Law Repressing Social Media, Bloggers Now In Effect In Russia

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Law Repressing Social Media, Bloggers Now In Effect In Russia

Posted by timothy on Friday August 1, 2014 @01:18PM from the it-takes-a-village-but-not-yours dept.

An anonymous reader writes On Friday, Russia implemented a new law that significantly limits its citizens' online free speech. Under this new law, social media sites must "retain user data for at least six months...within the country's boundaries so it can be available for government inspection." Also, "bloggers with at least 3,000 daily readers must register with Roskomnadzor, the regulator that also oversees Russia's main media outlets." This, of course, means that popular bloggers will no longer be able to remain anonymous.

97 of 167 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

next... by guygo · 2014-08-01 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

the Berlin Wall goes back up.
1. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  The Republicans are too stupid to comprehend what that was. They have no memory which is why they worship the Russians now. They want the same style of oppressive government here in the US. That is why their kind is working so hard to destroy the US. We are already far past the point of no return. The only thing we can do is hide from their death squads while they try to kill all of our children. That is the way of their kind. They attack and murder us constantly. My roommate was recently mugged by a white man that once ran for mayor of Oakland as a Republican . That proves what they want.
2. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 13:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You mean the Iron Curtain
  And yes.
3. Re:next... by epyT-R · 2014-08-01 14:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Uh what? No, the left wants to increase the size of state. The neocons want to use that state to enforce laws that benefit their corporate benefactors. Of course, there is cross over, too, as democrats have many corporate backers and repubs certainly have ideological tenets they want pushed on the population.
  Too bad neither of them remember what individual liberty is.
4. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 14:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Whoa, wait a sec. Do you both actually believe that the damage can be blamed on any ONE party?
5. Re:next... by fustakrakich · 2014-08-01 15:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is only one party. Bickering factions are what we see on the TV. It plays well to a wide audience.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
6. Re:next... by clarkkent09 · 2014-08-01 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Realistically, no. Russia is a capitalist country dependent on global capital and trade. It cannot afford to cut itself off like it thought it could when it was USSR and had a lot of satellite countries to buy its crappy goods.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
7. Re:next... by Karmashock · 2014-08-01 17:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Russia's economy is dominated by its energy exports. It can and is largely subsisting on that income.
  If you want to break Russia's economy then you need to give europe an alternative energy source.
  Controversial as it may be, we should probably be advocating hydrologic fracturing in Eastern Europe. If Ukraine and Poland can ween themselves off Russian energy imports and possibly become net exporters to Germany then Russia's economic position will collapse indifferent to whether or not they censor bloggers.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
8. Re:next... by superwiz · 2014-08-01 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the one in power. Ie, the Democrats.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
9. Re:next... by Sabbatic · 2014-08-01 19:13 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If you actually believe that the entire political class isn't a power bloc in contrast to the populace, if you actually believe that the democrats are "in power" and calling all the shots, if you actually don't understand the difference between what they say and do in public and what they say and do behind closed doors, you are one of the many benighted fucks who are the actual cause of our problems. An ignorant and easily duped populace is the means to their ends. And it's "i.e." dipshit, for id est, not "Ie." Moreover, it's used to start a subordinate clause, not a sentence. Your 8th-grade level education is expressing itself on a grammatical level too. "Superwiz"? Fuck. You wish.
10. Re:next... by rtb61 · 2014-08-01 20:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You live in the world of WTO illusion. Primary resources rich country can pretty much chug along on their own as long as they are patient with catching up. This attitude always leads to outside intervention either through disrupting and fomenting revolution or through direct invasion. The idea being to drive them to borrow illusory capital to buy in mass consumerism products and drive debt in order to strip mine the countries primary resources. Russia is quite simply to powerful to do this hence some constant harassment and prodding is required to drive reaction and then the propaganda campaign can commence.
  Don't want to the hassle with data simply point your .ru address to servers in other countries, although it would likely be wise to avoid US servers and servers in other countries controlled by the US.
  Why are the Russian getting so uptight about social media servers, easy, the US is right into corrupting social media servers in order to forment social unrest, hence the Russians are hard at work attempting to track that activity down and block it as well as tracking down and deporting US agents. The NSA has a pretty big head start by basically hacking the whole world and the whole world now needing to work hard clean that shit out.
  Russia would be better off working on a fairly nasty counter attacking national honey pot network and a massive database flooding and contaminating misinformation campaign, lots and lots of contaminated data, going all over the place, creating false data and data association, massive amounts of it, the idea being to flood the NSA/CIA databases and create false relationships. Tie in some real world actions like minor bank deposits et al and they'll end up chasing reds in everyones beds.
  Best defence is a good offence and it is far better than harassing your own population.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
11. Re:next... by sumdumass · 2014-08-01 22:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This no true scottsman argument is getting tiresome. It seems that whenever someone points to the flaws in communist regimes, someone has to point out how it isn't really communism.
  Well here is the problem with that. Whenever is implimented, it fails to follow pure theory and runs into some authoritarian nightmare because it has to be forced onto people who do not want to settle wigh the less that the theory allows or do extra with no extra reward to make it work.
  Communism simply does not scale outside micro groups dedicated to making it work.it has nothing to do with leaders wrapling themselves up in pretty cloths or hero worship. It has to do with forcing people to accept it. Like it or not, all attempts have snd will continue to devolve into some brutal fascist reality that you can clsim is not communism snd suggest it be tried again.
12. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  For your info, USSR did not cut it self. It was the western countries imposed the embargoes and what not. Actually, USSR was supplying the gas to Europe for the past 40 years. Is CIA report good enough for you? Maybe you should learn to read before spreading the lies, you prick.
  http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000500594.pdf
  "Western Europe views the USSR as a more reliable supplier than many alternative sources [...] Moscow is less likely than Algiers to use gas leverage as a means of blackmail"
