Russian Bill Requires Encryption Backdoors In All Messenger Apps (dailydot.com) 207
Patrick O'Neill quotes a report from The Daily Dot: A new bill in the Russian Duma, the country's lower legislative house, proposes to make cryptographic backdoors mandatory in all messaging apps in the country so the Federal Security Service -- the successor to the KGB -- can obtain special access to all communications within the country. [Apps like WhatsApp, Viber, and Telegram, all of which offer varying levels of encrypted security for messages, are specifically targeted in the "anti-terrorism" bill, according to the Russian-language media. Fines for the offending companies could reach 1 million rubles or about $15,000.] Russian Senator Elena Mizulina argued that the new bill ought to become law because, she said, teens are brainwashed in closed groups on the internet to murder police officers, a practice protected by encryption. Mizulina then went further. "Maybe we should revisit the idea of pre-filtering [messages]," she said. "We cannot look silently on this."
Oh, the irony! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh dear, this is ironic. Russia is a haven for online criminals, something they really ought to crack down on. Instead of pursuing actual criminals, they're looking to reduce the privacy of people who haven't done anything wrong. What a screwed up country!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear, this is ironic. Russia is a haven for online criminals, something they really ought to crack down on. Instead of pursuing actual criminals, they're looking to reduce the privacy of people who haven't done anything wrong. What a screwed up country!
That is what one gets when one's President is also controls the organized crime groups. Putin might just be the first head of State who is also an active mob boss. Not just a mob boss. The mob boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh, the irony! (Score:5, Insightful)
My god you people are fucking stupid. Your hate of the US is so strong you refuse to acknowledge reality. Yes, the US engages in mass surveillance. So do the EU and Australia. Edward Snowden talked about the fourteen eyes, which includes much of the EU. In fact, EU countries that are left out of these surveillance pacts want in very much. There is one huge difference, though, between the fourteen eyes and Russia. The fourteen eyes aren't actively cracking down on human rights and political dissidents. I'm free to criticize Obama heavily without fear of government retribution. Canadian, Australian, and EU citizens enjoy the same freedoms with their respective governments. Russia, however, does not tolerate criticism of its government nearly as much. Speak out against Putin there and see what happens; it won't turn out well for you. Expressions of homosexuality are also heavily restricted and Russia has a horrible record of LGBT rights. So many people here are blinded by their hatred of the US that they're willing to praise a country with Russia's record for admitting their mass surveillance. This is part of why Slashdot is fucking unreadable these days. There is absolutely no way we should be praising Russia at all for this.
Re: Oh, the irony! (Score:4, Funny)
Expressions of homosexuality are also heavily restricted and Russia has a horrible record of LGBT rights.
Shurely not.
Putin wouldn't be posting all those homoerotic pictures of himself if that were the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Expressions of homosexuality are also heavily restricted ...Putin wouldn't be posting all those homoerotic pictures of himself if that were the case.
Being gay for putin is the only type of gay allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the two countries advertises itself as the "land of the free". The fact that a de facto dictatorship under Putin is enacting the very laws our own country's agencies have been fighting for should bother you more than it does.
The sarcastic comments above illustrate discontent with the fact that our two governments are not as distant in their actions as some of us would be comfortable with.
Re: (Score:2)
i can already see how this circular reasoning will develop:
merkins started talking about backdoored encryption. russians say: "look at america, they're gonna do it. we might as well do it too".
then merkins will say: "look, other countries are already doing it. now we HAVE to do it too"
at that point britain will already have daily mandatory anal probing for all their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
You're free to dissent as long as:
- You don't actually represent any real threat to "The Powers That Be". The moment you become effective you'll be shutdown real fast.
- You're not one of the "unapproved" minorities. This differs from country to country. But can be just being gay, black, indigenous, poor, having a different world view.
- Your being missing will be noticed. And even then that might not be enough. The disinformation campaign about you personally (character assassination) will start just before
Re: (Score:2)
You're free to dissent as long as:
- You don't actually represent any real threat to "The Powers That Be". The moment you become effective you'll be shutdown real fast.
I'm not sure you have to represent a real threat ... wait, let me rephrase that ... I am certain that the authorities do come down on people who do not represent any kind of threat at all like a ton of bricks for the most ridiculous of reasons.
