Ukraine Proposes ICANN Remove Russian Domains (theregister.com) 358
"With so many coming together on the side of Ukraine (even those who traditionally stay neutral in international affairs), asking ICANN to take action against Russia seems like it could be a reasonable proposition under the circumstances," writes new Slashdot submitter unimind. "As a bonus, the likely decrease in spam would be a welcome reprieve..." The Register reports: In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine last week, Mykhailo Fedorov, First Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine, on Monday asked the head of DNS overlord ICANN to disable country code top-level domains associated with Russia. In an email [PDF], Fedorov asked Goran Marby, CEO of ICANN, to impose sanctions on Russia, arguing that the Putin regime has used internet infrastructure to propagandize its war effort. Specifically, he has asked for the revocation of domains ".ru", ".", ".su", and others used by the Russian Federation, shutting down DNS root servers serving the Russian Federation, and contributing to the revocation of associated TLS/SSL certificates for those domains.
"All of these measures will help users seek for reliable information in alternative domain zones, preventing propaganda and disinformation," Fedorov's email says. "Leaders, governments and organizations all over the world are in favor of introducing sanctions towards the Russian Federation since they aim at putting the aggression towards Ukraine and other countries to an end. I ask you kindly to seriously consider such measures and implement them as quickly as possible. Help to save the lives of people in our country." Doing so would block about five million domains from the global internet, and would significantly affect Russia's ability to communicate online. In response to Prykhodko, Erich Schweighofer, a professor at the University of Vienna and ICANN community participant, wrote: "We know and we are aware of the very difficult and dangerous situation. [The] EU will support you. However, removing Russia from the internet does not help supporting the civil society in this country for a democratic change. ICANN is a neutral platform, not taking a position in this conflict but allowing States to act accordingly, e.g. blocking all traffic from a particular state."
Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Top Level Domain Holdings, expressed support for the idea: "Neutrality as a response to murder is not neutral. What is the use of 'civil society' organizations if they won't even speak up in support [to] protect civil society, much less do anything about it? Even politicians have woken up. Even the German government has woken up. Even the Swiss government has woken up! Meanwhile some people at ICANN are content to repeat empty phrases about not getting involved because it doesn't help civil society in their country. So much for 'one world, one internet.'"
The report adds that domain registrar Namecheap has "advised customers in Russia to take their business elsewhere, citing war crimes." However, Namecheap's CEO, Richard Kirkendall, later clarified that they haven't blocked the domains. Instead, they're just "asking people to move."
"All of these measures will help users seek for reliable information in alternative domain zones, preventing propaganda and disinformation," Fedorov's email says. "Leaders, governments and organizations all over the world are in favor of introducing sanctions towards the Russian Federation since they aim at putting the aggression towards Ukraine and other countries to an end. I ask you kindly to seriously consider such measures and implement them as quickly as possible. Help to save the lives of people in our country." Doing so would block about five million domains from the global internet, and would significantly affect Russia's ability to communicate online. In response to Prykhodko, Erich Schweighofer, a professor at the University of Vienna and ICANN community participant, wrote: "We know and we are aware of the very difficult and dangerous situation. [The] EU will support you. However, removing Russia from the internet does not help supporting the civil society in this country for a democratic change. ICANN is a neutral platform, not taking a position in this conflict but allowing States to act accordingly, e.g. blocking all traffic from a particular state."
Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Top Level Domain Holdings, expressed support for the idea: "Neutrality as a response to murder is not neutral. What is the use of 'civil society' organizations if they won't even speak up in support [to] protect civil society, much less do anything about it? Even politicians have woken up. Even the German government has woken up. Even the Swiss government has woken up! Meanwhile some people at ICANN are content to repeat empty phrases about not getting involved because it doesn't help civil society in their country. So much for 'one world, one internet.'"
The report adds that domain registrar Namecheap has "advised customers in Russia to take their business elsewhere, citing war crimes." However, Namecheap's CEO, Richard Kirkendall, later clarified that they haven't blocked the domains. Instead, they're just "asking people to move."
