Georgy Ivanov (@leftdefenders), lawyer of the Team Against Torture, especially for the Cheka-OGPU
⠀
Did VPN really cause the conviction of a man in Tomsk? Or a special procedure for considering the case and agreements with the investigation? I tried to figure it out.
⠀
The other day, news about the first sentence for using an anonymizer program was widely circulated. And after several clarifications from the court, the prosecutor’s office and the FSB, the situation became even more unclear, but much more absurd.
⠀
On October 11, a certain Georgy Belous was found guilty of using a malicious program. The court found that the program, if used, leads to “the impossibility of unambiguously identifying an Internet user and his network activity, including the provider providing access to the Internet.” I leave it to IT specialists to evaluate such judgments, but even for a lawyer it sounds unconvincing.
⠀
We are talking about VIPole, a secure messenger that is not very popular among ordinary users. But among other verdicts on fraud and drug trafficking, one can find references to its use in certain circles.
⠀
But let’s speculate about the reason for the appearance of such an opus:
– the device with the program was seized from the defendant on August 20, 2020, and is now stored in the FSB Directorate for the Tomsk Region;
– the defendant admitted his guilt in full;
– the case was heard in a special manner without examining the evidence and in one hearing;
– in a Russian court, almost any case will be processed in a special manner.
⠀
Therefore, I assume that the situation developed something like this. Let me clarify that we are not talking about Belous, but about a conditional B. The FSB investigated B. for involvement in a crime (fraud, drug trafficking) and conducted a search where his computer was seized.
⠀
But then the criminal case unfolded and it became clear that B. could get away with it. But this is not at all good for statistics. Here we got hooked on the found program, according to which a convenient expert made a convenient conclusion about “unambiguous identification.” And then B. was offered to get away with fright, admit guilt in using this program and receive a ridiculous punishment.
⠀
Conclusion: you can use a VPN, but in most cases it’s not worth reaching an agreement with the investigation.
⠀
Did VPN really cause the conviction of a man in Tomsk? Or a special procedure for considering the case and agreements with the investigation? I tried to figure it out.
⠀
The other day, news about the first sentence for using an anonymizer program was widely circulated. And after several clarifications from the court, the prosecutor’s office and the FSB, the situation became even more unclear, but much more absurd.
⠀
On October 11, a certain Georgy Belous was found guilty of using a malicious program. The court found that the program, if used, leads to “the impossibility of unambiguously identifying an Internet user and his network activity, including the provider providing access to the Internet.” I leave it to IT specialists to evaluate such judgments, but even for a lawyer it sounds unconvincing.
⠀
We are talking about VIPole, a secure messenger that is not very popular among ordinary users. But among other verdicts on fraud and drug trafficking, one can find references to its use in certain circles.
⠀
But let’s speculate about the reason for the appearance of such an opus:
– the device with the program was seized from the defendant on August 20, 2020, and is now stored in the FSB Directorate for the Tomsk Region;
– the defendant admitted his guilt in full;
– the case was heard in a special manner without examining the evidence and in one hearing;
– in a Russian court, almost any case will be processed in a special manner.
⠀
Therefore, I assume that the situation developed something like this. Let me clarify that we are not talking about Belous, but about a conditional B. The FSB investigated B. for involvement in a crime (fraud, drug trafficking) and conducted a search where his computer was seized.
⠀
But then the criminal case unfolded and it became clear that B. could get away with it. But this is not at all good for statistics. Here we got hooked on the found program, according to which a convenient expert made a convenient conclusion about “unambiguous identification.” And then B. was offered to get away with fright, admit guilt in using this program and receive a ridiculous punishment.
⠀
Conclusion: you can use a VPN, but in most cases it’s not worth reaching an agreement with the investigation.
“ВЧК ОГПУ”
