Belarus Bans Use of Foreign Websites 361
bs0d3 writes "A new law in Belarus prohibits people from using 'foreign' websites. The law requires that all companies and individuals who are registered as entrepreneurs in Belarus use only domestic Internet domains for providing online services, conducting sales, or exchanging email messages. The tax authorities and the secret police are authorized to investigate violations."
Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Informative)
Belarus is a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuse. All bets are off.
I bet the US (Score:2, Funny)
will be right over to liberate the Belaruse people.... right over....any time now... oh they only have trees....
no iran and / or NK may be the next place to get (Score:4, Funny)
liberated!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I bet the US (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They named their country after a cocktail?! Classy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's pink... the land of pink.
Re: (Score:3)
Kievan Rus was a predecessor state to Ukraine and Belarus (via Grand Duchy of Lithuania) as well as Russia (via Grand Duchy of Muscovy). It doesn't really make much sense to state that Russia is Rus' exclusively.
So, no, the two words aren't quite the same.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Insightful)
Criticisms of SOPA or anything else will fall on deaf ears when you lose all perspective and compare the US to a repressive dictatorship.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non-American, the US is viewed as repressive, & we all assume the dictatorship bit will come soon (not that it's really needed). More & more the US is looking like 1920's Germany.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Insightful)
As an American, I can assure you that you are absolutely correct.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4)
As an American, I can assure you that you are absolutely correct.
Patriotism is bigotry.
Little wonder.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Funny)
AAAAAAAAAND Godwin. I think we're done here.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is far from perfect, but saying that it's a dictatorship is far from the truth. Especially if you've never lived in one, or visited one, or even had family who escaped from one. At worst, you're using your statements to push an agenda. At best you're using hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the German people were telling this to each other in the late 20s or early 30s too. You know, right before they did become a dictatorship.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Interesting)
It is quite authoritarian at the federal level, between defacto one party rule (I refuse to consider R and D to be sufficiently different ideologically to be considered distinct parties, they are more like a liberal and conservative wings of the old CPSU) and absolutely mad lobbyism there is a real abyss between ordinary people and what is going on in DC. It's almost a total disconnect like in other authoritarian countries like Russia. It is very different in countries like Norway for instance.
On the other hand below state level it's quite a lively democracy with real political competition and shifting balance of power. And the whole "legislation by court" is a rather unique American thing not present in other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with this and would add one more observation.
Americans confuse universal suffrage with democracy. They assume that because leaders are elected that it is a democracy. America has universal (well kinda sorta) suffrage but it is not a democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy is government by the people. America is not governed by the people to the extent necessary for it to be considered a democracy.
For example the majority of the most powerful and important government roles (Secretary of State, Treasurer, Secretary of Defence etc etc etc) are appointed - not elected. That is the opposite of democracy and is a situation that would never be tolerated in most of the world's actual democracies.
I restate, universal suffrage does not equal democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On Decembe 31, 2011, Obama gave a black eye to the citizens of USA by signing NDAA with provisions that basically establish martial law and turn Obama into a dictator. [slashdot.org]
It's only a matter of time before using a foreign website will be an offense that marks a US citizen as a terrorist.
No foreign bank wants to deal with US citizens because of Patriot Act. When SOPA or something similar passes, foreigners will start avoiding online US clients and businesses.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Informative)
I've been avoiding the US since the Patriot act passed - there is no way I want to visit, work-in or deal-with (business wise) people from a country where as a "foreigner" they can lock me up and throw away the key without due process or oversight.
Dictatorship no......oppressive regime? 'Fraid so!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's open to impressions or interpretations. It's very clearly spelled out what the Bill of Rights is and what their intention was.
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the intention of the amendments were to grant rights, then 9 and 10 would not be necessary, or they would use terms like specific and defined rights.
The intention of the Bill of Rights was to set a series of rules that the government can not break. The fact that they find ways around most of them I chalk up to human nature. We are still seeking a more perfect un
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might want to mention that Obama fought against those provisions, and managed to weaken several key ones, and stated "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens ... doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”
The Republicans forced this through by attaching these totalitarian provisions to the NDAA (which is passed every year to set the budget for the Department of Defense). The Democrats tried thei
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see why you would fail to mention this, unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about who exactly was behind these new laws.
- maybe you should actually READ what I linked to, which is my journal entry? [slashdot.org]
In fact I mentioned something, but it's the exact problem that I mentioned that you are displaying - being confused by the MSM, which are on purpose make it confusing for some people to understand that in FACT it was Obama who fought...... to EXCLUDE the provisions from the bill that would LIMIT the power against being applied to US citizens (not that these powers should be applied to ANY humans on the planet, but that train left the station back when the 'Patriot' Act was signed).