No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Proving once and for all that ICANN't is a political beast easily swayed by petty political issues of the day is not good for long-term DNS stability.
On the other hand, exposing ICANN't would show the world that they are the problem. Now if only the rest of the world who matter in this space would pick up on it. But sadly, they're too tech-minded to understand, so they'll act as useful idiots, not as stewards with long-term stability in mind.
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:2)
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
The situation in Ukraine isn't exactly petty -- a pretty grave one I'd say -- but screwing with the gTLDs won't help anything. The Russian government could simply become it's own authoritative source for that, and then forward other DNS traffic as usual. The other Axis powers would probably join in with them as well. If anything, you'd risk fucking up the domain name system in general.
I think a better way to achieve what they're doing is to ask western certificate authorities to revoke all of the .ru certificates. Then ask the major OS and browser vendors to remove any CA's that don't comply. That would REALLY fuck with them because there's nothing the Axis powers can do about that, and it would even fuck with Russia's ability to do business with Chinese companies and Chinese customers, because ultimately they have to get their software updates from Western companies.
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Agree.
DNS by itself wont do much. It will just branch to an AltDNS.
Revocation of the CA's/certs/SSL/TLS would be a catastrophe for them.
This affects everything now... EVERYTHING relies on the certs.... even email delivery now that DMARC, DKM and SPF are a thing.
This seems like the correct response.
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia would just set up their own rootCAs, if they don't have them already. And those might well end up state-run so that means more control for the Kremlin yet. Beyond the initial discomfort, it will mainly force an east/west communications break. Much the same as splitting the DNS would. Since it's more diffuse, it'll be even harder to reconcile afterward.
If breaking the DNS is not the correct response, breaking the PKI is not either.
I don't think anybody deserves to be cancelled. In fact, this ratfuck is a fairly direct consequence to a score or more years of Russia having been effectively cancelled in the US-EU-dominated political playground. Fucking with communications just means the cancellation-oilspill is spilling further, doing even more damage.
Everybody else, sportsmen, musicians, companies, the lot, piling on with their two minutes of hate, well, it's not the wisest thing to do. Most of that can be repaired afterward. Breaking infrastructure and forcing them to rebuild their part as they like it? That's a different kettle of fish. The fissures might end up reaching a lot wider than you would have wanted to.
Note well, I neither agree with nor defend Russia here. Not saying their actions are justified. Not saying Ukraine deserves what it's getting. My sister-in-law is Ukrainian and has family there so I'm not at all happy with what's happening there. I have family blood on the line here.
I'm only saying I get where Russia is coming from. And that burning bridges isn't going to help. We really need to talk more, not less. Not talking enough is what got us here.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding where Russia is coming from is a thought crime now. beware.
If you are not AC, your life will be canceled.. Your account seized.
You are not free to express your opinion anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not a thought crime, it’s reprehensible and people should be called out on it. There is zero justification for anything Russian is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Expressing an unpopular opinion is a thought crime.
I condemn Russia's invasion but I can understand where they are coming from:
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com] https://theconversation.com/uk... [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings comrade!
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking infrastructure and forcing them to rebuild - isn't that what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's any consolation, both the US and Russia are breaking promises [tass.com] to Ukraine about security assurances made in exchange for Ukraine [orfonline.org] getting rid of their nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking the IP ranges for Russia would also cause trouble enough.
With a split internet - how are they going to make cryptocurrencies work?
Re: (Score:2)
But what you're proposing is also not good, especially as also western companies rely on russian based software and certificates. Now it's Russia, but what's next? Where do we draw the line?
Let's not forget a part of the Ukrain actually wants to be part of Russia, it's exactly with that excuse Putin invaded Ukrain, to protect the self called states in the east. Just like the US invaded Iraq back then under false pretenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to swallow the Soviet. . .Russian line. Those eastern "states" are rump states that have no actual grievance with the government of Ukraine (note the 'e'). They were encourage to secede just to provide Die Fuhrer this reason to attack Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
Now it's Russia, but what's next? Where do we draw the line?
Oops, the slippery slope fallacy just reared its head. Time to reassess your argument when you notice yourself doing it.
