didn't have any trouble with my VPN accessing this site before, but here i am (on a different ip no less)

you know the drill - go to Russia, view the site, enjoy denypage.ru

might be a good time to unblock Tor users, like you did for some brief, blissful period of time way back when, where everything was happy and i didn't have to worry about being persecuted by my government for looking at furries

(sorry if this is old news - just wanted to update)

Going to be the same thing for the UK soon.

I'm sorry.
P.S. Why would you go to jail for looking at stuff? You aren't hurting anybody...

DelurC said:
I'm sorry.
P.S. Why would you go to jail for looking at stuff? You aren't hurting anybody...

Russia is backwards, UK went backwards, America's going backwards, Japan was backwards-now-going-forwards, Australia's Australiing...

Dark times may come.

Governments are nothing but big babies telling you that your fetishes aren't natural and are offensive to society. Isn't it funny how it's the minority that's controlling the majority?

HypnoBitch said:
Governments are nothing but big babies telling you that your fetishes aren't natural and are offensive to society. Isn't it funny how it's the minority that's controlling the majority?

must be hypnosis

DelurC said:
I'm sorry.
P.S. Why would you go to jail for looking at stuff? You aren't hurting anybody...

oh, i don't want to misrepresent my position! my country has a long history of media companies sending threatening notices to anybody doing anything that might be considered against copyright.

it's also really stringent about things like nudity and estranged fetishes, even the artwork, which means that i can't upload all that i'd like to. going across borders would be hellish as well, as they'd snoop my hard drive for anything suspicious.

it's not a hostile climate, just a warm one. i have a lot of reasons to be conservative in my Web activity here, as going to court over such a petty issue would mean i'd be out most types of jobs.

HypnoBitch said:
Governments are nothing but big babies telling you that your fetishes aren't natural and are offensive to society. Isn't it funny how it's the minority that's controlling the majority?

I feel like all this comment is missing is an edgy anonymous avatar.

But my question is, do they sell burritos in Russia?

I find it very disturbing that so many first world countries are censoring furries. I mean, haven't furries suffered enough.

As for this, well, you can thank Vladimir Putin on that one.

Oh, and please don't start any drama again guys.

Every time someone using TOR gets banned the list of allowed TOR-nodes gets shorter.
As such, if you'd like to blame someone blame the trolls and spammers we have to weed out on a regular basis.

With that said, try investing into a paid VPN, preferably one from a company hosted outside Russia/UK/China.
The paid VPNs aren't used by idiots because that would be a waste of money for them, and they usually offer much better bandwidth than the free ones.

fewrahuxo said:
going across borders would be hellish as well, as they'd snoop my hard drive for anything suspicious.

I'm curious, is encryption still legal and would you be forced to disclose your encryption keys if they do request them?
Because if it's legal you could just use (and should use) Veracrypt to keep your personal stuff personal.

Serperior09876 said:
Oh, and please don't start any drama again guys.

Stop telling people what to do.

NotMeNotYou said:
Every time someone using TOR gets banned the list of allowed TOR-nodes gets shorter.
As such, if you'd like to blame someone blame the trolls and spammers we have to weed out on a regular basis.

With that said, try investing into a paid VPN, preferably one from a company hosted outside Russia/UK/China.
The paid VPNs aren't used by idiots because that would be a waste of money for them, and they usually offer much better bandwidth than the free ones.

I'm curious, is encryption still legal and would you be forced to disclose your encryption keys if they do request them?
Because if it's legal you could just use (and should use) Veracrypt to keep your personal stuff personal.

Stop telling people what to do.

haha, yes it's legal (and widespread among those who know about it). border patrol would force you to give it up though, lest you be detained by the overly suspicious immigrant police

Furrin_Gok said:
Russia is backwards, UK went backwards, America's going backwards, Japan was backwards-now-going-forwards, Australia's Australiing...

I doubt the US will ban porn, it's a lucrative industry that will fight back.

BinaryHedgehog said:
I doubt the US will ban porn, it's a lucrative industry that will fight back.

You underestimate the crazy.

1984 is coming in hot.

Edit: An AWS VPN might work, but Russia/e6 might block those IPs.

rysyN said:
You underestimate the crazy.

