Slashdot Mirror


Russian Leader Putin Signs Controversial 'Big Brother' Law (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Today Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the controversial "anti-terrorist" legislation adopted by the lower and upper houses of parliament in late June, despite the flurry of criticism from opposition-minded circles and the serious concerns expressed by Russian telecom and internet companies. As reported earlier by East-West Digital News, the new legislation -- which Edward Snowden has called "Russia's new Big-Brother law" -- is not only severe against those involved in "international terrorism," its financing or non-denunciation. Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight. Several key provisions will directly affect the internet and telecom industry. In particular, telecom operators and internet resources will need to store the recordings of all phone calls and the content of all text messages for a period of six months. They will be required to cooperate with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to make their users' communications fully accessible to this organization.

166 comments

  1. Putin's political opponents are lucky by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 3, Funny

    if they have an argument with their spouse about any past conversation they can settle the argument by just calling up the kremlin and asking for a transcript

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    1. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Troll

      What makes you think that Russia is different from the USA? Just 'cause they have it doesn't mean you get it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, according to the article if the russians do it it's controversial.

    3. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Yup, this.

      Also: Putin's trying to keep up with the JonesesUncleSams's .

      Also: In Soviet Russia, people are starting "In Capitalist USA, ..." jokes.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    4. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that Russia is different from the USA? Just 'cause they have it doesn't mean you get it.

      Whoooosh!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Chairman Mao, or the Queen and the Kaiser etc etc etc .... why be so closed minded ?

    6. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

      It occurs to me that such laws will only encourage sales of telephones and other equipment that directly communicate with satellites, which are in orbit and outside the laws that apply inside national boundaries.

    7. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Satellites are still owned by terrestrial companies that exist within national borders.

    8. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Chairman Mao, or the Queen and the Kaiser etc etc etc .... why be so closed minded ?

      IT is funny that a Republican in Missouri used a picture of Mao Zedong to try and imply that his Democratic opponent was supporting Chinese partners.. which is ridiculous because Mao Zedong has been dead since 1976. Someone somewhere has been trying to rewrite history for too long and needs to check what decade they are in!

    9. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by doccus · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that Russia is different from the USA? Just 'cause they have it doesn't mean you get it.

      To me it looks like 6 of one and a half a dozen of the other. For all intents and purposes Russia is enacting precisely the same legislation as the USA. And that's hardly surprising. International "harmonization" of their legal codes is a key goal of the NWO... It needs to be so before they "blend" all the countries into their great monster country.. then there would be no point in trying to escape a tyrannical regime as there would be nowhere to go.

    10. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by doccus · · Score: 1

      Yup, this.

      Also: Putin's trying to keep up with the JonesesUncleSams's .

      Also: In Soviet Russia, people are starting "In Capitalist USA, ..." jokes.

      Yup, this.

      Also: Putin's trying to keep up with the JonesesUncleSams's .

      Also: In Soviet Russia, people are starting "In Capitalist USA, ..." jokes.

      WHoosh! In Capitalist USA the jokes make more people

    11. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by doccus · · Score: 1

      Or Chairman Mao, or the Queen and the Kaiser etc etc etc .... why be so closed minded ?

      IT is funny that a Republican in Missouri used a picture of Mao Zedong to try and imply that his Democratic opponent was supporting Chinese partners.. which is ridiculous because Mao Zedong has been dead since 1976. Someone somewhere has been trying to rewrite history for too long and needs to check what decade they are in!

      He may be dead, but his legacy lives on. And on. And on...

    12. Re:Putin's political opponents are lucky by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Old Russian joke:

      Apparatshik: "Lenin is dead! But his cause goes on!"
      Old woman: "Could we get it the other way 'round?"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. In Soviet America by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight. Several key provisions will directly affect the internet and telecom industry. In particular, telecom operators and internet resources will need to store the recordings of all phone calls and the content of all text messages for a period of six months. They will be required to cooperate with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to make their users' communications fully accessible to this organization."

    We will marvel at this here in the US, but it's on the way here as well. It won't just be terrorism fears, it'll be cries from the other side of the aisle about political corruption and tax evasion and everything else.

    Unless we resist it, government will always be seeking more power, as will the half of the political spectrum that is always seeking ever-more government.

    1. Re:In Soviet America by clonehappy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's on the way here as well.

      It's already been here, you just haven't been paying attention.

      Who is being targeted by it only depends on what regime is currently in power.

    2. Re:In Soviet America by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless we resist it, government will always be seeking more power, as will the half of the political spectrum that is always seeking ever-more government.

      Both halves of the political spectrum (i.e. Republicans and Democrats) push for ever-more government. They might differ in some instances as to where this bigger government should be intruding, but they both support it. The days of the Republicans being proponents of small government are gone. (If that ever was the case, in the first place. At the very least, the GOP has been a steady supporter of increasing the military's size no matter what.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:In Soviet America by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      it's on the way here as well.

      It's already been here, you just haven't been paying attention.

      Who is being targeted by it only depends on what regime is currently in power.

      It's already here that telecom operators are required to record and store all phone calls?

    4. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been here for over a decade

    5. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both halves of the political spectrum (i.e. Republicans and Democrats) push for ever-more government.

      If we bring up Libertarians, people will grouse about how ridiculous a completely free market would be. Yet, if we evaluate the two big parties using the same metric (by extrapolating the direction in which they are pushing to its extreme conclusion), people will grouse about how we are not evaluating them fairly and will bring up examples of moderation. Rational debate in politics has fallen to religious fervor. If you want to fix it, you've got to get rid of plurality voting. Otherwise, the system will just push back against any pressure you put in any direction. You can't fill a leaky bucket until you fix the leak.

    6. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama has simplified the matter and just has the NSA do it.

    7. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unless we resist it, government will always be seeking more power, as will the half of the political spectrum that is always seeking ever-more government."

      I'll remind you which "half" of the political spectrum began and amplified the illegal wiretapping regime in this country, and it wasn't "liberals" either.

      The truth is there's no right to privacy, and you eroded willingly the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Now you want to grandstand politically.

      Blow.

    8. Re:In Soviet America by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      What? Truman was a democrat.

      Your mistake is not recognizing how old this is.