Obama fought in order to ensure that the US citizens would in fact be included in the list of people that are targeted by this bill.
You see, you got screwed by your MSM as I explained in my journal entry. Here is what you should know. [youtube.com]
So, I expect some form of a retraction from you for your false accusations here.
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I read a journal entry with such a hyperbolic title as "The End of the Republic"?
But okay, let's go read it...
[The bill] ends the Democratic Republic of USA and installs a dictatorial power of the 'elected' POTUS.
Well, that's a flagrant lie, right off the bat. Perhaps you should look up the term "dictatorial"? Also, I like the scare quotes to suggest that Obama wasn't elected.
The MSM propaganda machine has been deployed to ensure that the population of USA (and probably of the world) does not understand that it was the President himself, who required that the current NDAA, which has provisions for 'indefinite detention' of 'suspected terrorists' by the military would also apply these powers against US citizens, which means that at this point the POTUS (any POTUS, Obama or anybody who comes after him), can capture and detain anybody in the world, including US citizens and hold them in military containment without a trial, without even possibility to contact any lawyers for any length of time.
That is one sentence. Try as I might, I can't parse it. It's an absolute train wreck of missing and misplaced commas and incomplete thoughts.
At this point it is clear that the powers that govern USA are making their last preparations before the USD collapses and ensures the survival of the elite with this dictatorial nonsense and basically establishment of the martial law.
Uh-huh. Right. The big bad THEY all know that the country is about to collapse, and are thus laying the legal groundwork for the following chaos. Because if the country does collapse, a few words on paper are going to make a difference.
Say hello now to the Fourth Reich
And there's the Godwin, a great note to end on.
You are paranoid and delusional. Scream about ad hominems all you like, the fact is you come across as no more trustworthy than the homeless crazy guy a few blocks from my apartment. Come back with sources, or don't come back at all. Better still, seek help from a professional before you hurt yourself or others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.
Fact [loc.gov] - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped. [loc.gov]
Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.
But
Re: (Score:3)
This law does not apply to US citizens.
Do the principles of justice only apply to US citizens? Are foreigners no better than animals to us? This attitude of yours is almost as alarming as the NDAA itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to speak for billions of people. Clearly all non-Americans are one big hivemind. As an American, I was unaware of that. Thanks for your insight!
Re: (Score:3)
Idiocracy may seem to be prophetic, but unfortunately it is quite universal, too.
SOPA doesn't even remotely compare to what is going on in Belarus. The comparision denigrates those who are disappeared at night, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it never happened before Patriot?
Re: (Score:2)
That's Different! (Score:2)
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:5, Funny)
Belarus is a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuse.
Well, you certainly don't minsk words.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is this a load of .bs ?
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Funny)
whoosh [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't that gradual. The ink wasn't dry on the US constitution before US president began engaging in policies and behavior that were counter to founding principles. It's most obvious in foreign policy and wars and imperialism, but you can see it clearly in domestic policy too.
Fact is, the US constitution isn't nearly the perfect document that you would be led to believe. There are holes you could drive a truck through,
Re: (Score:3)
>
Fact is, the US constitution isn't nearly the perfect document that you would be led to believe.
True. Though also bear in mind a lot of those holes are because the founding fathers never dreamed of the ability to wrangle words lawyers have developed today. A lot of phrases in the constitution can be interpreted a dozen different ways today simply because the meaning was clear back then and they didn't feel the need to clarify every single thing. I suspect if such a document were written today it would be 100 times as long.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that the guys that wrote and signed the US constitution were plenty aware of lawyers' ability to wrangle words. Those guys could have run rings around the lawyers of today when it comes to as you say, "wrangling words".
Lawyers were invented well before the late 18th century, and I highly doubt that today's lawyers are more sophisticated a
Re:Geek perspective: websites (Score:4, Informative)
No, because the guys who wrote and ratified the constitution had a LOT of disagreements. We tend to think about the Founding Fathers as this group of guys who all had the same opinions, goals, agenda. It wasn't like that at all.
Like today, their biggest concern was getting something that would actually pass - actually be adopted.
The Founders didn't expect their Constitution to last 240 years. Franklin thought that there would be a constitutional convention before the turn of the 19th century, in fact. They just wanted to get it done and get on with it. That's why they left so much to be decided by future Americans.
Maybe the biggest thing that the Founders did NOT forsee was the huge amount of corporate money that would impact future elections, and just how much it would cost to get elected in the future. They even made sure that the Post Office was subsidized so that there would be a medium for politicking.
So now, I'd say that we ought to have a constitutional convention except for the fact that we'd be royally screwed because the richest corporations would have an outsized influence on the outcome and we'd get something infinitely worse than what we've got. No doubt about it, we're in a pickle unless we figure out a way to take the direct purchase of government out of the picture.
