Github may block content if they receive a valid request from Roskomnadzor
github.com
github.com
You using a VPN wont change russian laws.That's the issue.
I'm french and piratebay is on its way to be blocked at the ISP level here. Me getting a VPN will not change the fact that this shouldnt happen and that french people need to do something to change these insane laws.
Granted its tougher to go against russian politicians and lawmakers that french ones. But you're not getting more freedom of speech and information with a VPN,neither do I.
I've been in Russia numerous times , and frankly I have hard time understanding what's going on there today. I think Putin genuinely thinks that without him Russia is doomed or something,which is a mistake.Russia can only survive if its politicians have faith in Russia's institutions, It's not about this or that guy,or it's just another dictatorship.
The legal reasons behind the censorship are not important here, it all basically comes down to whether Github recognizes the local law of countries it serves content to, or not.
If I post suicide methods in English, would that be censored? If I post inflammatory information about Chinese or Indian politicians, would that censored?
When you start censoring, where do you draw the line? When you start allowing countries to extend their jurisdiction into 'cyberspace' how could you ever expect to not fall afoul of SOME law in SOME country. Do you only extend those concessions to large countries?
Ultimately it's github's decision to make in this case, but companies should have more than profit (or marketshare) in mind.
I find censorship repugnant. While I understand you have to comply with the laws of a country in which you are physically located, I think that should be the extent to which you accommodate things like this.
Their system is IP-based so censorship is customized depending on where you access Github from.
The Pirate Bay is entirely different from stealing intellectual property, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
Also, I'd be careful throwing the word "censorship" around. What Roskomnadzor is doing here isn't terribly different from DMCA takedown notices or governments "censoring" documented child abuse.
As someone who has their intellectual property shared by The Pirate Bay I disagree.
Compare The Pirate Bay to YouTube. An argument can be made that YouTube is the biggest distributor of pirated content, though you'd never make YouTube responsible for that. YouTube is a platform and so is TPB. Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole just because people use the platform to share copyrighted material — yet quite a lot of people think doing the very same thing to TPB is completely reasonable. I don't get that.
I agree that the tool itself shouldn't be banned, but the idea of pushing for compromise (e.g. giving recognised authorities access to view users' details in cases where illegal material's being shared) doesn't seem unfair. This way the authorities have options other than banning the tools, legitimate users don't suffer, and offending users are identified; all's good - unless you're using the tool illegally; which is fine (or at least, a different debate).
Some studios have suggested that, and were campaigning for restrictions for Youtube. Hence YouTube's content filtering which recognizes and removes certain content automatically.
Roskomnadzor had a story with YouTube, had them blocked for several hours (mostly went unnoticed as IIRC they had banned only a single IPv4 address, and most ISPs hadn't even pulled the registry before the block was lifted), and had made them block a copy "Dumb Ways to Die" video in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Ways_to_Die#Censorship_in...
So, the fact is, somebody had not only suggested but actually proceeded with blocking YouTube as a whole.
That's wrong of course, hence it's completely different to stealing. Just becaue copyright infringement and stealing both have potential financial impact doesn't make them coterminous.
This is the very definition of censorship. The DMCA also fits the description.
The fact that you feel censorship is always bad but can also think of a few examples where you agree with censorship and are experiencing cognitive dissonance is your problem.
It certainly doesn't help anyone to engage in doublespeak where you define different words for censorship you agree with and censorship you don't agree with. Well, it helps in political discourse immensely but it doesn't help anyone here.
But I understand that to tackle the piracy problem is more practical to shut down torrent sites than to go after every single pirate.
The conclusion doesn't follow in any way from the premises.
Even if it doesn't "steal intellectual property" itself, why it's "wrong" to forbit access to it if "it's mostly used for that purpose"?
On the oft chance that some people also download legit stuff off of it? They can do that off of any number of sites that don't also feature tons of warez and pirated movies with direct download links.
A stance like "it's wrong because I believe intellectual property is wrong" is more consistent.
The Pirate Bay should be banned because people can use it to steal/share intellectual property.
Automobiles should be banned because people can use it to run over people.
Tor should be banned bacause people can use it share child pornography with it.
Scissors should be banned because people running with them can get seriously hurt.
People use TPB mainly to steal/share IP. People use cars mainly to get places efficiently, and occasionally by accident run people over.
Nobody sets out to get hurt while running with scissors (well, maybe some episode of Jackass). Nobody except the very rare psychopath sets out to run people over in their car. Almost everybody who goes to TPB is looking to steal/share IP.
And besides, we're not talking about weapons. We're talking about a website used to pirate content. I'm as logical as the next person here but people keep conflating these totally different issues on "logical" arguments.