For example (and I'm paraphrasing, as I can't be bothered to look up the incident in question): posting on Facebook "Flying to Paris tomorrow from Manchester. It's going to be the bomb! Mad for it!" has had dire consequences for peoples' holiday plans, not to mention
Re: Oh, the irony! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pffff.
Our current hatred of the US stems from the fact that while countries like Russia and China are EXPECTED to pull shit like this, the US that I grew up in is not.
The US would like everyone to think that we're the good guys and they put an awful lot of effort into trying to promote that image to its citizens.
However, as time goes on, it seems the only differences between the US and the so called " bad guys " are the languages we speak. We might not be AS screwed up* as some other countries are, but we're trying to get there as fast as we possibly can.
*We're more screwed up in some aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to know who is responsible for the USA turning to these kinds of activities, I recommend that you look in the mirror. It is you, and I, and everyone else who votes - or doesn't. The people we choose to put into office are the ones who have the power to stop or expand these activities. The American people, however, keep going to Big Broth
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hate the USA because we're not "as" evil ??
Both countries are CRAP for the complete and utter treatment of respecting people's rights. We should be:
* praising countries when they respect people's rights and privacy
* shaming countries when they pull shenanigans
It doesn't matter who, but what.
Arguing over which one is worse is like arguing over which fatal disease is worse -- they BOTH SUCK !
--
Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex -- Frank Zappa
Re: (Score:2)
Russky's don't beat around the bush on surveillance and at least they are truthful about it.
How do you know that they're being truthful?
Re: (Score:3)
Wha..ttt THe...
How is that a point? LIving in a totaltarian state with real punishments for expressing disapproval of the government is better because, you know the consequences of your actions?!? As opposed to living in a country where limited secretive spying goes on, with out any measurable crack down on descent?
Its like admiring a serial killer for having the courage to act on his convictions, as opposed to a man that cheats on his wife but doesn't leave her.
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, You need help. Please reach out to a mental health clinic.
Re: (Score:2)
No, its mental illness. I've seen it too much in loved ones, I hope he gets help.
Re: (Score:2)
Noone is praising Russia, you drooling moron.
You haven't been reading MobSwatter's posts have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Julian Assange raped a woman, trying to claim it is a honeypot is so far from the truth to be completely laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, conspiracy theories surely explain why he had sex with a woman while she was asleep after she told him no.
Re: (Score:2)
So if it is so clear cut, why not go to court and prove his innocence? Because the big bad US government is going to extradite him? Somehow it is easier to go through all of this to extradite him instead of just extraditing him from the UK, a very close ally and member of the Five Eyes.
Defending an accused rapist who is a fugitive from justice just makes you look like a terrible person. If he is so innocent, then he should be before the judge pleading that innocence. He isn't innocent, and he knows it,
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up all these things about Trump, without even an acknowledgement that Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. She has done all these things and more, so what is your point?
Feel the Johnson!
Russian bill acknowledges backdoors in all .... (Score:5, Insightful)
messaging apps
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just look who Russia labels terrorists. They label people in Syria terrorists who are rising against a vicious dictator who was killing their people. Putin supports said vicious dictator as he is as much a vicious dictator when it comes to the Caucasus, Crimeans, Chechens, and other groups. Maybe they should just ban any group that starts with C...
All the same (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
just opt-out
Stop providing services (Score:5, Insightful)
To any country that makes encryption either illegal, or treats it as eminent domain for the government to have access to it's citizen's communications.
This is the same crap the UK is proposing, and the same crap the US is trying to implement. It's time for the citizens, and thereby the private services providers, to stand up and say "No More!!!".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Security, Liberty, Multiculturalism. You might be able to get 2 of the three, or just one. Never all three, not even once in recorded history, not even in myth.
A multicultural society is necessarily a low trust society. Low trust societies are dangerous, even when monocultural. You can give up liberty in the pursuit of security, or give up security in the pursuit of liberty. History says that you won't get the one you want, even after giving up the one you are willing to sacrifice.
If you want security
Re: (Score:3)
If you want security and liberty, at a minimum, you must stop importing people that want to destroy your culture.
Here is where your argument fails. Most people out to "destroy culture" (whatever that means) come from within. The foreign agent trying to destabilize a society is a cliché. Sure, they exist, but there are only a few of them. The main threat to a society are people being outcast for what reason ever (economically, culturally, for religious reasons) and try to get revenge for feeling outcast.
