Prisons have become tiresome for everyone – even for Americans

Imagine you are stuck in an elevator with a stranger who believes that putting people in prison for longer is a great idea for solving all of society’s problems. He believes that people should live in fear of such an outcome, and then crime will vanish. Rolling your eyes, you reply: “Sure, that helps a lot, especially if you need a new criminal buddy or a free survival course for when everyone around you is a wolf.”

And now for the surprise: more and more people are starting to think like you. For example, as a recent study by the University of Cincinnati shows, Americans who for decades believed that prison was the best remedy for crime have finally stopped being fans of mass incarceration. The study confirms: most US citizens prefer to direct non-violent offenders toward rehabilitation programs, treatment, or community service.

Now Americans do not want to build more prisons, and many of them consider the prison system unfair. Yes, the very people who once voted for laws like “Three Strikes and You’re Out” now admit that mass incarceration is not cool, is expensive, and is completely ineffective.

And how about other countries? Even better! Look at the Netherlands. Over the last 20 years, they have closed about 20 prisons. The Dutch literally don’t know what to do with the empty prisons anymore. They are opening hotels and creative spaces there. Imagine: a tour of a former prison with cocktails and modern art. Why is this happening? Because they realized that sending a person to prison for petty theft or drugs is roughly the same as putting out a fire with gasoline. A person rarely becomes a saint after prison. More often than not, prison doesn’t reform a person; it ruins them completely.

In Germany, most offenses are already punished with fines. The Germans reason simply: why spend taxpayers’ money on maintaining petty offenders? It’s better for offenders to replenish the budget with fines than to sit behind bars at our expense. And the Scandinavian countries have gone even further. There, prisons are even called “schools of life”: prisoners are helped to socialize, given education and work, and when crime decreases, the prisons are simply closed.

In our case, of course, we have our own atmosphere. Historically, incarceration was a common occurrence in Russia. In 2000, we had more than 700 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants—a record level for a developed country. Fortunately, by 2023, the figure had dropped to 300. That is already better, although still very high!

Why is society turning its back on prisons? There are many reasons. For example, prisons cost an insane amount of money. It is much cheaper and more sensible to invest funds in education and crime prevention. Also, prison does not reform people, but more often turns them into recidivists. A person comes out with a ruined resume, a damaged psyche, and criminal connections. Not exactly the result society needs. Additionally, humanism is an important reason—people have realized that a criminal is also a human being and should not be tortured in prison. Punishment should not be revenge, but an opportunity to fix something.

What are the alternatives? There are plenty of good solutions. First and foremost is restorative justice—where the offender directly compensates the victim for the damage. It works better than prison and costs less. Probation and community service should also be considered—the person is under strict control but remains in society. This way, they do not fall out of life and are more likely to be reformed. Furthermore, treatment would be an excellent alternative—even violent criminals do not deserve inhumane treatment, and instead of a repressive approach, it would be far more effective to correct the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism using therapeutic methods, thereby completely eliminating recidivism.

Prisons already look like an old-fashioned punishment from past centuries. Spend billions and get a bunch of embittered people back? Even former ardent supporters of punitive measures are beginning to understand: to combat crime, it is not enough to simply lock people up and forget about them!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Libertarian Theory of War, chapter 3.1 completed.

In chapter 3.1 of the book on libertarian theory of war, the sections “Individual vs. Group” and “Individual vs. State” have been completed. The next two chapters will follow a similar pattern, so I hope they will go more smoothly.

I’ve somehow lost interest in the idea of illustrating the book in the style of red-figure Greek vases; I’ll put that plan on hold for now and see how it goes.

