Slashdot Mirror


Russian Websites Critical of Elections Targeted In DDoS Attack

theshowmecanuck submits this news from Russia, where "Websites which exposed violations in Russia's parliamentary elections were inaccessible Sunday in a hacking attack they said was aimed at preventing them revealing the extent of election day fraud." Further, says the linked article, "Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose United Russia party is expected to win Sunday's polls but with a reduced majority, has denounced non-governmental organisations like Golos, comparing them to the disciple Judas who betrayed Jesus. Russia has seen an upsurge in Internet penetration since the last elections in 2007, and analysts have said the explosion of critical material on the web poses one of the biggest challenges to United Russia's grip on power."

36 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. It did not help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "United Russia", the party of Putin has dropped from 64% of the votes to 48.5%.

    1. Re:It did not help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:It did not help by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Indeed, this is the bigger news. Putin lost majority. In a perfect democracy, he would be forced to form a coalition with one of the other parties. Of course, most representative systems are rigged in favor of the big parties, and Russia is no exception (with a 7% limit). He will have much more than 48.5% in the duma.

    3. Re:It did not help by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Allegedly there was still ballot fraud in United Russia's favor, or so at least one opposition source has claimed, so UR's popularity might be a decent bit smaller.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:It did not help by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't go by "allegedly", see for yourself.

    5. Re:It did not help by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think there may be a bit of a problem with the electronic counting system that they've been using (these are the stats for Rostov - add up the percentages...).

      On the other hand, everything's as planned in Chechnya.

    6. Re:It did not help by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're kidding right? I don't know about UK politics but in the US both parties are controlled by the same people. We get to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

    7. Re:It did not help by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... in the US both parties are controlled by the same people.

      You're exaggerating or kidding, right? They aren't controlled by the same people. Those different people do have the same motivations, though, so the resulting behaviors are often identical. Your declaration would have been accurate enough if you'd said, "controlled by people who behave the same", but you didn't say that.

    8. Re:It did not help by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Even within the two parties there are wide differences of opinion. The two US parties would be considered in most parliamentary systems to be stable permanent coalitions. The two parties cover so much ideological ground they are effectively four or five parties in terms of Westminster styled political systems.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:It did not help by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't say "agendas". I wasn't referring to what they believe but rather how they go about achieving goals... in other words, their behavior. I was also referring to the people who control the parties, not so much the rank and file.

      To distill my point further: people at the pinnacle of hierarchies tend to all behave the same - unethically - regardless what the name is on the clubhouse or what its purpose is. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Political parties are never an exception.

  2. No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't post any "In Soviet Russia ..." jokes here, please. This submission is strictly for serious discussion.

  3. Sites are mostly up by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most of the websites are up by now. And probably some of the DDoS attacks can be explained by surge in the number of viewers.

    Well, the good news is that Putin's party has lost constitutional majority in the Parliament (constitutional majority is required to be able to modify some parts of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The bad news is that they still get majority in the parliament. And Internet has been instrumental in that - it's about the only remaining independent source of information in Russia.

    The Russian Internet meme "United Russia is the party of crooks and thieves" got so popular that it has even jumped into official United Russia propaganda.

  4. mafia party by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    United Russia is a mafia party, literally, it's full of mafia bosses, it's a criminal syndicate that took over the country and destroyed the democracy in its infancy, plunged the country into the age of corruption.

    Of-course it doesn't help that Russia has too many people that are made dependent upon the government for survival, that's how a criminal party takes hold and doesn't let go - the bosses literally gather people in the meetings and tell them that they will dole out money based on voting participation and the voting outcome, they also want people to prove their voting record (illegally obviously), the votes are bought and voters are intimidated.

    US and the rest should take notice - once most of your businesses are just a few large ones, and the small/medium sized businesses disappear and are constantly under pressure to pay huge 'fines'/bribes to local 'politicians' and often the businesses are destroyed - illegally taken over with police force from their owners and just handed over to local mafia/United Russia party bosses, then you build a huge dependent class of people, who don't have jobs, they can't have jobs because the largest (oil/gas/metal/wood/whatever raw material) companies only need so many workers and the service sector is all monopolized.

    Without a thriving middle class (and I mean BUSINESS class) the economy only allows 3 classes of people: bottom dolers, top mafia bosses and owners and monopolists in every business sector, very few monopolists that run every business.

    Then you the country can't get out of this predicament - the people are poor and they don't know how NOT to be poor anymore, their only way of living depends on being fully subsidized by the government and they can't afford any change of government and any instability carries a promise of hunger.

    Of-course Russia still has some protesters from the middle class and students, but right now it seems to be irrelevant, the special forces there don't hesitate to apply massive amounts of damage to the protesters. Beating somebody and even killing them is really not a big deal - people who live off the dole are really just insects in a system like that.