  As far "the current Russia" is concerned, I do not see it doing anything different then the Western countries do.
13. Re:next... by cytg.net · 2014-08-01 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Putin is gearing up for war.. a real war, and has been for the past 10 years+
14. Re:next... by cytg.net · 2014-08-01 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  If your system cant support the acting president (ie Obama, wich btw, by foreign nations and allies, is pretty much revered to as the second coming of christ for you guys), then sorry, your system is broken.
15. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  as does capitalism. just look at how the US degrade.
16. Re:next... by superwiz · 2014-08-01 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  You should end with QED. Oh, wait, Q.E.D. Just as, I am sure, you always punctuate your dates as "B.C." because "BC" would be lame. Yes, the difference between the two parties is not as stark as the difference between US and other countries. But the subtle difference is what makes THE difference. And yes, the extreme pro-Communist, pro-Slavery, anti-human position that is held by the modern Democratic party is too extreme for my tastes. I am very, very well-educated and supremely well-informed. Ie, you lose.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
17. Re:next... by sribe · 2014-08-02 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Controversial as it may be, we should probably be advocating hydrologic fracturing in Eastern Europe. If Ukraine and Poland can ween themselves off Russian energy imports and possibly become net exporters to Germany then Russia's economic position will collapse indifferent to whether or not they censor bloggers.
  Or, Russia will retaliate in a way that will kick off WWII...
18. Re:next... by Megol · 2014-08-02 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  W.T.F.?!?
  No he isn't - he's just another figurehead for a IMHO degenerated state. Degenerated in that it doesn't follow the ideals it was founded upon, degenerated in that there are only two political parties with anything to say, degenerated in that those parties are essentially the same ideologically and the most frightening: degenerated in that much politics and policies are directly linked to the military industrial complex which means the economy is strongly linked to the idea of using military force.
  (Without the use of the weapons the "defence" industries produces there is no need to develop and buy new ones.)
19. Re:next... by currently_awake · 2014-08-02 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  So how many Georgia's and Ukraine's are required for independence? The real question is where do you draw the line in order to maximize the benefits for the rich and powerful in Russia.
20. Re:next... by Karmashock · 2014-08-02 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  The Russians won't go to nuclear war unless directly invaded by a nuclear power.
  We should be able to slowly choke them to death just like we did to the soviets.
  What you're effectively saying is that Putin is more dangerous then Stalin. I don't find that credible.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
21. Re:next... by Karmashock · 2014-08-02 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose if you stuck a shotgun in your mouth and blew your brains out the top of your skull that argument would be compelling.
  As I still have my brain intact, the reasons for renewed hostilities with Russia are quiet obvious.
  The US has legacy commitments to the security and freedom of eastern Europe. Russia is attempting to effectively rebuild the USSR by forcing old satellites into their regime again... either overtly or subtly.
  What is more they are subverting NATO, undermining European security, and that ultimately undermines US security.
  Again, if my brains were blown all over the walls like raspberry jam through table fan... then I might not have seen this obvious point either.
  Since you've clearly lobotomized yourself... I of course don't expect you to be able to follow along.
  Here's another another point, if the fossil fuel lobbies were half as strong as you think, why is the coal industry in the US getting regulated out of existence? The answer is that they're no where near as strong as you think. Most of the other lobbying groups are just as strong which tends to cancel these forces out.
  Most of the groups that bitch about lobbying are really just upset that someone else is competing against their lobbyists. Like the child that cheats in a game but is first to point out someone else cheating. Its at best hypocritical... and at worst maliciously stupid.
  Good day, sir.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
22. Re:next... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  How about the fact that not even USSR itself called what it had "communism"?
23. Re:next... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Russia is not threatening to cut itself off the entire world, though, but only the West (in lieu of China, and other BRICS countries in general).
24. Re:next... by sumdumass · 2014-08-02 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I suppose someone should tell all the history books and teachers of that so they can rewrite Russian history starting with the Bolsheviks which later became the communist party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and was the only political party allowed in Russia until somewhere in the 1990s.
  Russia is a pure example of my comment. From Lenin to Gorbachev, Russia followed an attempt at Marxism but adjusting to keep the people in line. Even Stalin's great purge was in pursuit of this.
  Like I said, this no true Scotsman argument is getting old and pathetic.
25. Re:next... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I suppose someone should tell all the history books and teachers of that so they can rewrite Russian history starting with the Bolsheviks which later became the communist party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and was the only political party allowed in Russia until somewhere in the 1990s.
  You missed the point. Yes, USSR had a communist party, so called because it was supposedly dedicated to building communism. But at no point did the party claim that it actually succeeded in doing so. The socioeconomic formation in the USSR was officially referred to as "socialism" by the regime, and it was deemed a temporary arrangement "until the complete transition to communism" - hence why it was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, rather than Communist Republics. The latter was always something to be achieved in the near future (usually in 10-20 years, depending on the boastfulness of the particular leader), but somehow it never actually materialized.
26. Re:next... by Talderas · 2014-08-04 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  You won't find those pictures because you're looking at the wrong war. You need to be looking for pictures of Stalin featuring Putin in the background.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
27. Re:next... by Talderas · 2014-08-05 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Khrushchev was the dangerous one. It's hard to tell just how dangerous Stalin may have been. There were signs he was warming towards open relations with the west out of necessity and was looking towards consolidating Soviet rule rather than expanding. Khrushchev on the other hand was the one that stepped the world most closely to nuclear war. I think there's a legitimate argument that Putin is more dangerous than Stalin was during his last years.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
28. Re:next... by Karmashock · 2014-08-05 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Stalin was not warming to anything. The man did everything in his power to spit in our faces. The cold war only happened in the first place because of stalin. And that asshole was throwing how many poor people into labor camps?
  Fuck you for even trying to rehabilitate that piece of shit.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
At least better than many western countries by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