Ammous and Hoppe against Milei and Netanyahu

In 2023, Javier Milei became the new hope of libertarianism, as he managed to be elected president of a very left-wing and very troubled state using open anarcho-capitalist rhetoric. Since then, he has been under the close scrutiny of libertarians, and gradually they are beginning to turn away from him. This is inevitable. The problems of minarchism as an approach to the political imposition of libertarianism by the state were outlined by me in the corresponding chapter of my book on ancap. But here we have a slightly different situation: libertarians are turning away from Milei not because he is too radical, but because he is not radical enough. Every compromise generates disappointment among supporters, and some of them have begun to speculate that he was a plant from the start, and that Milei was put in place specifically to discredit libertarianism.

Among the latter is such a master of the Austrian School of Economics as Saifedean Ammous, author of the books “The Bitcoin Standard“, “The Fiat Standard“, and another that has not been translated into Russian. His recent tweet denouncing Milei’s policies was translated by the SVTV publication and continues to be discussed in the Russian-speaking libertarian community. Earlier, another prominent libertarian theorist, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, turned away from Milei. I suppose I will have to figure out what is actually happening in Argentina, and whether I should already start justifying to socialists that this was the “wrong” kind of libertarianism, as Ammous and Svetov have begun to do.

I have little insider information about Argentina: some say it has become a bit safer, others complain that it has become noticeably more expensive, others are sad that it has become harder for immigrants to naturalize. Therefore, an interrogation of ChatGPT was conducted. Those interested can look at the transcript of this conversation, but I will move straight to my reflections.

What turned out to be an unpleasant surprise for me?

  • The budget surplus so widely advertised in laudatory articles is not exactly a surplus. The state collects more in taxes than it spends on officials, public employees, the army, infrastructure, and so on, but taking into account the necessary payments on old loans, it is still in the red, and therefore borrows more.
  • Milei is indeed increasing spending on the army. Yes, from the position of minarchists, national defense is a strictly state prerogative; however, in conditions where the country’s neighbors pose no threat, this increase in spending is completely untimely. I can only assume that this is driven by a desire to arrange a second Falklands conflict, should it become necessary to urgently raise his popularity before running for a second term.
  • Inflation is indeed accelerating again.
  • Migration policy is indeed tightening, and in many ways, this is economically senseless.

The key attack by Hoppe and Ammous on Milei—that he did not close the central bank—is akin to reproaching him for not bringing down the moon from the sky. Milei himself did not have such powers. The parliament had the power, but it did not pass the bill. What should global libertarian authorities do in this case? Certainly not accuse him of never intending to close anything. Moreover, although he failed to stop the printing of pesos, he at least permitted, by decree, the use of any currencies and goods in private contracts. So Ammous can be at ease: Argentines are free to switch to the Bitcoin standard in private settlements, and only buy government wrappers for settlements with the state.

Overall, in my view, Milei is very effectively using the opportunity granted to him to make Argentina freer in some respects; however, he should also ensure that in the future, these changes are difficult to roll back by any given opponent who might occupy the presidential chair. Purely technically, by expanding the powers of the executive branch, Milei is actually, conversely, making it easier to repeal most of his reforms through a simple series of decrees. It is already clear that he will not obtain a majority in the next parliamentary elections, which means it is important for him to devote maximum attention to PR. The obtained freedoms must look so necessary and natural to society that their removal should seem unthinkable. In principle, something like this was achieved by Saakashvili. The Georgian Dream tightened the screws in politics and put Saakashvili’s supporters in prisons, yet it fears touching economic freedoms and has even cautiously continued liberalization in some areas.

By a strange coincidence, both Hoppe and Ammous are unanimous in their criticism of the Israeli state’s actions against Palestinians, while Milei emphatically sides with Israel. I maintain a strong suspicion that this factor is precisely what drives their desire to criticize Milei; once bias exists, arguments can always be found.

Both critics claim that Palestinians have the right to wage war against Israel because the property rights of Palestinians to their land have been violated. However, Palestinian Arabs, in general, have never had property rights to this land that were particularly legitimate for libertarians. Their ancestors conquered Palestine, including from the Jews. Then they were conquered by the Turks. Then the Turks lost the First World War, and their inheritance was distributed by the British.

