Belarus Bans Use of Foreign Websites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Belarus Bans Use of Foreign Websites

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 2, 2012 @08:01AM from the technological-island-nation dept.

bs0d3 writes "A new law in Belarus prohibits people from using 'foreign' websites. The law requires that all companies and individuals who are registered as entrepreneurs in Belarus use only domestic Internet domains for providing online services, conducting sales, or exchanging email messages. The tax authorities and the secret police are authorized to investigate violations."

9 of 361 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Geek perspective: websites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-02 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Belarus is a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuse. All bets are off.
1. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  On Decembe 31, 2011, Obama gave a black eye to the citizens of USA by signing NDAA with provisions that basically establish martial law and turn Obama into a dictator.
  It's only a matter of time before using a foreign website will be an offense that marks a US citizen as a terrorist.
  No foreign bank wants to deal with US citizens because of Patriot Act. When SOPA or something similar passes, foreigners will start avoiding online US clients and businesses.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
2. Re:Geek perspective: websites by MrBandersnatch · 2012-01-02 09:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've been avoiding the US since the Patriot act passed - there is no way I want to visit, work-in or deal-with (business wise) people from a country where as a "foreigner" they can lock me up and throw away the key without due process or oversight.
  Dictatorship no......oppressive regime? 'Fraid so!
3. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 11:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't see why you would fail to mention this, unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about who exactly was behind these new laws.
  - maybe you should actually READ what I linked to, which is my journal entry?
  In fact I mentioned something, but it's the exact problem that I mentioned that you are displaying - being confused by the MSM, which are on purpose make it confusing for some people to understand that in FACT it was Obama who fought...... to EXCLUDE the provisions from the bill that would LIMIT the power against being applied to US citizens (not that these powers should be applied to ANY humans on the planet, but that train left the station back when the 'Patriot' Act was signed).
  Obama fought in order to ensure that the US citizens would in fact be included in the list of people that are targeted by this bill.
  You see, you got screwed by your MSM as I explained in my journal entry. Here is what you should know.
  So, I expect some form of a retraction from you for your false accusations here.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
4. Re:Geek perspective: websites by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-02 14:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  but if the founding fathers could "run rings around lawyers of today", don't you think they would have taken the time to be more specific about the wording in the constitution?
  No, because the guys who wrote and ratified the constitution had a LOT of disagreements. We tend to think about the Founding Fathers as this group of guys who all had the same opinions, goals, agenda. It wasn't like that at all.
  Like today, their biggest concern was getting something that would actually pass - actually be adopted.
  The Founders didn't expect their Constitution to last 240 years. Franklin thought that there would be a constitutional convention before the turn of the 19th century, in fact. They just wanted to get it done and get on with it. That's why they left so much to be decided by future Americans.
  Maybe the biggest thing that the Founders did NOT forsee was the huge amount of corporate money that would impact future elections, and just how much it would cost to get elected in the future. They even made sure that the Post Office was subsidized so that there would be a medium for politicking.
  So now, I'd say that we ought to have a constitutional convention except for the fact that we'd be royally screwed because the richest corporations would have an outsized influence on the outcome and we'd get something infinitely worse than what we've got. No doubt about it, we're in a pickle unless we figure out a way to take the direct purchase of government out of the picture.
  It wasn't "the lawyers" who have messed things up for us, it's "the money".
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Sensationalist Title! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-02 08:12 · Score: 5, Informative

"Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities."
From TFA
Re:They're not banning people from using foreign s by Grishnakh · 2012-01-02 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Wrong. From TFA: "Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities. The Law states that this provision may apply to private individuals if they allow other persons to use their home computers for browsing the Internet."
If you're not allowed to go to an internet cafe and visit slashdot.org without being identified and reported to the authorities, that sounds pretty close to being banned from using a foreign site to me.
Alexander Lukashenko by sirdude · 2012-01-02 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative
For those who are unaware, Belarus is ruled by a turd named Alexander Lukashenko. He's been their president since 1994 and initially increased presidential term limits from the standard five years to seven and later removed presidential term limits altogether.
Some of his memorable moments include:
1. He warned that anyone joining an opposition protest would be treated as a "terrorist", adding: "We will wring their necks, as one might a duck".
2. Addressing the "miserable state of the city of Babruysk" on a live broadcast on state radio he stated: "This is a Jewish city, and the Jews are not concerned for the place they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a pigsty. Look at Israel—I was there and saw it myself ... I call on Jews who have money to come back to Babruysk."
3. "My position and the state will never allow me to become a dictator, but an authoritarian style of rule is characteristic of me, and I have always admitted it. You need to control the country, and the main thing is not to ruin people's lives."
... and so on.
In other words, such stories while shocking are, IMO, hardly surprising ...
Re:I bet the US by cyfer2000 · 2012-01-02 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Even the name Belarus means "White Russia". Now I hope people could understand the relationship between Russia and White Russia better.

--
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.