Russia Quietly Passes Anti-Blogger Law

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Quietly Passes Anti-Blogger Law

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 7, 2014 @02:48AM from the just-in-time-for-cold-war-2.0 dept.

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."

38 of 284 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Russia you were so close by SocietyoftheFist · 2014-05-07 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Enjoy your slide back in to totalitarianism.
1. Re:Russia you were so close by willie3204 · 2014-05-07 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If only they had the tools the NSA has.. They wouldn't even have to make it public!
  
  --
  The answer to all your problems
2. Re:Russia you were so close by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-07 03:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Is that really so strange? In Italy we have the same law and it is purported as something good and beneficial to public order!!
3. Re:Russia you were so close by Luckyo · 2014-05-07 03:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.
  Look at what happened to all the Occupy members. Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.
4. Re: Russia you were so close by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-05-07 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  It isn't strange for Italy at all. Their whole justice/politician system is so corrupt and jacked up that it seems perfectly in line with Russia's.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
5. Re:Russia you were so close by FriendlyLurker · 2014-05-07 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.
  Look at what happened to all the Occupy members. Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.
  Found, and crucified:
  Occupy Wall Street on Trial: Cecily McMillan Convicted of Assaulting Cop, Faces Up to Seven Years
  Why Did FBI Monitor Occupy Houston, and Then Hide Sniper Plot Against Protest Leaders?
  Like this dick authoritarian move by Russia, China et al. actions speak louder than words: The United States is not alone in being afraid of democracy... real democracy. Which starts with the more outspoken amongst us rallying together, writing blogs about the social problems we face, proposing solutions, attending OWS type events to agitate peacefully for positive change. Just too bad all those things that make common peoples lives better also happen to conflict with the goal of accumulating even more wealth for the richer parts of society. See graph: 12-country 1975-2007 chart of share of income growth going to The 1%.
6. Re:Russia you were so close by Albanach · 2014-05-07 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Is the impact of this really limited to Russia? LiveJournal is now based there and, while I'm sure it is used much less today than ten years ago, it must still host a large number of accounts belonging to bloggers in the US and elsewhere. Will real names now need to be attached to these accounts, or will their owner's real names need to be passed to the Russian authorities?
7. Re:Russia you were so close by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-05-07 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  Is the impact of this really limited to Russia? LiveJournal is now based there and, while I'm sure it is used much less today than ten years ago, it must still host a large number of accounts belonging to bloggers in the US and elsewhere.
  No, it's not. My wife has been using LiveJournal for a dozen years. She's started moving all the content off there and onto an American hosting service.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
8. Re:Russia you were so close by mi · 2014-05-07 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.
  None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
  
  Look at what happened to all the Occupy members.
  What happened? Where do I look? For such a highly-moderated comment, you are offering surprisingly few links. Was anyone prosecuted for mere speech? Assaulting a police officer — yeah, that's more likely...
  
  Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.
  Police may not be able to find every criminal, but finding any criminal they really set their minds on — that they could do for decades now. And, certainly, "the important people" of an infamous movement qualify. Hardly a surprise.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
9. Re:Russia you were so close by mi · 2014-05-07 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  If only they had the tools the NSA has.. They wouldn't even have to make it public!
  Yes, yes. And Joseph McCarthy was just as bad as Lavrentiy Beria... Ergo, America is just as bad — nay, worse than Russia...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
10. Re:Russia you were so close by BasilBrush · 2014-05-07 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So often what happened in "Communist Russia" was used as an argument that communism was flawed.
  Well now we've seen Russia as:
  1) An Imperial State up to and including the reign of Tzar Nicholas II.
  2) A communist state.
  3) A capitalist democracy.
  And in all cases it's been a repressive state. So maybe that wasn't anything to do with communism after all and was more to do with Russian culture.
11. Re:Russia you were so close by mi · 2014-05-07 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's fairly easy to make any person into a criminal under US law.
  Please, name an American blogger so prosecuted after being critical of the US government.
  The worst we've seen so far is the increased IRS-scrutiny of government critics, but that, somehow, is usually Ok with the same folks, who like comparing NSA with KGB.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
12. Re:Russia you were so close by BasilBrush · 2014-05-07 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Convicted of assaulting a cop doesn't mean she assaulted a cop. Policing and jailing of protestors is very often political.
  In this case the flip side of the story is that she was grabbed on the left breast by a hand from behind, and the person doing so received an elbow in return. Any in other situation, it would be the boob grabber if anyone that would have been at fault. But cops are above the law.
13. Re:Russia you were so close by briancox2 · 2014-05-07 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  Our government does not have higher moral in this regard. They want the same thing. They are fortunately just a tiny bit less capable of pulling off what Putin can pull off.
  
  --
  We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
14. Re:Russia you were so close by mi · 2014-05-07 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  if the police and criminal justice system are non-political. Which is almost never the case when it comes to protests and is not the case here.
  Police and judges may be biased, but the jury is not. Sure, to the losing side of any court proceedings, it seems like the entire world conspired against them — that's typical.
  But the fact remains, not one blogger was prosecuted for their blog posts in the US. Certainly none of the OWS-associated bloggers.
  