A specific Palestinian can always defend his property right to a specific plot of land that belonged to his grandfather and was seized by the state of Israel. If he agrees to live peacefully on this land of his, then what is the problem? However, this Palestinian denies an analogous right to Jews, even if their grandfathers acquired their specific plots of land through voluntary market transactions. Consequently, according to the principle of estoppel, he cannot insist on the return of his own land, for he recognizes the right of one people to forcibly expel another people from their land.

Israeli Jews and friendly Israeli Arabs have, in my eyes, the full right to evict unfriendly Palestinian Arabs to any state that agrees to accept them. Of course, for this purpose, it is desirable to distribute Palestinian Arabs in small portions, settle them dispersedly, and under no circumstances allow them to form ghettos—that is, to ensure their full right to work and do business, but provide no social welfare except for a small sum of relocation assistance. This is, undoubtedly, ethnic cleansing (de facto ideological, because belonging to the Arabs does not in itself make a person an enemy of the Jews). And this is, undoubtedly, preferable to genocide. But if the world community is against ethnic cleansing, what can be done—there will be genocide.

Why does Milei support Israel? I hope there is more pragmatism in this (potential economic ties with Israel and the USA, support of the Jewish diaspora in Argentina, distancing from the rhetoric of the previous Argentine government) than emotion; however, I cannot rule out that this support is his mistake, since he received a mandate primarily to save his own country, not to help a foreign state. I hope that supporters of Hoppe and Ammous will restrain them before their blind hatred for Milei begins to bring tangible harm to Argentine liberal reforms, and that Milei himself will moderate the degree of his public support for Israel when he feels that it puts his policy at risk.

Overall, the Argentine reforms clearly show that a libertarian society cannot be built through politics alone. Milei is doing his part, but he cannot do it all. Libertarians should not forget their part. And this is not so much about constructive criticism of the locomotive of reform. It is far more important to cite his real achievements at every convenient opportunity on every public platform, to defend the people’s right to freedom, carajo!—and to live in accordance with one’s own conception of that right.

Thank you all for your attention; the topic turned out to be complex. The italics are the part of the article that could probably have been done without, but somehow it didn’t work out that way. Let it remain for the sake of generating flame wars.

Technologies are born in garages, not in barracks: the truth about the role of the MIC

Let’s talk about a common myth that everyone has surely heard: “without military development, we would be without the internet, smartphones, and GPS.” In other words, it is believed that war and the defense industry are the main drivers of technical progress. But is that actually the case?

Take the internet, for example. We are told it was supposedly invented by the Pentagon in case of a nuclear war, but the facts do not support this. In reality, ARPANET (the ancestor of the modern internet) was originally a civilian project handled by various American universities; it was simply funded by the military budget. The military provided the money, but all the work was done by university scientists and programmers. And the famous HTTP protocol, which we are using right now to read this post, was actually devised in Europe by physicists at CERN—purely for the convenience of exchanging scientific articles. The army had absolutely nothing to do with it!

What about GPS? Yes, in this case, the military really did launch satellites so that missiles would land more accurately. But why did GPS become available to everyone? Because civilians turned a military toy into a “people’s” technology. President Reagan opened GPS to everyone after the tragedy with a Korean airliner to improve flight safety, and ultimately, civilian developers transformed the navigation system from a military secret into a popular app for finding the nearest pizzeria.

And do you know who created the first microprocessor? No, not generals or intelligence agencies—it was developed by Intel for a calculator. Meanwhile, the army was conducting its own classified developments that the world wouldn’t have seen for at least another 30 years if not for civilian engineers. While the military was worrying about how not to reveal secrets, the market was already fully utilizing commercial processors.

Space? You would think that here, the military is definitely ahead of the rest of the world. Yes, rockets were first created as weapons, but real space achievements happened mainly thanks to NASA’s civilian programs, and today, private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. While the army argues over the best way to shoot from space, Elon Musk has already launched a rocket that returns on its own.

