Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Officials Consider Ban On Wi-Fi Use For Kids

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the you-can-still-be-young-at-heart dept.

Wireless Networking 110

dsinc writes that Russia's "Communications and Press Ministry has proposed banning children from using Wi-Fi networks in public, potentially making cafes, restaurants and other locations providing the service responsible for enforcing the law. An official with the ministry's Federal Mass Media Inspection Service, known as Roskomnadzor, said the ban should apply to people under 18 years old. Locations providing Wi-Fi access would be held legally responsible for implementing the rule, and failing to meet the proposed measure would result in a fine ranging from 20,000 rubles to 50,000 rubles ($640 to $1,600), Vedomosti reported Thursday." The law, ostensibly to "shield" children, would apply to a fairly broad definition of child — anyone under 18.

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's the fear? (4, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | about 2 years ago | (#41598063)

Is he afraid of kids getting access to porn or is he afraid of kids becoming politically active and starting a "Russian Spring" or sorts?

Re:What's the fear? (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#41598099)

Why can't it be both? You have your moral hysteria to appeal to the social conservatives, and the totalitarianism to appeal to the ranking government officials, it's a win-win.

I expect this law to be enforced in current Russian fashion: not at all unless it is to harass your political or social rivals.

Re:What's the fear? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41600261)

It's neither. Putin is rebuilding the corrupt system where getting ahead means not building business but joining the government so you can get in the way and demand kickbacks. You need an army of subordinate colleagues-in-crime to keep this up longer-term. As a bonus, if any get out of line, well, they, too, are already violating law and can be disappeared at will.

failing to meet the proposed measure would result in a fine ranging from 20,000 rubles to 50,000 rubles ($640 to $1,600)

...unless certain arrangements are made.

Re:What's the fear? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41598389)

There doesn't have to be an actual risk to children. You just have to declare that you're doing something to protect children, and accompany it with a suitably jingoistic propaganda campaign. This is how "The Land of The Free"(TM), has managed over 75 years of cannabis prohibition, despite it being one of the safest drugs on Earth. A war on wifi would be no more absurd or unjust.

Re:What's the fear? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598445)

Considering the sheer amount of russian preteens and young teenagers on video chat-networks and sites like V-kontakte i do not think blocking them from public WiFi will change anything. Those young ones who actually have their own computer in all cases also have broadband at home. And webcams.

Re:What's the fear? (4, Informative)

tdrak (1085007) | about 2 years ago | (#41598913)

at home is fine, they can track who and what was posted. In public is where they have the problem tracking who did the posting.

Re:What's the fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599141)

So, obviously then, it's not about keeping kids "safe" ...

Re:What's the fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599331)

Duh? Did you have to consult Captain Obvious to come to that conclusion?

Re:What's the fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599047)

I imagine they have the same problems we have of limited bandwidth and those darn kids are using it all up making internet access slow for everyone. Get them off the network (under some pretense of "think of the children") and - yay! More bandwidth for me...

Re:What's the fear? (4, Informative)

ScottyLad (44798) | about 2 years ago | (#41599505)

I imagine they have the same problems we have of limited bandwidth and those darn kids are using it all up making internet access slow for everyone. Get them off the network (under some pretense of "think of the children") and - yay! More bandwidth for me...

Actually, one of the many things I like about Moscow and St Petersburg is the presence of a decent free wifi in almost every place you can buy a coffee (such as Coffee House in the picture, and Shokoladnitsi mentioned in the article). Plus the fact there are no annoying splash screens, proxy logins or registration required - just select the access point and browse away.

I tried to use the "free WiFi" in a McDonalds in the UK today as I had a poor mobile reception - I selected their access point, was prompted for my cellphone number, and then redirected to a login page which required the code which never arrived via SMS to my cellphone. It would be a real shame if the much more user-friendly and useful service in Russia (ie. one that actually works!) is legislated out of existence. (although the likelyhood of such legislation ever being enforced is another matter)

It's been a while since I've been over to the USA, so can't comment on the situation there, but there are certainly things that Russia does better than the UK - and public WiFi is one of them. Bookstores that open through the night is another. I'll be glad to be back in Moscow later this week.

Re:What's the fear? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602899)

Get them off the network (under some pretense of "think of the children") and - yay! More bandwidth for me...