    That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind. You want many independent individual capable of taking care of themselves and by proxy of the economy by doing creative stuff, providing products and jobs and investment opportunities. But a large number of people like that not only improve the economy, but they are too independent to be held in shackles of oppression, they don't want a large parasite mafia class above them taking everything from them and deciding for them what kind of a country they will live in.

    1. Re:mafia party by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dude, Russia is capitalistic to the extreme. Socialism had died in Russia in 1993.

      "United Russia" is the end result of a capitalistic society without democratic checks and balances. It turns out that pure capitalism soon becomes indistinguishable from feudalism.

      That's quite easy to understand, because giving business the ability to influence the government creates a feedback loop and pretty soon government becomes indistinguishable from business. Alternatively, giving business power to weaken the government results in business _becoming_ the government.

    2. Re:mafia party by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Informative

      Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system. It's not capitalism that turned into this authoritarian system, it's literally the fact that various former KGB and mafia bosses got together and used all sorts of violence in order to prevent any competition in the political arena. Khodorkovskiy is in jail not because of 'capitalism', he is in jail because a criminal is at the helm of the government and he put him there.

      Here is an example of 'carousel' - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc.

      The guy who shot this video asked if it makes sense to join the Party and he is told: obviously if you join it, you get material benefits, money whatever.

      Then the video shows scenes of this same guy voting in multiple locations, by 5:30 it says: I voted 12 times already, almost done.

    3. Re:mafia party by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      "Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system"

      Sure. So is socialism.

      "Here is an example of 'carousel' [youtube.com] - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc."

      "United Russia" just uses its "market power" to influence election results. And they are definitely not 'mafia' in the sense that they do not consist of members of organized criminal. "United Russia" consists mostly of medium business, the old mafia bosses are really irrelevant now. Stunning success of unrestricted capitalism!

    4. Re:mafia party by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me quote you:

      "That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind"

      If capitalism is just an economic model then why do you have problems with socialism which is also just an economic model?

    5. Re:mafia party by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      "it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants."

      And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

      "Capitalism is not forced upon people top down, because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system; socialism is forced upon people through government power."

      Sure. In capitalism you are not forced to work - you are not forced to breathe or eat either. Oh, and also business is not forced to obey small nuisances like the so called 'laws' and 'regulations'.

      "- whatever it is, it's not a free market, with people making choices based on the product. The carousel in the video is a way that the incumbent power stays in power by using the power it already has stolen from the market."

      Sure it is. It's just that choices are not made by regular people. If you have a few billions of rubles/dollars then your choice certainly important. In other words: "one dollar - one vote"!

    6. Re:mafia party by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Well, we all are familiar with the outcomes of the 'intelligent' design imposed upon the economies by all these various political planners.

      Be it USSR with its planned economy or North Korea or former "Communist" China or Cuba, be it USA Congress passing laws that made it more profitable to give out liar loans than honest loans because of government guarantees, or be it the Federal reserve and the counterfeiting since the 1913 and ever more counterfeiting and inflation since 1971, it's all "intelligently" designed.

      AFAIC I don't consider intelligent design to be superior to natural outcome of a capitalist free market.

    7. Re:mafia party by Gaian-Orlanthii · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I met a Russian woman once in Germany (nice woman, very smart) and I cracked a joke about Russian corruption. She spent the next half-hour ranting about corruption in Russia and how while Europeans are shocked by a corruption scandal, Russians simply think: "Fuck I wish I thought of that first". She *hates* Russians. Can you blame her?

    8. Re:mafia party by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he made a point, and you ignored him or you don't understand it.

      Unfettered capitalism has just as much capacity for totalitarianism as communism. Capitalism, left to its own devices, naturally results in a few large players, who, if allowed to, will subvert and take over the government, simply buy it off. Plutocracy. This is why you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to keep the marketplace fair by preventing the largest players from performing inevitable abuse, and breaking them up if necessary.

      Your problem is that you only understand one narrative: the narrative of oppression from communism, where the government IS big business. That is not the only way oppression can form or function. The government can be the mafia, which you understand. But an uncontrolled corporate sphere can also function like a mafia, and it can simply turn a weak government into its puppet. This is what you see forming in the USA. You don't seem to understand that.

      You NEED a strong central government, and you need a healthy marketplace of corporations kept in check. If you weaken the government, the power vacuum is simply filled by the largest corporations, who simply buy the government. Do you understand?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    In soviet russia, voters elect representatives.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  6. United Russia is comparatively moderate... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of the three major parties, United Russia (while authoritarian and vaguely socialistic) is probably the most moderate. The Liberal Democrats are led by a leader who has said he wants to completely seal the borders, institute a police state, use nuclear weapons in the Caucasus, and reconquer Eastern Europe; the Communists are the kind of Communists that venerate Stalin and long for a return to the 1930's.