USA retains it forever, no matter what laws are in place.
1. Re:At least better than many western countries by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-01 14:44 · Score: 2
  
  dude who are you? why are you posting so many stupid comments on this story? I guess I have to turn off ACs for this article.
2. Re:At least better than many western countries by DivineKnight · 2014-08-01 14:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Must be /. night over at 4-chan tonight.
At least the Russians are being upfront by oDDmON+oUT · 2014-08-01 13:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Unlike the US/NSA.

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
1. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by BradMajors · 2014-08-01 13:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And.... this information collection is legal in Russia, while what the NSA is doing is illegal.
2. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-08-01 13:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Unlike the US/NSA.
  No, the NSA is monitoring social media and bloggers, in Russia they have progressed from just monitoring to repressing them. I'm in no way in favor of what the NSA is doing but there is a difference between watcing bloggers and telling bloggers they have to register if they get a hitcount over 3000 or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
3. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by The+Grim+Reefer · 2014-08-01 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  ...while what the NSA is doing is illegal.
  Son of a bitch. All this time I though Lucas was a washed up, "has been" when I saw Ep. 1. It turns out he may have managed to channel the future presidents of the US
  For now, it may be illegal. But how many illegal things have been ignored or reversed-pardoned-executive ordered by the current president and his predecessor? When do we get a Bush-Obama Sith lightning death match?
  Of course Lucas seems to have been pretty optimistic by the end of Ep. 3 thinking there were even two good guys left. I'm not sure we have that many in federal office right now.
4. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by tarellel · 2014-08-01 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's no need to register in the USA, seeing as how the NSA already knows who you are and what you're doing.
  