A complete, world-wide ban on weapons wouldn't work because then you're leaving a window for some actor to make new weapons and exert that power. Shutting down torrent sites does not decrease societal stability, open anyone up to threats on their life, etc. Stop pretending guns and torrents are similar issues.
If cars were "mostly used for that purpose (running over people), then hell yeah, we should ban then.
And if "scissors" were mostly used by people running with them, then I guess we should ban them too.
I am a moral absolutist. I believe only action can have moral value (good or evil). This moral value is intrinsic and independent of context, intent or consequences. Killing for vengeance, killing in self defence and killing to save thousands of lives are all evil. Because killing is evil.
I also consider censoring, taking away and destroying something as bad. Everything in this world is unique, and was created either by natural means or by human hand. Even the most offensive and harmful thing should be considered as a product of this universe, and protected as such.
This way, I cannot approve of any decision that, in order to prevent/eliminate evil actions, either a) performs evil actions or b) censors, takes away or destroys something.
I say that TPB should not be banned or taken down. What should be addressed are the people who are using it to steal IP. What should be addressed are the people running over other people. What should be addressed are the people sharing child porn in Tor.
In the end, in my personal philosophy, the ends don't justify the means. Ever.
I know that in practical term, this is extremely naive. The world is painted in shades of gray. Sometimes we need to be practical when solving our problems. I'm just that hopefull bufoon that always tries to save the _Kobayashi Maru_ [1]
Why do you believe this?
I'm disappointed to see such manipulative propaganda language used here.
[/sarcasm]
Also the pirate bay just provides a hash ... hashing a file was still legal I think.
Besides, given how well the recent economic sanctions worked, which were created to target those closest to Putin in order to apply pressure where it matters most, I doubt a few tech companies are going to be able to change much. I admit I could be wrong here, however.
I, too, wish that Github wouldn't have caved, but I can easily understand hot it might not have been feasible for them.
GitHub: "Hey everyone, we've got something awesome."
Russia: "We don't want it."
Everyone else: "We'll take it."
Russia: "Hey, how come everyone's doing better than us."
Everyone else: "We used the free thing; it's awesome."
Russia: "дерьмо" - What sort of person looks up how to commit suicide on the internet?
- Will blocking content alter the outcome of someone's decision.
- Will blocking content benefit anyone in some other way?
However, I'd say GitHub are still right to allow countries' authorities to block content...
- If the content is beneficial to the country and they block it, they lose out.
- If the content is detrimental to the country and they block it, they do well.
Here the debated point becomes should a government say what content its people should be able to see, should a platform owner have the responsibility for content on their platform, should it be down to the content's creators, or to those choosing to access the content. To that, I suspect there isn't a good answer; or at least, I don't know.
You want "ой", "блин", "бляха-муха" or "блять".
Always interesting to see how cursing translates to other languages. Or other phrases for good/bad. 牛逼 is literally "cow cunt," but people use it to mean "great." That was very strange to me until I realized that "bad ass motherfucker" literally meant "an incestuous incompetent donkey."
Is learning how to swear properly in various languages a valid hobby? It seems like a fun one.
TL;DR, blocking torrent sites is nigh-on impossible, and if you go for more sweeping automated filtering you're in violation of net neutrality and freedom of speech. (Famously, TorrentFreak, a news site that doesn't offer any kind of file sharing services, regularly gets blocked)
I've heard news media report that there are elements in the Putin camp that are too nationalist. Putin has to show he's the one running the show or something like that. (I am just reporting what I read. I can't verify if this is accurate.)
What really? I'm really not following our politic, I had no idea.
He's ABSOLUTELY getting more freedom of speech using a VPN. It's not the amount of freedom he'd like (being able to pursue the activities without it), but it's better than nothing.
When it's partially allowed, the general public is complacent. When it's outright blocked, the people who don't know how to get around the block get frustrated and complain.
Russia already uses Yandex instead of google and pikabu instead of reddit. Why not репо or whatever instead of github? Buy local.
If you're a Russian citizen, first of all you should be the one fighting against censorship by educating others, by going to protests and so on. Especially since this is now happening all over the place.
I know how it feels like. I'm a Romanian and I felt powerless countless of times, especially in recent years when the local lefties have been on a power grabbing race, with countless of abuses and bad decisions, also leaving a hole in our budget due to electoral alms, but lo and behold, they've lost the presidential race by a brutal margin, even though they were the winners of all polls and they also control the media. What happened is that a large percentage of people that never voted showed up this time. People called their families, people talked on Facebook, people took it to the streets. Just like the protests from a year and a half ago that stopped a corrupted and damaging gold mining project. I'm telling you, it works - and btw, mass-media is in general corrupted, which is why the Internet is such a disruptive force.
