) are violating this. Heck, even hosting a blog platform where someone posts a screenshot of the RT website would be in trouble. Cloud providers might have to close the accounts of a significant portion of their customers to cover their behinds. This article must be revised (or even revoked). I’m certain that it is unconstitutional in more than one EU country.

yanmaani 5y ago
IANAL, but as far as I know, EU laws are more important than national laws (you can search "Supremacy of EU law") except in Germany, so the question is if it violates the equivalent of the constitution of the EU. According to EU officials, it does not. I've sent out some e-mails, if what you say is true I will amend it.
- arlort 5y ago
  There are some significant asterisks The first is that it's not that EU laws are more important, it's that by ratifying the EU treaties the members have ceded the power to act in some areas to the EU as a whole. This applies uniformly to all member states, Germany included. The issue that can arise is when there's a disagreement on whether or not a specific power was ceded or not, the problem being that on the one side we have the national constitutional (or equivalent) courts which are the ultimate authority for the member in question, while on the other we have the ECJ which is defined as the ultimate authority in what the Treaties say What you're probably referring to is the recent case in which the German ConstCourt said that a judgement by the ECJ was incorrect and adopted its own, it was then resolved by some judicial diplomacy. That issue remains and it's arguably inevitable whenever multiple levels of government share power. A further asterisk is that this is a freedom of expression issue, which is handled at three distinct levels. At the EU level the law is likely to be found partially in contradiction with the Charter of Fundamental rights (which only applies to EU law and EU institutions or national institutions executing EU law), I don't think the broadcasting ban in itself would be but I'm pretty sure that someone posting clips of RT for instance would be found protected by the charter However there's also a national level since the EU doesn't actually have any own enforcement, therefore the individual countries will have to adopt actual punishments and enforcement mechanisms which are then subject to respecting the national freedom of expression requirements (fundamental rights are generally of constitutional significance, so they're at least equal in precedence to EU treaties), technically the EU commission could start an infringement procedure if it deems the actions taken unsatisfactory and that process ultimately ends at the ECJ, however while the ECJ could tell the member state it has to effectively ignore their own court (which the member state can't do anyway) but since that would lead to an unresolvable constitutional crisis the ECJ is unlikely to pick that hill to die on and it has a pretty convenient clause in its mandate saying "we will respect each country's constitutional identity" which would be easily applicable here Finally there's the ECHR, which is another international court, integrated in the member states legal system by its own treaty (confusingly the acronym is the same for the court and for the treaty) with the sole purpose of serving as a baseline for fundamental rights. The EU is not a party to the ECHR treaty (accession stalled) but all of its members are, so if any member were challenged in this court and said "we're violating article 10 because of this EU law" the ECHR would say "cool story, don't care" (if it finds a breach). This is not immediately a precedent for other countries, but others would likely file similar motions More realistically however this is just going to be interpreted to prevent the sanctioned entities from setting up shells companies to evade it

nbzso 5y ago

[flagged]

nbzso 5y ago
I have done my research. Please watch and listen to this lecture from 2015. https://bit.ly/36OOzqW https://bit.ly/36OOzqW
akvadrako 5y ago
The only country instigating war against Russian speaking ordinary people is Russia, since most Ukrainians speak Russian.
tgv 5y ago
> Do your research Ukranians are not nazis. There.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  If we want to be charitable, they are not referring to Ukraine at large but to groups like Azov, Right Sector, C14, etc..., That are indeed Nazis and that have been armed and trained by Western forces in full understanding of who they were and enthusiastically.
  - Tajnymag 5y ago
    Still not a reason to bombard Kyiv.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Of course not. There isn't any good reason to invade a country outside of self-defence or genocide.
  - freemint 5y ago
    Is Russia used the armies that are currently in the Ukraine to kill all Azov members there would still be objectively more Nazis in Ukraine then before the invasion. Any military force I have looked into has a lot of Nazis and Russia also. Instead of denazification of Ukraine Russia added Nazis on Ukrainian ground by having soldiers invade. The only reason why you aren't aware of battalion names of Nazis in Russian army is that the fact that the presence of Nazis is totally irrelevant for the argument the west is making while Russia argument totally depends on so RT pushes that narrative.