Hear, hear, all of us >18yr olds agree! Those damn kids wasting bandwidth ... shouldn't they be selling papers or working in a mine somewhere?!

Re:What's the fear? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41601269)

None of the above. If the cynic in me is right, it's actually worse than you think.

The proposed law would follow the heels of a more recent law that will be active on November 1st that blacklists web sites for the alleged purpose of "child welfare". Most of the businesses giving free wifi hotspots have already stated that they will use the government blacklist to filter the internet for kids (for all their patrons, not just kids), as a way to avoid checking their patron' ids and having to give each and every single one of their patrons a unique temporary password on a slip of paper (which seems to be the only legitimate and legal way to avoid checking ids if/once that second law would come into effect).

In other words, enforcement of this official government filter may have been the government's plan all along, and it won't affect just kids, it will probably affect everyone by default. And still now according to the article, it remains unclear whether the government won't try to using a similar argument for ISPs and cell phone carriers.

PLEASE (-1, Flamebait)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41598071)

Will someone proofread the article before it gets posted? W-iFi does not exist, perhaps you mean Wi-Fi?

Re:PLEASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598149)

This is a fair comment, but it's also a little heavy-handed. A typo warrants a plea for correction in all caps, really?

Re:PLEASE (2, Funny)

Guignol (159087) | about 2 years ago | (#41598221)

I guess this is the right occasion to follow his sig and tag the post as flamebait while still mostly agreeing with it :)

Re:PLEASE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598161)

Heil Hitler.

Re:PLEASE (5, Funny)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41598297)

Now, now. The correct way to appease a Grammar Nazi is to give them a big hug, then softly say "There, Their, They're..."

Re:PLEASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598805)

Don't forget the hot beverage and singing "Sopht Citty"!

Re:PLEASE (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598341)

No, he is right, In russia w-ifi is ifi if it works or not.

Re:PLEASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598351)

what would you expect from Russians.....

Re:PLEASE (3, Interesting)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about 2 years ago | (#41599711)

This is typical Russian mentality, there are thousands of laws such as this already on the books. The aim is to make every citizen a prosecutable criminal at the governments whim by crafting laws that are impossible to reasonably follow. This allows the government to crack down on criminals they don't like, and leaves the rest of the criminals terrified and compliant. Saying that Russia is a nation populated entirely by criminals is a sadly true statement.

Re:PLEASE (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#41600591)

This is typical Russian mentality, there are thousands of laws such as this already on the books. The aim is to make every citizen a prosecutable criminal at the governments whim by crafting laws that are impossible to reasonably follow. This allows the government to crack down on criminals they don't like, and leaves the rest of the criminals terrified and compliant. Saying that Russia is a nation populated entirely by criminals is a sadly true statement.

And exactly how does is differ from, say, the US of A?

Re:PLEASE (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about 2 years ago | (#41604039)

Scope. Brazenness. Ubiquity. It's so far gone in Russia that even the pretense of morality of law is mostly gone, hense the nonsensical reason for the law. The lawmakers know they don't have to make sense, so they just picked whatever reason off the top of their heads and went with it.

The average American would flip out over the law, and point out how unreasonable the law was, as if somehow appealing to reason would actually help matters. The average Russian would understand the true purpose of the law, stoically shrug their shoulders at the status quo, and continue to live their life. It's just another revenue stream for the local WiFi inspector.

Re:PLEASE (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#41604297)

While I agree with what you said, you did choose to answer a different question than the one I asked.

My point was that Russia is not the only country that tries to criminalize everybody and practice selective enforcement.
And it was meant to serve as a warning.

Re:PLEASE (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 2 years ago | (#41605553)

Well, at least Russia incarcerates a lower percentage of its citizen criminals than the US does.

Re:PLEASE (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 2 years ago | (#41598807)

Of course Wi-Fi is just a stupid trademarked marketing name mashed up from the word "wireless" and the term Hi-Fi. I wouldn't get so wound up over protecting it's integrity.

Re:PLEASE (1)

Zugok (17194) | about 2 years ago | (#41604179)

I wouldn't get so wound up over protecting it's integrity.

You mean fidelity...right?

Re:PLEASE (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41599719)

You must be new here.

How exactly? (5, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41598085)

How in hell do you tell the age of someone connecting to your network?

Re:How exactly? (2)

stairmaster (2652939) | about 2 years ago | (#41598207)

Easy - don't have a network.