Why aren’t the military always the coolest innovators? Because for the military, the main priority is reliability. They prefer proven technologies and avoid risks. Try suggesting experimental equipment on a battlefield to a general—he will look at you as if you are crazy. Entrepreneurs and scientists, however, are not afraid of risks; that is why most real breakthroughs happen in Silicon Valley garages, laboratories, and universities, rather than in the classified basements of intelligence agencies.

The history of the USSR is a vivid example of how relying exclusively on the defense industry leads to technical backwardness in everyday life. Remember the joke: a Soviet microwave is so reliable that you can hide in it during a nuclear strike—because it is a secret defense device weighing half a ton. A civilian economy handles innovation better because competition and freedom create powerful incentives for breakthroughs. Military technologies usually only catch up to what has already been created by civilians.

By the way, if you think the army funds fundamental science, you are mistaken again. The military needs guaranteed solutions here and now, not research that will yield a result in 30 years, which may not even be suitable for combat. Fundamental research is conducted by universities and private laboratories. They are the ones giving the world quantum computers, new medicines, and the materials of the future. The army simply takes ready-made technologies off the shelf.

Another example: IBM, Apple, and Google register thousands of patents every year, while defense departments register only a handful. Commercial companies compete in innovation, whereas military competition is often limited to budget tenders, where the main thing is not quality, but friendship with the right people in ministries. Therefore, when someone tells you that progress is impossible without war, remind them: the true driving force of humanity is peaceful curiosity, creative freedom, and normal market competition, not missiles and tanks.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Harsh Bulgarian Libertarianism

Mishsha Oreshnikov, whom I happened to write about in connection with his experiments in anarchic law enforcement against government officials, asked me to comment on an article from a tiny channel that he runs among many others to create the appearance of mass support for ethnic separatism in Russia.

The article, however, has nothing to do with ethnic separatism, but is instead devoted to “traditional values.” In fact, it is part of the political program of the Bulgar Confederation.

The text, written in a simplistic style, lets the reader know that if anyone needs spiritual anchors and good demographics, they should look to the rugged rural libertarians, and that we Bulgars have no need for these megapolises, where breeding grounds for cultural Marxism naturally form.

Don’t think the worst; the author does not advocate for any forced eviction from cities—merely for a ban on the redistribution of taxes between locations. Let the size of a settlement be determined by the value it generates, not by how much value it is capable of looting. He discusses this in other chapters of the program.

In short, I invite those interested to get acquainted with the rugged Bulgar libertarian program. There were two libertarian parties in Russia, and now, it turns out, a third, local one has emerged. In any case, its formal status is exactly the same as that of the first two: as far as the state is concerned, none of them exist.

The State Suffocates 23andMe and Kills Biotech’s Future

Once upon a time, the test from 23andMe was like an iPhone in the world of DNA: spit into a tube – and within a couple of weeks you’d know what diseases threatened you, your caffeine gene dependence, and who your ancestors were. For $99, without doctors or hospitals, it was a revolution. After launching in 2007, the company enjoyed wild success, everyone was thrilled, people bought tests by the handful, and the company received significant investments. It seemed like a victory.

But then the American regulator, FDA, entered the picture and said: “Hold on. Where’s the evidence that your tests are accurate? What if people don’t properly understand their test results and harm themselves?” As a result, in 2013, 23andMe was banned from displaying health reports, leaving only mundane data and genealogy. Consider it like Netflix being left without series – just lists of actors. The company attempted to survive and dance with bureaucracy: approving tests one by one, waiting years, rewriting interfaces. In 2017, they were finally allowed to restore some functions – but not 254 diseases, as before, only 10. And the cost of the test became no longer $99, but $199.

Clearly, this looked far less attractive to consumers. Of course, there were still hopes, and in 2021, 23andMe went public with a valuation of $6 billion. However, by 2024 – a collapse of 98%, threats of delisting, layoffs. Additionally, a hacking incident occurred, millions of genetic profiles leaked into the darknet. The final act was bankruptcy in 2025.