  --
  http://theworkaround.com/
5. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by qpqp · 2014-08-01 14:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  they get a hitcount over 3000
  It's 3000 unique visitors.
  
  "The draft introduced the definition of a popular blogger as someone whose internet page attracts at least 3,000 readers every day (earlier this week the authorities announced that these should be unique visitors, not just page hits) [...]"
  And
  
  Individuals who violate the law can be fined between 10,000 and 30,000 rubles (US$285-$855) and in cases when popular blogs are maintained by legal entities fines can reach 500,000 rubles ($14,285)."
  Source: http://rt.com/politics/177248-...
  I'm not saying that I agree with their line, but what was the last ruling on slander or defamation in the US? I think it was more than USD 855.
  Also, after what happened with the US backed NGOs trying to influence public opinion around the former USSR resulting in color revolutions (and, arguably, what's happening in the Ukraine now,) I'd have probably done the same to protect my national interests.
6. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by fustakrakich · 2014-08-01 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...if they get a hitcount over 3000...
  Hey, what the hell, if you can get the government to provide your hitcounts for you, make the best of it. I would hope they could bump up their ad rates a bit.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
7. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by theshowmecanuck · 2014-08-01 16:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Russian law is to expose anonymous bloggers so Putin and his cronies know where to send the assassins when they see someone criticizing them or exposing their corruption. Same as when they had all the dissenting mainstream Russian journalists assassinated. Now Chairman Putin and his friends control the mainstream media, so on to phase 2: online journalists and bloggers. Of course they are thinking that announcing the law might save some money too, by intimidating people into not exposing the Chairman's lies (like the bullshit about Ukrainians needing any outside impetus to oust a corrupt Russian-backed president who syphoned off billions of dollars into his own pocket while sliding deeper into Chairman Putin's pocket).
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
8. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by sumdumass · 2014-08-01 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  There has never been anonminity on the internet even without the NSA. There has only been hassles impeading the ability to find true identities leading to the appearance of it unless you hack a third party system and leave the blame with them.
  This law and the NSA only remove some of the hassles for power hungry governments.
9. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by MightyMartian · 2014-08-02 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Because all those bloggers critical of President Obama are being rounded up as we speak...
  Russia has a reputation for jailing or even killing critics of Putin or his allies. The last president of the United States accused of that sort of activity against opponents ended up resigning before his inevitable impeachment and conviction. Even in the latest IRS scandal, which may or may not represent targeting of critics by someone in the executive branch, the end result has been quite the opposite to what one would find in Russia.
  The US has no lack of problems, and people in positions of power will always tend towards abusing it. But all in all, it's probably the safest place in the world to speak one's opinion without fear of state persecution.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by poity · 2014-08-02 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  At least conservatives are upfront about censorship, too. PRAISE CONSERVATISM
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
11. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by currently_awake · 2014-08-02 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Illegal means the government can't do it without consequences. Clearly warrant-less wiretapping and spying are legal in the USA.
12. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by currently_awake · 2014-08-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Russian intelligence already knows who the bloggers are, they control the network. The goal here is intimidation.
13. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is way more than just defamation. For example, among many laws passed in the last 6 years or so, one criminalizes "public incitement to perform actions that violate the territorial integrity of Russia". In a twist of irony, given the recent events, a person was convicted under that law back in 2010 for distributing leaflets in his community which asked people whether they would be interested in holding a referendum on the independence of Karelia from Russia, and on its incorporation into Finland. For that, he was fined 100,000 rubles, or ~$3000.
  Since then - in a twist of even more irony, it was done at the end of 2013, just before that whole Ukraine thing blew up, and Russia itself ended up arguing the separatist cause in Crimea and Donbass - that law was strengthened further, and the penalty right now is up to 5 years in prison. Based on the Karelian precedent, when I'm writing something like "Crimea is Ukrainian and is illegally occupied by Russia" - given that Russia itself considers Crimea one of its regions, and given that I am still a Russian citizen - I have just broken that law, and could, in theory, be facing the penalty. Note that this applies to anyone, not just "bloggers" under the new law.
  However, given that bloggers are now required to register and provide identification, in their case violation of such laws would in fact be likely to trigger an immediate and harsh response.
14. Re:At least the Russians are being upfront by quantaman · 2014-08-02 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are forgetting Putting causing ebola and sending ebole infected people (surely KGB agents) to US. Only the KGB agent tramp did not get the memo yet but he surely will and US society will crumble under this siege. In other news Putin caused the harvest in Europe to fail. Previous reports that it was a harsh weather were incorrect as harsh weather was due to KGB doing nasty stuff with air currents etc.
  In the US talk of Obama assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered moronic.
  In Russia talk of Putin assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered quite plausible.
  In the US talk of Bush orchestrating 9/11 is rightly considered moronic.
  In Russia talk of Putin orchestrating the Moscow apartment bombings is far fetched, though disturbingly plausible.
  The idea of US government screwing with high profile critical bloggers is plausible, but a bit paranoid.
  The idea of the Russian government threatening, imprisoning, or even killing moderately popular critical bloggers is a very legitimate fear.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
Mr Obama; by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-08-01 13:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The 80's called and they want to know if you need a foreign policy.
1. Re:Mr Obama; by the_Bionic_lemming · 2014-08-01 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  That was one of my favorite ST TOS episodes. :)
  
