Slashdot Mirror
Russia Quietly Passes Anti-Blogger Law
randomErr (172078) writes "Russia is tightening its grip on free speech and freedom of the Internet by creating a new 'bloggers law'. This policy follows the pattern set by China, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran."
Any site with more than 3000 daily visitors will be required to register and be held to a number of restrictions, quoting the article: "Besides registering, bloggers can no longer remain anonymous online, and organizations that provide platforms for their work such as search engines, social networks and other forums must maintain computer records on Russian soil of everything posted over the previous six months."
Enjoy your slide back in to totalitarianism.
Russia outsources the record-keeping to the sites with a 6-month retention schedule. NSA relieves the sites from the need to keep the records by doing it themselves, and keeps them forever. Which one is more business-friendly?
Here in America, we have it much easier. The NSA does all that recordkeeping for us.
....To keep the CIA out
I think "Moral" is appropriate here, or a lack thereof.
Here in america we have journalistic freedom of speech. If you oppose US foreign policy or help expose secret illegal government programs we find it to be patriotic and sacrosanct. Moxie Marlinspike once helped a foreign journalist expose illegal american programs and he certainly wasnt ever targeted for random detention in airports because that would be unamerican. We never secretly spied on the New York Times when they reported on the NSA's illegal activities either, because thats not what america stands for. Heck, we once had a famous American blogger named Anwar al-Awlaki who had a really controversial opinion of the american government but did we use a robotic drone to kill him and his son with a missile while he was in Yemen? of course not.
Good people go to bed earlier.
'How is it, then, that the Russians have songs?'
-- Nietzsche
> cosmonaut
Got the right country this time.
In the US, free speech is a blacklist-based phenomenon. There's a few things that are illegal to say - like 'Fire' in the theater - for example. If it's not listed, it's probably fair game, and you can't be jailed for it. Thus; westboro baptists and illinois nazis.
In many places in the world, it seems like the definition of free speech refers to the fact that there's a government-approved whitelist - here are the things you are allowed to talk about/say, anything not on the list are disallowed and legal offenses. Anything that's not explicitly on the list (and often times, even if it is) is subject to prosecutions. Heck, it's standard in these places to claim that opposing political parties are, by their language alone, seditionists, and have them locked up. In part, this is why there's outrage against the US that we allow hate speech and open protest; in other countries, that requires a mandate by the government, explicit approval.
Even in western, supposedly enlightened countries, there are onerous restrictions; check out slander laws in England, Germany's stance on anything Nazi-related, or France's many, many restrictions - for example, it's illegal to criticize a public employee (though I have no idea if it's actually enforced).
Calling this 'free speech' is like calling tax laws in the US 'voluntary taxes'.
What we're describing here is not a "tightening grip on free speech". It's just "additional regulations" on a locked down system where participating is the exception, not the rule. The only thing free about it is that one is "free" to follow all the rules, or shut up.
I'd say you're wasting your time in Russia, and worse probably endangering yourself in the process.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Edward Snowden will leak everything from Russia soon
So if they don't register and do blog anonymously and hide their IP, how are they going to catch them? In other words, this does nothing and the Russian gov doesn't know how the internet works.
Russia is simply USA's future. Prepare!
I bet Democrats look at Putin with envy.
Maybe the "conservative" ones, but it shows much more strongly inside the republican sect.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Meet the new Stalin, same as the old Stalin.
Conservative, mod down for violating
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Putin remains very "popular". Hitler was "popular". 97% of people don't really need or use their freedom of speech to an extent that it threatens the establishment.
On a hopeful note, historically, Hitler's tightening control produced "brain drain" among his most talented scientists and engineers. Societies which resort to these kinds of controls usually fail to keep apace with modernization. It's the fallacy of "surgery of thuggery". When totalitarians intend to surgically intimidate just a few vocal intelligencia, their "tools" or administrative enforcers (gestapo) are too clumsy and over-reach, intimidating brilliant people in unintended manners. This same thing happens in the USA business regulatory environment, if a state government gives too much authority to its regulators, businesses move elsewhere.
