Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vladimir Putin Wants His Own Internet (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tighter-control dept.

A bill that's progressing through Russia's legislature could grant local authorities deeper control over internet access. The so-called "Sovereign Internet" bill seeks to set up a centralized hub officials can use to manage the flow of information in the nation. From a report: Putin is touting the initiative as a defensive response to the Trump Administration's new cyber strategy, which permits offensive measures against Russia and other designated adversaries. But industry insiders, security experts and even senior officials say political upheaval is the bigger concern. "This law isn't about foreign threats, or banning Facebook and Google, which Russia can already do legally," said Andrei Soldatov, author of "The Red Web: The Kremlin's Wars on the Internet" and co-founder of Agentura.ru, a site that tracks the security services. "It's about being able to cut off certain types of traffic in certain areas during times of civil unrest."

59 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. France's Minitel is for sale by retroworks · · Score: 1

    May be all Russia can afford.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      May be all Russia can afford.

      Why do they need their own Internet?

      From comments here, I thought they already p0wned this one.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian Troll.

    3. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Russia may already pwn the current intarwebs, and that may be the very reason they want their very own intarweb tubes -- to protect from retaliation.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think they're probably not happy that it turns out they're own astroturfers are vulnerable. The problem with cyberwarfare is not much different than conventional warfare; just because your bullets can hit the enemy does not discount the ability of the enemy's bullets hitting you.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by lgw · · Score: 1

      Or at least make it more blatant when external powers are messing about.

      It's well worth noting that the modern US military (and probably many others) sees the "cyber domain" as just as important a domain of warfare as air, land, sea an space. And specifically, manipulation of civilian perspective, not just hacking enemy comms.

      Russia's manipulation of public perception as they walked into the Ukraine--they did very simple things like remove patches from their uniforms--to keep it uncertain for a couple of days that it really was Russia is seen as the future of conflict. It doesn't matter if the truth comes out in a couple of days: sewing doubt about what's really going on for just a short time is enough for a quick military action to be over before public outrage begins.

      It's a strange new world, but manipulation of social media and public perception can't be ignored any more than "space" on the modern battlefield.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by lgw · · Score: 1

      Social media and public perception have nothing to do with infrastructure hacks and cyber-warfare really. You're conflating a propaganda campaign with the actual warfare that would follow.

      They are both the "cyber domain" in modern warfare. As far back as Clausewitz it's been understood that attacking the moral strength of the enemy is just as valuable as attacking the enemy soldiers or logistics. But more than that: social media is often the fastest way information gets around in the modern world, and the modern battlefield is all about acting faster than your opponent can obtain the information to make a decision.

      When it goes off, the internet GOES OFF. There will be no social media for a few days. There MAY be no power/water for a few days, airline flights, etc. THAT is what we're talking about.

      Perhaps. But that's more of an act of desperation than of efficiently fighting a war. If you're going to invade an ally of a major power, you want them to be unsure of what you've done until it's too late. Doubt is your weapon at first.

      And connecting utilities infrastructure to the internet will always be stupid. You don't need your own internet to solve that problem, you need that stuff off of any internet whatsoever.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:France's Minitel is for sale by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And connecting utilities infrastructure to the internet will always be stupid. You don't need your own internet to solve that problem, you need that stuff off of any internet whatsoever.

      While I agree that's what you'd want, that horse left the barn long ago. I doubt any nation has offline utilities anymore.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. Last thing he would do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The absolute last thing any politician or ruler would do is ban Spybook or Google. The permanent profiles they build on individuals are quite literally Stalin's dream.

    1. Re:Last thing he would do by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The absolute last thing any politician or ruler would do is ban Spybook or Google. The permanent profiles they build on individuals are quite literally Stalin's dream.

      You assume a lot from an entire planet full of politicians and rulers.

      You do know other forms of politics besides socialism/communism exist, right? Not every leader is a murderous dictator...

    2. Re:Last thing he would do by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      your favorite flavor of politician is above all that then huh ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    3. Re:Last thing he would do by geekmux · · Score: 1

      your favorite flavor of politician is above all that then huh ?

      Yes, I oddly enough prefer a leader who isn't a murderous dictator. And regardless of anyone's assumptions of how bad things "really" are, they're NOT as bad as they were for anyone who managed to survive socialism/communism half a century ago.

      100 million lives lost tend to validate that statement.

    4. Re:Last thing he would do by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The absolute last thing any politician or ruler would do is ban Spybook or Google. The permanent profiles they build on individuals are quite literally Stalin's dream.

      But foreign companies means a lot of corporate resistance, public outcry, possible exposure and potential for other governments to snoop. China wants the Chinese on WeChat and Baidu, not Facebook and Google. Same with Russia and VKontakte. If they can use some legitimate-ish excuse to drive people away from American services, they will.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Last thing he would do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do know other forms of politics besides socialism/communism exist

      I do, and from where I'm standing, they all seem to be in favor of mass surveillance.

    6. Re:Last thing he would do by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You do know other forms of politics besides socialism/communism exist

      I do, and from where I'm standing, they all seem to be in favor of mass surveillance.

      As much as I'm against mass surveillance, I'll take that over mass genocide any day.

      Learn from history.