  --
  _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
2. Re:Mr Obama; by Anubis+IV · 2014-08-02 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Surely even someone such as yourself knows the difference between sexual intercourse and birth. They're roughly 9 months apart, in the case of humans. And while the celebration may be on a particular day, most of the Christians I've talked to are aware that that particular date doesn't correlate to the actual birthdate, as well as the history of prior celebrations (e.g. Saturnalia) taking place in December.
  Incidentally, you seem to be trying to use the "x" in a derogatory fashion, while being unaware of the history for why it's being used in the first place. It's called mas, for instance, because the X is actually a Greek chi and has, since ancient times, been used as an abbreviation for "", which is the Greek form of the word that we understand as "Christ" in English. Similarly, if you ever wondered why Christians have that "Jesus fish" thing on their cars, it's because of these sorts of abbreviations used in ancient times. The ancient Greek word for fish was spelled (ichthus), which was an acrostic for " , , ", and translates as "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior". All of which is to say, the use of "" as an abbreviation for "Christ" originated in Christian circles. That it's been picked up in secular circles is in no way offensive to those of them who understand their own history, since all you're doing is abbreviating the word in the same way that the people you're attacking have been doing for centuries.
  You could probably significantly improve your trolling if you educated yourself a bit more on the topics you're trying to attack, since you're being rather ineffective at the moment.
Re:This is what the Republicans want for all of us by thieh · 2014-08-01 13:40 · Score: 1

Or it's just that those opinions which don't resemble that one those got censored already. Or they just want you to think that they censor all the other ideas. or ideas other than "they just want you to think that they censor all the other ideas" got censored. Ad nauseam.
the USSR is back by Joe_Dragon · 2014-08-01 13:44 · Score: 2

the USSR is back
1. Re:the USSR is back by gymbrown · 2014-08-01 14:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I remember as a kid reading the Soviet Union’s constitution giving Soviet citizens more rights than the US. They had a very good constitution and Canada had none. I thought that in Canada, there was no protection similar to our first amendment but Canadians could say, type and publish their thoughts freely. The Soviet union required typewriters to be registered with a typing sample so unauthorized speech wouldn’t contaminate the citizens. Russia is going down the same hole as the Soviet Union and we are following close behind.
  
  --
  Embrace the future.
2. Re:the USSR is back by gymbrown · 2014-08-01 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I didn’t say when I studied this; this was in the late 40s. Your link is several decades since then; the soviets still had a good but ignored constitution for years. The Canadians got their own constitution that outlined several rights of Canadian citizens in 1982. I should have stated when I last studied constitutional freedom way before the Constitution Act of 1982. I talked to a naval tort lawyer about the Soviet Union constitution as he was still a student constitutional law and the newer constitution was only slightly poorer. It was a diversion for him, as he appeared disinterested tort law. The problem we face is, we do not support the Bill of Rights, as we should.
  