Gently reply
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players? Is my TV lying to me?
Would you blog if you thought the police could come and arrest you for anything the authorities might take offense to even if it wasnâ(TM)t' against the law technically speaking?
On the flip side of that, you can expect to see a ton of new Russian-language blogs spring up in "Iowa".
Funny how the internet works like that. You can only ban anonymity or censor certain types of content to the extent that you can lock down every single point of access.
I'm so glad that some countries have the courage to deal with this internet thing properly. I mean really folks, we can't have people running around spouting their ideas, disrupting the natural order of society. It's about time some one took affirmative action against this abomination that is the internet. The though of ordinary people saying what they want, doing what they want, making what they want, and OMG sharing what they want - It's just crazy! The internet needs people with a higher purpose to control, filter, and even dismantle this thing that is so poisonous to society. My god man, giving people free reign on the internet is like giving a machine gun to a baby! Wake up people!
Say you have 100 different blogs with different names, different usernames for the admin, slightly different looks etc. but they all conveniently re-blog the same content. Next, you have a domain name that points to a load-balancing server which hosts no web content, but redirect the traffic so that none of these blogs hit the control quota. If one approaches the quota, the load-balancer will detect it and shut that particular blog down. A single-source DoS attack won't work against this system because that's only one unique visitor who just really likes the site :-)
But I'm just being a smartass. The best solution is to host the blog on a darknet and use a non-Russian darknet portal site to allow convenient (but not anonymous or secure) web access.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Every foreign search engine, blogging platform, or other covered entity just blocks all Russian originated IPs. Homegrown solutions may spring up to replace them, but the hassle ought to at least take this from "quietly" to "amid widespread condemnation and protest from Russians". Plus, who wants to be complicit in this kind of stupid BS?
where EULAs are now law, and most major social networks require you to post your full name, as per EULA
This is a scary policy that is following the west.
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players?
Of course they aren't, don't be so naive!
Some of them are Milla Jovovich!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
thats not only cost for Disk space, that will cost freedom if they find anything anti RUS won't it?
I had rather have my horse to my mistress. Henry V
I was worried for a minute that there might be a discussion about a country other than the US on Slashdot. However no need to fear, the egocentric dipstick brigade is on it, making sure to try and steer any and all discussion back to America. I mean we can't possibly want to talk about the rest of the world, nobody is from there, nobody cares what happens. Instead let's make sure to focus any and all discussion on America. That's the only way!
Seriously, knock it the fuck off. There is a wider world out there, and some of that world visits Slashdot. They might be interested in some stories about thing other than the US. Heck, for that matter people in the US might be interested in stories about the rest of the world since it is all interconnected.
I get really tired of the ego brigade on /. that has to try and steer every single conversation back to the US. Story about Russia? Talk about how the US is worse and then rail on about that. Story about Canada? Talk about how it would be if the US did it and then rail on about that. No matter what the story, move the discussion back to the US.
Just stop it. If there's a topic about Russia, well let's talk about that. If that doesn't interest you, kindly keep your silence so that people can talk about it. If the NSA spying interests you, then comment in those discussions, of which there are many.
Slashdot is an American site and thus American centric in its reporting but it is not US exclusive. Stop trying to make it that way. Your ego can deal with something not being about the US once and awhile.
It's not the end of blogging in Russia. What it means is that Russians who want to blog will blog on sites hosted outside the country, where all traffic is run through SSL.
could you please provide another or additional non fox news related source.
I have a client that we're going to be getting some software for - not a major purchase, none of the alternatives being considered are even over $300. Of the two leading options, one is produced by a Russian firm, and that alone is making me less likely to choose it.
Admittedly in this case there aren't any major differences in functionality, and we may end up with the Russian one after all if testing shows its interface is easier to use/train on, but it's the first time I recall actually looking into and considering where the software is being created.
fencepost
just a little off
"No, of course I don't have 3000 visitors a day! My site is automatically limited to 2500. It's funny though, the first 250 visitors every day take my posts and repost them on their sites. But that's their responsibility, not mine... but since my site has passed it's daily quota, here's links to sites with 'similar content'..."
