Where is it indicated that questions about the interaction of law enforcement officers and telecom operators are “outside the scope” of this “resource”?

Question

Toaster

Yesterday, here, on Toaster, question No. 405739 [1] was asked , which boiled down to which bodies and on the basis of what the law gave the right to request from telecom operators personal data of a subscriber by IP address. Yesterday, at least two substantive answers were given to it (one of them by me); I do not rule out that later other answers were added to them.
Nevertheless, during my absence, the page with the question and answers was removed from public access by an anonymous censor without explanation of the reason, only with official wording: "The question is outside the scope of the resource." It is noteworthy that no one even considered it necessary to notify the participants in the discussion about this - I became aware of this by accident.
Firstly, I express my extreme disapproval of the practice of deleting meaningful remarks so that it becomes impossible even for their author, as such, to find, read and copy them.
Secondly, in order to avoid wasting time in the future on answers that will be deleted anyway, I ask the censor to help me find a document on the basis of which he makes such decisions. Well, that is, a list of topics prohibited for discussion, or, on the contrary, a closed list of topics allowed for discussion.
I draw his attention to the fact that based on the local practice of censorship in our particular case, one could expect rather the opposite decision - I found at least two questions exactly on this topic: “How do law enforcement agencies control the channel with the Internet provider?” [2]and “How do police look for people on social media accounts?” [3] , both, as far as I can see, were interested in subscribers above average. There are countless questions on legal topics in general.

Answer 1

I would complain about such a question, only marked "the answer is easily found in the search engine." Those who ask the question ask "on what basis am I being followed", but they themselves cannot simply read the law on communications. It is necessary further - on any website of the SORM supplier there is a list of legal acts for their solution. Of course, it is easier to spam with the same type of questions

Answer 2

1. the master is the master (I'm talking about the resource of the toaster)
2. in the conversation, specialists with exact data about the questioner did not appear.
3. Are you paying money to be notified?
you are just delusional. the answers were solid "probably" "perhaps" "friendships". is that specific in the answers? since when do pitchforks on water refer to specifics?