      FYI After WWII Truman agreed to formalize the informal system setup during the war under Roosevelt: The English and Australians spied on American citizens. The Americans and Australians spied on English citizens. The Americans and English spied on Australian citizens.

      I'll grant you Truman wasn't very liberal as democrats go. He was a product of the Kansas City corrupt democratic political machine, kind of like Obama is a product of the Chicago machine.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:In Soviet America by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      but it's on the way here as well.

      Ummm, hello? It's long past the point of being "on the way here", it's here. It's been here for quite some time.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    10. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do Republicans and Democrats add up to anything close to two halves of the politican spectrum? Both combined, I think they still represent less than half of peoples' opinions.

    11. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "half"? How about the "whole"?

    12. Re: In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly hope that is the case. I don't believe any politician that has a D or an R next to their name.

    13. Re:In Soviet America by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there's only semantics diffs between russia and the US, or the UK and the US, when it comes to this very human-need to snoop on our fellow man and control, Control, CONTROL him.

      we used to make jokes about 'we dont do this, we are not russia' but we have become the stereotypical 'russians'. minor details vary, but the theme is 100% identical.

      a week ago, I was at a store that was giving away american flags for the 4th of july. I looked at them, thought to myself 'I have no pride in the US anymore, why would I want to boast about being american, these days? we are no better than anyone else, truth be told, and everything I was taught about the US, as a kid, were lies'.

      I walked past the table of flags and I have to tell you, it was not a pleasant thought to think what my country has become, over the last 20 years. I was never a flag-waver before, but the very thought of being proud of ourselves makes me feel quite conflicted. yes, there are some things we do well, but with so many lies and so much corruption, I just don't feel the same about my country anymore.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:In Soviet America by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      Which is why we need to curtail the power of government. Hmmm. A return to limited government anyone?

      Nah. That's only for whacky libertarians.

      You want to keep growing government? Vote for Hillary or Trump.

      You want to start to turn things around? Vote Third Party in 2016

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    15. Re:In Soviet America by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 2

      Why ask the operators for cooperation when you can get that data yourself? Or ask the NSA for some help. Sometimes, when you're under investigation, it's also fun to spy the people investigating you

      --
      -SR
    16. Re:In Soviet America by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      HALF of the political spectrum?

      Or are you one of those children who believe the Conservatives when they say they want less government?

    17. Re:In Soviet America by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      nice try, but the system won't allow 3rd parties.

      I wish you were right, but you are completely wrong, in a very real sense.

      you can try to patch a broken system, like win3 brought to win98 and then brought upwards still. at some point, you have to THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT and restart it.

      yes, I mean that. exactly what I mean. nothing less will give us the results we want.

      someone has to say this. I'll say it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    18. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no democrat and republican perties in Russia.

    19. Re:In Soviet America by emaname · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct, Jason unlike "tripleevenfall" who clearly has some kind of political agenda with re to that party on "the other side of the aisle" thing.

      I recommend "tripleevenfall" review the origins of the Patriot Act. First of all, it was signed into law by a Republican Admin, but you'll see that everybody (ie, both political parties) were involved by introducing additional provisions, etc.

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    20. Re:In Soviet America by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      nice try, but the system won't allow 3rd parties.

      Lincoln ring a bell? And I don't mean the car. Honest Abe ran for President as a Republican, back when the Republicans were the "third party".

      Of course, we got a Civil War that time. Maybe we can do better the next time...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:In Soviet America by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Most of the time 3rd party ideals have been co-opted by the major parties. (Gay rights and drug legalization have been party of the libertarian party platform since it started.)

      If you're correct then we have only two possible futures - a repressive government or a devastating civil war (which may very well lead to a repressive government). Our system of government does allow for change. All you need to do is to vote for the 3rd party candidate.

      If 3rd parties get a combined 10%, 20%, 30% or more of the vote don't you think that people would take notice?

      Part of the reason Trump has done so well is because he is a middle finger to politicians who promise one thing and then renege on it. (Saying vote for me again to get "x" passed.) Now I think that Trump is a con man but that's another story.

      If you were correct Trump would not have won the Republican nomination. The establishment hates him, the social conservatives don't like him either. He brought new voters out of the woodwork and swamped the establishment candidates until it was only two outsiders left (Cruz and himself). Trump is so disliked that the establishment started backing Cruz!!!!

      No. It's not too late to get change via the ballot box.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    22. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your phone calls are logged and transcribed by companies like Nexidia since the end of the 90s. The can actually transcribe your call mid-transmission in real time and identify over 20 languages. Since then, that was expanded to include your email, Facebook, location tracking, full list of user accounts, and personal information. All of that was not very transparent so you still do not believe it is happening.

    23. Re:In Soviet America by youngone · · Score: 1

      The English and Australians spied on American citizens

      etc

      Hey, hey, don't forget New Zealand, we've got Waihopai

      You're welcome.

    24. Re:In Soviet America by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If 3rd parties get a combined 10%, 20%, 30% or more of the vote don't you think that people would take notice?

      No. If 3rd parties routinely threw elections and people took notice, then they would be unlawful in one way or another. The only reason they are tolerated is that they have no significant influence and provide a modicum of false respectability to the political process.

      No. It's not too late to get change via the ballot box.

      Once we selected plurality as our voting system, it was too late. I do not blame the people who did this since they could not know better but I blame those who continue to support it. We have the government and everything resulting from it that we deserve.

    25. Re:In Soviet America by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The days of the Republicans being proponents of small government are gone. (If that ever was the case, in the first place. At the very least, the GOP has been a steady supporter of increasing the military's size no matter what.)

      Republicans never supported small government but they liked to say they did.

    26. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now, there are rules dictacting who gets to be part of the national debates. You have to poll at 10% or something at a national level. I suspect as soon as a third party candidate does this, the rules will be changed to 15% so as to no include the third party.

      Since the parties essentially get to control the debate platform they completely control the narrative. No laws will change this because the parties themselves aren't even part of the Constitution though Washington warned us against them.