And now the question for you: where was the consumer within this story? Did they want to know about the risks of Alzheimer’s disease? They did. Could they adequately interpret the figures? Perhaps. But the state decided that they weren’t ready, that it was premature, that it was dangerous. And tightened the screws because “it’s safer that way.” The problem wasn’t solely with the FDA. In Europe, specifically in Germany and France, direct genetic tests were completely prohibited – meaning individuals didn’t have the right to learn their own DNA without a doctor. Just like in old times when the library was locked and guarded.

The 23andMe company wasn’t perfect. Yes, it experimented, monetized data, made errors. But it was killed not by competitors or the market, but by the regulatory machinery that slowed down every innovation, demanded proof where there was progress, and obstructed millions of people from learning more about themselves. And one could have done differently – one could have trusted a person. Provide information with the note “not a diagnosis,” as do Google and Wikipedia. One could have created a market with competition, with ratings, with development. Instead – fear, bans and “it can’t be yet.”

All of this applies not only to 23andMe. This is the story of the future of biotech. Gene therapies, personalized medicine, prevention based on DNA – all of this requires freedom of action and flexible management that helps, rather than suffocates. But for now, unfortunately, reality is such: technologies are running ahead, while regulators stand with “stop” flags.

Imagine a world where you can find out about your weaknesses in advance and take measures on time. Where a doctor treats not symptoms, but the causes, based on your unique genetics. Where diseases can be prevented, not just treated. This is the future that could have already arrived if the stationary bandit had loosened its grip just a little. Instead, we live in a world where breakthroughs constantly hit a bureaucratic wall. Startups and innovation are forced to prove the obvious for years while technology becomes outdated and investors’ money melts away.

And as a final thought. Whose information is it – a person’s genes? Who should decide whether a person can be informed about their risks, mutations, chances? The person himself or the official in a tie who thinks that “the citizen won’t understand”?

The history of 23andMe is not just the fall of a startup. It’s a reminder: freedom, including genetic freedom, is not given easily, it must also be fought for. Otherwise, we risk remaining in a world where technology exists, but cannot be used. A world where the future is constantly postponed due to endless “noes.” Let’s not allow this to become our reality!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

On the Non-essentiality of Libertarian Metaphysics

A post titled “On the Necessity of Libertarian Metaphysics” was recently published on the “Classical Liberal” channel, which caught my attention. The author accuses modern libertarians of drifting away from the clean and clear concept of God-given natural rights and instead engaging in some kind of atheistic nominalist nonsense. He argues that because their ideology stands on a foundation as shaky as nominalism (that is, the denial of the real existence of ideas and the assertion instead that the world consists of unique objects, and any generalizations are merely terms), libertarians are unable to prove anything to anyone.

Of course, the idea of God-given natural rights is completely shattered by a simple objection: no, Odin gave me natural rights because I honor him, and he also gave me the right to rob you and take you into slavery; he gave you no rights because you don’t even know how to hold a sword.

Nominalism lies at the very heart of the scientific method. By observing countless unique objects and phenomena (more precisely, simply receiving signals from the sense organs), a person notices patterns, proposes a hypothesis about the nature of the observed regularity, tests this hypothesis, and integrates it into a theory. Theories exist within a scientific paradigm, but the process of observing the world does not cease, which means new hypotheses, theories, and paradigms will emerge that describe and explain what is observed more accurately.

Libertarianism as an ideology has existed for as long as there has been the power of man over man and, accordingly, the desire to avoid power over oneself. The concepts used to describe this ideology differ across different times and societies. One can only conditionally trace that, for instance, the concept of self-ownership appeared in the 18th century, and the beloved NAP appeared in the 20th; perhaps in another two centuries, some other fashionable principle will be on the lips of the libertarians of that era.

