Slashdot Mirror


New "Iron Curtain" for Russian Internet

Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, points out a story about the Russian government's interest in expanding anti-extremism laws to include the blocking of websites and ISPs. The laws would match those already in use for the country's print media. Russian internet users may soon be forced to deal with the same issues facing Chinese citizens. Quoting: "An official at the Russian prosecutor's general office, Vyacheslav Sizov, told the Russian-language newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta that any web site that is determined to host what he terms 'extremist material' would be blocked from being accessible from within the Russian Federation. Given the Putin government's history with the media, 'extremist material' may be very broadly interpreted as any content unfriendly to the interests of the Russian government."

36 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Been done before by phpmysqldev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is quite a disturbing trend in so called 'industrialized' countries (although Russia's industrialized status could be questioned). The lack of outside information and abundance government propaganda is why N. Korea is so scary. Many of the people there that have no access to outside information actually whole heartedly believe what the government tells them, and why wouldn't they, it's all they've ever known. All it takes is one new generation to grow up behind these 'iron curtains' and the governments have effectively indoctrinated an entire country with the ideals of a select few.

    1. Re:Been done before by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "All it takes is one new generation to grow up behind these 'iron curtains' and the governments have effectively indoctrinated an entire country with the ideals of a select few."

      Sounds like America. Despite all the hoopla about freedom and whatnot in america, there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'. IMHO America is probably one of THE most indoctrinated societies in the world at the moment. You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics.

    2. Re:Been done before by phpmysqldev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds like America. Despite all the hoopla about freedom and whatnot in america, there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'. IMHO America is probably one of THE most indoctrinated societies in the world at the moment. You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics. Agreed, but the difference is in America the information is available, most people just don't care to find it on their own. In the case of Russia, you more than likely have people that want outside information and now won't be able to get it.
    3. Re:Been done before by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All it takes is one new generation to grow up behind these 'iron curtains' and the governments have effectively indoctrinated an entire country with the ideals of a select few. All it takes is one generation to grow up exposed to the US media machine and we have a country effectively devoid of any of its original culture. The sword has two edges.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    4. Re:Been done before by user317 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like America. Despite all the hoopla about freedom and whatnot in america, there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'. just because Americans believe that no one should be forced to donate their money, doesn't mean that we don't donate ourselves. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropy/philanthropy_stats.asp

      IMHO America is probably one of THE most indoctrinated societies in the world at the moment. You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics. What do you even mean by that? The topics that divide American politics, the ones that people care deeply about are discussed all the time. Abortion, gay rights, immigration, war on terror, torture just to name a few. Just because there is a large percentage of people who have a different view then you doesn't mean that they are not talking about it.
      --
      me fail english? thats unpossible
    5. Re:Been done before by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Agreed, but the difference is in America the information is available, most people just don't care to find it on their own.

      The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

      I think if I lived in a place with that rate of imprisonment, I'd be keeping my head down and avoiding controversy too.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Been done before by Neoprofin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we're all so indoctrinated and there is no freedom why do I have to sift through so many overblown posts about the American media to find any posts actually discussing this new iron curtain?

    7. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can read Kasparov and Politkovskaya in the USA. In fact, you can write or read whatever you want here. Now, I know I was indoctrinated to think that, but..., in the words of Bill Hicks..."Its a Fact".

    8. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'."

      This is utter bullshit, no one will call you a socialist or commie for helping another person. What you are referring to is an issue of what the government should be responsible for. The U.S. national government was originally formed as a means to regulate relations between states and to protect the states. It was not designed to take care of individuals. The more responsibility you pile on top of the national government the less individual's opinions matter. That's what state and local governments are for. If you get called a socialist or commie because you want something like universal free health care, that has nothing to do with you wanting to help others and everything to do with you wanting the national government to help others for you.

    9. Re:Been done before by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow.. Do you actually believe that? Maybe you were indoctrinated into the lack of perspective groups of people. It isn't if you want to help, it is when you want to take something from me against my will/wishes in order to do your good that gets you labeled as a commie and socialist. And quite frankly, that would by definition be communist/socialist.