    27. Re:In Soviet America by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      You know, 50 years ago your country (US) made a military dictatorship happen in my country (BR), and they supported the dictators during that dictatorship. The claim at the time was that we could turn into communists, and we as a people shouldn't be allowed to choose.

      While I see that the US is turning to shit even for Americans, it's important that you know you weren't better as a country before. It's just that instead of just fucking others over, your own people is getting screwed too, and we are getting to know it better thanks to the Internet and to whistleblowers.

      PS. my country is pretty shit too, we currently are under another coup that is succeeding because it might stop investigations on corruption. Most countries are (this post was about how shit Russia is). Don't feel offended that I criticize your country. Patriotism is BS, people should try to fix their countries, not love them.

    28. Re:In Soviet America by antdude · · Score: 1

      The problem is humans. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    29. Re:In Soviet America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a week ago, I was at a store that was giving away american flags for the 4th of july. I looked at them, thought to myself 'I have no pride in the US anymore, why would I want to boast about being american, these days?

      Nationalism is just a control mechanism for the masses, like any other. It's extremely strong and well-exploited in both the US and Russia.

    30. Re:In Soviet America by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      How do you explain Trump? The Republican establishment did their best to get rid of him.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    31. Re:In Soviet America by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      We have had this for over a decade and a half.

    32. Re:In Soviet America by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      And I'll second it.

  3. Link to law text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have a link to the actual text of the law?

    1. Re:Link to law text by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      Basically, it says:
      Link to Google Translate

      (Had to do the Google translate link because slashcode borked it if I tried to put Russian text in.)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:Link to law text by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Phonetically writing the Russian sounds using /. compatible western characters, it comes out like this:

      Vse vashi bazy prinadlezhat nam

      And Google translate is apparently smart enough to still translate this properly, so I should have just done it this way in the first place. D'oh!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  4. NSA Envy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Russians too often just copy what Americans do.

    1. Re:NSA Envy ? by bmo · · Score: 2

      While this is said tongue-in-cheek, the recent events of the last 15 years have given governments around the world the ability to say to their citizens that "The US does it too" as justification. Sometimes even with US technical aid.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:NSA Envy ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "And if the USA jump off a cliff, ..."

      Gee, I sound like my dad...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:NSA Envy ? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "And if the USA jump off a cliff, ..."

      Be sure the camera is rolling...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:NSA Envy ? by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

      Ready when you are CB!

    5. Re:NSA Envy ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Not in this area. Russians were doing this long before Americans seriously considered it. For example, that whole "we don't need a warrant for metadata" thing? Russia did it in 1995.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  5. Oh Really? by twmcneil · · Score: 0

    I suspect they are just formalizing the already standard practices.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  6. US ISPs already store text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

    The "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight" is nonsense. The law requires judicial oversight in that the court has to empanel a prosecutor to investigate you before the cops can be granted access. Basically the FSB can get warrantless access only if a court has already okayed an investigation into you. Russia doesn't have grand juries but the closest US analog is a grand jury saying "go ahead and do this."

    1. Re:US ISPs already store text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

      90.

    2. Re:US ISPs already store text messages by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

      unicode takes up more disk space.

      that, and as others have said, 90 more days.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:US ISPs already store text messages by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

      90

      Goddamn New Math...

  7. In Soviet Russia... by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

    ...You're fucked

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  8. No Judicial Oversight by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Access to every communication with no judicial oversight? The question isn't "will this be abused" but "how quickly will this be abused?" Also: "Will we ever know that it has been abused or will the Russian government cover it up?"

    Bonus question: Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Putin's agents were already doing this, it just makes it more widely available.

    2. Re:No Judicial Oversight by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      There doesn't have to be a Snowden. No one in Russia really believes that they aren't already somehow being watched at the level that the NSA is/was doing. They would likely shrug and start taking bets on how long Snowdenski would remain alive before someone slipped him some polonium.

    3. Re:No Judicial Oversight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Snowdenski is probably a Pole. Just saying...

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:No Judicial Oversight by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Access to every communication with no judicial oversight? The question isn't "will this be abused" but "how quickly will this be abused?" Also: "Will we ever know that it has been abused or will the Russian government cover it up?"

      Bonus question: Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

      Snowden was a thing because the US were hiding what they were doing. Putin doesn't give a fuck.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Maritz · · Score: 1

      He sometimes confuses him with Snodenov.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    6. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Right, the convention is to end Polish names with "ski" and Russian with 'sky," so Snowdensky would be the Russianized version. Also, interesting that the OP mentioned polonium, which is named after Poland (by Marie Curie who was Polish and who discovered the element). On top of that, Poland would probably be a better place for a Russian equivalent of Snowden to seek asylum. Among other things, it would make the Poles think about the fact that their constitution was written with privacy provisions specifically to prevent a high tech version of the Soviet Union.

    7. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Steve1952 · · Score: 2

      "Abuse" implies contrary to intent. Since the intent of the Russian law is clearly to suppress internal political dissent, I would argue either that no abuse can occur, or alternatively that abuse will occur within a few nanoseconds of implementation (limited by the speed of light).

    8. Re:No Judicial Oversight by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      They would use him to trade for Snowden. I'm surprised you would even ask that.

    9. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

      Putin takes a slightly different approach to dealing with people who flee his grasp than Barack Obama does.

      It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210. Hell, if we really wanted him that badly all that was required was some realpolitik: "President Putin, we'll quietly acquiesce to your fait accompli in Crimea, all you have to do is put Mr. Snowden on the next flight to JFK......"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:No Judicial Oversight by maharvey · · Score: 1

      The US government is no different. They already do this, and for the same purpose, only they hide their actions and dissemble about the purpose.

      What is a terrorist but a political dissenter who turned to violence? And in the current US political climate, all dissenters are suspected to be potential terrorists, and since the goal is to eliminate terrorists before they actually commit a crime, the actual (unstated) goal is to eliminate dissenters.

    11. Re:No Judicial Oversight by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Snodenov and Snodenki.

      LOL

      somewhere, there could be a joke that parallels the 'evil spock' with a beard and the non-evil non-bearded spock to the US vs russian 'snowdens'.

