Cool and worthy of respect, when the state recognizes its mistakes, because it is a sign of strength. On Thursday, the Roskomnadzor, has officially declared that relieves the requirements for restricting access to Telegram messenger. It would seem – a victory for common sense. But if you look closely — the mockery of it.
To date, only the most die-hard colonels Puffers could be considered that the blocking of the messenger created by Pavel Durov, has at least some sense. It hasn’t worked, was technically feasible, but it spent state resources.
Formally prohibited by the Telegram began to use the authorities to inform the population. Telegram-channels turned into a force with real influence on decision-making policies. People began hanging out in “Cart”. Speaking of corny, the messenger has become part of everyday life. And he was blocked by the court. Silly though? Stupid.
And finally: “In coordination with the General Prosecutor of Russia Roskomnadzor removes the requirements for restricting access to Telegram messenger”. From what it suddenly? What changed?
In Roskomnadzor stressed that praised made by the founder service of quick messages willingness to combat terrorism and extremism. And before that, when taken judicial decision to block, as estimated willingness Durov to counter terrorism and extremism, not just expressed, but only within the law? Negative, or what?
now what to do with the authority of the judiciary, which just wiped his feet?
There is a decision of the courts: the decision of the court on the penalty to Telegram for not providing the encryption keys; the Supreme court decision on the legality of the orders of the FSB on the transfer of these keys (which Durov and disputed); the court’s decision on the legality of blocking the Telegram.
These solutions has not been canceled. There is a certain ILV agreement with the Prosecutor General’s office. That is, it turns out, in Russia it is possible according to this agreement not to comply with the decision of the Russian courts? Or we just get “tale of the Troika” by Strugatsky brothers is not a tale, a true story: “nothing is more flexible than the legal framework. You can specify them, but you can’t go”?
That’s because really good work done, useful, smart, can be a standing ovation. But why in this case it was impossible at first to appeal against the decision of the court, to comply with the formalities, why it was impossible to keep the law? Habit, whether that way?
this Harmful habit.
