[lifthrasiir]

Even NK advocacy sites do not threat national security either, but I meant that such restriction is allowed by the law which was ultimately passed the Congress and so you are wrong to claim that it's "illegal". See also my other comment for the background.

Also the watchmen argument against such restrictions is so old at this point that there are lots of counterpoints available for you, if you wish.

[lazydonkey456]

which exception by the way? please explain which exception makes them `legal` to scan every communication for censorship. not everyone and not every network requests are related to national security and illegal action(i.e. gamble, drugs, etc.)

[lifthrasiir]

> which exception by the way? please explain which exception makes them `legal` to scan every communication for censorship.

Oh yeah, see the Act on Promotion of Information and blablabla, Articles 42-2, 44-2, 44-3 and 44-7. In particular Article 44-7 (2) through (4) explicitly allow for such technical measure to be enforced. ("Information and communications services" include ISPs for sure, see the definitions in Article 2.) Like it or not, it is legal in principle and your claim doesn't make it illegal.

> not everyone and not every network requests are related to national security and illegal action(i.e. gamble, drugs, etc.)

By the way, you seem to acknowledge that the government can scan them for illegal actions then?

[lazydonkey456]

> By the way, you seem to acknowledge that the government can scan them for illegal actions then?

nice try.