    1. Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have now enumerated what the parties say about themselves, which is quite different from what they actually do. United Russia, for example, is simply the party of crony cleptocracy, judging by their ten-year track record. LibDems are the party of "just for lulz", they can say one thing today, do something else tomorrow, and say something completely different from either on the next day.

      Communists, though, are not Stalinists. Part of their electorate is that - mostly old (60+) people who remember the USSR fondly because they weren't living in poverty back then, and pensions were actually big enough to provide for a decent living. But that electorate has been consistently dwindling as they age and die. The new one comes from younger people who are dissatisfied with crony capitalism, and want something along the lines of democratic socialism. Their program largely matches that later group - e.g. they officially endorse small and medium private businesses, while arguing for nationalization of oil industry and other "big guys". Also, unlike commies of old, these are quite religious and socially conservative - sometimes fervently so.

    2. Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      what's the _real_ difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Communists?

      Primarily, it's that one of them is completely serious, while another one will say or do anything for the lulz (or at least no-one has devised any other rational explanation).

      For example, here's what the LibDem leader had to say during the bird flu scare:

      "We must force the government to stop the bird migration. We must shoot all birds, field all our men and troops... and force migratory birds to stay where they are. "

      or here's on the subject of the previous elections, which I think takes the cake:

      "Political impotence is finished. Today is the beginning of the orgasm. All the people, I promise you, will feel the orgasm of next year's presidential election."

      This video with an elaborate speech on Iraq, right on the eve of U.S. invasion, is also hilarious.

  7. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From my observations as an American it seems they have a choice between being run by a corporate mafia or run by a communist party. Pick the one that works better for you, I suppose.

  8. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that's one more choice than Americans have got.

  9. Re:no Majority by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    according to exit polls and votes counted so far, United Russia will not be in the majority

    You want to hear something interesting? The United Nations uses exit polls to judge the fairness of elections worldwide. If the "official" results differ from the exit polls substantially, it cannot be certified as a fair election.

    In the US, official results have been deviating from exit polls to a greater extent in every election starting in 2000. Of course, we are told that this just means that exit polling just isn't that good.

    You decide.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    A significant proportion of communist vote on these elections is, effectively, protest vote against United Russia. We used to have "none of the above" on the ballot ages ago, it was scrapped under Putin. Then people started to ignore elections altogether, in hopes that, if enough do, they don't get the voter turnout needed to elect anyone - the government has responded by removing the requirement for minimum voter turnout. So right now the only way to vote against the party in power is to vote for some other party, and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.

  11. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. Under Communism, it's exactly the opposite.

    - Woody Allen

  12. This Damn Internet by artifactual · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Turns out it greatly exacerbates the peasants' lust for democracy. But we didn't know! We were just trying to build a more robust military communication system. May god forgive us.

  13. A statistical graph demonstrating election fraud by temcat · · Score: 2

    Here you can see a nice statistical graph that clearly demonstrates election fraud (in Russian; the blue curve is for United Russia):

    http://podmoskovnik.livejournal.com/129632.html

    Plotted here is the number of votes cast for each party as a function of voter turnout. There is only one party whose peak is abnormally widened to the right with a huge second near 100% - and this is the United Russia.

  14. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure beats a single-party one. And it's a realistic, achievable goal at this stage.

    Besides, the point of this exercise is to make a break from the past 12 years and to force the votes to actually be counted in a way that is prominently visible. A huge staple of United Russia's propaganda is that "everyone is for us" - basically, an appeal to citizens to vote same as everyone else. But this hinges on them actually having that popular support. Every person that didn't vote for them on this election will bring another person who won't on the next one.

    Also, strange as it may sound, commies are actually one of the saner parties in this election. Alternatives include e.g. the guy who became famous by saying things like "Russian soldiers shall wash their boots in the Indian ocean".

  15. Re:no Majority by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a democratic society with a long-standing culture of openness and freedom, most people don't hide their political beliefs, and will happily tell you which way they had voted. If people are willing to lie in exit polls in sufficient numbers that it skews the result, it indicates that something's very wrong with democracy in the country.

  16. Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know it sounds eerily familiar to you Americans. Difference is, your parties juggle a few percent back and forth. In our case, it was the very real difference between having United Russia get 66% and a constitutional majority (Russian constitution can be amended by 2/3 of both upper and lower house of the parliament - they've already used it to extend presidential term to 6 years), or having it get 50%, even if that means that commies also get 25%. At least, with commies there, they'll be at each other's throats most of the time, which can be subverted from within the parties (like Tea Party did to Republicans).

    It's far from perfect, but it's a step ahead from what we had before, and it's a step that could actually be made.