The answer to where do we draw the line is always the same: somewhere. Here we are talking about what actions are justified when an authoritarian nation invades another nation for purpose of conquest without provocation and without international support. Later we may be talking about a different scenario, and with judge the merits based on its own unique circumstances.
Just like the US invaded Iraq back then under false pretenses.
While the US does bea
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point of really fucking with them though?
Most of the Russian people seem to be against this war. They don't want their children to die, they are getting poorer rapidly and many oppose the war on moral grounds. But Putin is a dictator, the elections are a joke.
Grinding them into the dirt even harder doesn't seem like the right thing to do, especially when the internet is a very useful tool for organizing resistance against men like Putin.
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get "most of the Russian people seem to be against this war"? There are no reputable polls and even if they were, the pop. would be too scared to give their real answers.
I think the Russian people do bear responsibility for this war. They are the ones would supported that stable genius and now they are sitting back either supporting the war or not supporting the way, just as long as they don't do anything real. Some things are worth dying for, as the Ukrainians are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If sanctions worked, Cuba would be a capitalist democracy.
Sanctions will only work where there is a free people who can't be told by the state media that their poverty and isolation is due to the rest of the world hating them. Sanctions will only increase Nationalism as the people won't have anything else left to hold onto.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the Russian people seem to be against this war.
We can take that seriously when Putin is removed from power.
Right now a madman is in control of Russia. What he's doing makes no fucking sense otherwise.
Tolerating this situation is indefensible.
Tolerating Trump was also indefensible, before someone gets all moralistic on me.
Re: No, that doesn't seem reasonable (Score:4)
Meanwhile, any time a candidate remotely possible of overthrowing Putin comes along, they are thrown in jail on spurious charges so that they cannot run. That is pretty much the same (as alexgieg says) as NK or China, where there really aren't elections, just the illusion of elections.
You're the worst, full stop. (Score:2)
Implying that invading, killing and destroying a free country is a "petty political issues" is quite astonishing.
On what bases should ICANN then, in your view, to act against?
Re: (Score:2)
easily swayed by petty political issues
There are no words.
A country, or its government? (Score:3, Insightful)
I read some time ago that modern warfare, in the 1900's and beyond, is about responding to a government threat, and narrowly attacking the aggressive entity. Prior to that, it was about attacking the country and its people - tear the whole country apart, as this is war. The difference being that modern warfare differentiates between the people of the country, just trying to live their lives, and the ruling government/military, which is actually causing issues.
This is a scorched-earth response. It attacks the people of Russia, who quite obviously have no control over what their leader is ordering its military to do. If you're advocating for this, you're basically a neanderthal by modern human behavior standards.
In Namecheap's case, it's less an issue. Namecheap isn't locking the domain and null-routing it. There are other registrars they can go to, and the difficulty of a move can urge them to put pressure on the government. In pretending the whole country doesn't exist on the internet (ICANN turning them off), there's nothing anyone can do. Well-acting Russians (Kaspersky?) will be seriously impacted by this.
Or are they suggestion all Russions should just buy .com domains instead? ;-)
Re: A country, or its government? (Score:3)
I read some time ago that modern warfare, in the 1900's and beyond, is about responding to a government threat, and narrowly attacking the aggressive entity. Prior to that, it was about attacking the country and its people - tear the whole country apart, as this is war.
The name for that is total war:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Which is actually reminiscent of what Putler is waging against Ukraine. In fact the tactics they're using are even reminiscent of classic warfare. Because they're losing the skirmishes against what are essentially armed civilians (despite having armored vehicles too) so they're resorting to what so far appears to be siege tactics, like back in the days when cities were defended with walls, archers, and barrels of tar. It looks like they're goin
Re: (Score:2)
The response of Russian army is proportional (and more than, obviously) what they are getting. Ukraine could have worked to root out corruption from within but instead it chose a leader who has lead it to war for the promised riches at the end.
What nonsense are you saying?
Re: (Score:2)
No, seriously. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia
Are you saying that Russia should be invaded, their apartment buildings bombed, and their leader deposed?