  --
  Embrace the future.
3. Re:the USSR is back by sumdumass · 2014-08-01 22:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If the Soviet's constitution gave the people just one right, it gave more than the US constitution does. That is because the US constiitution does not give or grant rights. It bars government from taking away some of the rights peolle already posess.
  This is a pretty important difference.
4. Re:the USSR is back by sociocapitalist · 2014-08-02 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  I remember as a kid reading the Soviet Union’s constitution giving Soviet citizens more rights than the US. They had a very good constitution and Canada had none. I thought that in Canada, there was no protection similar to our first amendment but Canadians could say, type and publish their thoughts freely. The Soviet union required typewriters to be registered with a typing sample so unauthorized speech wouldn’t contaminate the citizens. Russia is going down the same hole as the Soviet Union and we are following close behind.
  Russia wants to be the Soviet Union again. They were a world power, whereas post-Soviet Russia was weak.
  Better than Americans giving up their rights out of a blown out of proportion fear of terrorism.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
5. Re:the USSR is back by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually worse than that. It's devolving to the state of affairs of USSR on politics in general, and economics will likely tank to similar levels and below due to sanctions, but at the same time the things that were actually helpful to the citizens (and there were some, esp. given the other limitations... e.g. right to a job) are not coming back.
6. Re: the USSR is back by apc512599 · 2014-08-05 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  In Post Soviet Russia, authoritarianism isn't back. It was never permitted to leave...
Edward Snowden's Plan B? by Irate+Engineer · 2014-08-01 13:55 · Score: 2

Hmm,

Edward Snowden's professed mission in life is to enable secure, anonymous internet communications.

Edward Snowden's visa in Russia has expired.

Now this.

Snowden is on thin ice, I think. Where could he possibly go from Russia, except for a dark hole in GitMo?

--
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
1. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2014-08-01 15:38 · Score: 2
  
  Wow, you really ARE new around here, aren't you? I'd be OK with you calling it Obama's Torture Chamber if I thought you were just as aware that it was also Bush's Torture Chamber.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
2. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-08-01 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  It was a joke, so as Sgt. Hulka said, Lighten up, Francis.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
3. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by clarkkent09 · 2014-08-01 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's a place to put enemy combatants to whom you don't want to allow the status of POWs (which they are not under international law) but at the same time you don't want to give them access to the US court system by charging them as common criminals (which realistically they also are not as they are waging war on the US). Not really a bad idea.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
4. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by thieh · 2014-08-01 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  but somehow they don't want people to die there from non-natural causes so they give the prisoners there full health coverage.
5. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by Bert64 · 2014-08-01 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Only it's quite easy to charge snowden with a crime, while the ethics of what he did and what he exposed can be questioned, from a purely legal standpoint he did commit a crime.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
6. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by sumdumass · 2014-08-01 23:00 · Score: 2
  
  Anytime a person is in the custody of the state, the state is responsible for their well being.
  This is true if you are in a county detention center, federal prison, state prison, border detention center, or gitmo. There is no somehow about it. It is the same reasoning behind postponing the execution of convicted murderers in order to nurse them back to health before killing them when they become ill on death row.
7. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-08-02 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hell I kinda like this. I keep getting Obamabots to waste their mod points on one-liners like that. It means they have one less point to down-vote an actual criticism of his policies in serious discussions.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
8. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by thieh · 2014-08-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, millions of citizens of the US are being hampered by the republicans to get the same or better health care that prisoners do. So if you are not in prison you are second class to prisoners?
9. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by JeffAtl · 2014-08-02 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's terribly naive to believe that Snowden ever cared about anonymous internet communications. His only goal was to damage the United States.
  Note that internal spying that China, Russia and North Korea engage in are almost never brought to light by Snowden and if they are, it is always something very minor. The NSA would have lots of knowledge of these programs and probably even tapped into them, so why isn't Snowden doing all he can to bring those to light?
  To be clear, the internal that the NSA engaged in crossed the line and should have been exposed. That is a very small part of what Snowden has revealed though. It's just given him domestic cover to give away military secrets.
10. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by sumdumass · 2014-08-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  What is this trollfest lately with all the bashing on republicans about shit taken completely out of context. I know there is an election coming up in which they are expected to cream the democrats but It's getting pretty idiotic when it is obvious that the bash is completely contrived, contorted, and shoehorned into the topic under discussion in ways that make reality itself blush for being so stupid.
  So lets ride your example and stretch reality a little more.. except this won't be a stretch.
  Yes, when those damn republicans insist you are free to do whatever you want with your life, you are able to move around freely without government control, you are able to eat, drink, relax, and participate in recreation at your own volition instead of the scheduled direction of the government, you have the ability to trade effort and value for compensation, you are second class to prisoners. So everyone vote democrat where the government will tell you exactly how to live your life- no large soft drinks for you fatty-, where the government will tell you when to work or where to live, what kind of car you can actually purchase if you are even allowed to get one.
  Yes, this will be a triumphant day when there is no distinction between the current treatment of prisoners and wards of the state and the general populace at large. Everyone vote against those damn republicans who according to the GP are the only things holding this reality back.
  See, I can pretend to be stupid too.
  This is not about political parties, it is about direct responsibility of those in your care. It's why parents are required to provide health insurance and child support for their children after divorce and so on. Except when it is the government, the government is responsible.
11. Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? by currently_awake · 2014-08-02 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are two states in law, Guilty and Innocent. But that's inconvenient so let's make up a new one, "Don't care". The great thing about Don't Care is you can lock people up for as long as you wish because they're not Innocent. And they don't get a trial because they're not Guilty. Maybe this example will explain why "Enemy Combatant" is a bad idea.
Easy fix by penguinoid · 2014-08-01 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

