Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Bill Requires Encryption Backdoors In All Messenger Apps (dailydot.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the privacy-vs-security dept.

Patrick O'Neill quotes a report from The Daily Dot: A new bill in the Russian Duma, the country's lower legislative house, proposes to make cryptographic backdoors mandatory in all messaging apps in the country so the Federal Security Service -- the successor to the KGB -- can obtain special access to all communications within the country. [Apps like WhatsApp, Viber, and Telegram, all of which offer varying levels of encrypted security for messages, are specifically targeted in the "anti-terrorism" bill, according to the Russian-language media. Fines for the offending companies could reach 1 million rubles or about $15,000.] Russian Senator Elena Mizulina argued that the new bill ought to become law because, she said, teens are brainwashed in closed groups on the internet to murder police officers, a practice protected by encryption. Mizulina then went further. "Maybe we should revisit the idea of pre-filtering [messages]," she said. "We cannot look silently on this."

8 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh dear, this is ironic. Russia is a haven for online criminals, something they really ought to crack down on. Instead of pursuing actual criminals, they're looking to reduce the privacy of people who haven't done anything wrong. What a screwed up country!

    1. Re: Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My god you people are fucking stupid. Your hate of the US is so strong you refuse to acknowledge reality. Yes, the US engages in mass surveillance. So do the EU and Australia. Edward Snowden talked about the fourteen eyes, which includes much of the EU. In fact, EU countries that are left out of these surveillance pacts want in very much. There is one huge difference, though, between the fourteen eyes and Russia. The fourteen eyes aren't actively cracking down on human rights and political dissidents. I'm free to criticize Obama heavily without fear of government retribution. Canadian, Australian, and EU citizens enjoy the same freedoms with their respective governments. Russia, however, does not tolerate criticism of its government nearly as much. Speak out against Putin there and see what happens; it won't turn out well for you. Expressions of homosexuality are also heavily restricted and Russia has a horrible record of LGBT rights. So many people here are blinded by their hatred of the US that they're willing to praise a country with Russia's record for admitting their mass surveillance. This is part of why Slashdot is fucking unreadable these days. There is absolutely no way we should be praising Russia at all for this.

    2. Re: Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the two countries advertises itself as the "land of the free". The fact that a de facto dictatorship under Putin is enacting the very laws our own country's agencies have been fighting for should bother you more than it does.

      The sarcastic comments above illustrate discontent with the fact that our two governments are not as distant in their actions as some of us would be comfortable with.

    3. Re: Oh, the irony! by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pffff.

      Our current hatred of the US stems from the fact that while countries like Russia and China are EXPECTED to pull shit like this, the US that I grew up in is not.
      The US would like everyone to think that we're the good guys and they put an awful lot of effort into trying to promote that image to its citizens.

      However, as time goes on, it seems the only differences between the US and the so called " bad guys " are the languages we speak. We might not be AS screwed up* as some other countries are, but we're trying to get there as fast as we possibly can.

      *We're more screwed up in some aspects.

  2. Russian bill acknowledges backdoors in all .... by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    messaging apps

    Fixed that for you

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Stop providing services by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To any country that makes encryption either illegal, or treats it as eminent domain for the government to have access to it's citizen's communications.

    This is the same crap the UK is proposing, and the same crap the US is trying to implement. It's time for the citizens, and thereby the private services providers, to stand up and say "No More!!!".

  4. It's not only Russia by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Free speech and privacy are viewed as terrorism here, too.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. Re:I never understood privacy (eyeroll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rather than mod you down -1 Troll, which you probably deserve with a subject of "I never understood privacy", I'm going to "fall for it" and actually address your convoluted point of view as if you were serious, Mr. doesn't-understand-privacy-but-still-named-"110010001000".

    I never understood why people think networks like the Internet are supposed to be private

    When you say "supposed to"-- to what authority are you appealing? Certainly there are many many mechanisms built on the internet that are "supposed to" enforce private communications, so on the face of it your statement is wrong. I dont' understand what is so hard about the goals of TLS, SSL, SSH, PGP, etc. that you don't understand them.

    They weren't designed to be originally.

    The underlying TCP/IP may not have had privacy as a premiere concern, but certainly numerous technologies built on top of TCP/IP have and do. The underlying protocols do what they were designed to do for the most part. Saying they weren't "originally" designed to enforce privacy is like saying that you don't understand why the web is supposed to work because TCP/IP isn't originally designed to serve web pages.

    In fact, the first networks were broadcast: every node "talked" to every other node. I don't know if this is even true, but if it is, so what? The first TVs were in black and white, does this mean that you don't understand why people think TV is supposed to be in color?

    if you want secrecy, don't use a communication network like the Internet. What? Why not? Because some networks at one point broadcasted everything to everyone on the network? How does that even preclude a single recipient from uniquely decoding the message?

    What mechanism would you recommend one use for communicating privately, exactly? Because I'm very willing to argue that the underlying communication platform of whatever-you-come-up-with was never "supposed to be private" by your own ehm, let's-say-logic.

    if you look at the history of networks in general, security was an afterthought that was tacked on top (poorly)

    Since you hate privacy so much, could you please post as a response your real name, social security number (if American), address, bank account numbers, balances, and PINs, and credit card info? I'm sure people would be happy to send you a lot of reasons to value secrecy-over-networks.

    Y'know what-- I do hate you, Aspie.

    Can we mod this trollish crap down?