We don’t need to talk about scammers...

There is no threat to crooks from the bans; we are talking exclusively about state control over the lives of citizens

It seems like not a day goes by without news from Roskomnadzor that it has blocked something else that millions of people in Russia used to freely (and easily) communicate with family and friends or to get information about what is happening in the world.

And all under the refrain of statements that these resources are allegedly used by terrorists or scammers, and therefore should be blocked in the name of our own safety.

...We don’t need to talk about scammers - protection from them has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It has been said many times (and experience confirms this): scammers call, for the most part, not via instant messengers, but to mobile or landline phones.

But no one is proposing to ban mobile or wireline communications in the name of fighting scammers (by the way, aren’t mobile operators lobbying for a ban on “alternative” calls in order not to lose revenue?).

And scammers can come up on the street and start talking with their teeth. Shouldn't citizens be banned from going out in the name of fighting them?

And scammers or their agents can come by bus or metro to collect the money from defrauded citizens. Perhaps they should be banned too?

This list can be continued - but what has been said is enough to understand the absurdity of the logic of bans and blockings.

Once upon a time, I remember, Pavel Durov’s “security officials” insistently demanded that he give them the “keys to the telegram.” After which we received a parcel with a bunch of keys. And independent experts and opposition politicians explained: the fact that something illegal may be happening in an apartment does not mean that the owners of all apartments must hand over the keys to the security forces in advance - what if they need to come in?

Times were different then - and the “authorities” had to retreat. But, as it turns out, only temporarily.

As for terrorists, for some reason in those countries where (as, for example, in Israel) the terrorist danger is much higher, and lasts for decades, no one thinks of blocking means of communication, because terrorists can use them. But not because they care less about the safety of their fellow citizens, but because they understand that they need to fight using other methods.

We hear about new and new bans and blockings all the time - but for some reason we hear almost nothing about the fact that those scammers who deceive citizens have been found and punished.

Introducing themselves to them either as “employees of the governor’s office, with whom you have an appointment via video conference,” or as “special services employees” who offer to “transfer money to a secure account” to avoid troubles, or as “personnel services who have been tasked with digitizing the archive of former employees,” or “the clinic where you have been scheduled for a free examination,” or “the security service of the State Services,” or “intercom installers,” or “couriers,” or someone else who needs to be informed as a result of the conversation codes received via SMS or something else, ultimately leading to huge financial losses for gullible citizens.

It would seem that this is an unplowed field for the zeal of law enforcement officers - but for the most part it remains unplowed.

Because people are busy with other things.

If in Russia today they were looking for scammers with the same diligence with which, 10-15 years ago, vigilant employees of the “E” centers and other structures scoured the social networks of opposition politicians in search of sedition, these scammers would have been sitting on their bunks long ago.

But for searching for them, initiating cases and bringing them to court, apparently, they do not give as many “stars” and other bonuses as they are entitled to for searching for freethinkers on the Internet. Moreover, it is much easier and faster than a long and difficult search for scammers.

In parallel with the bans and blocking, there is a total enforcement of the “national messenger” MAX.

Which, according to many independent experts, does not at all guarantee that your correspondence, call information and other data will not be available to government authorities without your desire (and without court approval).

All this is not about safety at all.

This is about total control, which is at odds with two articles of the Constitution - 23rd and 29th - about inviolability of private life, secrecy of correspondence and freedom of search and dissemination of information.

This is about reducing opportunities for free communication where all kinds of overseers cannot reach.

This is about depriving a huge number of people of the opportunity to hear the voices of their growing children and aging parents, friends and like-minded people, to be in touch with loved ones and worry less about them.

It was said a long time ago that those who sacrifice freedom in the name of security are deprived of both.

Vladimir Maksimov