It will be interesting to see if Russia adopts a network monitoring and censorship strategy as China has[0]. Of course, it would be tragic if they did.
I would imagine that there is a level of capability that already exists beyond 2 years out.
Edit: Remember that a huge portion of this country is demanding a 2000 mi long wall be built along one border... don't underestimate stupid and scared.
Deep packet inspection is here today for Comcast and other ISP customers. The nominal reason for the surveillance is typical adtech panty-sniffing, but of course the data is also available for subpoena, assuming ISPs actually ask for one, or just freely given out (that's more of an ATT thing).
And given that we know the FBI recruits Geek Squad techs to become informants and collaborators[1], who really thinks the FBI, DEA or another TLA won't do the same/hasn't already started doing the same with, say, network techs at Comcast? The same come-ons that worked for the Stasi work just fine elsewhere.
The people down-voting this comment, if they're doing so out of the belief that "it won't happen here", are simply wrong.
The surveillance-entertainment complex was born in the US, and the tools are massively attractive to anyone who covets power. Anyone who doesn't think the world-empire of the day will use them is deluding themselves.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best...
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Chene...
1) block SSL/TSL traffic and VPNs at the border
2) Man in the middle attack (this would needs browsers to accept certificates with a matching wildcard domain )
(1) would block internet commerce at the border - this is not acceptable in western countries were free trade is above everything else. (2) is a problem because the wildcard certificates will leak out and criminals will use them, this will eliminate trust and kill internet commerce internally (also it is quite resource intensive)
In any event a great firewall is a great tragedy: for Russia that would mean the end of any remaining freedom of speech and an end to the independent opposition - for example Navalny will no longer be able to mobilize anyone. Its a fact how freedom of communication directly translates into political liberties; block one of them and you loose the other... (it is also a Pyrrhic victory for the Russian state because limiting information results leads to ptechnological backwardness)
So for the meantime that means that a great firewall in a western country is very unlikely. Of course internet pundits said that of Russia at the turn of this century.... so the fact remains that it is impossible to predict anything.
TIL: the great firewall of china is called golden shield ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ) in Russia they might as well call it "stalin's pipe"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-in...
And I'm not so sure that is true.
Leads are fine. Follow the lead, see where it goes. But if it goes nowhere, don't just lock a guy up until June anyway just because.
That's the idea of writ of habeas corpus, internet or no internet.
Certainly if law stated we should convict people based instead on 'virtually' conclusive evidence your conclusion is valid. I just hope they are real, real careful with that evidence! To prevent the worry of getting caught up when you are innocent, we (and other countries) choose instead to base decision on a criminal matter conversely by rejecting a criminal case on reasonable doubt.
With that understood; I ask you as a technical person (assuming you probably are as this is Hacker News); is it reasonable to say that an IP may not accurately tie to a particular individual in at least some non-extraordinary circumstances?
As a technical engineer I already know the answer it does not; and it can happen due to admin negligence at a minimum (admin wipes out the leases or changes the address pool then changes it back because it was a mistake). At least I certainly hope no one was convicted based on their IP in any network I have managed (or at least they had a good enough attorney to know to check in with me!).
The same thing happened to someone I know in the UK, a few years back. He was arrested at dawn and put in a cell for a whole day after an offence was committed from the IP address under his control.
He said the officer interviewing him admitted he understood that the offender and node owner were probably different people, but it was close enough to justify an arrest.
This was a high-profile case where they did actually find and arrest the actual offender, so they had real leads - could only conclude this was intimidation.