Re:How exactly? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#41599725)

Well, the way I read the article (not really!), this is the REAL Goal of the law. They know they aren't protecting kids from the "BIG SCARY INTERNET", they are using the "do it for the kids" mantra to enforce their tyranny. In fact, just about anytime someone says "do it for the ________" it is to limit freedom and build tyranny of the Nanny State

Re:How exactly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598241)

You make people come up to someone that works there and ask for the password and then checking ID.
OR use the internet way and just make a login screen that asks if you are 18 (proceed) or not (get of my wifi !).

Re:How exactly? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#41598331)

And periodically change the Wi-Fi keys so that kiddos can have their 18yo buddies get them the key.

Re:How exactly? (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#41598943)

Depends on if it's worded as to disallow Internet over wifi or just wifi altogether. Just presenting the login screen to a minor would be illegal under the latter wording.

Re:How exactly? (4, Funny)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41598265)

By counting the number of times terms like "OMG" and "LOL" appear per sentence?

Re:How exactly? (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | about 2 years ago | (#41598455)

Now, if you see them over five times, that must be your local representative's twitter.

Re:How exactly? (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41598459)

That would ban most middle-aged mothers as well.

Re:How exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598475)

YOLO

Re:How exactly? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#41600901)

LOL

Re:How exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598301)

It depends on your national standard, but if the average age is 70 and the TTL field in the TCP/IP header is over 52, then you block them.

Re:How exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598353)

If you smell vodka on their breath, then it's probably OK to give them the wifi password.

Re:How exactly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598773)

If you smell vodka on their breath, then it's probably OK to give them the wifi password.

Uh, they said anyone over the age of 18, not 8.

Re:How exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598379)

Same way as it is enforced in US - lenghty useless TOS requiring you to confirm that you're over 13. The only difference is is that its 13 in US vs 18 in Russia.

Re:How exactly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598851)

The law in the US you are referring to is COPPA [wikipedia.org] . While it is a stupid law, it effectively makes it illegal for children under the age of 13 to have logins on internet services. They can use services all they want as long as they don't need an account. Certainly, they can use wifi.

Re:How exactly? (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#41598961)

makes it illegal for children under the age of 13 to have logins on internet services...

without a parent's written permission. Which, because it's such a headache makes it effectively illegal only because the cost of the paperwork outweighs the potential profit per eyeball.

Re:How exactly? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41600359)

You're not supposed to. The purpose is to give local officials a way to walk in and demand kickbacks.

Politics is much easier with the parsimonious theory that almost all laws are to demand bribes to get back out of the way. It has astounding explanatory and predictive power.

Even in the US, it is largely about demanding legal bribes, AKA donations, or you get punished as a business. Often it's also to teach other business to fear things coming down the pike.

When you slobber and drool and cheer at the rallying cry for a law, you're just being the useful idiot, like the engineer caste in The Mote In God's Eye.

Re:How exactly? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41604905)

I don't know... Perhaps the same way you ascertain the age of someone who is buying beer?
You'll obviously have to lock down the network, and provide passwords.

Oblig? (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 years ago | (#41598115)

In Soviet Russia, Wifi is spelled W-Ifi!

To better represent the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Re:Oblig? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#41598383)

The W-iFi uses you to connect to the Internet.

Re:Oblig? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 years ago | (#41598487)

I think you mean "Wifi password protects YOU!"

Re:Oblig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598817)

In soviet Russia, internet connects to you!

Re:Oblig? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41599671)

In Soviet Russia, The Internet Bans you!

Re:Oblig? (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 2 years ago | (#41600091)

In Soviet Russia, these jokes are actually funny!

Re:Oblig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602949)

No they aren't, that's why they kicked Yakov out.

In Soviet Russia... (3, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | about 2 years ago | (#41598145)

This is being proposed in a country where minors can buy alcohol virtually anywhere.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (5, Insightful)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 2 years ago | (#41598325)

Alcohol in is counter-revolutionary. Internet access is just the opposite.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about 2 years ago | (#41601879)

Reminds me - in Capitalism, Man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way 'round.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41598513)

I know, right? Sanity for alcohol laws, but not for Internet access? WTF...