Building a system of logically correct conclusions from non-contradictory postulates is not such a difficult task. Rebuilding the system in accordance with the redefinition of one of the concepts used is also not a problem. The problem is how to make this system generally accepted, or at least dominant, or at least authoritative, or at least known. An old theory has many advantages over a new one: it also explains the world, it also predicts facts, and additionally, it already belongs to the dominant paradigm. The new one still has to prove that its descriptive and predictive power is higher and that it interfaces better with other theories. How does it do this? Usually quite simply: it just survives until the carriers of the old paradigm physically die out (hello, Odin).

Therefore, libertarians do not need to prove anything to their opponents. Their task is to preserve and gradually expand the core of supporters, accumulate experience in applying their theories, and gather useful technologies that work within libertarianism but malfunction within other ideologies… And, of course, not to physically die out before their opponents.

As for how the concept of “human” will be defined by the time libertarianism becomes dominant, that is purely a matter of convenience of application. For some, “a featherless biped” will suffice, for others “a representative of the species Homo sapiens,” and for some, the concept of “human” may already seem redundantly narrow, so they will operate with some “legal agent.” And so be it.

The Battle of Scientific Paradigms

Read and Die: How Long Contracts Steal Your Life

Do you know what your mortgage papers, a smartphone license agreement, and a devil’s contract with fine print from a bank have in common? Exactly: it’s impossible to read and understand them without sacrificing a couple of years of your life and your nerve cells. Let’s be honest: this is no accident. This is the theft of your time and your right to a conscious choice!

Today, an ordinary contract with a bank looks like the Joker’s villainous plan: a thousand pages, pretentious language, “asterisks,” and fine print. They convince you that “this is how it has to be,” and then they act surprised: “Didn’t you read on page 843 that the rate is floating and can triple?” Remember the 2008 mortgage crisis? Millions of people signed contracts with “floating rates.” Most didn’t even imagine what that meant. And the result? When the refinancing rate skyrocketed, families ended up on the street, and the global economy plummeted into a severe depression.

And do you know what the scariest part is? According to informal polls, a significant number of people think that if a mortgage rate is 20%, it means the apartment will be 20% more expensive in total, not 20% more every year. If such elementary things are unclear to many, how can we expect them to tackle a thousand-page contract that even specialists struggle to read?

Other examples of unfair contracts:

– Insurance where almost nothing is covered because page 58 mentions “exclusions.”
– A software license that gives a company the right to track your activities on the device.
– A mobile plan with “unlimited internet” where the speed drops to almost zero after the first 10 GB.
– Employment contracts that forbid you from working in the same field after resignation so that you don’t create unnecessary competition.

Let’s call things by their real names: this is not a voluntary agreement. This is fraud disguised in legal language. It’s the same as if you were sold a car that explodes on its own after a year, simply because somewhere on page 287 it was written in fine print: “Warning, may explode!”.

I propose a simple rule: any contract longer than 4,000 words or written in language that an average person wouldn’t understand on the first try is null and void. It’s simple. If you can’t fit it into a couple of clear screens, it means you want to hide something. Hid it? The contract doesn’t work. This applies to everyone—even banks, even mortgages. Imagine a bank decides to sneakily insert a clause about raising the rate on page 999? Congratulations, the apartment is yours; you don’t need to pay more. It’s their own fault—they wanted to fleece a person of their time and nerves, now they pay the price of justice!

By the way, even now in many countries with an independent judicial system, there is a chance to create a precedent for the nullity of a contract, even a mortgage. One could refer specifically to the theft of time and fraud, as the bank consciously provided a contract that an ordinary person without specialized education could not understand, despite their best efforts.
An idea for the future: create a community of auditors who issue a “simplicity badge” (analogous to an SSL certificate). If you see such a badge, you can be sure the contract is clear and contains no hidden traps.