Russia is losing the war because their army sucks. They are losing to a country armed with stinger missiles and javelins. They can't even keep their supply lines filled.
Re: (Score:2)
No, seriously. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia
Are you saying that Russia should be invaded, their apartment buildings bombed, and their leader deposed?
Russia is losing the war because their army sucks. They are losing to a country armed with stinger missiles and javelins. They can't even keep their supply lines filled.
As much as I'd love this to be true, they're slowly but steadily moving forward, just at a slower pace than anticipated, not "losing". Two months more of such "losing" and it's over, and not in the good way.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you are defending Russia.
Ukraine is a shit country - and I know that well enough, been there a couple of times. That does not give Russia the right to attack it and commit war crimes by shelling cities.
Instead you talk like it was Ukraine that attacked Russia, not the other way around.
I mean, what else is this bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
While there can hardly be any doubt that Russia is the aggressor here and no-one actually forced it to invade Ukraine violating international law and it is at least a massive overreaction, there are at least two items which provoked Russia to do something.
1. The Donezk and Luhansk regions are populated with 90+ % Russian speaking people, the regions want out of Ukrainian rulership, Ukraine does not let them, the people—internationally only described as some pro-russian separatists—ask Russia for
Re: (Score:2)
1) While there have been genuine separatists in that region in 2014, right now the regions are rulled by a puppet government installed by Russia and consisting of Russians not even born in the region. Them "asking for aid" was just a pretense for this war.
2) This is also just a pretense. RIA Novosti by mistake uploaded a text that was supposed to be shown after the Russian army successfully conquers Ukraine. It was a pure "heim ins Reich" [wikipedia.org] wankfest. You can read it yourself:
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The response of Russian army is proportional (and more than, obviously) what they are getting. Ukraine could have worked to root out corruption from within but instead it chose a leader who has lead it to war for the promised riches at the end.
Hey Ivan, if it was the job of neighbours to root out corruption with military force, then Russia would have been long sine wiped off the map. Invading a country because you want their shit and can't bear for them to be doing better isn't "proportional".
Now go collect
Re: (Score:2)
Listen I'll concede there is a lot of denialism and even propaganda around excusing some of Putin's grievances against NATO pact members. Its certainly the case the Bush II and Obama Administrations (and now the Biden extension of Obama's admin) have had many opportunities to de-escalate and offer some olive branches to the Russian Federation and specifically Putin.
However with that said appeasement in any form does not have a very good historical track record.
Tell me, exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, how is that they seem to be losing to these "essentially armed civilians" but decisevely won against other countries in middle east bar afganistan? (In fact, include afganistan).
Yes Russia is loosing! By not winning almost im
Re: (Score:2)
And Putin in position now where he can't go back, he can only go for
Re: (Score:2)
The response of Russian army is proportional (and more than, obviously) what they are getting.
Oh yeah? When did Ukraine invade Russia? That's seriously the dumbest fucking thing you could possibly have said.
Ukraine could have worked to root out corruption from within but instead it chose a leader who has lead it to war for the promised riches at the end.
Again, who started this war? The guy whose military forces stayed in their own country, or the guy who's already invaded Ukraine before, and is now invading Ukraine again? You're a spectacular fuckwit.
Re:A country, or its government? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a scorched-earth response. It attacks the people of Russia, who quite obviously have no control over what their leader is ordering its military to do. If you're advocating for this, you're basically a neanderthal by modern human behavior standards.
I don't know if you've been somehow ignoring *all* the news on the rest of the world's reaction to Russia, but this is no different than virtually every other sanction being used. The world is cutting off the ability of the Russian people to access all of those benefits offered to those participating in a civilized society because their country, whether by their individual choice or not, has opted to cease operating by the rules of that civilized society.
The idea is that there are >140 million Russian people, and approximately 1 Vladimir Putins. There are countless ways for the Russian people to remedy the current situation. As the situation changes, the viability of that may grow or shrink, but as a place to start is a hell of a lot less barbaric than dropping bombs on Moscow.
Re:A country, or its government? (Score:5, Insightful)
this is no different than virtually every other sanction being used.
