- Roskomnadzor has blocked Telegram for a month, but the messenger continues to work. It seems that the situation is stalemate. How will the authorities get out of it?
- In practice, apparently, it is necessary to change the locking technologies. This history has shown that the current structure of a fixed legislative definition of methods and method of blocking does not work. It needs to be weakened. Probably, it is necessary that Roskomnadzor has its own group of programmers or a more flexible history with development, because at the moment we have a very strict procedure for executing the court decision, which Roskomnadzor can not change.
In principle, we understand that Roskomnadzor could move somewhere, we criticize it for blocking Telegram, nevertheless, it simply executes the law in the form in which it was written. He has no opportunity either to order software development or change the approach to working with telecom operators, because operators are required by law to perform only one action - to block the list of IP by the protocol that is provided. Therefore, at the current time in general for law-abiding resources that do not run away and do not hide under other people's networks, the system does not work.
- Before the approval of the new government structure, the Moscow City Court stated that the decision to block the messenger had not entered into legal force. Should this be regarded as a signal to change the course of the authorities?
- It seems to me that we need to clearly separate the tasks: Roscomnadzor has its own, the court has its own. The lawyers of Pavel Durov did not come to the first meeting, a decision was made in favor of Roskomnadzor, while as an interim measure the decision to block was made immediately. The logic is the same when we file a claim in an arbitration court, for example, in a dispute over shares. We ask, as an interim measure, to prohibit the alienation of shares, but this does not in any way affect the fact that the trial can take several years. There is a challenge procedure that does not affect interim measures in any way.
In theory, the lawyers of Pavel Durov were to file not only to challenge the verdict, but also to challenge the security measures. They also contested not the blocking of Telegram as such, but the decision of the Supreme Court that the FSB is right in its demand for data from Telegram and that the messenger should be blocked on the grounds that it did not transmit the data. The measure of restraint was elected immediately at the time of sentencing, until its entry into legal force. With proper legal approach, this story can last a year.
- In Roskomnadzor they said that Google went to negotiations on blocking Telegram and its IP-addresses were withdrawn from under lock. Why can not I agree with Apple and Google on removing the application from the stores?
- As far as I understand, to remove applications, a court decision is also required. There must be grounds for Google. To date, the decision to block Telegram extends its obligations to telecom operators. Google in the court decision is missing. I think that Google and Apple have seized this application from stores, and such precedents are there, a court decision is required.
- You held a meeting with the industry where the Telegram situation was discussed. What suggestions are there in working out?
- Technology of development of white lists. How to provide access to resources that are unreasonably included in the list of blocked. Who hid in the resources, whose power is also used by Pavel Durov. Now we will examine how much these resources are left, how much it is systemic. But, as I understand it, Roskomnadzor unblocked Google, and in many ways now the wave of complaints was asleep. I have not received a single complaint about a week of non-working resources.
- Is it planned to allocate additional funds for financing this project from the state or from extrabudgetary sources?
- This you need to ask the new Minister of Digital Development.