All of this would be a return to the essence of voluntary exchange: people must understand what they are agreeing to. If a person spends half their life trying to understand what they’ve agreed to, it’s no longer a free market, but legalized racketeering. The world would only change for the better after this. Banks and companies would begin to compete for the clarity and transparency of their contracts. The market would be cleared of parasites who feed on incomprehensible papers. And finally, people would reclaim the right to a conscious choice, and therefore, their freedom!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Libertarian Theory of War, Section 3.1.1.

I have started writing the third part of the book on libertarian war theory. So far, not even a full chapter is ready, but only one section, and the style has mutated somewhat compared to the first two parts, so I would like your opinion on how well it harmonizes with the content. Plus, I finally gave in to the current trend and am now illustrating texts with neural networks. This book will be filled with illustrations in the style of red-figure Hellenic vase painting. Gradually, I will add images to other chapters as well.

How the state helps hackers steal our data

Some might think that security regulation is a necessary pursuit for society. However, in reality, because of the actions of regulators, the exact opposite happens—endless security checks and reports, which are supposed to protect us, actually do the reverse. Companies spend insane amounts of money and a ton of time just to appear secure in the eyes of officials. Consequently, there is neither the energy, the nerves, nor the budget left for actual data protection. The result? Another hack, another leak.

For example, take 23andMe. These cool guys do DNA tests so you can find out that you are 3% Mongol, 5% Swedish, and 92% an ordinary person who simply has nothing to do on a Friday night. You would think they would guard the data like Fort Knox. Yet, the year before last, hackers pulled nearly half of all user data, and now millions of genetic profiles are floating around the internet.

Think this is an exception? No, it’s more of a rule. Take our Sber. You’d expect a major bank, with stricter laws and constant reporting requirements, to be secure. And then—bam—a data leak of 52 million customers. And that’s just from the “Spasibo” loyalty program. Apparently, the customers said “thank you” to the bank, but someone decided that “you’re welcome” meant letting their data scatter across the darknet.

But that’s not all. Remember Yandex.Eda? There was a downright anecdotal case there: they delivered a pizza to someone in the secret apartment of an FSB officer. A data leak from the service revealed the addresses of famous people and security force employees. Thus, the state accidentally stepped on its own tail. It was almost funny, but not for those whose addresses became public.

Why does this happen? Because regulators love checking boxes. They adore paperwork and reports. A hypothetical Vasya from the security department spends 70% of his time on reporting and only 30% on fighting real threats. Then hackers break the defense that no one had time to strengthen while Vasya was trying to figure out how to fill out another form for Roskomnadzor. It becomes a vicious cycle: hacked → fine → even more reports → hacked again.

And the state only adds fuel to the fire. Remember the “Yarovaya Law”? Telecom companies are forced to store giant volumes of data, spending billions of rubles. Now guess who is salivating while looking at these massive data arrays? Exactly—hackers. Because gathering all of this in one place is like putting a huge safe in the middle of the city and hanging a note: “Dear thieves, there are valuables here; we aren’t guarding them because the money went toward buying the safe.”

Of course, the picture is roughly the same in the USA. Medical data leaks there have already become a national sport. So many records were leaked last year that you could give several to every American. The hack of Equifax, the credit history giant, is a “genre classic.” 147 million records fell into the hands of criminals, and the company received a $700 million fine. Imagine how much security could have been improved if that money had been put to work in advance, rather than into paperwork and fines? The moral here is simple: the more a stationary bandit forcibly “protects” our data, the more often that data is lost.

So, what should be done? Probably force companies less to spend their energy on pointless paperwork. Instead of hundreds of mandatory checks, let there be one clear standard: “Protect the data or pay—but not with reports, with money.” And the companies will find the best way themselves. Otherwise, it’s like the joke about the elephant in a china shop: the state stomps around, the dishes break, and the elephant is, of course, to blame. Therefore, it is necessary to stick to simple and clear rules. Regulators come and go anyway, but for some reason, our data remains wandering the network forever!

Voluntarist, Bitarch