The other sanctions have been imposed by governments. ICANN is an independent entity with control over critical public infrastructure. You'd hope that there are some strict rules in place about when and where they can pull the plug on name services. Today it's Russia for waging war. Next it might Uganda for human rights issues, or Belgium for not reducing CO2 emissions sufficiently, or Canada for using the wrong pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
The other sanctions have been imposed by governments.
Did you read what I was responding to, or just get through my first sentence and hop on your soapbox? Since you brought it up this other, entirely different point, however, ICANN wouldn't even be the first "independent entity with control over critical public infrastructure" [wikipedia.org] that would have cut off access to Russia over this. I'm not particularly advocating that ICANN do this, for all manner of technical reasons. However, the risk that such a measure could be used in the future over petty things is not a
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you should mention SWIFT; it is overseen by a bunch of national banks, and any sanctions it enacts are imposed by governments, not by the SWIFT board of directors.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not arguing about whether or not these measures are justifyable and proportionate, but about who gets to decide to impose them.
Neither was I. The statement you were responding to had nothing to do with who was imposing the sanctions, it was referring to who those sanctions were directed at. Which is why I said:
Did you read what I was responding to, or just get through my first sentence and hop on your soapbox?
As for:
Funny you should mention SWIFT; it is overseen by a bunch of national banks, and any sanctions it enacts are imposed by governments, not by the SWIFT board of directors.
Consider me newly educated, I didn't realize that. The point stands, however, that it is an outright absurd argument that an entity like ICANN should not be allowed to act, or even decide to act, because, in some other circumstance of a completely different type and scope, it wouldn't be appropriate. There are re
Re: (Score:2)
Some members of SWIFT are national banks.
To quote [investopedia.com]:
"Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) is a member-owned cooperative that provides safe and secure financial transactions for its members."
"More than 11,000 global SWIFT member institutions sent an average of 42 million messages per day through the network i
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the ol' Slippery Slope logical fallacy https://fallacyinlogic.com/sli... [fallacyinlogic.com] . You can use this type of argument for almost anything which is why it's practically meaningless.
From my link:
"Why Is It a Fallacy?
The basis of a slippery slope argument is that a certain action will have unintended consequences, and each step along the “slope” will logically lead to the next one. However, the connections made by the arguer are seen as unwarranted because they don’t provide direct evidence for th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world is cutting off the ability of the Russian people to access all of those benefits offered to those participating in a civilized society because their country, whether by their individual choice or not, has opted to cease operating by the rules of that civilized society.
This creates a problem - what Russia have left to lose? They have nukes, so Putin have plenty ways to further escalate this conflict and not worry about military action against Russia. If we throw every imaginable sanction at Russia, what incentive is there left for Putin to not resort to genocide in Ukraine?
How civilized is our society? (Score:2)
The world is cutting off the ability of the Russian people to access all of those benefits offered to those participating in a civilized society
My concern is about the way that is happening though. It seems as if every time someone comes up with a new idea to stick it to Russia a load of angry internet activists get behind it and governments cave in to their demands. This does not seem like the measured response of a civilized society: it seems more like mob rule.
We absolutely should enact sanctions against Russia for the horrendous actions of Putin in Ukraine and those sanctions may well impact the lives of ordinary Russians. However, we shoul
Re: (Score:2)
This is a scorched-earth response. It attacks the people of Russia, who quite obviously have no control over what their leader is ordering its military to do. If you're advocating for this, you're basically a neanderthal by modern human behavior standards.
I don't know if you've been somehow ignoring *all* the news on the rest of the world's reaction to Russia, but this is no different than virtually every other sanction being used. The world is cutting off the ability of the Russian people to access all of those benefits offered to those participating in a civilized society because their country, whether by their individual choice or not, has opted to cease operating by the rules of that civilized society.
The idea is that there are >140 million Russian people, and approximately 1 Vladimir Putins. There are countless ways for the Russian people to remedy the current situation. As the situation changes, the viability of that may grow or shrink, but as a place to start is a hell of a lot less barbaric than dropping bombs on Moscow.