It's the same misconception with most crimes. The people most likely to kill you are yourself, your parents, y
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to lock your doors. Your house is already quite dangerous enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am unable to fathom what point you are trying to make here. Feel free to try rephrasing it, but I doubt you'll get very far. The line you are on (or at least were on earlier) is self-refuting. No one who says that we should ignore risks that we can manage because there exist other risks that we cannot, actually lives like they believe it.
Do you wear your seatbelt? Lock your doors? Live in a good neighborhood? Do you avoid biker bars? Do you have handrails on your stairs? How about a railing on you
Re: (Score:2)
Exceedingly rare? You do know that at least 13% of federal inmates are, in addition to whatever crime they are in prison for, in the country illegally, right? I say "at least" because our lovely government puts some serious effort into obfuscating the real numbers.
Furthermore, you moron, 2a is directly contradicted by the fucking article that you are commenting on. Since you don't appear to have read it, the government is trying to justify new powers by invoking the threat of the enemy that they have alr
Re: (Score:2)
At one point, in US history, Chinese immigrants were looked upon as "destroying US culture." At another point, Irish immigrants were the folks to ban ("Irish need not apply" signs in windows). We even, in one sad time in US history, locked up everyone of Japanese descent because we were at war with Japan and feared they'd side with the enemy. There is always
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that we are at historic levels of immigration both in absolute numbers and in percentage of the population, right? And that no one has any idea how to "melting pot" this many people?
You'll notice that a lot of these Sudden Jihad Syndrome cases involve 2nd generation immigrants, people that look at their parents with scorn for having integrated and who are more interested in the culture of their grandparents than in ours. Remember that time when the son of a Chinese immigrant shot 100 people fo
Re: (Score:2)
That word is used in a legal context in a way that is wildly different from the ordinary conversational use. In the ordinary sense, I am. In the legal sense, I am not.
Re: (Score:2)
look at how many actual deaths that have been prevented by the abusive monitoring that is currently in place
How exactly do you expect that number to be provided? When the security services disrupt plots, or arrest individuals who were interested in carrying out plots, they don't have the capability to simulate an alternate universe in which they did not take those actions. Our government is powerful, but not that powerful. Consider also that surveillance has an effect even if no actual plots are disrupted, as long as the targets are aware of it; because it forces them to change their behavior and swi
Re: (Score:2)
To any country that makes encryption either illegal, or treats it as eminent domain for the government to have access to it's citizen's communications.
This is the same crap the UK is proposing, and the same crap the US is trying to implement. It's time for the citizens, and thereby the private services providers, to stand up and say "No More!!!".
Not even. The apps can be provided from non "insert country name here" located servers so it's up to "insert country name here" to block said services and deal with whatever voter feedback there is after.
Filthy dirty freedom hating commies (Score:5, Funny)
It's not only Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech and privacy are viewed as terrorism here, too.
Children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From experience (you being similar to my dad) I can tell you with some credibility is that all you will accomplish is that your kids will not only circumvent your attempt to sniff through their privacy, they will also not come to you in case something happens.
Realize that your kids have WAY more time to break any and all attempts you can field against them than you have to secure them. Plus they have not only the internet at their disposal to do so but the aid of all their peers, who can gain a lot of prest
Re: (Score:2)
From experience (you being similar to my dad) I can tell you with some credibility is that all you will accomplish is that your kids will not only circumvent your attempt to sniff through their privacy
You were likely more technically savvy than your parents.
That doesn't generally apply to parents here, especially to a new generation of kids who just use the internet as a tool.
The internet isn't really new anymore, and the adults here grew up with it and know it inside and out. Protocols and ports, routing and switches, and operating systems etc, etc...and the theory behind how it works. And the kids, unless that is their passion... like it was ours... don't know anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids in general have one passion: Circumventing whatever locks parents throw between their legs.
But hey, more power to you. The insistence of my dad to invade my privacy contributed in no small way to making me the security expert I am today.
Re: (Score:2)
The insistence of my dad to invade my privacy contributed in no small way to making me the security expert I am today.
I don't doubt it. That clearly applied to you. But if it were generally true, any child that had a snoopy parent would be a network security expert. And that doesn't pass any credibility test. And from my own experience with my kids, they just don't have a deep interest in it.
