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."
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.
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.
Redundant meme censored.
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?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Just a few days ago there was a story here about new Russian law requiring Wi-Fi registration. It turn out they would require registration of commercial and non-standard equipment. Earlier there was a story about creating an isolated Russian Internet. It turned out they just want to use Cyrillic letters in domain names. There were many stories like this before and each time they were twisted to cause cries about dictator Putin and slavish Russians. Are these posted by "message force multipliers"?
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.
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.
In soviet russia curtain irons YOU!...
It is easy to tailor ones argument over issues as open ended as this one. If you have an end in mind, you can certainly reach it through a variety of logical routes such as the "free press" indoctrinating the masses. Of course the free press is going to do this. People do not watch the news to not believe it in ANY country. They take bits and pieces of it, some people take more than others.
I strongly believe that while one can turn on the television and be disheartened by Faux news, the fact that information is out there that is readily available sets America apart from countries such as Russia and China. None of us can really relate to how life must be in a country such as N. Korea. Drawing parallels from these countries to America is a bit cynical, no? Is it not belittling the extreme censorship they endure?
You cant expect the masses to get it, thats why they have their title as the masses. While one could argue that the masses control who gets elected, I think it is just as easy to argue that the masses do not know what they are getting in a representative.
Long gone are the days where candidates actually take meaningful stances on issues. Even campaign promises can quickly be broken due to "unexpected" budget cuts.
I believe our founding fathers were quite familiar with this idea, and hence decided that we should not govern our selves directly, since we clearly do not know what is best for us.
Now whether the people making the decisions in America... that is a whole different nut to crack...
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.
go to some of those places with low prison populations, rampant crime and corruption, and ask some residents there what they think about the discrepancy. i don't think you fill find patriotic pride in their response. 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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Internet as it stands causes governments, regardless of party, left/right leaning, democratic, heriditary, authoritarian, fascist, or progressive, way more problems than it solves.
1. It makes many laws nearly impossible to enforce on people in your country (the various laws in France banning Holocaust denial, globalised P2P in less RIAA/MPAA friendly countries).
2. It makes it easier for corporations and other employers to provide services and product in your country while employing few if any of your citizens.
3. It creates a tax-gathering nightmare for revenue officials.
4. It provides free and open access for foreigners who are inclined to break your laws, and exploit and defraud your citizens. Commercially operated botnets and the total hijacking of e-mail for spam, protected with a wink and a nod by corrupt officials and organized crime sponsors are just the start.
5. Foreign militaries, paramilitaries, intelligence agencies, and terrorist groups have a direct, hard to trace, and nearly impossible to stop communications line into your country, on top of a map to attack your critical network infrastructure (and physical infrastructure too, if you're like the US and are stupid enough to connect power plant control systems directly to the Internet).
6. Critical Internet infrastructure, and new development is often at the whim of an unfriendly or hostile government. (though this government is generally the US in just about every case, with its control of ICANN)
Again, this is governments. The people don't like a lot of the negatives too, and that means that in general they are going to be pleased if action to cut off "bad actors" from flooding their inboxes with spam, or stopping the US government from controlling the DNS system, or the Chinese military from attacking their country, or Russian hackers taking their entire country offline if they do something that Russia doesn't particularly like. The fact that it gives governments nothing but nightmares is eventually going to create a lot of little internets, with countrycountry access governed by treaty. The Wile West was tamed a long time ago, and the Internet will be as well, just like every other frontier. You've just got to create a new one.