      I know Bashing America at every change is fun and profitable, but you could at least get the story straight first. I mean with all the valid reasons to Bash America, you have to go and basically make something up.

    10. Re:Been done before by mrogers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think if I lived in a place with that rate of imprisonment, I'd be keeping my head down and avoiding controversy too.

      I agree that the rate of imprisonment in the US is disturbing, but with the exception of The War on Altered States of Consciousness the US doesn't tend to lock people up for crimes that could be interpreted as self-expression. As the NY Times article points out, the main reason for the high prison population in the US is harsh sentencing - people aren't being convicted for things that are legal elsewhere (again, with the exception of drugs), but once they're convicted they are being imprisoned for longer.

    11. Re:Been done before by mrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way I see it, the more criminals in prison, the less there are on the streets.

      That would make sense if you could simply divide the population into criminals and non-criminals. Unfortunately it's not that simple - people move between the two categories. So when judging whether a particular method of punishment works, we need to ask three questions:

      1) Does it keep criminals off the streets?
      2) Does it dissuade non-criminals from becoming criminals?
      3) Does it persuade criminals to become non-criminals?

      Prison does well on the first test, and fairly well on the second (although the worst offenders don't respond to deterrents). But it fails the third test: criminals released from prison in the UK have a higher reoffending rate than those given community sentences. That's why judges are reluctant to impose a prison sentence for a first offence: once you've gone to prison, you're likely to keep going back.

    12. Re:Been done before by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Does it keep criminals off the streets?
      2) Does it dissuade non-criminals from becoming criminals?
      3) Does it persuade criminals to become non-criminals?

      You forgot the most important one:

      0. Should they even be considered a criminal in the first place ?

    13. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See, that line of argument would be more effective if Americans were being imprisoned for voicing their opinions en masse. Which they aren't.

    14. Re:Been done before by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you're the indoctrinated one, and you only believe in Socialism because you avoid reading anything that disagrees with your preconceptions. Certainly what I've read about planned economies and dictatorships of the proletariat makes me think they just end up making most people poor, unfree and unhappy while a spoiled, vicious elite wields absolute power. If someone seriously advocated them to me, I'd argue with them just like people argue with you. The GP doesn't seem to favor Socialism or Capitalism or whatever from his post. Why the digression anyway? Pointing out "self-indoctrination" that exists in many so called "free" countries doesn't mean that he wanted to avoid reading things he disagrees with. Quite the contrary I think.

      And incidentally the fact that you're able in America to read only progressive media that agrees with you while other people are free to watch only Fox news that agrees with them tells me that the government is not indoctrinating people, it's more that they indoctrinate themselves. Which is fair enough of course, they will all end up being wrong politically but in different ways. Exactly. But if everybody gets indoctrinated one way or the other, isn't that a problem? If that's not a problem, why is government indoctrination worse than "self-indoctrination"? If it is, why not try to tackle the problem instead of saying "oh well that's the way it is"?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    15. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't believe we have good data on the number of people imprisoned in Russia and China.

    16. Re:Been done before by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it goes both ways.

      If the people are aware of censorship, that's a vital piece of information, and if one wants information badly enough, (s)he will get it, especially with the technology in the last decade.

      However, if one simply believes that information given to him/her is free and unbiased, (s)he will never seek other perspectives and probably will dismiss any other views that conflicts with his/hers.

      This willful ignorance can be even more dangerous in some situations. For the person who's aware of censorship, to reason with him you simply present him with the missing information. For the willful ignorant, no amount of evidence will convince him that maybe, perhaps, the things he believed in was wrong.

      Of course in countries with heavy censorship there are people who's willfully ignorant of opposing views, but in a supposedly "free" country I think it's just easier to fall into that trap.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    17. Re:Been done before by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say this like it's a bad thing. It depends on whether people value their culture or not.

      Also about 50% television programming and some music does not equal culture.

      I never said the original culture was replaced. Rather, a vacuum is left and we find country after country with a youth that has become hedonistic, shallow, selfish, consumerist and unhappy.