If I were to monitor my kids, and they were to find out, I'm confident they'd adapt by just avoiding networks and devices I have control over in the future rather than try to engage in cat and mouse on our own network.
Kids will find
Re: (Score:2)
The more likely escape route today would probably be to use devices you have no control over, like at school or with their friends. I didn't have that option, back then computers were still rare and a geek thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely, i think 'our' generation had a rather unique circumstance. Computers were 'rare' and 'new' and changing rapidly, so our parents were likely to be less knowledgeable about them than the kids were.
That doesn't generally hold true today.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, it does.
Parents today are no more likely to know the first thing about computers than ours did. The difference is just that they are more likely to have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are felons even a thing? It appears to be a unending punishment after the agreed upon punis--errr "rehabilitation" has been completed. Are they rehabilitated or not and if not why did they let them out?
Re: (Score:2)
Because gaining trust is much more difficult than losing it.
If you commit a felony, you are punished, but you also lost the trust of the people (people will think that the probability of you committing a crime again is higher than average), this is more difficult to regain. For example, somebody who has committed manslaughter probably should not be able to get a gun.
In my country, the status of "ex-con" disappears some years after release from prison. The status is used in determining punishments for any ne
Re: (Score:2)
I did not know the proper term. If I literally translate it from my language it come out as "who has been tired", but it only applies to felonies and if the person was actually convicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And just take a look at what's a "felony" these days...
Because terrorists! (Score:3)
Or should I re-phrase that as "because bogeymen"? I mean, really, how many terrorists attacks, anywhere in the world, have been prevented as a result of the privacy we've already been forced to give up?
If terrorists didn't exist, governments would have to invent them, to justify their megalomaniacal policies. Oddly enough, Russia is (uncharacteristically) late to the party on this one - it seems that they're simply following the lead of the Free World. That alone should be a cause for serious concern among those ostensibly 'free' countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Or should I re-phrase that as "because bogeymen"? I mean, really, how many terrorists attacks, anywhere in the world, have been prevented as a result of the privacy we've already been forced to give up?
More than you might think. The FBI does stings all the time and arrests people who want to commit domestic terrorism. I'm pretty sure that some of this has been found by exactly what you bitch about.
I do just love (not really) negative logic on Slashdot where supposedly intelligent people argue that because something doesn't happen that it was never going to happen anyway when the fact that it hasn't happened may mean that it was prevented in the first place. For example, TSA screenings may actually
Re: (Score:2)
More than you might think. The FBI does stings all the time and arrests people who want to commit domestic terrorism. I'm pretty sure that some of this has been found by exactly what you bitch about.
You may have a point, but I'm not convinced. As the AC who also responded to your post pointed out, the TLA's would be expected to publicize their successes at thwarting terrorism, yet we hear almost nothing. If you have citations, please provide them.
The recent Orlando attacker didn't drive to the front gate of a US military facility in Florida and start opening fire. He went to a nightclub he was known to visit because he knew that the odds were high that nobody there would have a weapon that could stop him. Terrorists want easy targets with just about 100% chance of success. They're not looking for difficult targets where they may get stopped or caught.
Let me give you some help with this. If you're going to choose a specific incident to make your case, it would be better to choose one in which the perpetrator very clearly chose his target for its easy accessibility and vulnerability, and not because he might
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Backdooring?
I thought homosexuality was illegal in Poutine's Russia.
So like what's a messenger app? (Score:2)
Is ytalk a messenger app? What about IRC? Is encryption over ytalk and irc going to be banned? How?
Is Russia going to yank these "apps" out of the public domain?
The cat is not only out of the bag, but is riding the cows that have left the barn and the open gate in the field, and are headed toward the mountains to start their new society based on milking humans.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Is encryption over ytalk and irc going to be banned?
I don't think that Russia is worried about the small minority of people who use ytalk and irc. They watch the news and news caster pound each other stupid talking about how social media (ie, forms of communications controlled by a single proprietary platform) is liberating populations from oppressive governments. Those are the communications the Russian government is afraid of. Popular ones.
Opposing country's bills (Score:5, Interesting)
Russian bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only Russia can access.
US bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the US can access.
EU bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the EU can access.
Yeah, that'll work just great.
Re: (Score:2)
Build your messaging app with a API that other apps can hook into, and your custom app can do the encryption, sending encoded messages via the official app. (So these APIs will need to be banned: Twitter's API would also need to be banned, and indeed just about all the dynamic web.)