      I wonder how long it will take until snowden becomes a verb, if not already one.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:No Judicial Oversight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The russian ending is more like "skiy" phonetically, besides it is not only the ending, but also the "w" letter in the name, which is extensively used in polish, but is very rare in russian transliteration. And, from what I remember from my russian lessons very long ago, even in Russia the "skiy" ending is not that common and is a hint of either polish or gentry ancestors, something like that.

      Don't get your hopes up when it comes to Poland, though. They seem to go full retard right now.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210.

      Nope. Enemies of the US tends to encounter some mentally ill person with a knife or a gun unless they just disappear.

    14. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, "-skiy" is fundamentally of Polish-Lithuanian origin, even in Russian family names. It was the common way for nobility in Poland, and later in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, to derive a family name from geographic location - usually some place that they have owned. There was always considerable migration of nobility back and forth between Russia and Poland, back when they were separate countries, and of course many lands that were Polish for a long time ended up in Russia, along with their population. And then there was cultural influence on adjacent territories etc.

      Note that it doesn't necessarily indicate Polish ancestry, though. Plenty of noble families in GDL, and later in the Commonwealth, were ethnically Russian, spoke Russian, and practiced Eastern Orthodoxy - but used names like these.

    15. Re:No Judicial Oversight by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was gonna say... this is excellent transparency for what's doubtless going on already!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  9. Russians don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russians enjoy getting backdoor'ed up the ass by Mother Russia with a sickle.

  10. Snoopers Charter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did it courtesy of Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, who pushed through the UK's version of this (complete with free access to everyones Internet logs) during the Brexit debates.

    Oh, and one extra treat, this law doesn't limit Putin to spying on Russians in Russia, he can use it to force ISPs to hand over their foreign data too... just like Theresa May's law.

    So companies like Vodafone who operate in Europe and Russia will be handing over our European data to the Putins lot soon enough.

  11. Internet needs to quit playing along by T.E.D. · · Score: 0

    They can force their ISPs to comply, but there's no reason why non-Russian services like Google, twitter, and Facebook have to go along with this. Morally, they shouldn't.

    Yeah, competitors might swoop in, but let them. Let Russia build its own totalitarian-friendly internet if it likes. They can have fun talking to North Koreans and Egyptians and Chinese to their heart's content, and let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.

    1. Re:Internet needs to quit playing along by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.

      I think governments around the world are already in pursuit of free people enough, thank you.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:Internet needs to quit playing along by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Stop talking about "the internet" as if it had a personality of its own. "The internet", that's us. The ISPs are not "the internet", and they are certainly not the internet police, they are not when it comes to policing whether certain content may or may not pass through their cables and they are not when it comes to protecting your privacy.

      The only person who can protect your privacy is you. And you alone.

      Start using encryption, and where encryption is outlawed, start using encryption that cannot be detected as such.

      There is nobody out there who is going to come to our rescue. We have to take that matter into our own hands.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Internet needs to quit playing along by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The ISPs are not "the internet"

      They are the "anchor" that can cut off access at any moment.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Internet needs to quit playing along by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Most Russians only speak Russian. You think they're going to miss the English-speaking internet?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  12. Leader? How about dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is little different than his Soviet predecessors.

    1. Re:Leader? How about dictator by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But Führer sounds so much more likable!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Leader? How about dictator by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Dear Leader fits perfectly well with Putin.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  13. Wow by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    The terrorists won even in countries they didn't attack on 9/11

    Fascism by the government is on the rise worldwide....

    1. Re:Wow by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Putin has been tightening the noose ever since he was put in charge. The job's his until he appoints his heir.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Wow by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      They've been a lot more terrorist attacks in Russia, and for longer, than the USA. And they've been very useful getting the public to support authoritarianism.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorist will push on until the targeted countries start to round up Muslims and send them to camps. After the Great War we can all be very, very sorry and create the true Caliphate for them to live in. Rinse and repeat.

  14. A simple exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fact #1: The republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together over the past century. Neither has dominated alone; they have shared roughly equally in the domination of US politics.

    Fact #2: The US government of today dwarfs the US government of a century ago, in terms of both revenue (adjusted for population growth) and power over the people. In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries. By any measure, the US government is the largest and most powerful government this world has ever seen.

    Now consider the common view of the republicans being the party of small government, and the democracts being the party of big government. If that were true, wouldn't we expect their political efforts to roughly cancel each other out, resulting in a US government roughly the same size as a century ago, measured in either revenue or power over the people?

    The problem is that it's not. In fact, it's not even comparable. The US government of today absolutely dwarfs the US government of a century ago. What can we possibly conclude from this except that neither the republicans nor democrats have been fighting for smaller government? If they had been, we wouldn't be sitting in the middle of the largest, most far-reaching, most expensive, and most powerful government in world history.

    1. Re:A simple exercise by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is the GOP sucks at its job then?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries

      You know that metric is total bullshit right? Are there half a dozen unarmed US service-members there at the behest of the local government to help train local forces? That country is now considered to have a "US military presence." It's kind of like the way that MADD counts "alcohol related" accidents to inflate fears of drunk driving. Sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian? That's an "alcohol related" accident. Sober driver with drunk passenger gets rear ended by someone who was texting? That's another "alcohol related" accident.

      Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:A simple exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Different AC here, but I'd call it more accurate to say that the GOP sucks at its publicly stated purpose. At its actual job, it's been performing splendidly for decades.

    4. Re:A simple exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll gladly rescind that comment, although I don't see you offering up any proof of your view. But I'll gladly rescind it, because it changes nothing about the fact that the US government absolutely dominates the world in both military operations AND military spending, as they have for most of the past century. You simply don't get to that level of world domination through a philosophy of "small government".

    5. Re:A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations. We have a web of security agreements and alliances, all of which help to enforce the post-WW2 global order. We helped to create that order, along with the United Nations, and despite the many failings of the status quo we haven't seen a major power conflict since WW2. The World is still a messy place but it hasn't engaged in total warfare with tens of millions of casualties.

      If you dislike the status quo, well, there's currently a loudmouthed asshole running for POTUS that promises to upend it. He seeks to turn our country inward and withdraw from those agreements that you view as dominating. Should he win -- $deity help us all -- you may well get to see the outcome you desire, but I don't think you'll like it, in the long term.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:A simple exercise by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations.

