On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 11:05:04AM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote: > Could you elaborate on "sort of a right"?
I'm unsure if it's lawful right as it's actually and update to "criteria for judging the content if it's good or not". I'm unsure if Federal tax service actually can to issue an update saying that it's going to consider websites hosting circumvention tools illegal BECAUSE OF possibility to gain access to gambling websites through circumvention tools. Argumentum ad absurdum: sold laptops and travelling to another country may be used to gain access to gambling websites, so Federal Tax Service should also ban websites selling computers and airplane tickets. That's why I say "sort of a right". > From your summary it seems that they do have the right to ban for > example https://www.torproject.org/ but running a Tor exit node or > using Tor should be safe? Yep, that's what I get from the document. The bill making running at Tor node possibly questionable activity (that was discussed in the very first message of the thread) is yet to be accepted by the parliament. The draft used during the first hearing also had no punishment (no fine, no criminal charges) for running Tor node as far as I could understand. The bill have passed the first hearing of three by the moment. -- WBRBW, Leonid Evdokimov, xmpp:l...@darkk.net.ru http://darkk.net.ru tel:+79816800702 PGP: 6691 DE6B 4CCD C1C1 76A0 0D4A E1F2 A980 7F50 FAB2 -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