If all the Russian bloggers are just government controlled parrots, just switch to reading foreign blogs.
Also, you could have a setup where your Russian blogger has only a single reader, a foreigner who re-blogs everything they write (unless Russia doesn't take kindly to being clever like this).

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re:Easy fix by sociocapitalist · 2014-08-02 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  If all the Russian bloggers are just government controlled parrots, just switch to reading foreign blogs.
  Also, you could have a setup where your Russian blogger has only a single reader, a foreigner who re-blogs everything they write (unless Russia doesn't take kindly to being clever like this).
  As likely Russian bloggers who want to stay anonymous will VPN out of the country and post somewhere out of Russia's control.
  Control of social media is a bigger problem. A lot of Russians already believe whatever Putin tells them and now they'll have even less visibility of what's actually happening than they already do.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Bloggers in the USA are totally anonymous. Righ by bossk538 · 2014-08-01 14:11 · Score: 1

As I understand it the law, your identity will be public information once you have 3000 hits in a day. In the USA, the NSA might know who all the bloggers, but keeps it private. I imagine that from now on, any blogger in Russia criticizing the government or deviating from the narrative presented by the state-owned media might face consequences.
freedom OF speech? well, of course. by turkeydance · 2014-08-01 14:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

freedom AFTER speech? not so much.
In new-Soviet Russia by presidenteloco · 2014-08-01 14:37 · Score: 1

blog is writing on wall for YOU!

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. Re:In new-Soviet Russia by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-01 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  close but i got you better: in soviet russia your wall writes on you!
Re:Bloggers in the USA are totally anonymous. Righ by epyT-R · 2014-08-01 14:50 · Score: 1

Not if you're careful about it.
More details by Arker · 2014-08-01 14:51 · Score: 4, Informative

This link puts a little meat on the bones, though the story is still sketchy. Seems the law was aimed at 5 or 6 specific bloggers, though probably upwards of 500 could wind up being covered. ISPs not happy with it. Law purports to regulate Russian-language blogging, not limited by geography or physical placement. So a foreigner could theoretically run afoul of it if they publish in Russian (and become popular doing so) while a Russian could write anything they want without worry as long as they do it in another language?

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1. Re:More details by malvcr · 2014-08-02 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see.
  
  That "particular" law (I don't know others by now), indicates that if one person can influence a big quantity (> 3000) of the population writing something publicly in a blog, this person must be able to be monitored by the State. Also, that it is oriented to Russian speakers, and if the foreign Russian sites don't apply this law they will be blocked in Russian territory.
  
  It seems, as somebody said in the discussion, that they are giving blog writers the same treatment as journalists. And thinking carefully, bloggers with that quantity of readers are really journalists. So, I don't see a problem with that ... the problem could be in "what" they do with the journalists in general.
  
  The other issue is related with the Internet technology in general. Because they are controlling what the people can read in Russia even produced in another country. And here the problem is how they apply their rules, because the rules are not wrong by themselves. If what they are blocking is information about how to commit suicide, how to kill your neighbour, pornography, how to make damage to children, about difamation and these types of things, then it is a more than welcomed task; but when the facilities are there, it is very easy to jump beyond what "bad" is and to arrive to political censorship... and then we are talking about something completely different.
  