      Here's one small example of the US's dominance (as opposed to "bilateral relations"): the US Navy has 19 aircraft carriers (with ten of them being supercarriers ), while every other country in the world has between zero and four, with the vast majority being glorified destroyers with helipads. The rest of NATO combined has fewer carriers than the US has supercarriers.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:A simple exercise by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Fact #3: the whole notion of a large, intrusive national government in the USA grew out of the Great Depression and WW2.

      Might want to check to see who dominated the government then, if you want to get a few clues.

      Note that this is not meant to imply that the Republicans are little angels - power attracts power, and as the Federal government grew and grew, it increasingly attracted the kind of people who like to tell other people what to do, on all sides of the political fence.

      But it started with FDR, not with the other Party....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re: A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      What's your point? The United States is a maritime nation. We've always had a strong navy. Traditionally there were other strong navies, but navies are expensive, and nobody else wants to spend the money. Incidentally, we spend less of our GDP on defense than many other countries, and the USN keeps the global commons, e.g., the ocean, open for all.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re: A simple exercise by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My point is that projecting enough force "keep the global commons" by ourselves, i.e., unilaterally, proves the AC's point that the US "absolutely dominates the world in... military operations" and completely contradicts yours that the operations are "bilateral."

      My second point is that you are either being deliberately obtuse about it, or a complete moron.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re: A simple exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, dropping bombs is bilateral alright. Both parties negotiated and agreed it would be a good thing!

    11. Re: A simple exercise by youngone · · Score: 1

      we spend less of our GDP on defense than many other countries...

      I thought I would do a quick search to test this, and found this which shows Saudi Arabia, Israel and Russia are the only countries which spend more of their GDP on defense (in 2014 anyway). I would imagine a fair bit of Israel's spending comes from the $3 billion or so in aid the US sends over each year, and Saudi buys their gear from the US. There's a lot of money in war.

    12. Re: A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.

      In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re: A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.

      I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re: A simple exercise by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945.

      That's because there are no peer or near-peer countries! Our military dwarfs literally every other military on the planet in almost every conceivable way (IIRC China has more personnel, but they aren't nearly as well equipped). The only reason our military spending seems reasonable when expressed as a percentage of GDP is that our GDP is gigantic too! We could cut the DoD to just over 1/6th of its current budget and still outspend every other country.

      In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power.

      No, it's economic and cultural power and hard military power. We may not use the full strength of our military all the time (or ever, since 1945), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that we aren't spending hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain it.

      Note well that I am not making value judgement about whether or not we "should" be maintaining such a gigantic military. I'm just saying that failing to acknowledge the FACT that we are doing so is despicable willful ignorance on your part.

      (Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re: A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.

      China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.

      (Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)

      Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.

      Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion. :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re: A simple exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have sympathy for the hundreds of innocents killed every year by US military operations? Did you know that they actually have a quota on "collateral damage" (i.e. manslaughter)? If the number of innocent deaths exceeds the quota, the next one needs to be signed off by a commander. That's not the procedure of a savior -- that's the procedure of a tyrant.

      I can tell you one thing: if the friends and family of those murdered by US military operations once sympathized with the US presence, they sure as hell don't anymore -- and rightfully so.

    17. Re: A simple exercise by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      War is messy. Unlike our enemies, we don't deliberately target civilians. We fight with one hand tied behind our back, obeying the rules of civilized warfare despite the fact that our enemies do not do so. If we chose to play without rules, as they do, we could wipe them out tomorrow.

      How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re: A simple exercise by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Unlike our enemies, we don't deliberately target civilians.

      Bullshit!
      We routinely target civilians. What the hell do you think the purpose of dropping the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was? It had nothing to do with military targets. We dropped them there to maximize civilian casualties. In Vietnam we sprayed agent orange on the crops of the civilians. We also had groups of soldiers who were ordered to massacre entire villages who had no weapons. This was not done by rouge parts of the military, these were orders from the top of military command.

  15. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin pidaraaaaaas pidaraaaaaas extreme pidaraaaaas

    1. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true

  16. Third party Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given Mr. Putin's direction, what do Slashdotters think of products like Kaspersky and 7-Zip?
    Will they be loaded with logic bombs or just back doors?

    1. Re:Third party Software by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So far they don't contain either, and they also have no reason to include either. Though 7zip might eventually be required to include some backdoor into their password feature.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Third party Software by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I used Kaspersky but will no longer use it because they were caught poisoning the malware database with non-malware so the other AV software would remove OS critical files and rendered Windows unbootable. Between that and Putin's Russia I won't have anything to do with it any longer. For those thinking both the US and Russia are corrupt, the Russian corruption is far greater. Here is a nice interactive map showing the corruption level of various countries.

      The US ranks 16th least corrupt, Canada 9th and Denmark rated the least corrupt. Russia is 119, in other words, there are 118 countries rated less corrupt than Russia. Mexico is 95.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    3. Re:Third party Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's just "corruption perceptions" though. New Zealand apparently ranked 4th, but I can tell you that there is definitely corruption here. Certainly it's better than other countries, but by no means clean.

  17. Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As we have seen by Russia's aggression against its neighbors (Georgia and Ukraine specifically), with Putin in charge they have sunk back to the old ways of repression and oppression. This law is only one of many designed to give absolute power to the one in charge, reminiscent of days past when the person in the Kremlin had the final say on anything.

    The Soviet Union is dead yet Putin is insistent on trying to resurrect it, attacking its neighbors, sending in little green men to capture land, disruption of those who have left the oppression of Russia or those trying to crawl out of the hole dug for them by sycophants of Russia.

    As we have seen in Crimea, where Putin has decreed the Tartars are not allowed to speak their own language or have schools which teach the Tartar language, where Tartars are beaten for speaking out against the indignities thrust upon them, where his oligarch minions have swooped in to steal at gunpoint the businesses people have built up, where the only news broadcast is what Putin says can be broadcast, everything possible to suppress people is being done all, ostensibly, to protect them.