I think it is good that there exist websites dedicated to free speech, where it is possible to post content disapproved of by governments.
I think it is also good that there exist politically neutral websites dedicated to technical work, relatively un-interfered with by censorship. (Not everyone has the means to set up VPN, and even those who do, would sometimes rather be getting on with their jobs instead of dealing with that.)
It strikes me as necessary and appropriate for these to be separate sites.
Almost everyone can file a complaint. Roskomnadzor's experts decide if it's valid (no court order is needed) then sends notice, and a site's owner has 3 days to comply.
Telecom operator doesn't have to block entire site, only the offending content. But, as you know it's not always possible due to, you know, https or absence of DPI hardware.
And almost all, I think, who filed complaints, tried to show the absurdity of the situation.
It's the essence of situation in Russia, government tries to do some "good", but even then it does it mostly horribly wrong. Incompetence is everywhere empowered by the fact that those incompetent people are here to stay.
From a short look at the linked/blocked documents, all of them are suicide instructions written in Russian.
Accordingly, adding very small roadblocks for people who are contemplating suicide can have substantial effects in reducing suicide (an example is the restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen that can be sold per transaction in the UK), and people who attempt suicide and fail often express relief afterwards.
I'm not sure where the line ought to go, but that in any case puts it in a very different category from e.g. homicide or different political views.
Censoring suicide instructions is probably by far the least objectionable part of Russian censorship.
Let's put the fact aside that these "instructions" are a joke; consider a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods. Should this page be censored? Since when removing the definition of a word in a dictionary makes a thing disappear? Sure, suicide is an issue, sure, it's better not to have it, but to censor anything mentioning it sounds like a bad adaptation of Orwells' 1984.
What's the problem with suicide prevention, suicide hotlines, destigmatisation of mental health problems? I'll tell you what's the problem - it doesn't help you instill an intellectual control system, censorship and, quite frankly, a form mind control (via media filters).
A censorship by any other reason is still a tool of oppression. It is not a tool for solving problems.
Also, could you please provide a reference to a single study published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of psychology, which supports your claim that small roadblocks, and especially restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen sold per transaction helps prevent suicide.
Coincidentally, paracetamol poisoning a retarded way to go - it is probably more painless to kill oneself by drinking a lot of water (6l per 3hrs is enough to kill you). Why aren't drinking water sales not limited then? In fact, why aren't we all absolved of our personal responsibilities and taken care by the state, like some kind of a nanny?
Of course the people who fail express relief - if they don't we might lock them up. The same goes for your blanket arguments about temporary emotional states, _when you threaten a man with prison (whatever the hell you want to call it) he is way likely to say whatever he thinks you want to get out_.
A far superior approach would be better social care for people who might commit suicide, but that would cost money and effort, as opposed to a symbolic act of prohibition.
Besides, Internet filters always start with the really evil things, like suicide instructions or child pornography, and once established they are slowly expanded to cover terrorism, homosexual pornography, regular pornography, copyright infringement and finally political opposition. You really do not want to go down that slippery slope.
One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/uk-isps-to...
The article does not support your claim.
EDIT: To clarify, as per the reply I gave further down: There is no country wide "UK porn filter". There are voluntary filters put in place by each of the largest providers that are wildly inconsistent in what they block, and wildly ineffective.
Most of the filtering is also opt-in or opt-out for most of these providers, mostly apart from blocks targeting child porn.
Outside of the top 5-6 providers, many smaller providers don't filter at all.
EDIT: Maybe whoever downvoted might care to explain why? The comment is factual. There is no legally mandated filtering across the board in the UK. The only legally mandated filtering is a small set of specific court orders targeting a group of the largest ISPs, requiring them to filter specific sites (Pirate Bay being the main target).
From the media coverage of the "UK porn filter" that I followed, the government said they would make a law to require filtering, then the ISPs jumped on it and implemented their filtering systems, and then the proposed laws failed / stalled.
I do not know enough about the UK ISP landscape to be able to determine if all users of the major ISPs can switch to a non-filtering one, and at what additional expense.
That's not quite how it went. The government hinted that it might do so unless the ISPs implemented filters that people had to ask to opt-out of.
The ISPs jumped on adding a filtering choice for users in the form of a checkbox when they sign on. Something many of them had before. Some providers - notably the mobile providers - have defaulted to opt-out (since long before the government interference, on the basis that e.g. pay as you go sims can easily be obtained without providing id, and as a result they don't know if their subscribers are over 18), while most regular ISPs default to opt-in.
