Hacker News Reader

Comment by azangru | Hacker News Reader

I am Russian, and I do not use Telegram, I and do not really know the technology that it relies on, so my opinion is probably worthless, but I can't get rid of the feeling that if Telegram just left the scene quietly and peacefully when the Russian authorities announced the ban, things would have been much simpler and yes, better. The authorities would have pretended that their mission had been accomplished. People who still really needed Telegram could continue to use it with the help of proxies or vpns. And the mayhem that occurred when the Russian internet watchdog started blocking millions of IPs would never have happened.

Instead we had this ridiculous escalation causing the disruption of the normal internet communications for a while, and promising even more sinister problems in the future.

And Gitbooks still don't work properly here :-(

View on HN

I think it's in Telegrams best interest to make a big deal out of this.

More positively, not going quietly into the night when faced with state repression is pretty much in line with their ideals. I can totally see why they'd want to fight it out.

On the cynical side, grand standing here is great for PR.

> I think it's in Telegrams best interest to make a big deal out of this. > On the cynical side, grand standing here is great for PR.

Totally, I get this. Pavel Durov even issued a statement at some point saying that Telegram's will keep defying the Russian authorities having the best interest of their users in mind. A veritable Robin Hood, wouldn't you know. I can't imagine how breaking of half the Internet that ensued could have been in the best interest of the public.

Telegram didn't break the internet. The government did.

No argument there. The government did. In response to Telegram's stance.

I mean, we know that the government (the Russian government in particular, or the government in general) is evil. Do we want to unleash their evil upon ourselves, that's what I am asking.

They already "unleashed their evil" and it was shown to be pretty ineffective, lol

>Do we want to unleash their evil upon ourselves, that's what I am asking.

Yes we, who are not slaves, do want this if this is what it takes to get freedom.

So it is Telegram's fault for what your Government did? I'm sorry you have to live under this, but I think it is maybe the Government's fault for doing those things.

> So it is Telegram's fault for what your Government did?

It is not Telegram's fault that the Russian government decided to ban it. This unfortunate decision is wholly on the government.

But it is not entirely clear to me whether it shares the blame for what happened next, namely for the collateral damage that occurred during their grand stand against the Russian government. I think it might actually be an interesting question worth pondering about.

Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes.

I'd see thinking otherwise as a form of Victim Blaming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

> Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes.

It is a very strange logic.

Telegram did something that no longer was legal under the Russian law. Yes, it may be a stupid law, and yes, it may be very selectively applied, and yes, it is the government that gets to write the law and thus define the rules of the game. I get all that, and I share the hatred towards the Russian government and its legal system.

Nevertheless, if we step aside and look at the situation disinterestedly, Telegram could no longer operate in Russia according to the laws of the land. So, according to the twisted Russian legal system, Telegram was in the wrong.

It could have just acknowledged the fact and stopped operating in Russia.

Instead its position was that it does not recognise the Russian ruling and will keep operating in the country where it officially was no longer welcome.

The Russian authorities tried to enforce the law, but due to the lack of either grace or expertise made a mess out of it.

Look, I am not arguing from a legalistic perspective. I do not worship the law, nor do I tell others to respect it. I would break it as likely as the next guy if I could get away with it. But what I am saying is that the Russian authorities were within their right.

As for victim blaming, you would have been correct if we were discussing Telegram as the victim. But in my analysis, the victims are the public who had to endure broken internet, because a company and an enforcement agency were both making a point.

You're exactly arguing from from a legalistic perspective.

I am alternating between two perspectives: one is that of an internet user who was caught in a fight between a company and an enforcement agency; the other is that of a disinterested observer.

This other position tells me that if we disregard for a moment that Telegram is a tech company championing privacy (and therefore a protagonist in most retellings of the story) and the Russian government is an embodiment of thuggishness (and therefore a likely villain of the piece) and just look at the situation as if it occurred elsewhere, we will see that Telegram might also have its share of blame in this story. It's as if a policeman ordered a suspect to freeze, but the suspect ran, and the policeman opened fire and wounded a bystander - well, it sure was the policeman who shot the gun, but is the fleeing suspect completely innocent of the situation? Would it be called victim blaming to suggest that he shares the blame for what happened? Can one be censured for saying that it would have been better if the suspect meekly obeyed the policeman?