proctrap 5y ago

Why do people here cry for freedom of speech ? We've had fake information laws in about every state in the last years. And now that it's not only banning some youtube accounts about covid but also fake information of russia about the war they are waging (and people they kill), you're surprised ?!

gruez 5y ago
1. many (most?) people here are American, which has very pro free speech laws 2. fake news sucks, but do you really want a government agency deciding what speech is approved or not?
- proctrap 5y ago
  You surely do have laws against incitement of the masses, don't you ? One example: In Germany it's forbidden by law to deny the holocaust, use nazi symbols, greetings or other media from that era. And some state sponsored TV telling your they're saving people or helping some states while raiding their homes, killing them and using thermobaric weapons is ok ? That this won't create an uproar among all families and relatives ? You have at least laws against defamation and this is nothing else than lying and laughing into the face of people. What you certainly do is restrict youtube channels of joe rogan, trump and facebook ads for elections. And nobody did sue for free speech or won a case. So the general direction is pretty clear.
  - BeefWellington 5y ago
    While I'm often one to point out the flaws in "ultimate freedom of speech" that many people parrot here, there is a tangible difference between being politically and philosophically pro-free speech and the way the laws are written. You can simultaneously believe that free speech is important but that you shouldn't be able to just print lie after lie after lie about a person without repercussion.
    - proctrap 5y ago
      I think that's an attitude I can support.

rosmax_1337 5y ago

Regulation: > it is necessary, consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular with the right to freedom of expression and information as recognised in Article 11 thereof, to introduce further restrictive measures to urgently suspend the broadcasting activities of such media outlets in the Union What. Don't gaslight me with sentences like this in a official document from the EU. They are saying x and !x at the same time in one paragraph. Freedom of expression, and information?! I suppose we should remember that it's not censorship if a private company does it. Private companies are free to conduct business with whoever they want, and the EU is not a government institution and as such is not capable of performing censorship. /s

causi 5y ago
Censorship does not have to be public. Private companies can and do censor things all the time. They have that right. Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  > "Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship." I really detest this line of thought. What good are the concept of human rights when people declare that private companies by definition cannot infringe on them?
  - causi 5y ago
    Because your rights end where other peoples' begins, and controlling what a company allows or doesn't allow on its platform is compelled speech, which is unconstitutional in the US. For example, a baker has the right to censor you by not allowing you to order a cake that says "Heil Hitler" on it.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      This is not about the US and you are misinterpreting the baker's Supreme Court case anyways

ggg45678923 5y ago

arroz 5y ago
Funny, last time I saw a totalitarian government they would imprison you just for saying what you are saying. You know like the arrested people for protesting against the war in Moscow. Calling the banning of a foreign broadcasting company “totalitarism” seems a bit like overblowing it. Probably you have no idea what totalirism means on your skin.
- dtech 5y ago
  It seems like a modern trend to label any restriction on anything in the west as dictatorship and therefore 100% equivalent or worse to non-western less free countries. I wonder how much of this is fuelled by non-western propaganda agents ("troll factories")

random_upvoter 5y ago

It's depressing how utterly normal this level of censorship has become in Western society. Ten years ago there would have been at least a modicum of ho-hum about decisions to ban foreign media. I've watched RT on a few occasions and I never thought their reporting outright propaganda. It does have a clear non-pro-West bias which gives you a dose of awareness that Western reporting is biased too.

arroz 5y ago
What is your point? That Russia state TV should be available everywhere so everyone can watch Russian propaganda?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Who are you to decide what’s propaganda for me?
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  Something makes me suspect that you never ever watched RT for even 5 minutes. Am I right?
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Sure, as long as Russians have access to the rest of the world's news for a contrasting dialogue.
- xtian 5y ago
  Would you apply the same standard to BBC? If not, what's the difference?
  - dsabanin 5y ago
    The difference is, RT is pure, unadulterated, lie. It's government-sponsored infowars. It's under complete control by FSB/KGB and serves exclusively as a platform for launching russian PsyOps.

danielktdoranie 5y ago

Yeah this is censorship and at best it's indicative of a "nanny state" and at worse it's Orwellian. In short, it's bullshit.