The government subsequently then did not propose any law, and issued triumphant press releases about protecting children, after Camerons advisers had been pleading with ISPs to at least make the checkboxes default to ticked. Largely the result was that they got mocked for not actually achieving any changes that made a difference to anything at all.
All the largest ISPs still filters child porn regardless of subscriber choice, but that's the only thing you're not able to turn off. Even that filtering is not covering nearly all ISPs.
Russia already did. Suicide filters were introduced two years ago or something. Now they are used to block porn, political opponents, sites about drugs and whatever government wants to declare "extrimism". Ah, and last time they added copyright infringement to the list.
1. Burn when entering the Earth's atmosphere Quaternary: probably open a few minutes. Availability: problematic - it is necessary to go into Earth orbit. Trustworthy: Trustworthy as much as you can do it. Notes: Exit into open space in low Earth orbit. Then turn down enough to get into the Atmosphere. You will witness of exiting view!
37. BEING BURNED UP IN UNPROTECTED RE-ENTRY (silly)
Time:
probably a few minutes
Available:
if you happen to be able to get into orbit
Certainty:
about as certain as you can get!
Notes:
Just go for a spacewalk in a low earth orbit, and
decelerate enough to enter the atmosphere. You'll get a
great view...Now there's a blast from the past.
I suppose we will soon learn what is the intersection of all free spech laws of the world.
Should the original Wolfenstein 3d images be released as Creative Commons and put up in a GitHub repository, will GitHub be banned in Germany as well?
Yeah, something like ACID test but for governments. Ultimate pack of offensive material in different jurisdictions.
Some nazi symbolics, some soviet symbolic, denial of Holocaust , Holodomor, some LGTB propaganda, something offensive for black or feminists, or Islam, or His Majesty the King of Thailand. And copyright infringement of course.
Not in the next few years since some years ago a push to implement DNS-level blocking met with an outcry by the German geeksphere that ultimately pushed the pirate party in elections. The plans then were dropped on fear of censorship like in GB and Australia.
But of course, this could be resurrected at some time - and Nazi symbols would be high on the list.
If there were hundreds of accounts sharing nazi propaganda all over Github, wouldn't they be forced by law to block Github in Germany?
As far as I can see it would not be against the Github terms of service to share such content as long as it doesn't violate any laws in your jurisdiction.
Looking at the first takedown, there is the conspicuously named account "russian-suicide", which contains a fork of a blog. A cursory look reveals one post just like the other suicide lists, but it notably references a poem about how teenagers should just kill themselves because they have only shit to expect from growing up. (http://mudacek.livejournal.com/720.html)
The poem is prefaced by an assertion the author expects Roscomnadzor will take it down soon. It seems likely that they have been taking down anything with the word suicide they've come across. My guess would be some programmer reads these poems and started putting these silly suicide instructions into repos as a form of protest, and the authorities are trying to kill the protest as well.
>My guess would be some programmer got their blog shut down because it somewhere said something like "going to Ukraine is suicide" and the authorities used the censor suicide rule in their formal decision.
There is no such phrase. Subject of abuse was another file in repo that contains satiric poetry about Roskomnadzor that I copied from somewhere in the early 2013 to my blog. It sure contains suicide instructions as well as story about entry site being blocked because of single file.
In the early 2013 it looked funny, but now you can't really tell what is satire work and what is Russian government reality.
Another repos that were added in September/October 2014 (after first github ban) by different people contained list of methods to kill yourself.
What's up with the bans on suicide mentions? Is the topic growing because the public feels without hope as the poem seems to suggest, or is Roskomnadzor just tying to keep busy?
Livejournal blog linked there is a throwaway account of some unknown person, however I suspect Russian poet Leo Kaganov to be the author.
>or is Roskomnadzor just tying to keep busy?
this. just some bureaucrats being enthusiastic to assert their power.
Do you know of other surprising examples of sites getting takedown request because of "immoral behaviour" (or whatever the name is)? Does the suicide list when hosted on bitbucket get taken down? On deviantart? Etc
They banned vimeo for ISIS video just day before github. They also banned youtube and vkontakte before.
>Still, I'm surprised they bother with github being such a specialized website.
They are just targeting all popular resources on purpose to make public case.
Even if I disagree with the censorship, I can sorta understand what the problem is if it the list was meant to be serious - but banning black humour is just ridiculous.
Did this have to do with some kind of censorship or was it copyright related?
Now imagine all these people now have no access and start sending emails asking why their paid accounts now aren't working? Russian devs working on tight schedule, forereigners working in Russia, subs doing contracts for american companies - now all of them are DENIED.