Now first of all, I feel for the Russian people, the everyman on the street who's just trying to eek out a living... But ultimately they don't matter and have little real power, so the sanctions aren't targeting them. The sanctions are targeting Putin's masters, the ones who can actually topple him, the Russian oligarchs. By limiting their access to their wealth, limiting their freedom to foreign ports and nations, seizing their property, we can use them to exert political pressure inside Russia.
Ultimate
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious that the only way to truly fix this problem is to remove Putin. One potential way of achieving this is to destabilize Russia to the point where he will be removed by people inside his own administration, or by a popular uprising. Destabilizing Russia can be achieved by undermining its economy. Removing Russian domains would be in support of this.
I mean, what exactly
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to destabilise a country that has a large nuclear arsenal? That could end very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
I read some time ago that modern warfare, in the 1900's and beyond, is about responding to a government threat, and narrowly attacking the aggressive entity. Prior to that, it was about attacking the country and its people - tear the whole country apart, as this is war. The difference being that modern warfare differentiates between the people of the country, just trying to live their lives, and the ruling government/military, which is actually causing issues.
I'm not really sure that's true. Certainly in ancient days there would sometimes be scorched earth, but on the other hand we have records of Assyria going into a country, killing the king (and whoever defended the king), and installing a new king.
Re: (Score:2)
> It attacks the people of Russia, who quite obviously have no control over what their leader is ordering its military to do. If you're advocating for this, you're basically a neanderthal by modern human behavior standards.
Leader without people who don't obey is just one man. But yes, doing that in Russia is quite dangerous, but that is pretty much their only option without external help if they want to change things.
It would be interesting to hear what do you think should be done if you think that is a
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing scorched earth military tactics to economic sanctions? What nonsense.
The West needs to do something to stop this Russian aggression and undermining the Russian economy is a good start. Will perfectly innocent Russians be negatively effected by this? Absolutely and that does stink. To suggest that suffering is in any way on scale with the suffering of civilian populations in past wars (or even in this current one) is just plane dishonesty though. Bombs will not be falling on the heads of Rus
Re: (Score:2)
WWII quickly belied that. As did Vietnam, and modern Afgan and Syrian conflicts. That only applies when the other side has a domestic population with expectations somewhat similar to your own, and only when its a proxy war that isnt an existential matter. Of course there are countless tomes filled with bullshit to the contrary written by the 'thinking class' that disagree with this assessment. However I would charge their perspective is entirely lensed though having grown up under the rather extraordinary
Re: (Score:2)
We can do this without ICANN (Score:3)
We can do this without ICANN. we simply persuade operators of DNS servers to install 'ru' and 'su' zones that are empty. the more servers that do this the more impact it will have.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel Russia (Score:2)
We're cancelling something that actually deserves to be cancelled.
"Every day like Christmas"
Why stop there? (Score:2)
We used the financial nuke. Let it do it's work. Putin probably will not give in voluntary. This will take time and suffering from all sides. Just wait and persist and you will see him floating by in the river.
Re: (Score:2)
Hit the Oligarchs hard enough in their pockets and they will solve the problem for us.
Single-button solutions (Score:3)
Very difficult not to use.
Imagine if slashdotters were in charge of buttons... Luckilly they aren't.
They would just go over to their own system (Score:2)
Delisting from ICANN would only lead Russia to develop their own DNS system, making it more difficult for ordinary Russians to read western media and giving Putin yet another surveillance tool. Surely not done in one day, but all that some of these sanctions are doing is highlighting how Russia is dependent on foreign infrastructure for no good reason. E.g. the Moscow metro ground to a halt because Apple Pay and Google Pay do not work in Russia [truthorfiction.com] anymore. Those services are not technologically especially diff
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they'll switch to Chinese alternatives, since those already exist and already serve far more people than Russia's population.
All of these actions done in solidarity with Ukraine are mostly pointless, as they don't change the situation on the ground. However, they do create a wider schism between East and West in the long term. Personally I don't see how turning Russia into a giant North Korea is beneficial to anyone when all of this could have been prevented if we simply promised not to add Ukra
what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to watching Tucker Carlson jackass. Were the British "big naggers" during WW2 for asking for US help? No, their country was under massive threat, of course they were asking for help from fellow democracies. Meanwhile the Ukrainians arent even asking for our military to become directly involved.