    Yet how protected can they be if their own government treats them as vassals? When Putin orders the murder of those who point out the endemic corruption in his government (such as Boris Nemtsov), when his estimated net worth, based on those who directly worked for him and managed his accounts, to be in the billions of dollars despite his salary, when he denies the deaths of thousands of soldiers when they invaded Ukraine, when he denies his own troops who admit they have been captured during the aggression against Ukraine, even going so far as to make it a crime for the mothers to talk about their son's deaths, it is quite clear he cares not for the Russian people but only himself and his legacy.

    This law is nothing more than another step on Putin's march to returning to the past where neighbor spied on neighbor, where freedom of speech is only so much as he says is freedom of speech, where opposition newspapers, television and radio stations are routinely silenced to prevent the people from hearing anything other than state sponsored "news", where he and his oligarch buddies steal the country blind and live in lavish homes while the common man can barely afford a decent meal.

    Is it any wonder the world doesn't take Russia seriously and why Russia, to this day, has still not advanced to a first world status.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So? From an American perspective it may seem onerous, but most Russians don't care. Russia is an extraordinarily hard country to govern, with multiple ethnicities, terrible geography, crappy ports, and hostile neighbors. On top of that, Russia has been the subject of the 3 largest invasions in human history. Even with that, they have no allies with which they can identify; they're white so they're not Asian, but the Europeans don't accept them as European either. There somewhere in the middle.

      The only times in Russian history where Russia has been strong was under a strongman leader. Peter the Great, Catherine, Stalin, Putin. Americans are happy to argue freedom and civil liberties when they're surrounded by countries they've crushed militarily, dominate economically, and are protected by two big oceans and the world's biggest Navy. Most Russians are willing to give up freedoms and security when their history is rife with people who surround them, hate them, and try to kill them.

    2. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission. Russia then recognized the independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or however you spell it. It was all to get back at the west for Kosovo, as I understand it. Ukraine was more of an aggressive act, but again there's the question of how the ouster of whatshisname was done and the money coming in from the west to undermine him. Putin's been more reactive than aggressive so far. When he matches into Estonia or Finland unprovoked, then you can call that aggression.

      Note: I think Putin provoked the west into anti-russian positions by being an authoritarian.

    3. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission. Russia then recognized the independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or however you spell it. It was all to get back at the west for Kosovo, as I understand it. Ukraine was more of an aggressive act, but again there's the question of how the ouster of whatshisname was done and the money coming in from the west to undermine him. Putin's been more reactive than aggressive so far. When he matches into Estonia or Finland unprovoked, then you can call that aggression.

      Note: I think Putin provoked the west into anti-russian positions by being an authoritarian.

      And the West provoked Russia into attacking both Ukraine and Georgia.

      Georgia was a Soviet satellite and when the USSR broke up the government was pro-Russian. In 2003 the Rose Revolution occured putting into power a pro-Western, anti Russian government, and the Rose Revolution was heavily influenced, encouraged, and funded by US foreign policy makers such as the US ambassador to Georgia and former Secretary of State James Baker, while the IMF cut off funding to the previous pro-Russian government to encourage a transfer of power. Shortly after the Rose Revolution, Georgia entered talks into joining NATO, an organization who's sole purpose was the military containment of the Soviet Union. The Russian entry into the South Ossetia War had nothing to do with South Ossetia, it was entirely aimed at spoilng any country in the Caucasus from joining NATO by showing them that the Americans would not honor their military obligations and come to their aid. And would you do different? Given what happened in the span of 5 years, where an allied government of your neighbor is replaced by a hostile government trying to join a military alliance of your primary competitor, if you were in Putin's shoes what would you do?

      Ukraine is practically the same story. Suddenly a bunch of pro-European protesters in just a few short months knock down a pro-Russian government, and Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia. The border with Russia is a giant flat plain; they simply do not have the resources to defend that length of border and just the other side is Russia's primary manufacturing and economic centers. Given the Russian experience where allies can turn to mortal enemies in the span of just a few years (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Georgia, the Grand Armee invasion by Napoleon, the Crimean War), and suddenly your neighbor's government switches it's loyalty to your primary competitors, what would you do in Putin's position?

      I'm not justifying Russian actions, but they follow from an entirely logical place. Russia has suffered more than any nation in history at the hands of foreign invaders; they're a naturally paranoid people who can't afford to trust even signed treaties. The West's actions over the past decade has simply provoked them more and more and I don't think the Russians feel they have the luxury of playing nice regarding security.

    4. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission.

      *slow clap* Of course they did.

    5. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! You've been so well schooled by the official propaganda!

    6. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-Kremlin "politruk" (ideological person-in-charge) generally cite from their "metodichka" (methodical recommendations developed by KGB/FSB subsidiary) two main thesis:
      * Georgian and Ukrainian unrests were sponsored by USA
      * We have to occupy the because it is our "canonical" territory (since they are speaking Russian - they are our slaves)

      nothing new - because last editions of "metodichka" were in 1982-1987.

    7. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      and yet, those to the west do NOT hate them, esp the western Europeans. They were happy to live in peace and work together. The problems came about when Russia decided to start invading small eastern European nations and proving that they are not interested in peace, but in having others to blame.
      And all of those eastern European nations KNOWS that Russia has invaded many many more nations, than they have been invaded.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tartars are not allowed to speak their own language or have schools which teach the Tartar language

      It's good that there are only Tatars in Crimea then, all speaking Tatar, not Tartar. Think you've been having too much sauce with your fries.

    9. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Catch up on your history. Baltic state politicians and Fox news are probably not the most accurate sources. Try Wikipedia or maybe even better... a history book. (Written by a person that moved to the US from Estonia, the most anti-Russian nation after Latvia)

    10. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typical moron who doesn't understand geo-politics.

      The West did fund this. Yes they were internal protesters but all of the color revolutions have significant backing from Western NGOs and the support of the US State Department whether it's an ambassador or what not. In Georgia in particular the State Department caused a financial crisis by cutting off money from the International Monetary Fund (which is funded by and run by the US), and that allowed a government more to Western governments to come to power. These facts are known and well documented; Wikipedia has plenty of good summaries and plenty of viable references to prove this so go do a damned Google search before you spout a useless opinion.

