Slashdot Mirror
Russian Officials Consider Ban On Wi-Fi Use For Kids
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.
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?
Will someone proofread the article before it gets posted? W-iFi does not exist, perhaps you mean Wi-Fi?
sudo make me a sandwich
How in hell do you tell the age of someone connecting to your network?
In Soviet Russia, Wifi is spelled W-Ifi!
To better represent the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
This is being proposed in a country where minors can buy alcohol virtually anywhere.
Now those kids are on my Wi-Fi . . .
"Get off my Wi-Fi!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
W-iFi it's iffy for kids.
Silence is a state of mime.
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.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The proper solution would be to the parents to control their youngsters' computer usage. After all you can get online with 3G anyway.
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 really think referring to everyone under 18 as children is as wonky as the apparently-under-18 submitter thinks it is.
#DeleteChrome
Blocking internet access to impressionable youth cuts both ways, but it cuts harder against Western influence.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
and lets get started on this shielding
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.
Anyone know of good open-source captive portal solutions out there?
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.
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.
1: Get a 17-years-old "kid" to get online in a café ...
2:
3: PROFIT!
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?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
FAIL to happen. Carry on, nothing to see.
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.
When most kids will have 3G on their devices anyway, Let alone just standing outside a cafe etc. it would still work....?
[Kid begins kicking back of seat] Aha! Got it!
Have gnu, will travel.
Most people use the word "infant" to refer to a baby from newborn to a few months old. Under law, however, anyone under the age of majority (18 for most purposes) is technically an "infant". I was involved in a chain collision during a traffic jam years ago, and my wife was horrified when the insurance legal papers referred to an "infant" in one of the cars; the teenager in question was 16 at the time (and taller than I was). The use of "infant" rather than "minor" or "teenager" was precisely to evoke that kind of emotional response.
My point is: The "think of the children" crowd considers a 17 year 11 month old to be an "infant". Conduct yourself accordingly.