More seriously, what's the harm? Just like anything else pleasurable, people can become addicted to it, and it causes severe problems when used excessively. Keeping it away from kids doesn't do anything to change those facts, but it does add a mystique of forbidden fruit.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (3, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41598577)

The harm is the same as why the Chinese government censors the Internet. They can get access to "bad" information.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599065)

They prefer allowing access to evil information instead.

I got them off my lawn, but . . . (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41598151)

Now those kids are on my Wi-Fi . . .

"Get off my Wi-Fi!"

Re:I got them off my lawn, but . . . (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598461)

Now those kids are on my Wi-Fi . . .

"Get off my Wi-Fi!"

Get off my WLAN!

Re:I got them off my lawn, but . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598699)

win

Re:I got them off my lawn, but . . . (2)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#41598709)

Not to joke but this was my first thought- if you have open wi-fi out of your home would you be at risk for criminal charges?

Re:I got them off my lawn, but . . . (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41599699)

This doesn't make any sense at all but is still probably true.

think of the children! (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#41598259)

W-iFi it's iffy for kids.

Better control that free thinking. (4, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#41598329)

Pissing off the youth is always a good idea for a career politician. They never remember stuff like this when they are old enough to vote.

Re:Better control that free thinking. (2)

Bugler412 (2610815) | about 2 years ago | (#41598601)

assuming it matters. If they don't have appropriate choices of candidates to vote for then it's a moot point

Re:Better control that free thinking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598785)

Pissing off the youth is always a good idea for a career politician. They never remember stuff like this when they are old enough to vote.

Career Politician: Pfft...I'll be concerned about pissing off the youth when they get off their lazy ass and start voting...until then, they get what they deserve by not giving a shit.

Re:Better control that free thinking. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#41599271)

They never remember stuff like this when they are old enough to vote.

Correct. Most of them are not even paying attention now.

What happened to all those free-love anti-war hippies from the 60s in the USA? They were a small minority then, and a small ignored voting block now.

Politicians do not need to worry about the vocal youth, the other 95% of the youth will grow up to be boring old citizens who will toe the line.

Re:Better control that free thinking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599467)

Pissing off the youth is always a good idea for a career politician.

I'm sure there are places in Moscow where a career politician can literally piss on youth, for the right price.

Re:Better control that free thinking. (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#41600741)

The actual votes do not matter when you can just declare you've won by any margin you feel like at the time.

It affects everyone. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#41598369)

The law, ostensibly to "shield" children, would apply to a fairly broad definition of child — anyone under 18

Since broads call everyone "baby!", it affects everyone.

The correct solution (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#41598417)

The proper solution would be to the parents to control their youngsters' computer usage. After all you can get online with 3G anyway.

the real purpose: add another bribery channel (3, Interesting)

takiysobi (2542620) | about 2 years ago | (#41598439)

In reality this law will create just another bribery channel for government officials. In Russia, various government agencies, including fire department, fishing, environmental, whatever regulating/monitoring bodies can close businesses for the slightest violation of infinite borderline idiotic regulations. For example, _every_ vehicle was supposed to have first aid kit and functioning fire extinguisher. Not sure if it's the case anymore, but I would not be surprised if in addition to that you need 50 meters climbing rope and gas mask, just in case. This is just one more way to facilitate bribery across the wider spectra.

I don't agree with this idea, but (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41598453)

I don't really think referring to everyone under 18 as children is as wonky as the apparently-under-18 submitter thinks it is.

Re:I don't agree with this idea, but (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41598547)

That was actually just timothy's inserted commentary. The "editors" wrongfully think they are insightful.

Re:I don't agree with this idea, but (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41598747)

Yeah. The fairy comes on your 18th birthday and you magically have common sense.

Except where I live, where apparently we have anti-fairy guns to protect the adults from the common sense fairies.

Re:I don't agree with this idea, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598865)

Hmmm. Here we have a lot of guns and a strong anti-fairy sentiment. That explains a lot of people.

Re:I don't agree with this idea, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599281)

That's why, in this country, you need to be 20 before you are allowed to buy alcohol at the local Liqueur Monopoly store chain. Which of course is the only store chain in the country that sells anything over 4% vol. alc. concentration.

Unless you count the polish lorry drivers out in the parking lot ...

Re:I don't agree with this idea, but (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41604915)

Its not like there is no where else that defines a "child" as someone under the age of 18.

