Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by OnACoffeeBreak 2143 days ago
An ISP must be registered with the government and must follow laws in place for filtering content and working with the government. Whether the ISP is using any local infrastructure or "going to space" doesn't matter.
3 comments

The question isn't whether or not there are laws against it, it's how you enforce the laws. For example, the USSR had to jam radio stations to stop external content getting into it's borders. Would a country like Belarus try to do the same type of thing when it comes to satellite internet?
I donct know if they jammed anything, they built radios and TV sets with Eastern band. But that was easily circumvented.
They explicitly jammed radio free Europe , for example.
Who did so, the USSR? A certain Eastern leader paid Carlos the Jackal to perpetrate a terror attack at Radio Free Europe. Of course that didn't stop shut it down.

https://pressroom.rferl.org/a/carlos-the-jackal-and-the-bomb...

USSR did. My dad lived in Belarus during the time (I was born there as well but we moved to the US when I was a kid) and said it was a bit of cat and mouse game re exact wavelength to catch the American radio. Ofc my memory is post soviet and there was no blocking but we still listened to it in the 90s.
I guess the idea would be that, like with satellite phones now, you could theoretically use a hypothetical satellite internet from any country and get the same experience. It may run afoul of local laws, but there wouldn't be a technical obstacle, barring country wide jamming.
> An ISP must be registered with the government and must follow laws in place for filtering content and working with the government. Whether the ISP is using any local infrastructure or "going to space" doesn't matter.

An ISP should not be registering with the government, and it must follow any laws. Oppose censorship.

Anonymous, censorship free communications is a lethal threat to rogue regimes.

It allows opposition to organise and subvert their governments without a threat of its leaders being exposed, and killed.

> "Anonymous, censorship free communications is a lethal threat to rogue regimes."

Saudi arabia is still a dictatorship, despite being our 'allies' and having internet. They even dismember dissidents from time to time.

They even dismember dissidents from time to time.

...and look how well that went over? I'm not sure I'd chalk that one up as a win for MBS.

How did it go over? I have not seen the royal family suffer serious material consequences for murder. Have i missed something?
Usually they just throw them out of a copter. Like in the good old fascist Latin American times.