Honest question regarding country blocking: (Score:3)
Bonus points as to why you decided to do that and how that's working out for you.
Pity we couldn't do it when the Yanks invaded Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Pity we couldn't do it when the Yanks invaded (Score:2)
Come on now, Tony Blair said he was sorry...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are differences:
1. The first (sad but realistic) one is that the western world doesn't really give a fuck about the Middle East. We do care about Europe and Northern America. Most countries/people care more about what happens in their neighborhood than what happens far away. It's not pretty, but it is pretty rational.
2. Nobody was worried that the USA et al. would try to conquer the rest of the Middle East after Iraq.
3. Iraq wasn't exactly a bastion of democracy and freedom when it was invaded.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference, and I admit it is a thin one but it does explain the differences, is that the US had other nations on board. Russia's only allies in this conflict are vassal states.
Not a good idea (Score:3)
Russians deserve to see the truth of their actions and we need to listen to side of the argument if there is to be a peaceful resolution.
Yes, we could excise Russia from the Internet with the West's control of root DNS servers, BGP reprogramming and undersea and European fiber cuts but to what end?
Backing Russia into a corner without the ability to speak will only end in the most extreme violence it can inflict on the world. We need to find a better way to end World War Three (yes, wake up, this is WW3) before NATO, China and India start shooting and there is nothing left to fight over.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to find a better way to end World War Three (yes, wake up, this is WW3) before NATO, China and India start shooting and there is nothing left to fight over.
I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make ridiculous claims like this. This is no more WW3 then the Soviets invading Afghanistan was.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Russians are a stubborn and aggressive people. They are not going to back down without a military fight. The battle lines are being drawn already with China, India and the Middle East siding with Russia so it won't end qu
Re: (Score:2)
Backing Russia into a corner without the ability to speak
Backing civilians into a city without the ability to live
Fuck your ignorant noises. This is about life and death.
Taking away domains isn't going to silence Russia. And anyway, they can have as much voice as they want after they remove Putin from power and end this illegal and unjustifiable war.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we could excise Russia from the Internet with the West's control of root DNS servers, BGP reprogramming and undersea and European fiber cuts but to what end?
Exactly, doing this would only save Putin's regime from having to suppress unfavorable information from Russian people.
During Cold War NATO established a set of radio transmitters to broadcast news into Soviet territory. It was costly undertaking, yet it was considered worthwhile. Why would you do the opposite now?
Nyet. (Score:2)
Probably won't happen (Score:2)
If ICANN were to do such a thing it would lose a lot of authority in many big countries such as Russia and China, who will set up competing organizations and fracture matters.
Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Top Level Domain Holdings, expressed support for the idea: "Neutrality as a response to murder is not neutral. What is the use of 'civil society' organizations if they won't even speak up in support [to] protect civil society,
Murder and war crimes happen all the time. The issue is not ICANN acting in the face of murder, but acting selectively in the face of it.
“Murder”, “oppression”, “discrimination”, “war crimes”, — these are all big words that have a habit of only being used when the enemy commit them
Re: (Score:2)
If ICANN were to do such a thing it would lose a lot of authority in many big countries such as Russia and China, who will set up competing organizations and fracture matters.
This is the worst-scenario: China's cutting off access to TikTok to stand with its totalitarian neighbor. England Prevails!
No. Circumvention is trivial. DNS must not split. (Score:2)
A country's TLD is similar to its territory. Countries decide what they do with their CC-TLDs. From a technical point of view, expulsion from the root zone would be trivial to undo from inside a country, and that would split DNS, which is a terrible thing. I understand and fully support Ukraine's call to isolate Russia. It's well deserved and the only non-violent reaction that can possibly sway Russia. But this is just petty: It doesn't help Ukraine, it doesn't hurt Russia. DNS is not a service that the wor
Re: (Score:2)
From a technical point of view, expulsion from the root zone would be trivial to undo from inside a country, and that would split DNS, which is a terrible thing.