Seriously. This is a stupid law.
We can easily just stop using blog 'websites', and instead post to public newsgroups. Or use RSS & other syndication & mirror tools.
He was a senior recruiter for Al Queda and actively involved in terrorist plots against the US and actively making propaganda for an organization at war with the United States. Our only mistake is that we didn't strip of his citizenship when he was caught by Yemen participating in an Al Queda plot to kidnap the US military attache. He was at large for 4 years, if he felt he was wrongly accused why not get a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in. Its not like he couldnt call the FBI anytime he wanted an arranged to be picked up. The Yemeni government offered to not even turn him over to the US if he would turn himself in.
What is to stop someone from creating a blog and posting from various public hotspots? From using VPS's and a whole whack of other tools. As much as the State likes to play the Almighty Knower Of All, there are still plenty of ways you can evade them. Think of it as the Samizdat of our day. If you have purpose and some trustworthy people, you can speak truth to power.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
She's Ukrainian.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
After the US government doing so many things to encourage people to host services outside of America, Russia returns the favor. This could result in greater cooperation between the two peoples, as we can now cross-serve either other. You host our pirate search engines, we'll host your politics blog.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players?
Of course they aren't, don't be so naive!
Some of them are Milla Jovovich!
Wait.. the net says she is Ukranian born, so that makes her Russian now, right?
The UK also introduced regulation of larger commercial blogs that publish "news type" material, part of the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry into press standards. Large blogs have to sign up to a press regulator, if not they get fined. It does not matter where the Blog's servers are located, if someone downloads content in the UK, it is published it in the UK and they can be held responsible ("Downloading here can count as publication in the law.").
Links:
"Press regulation deal sparks fears of high libel fines for bloggers - Websites could have to pay exemplary damages if they don't sign up to new regulator, claim opponents of Leveson deal "
BBC News: Will websites/blogs etc be covered?
3 points:
1 - When she was born in 1975, Ukraine was still part of the USSR.
2 - Her parents immigrated to the US in 1980, and she is an American citizen.
3 - Lighten up, Francis.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That doesn't make it right. I'd rather live in the US with our freedoms and if there are people living here that really find it so oppresive they should take every opportunity afforded them to move to some other utopia. I'm a libertarian and while I find our government too big and overreaching, at the end of the day I'm not denied my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
It could be worse. They could be Naked Russian Nazi Pirates and I don't know about you but have you seen the majority of Russian Women? Yikes!
What, they aren't all exceptionally hot tennis players?
Of course they aren't, don't be so naive!
Some of them are Milla Jovovich!
Wait.. the net says she is Ukranian born, so that makes her Russian now, right?
Well, since she was born in 1975, and Ukraine was part of the USSR in 1975...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The very computer you are typing on would not exist if not for capitalism. Profit drives all and makes us better off. Resources are finite and those that work for them will get them. Being tired at the end of the day doesn't make you a hard worker.
Russia will give us Internet pharmacy's and ugly porn.
I don't think I'll ever understand why anybody ever distrusts an article when the news outlet specifically calls out who said what, which is exactly what Fox did.
Honestly, people who do that shit are no better than the news organizations that they lambaste on a daily basis. I mean fuck, Fox News even paints republicans in more of a negative light in that article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
There, you happy?
Actually, relevant law - to allow out-of-the-country connections to a couple of state-run providers, which would filter/block everything prohibited - is already under consideration. Just wait...
1) Born in Ukrainian SSR, yes. Doesn't stop it being Ukraine, does it?
2) You brought up her being Russian in the first place.
3) You're telling me to lighten up? You're the one whipping out 3 bullet points.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Seriously, dude, you're taking this admittedly weak attempt at comedy far too seriously. That's the last thing I'm going to say about it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Even better, have you noticed that both "Obama" and "Putin" have 5 letters? I don't think this is a coincidence.