BeefWellington 5y ago

No. You have misunderstood. For starters, it'd be hard to argue that RT is "operating" within the EU if the only way to access their content was via TOR. It's not; you can still just view their website as far as my colleagues are telling me. The thing that's being denied here is their ability to operating business and broadcast - already a very highly regulated thing in most (all?) countries, within EU borders. In practical terms this means having to access RT servers probably outside of the EU, broadcast signals can't be sent within it for that channel, etc. The internet is not broadcasting. Were this intended to stop people from viewing it online as well, it would specifically call out RT as Illegal content in some way, so as to invoke one of the possible reasons to actually block their website.[1] EU rules on open internet give you the right as a user to access and/or distribute any online content and services you choose. Your internet provider cannot block, slow down or discriminate against any online content, applications or services, except in 3 specific cases: - to comply with legal obligations, such as a court order blocking specific illegal content - to preserve the security and integrity of the network, for example to combat viruses or malware - to manage exceptional or temporary network congestion Relevant bit is in [2] (13); I couldn't find the more up-to-date post-review regulation. [1]: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-telecoms/internet-access/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-tel... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

shkkmo 5y ago
You seem overly focused on the term "broadcast" while the text of the law seems to pretty explicitly include any means of distribution, including video hosting sites, video watching apps (including P2P?) And ISPs: > transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed. Since this is a legal obligation, I fail so see how EU protections against ISP censorship would apply. The "court order blocking illegal content" is an example, not an exhaustive list of the ways a legal obligation to censorship could pertain.
- BeefWellington 5y ago

yrgulation 5y ago

I believe those propagandising on behalf of an enemy - ideological or armed - without fully understanding their goals are called "useful idiots". Watch and marvel at how this term gains meaning on this thread.

imwillofficial 5y ago
Like spreading a meme about a fighter ace that never existed? I’ve seen a lot of that, it’s wild to see misinformation spread like wildfire.
- yrgulation 5y ago
  Pardon me, but how exactly is spreading an image of a war time hero - that frankly if real or not is needed - the same as spreading the notion that the west needs to be unraveled, the american capitalism destroyed (sure it needs improvement, but total obliteration?), countries erased, and that entire ethnicities shouldn't exist?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    “that frankly if real or not is needed” You may be cool with people lying to your face because they think you need it. I expect more from a democratic government

imwillofficial 5y ago

I have been blasted with propaganda and lies from the west for almost a week now. Things that never happened: - Ghost of Kiev - Sunflower Seed Lady - Snake Island Defiance - Miss Ukraine Airsoft Fighter Then I get sources of info closed off to me, I find that exceedingly concerning. The west is winning the information war, but at the cost of the truth? I’m of a mixed mind for sure.

dncornholio 5y ago
What is actually concerning you? I don't think we actually need all the information at all right now. Ukraine is fighting an uphill battle and they are holding longer then anyone expected. If that's the price of the truth, im happy to pay it. The truth will get out eventually anyway.
- kmlx 5y ago
  > The truth will get out eventually anyway. same thing can be said about so-called "news" from RT, no?
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    The fight is happening in Ukraine and what happens there is what is important. I don't care what is being posted / reported and what is not, I care about the people of Ukraine and that democracy will prevail.
  - Markoff 5y ago
    sure, nobody says all Western news are lies, same goes for RT, but only one side is being censored here for me as third party getting information from all sources and making my own mind
Miner49er 5y ago
I don't think all of the things you have listed have been proven to be false? Do you have sources on any of this? I'm pretty sure sunflower lady is definitely real, there was a video.

t0bia_s 5y ago

Western fight against Russian rules by implementing that rules. This is pure hypocrisy and will do more harm in future, just like covid propaganda and censorship around vaccines. We are loosing our freedom and values every day. Because of our safety, of course.

dncornholio 5y ago

I don't get the problem. You won't be prosecuted for childporn that happened to go through your node as well right? So why would you be prosecuted for having Russian traffic?

jarbus 5y ago

In a time of active war, people's opinions shift. I wonder if this is a temporary or permanent ban. It seems like a short-term solution to keep a lid on Russian propoganda, which seems sensible if it is to be lifted after the conflict. Seems silly not to fight in the same propoganda battle Russia is so willing to engage in, it's like not developing cyber weapons when your opponent is using them against you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]