You forget that we have court cases that protect porn as free speech. Precedent can be everything. Hell, the porn industry indirectly made cub technically legal.

rysyN said:
You underestimate the crazy.

1984 is coming in hot.

Edit: An AWS VPN might work, but Russia/e6 might block those IPs.

Three words, my friend:
Private Tor Bridge

Faux-Pa said:
Three words, my friend:
Private Tor Bridge

TOR is inspectable and Bridges are not private, eventually they are found and blocked.

AWS has been blocked before in Russia, mind you. But Amazon has some punch behind it.

Serperior09876 said:
I find it very disturbing that so many first world countries are censoring furries. I mean, haven't furries suffered enough.

As for this, well, you can thank Vladimir Putin on that one.

They said to quit drawing porn of their cute soccer mascot but furries just had to keep doing it. Now Mother Russia fights back.

Corniscopic said:
They said to quit drawing porn of their cute soccer mascot but furries just had to keep doing it. Now Mother Russia fights back.

I'm drawing the mascot right now. <_<

Corniscopic said:
They said to quit drawing porn of their cute soccer mascot but furries just had to keep doing it. Now Mother Russia fights back.

They said to stop? This I've gotta see.

Corniscopic said:
They said to quit drawing porn of their cute soccer mascot but furries just had to keep doing it. Now Mother Russia fights back.

If it's from that Twitter post from a while back, that was fake.

I will be surprised if the UK blocks e621.

fewrahuxo said:
haha, yes it's legal (and widespread among those who know about it). border patrol would force you to give it up though, lest you be detained by the overly suspicious immigrant police

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Plausible_deniability

Just cheeki breeki your way out of it, cyka.

What usually causes a government to ban porn? Is it really that worrisome to people?

BinaryHedgehog said:
Hell, the porn industry indirectly made cub technically legal.

Except that several states have countered that at the state level.

Furrin_Gok said:
Except that several states have countered that at the state level.

Really? Which ones?

Doomguy666 said:
Really? Which ones?

Well, I believe that we can rule out Arizona, because the site's servers are in Phoenix, if I remember correctly. While I would say "Let's challenge these", it might not end well.

Lance_Armstrong said:
I will be surprised if the UK blocks e621.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Plausible_deniability

thank you, i'll be sure to use two operating systems now

Furrin_Gok said:
...America's going backwards,...

You mean we haven't yet?

Putin knows what is best for you.
So does Trump.

Praise.

BinaryHedgehog said:
You forget that we have court cases that protect porn as free speech. Precedent can be everything. Hell, the porn industry indirectly made cub technically legal.

Porn is only considered legal in the United States if it is not considered "obscene," in part thanks to the fact that the Comstock Law of 1873 is still on the books and very much still enforceable. Most bothersome is the fact that what constitutes "obscenity" is subject to interpretation. One person's art is another person's obscenity, and if one of those two people happens to be a federal judge, you'd best hope he's the one who thinks it's art.

I'm just going to let everyone know, that most of these porn bans were proposed, supported, and enacted by conservatives.

No offense to conservatives, i'm pretty sure more radical liberals also support it.

You know what people i'm talking about.

fewrahuxo said:
thank you, i'll be sure to use two operating systems now

First off, TrueCrypt has been discontinued.

Secondly, the act of hiding something implies guilt, which may work against you in the long run.

InannaEloah said:
Porn is only considered legal in the United States if it is not considered "obscene," in part thanks to the fact that the Comstock Law of 1873 is still on the books and very much still enforceable. Most bothersome is the fact that what constitutes "obscenity" is subject to interpretation. One person's art is another person's obscenity, and if one of those two people happens to be a federal judge, you'd best hope he's the one who thinks it's art.

Of course obscenity is subject to interpretation. There's no possible way it couldn't be.

More importantly, the judge does not determine obscenity - the jury does. Of course, the Supreme Court and other justice-composed courts basically combine the two into the same entity.

The obscenity definition is incredibly forgiving anyway.

Serperior09876 said:
I'm just going to let everyone know, that most of these porn bans were proposed, supported, and enacted by conservatives.