You are misleading people not familiar with Russian legislation. There is no law saying you can ban random IP addresses.

I am not familiar with the Russian legislation myself, to be honest. Are you saying that Roskomnadzor, the Russian governmental agency, actively broke the Russian law? Have there been any articles or legal discussions about it you could reference? Has anyone threatened to sue (I know it’s pointless in Russia, but still)?

Can you read Russian? Then here is the link: [1]

A Russian company filed an action against Roskommnadzor demanding to compensate a loss of 5,000,000 RUB (~$75 000). The court dismissed it though.

Here is another example: [2]

[1] https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2018/08/27/n_11956687.shtml

[2] https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/08/2018/5b6848b39a794769383b9e...

There is one more thing. When RosKomNadzor blocks an IP address, it states the reason for doing that. If you look at IP addresses of Telegram proxies, for example here [1] you'll see that the reason for blocking is not a court decision (which ordered to block Telegram). The stated reason is an order from Prosecutor's Office.

But when the Russian company filed an action against RKN, the Prosecutor's Office representative said that they didin't order to block unrelated IP addresses; it was RKN's own decision [2] [3]. And this is not according to the law. Doing everything according to the law would be too slow.

[1] https://reestr.rublacklist.net/rec/518267/

[2] https://roskomsvoboda.org/40800/

[3] https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2018/08/06/11885923/i_snova_pro_t...

@codedokode Can't reply to your post with the links. They are interesting, and I am very curious about further developments — whether there will be more suits against Roskomnadzor for indiscriminate IP blocking.

I found a site with the documents about the particular case that you referenced (articles in the news media are so superficial). There aren‘t yet materials available about the defendants’ legal position or about the justification of the judge’s decision, but I hope they will be uploaded soon enough:

https://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/f268f6cc-0fa2-4d48-b325-5ae3b7a4d...

One should be criticized, because it's propaganda for being a coward.

I'm going there and saying that this is exactly the logic that nazi apologists use to blame SS reprisals against civilians on resistance fighters.

> I'm going there and saying that this is exactly the logic that nazi apologists use to blame SS reprisals against civilians on resistance fighters.

Sigh. You could have pointed at collective punishments that were practiced in schools (some students misbehave, the whole class is punished), or in the military (the whole platoon is punished for the actions of an individual), but no, you would rather invoke the Godwin’s law and drag the Nazis into discussion.

In any case, it’s not even a fair analogy with my example. My example was about collateral damage happening as a result of baiting the authorities; yours is about deliberate hostage-taking.

As for "propaganda for being a coward", well, to each their own. Call Joseph Heller ("Catch-22") or Terry Pratchett (novels featuring Rincewind) propagandists of cowardice then.

(And it is not even a story about heroism or cowardice. Telegram is not being a hero here; it's not as if it is risking anything by defying the Russian government — it is well outside of reach of the Russian law enforcers.)

Ignoring the fact that you're talking about a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries, the distinction you're making is spurious (if the collateral damage is predictable even for the other party, it's hostage-taking, if it's not predictable obviously it cannot be taken into account) and even if we doubt the motives of the Telegram people calling not submitting to censure and spying "baiting" as if the issue was morally neutral is dishonest.

How did we get here? :-) From the discussion of whether it's preferable to move away from a country that is demanding of you what you are not willing to give, or to ignore the official orders and bet on the country’s inability to enforce their ban — to Nazis — and then to “a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries” (at least you could have said "radioactive substances", referring to the case for which the inquiry has been held and for which the factual basis is pretty well known, instead of the case about which very little information has been shared with the public), within just a couple of posts?