      But that's not a bad thing if you want to make money from those people. They make great customers.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    18. Re:Been done before by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not mentioning helping others that gets you labeled a socialist. It is wanting to help others with someone else's money (taxes). I have yet to see someone who talked about using their own resources to help others get labeled a socialist.
      However, when you want to use my resources to help others, then I will call you a socialist. It is my decision how I use my resources (money, property, time). The fact is that those most opposed to using tax dollars to help others are the ones most likely to use their own money to help others.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    19. Re:Been done before by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will be modded down as a troll no doubt, but I have maintained for many years that the real purpose of government run public schools in the US is to indoctrinate, not educate. I saw it beginning when I was young, and having now raised a child who will graduate from High School this year I have seen it get steadily worse.

    20. Re:Been done before by dimeglio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      0. Should they even be considered a criminal in the first place ? Some wise person whose name eludes me once said - paraphrasing:
      "Do governments create legislation as a way to increase control on it's population or to actually maintain social peace?"

      Getting a $100-$200 ticket for burning a red light(which can kill) vs a $750 fine per song for downloading "illegal" MP3s (which doesn't kill anyone) seems rather unfair.
      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  2. Democracy did win right? by kidsizedcoffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The stories about Putin and his hot gymnast girlfriend got a paper's license revoked. I imagine the internet rules would be as even handed.

    1. Re:Democracy did win right? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sharapova.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Democracy did win right? by neurolux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure democracy won. Russians decided to take advantage of their democracy by voting for authoritarians.

    3. Re:Democracy did win right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When your kids are starving, when your house is taked away from you by mafia thugs, when you work your ass off on three jobs and they just plain won't pay you for months on end, what would you do?

      For most people basic survival of their kids and family comes first. Democracy -a distant second.

  3. I don't know how yet, but... by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think that it is time for the Internet (read anonymous) to start striking back at those world leaders that wish to silence information.

    Yes, I'm American and I think the Bush Administration is one of the likely targets of such an effort.

    We have the Internet, it is free, information flows around the globe. For all the faults that might bring it has been hailed as an equalizer and liberator of peoples all over the globe. Freedom of information is the basis of the good inside an OLPC.

    FTFA:

    Print (and television) media in Russia is already under either official or unofficial government control, leaving the Internet as the last frontier free of government scrutiny. "It is difficult to find anyone who is not against extremism but it depends on how the law is used," Center of Journalism in Extreme Situations director Oleg Panfilov told the AFP in response to the news. Panfilov noted that the government has used the law "selectively" in the past, but that it's still worrisome when the government tries to expand the law into new areas. Yes, we are all against extremism and extremists, but very few of us agree on what exactly those are. Such subjective terms should never be allowed to be enacted as laws. By allowed, I mean that free peoples should protest such laws, even if they are not in the country where it is enacted.

    In times past it was said that Monarchy's that do not hang together will 'hang' separately. I think that time has not changed this at all, and many of the so called republics are merely facades for the ruling classes to hide behind.

    Wow, that sounded a bit socialist or something, but I truly think that the Internet has the power to change things for the better. If the Russian people are unable to, perhaps we outside of Russia should make our voices known and heard.

    Does anyone have any ideas?
    1. Re:I don't know how yet, but... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I am pretty sure that a bunch of ornery 16 year old American kids are going to kick over the Russian political system to the cheers of the Russian people. Right.

      I have a better idea. How about we just realize that people need to sort their own shit out? The best you can possibly do is elect a government that realizes that it isn't going to beat another nation into submission with rhetoric. If the west wants to do anything for the poor huddled masses of all the oppressed people around the world, it should happily and merrily jump in to help fledgling democracies, reward leaders who bring about democratic change, make some vague attempt to hold a little moral high ground, and serve as example and rewarder.

      Tongue lashing Putin is a waste of breath. Words are worth their weight in gold. The best thing to do is give Russia a pat on the head, a hug, and a wad of cash when they do right, and wait for a less drunk and incompetent Yeltsin to appear to bring Russia back to something closer to a democracy.

