Application to the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation with a request to verify the legality of Roskomnadzor's actions in relation to Yotube

Continuation of the story that started here https://habr.com/ru/articles/843620/ On September 19, 2024, I submitted an application through an electronic reception to the prosecutor's office of the Kuban district of the city of Krasnodar, an application with a request to verify the legality of Roskomnadzor's actions in relation to the YouTube video service, based on the official response from the RKN dated September 6, 2024, to me personally in my letter to AP RF, dated August 6, 2024. My application was forwarded to Roskomnadzor, and today, December 25, 2024, I received a response from the RKN. I posed questions to the prosecutor's office: If the deterioration of the YouTube service is of a technical nature, associated with the cessation of infrastructure support from Google LLC, is it legal for Roskomnadzor to send letters to telecom operators about “the inadmissibility of using technologies that counteract restrictions on access to information resources,” as happened after information about the so-called “acceleration” of YouTube? On the basis of what legal act is the YouTube video service slowed down, and why is there no information about this restriction in the “Unified Register of Domain Names, Site Page Indexes and Network Addresses”, as required by law? Are Roskomnadzor’s demands that telecom operators stop measures to optimize and “accelerate” the work of the YouTube video service if slowing down and blocking the service is not provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation?In accordance with Article 10 of Federal Law No. 2202-1 “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation,” I request that you conduct an investigation into the issues outlined in this statement and provide clarification regarding the legality of slowing down the work of the YouTube video service, as well as the legality of sending relevant instructions to telecom operators. Photo of the application to the prosecutor's office of the Kuban district Photo So It so happened that I did not receive a notification that my application had received a response from the prosecutor’s office and was forwarded to the RKN. So, after waiting the due date, I went on November 22 (when I could), to the prosecutor’s office of the Prikubansky District of Krasnodar, where at the secretariat, I received copies of the answers. On November 29, 2024, I went to the RKN department for the southern federal district, at the address Krasnodar st. Mayakovsky 158, it turned out that they did not receive any letter from the prosecutor's office. I went to the prosecutor's office to complain, at the secretariat, they told me that everything was sent on time to the RKN, even the grandfather security guard was indignant, how could this be, the prosecutor's office sent everything! At the secretariat, they offered me to print out the papers and affix a stamp so that I could deliver the documents in person today. I agreed, immediately received the documents in my hands, and went back to the RKN, where I called whoever I could on the intercom and handed over the papers, they gave me an entry number. And I went home. Reply from RKN dated November 25, 2024:In connection with your appeal received from the prosecutor's office of the Prikubansky administrative district of Krasnodar, we inform you thatthat the questions posed in your appeal were previously answered by Roskomnadzor, sent to you by letter dated 09/05/2024 No. 05-370880(a copy of the letter is attached).Application: for 1 l. in 1 copy. Photo I will duplicate the link to the first appeal: https://habr.com/ru/articles/843620/ Thus, I personally believe that this answer is a departure from answering questions on the merits, especially since in my first request forwarded to the RKN, there was not a single question posed.My assessment is that Roskomnadzor cannot refer to legal documents, simply because they do not exist. And I evaluatively perceive the answers received as a recognition of their own arbitrariness. I have no other impression.-

-