The 2A is really a different issue; let's look instead at the First Amendment. The only people who want to revoke that are the liberal Democrats, who bitch and complain that the US didn't censor some crappy anti-Islamic video because it angered Muslims in the middle east and "incited" them to riot, and use things like this to insist we need to eliminate freedom of speech because some people may be offended.
The Republicans have their problems to be sure, such as being in the pockets of the oil companies and being generally against any kind of regulations on big established businesses (but regulating non-established businesses OK so you can prevent competition from new upstarts like Tesla!), but to be fair I never hear them complaining about freedom of speech.
Milla Jovovich was born in 1975 in Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, former Soviet Union, the daughter of Bogi Jovovi, a Serbian pediatrician,[11][12] and Galina Jovovich (née Loginova), a Russian stage actress
Guess that would make her Russian and Serbian.
Sent from my PDP-11
You've got it a bit backwards there sir. The repoblicans want to revoke the first amendment for anyone who isn't christian while advocating a 10 year olds right to own 19 guns.
Sorry, but I can't recall ever seeing conservatives opposing free speech. They'll happily shout down opinions they don't like, but I've never seen them advocating laws restricting free speech. They do take the Constitution a little more seriously than the liberals. Their big problem with the 1A is they don't like the idea of separation of church and state, so while they won't usually advocate outright adoption of religion by the state (since that's against the literal wording of the 1A), they do get mad when they're restricted from putting the 10 Commandments in courthouses, for example.
What's that? Not the first time a republican has drummed this shit up and this guy is an Alabama SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
That guy's an idiot, and is the one famous for trying to put the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. I don't think he's representative of Republicans at all. Got any better examples? Especially any in the federal government (namely Congress)? This guy isn't even a politician really, he's a judge (though apparently an elected one), and not a legislator at all.
The problem for them is that is is absolute, in the most explicit fashion possible. Read it, and see how definitively absolute it actually is. And the sad fact is that there are too many people who do want it repealed. If we have a constitutional convention, the 1st amendment will be the first to die, followed closely by the second, and then the rest of the bill of rights. Then they will probably try to make it so Arnold can become prez.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
These girls don't like Putin very much either: plus the song is hilarious!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Free speech isn't the only thing in the First Amendment. Other rights include no establishment of religion, which a lot of Republicans in particular seem to have problems with, the freedom of the press, which is normally neutered by having rich people (largely Republicans) owning the presses, and freedom to peacefully assemble, which seems to be disliked by both parties (supporting free assembly only when it helps you is not supporting the right).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
http://www.juancole.com/2014/0...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
http://jezebel.com/5923898/rep...
Its not free speech to make videos on behalf of organizations that are at war with the United States calling for the murder of american citizens and actively recruiting enemy soldiers. He essentially put on the uniform of the enemy and was hanging out with his al queda buddies in area of active conflict. You dont have to charge a known enemy soldier with a crime to kill him on a battlefield even if hes "only working in the PR department".
Here is the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anywhere where it says that money = speech. That is an interpretation that the founders would laugh at. Also, attempting to control campaign contributions has a long history in the U.S. I for one don't want the Koch brothers (or George Soros) running my country.
These billionaires need to be controlled, or we will end up with a feudal system, and both Democrats and Republicans will be their serfs. Your shitass little popguns won't make a difference when the real owners start excluding you from voting, just like they are doing to minorities now.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
The Amendment present no exceptions. And the voters, if they believe in free will can ignore the campaigns and the money, and vote for somebody else. The ballot even has space for write ins. Money is not the problem. It is the desire for it. That is where its value is derived.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sorry for second reply:
In relation to the love of money to my previous reply, it's not the billionaires that need to be controlled. It's the people who do their dirty work for them that need to be controlled, but through self control. Don't go after the people who offer the money. Nail the ones who take it.
And remember, no law means no law, and unless specifically stated, there are no exceptions.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
As for all the other countries, the NSA keeps the records of all things mentioned in the article.
If you say something nasty you're labelled a terrorist and you disappear just the same.
The difference is Putin is openly clear about is.
Privacy is terrorism.