      But yes, I do justify Russia's actions to an extent. I am an American and I believe in my civil liberties, but I'm also not such a fucking moron like yourself to understand that many in the world don't see things that way. So I don't support how the Kremlin rules it's people, but I do understand their geopolitics. What would you do if you're running Russia and you find yourself surrounded by countries who are now part of an alliance with your strongest global competitor, an alliance that by it's very rules state that war with one is war with all members? Russia is seeing themselves encircled by the US via NATO because the US has not stopped NATO's expansion despite the Cold War being over. Given how many times the Russian people were on the brink of extinction, they simply cannot afford to trust that the US will not move in for the kill and wipe them out completely. It's just not how the Russians think, and if you understood their history and weren't some liberal talking points bullshitter who simply parroted others comments without understanding the culture you're trying to comment on you'd know that too.

    11. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet, those to the west do NOT hate them, esp the western Europeans. They were happy to live in peace and work together. The problems came about when Russia decided to start invading small eastern European nations and proving that they are not interested in peace, but in having others to blame.

      And all of those eastern European nations KNOWS that Russia has invaded many many more nations, than they have been invaded.

      That shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation, just like Hillary Clinton. You don't understand Russians at all; the fact is THEY didn't want to trade under those terms you mentioned.

      Do you remember when Obama came to power and Clinton met with Sergei Lavrov with the "Reset Button" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset ? That was a complete disaster and a stupid misstep on the Obama administration's part and is exactly the same point as you made.

      Those countries were of course happy to work with Russia pre-Putin because Russia was weak, disorganized, and ripe for picking. Gorbachev did what he could to manage the dissolution of the USSR, but it spiraled out of control, sunk their economy, and created riots and wars all over the periphery from Azerbaijan to Chechnya. Yeltsin effectively overthrew Gorbachev in the August 1991 coup, and then under Yeltsin the entire Russian state became a complete disaster. There was mass poverty, mass unemployment, military and KGB officers deserted and set up their own crime syndicates ruling parts of the economy, it was a complete joke!

      So of course people were happy to trade with Russia, but the Russians were not happy to trade back, they were getting terrible deals. As much as I don't like Putin's playbook, you can't deny he restored Russia to it's former glory.

      And to the Eastern European's perspective about Russia invading many more, who gives a shit? THat's entirely irrelevant to your comment; the Russians weren't happy to work with the West under the circumstances of the pre-Putin years. It doesn't matter who's invaded who how many times, it matters what your strength is, what your options are, and what can get your people the best deal when interacting with neighbors. No one keeps score on who's invaded whom more times; that means nothing.

    12. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      There are Russians who are also happy to argue freedom and civil liberties. The problem is that they usually don't get to speak for long.

    13. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Both Ukraine and Georgia are independent sovereign countries. It's not for Russia to tell which alliances they can and cannot join. Bringing up NATO in that context is especially laughable, as it is fundamentally a defensive alliance. When did NATO last invade Russia?

      In Putin's position, I would do everything it takes to make Russia a part of EU, and ultimately even NATO itself. There's really no reason why it shouldn't be a part of the collective Western defense, except for its stubborn refusal to play that game unless it's in charge, due to ancient delusions of grandeur ("Third Rome" etc) and nostalgia over past superpower status.

    14. Re: Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the evidences of assumed treats? Who and how exactly wants to abuse that fucking shithole?

    15. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we have seen by Russia's aggression against its neighbors (Georgia and Ukraine specifically), with Putin in charge they have sunk back to the old ways of repression and oppression. This law is only one of many designed to give absolute power to the one in charge, reminiscent of days past when the person in the Kremlin had the final say on anything.

      The Soviet Union is dead yet Putin is insistent on trying to resurrect it, attacking its neighbors, sending in little green men to capture land, disruption of those who have left the oppression of Russia or those trying to crawl out of the hole dug for them by sycophants of Russia.

      As we have seen in Crimea, where Putin has decreed the Tartars are not allowed to speak their own language or have schools which teach the Tartar language, where Tartars are beaten for speaking out against the indignities thrust upon them, where his oligarch minions have swooped in to steal at gunpoint the businesses people have built up, where the only news broadcast is what Putin says can be broadcast, everything possible to suppress people is being done all, ostensibly, to protect them.

      Yet how protected can they be if their own government treats them as vassals? When Putin orders the murder of those who point out the endemic corruption in his government (such as Boris Nemtsov), when his estimated net worth, based on those who directly worked for him and managed his accounts, to be in the billions of dollars despite his salary, when he denies the deaths of thousands of soldiers when they invaded Ukraine, when he denies his own troops who admit they have been captured during the aggression against Ukraine, even going so far as to make it a crime for the mothers to talk about their son's deaths, it is quite clear he cares not for the Russian people but only himself and his legacy.

      This law is nothing more than another step on Putin's march to returning to the past where neighbor spied on neighbor, where freedom of speech is only so much as he says is freedom of speech, where opposition newspapers, television and radio stations are routinely silenced to prevent the people from hearing anything other than state sponsored "news", where he and his oligarch buddies steal the country blind and live in lavish homes while the common man can barely afford a decent meal.

      Is it any wonder the world doesn't take Russia seriously and why Russia, to this day, has still not advanced to a first world status.

      *tatars lol

    16. Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S.did not fund any of these countries in trying to move away from Russia..

      US did fund (and manipulated in countless other ways) those countries and a number of others not just to "move away" from something, but to start wars inside them or against their neighbors. US had been doing this for decades and continues to do now.

  18. I wish Putin was my big brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish Putin was my big brother. I wouldn't get picked on then!

  19. Heh, Russia still playing catchup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most western nations had implemented this in-practice well over a decade ago - hell, many didn't even wait for the law to catch-up! Silly Russians - always behind the times...

  20. Snowden by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what friends Snowden has left after this, but I am sure thankful for his work and hope God protects him!

    1. Re:Snowden by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      ... also I think all the nominees should pick Snowden as their VP and let the DNC/GOP establishment go berserk.

    2. Re:Snowden by Hallow · · Score: 1

      He isn't old enough. He's got 2 more years before he'd be eligible to run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Snowden by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Learned something ... thanks!