By leaving the Russian market Telegram wouldn’t have submitted to censorship and spying. They wouldn't have collaborated with the Russian special services. They would have kept their integrity. Much as what LinkedIn did when the Russians demanded they keep the information about the Russian citizens on the Russian soil and LinkedIn refused. It could all have been peaceful and quiet and dignified.

And the problem of privacy vs censorship and spying is by no means limited to Russia. It will resurface in the progressive world. It will be interesting to see what the reaction will be then.

We got there because the arguments that you're using have the same structure. Why should Telegram make it easy for the Russian government? Having them actually look incompetent and oppressive is a bonus.

If Telegram did something illegal why should other Internet users suffer damages? Even the Russian law doesn't say that.

The blocking was not done according to the law. If the Government followed its own laws, there would be a lot of paperwork for every new blocked IP address and they would play cat-and-mouse game with Telegram spending a lot of resources while Telegram could cheaply create new proxies instead of blocked ones. Effectively you cannot block Telegram if you follow the law.

So the Government started blocking large networks (like, 256 000 IP addresses at once or even more) whenever it found a single Telegram proxy server there. This is obviously against the law but who cares.

If you think I am wrong please point to the article that allows blocking 20 millions random IP addresses.

Blaming the victim is never a good look.

That is some Stockholm syndrome thinking.

I am Russian and I like this escalation because it makes more people to hate Putin making overthrow of his regime more likely.

> That is some Stockholm syndrome thinking.

Stockholm syndrome is a feeling of affection towards your captor.

I do not feel the slightest bit of affection towards our government. I despise them. But I do feel it may be in the captive's interest not to annoy the captor too much; better yet, not to attract his attention at all.

Your captor is constantly looking for excuses to escalate things. There is nothing you can do to keep things the way they are.

It is a matter of belief, I suppose :-) One can believe in the reality where the captor is constantly thinking of how to provoke the captive and then destroy him, or in the reality where the captor is minding his own business until he is provoked. The Russia of the first decade of the 2000s rather resembled this second reality. Whether the reality has switched to the first one, I am not sure.

At this point it's not a belief, but a historical record. The whole thing started small with "protect the children" kind of bullshit. Then gradually and consistently escalated to gain more power.

OK my word choice was wrong.

>But I do feel it may be in the captive's interest not to annoy the captor too much; better yet, not to attract his attention at all.

Only if there is an expectation that they will be released. If you are in the death camp then rebellion is your only actual chance.

Because we have nuclear weapons no foreign government will interfere just to bring us democracy.

So it's Battered Spouse Syndrome, then.

> I am Russian and I like this escalation because it makes more people to hate Putin making overthrow of his regime more likely.

Is there any chance of that happening? I am not Russian but my impression is that a large majority of Russians favor Putin and it's hard to imagine how he could be overthrown.

The chance is always there, probably not at this moment, though. Oh, an not on any grounds like censorship or privacy violation, these are not valued enough.

They don't. They just don't have power to do anything about it.

> I am not Russian but my impression is that a large majority of Russians favor Putin and it's hard to imagine how he could be overthrown.

A massive peaceful protest that the leader is powerless to suppress and that forces him to step down is just one (and very happy) scenario of overthrowing a leader. This indeed is not very likely to happen.

There always remains a military coup, however, which does not require a support of the population.

But overthrowing a government is a scary business. Who is going to come in their stead? Will their be a power struggle? Will it turn violent? Will their be a civil war (a very real prospect in a country such as Russia, where the provinces have historically been exploited by the metropolis and strongly despise it). I am astonished people here talk so lightly of overthrowing Putin, as if he is the only villain and the only obstacle to the better future, and once he is removed from the scene everything is hunky-dory.

Hard to say. Putin certainly thinks so. He's been paranoid of a US backed revolution for many years now, and probably for good reason since the US would definitely back anyone who opposes him. Accurate polling is hard for obvious reasons, but based on the independent polling I've seen, somewhere around a third of the population would be supportive of a new government.

Someone must have the moral courage to force the issue regardless of consequences. The situation will have to get worse before it can get better.

Your arguments reminds me of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com