"Soft" warfare (2)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#41598465)

Blocking internet access to impressionable youth cuts both ways, but it cuts harder against Western influence.

someone bring out the tinfoil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598501)

and lets get started on this shielding

Clever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598505)

I'd bet that the only sane way of complying with that law while still offering wi-fi access to other people will mean keeping permanent records of every use(r).
Obviously that will be expensive and remove every last bit of privacy.

It will just become too risky not to log every last bit of activity.

Re:Clever... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41598901)

Criminal gangs won't have to keep records since they pay the appropriate fees.

Bribery is just an alternative form of taxing, one in which the money goes directly to those providing the service.

So, how long until Russia drops the whole "democracy" thing and go back to being a confirmed totalitarian state?

Captive Portals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598579)

Anyone know of good open-source captive portal solutions out there?

An excellent way of enforcing control (4, Insightful)

fluor2 (242824) | about 2 years ago | (#41598875)

To be sure that one does not offer Wi-Fi for kids, the only solution is to require authentication with a real name or similar. Else, the government can arrest you because you cannot prove that a kid did not use your network.

A very smart move to hide the real reason; more control.

Re:An excellent way of enforcing control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599005)

Who says they're hiding anything? This is Russia. They are quite upfront about their motives for seeking more power.

Re:An excellent way of enforcing control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599199)

Well, the owner of the establishment could just casually glance at the guests ID-card and of the age is right, give them a code slip for the network. No need to actually store any of that information.

Just like when I buy alcohol at the local monopoly. They verify my age using my national ID card, but they never register or store any of my personal details.

Re:An excellent way of enforcing control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600557)

You could use a WPA-PSK password, but you can't do anything fancy. A captive web portal would need to be delivered over WiFi, so you've already broken the law if you serve your authentication page to a child.

Basically a total BAN (1)

redelm (54142) | about 2 years ago | (#41598929)

This is a _fine_ example of distraction-crafted legislation -- laws appearing to do one thing, but actually doing something quite different (and potentially protestable).

The "save the kids" is simply a total ban on open WiFi (since kids could connect) _plus_ potential for a network responsibility presumption. Of course the various Russian govt security agencies are in favor, plus a certain number of Russian corps (esp mobile telecoms).

The Russian people suffer as they have for centuries, under the insecurity of their politicans. As always, draconian laws corrupt.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599093)

1: Get a 17-years-old "kid" to get online in a café
2: ...
3: PROFIT!

This doesn't make sense at all! (0)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 years ago | (#41599217)

If there are indeed detrimental health effect caused by WiFi (and this issue pops up occasionally when schools go wireless) then people would be affected regardless of whether or not they are actually USING the WiFi or not. Would exposure be any different for a child sitting in a table at Starbucks not using a computer than someone who is? If I understand correctly, it's the wireless access points (WAPs) that emit most of the RF energy. I suppose if your computer was sitting in your lap, then maybe the signals from the computer's antenna could be an issue, but doesn't the heat from the laptop itself do more damage to your nads?

I'm not saying I actually believe that WiFi is dangerous at all, but if it is, does it really make a difference whether you are using a computer or not?

Re:This doesn't make sense at all! (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41599391)

What the hell are you talking about?

Ksenzov said the proposal is tied to the Internet restriction law that comes into effect Nov. 1, allowing the government to block Web pages that fit the law’s definition of material harmful to child welfare.

Re:This doesn't make sense at all! (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about 2 years ago | (#41599829)

I'm sure the people who crafted the law fully understand that there is no way the law makes sense to anyone who isn't interested in randomly punishing people for dumb laws for fun and profit. In Russia, human rights abuse is quite the sport. Everyone is a criminal, and the people who have power love it that way.

Re:This doesn't make sense at all! (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#41600075)

The issue isn't that wifi is dangerous to the kiddliewinks, it's that they might get on the internet and see all the naughty bits. Because of course, there's nowhere they can get online other than by wifi.

Will not work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599793)

FAIL to happen. Carry on, nothing to see.

tax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599913)

Like prohibition and rock-n-roll this will guarantee more internet use.

They should use a capitalist solution, not an authoritarian one. Tax the kids. Don't make it illegal, make it expensive.

What is the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601007)

When most kids will have 3G on their devices anyway, Let alone just standing outside a cafe etc. it would still work....?

So ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41601407)

... how do I put my kid in 'airplane mode'?

[Kid begins kicking back of seat] Aha! Got it!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?