  21. They're catching up by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight."

    So....pretty much like it is here, eh? Wow, the Russians are finally catching up to us in state-approved surveillance, who would have guessed we'd be the leader in this field?

    Remember all the propaganda about "commies" and the "unfettered power of the police" they used to warn us about? Well, it turns out it was actually the US government that was running wild with virtually no constraints. The only constraint was "don't get caught", and even when they did get caught, nothing really happened.

    And now the police feel free to shoot anyone, any time, on any pretext or none at all. The latest example of this is Philando Castile, who wasn't doing anything worthy of being shot. His only "crime" was going out in public and allowing himself to be seen by the police. They asked for his ID, and when he reached for it, they shot him to death in his car, still sitting in the driver's seat next to his girlfriend.

    As Jesse Williams remarked, "In the interest of time, would ye noble patriots please provide a list of infractions punishable by spontaneous public execution?"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:They're catching up by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Remember all the propaganda about "commies" and the "unfettered power of the police" they used to warn us about? Well, it turns out it was actually the US government that was running wild with virtually no constraints. The only constraint was "don't get caught", and even when they did get caught, nothing really happened.

      And now the police feel free to shoot anyone, any time, on any pretext or none at all.

      At last our police do not charge your family for the bullets they shoot you with so we have that going for us.

  22. OK POST A VIDEO OF ED SNOWDEN SAYING IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DuckDuckGo gives 7 total results for "Edward Snowden has called "Russia's new Big-Brother law""

    ewdn.com
    bebee.com
    venturebeat.com
    slashdot.com
    facebook.com

    That is 6 because 2 of them are Facebook.

    Fucking sheeple. Can you verify Snowden said that? I can make a Twitter account very easily saying I am a space alien. Vid link please.

    1. Re:OK POST A VIDEO OF ED SNOWDEN SAYING IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 are bebee.com as well.

    2. Re:OK POST A VIDEO OF ED SNOWDEN SAYING IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking sheeple

      Funny thing about that word: it's only ever used by those it most perfectly describes.

  23. obvious question by superwiz · · Score: 2

    How? Even though most people are not tech-aware enough to write their own communications software, it's so ubiquitous now that getting a program which will allow you to encrypt all your voice calls is just a matter of compiling it. I mean, it's as simple as installing an operating system on a bare-bones PC. That's not exactly a high-level skill. This seems more like an attempt to force everyone living in Russia to encrypt their communications to increase the level of security of internal communications. Unlike Americans, who are basic sometime cynical but basically trusting of the government, RF citizens (and don't call them Russians because of them aren't) still retains the old Soviet attitude of cynicism towards any stated goals of the government.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  24. Putlin at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can you except from Putlin.

  25. Great news! Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we have a chance to see if any such laws are actually practical. Most likely it will turn out prohibitively costly, Russian ISPs will collapse, and the other nations will postpone similar laws for few more years.

  26. Good. Maybe now the contrast will be clearer. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    US security agencies and US congresspeople have insisted that intrusive surveillance is the only path to security, and security experts have tried to point out that personal privacy and government surveillance are contradictory. Now that the known-to-be-bad Soviet - sorry, Russian - government, led by a known-to-be-megalomaniac who is known to have his political opponents killed, has a formal law in place, the people pushing the same laws here must explain whether we're not becoming the same police state that we decry.

  27. Canada goes viral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin's just following Harper's Bill C-51 lead. Nothing new here folks.

  28. James Comey's latest tweet to President Obama by mea2214 · · Score: 1

    Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

  29. All you Snowden cocksuckers by ronmon · · Score: 1

    Can now celebrate the freedom he has brought to the Russian Federation. This is the fruit of his labor.

  30. Canada by DarthVain · · Score: 0

    Meh. Canada's been trying the same since 2012. Only difference is that Russia was successful while Canada only partially so.

    Bill C-30 "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" (Struck down)
    Bill C-51 "Anti-terrorism Act, 2015" (Enacted)

    One of the more interesting things I remember about C-30 when it was being talked about, was that our telecommunication Industry (i.e. Bell and Rogers Communication) opposed the idea due to the cost to upgrade their networks and systems to be able to have the data on hand and available and wanted the government of Canada to pay for it lol!

    Then again there was Bill C-55 which I believe actually made it more difficult and provided additional oversight to enforcement agencies using warrantless telecommunication intercepts... But that was to address a decision made by the supreme court...

  31. snowden better learn to shut up by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, Snowden fled to nations that remain effectively under totalitarian rules. His now speaking up against this law is going to get himself killed.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:snowden better learn to shut up by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Russia and China don't actually normally do anything against people who speak against their government as an individual. Organizing is what gets you jailed or killed -- be it a protest, a newspaper or a campaign for office.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  32. That's It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no mafia or organized crime in Russia within a year. The FSB will go all The Interceptor on their ass.

  33. That says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of money in war.

    That single sentence perfectly sums up the entire situation. Nothing could explain it more concisely. Military empires aren't built for the benefit of "the people".

  34. You're not the only one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't even celebrate the fourth this year. And even the people I knew doing stuff on the 4th this year lacked 4th theming. Other than watching/lighting fireworks it was very subdued this year. There was also almost no traffic and not a single visible police checkpoint, despite both being common in prior years. Combined with a much smaller than average 4th of July parade, it feels like nationalism in the US is at an all time low.

    Also, as posted in previous articles: Most of the 'horrible things Soviet Russia did that US did not' have since become the norm here. And when I point this out to people they just stare at me like I am crazy (despite it coming from the mouth of a teacher old enough to have lived through the Depression!)

  35. This is a good thing by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Drive everyone and their servers out of that backwards country to some place that's not psychotic.

  36. So, no surveillance is happening in Russia today? by azhitsky · · Score: 1

    The law will come into force in 2018, which implies that there is no mass surveillance in Russia today. I think this is a concealed message to the World that Russia is clean now. And there is time until 2018 for Putin to sign amendments to the law that will make obsolete its most scandalous bits. Just a hunch.

  37. Controversial? Really? by Josh+Keaper · · Score: 1

    I'd say it is totally straightforward.