![Community banner](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b2116b2a-4567-48b3-a80d-c5b58bbf8782.jpeg)
-
Recognition is power. How torture finally destroyed the law enforcement system in Russia
Moreover, the use of torture in this case undermines the credibility not only of these obviously false testimonies, but also of all others. Fear of new torture is a sufficient motivator for the suspect to immediately, without hesitation, confirm all the guesses of the security officers, including outright false ones.
>That is, even if, according to some, they “deserved” it, they still cannot be tortured. Not only out of a sense of humanity or the desire to comply with Russian law (and it directly prohibits torture ), but also out of banal practical necessity: a person under torture will say anything to stop it. It will be impossible to use such testimony to establish the truth in the case and find the real criminals. Actually, this is why torture, which was once upon a time ordered by court decision, has long become a thing of the past in all countries with a viable judicial system and was subsequently prohibited.
The Network case Here it will be useful to recall another terrorist case: the “Network” case. In October 2017, the FSB detained a company of anarchists and accused them of creating a terrorist community. Security forces tortured several detainees with a stun gun and beat them - and they testified against themselves. Here is what one of the defendants in the case, Viktor Filinkov, said :
“They asked me questions. If I didn’t know the answer, they shocked me; if the answer did not coincide with their expectations, they shocked me; if I thought about it, they shocked me; if I forgot what they said, they shocked me. There were no breaks, blows and questions, blows and answers, blows and threats.”
A large public campaign was held in defense of those involved in the Network case; many activists and public figures insisted on their innocence. And indeed: how can one take confessions seriously if the person who gave them was tortured with electric shock?
But shortly before the verdict, new circumstances were revealed in the case: Alexey Poltavets, who fled to Ukraine and was arrested in absentia, told Meduza journalists that he and his associates Maxim Ivankin and Dmitry Pchelintsev were involved in a double murder. The murder was definitely not a fabrication or a hoax by the security forces: the bodies were actually found. The only question was who did it. Maxim Ivankin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 24 years in prison. But then he told reporters that he was also forced to sign a confession under torture.
And here we are faced with the question: how to relate to such statements? If you and I did not doubt for a second the legality of the actions of the security forces, one would think that Ivankin simply made up a story about torture in order to avoid punishment. But before this, Network members were actually tortured.
Torture as the norm Anarchist Azat Miftakhov, who had just been re-sentenced in a fictitious case, was also beaten and tortured with a screwdriver. Ruslan Kostylenkov from New Greatness, whom the security forces decided to appoint as the main culprit, was beaten and raped with a meat hammer during his arrest - after which he was forced to record on camera a confession that he and his student friends were preparing a coup. And along with them, thousands of other people were tortured: prisoners , suspects , and even witnesses .
Torture is so commonplace in the Russian law enforcement system that Ivankin's statements should at least be taken seriously. And this example very well shows the second half of the problem, which we partially touched upon in the Crocus City example: torture not only leads to the punishment of the innocent, but also makes it possible for real criminals to avoid this punishment. After all, if Ivankin was really forced to incriminate himself, it means that the killer was someone else. Maybe this is one of the other defendants in the case, or maybe even a stranger who is now walking freely on the streets. But we no longer have a way to distinguish the innocent from the criminals, since trust in all the actions of the investigation in this case has been undermined.
https://bit.ly/3JsYsuJ
-
The Shift Towards Banking 2.0 in Cryptocurrency Exchanges A Deeper Look
Annotation: This analytical report explores the trend of modern cryptocurrency exchanges resembling traditional banking institutions, potentially compromising the core principles of decentralization and anonymity. It delves into the factors driving users towards these "Banking 2.0" platforms, such as regulatory requirements, user acquisition strategies, and commercial interests. The report also examines the dilemma faced by users between maintaining privacy and decentralization versus accessing additional services and bonuses offered by exchanges in exchange for verification.
Quote: "When exchangers do it, we understand that they do it not because it is their whim, but because they are obliged to do it by the relevant authorities. Making an exchange on the exchange or in the exchanger we purposefully go to some risks, that in the end to keep their capital on a decentralized wallet. And here you are offered something like the Sberbank ecosystem, for passing the verification you will get bonuses and Tonami bonuses and your wallet and your transactions and all to whom you will receive and send them will be verified."
The quote highlights how some users perceive modern cryptocurrency exchanges and exchanges as something more akin to banking than the ideal of decentralization on which cryptocurrency is based. Instead of storing their assets in decentralized wallets, people are being asked to surrender their personal data and undergo verification to access various services and bonuses, which can reduce the level of anonymity and decentralization characteristic of cryptocurrencies.
So why are people being "pushed" into this "Banks 2.0"? It is probably for a number of reasons:
-
Regulatory requirements: Some exchanges and exchanges may be under pressure from regulators to insist on certain security and customer identification (KYC) standards, resulting in the need to undergo verification in order to use their services.
-
Attracting new users: Offering bonuses and favorable terms and conditions can be a strategy to attract new users and increase the customer base. This allows exchangers and exchanges to increase their popularity and competitiveness in the market.
-
Commercial interests: Some exchangers and exchanges may seek to increase their profits by offering additional services and verification bonuses. This may be financially beneficial to them, even if it reduces the degree of decentralization and anonymity for users.
As a result, users face a dilemma between the desire to maintain their anonymity and decentralization characteristic of cryptocurrencies and the opportunity to receive additional bonuses and services offered by exchanges and exchanges for verification.
*** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***
Keywords: cryptocurrency exchanges, decentralization, anonymity, banking 2.0, user verification, regulatory compliance, user acquisition, commercial interests, privacy, bonuses
Hashtags: #CryptocurrencyExchanges #Decentralization #Anonymity #Banking2_0 #UserVerification #RegulatoryCompliance #UserAcquisition #Privacy #Bonuses
Editorial comment: This report sheds light on a significant shift in the cryptocurrency landscape, where exchanges are evolving to resemble traditional banks, raising concerns about privacy and decentralization. By analyzing the underlying motivations and implications, it provides valuable insights for users navigating this evolving ecosystem.
Conclusion:
The increasing resemblance of modern cryptocurrency exchanges to traditional banking institutions represents a notable departure from the core principles of decentralization and anonymity that underpin cryptocurrencies. While regulatory pressures, user acquisition strategies, and commercial interests may drive this trend, users are faced with a fundamental dilemma. They must weigh the desire to maintain privacy and decentralization against the allure of accessing additional services and bonuses offered by exchanges in exchange for verification.
In navigating this landscape, users must carefully evaluate the trade-offs involved and consider the long-term implications for the cryptocurrency ecosystem. By remaining vigilant and informed, they can better protect their interests and uphold the principles that define the essence of cryptocurrencies.
Links:
Source: https://bit.ly/3xMXaId
-
-
Увага. Спільна заява InformNapalm та Кібер Спротив.
В дампах AlabugaLeaks та в публікаціях InformNapalm (https://t.me/informnapalm/21400) не було цих даних, які сьогодні поширила "Труха" і підхопили деякі українські медіа та блогери.
Хоча "Труха" робить посилання на нашу статтю, але представлених в її дописі даних НЕ БУЛО ні в дампах, ні в дослідженні.
Вірогідно, цю інформацію вкидають через "Труху", при цьому посилаючись на статтю InformNapalm якісь невідомі актори, щоб легалізувати власну інформацію, яка може бути викривленою, або хибною.