Re: (Score:2)
I have already built this API. Any TLA can query it. There is a small bug remaining: every message is translated into "dog".
Sample Request:
//message-decription.api/<your-tld>/<originator-id>/<recipient-id>?key=<your-api-key>&offset=<number>
Sample Response:
[{"date":"2016-06-17T04:16:42.540Z","message":"bark bark bark bark. bark bark. bark bark bark bark bark."}, {...}, ...]
Re: (Score:2)
What we actually need is:
US law: US companies may not comply with russian backdoor requests; nor may they withdraw service from russian citizens. In other words, for a company headquartered in the US, it must be illegal for the US arm to fail to protect russian citizens from russian law. And then the 3 symmetric permutations.
Re: (Score:2)
ooooOOOOOOoooohhhh, I like that.
(I want the ability to transfer a +1 from my post, down to any immediate child reply)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are forgetting our alien overlords and the robots and AI-verse
plain text for every one, just self censor of ideas and thoughts until the civilization crumbles.
stupid bureaucracy nevertheless evolves (Score:2)
If you remember that little hubbub about Russia's attempt to block certain pages of Wikipedia, it failed only because Wikimedia set the HSTS; they simply expected to utilize the providers' MITM backdoors the way they did it with every other page that makes its way into the proscribed list (that gets added to regularly), but when the entire site went down with a big warning "forgery in progress, turn back now, you're not clicking through", they panicked and backtracked. But not for long. So here's a way out
It is ok. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising... (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia ... (Score:3)
Messengers encrypt YOU!
Being a Russian I just don't beeping care. And maybe I'm even glad that this bill is proposed, because it means that all the official messengers (I mean: companies that provide messenger services using closed source software) will be compromised and the only messengers that are trustworthy will be the open source decentralized ones having no central authority that can be fined.
In such conditions the maximum fine would be 5000 Roubles (less than US$100) which means that the expense of collecting the evidence would not pay up. It's just impossible to interrogate everybody whose traffic comes to some nonstandard port, and it's impossible to prove that it's a messenger and not anything else.
Also I hope that any software that used the outdated HTTP(S) and HTML protocols which have so many builtin security holes will be compromised at last and the only programs that survive would have no such thing as web page phenomenon and correspondingly site phenomenon. For instance, Freenet now supports something like a webpage. But it edits out anything that could be dangerous. RetroShare just has no web page. It displays web links but you should copy them to the browser with full understanding for your actions.
Please understand: This bill is neither Putin's nor the FSB/KGB initiative. The FSB works stealthly. It's the initiative of parlamentaries who propose the laws that just cannot be observed.
Dear Russia (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off.
Signed,
Wales.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 That made me laugh.
Just for the folks who don't follow football.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36514115
Re: (Score:2)
Backdoors in messengers. (Score:3)
If it was possible to monitor communications of Bundeskanzler and Président, then run-of-the-mill messengers and smartphones should not be a challenge.
The question is not about backdoors, but who would hold keys.
Foolish (Score:2)
A few lines of javascript, crypto_js and a simple message relay written in PHP (which can be hosted anywhere in the world) is all you need for a secure messaging app. On the phone side, all you'd need is a web browser that can run standard javascript. On the server all you need is something like PHP (any language will do here: even a CGI script written in bash would suffice).
Think about it.... (Score:2)
What's okay for the US of A ... (Score:2)
... seems to be okay for russia as well.
No surprise here.
Stop surveillance. Worldwide. For everybody.
zero chance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Provide a backdoor with spoofed text (Score:2)
Messenger Apps? Encryption? How quaint...! (Score:2)
Seriously, if a group really wants to hide from surveillance, they won't under any circumstances communicate their intentions, neither in the clear, nor encrypted, electronicall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I never understood why people think networks like the Internet are supposed to be private. They weren't designed to be originally. In fact, the first networks were broadcast: every node "talked" to every other node. Networks are supposed to facilitate communications. They aren't designed to hide communications. In fact in a peer to peer network like the internet, every node is supposed to be able to talk to other nodes. I know a bunch of people are going to get angry at this but the fact is if you want secrecy, don't use a communication network like the Internet. I know it is hard to believe, but it is possible! I'll wait for all the blah, blah, blah, I hate you Aspie responses, but if you look at the history of networks in general, security was an afterthought that was tacked on top (poorly).