  I'd go further and say that at most demonstrations the police commit more criminal acts than the demonstrators.
  Irrelevant.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
15. Re:Russia you were so close by Luckyo · 2014-05-07 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm getting a feeling that you're intentionally misunderstanding the issue.
  It's a fact that modern crowd control in the West has many tools. To be able to keep those tools (i.e. general populace not rising up against them having these tools) many of them were pushed into private realm or otherwise obfuscated. Media is controlled through private ownership and editorial policy pushed by owners rather than government and legal framework. Public order can be enforced not just by police but by private guards. Punishment can not only be government-based legal action but also private action such as refusal to employ, which can destroy lives and function as a deterrent far more efficiently than jail time.
  The separation of private and public tools of population control has often been fuzzy, but rarely as fuzzy as it is today when it comes to maintaining order in USA. Europe is sort of hanging there so far, as people around here have seen two World Wars and Pro-Soviet regimes, and tend to be far more suspicious towards such actions, but they aren't far behind.
16. Re:Russia you were so close by NoKaOi · 2014-05-07 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off [reuters.com] were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
  Do you really believe that? The officer grabbed her boob from behind (hard enough to leave bruises in the shape of a hand), she reacted by swinging her elbow at her assailant. If she were somebody else being pulled over by an officer in any other situation, the officer would be the one being prosecuted for assault. While technically she wasn't prosecuted for her speech, clearly she was prosecuted (and persecuted) because of her speech.
  And to stay on topic...Russia isn't saying you aren't allowed to blog. They merely want to make it easier for them to monitor your blogging. The US needs no such law, because the NSA is doing it anyway in violation of the constitution. The only real difference is that Russia is being transparent about it. In either country, if those in political power want to shut you up, they will find an excuse to do so, so requiring that you be careful what you say is implicit in either country (at least as long as you're flying high enough above the radar that somebody cares, nobody in either country is going to care about a /. comment).
17. Re:Russia you were so close by mi · 2014-05-07 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Do you really believe that? The officer grabbed her boob from behind
  I believe, that the jury of new-yorkers has heard both sides and produced a verdict.
  
  And to stay on topic...Russia isn't saying you aren't allowed to blog. They merely want to make it easier for them to monitor your blogging.
  The registration requirement alone gives them full power to not just monitor you (something anybody can do already), but also shut you down by withdrawing the registration at any time.
  
  The US needs no such law, because the NSA is doing it anyway in violation of the constitution
  No, monitoring bloggers — and other publications — is not at all unconstitutional. You are confusing this with NSA's other activities.
  
  The only real difference is that Russia is being transparent about it.
  "Blatant" is a better word. No, that's not the only difference. Once more — having to register your blog with authorities is the difference. Oh, and the other little part — about social networks keeping records on Russian soil — that's quite different too.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
18. Re:Russia you were so close by ArmoredDragon · 2014-05-07 06:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  She was convicted AND sentenced by a jury of her peers; not the police, not a judge.
  Besides, I looked at the video and when I see the way she hits him and runs, it seems to me she planned on doing that from the get-go. You don't elbow somebody on accident and then run from them. Furthermore, if she was groped, how come she didn't make that claim until way later?
  Sorry, but I'm with the 12 jurors on this one. I think 7 years might be excessive, but the law may call for that, and the jurors are instructed to prescribe a sentence based on how the law is written.
19. Re:Russia you were so close by Tokolosh · 2014-05-07 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  "Three Felonies a Day" is sickening to read.
  You forgot to mention the latest trick is to lean on the banks to close the accounts of people whose views are not in compliance.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
In Soviet Russia... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2014-05-07 02:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Here in America, we have it much easier. The NSA does all that recordkeeping for us.
1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by jbmartin6 · 2014-05-07 03:15 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  In Soviet Russia, your blog posts YOU!
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
this would never happen in america. by nimbius · 2014-05-07 03:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
1. Re:this would never happen in america. by Sarten-X · 2014-05-07 03:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I suspect you have a broken sarcasm detector.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:this would never happen in america. by MightyMartian · 2014-05-07 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And yet the newspaper in the US that publish details from Snowden's leaks are not being hauled into court.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:this would never happen in america. by Threni · 2014-05-07 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  " You could let 1% of the people have all the nation's wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes. And bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests."
4. Re: this would never happen in america. by rwa2 · 2014-05-07 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  Old Russian joke:
  American: foolish Russian. Because of my first amendment rights, I can stand in front of the White House and criticize the US president.
  Russian: What are you talking about? I can do that too!
5. Re:this would never happen in america. by IamTheRealMike · 2014-05-07 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's no point for the administration to go fry big names like the NY Times or Washington Post when all they were doing is re-reporting material already obtained by foreign press.
  Now imagine what would have happened if Snowden had provided his materials only to the NY Times. Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine. We know what would have happened because previous leakers did that, only to find the NYT was already under the thumb and they chose not to publish. In fact Snowden explicitly said he wasn't going to trust American media to publish things about the NSA because they had a history of self censorship in this regard, causing them huge embarrassment.
That's a squirrley definition of free speech. by quietwalker · 2014-05-07 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Russia is simply USA's future by AndyKron · 2014-05-07 03:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Russia is simply USA's future. Prepare!
Re:Beatings will continue until... by fustakrakich · 2014-05-07 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

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!”
"Surgery of Thuggery" vs. the Intelligencia by retroworks · 2014-05-07 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Ahh good! by Sycraft-fu · 2014-05-07 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Sydication - bring back BBSs! by ralphtheraccoon · 2014-05-07 05:09 · Score: 2

"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.
Anwar Al-Awlaki was not a blogger by voss · 2014-05-07 05:24 · Score: 2

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.
The UK is also Regulating larger Blogs by Diamonddavej · 2014-05-07 05:58 · Score: 3, Informative

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?
Re:Beatings will continue until... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-05-07 06:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?
Re:Russian Nazi Pirates? by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-07 07:30 · Score: 2

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