In this case it would be a great thing. We could all use it to block any hosts with DNS resolved from Russia from all of our assets, and the number of attacks would plummet.
Russia has been engaging in cyberwar with the world without declaration for years. This is too little and too late, but better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of the sort would be achieved by expunging .ru, .su and .xn--p1ai from the root zone. It would just make it harder for you to access domains under these TLDs. They would keep working in Russia, and anyone who still wanted to access these domains could easily do so with a minor configuration change. It would not help you identify attackers any more than looking at domain names does. It would literally break DNS by splitting it for no benefit whatsoever. It's grandstanding. And while symbolic action c
Got bunker? (Score:2)
Hermit Kingdom (Score:2)
Because cutting off North Korea from civil society for several decades worked great. The place isn't a weird dystopian nightmare at all.
Re:Ukraine starting to feel mean. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those Russians are more than free to exercise their free speech without using the resources of the world at large, which they are being excised from more each day.
They have my sympathy... kind of. But the time has passed for them to get rid of that piece of shit President-for-life. At this point, they're complicit.
All I know, is I look forward to the point where our board decides I get to block every fucking netblock coming from Russi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine certainly has an issue with corruption, and that's one of the things they'll have to fix before they'll have any hope of joining the EU, despite what Ursula von der Leyen is running her mouth about. But a dictatorship they are not. The last election "largely met the standards of free and democratic elections" according to international observers.
Ukraine has no hope of joining EU, period. Not before invasion, not now, not ever. Sure, now under emotions EU parliament voted to start the accession process, but you just wait one year. If there even *is* a Ukraine to admit to EU, the western politicians will have come down from emotional high and go back to their calculations, and they still remain the same, as with other "candidates" like Macedonia - EU has to stop expanding to the east, because that will swing EU's political centre to the east too. Do
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Zelenskyy is a dictator in the making, it's better to have a collection of smaller dictators than a big one taking over neighboring countries. And even if he is a dictator, it does not give Russia license to invade.
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually say they are at the very start of a dictatorship. It is the usual beginnings. Leader based not on skills but popularity, immediately shuts down an anti government press, jails opponents and press against him. systematically replaces any public servant in a position that doesn't 100% support his views regardless of whether they are doing their job and replaces them with sycophants (much like trump did). It may not quite be a dictatorship yet but it certainly had all the makings of one. That is precisely how most of them start out.
Hmmm, you're still talking about Ukraine, or about USA under Bidet?
Nice one Ivan (Score:2)
Wtf? Their country is being invaded, citizens are dying and lives are being ruined and you're saying the Ukrainians are mean for wanting to disrupt Russian internet!? Are they being mean for shooting back at the Russian troops killing them as well?
Get out of here Ivan, we don't need you around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not individual Russian citizens that are doing this, many of them are protesting the invasion.
I would say Western sanctions give many Russians strong motivation for just his, their lives are being degraded because of the actions of their government. These sanctions arent being implemented just to be mean, they're there as a direct result of Russia's actions in Ukraine as a means of providing them with incentive to stop. Enough economic disruptions will see Putin's allies in Russia slowly slip away over this dumb war and he won't maintain his status of "president for life" very long if his oligarch b
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them are cheering it on, too. Hopefully that will change as reality sets in.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. To me, it seems more like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun. Russia deserves all the punishment they are receiving right now, and much, much more. I hope ICANN does taken down Russian domains, though I doubt they will.
Russian citizens aren't off the hook either. They have allowed Putin to become a dictator. Yes, forcing Putin out of power would have been costly for many, so I get that it wasn't an easy choice. But it was a choice they made. Freedom doesn't come cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because Putin stole Hillary's presidency (Score:2)
And the US controls most of the Western media outlets so most of us don't know any better than that Russia is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you hear that the CIA secretly runs the BBC, DW, Le Monde, and more?
Because I didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Using the term "cancelled" just tells me that you're unthinkingly spouting propaganda. Especially since this should be a discussion about whether or not an attempt to removing propaganda from one side will actually punish their illegal behaviour or is a good idea even if it does.