  Anyway, each person has a different concept about "what" "good" "is".
Ahhhh, so fuckin' what by fustakrakich · 2014-08-01 15:07 · Score: 1

Let all this crap be an incentive to develop better method of circumvention. The mightiest will always rule the universe.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Context by Livius · 2014-08-01 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not that it makes this kind of policy, but Russia has had authoritarian governments for 500 years. What's the US's excuse?
1. Re:Context by Livius · 2014-08-01 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  That should be:
  Not that it makes this kind of policy okay, but Russia has had authoritarian governments for 500 years. What's the US's excuse?
2. Re:Context by aardvarkjoe · 2014-08-01 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has had authoritarian governments for 500 years. What's the US's excuse?
  Well, we haven't existed for 500 years, but give us some time -- we'll match that record!
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
3. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Post anything remotely anti-US, nomatter how off topic or wrong and get +4 insightful by default. Bigotry at work.
Russia... by countach · 2014-08-01 15:23 · Score: 1

Russia has always been a very authoritarian state, even from well before Soviet times. But its a shame to see them going backwards like this. This ought to be the time for their freedoms to bloom, but alas.
Yay Putin by Tailhook · 2014-08-01 15:51 · Score: 1

Russia; cultivate your masculinity and say bad things about America and you too can install yourself for life.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:This is what the Republicans want for all of us by superwiz · 2014-08-01 19:04 · Score: 1

What the fuck are you talking about? Democrats are the neo-Communist party.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
in the Soviet America by superwiz · 2014-08-01 19:05 · Score: 1

The government registers you.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:This is just propagandic spin for Dumb Westerne by ultranova · 2014-08-01 20:03 · Score: 1

I didn't know cold_fjord has kin in Russia. Small world, eh?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
bloggers are journalists now by Tom · 2014-08-01 20:20 · Score: 2

"bloggers with at least 3,000 daily readers must register with Roskomnadzor, the regulator that also oversees Russia's main media outlets."

Ironically, it also means that bloggers are now treated the same as journalists - isn't that what they've wanted for years? ;-)

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
NSA still wiretapping the whole world by mnt · 2014-08-01 20:36 · Score: 1

and it seems people care more about russia
Re:In other news... by sumdumass · 2014-08-01 23:11 · Score: 1

It has nothing to do with 1% or 99%.
Putan ran for office and was elected on the promise of protecting Russia from its enemies foreign or within. This was rigjt after those protests in Russia that was blamed on Hillary starting.
There has been a fear or mindset in Russia for a while now that outside influences are trying to undermine its economy and stability.
"Must"... you keep using that word... by sirwired · 2014-08-01 23:49 · Score: 1

Anonymous bloggers "must" register if they get over 5,000 readers? Yeah, I'm sure all the bloggers hosted on foreign sites will get right on that... Russia has not yet set up anything like the Great Firewall of China, so this requirement is utterly impossible to enforce.
1. Re:"Must"... you keep using that word... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has not yet set up anything like the Great Firewall of China, so this requirement is utterly impossible to enforce.
  Actually yes, it did just that. The law requires all Russian ISPs to block sites based on the centralized blacklist maintained by the government. It is already in heavy use, though the blacklist is not nearly as pervasive as the Chinese one.
Re:This is just propagandic spin for Dumb Westerne by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-08-02 14:45 · Score: 1

I doubt GP is Russian. It's far more likely that he's far right or far left American. These guys have been fapping on foreign oppressive regimes for a long time now, though Russia is the first one where both are fapping on it at the same time (left, because it's anti-US; right, because it's strongly conservative).
Re:This is just propagandic spin for Dumb Westerne by q4Fry · 2014-08-04 05:32 · Score: 1

Having a law against "lying**" when "truth" means "statements the government makes" is markedly different from when "truth" means objectively factual statements.

** I presume you are riffing here on the "slander" part of the RT snippet.
Re:This is what the Republicans want for all of us by 3.5+stripes · 2014-08-04 22:58 · Score: 1

WTF are you talking about? The Democrats would have to cross over a lot of right wing territory, the great expanses of moderate, and a good bit of the socialist mountains before ending up anywhere near communism.
Just because they're not as right wing as you'd like in no way makes them communists of any stripe.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!