Few people think the internet is private, that's why they use encryption.
If someone wants your secrets badly enough that they'll backdoor your phone without you knowing it (and they have the resources to do so), then no communication is safe, not even a person-to-person conversation.
Re:I never understood privacy (eyeroll) (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather than mod you down -1 Troll, which you probably deserve with a subject of "I never understood privacy", I'm going to "fall for it" and actually address your convoluted point of view as if you were serious, Mr. doesn't-understand-privacy-but-still-named-"110010001000".
I never understood why people think networks like the Internet are supposed to be private
When you say "supposed to"-- to what authority are you appealing? Certainly there are many many mechanisms built on the internet that are "supposed
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that we had secure communications networks. They were kept disjoint, and with incompatible communication protocols.
There is a way to design a secure network -- circuit switched, with the switch having an ACL that only lets certain machines communicate with each other and nobody else. Add RSA keys on a low level of the stack, and an attacker would have to compromise both the switch ACL and the authorized key list on the individual machines just to attempt communicating with one of the hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
You're also describing the "party line" telephone system, and before that standing in the street and shouting at your neighbours.
While privacy may be claimed to be new construct by some people, that's simply because it wasn't terribly difficult to achieve previously. You just had to talk softly or write letters instead of postcards. And you WILL find that the expectation of privacy exists in the physical mail service, to pretend that it doesn't in email etc is convenient bullshit that corporate/government h
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody thinks that. No wonder you misunderstood them!
People think that some applications should be private. i.e. before you decide how you're going to communicate, you have already decided to tell your wife, "Buy some orange juice on the way home." And once you know that you're about to say something private like that, then you look for ways to do it. Public networks are awesome for this.
Re: (Score:3)
With basic technology available in firewalling appliances, it isn't too tough to make a rule, "if it appears to be encrypted, drop the packets, send alert, and yank offending host from the network". Just block traffic going through a HTTP/HTTPs port without a user agent, MITM the rest. This works on the LAN. It wouldn't be too hard for a repressive government to do this on a WAN basis.
Re: (Score:2)
With basic technology available in firewalling appliances, it isn't too tough to make a rule, "if it appears to be encrypted, drop the packets, send alert, and yank offending host from the network". Just block traffic going through a HTTP/HTTPs port without a user agent, MITM the rest. This works on the LAN. It wouldn't be too hard for a repressive government to do this on a WAN basis.
That is because no one is trying to hide them. It's not that hard to stuff reasonable amounts in something else like a jpg and hide it. You would have to flag half the internet if cat pics were suddenly contraban.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Homosexuals are seen as pedophiles in Russia - and innocent people have been killed because the state doesn't really try to catch killers of homosexuals. Maybe you should look what "promoting sodomy" covers in this shithole, even pointing out that homosexuality is normal is enough to be harassed by police and state-protected neo nazi groups...
A long time ago it was thought that homosexuals wasn't born - they were created due to seduction by pedophiles. In Russia that is still seen as reality while all scien
Re: (Score:2)
So, you are saying that the proper course of action is to instead force a child that knows they should be female from being who they believe they are?
You don't understand this, this is allowing the child to live a happy life, not forcing the child to do something against their will.
Re: (Score:2)
If the 12 yo boy is gay, who is to stop them? That is like saying that a 12 yo isn't allowed to date the opposite sex because you think that dating is wrong. 12 Year olds are old enough to have started puberty and to know which way their sexual orientation is.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it absolutely hilarious you call me regressive-left...clearly you haven't read any of my history.
Nobody is encouraging 12yo boys to go fuck girls. That would be 'rape culture', 'un-feminist' and 'hetero-normative'. There is no reason to ban a non-existing practice.
No, that wouldn't be rape, two 12 year olds having sex is perfectly legal in the US, there is no rape involved unless someone is forced against their will. Statutory rape is involved when an adult is having sex with an underage person, but that is due to power imbalance. There is no law against two consenting children having sex with each other.
Although there is a trend to incite children, especially boys, to be homosexual or trans.
Um, no, there is no incitement, there is an allowing kids t
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say anything about age of consent? It is always illegal for an adult to have sex with an underage person, but what does that have to do with 12 year olds having sex with each other?