It wasn't "the lawyers" who have messed things up for us, it's "the money".
Thank you, Belarus (Score:5, Insightful)
SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
This is different from post SOPA USA how?
Re:SOPA (Score:4, Insightful)
SOPA is a tool. If it corresponds to something in Belarus, it's the dictatorship itself.
The ban on foreign websites as described is just a use of that tool and, yes, an example of how SOPA might be used.
The possibilities that it opens are frightening, but it's not as bad as what's going on in Belarus already. And the Great Firewall of China might be a better example of how SOPA might be actually used.
Trajic and misguided... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their growth forward most likely means a move to post-dictatorship. If you are the dictator or on his side this is a bad thing.
Clueless Government (Score:3)
Sound like a country determined to be poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments that make sure their people have their basic needs met and a future can get away with a lot. Think of "bread and circuses" with the ancient Romans......or TV and beer with modern America :). That is something a lot of greedy, power hungry regimes haven't figured out yet.
Dumbshits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Next time unlucky activist visits foreign NGO website? Visit from secret police...
Re: (Score:2)
just an extremely small walled garden.
More like an extremely large LAN with the most restrictive firewalls possible ("deny * from *" is a firewall, right?
Re:Dumbshits. (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume Lukashenko cares about something other than his own personal fortune and control over his country. This is not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
If you live in that country you may as well just stop using the internet completely then, since it's effectively not the internet anymore, just an extremely small walled garden. Anyone want to take bets on exactly how many weeks this continues before they rescind it? A move like this couldn't be good for any country's economy.
Maybe I misread it, but it sounded to me like Belarus companies have to use Belarus domains -- you can't run a site on ilovebelarus.com if you're a Belarus company, but a Belarus citizen can use any non-Belarus sites they want on any URL they want.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you live in that country you may as well just stop using the internet completely then, since it's effectively not the internet anymore, just an extremely small walled garden. .
apple fans will LOVE it! :P
Re: (Score:2)
Alexander Lukashenko (Score:5, Informative)
For those who are unaware, Belarus is ruled by a turd named Alexander Lukashenko [wikipedia.org]. He's been their president since 1994 and initially increased presidential term limits from the standard five years to seven and later removed presidential term limits altogether.
Some of his memorable moments include:
... and so on [wikiquote.org].
In other words, such stories while shocking are, IMO, hardly surprising ...
Re: (Score:3)
The really intersting thing here is(hence the dog turd reference) that lukasenkos is actually the ancient Greek name for the shade of
smart move (Score:2)
Imagine this were the USA and Western Europe situation: there is no www.google.com, yro.slashdot.org, www.facebook.com, or similar. Everything you do in in the *.cn domain, with IP addresses assigned by the Chinese, and physically located in China. Would that be a good situation for the USA or Western Europe?
It's no different for Belarus.
(bummer, because I **like** the USA having more control over Belarus)
We're Number Two! (Score:5, Funny)
We're Number Two! We're Number Two!
Yeah, Baby! We are now only the second stupidest country on the planet regarding writing Internet laws that completely misunderstand how the Internet works. Thanks Belarus! You've shown that our politicians are not quite the most ignorant twits in positions of power on Earth!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this is a great law (Score:2)
I actually like this, which is weird, because I wouldn't have thought so. But it makes sense that in order to benefit from all of the various business-related incentives that your country may provide, including your business licence in the first place, that you continue to spend your money domestically.
I run a business in Canada, and I use Rackspace out of the U.S.A.. I've very happy with Rackspace, as anyone should be, they are indeed fantastic in every way. But I feel guilty for not remaining in Canada
Re: (Score:2)
You actually think this is intended to legitimize national incentive programs? You apparently live in a cloud yourself.
This is about CONTROL, and not in a good way. If the domain and physical servers are IN Belarus, then the government can monitor, tap, censor, and otherwise control everything that resides on or passes through them. I expect the proximate goal is to stop dissidents from using the Internet to communicate, collaborate, and organize.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, there it is, you're right. But this law in Canada would work quite differently. it actually would be to support incentives. quite frankly, it wouldn't be a law so much as an incentive program.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Alexander Lukashenko we're talking about here... of course I'm right! And an incentive program designed to encourage localized network economic investment is a LOT different from what this law is going to do.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, I'm supporting it being illegal. I like the idea that my country, and those within it, actually support it. what a concept. but hey, I'll vote my way, you vote yours.
Re: (Score:2)
a) I can live without those. none of them is essential to anything I do.
b) most of them have a canadian presence
c) they all can. it needn't be a big one, just one large enough to support or to relay to the canadian market
oh boohoo, I won't have one search engine over eight other perfectly fine search engines. and instead, I have more wealth in my own country.
i think you need to remember that while your priorities are correct when contained within the internet, there are reaching consequences that actuall
Re:Sensationalist Title! (Score:5, Informative)
"Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities."