No offense to conservatives, i'm pretty sure more radical liberals also support it.

You know what people i'm talking about.

There's nothing liberal about the people you're talking about... unless it's in their liberal use of the word "warrior" to describe themselves. ;)

FibS said:Secondly, the act of hiding something implies guilt, which may work against you in the long run.

So if the government hides information which could threaten national security if made public, it implies they're guilty of wrongdoing? Or does that only apply when non-gov people do it?

InannaEloah said:
So if the government hides information which could threaten national security if made public, it implies they're guilty of wrongdoing? Or does that only apply when non-gov people do it?

You're comparing apples to axle grease.

That said, we don't need anything to particularly imply that any nation's government is doing something bad at any moment - they almost always are.

FibS said:
You're comparing apples to axle grease.

That said, we don't need anything to particularly imply that any nation's government is doing something bad at any moment - they almost always are.

But you said the act of hiding something implies guilt, and since governments have a knack for hiding stuff, it is in fact a perfectly valid comparison.

InannaEloah said:
But you said the act of hiding something implies guilt, and since governments have a knack for hiding stuff, it is in fact a perfectly valid comparison.

Only because you selectively interpret my post on the grounds of a biased prior assumption and wordplay. Do not waste my time, especially not to transform this into some political child's game.

FibS said:
Only because you selectively interpret my post on the grounds of a biased prior assumption and wordplay. Do not waste my time, especially not to transform this into some political child's game.

Expecting people to be consistent is not a "child's game." Governments do the same shit they condemn everyone else for doing, and I'm simply pointing that reality out. Just because you don't want to accept that hiding does *NOT* automatically imply guilt does not make my statements a "child's game" or a "waste of time."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hiding

I don't know where you are getting guilt from, I think you are judging from opinion or previous experience.

InannaEloah said:
Expecting people to be consistent is not a "child's game."

As indeed I was; your inability to realize this shows that either your sense of grammar or analogy is lacking.

Governments do the same shit they condemn everyone else for doing

Which is not a secret, does not at all contrast my point, and is irrelevant besides - QED a waste of my time.

Just because you don't want to accept that hiding does *NOT* automatically imply guilt

Indeed, I do not accept falsehoods as true; how good of you to notice.

does not make my statements a "child's game" or a "waste of time."

Yes, that is the fantasy in your head, now here's the reality:

The public at large, and by extension a judge and jury, will generally presume the defendant is more guilty if he attempts to hide something, including if he has a legal right to do so. For instance, the right to refuse testimony (remain silent) is there specifically to protect defendants from being forced to self-incriminate, so it is implied if they refuse testimony that their testimony would incriminate them and therefore that they are guilty of something.

When Big Brother is under an accusation, it also hides evidence, for exactly the same reasons.

Now where in this exactly does my consistency falter, other than in the clogged sieve of your interpretation?

Stop arguing about stuff

The original poster wanted help with russia being blocked all the time, some people tossed in some advice for him. If you have more advice please share, if not, stop arguing about what is legal and and what is wrong that people do

FibS said:
First off, TrueCrypt has been discontinued.

Secondly, the act of hiding something implies guilt, which may work against you in the long run.

Which is why I linked to Veracrypt, as it is the direct successor of Truecrypt. They're still open source and use the same code, they just gave it a new name and fixed the large bug that caused it to be discontinued.
This also directly means that Lance's link is perfectly valid, leaking data from a hidden container is an issue with the OS and not Truecrypt, so a "feature" of both.

Furthermore, the point of the hidden container is that it's perfectly hidden. Creating a hidden container requires you to create two containers in each other, one is the decoy container accessible with password1, the other is the actual container accessible with password 2. If you want your own data use password2, if you want to tell people that this container is clean give them password1. It's impossible to tell by the file alone if it contains two containers or not, since everything is 'perfectly' jumbled garbage anyway.
Thus you aren't hiding anything (in front of the police/judges), since you're willingly sharing with them a working password that shows them files you don't care about.

FibS said:
Indeed, I do not accept falsehoods as true; how good of you to notice.

so basically, your saying we live in a world where it's "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty", right? cause that's what your side of that little argument sounds like.