  4. Re:Another anti russian hysteria by darkhitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Over in America they don't block your website. They read your e-mail, & if they think they might not like you, they kidnap you without charges, torture you for a few years without trial & then release you like 'Oops! We made a mistake. No hard feelings hey! BTW. We're watching you.'
    The difference being, in Russia, they don't release you at the end.


    P.S. I just followed up an "in Russia" clause with a statement in normal order. What is Slashdot coming to?
    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  5. Sounds like America? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All it takes is one new generation to grow up behind these 'iron curtains' ...

    Sounds like America.

    Please, confirm for the record, that it is your belief, one or more generations of Americans have grown up behind an 'iron curtain' unable to get information from an outside source.

    Thank you.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Sounds like America? by FoolsGold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but what you fail to realize is that even if Americans are able to get outside info, a lot of them have no desire to DO so, hence they are effectively indoctrinated regardless of having access to this information. They either don't care, or wouldn't believe it in the first place.

      By being able to obtain the will of the people without having to close-off outside info, you've achieved much more than just simple censorship. It's much worse. It's willful ignorance, and THAT'S the scariest of all.

    2. Re:Sounds like America? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conceptually, the strategy of having a vocal "mainstream media" that labels anyone outside of a narrow political range as a "crazy extremist" can be even more powerful as an indoctrination tool than an "iron curtain". In the USSR, everyone knew that the news was all government propaganda. In the USA today, most people believe in the "free press".

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    3. Re:Sounds like America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If China gets the "Great firewall of China"... and Russia gets the "Iron Curtain" firewall, does that mean if USA sets up its own censorship firewall that we will call it the "diseased blanket" firewall?

    4. Re:Sounds like America? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, but what you fail to realize is that even if Americans are able to get outside info, a lot of them have no desire to DO so, hence they are effectively indoctrinated regardless of having access to this information. They either don't care, or wouldn't believe it in the first place.

      By being able to obtain the will of the people without having to close-off outside info, you've achieved much more than just simple censorship. It's much worse. It's willful ignorance, and THAT'S the scariest of all. Trotsky, I believe, is credited with saying that any society is only three meals away from revolution.

      I think the converse is also true - provided a society as a whole is happy that it has the next three meals coming, it will continue in its own status quo and is safe from revolution. It follows that most people will not seek out challenge the status quo.

      I'll tell you which societies will change first - regardless of how indoctrinated they are. It'll be in those areas where peoples' wages barely cover buying food already. The worldwide increase in food costs will hit them first, and hardest. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another round of communist governments get in, subsidising staples like rice but letting everything else in the country go to hell.

      Interestingly, the list of countries affected will very likely include at least a few places where it's possible to get decent Internet access but wages are very low - just the kind of place that things get outsourced to. Hmmm.
  6. US and Europe not far behind by soren100 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The US and the European Union seem to be working hard to keep up.

    The EU just passed a resolution making it illegal to publish "terrorist propaganda", even though the actual definitions are quite vague. That vagueness is incredibly broad:

    EU officials said the decision to punish propaganda, recruitment and training for terrorism through the internet filled an important gap in European legislation. America hasn't outlawed "terrorist propaganda" websites yet, but they are working hard to create the case that they need to -- they recently passed the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" , in which our government finds that:

    " The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

        While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States." The US government has been so busy pumping the notion that the Internet is recruiting terrorists at home that they have even claimed that terrorists hang out in the online game Second Life where they engage in information warfare .

  7. Re:Another anti russian hysteria by temcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please go fuck yourself. It's you who is anti-Russian here. You know why? Because when somebody says something bad about Putin or Russian government or newly enacted Russian laws, trolls like you pop up and say "you're all against Russia", EQUATING Putin/the government/the laws with Russia and thus INSULTING RUSSIA. My country - or shall I say "this country" to make you extra mad - deserves something better than these. And better than you, of course.

  8. Re:or rather by rtechie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i think you will find that people living in places with low prison populations and huge corruption would love to see some more american style prison population levels So you're saying people in these places want their corrupt officials to imprison them? Really?

    If you look at American prisons you'll find they're not filled with corrupt officials. It's mostly petty street criminals that are given excessively long sentences due to "3 strikes", mandatory minimums, and elimination of parole.