From TFA
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sensationalist Title! (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately the country's benevolent leadership has created "Worlds of Belarus", which provides Belarusian youth with hours of endless online fun!
Activities include marching, buying bread, and standing in line. As you gain experience levels, you can compare how short Belarusian lines are compared to those in corrupt western states.
Re: (Score:2)
So, certain foreign registered websites are illegal to use. Internet cafe owners will be prosecuted if they tell their clients which ones they are so they can avoid breaking the law. So they will all break the law!
a diabolical plan! SPECTRE would be proud.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is this list of blocked websites in the USA?
You have to wait for SOPA [wikipedia.org] to pass first. In the meantime, there's always domain seizures [arstechnica.com].
Re:They're not banning people from using foreign s (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. From TFA: "Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities. The Law states that this provision may apply to private individuals if they allow other persons to use their home computers for browsing the Internet."
If you're not allowed to go to an internet cafe and visit slashdot.org without being identified and reported to the authorities, that sounds pretty close to being banned from using a foreign site to me.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the impression that this only applies to commercial transactions... So visiting Slashdot alone probably won't run afoul of the law, but donating money to Slashdot might.
Either way this law is ridiculous. Trade is a good thing; they're basically cutting themselves out of the global market.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unknown how accurate the summary in TFA is, but if my quote above is correct, that sounds like a lot more than just commercial transactions. Of course, it could be a stupidly-written law that meant to only apply to commercial transactions, but that's irrelevant as the law's text is what's important, but again, the accuracy of the article is unknown; it's common for "journalists" these days to totally screw up basic facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for this is not as clear.
Presumably it's the same reason why typewriters were so strictly controlled in the 'good old days'; so they can send the secret police around to whoever is found accessing an evil foreign web site and arrest the owner of the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I never quite understood why the focus on typewriters; if someone wants to write something the government doesn't like, it's easy enough to just get a pen and some paper, right? Yes, handwriting can be identified, but it isn't that hard to change your writing into something different from your regular handwriting; write in all-caps, for instance, or practice using your left hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the ad hominem attack. The favourite defense of someone with nothing useful to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, having a .com, .net, .org, or .edu does not mean you are legally entitled to do business everywhere in the world. There are still local laws you have to follow.
Mandating a country-code TLD registration and a local business presence is a perfectly valid requirement for doing business with the citizens and organizations of a country. And it provides a clear indicator to users of the internet as to whether a website owner IS complying with local law.
I'd MUCH rather see this approach become standar
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you're in favour of dictating to the nations how they're going to do business with the world?
They have no right to demand you follow local law?
They have no right to demand you pay taxes on products or services sold in their markets?
They have no right to demand you open a local office?
You just register a .com and an offshore company somewhere, and you should be free to rape and pillage the globe as you see fit?
Pfft. Your blind acceptance of the American-dominant perspective that the US
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship? How is it censorship? They're not preventing anyone from doing business, only setting the rules for doing business. That's well within their right.
The US-managed .com, .net, and .org spaces scare the shit out of a lot of people, especially with SOPA on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship? How is it censorship? They're not preventing anyone from doing business, only setting the rules for doing business. That's well within their right.
If you like it so much, could I suggest you go and live there?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey msobkow has a really great point here -- that using non-US tlds conveniently bypasses SOPA in every meaningful way. Howabout we all migrate to .tv ? <trollface/>
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it that way. The way I see it, they're saying if you want to do business with our citizens, you must register your business nationally, abide by our laws, and use our TLD so people know your legally allowed to do business here.
Unless they're stopping foreign businesses from registering TLD sites or starting local offices that can register the TLDs, I see NOTHING like censorship in the proposal. The world is NOT America's oyster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a hell of a lot more rational way of doing what SOPA tries to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being intentionally obtuse while making no arguments won't win you any supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
Being intentionally obtuse while making no arguments won't win you any supporters.
What?! Have you never listened to talk radio? Or politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly the type of laws that protectionists and tea party activists want. They hate foreigners, and want to force people not to interact or trade with them.
If you are going to spout mindless drivel like this, please use the term "tea-baggers" so we can filter you more easily. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to lie about the Tea Party to make it look bad. They can do that quite well themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently its strawman day on slashdot. I wait with bated breath to see the next one.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you the politicians controlling the Tea Party want nothing to do with any regulation or protectionism. You might find some common people who identify as TPers who might be in favor of some protectionism, but they don't control anything. As soon as one of the politicians tells them "protectionism is bad! regulation is bad!" they'll change their minds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, just the other day I went to www.baidu.cn and the secret police arrived and arrested me.
Seriously, what are you smoking?