Would it really be better for github to continue blocking all those innocent people because of a clearly a set-up type suicide-notes post?
The other replies to my comment probably got it right, with GitHub being based in the US.
-Today I posted an image of an apple on my web-page.
-The city in the next town over has decided that images of apples are bad/wrong/evil and has passed a law banning the display of apples.
-The city that I live in gets an angry letter from the other city upset about the portrayal of apples and the wanton disregard for their laws.
Why oh why can't we live in a world where the concept of "If this material is illegal in your country, you shouldn't be looking at it." or "Be aware of laws that pertain to you and respect them or change them if you disagree."
You should have wrote: "on other people that live under the same legal jurisdiction".
Your attitude towards the law is a real problematic attitude that is currently more common in this 'generation' (generation not referring exactly to people of a certain age, but more as people living in a certain time). Since we have internet now and there are many movements that promote 'freedom' in all of their possible interpretations, many people find it easy to go over the top and start demanding things like "Be aware of laws that pertain to you and respect them _or change them if you disagree_".
You guys should take time to understand what law is and why is it good for it to exist, and also, why you should respect the jurisdiction pertaining to other regions or other people (EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT). If the majority of citizens in this world understood this really simple civical principle, most of the current problems with the world would be nonexistant.
If the majority of rulers in this world subjected themselves to the law, it might become an institution worthy of a citizen's respect.
Some of us highly value open debate and discussion. Perhaps because it's a core value in some cultures around the world, but maybe that's overly romantic. I suspect many of us have just read Milton's Areopagitica [1] or Mill [2], and have yet to hear any convincing refutations.[3]
So those of us who recognize the value of open sharing of ideas will chafe at any suggestion that ideas are best refuted with suppression.
Others in the world don't share these views.
So we're left with a dilemma that cannot be resolved through mutual respect. You can't both openly debate controversial topics and be silent about them. There's no middle ground. There's no "respecting others beliefs" on this. These are strictly incompatible views on the world, on what information I'm allowed to discuss with my neighbor.
I don't believe any government should have the power of thought control, so I reject the attempt of (especially foreign governments) telling me what I can or cannot discuss with their citizens. I respect the people around the world, but I cannot always respect their laws.
[1] http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/608 [2] http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/58569584868/john-stua... [3] Unsurprisingly. How could anyone seriously argue against open discussion and debate while discussing and debating the ideas involved? It's inherently contradictory. Or, those in favor of suppressing speech should first lead by example.
GitHub has a right to do whatever they want with their product; I don't really care. But this sort of double speak is infuriating. Calling "cultural sensitivities" the expressions of an authoritatian government that systematically persecutes its citizens is a major "fuck you" to all Russians.
Just because it is okay in your or my culture to distribute such content doesn't mean it is everywhere else - nor that it should be as long as laws reflect the will of the people.
Even in US there are topics that will get you into real trouble, not just your page censored. For example: Try creating a blog where you instruct your readers on how to build an explosive belt or bombs. Maybe combine it with religious fundamentalist rhetoric. You'd probably even end up in jail for that.
http://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-Departme...
Take for example Anwar al-Awlaki. He was a US citizen and his content was extremist religious views that he distributed via Internet. Without a trial or conviction he was killed by a drone strike for that, as was his 16 year old son in a second drone strike.
Just because someone else has a repressed authoritarian culture does not mean I should be beholden to it.
And on what basis do you even judge that some other culture is repressed and authoritarian? Just because you would feel oppressed under these laws?
There are many different cultures out there with vastly different social rules and moral codes and the people living there mostly agree with those rules. Who can judge what set of rules is right?
I just know which social order is the right one for me but never which one is universally good. If I attempted to introduce the type of social order and free speech that I prefer in the middle east, there'd be plenty of people there that would try to kill me for that. And the same is also true the other way around.
Laws have not been reflecting the will of people in Russia for quite some time. There's no opposition and you can't vote these people out of the office. If you protest, you're an outcast, probably even a state enemy.
Also, that document was sarcastic. It's obvious from a single glance. This situation is just bureaucrats gone berserk supported by laws written by morons, and has nothing to do with cultural sensitivities or suicide.
Source: lived there my whole life
[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stevebest/suicide/master/s...
You can virtually block ANY website in Russia by posting prohibited text or picture (as guest user, for example).
Also, note that NO court decision required. Sites blocked imemdiately (almost).
I'd rather have no problems accessing Github without VPN than worry about Github saving its face in this situation.
Besides, this is how GH deals with all its requests (e.g. DMCA: https://github.com/github/dmca).
How the hell is this not a much bigger story?
What in the world are you talking about? A google search shows nothing, but this. https://github.com/BrendanEich