[nabc45]

>while all others were indiscriminately blocked years ago

As far as I am concerned Telegram was blocked for 1) being used by terrorists and 2) the Telegram staff refusing to turn in data to aid the investigation. This has not happened to other messengers like WhatsApp and they are not blocked. Am I wrong?

[codedokode]

Actually there are interesting legal details in the story.

Telegram should be blocked under the Russian court order for not providing decryption keys, but that order doesn't contain ruling to block entire Amazon or Google network - only IP addresses used by Telegram. Whole networks are being blocked under the order by Prosecutor General from 2015 (yes, from 2015, and recently they started to use new order from 2018). But the problem is that Prosecutor's Office doesn't have authority to block messengers, so the order is about discovering illegal content (extremist content or appeals for organizing unapproved rally - not sure if I translated correctly) located on all of those IP addresses which obviously is a lie.

So this is dubious even under russian laws.

Why are they blocking entire networks? Well, the problem is that there are limits in ACL size so if Telegram starts using thousands of IP addresses the tables can become too big. So they chose to block entire networks instead. Also, finding out which IP addresses they are using takes time, distributing and updating blocking rules by ISP takes time (on order of hours, up to a day), so without this Telegram could change IPs faster than they are blocked.

There already are russian businesses that were using IP addresses from those networks, that are suffering damages because of blocking. They are moving to other datacenters in a rush. It is unlikely that they will try to recover damages from the government.

[nabc45]

That's bad, especially that last paragraph, but I would lay the blame directly on Amazon and Google. They should kick Telegram out if having them affects other customers. That's standard practice in hosts, for example when a specific website is receiving a DoS, the website is blackholed so other customers don't see their service interrupted.

[codedokode]

No, they should not. They are not under russian jurisdiction and are not obliged to comply with russian laws. Or should they comply with laws of Thailand, Iran, China and North Korea too? Kick out sites that criticise communist party?

[nabc45]

I did not say that. I said that Telegram moved to their clouds to evade the sentence of a judge, which means Russian ISPs resorted to banning entire IP ranges, which means law-abiding customers are now affected by it. This is, because of the malicious actions of Telegram, now Russian citizens can't access law-abiding websites hosted in Google and Amazon. That should bother Google and Amazon, who should guarantee the connectivity of their law-abiding customers by kicking out Telegram so the IP range bans are lifted.

In the end Google and Amazon will kick out Telegram, it's probably a matter of days, so I don't understand what this fuss is about.

[Molaxx]

Which malicious actions by telegram? Providing their customers with private communication not eavesdropped by the russian government? A government linked with the murder of political oposition personalities? If the Russian government decided to ban Amazon and make law abiding Russian businesses suffer the responsibility lays on the Russian government,not Amazon. I personally think that if Amazon would ban telegram and succumb to the heavy handed Russian policy it'll hurt the law abiding Russian citizen ability to express any dissatisfaction with their government and decisions. This would directly lead to a government that governs for the sake of its own existance and not for the betterment of its citizens. How could it if it doesn't allow the citizens to express their wishes and plights? But that is an internal Russian issue which I believe the Russians should deal with however they like. My interest in Amazon not succumbing is the effect it'll have around the world. I would not like my government to get such ideas because it directly affects my rights.

[codedokode]

> In the end Google and Amazon will kick out Telegram,

Telegram invented a nice trick. Durov wants to reward people hosting proxies so Google and Amazon will have to identify them and kick them out too.

[codedokode]

Telegram has no authority to ban anything so it cannot be at fault. Trying to make your service work cannot be called "malicious activity".

> That should bother Google and Amazon, who should guarantee the connectivity of their law-abiding customers by kicking out Telegram so the IP range bans are lifted.

This might increase an influx of complaints from other governments. If they kicked out Telegram, why not kick out someone else?

[amarkov]

> Telegram has no authority to ban anything so it cannot be at fault. Trying to make your service work cannot be called "malicious activity".

Telegram knew the Russian government was trying to censor them. So they disguised their traffic as Google traffic. Now, because Telegram did this and Russia called their bluff, some Google clients who have nothing to do with Telegram can no longer reach the Russian market.

Why isn't this just as malicious as any other denial of service attack? It sucks for Telegram, but it's not reasonable or sustainable to let anyone who needs to evade censorship impersonate Google.

[baybal2]

>WhatsApp and they are not blocked. Am I wrong?

FB routinely complied with regime's requests, just take a look on a number of chatrooms they took down. So no wonder them not being seen as a problem.

[nabc45]

Calling Russia a regime is like calling Microsoft "Micro$oft".

[StavrosK]

I would imagine the analogy would be to call Russia ₽ussia.