  3. Good (but not really) by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My initial reaction is: "good!" It seems like the vast majority of the attacks/spam/garbage on the Internet comes from Russia, and has since the Net hit the public at large back int he early 90's

    Of course, this (and what China is doing) pretty much destroy the entire point of the Internet. It'd be good (for me) in the short term, but bad for humanity as a whole, of course.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Good (but not really) by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be good for anyone in the short term, other than the Russian oligarchs. The people causing the problems are acting on behalf of the state, and would certainly be exempt from this. There might be a few independent actors who would be slowed by this temporarily, but if China is any indication then access to the real internet will be available to anyone with a little knowledge and a willingness to break the law. Since there's no chance of prosecution for these people, this is no barrier at all.

    2. Re: Good (but not really) by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Whether or not it fits the "narrative" (whatever that means) doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is if it fits the truth.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
  4. Putin and Trump are putting out the same 1:1 lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Except at the end, when Putin cheers on NK directly. *(Hint, Mr. President, Vladimir is NOT YOUR FRIEND, MORON) https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-blames-dems-cheers-kim-after-trumps-korea-summit-fail

  5. Re: Does that mean he gets his own goatse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And can we ship APK to PutiNet?

  6. Re:I made my own internet in college by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    What is the bandwidth of two cans and a piece of string?

  7. Re: I made my own internet in college by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I use the thick 3 1/2" x 3/4" ones, but really you can use any width you like.

  8. Will we sell him the equipment? by layabout · · Score: 1

    Or will peeNet be built on Russian tube-based Cisco router clones? Might not be a bad thing. At least those routers would survive an EMP blast

  9. Re: I made my own internet in college by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    I go single mode with taut elastic string

  10. thought crime by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Next up get arrested for drug evasion. Thx1138

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. Censorship by any other name. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Is still censorship.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  12. Definition of Universe. by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

    Warning: Linguistics and philosophy.

    If you connect your network to the internet, it is part of the internet. That's what the internet is. It's the network between networks.

    What he wants is not an internet, but a national intranet - well, unless he never connects it in any way to the rest of the world - then and only then would it be its own internet.

    It's sort of like the definition of observable universe. If you can observe something, it is part of the universe. That's the whole 'Uni' part of universe - just one bucket to put things. So, if there's a gateway to some new place you can walk to/from - then you didn't open a gateway to another universe, you made the universe larger by opening that door. Connecting to our universe inherently joins the two spaces into once cross-observable space, even if you put protections and limitations in place.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Definition of Universe. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      If you are going to discuss linguistics relating to what is the Internet, then you should capitalize it properly ("Internet").

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Definition of Universe. by steveha · · Score: 2

      If you can observe something, it is part of the universe.

      I think of it as: anyplace that a photon could travel to in the normal way that photons travel would be part of our universe.

      People have posited the existence of other universes. It would require some unknown method of travel to go from one universe to another. The collection of all universes can be called the Multiverse.

      I recently saw, in a comic, the idea that there could then be multiple Multiverses. That doesn't make sense to me any more than the idea of multiple Internets.

      I read a web comic called Unicorn Jelly that really gave me some food for thought. How could you visit another universe where the physical laws are different? Only two ways: either you would have to travel in a little bubble where your usual physical laws apply somehow, or else you would have to be translated into the new universe. The Universe of Unicorn Jelly isn't made out of atoms, it's made out of "tratoms", and in order to visit you would have to have your body translated into tratoms. In principle there could be an infinite number of universes with different physical laws, and only in a tiny fraction of them would people survive the translation necessary to enter a universe. Luckily the universe of Unicorn Jelly is one where people can survive, or else there wouldn't have been a comic.

      P.S. Unicorn Jelly, in the beginning, seems like a slightly silly and harmless story. It's a bigger story than it first appears, and I don't want to spoil it, but I will say that it is a story that could only be told in the universe in which it is set. The very nature of the Universe of the story drives the plot! So, the story of Unicorn Jelly meets my personal standard for science fiction: the story wouldn't be the same if you took away the science (fictional science, here).

      P.P.S. If you like Unicorn Jelly and want more multiversal craziness from the same author, the follow-on story To Save Her is kinda set in the same universe. I mean, it's actually set in an infinite number of variations of the same universe, and features a somewhat infinite cast of characters, but we follow along a half-dozen or so through their story arc, as they visit about a half-dozen alternate universes. (They only visit alternates of their own universe, where the physical laws are the same.)

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    3. Re:Definition of Universe. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      >>If you are going to discuss linguistics relating to what is the Internet, then you should capitalize it properly ("Internet").

      Nah - I think it's been a while since almost all standards bodies and style guides stopped suggesting that.

      Capitalizing is kind of a system of giving credit - and the internet is past the point where there's anything to give credit to that would help anything. In that sense, it's bigger than English or any single language, in the sense that there's nothing trying to tally how widespread its use is - it's the exchange system that needs no special name.

      That's why I compare it with the universe or concepts like science or math. The universe needs no special capitalization either.

      Ryan Fenton

    4. Re:Definition of Universe. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      Cool - I'll check it out. Thanks!

      Ryan Fenton

    5. Re:Definition of Universe. by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      That's a mental distinction. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, ... etc.

    6. Re:Definition of Universe. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Thus showing the flaw in your original post.

      Any interconnected networks is an internet, not intranet. Technically, every home with a router is an internet. The major worldwide network of networks has a name: the Internet.

      The flaw isn't in his original post. The flaw is in the understanding of moronic journalists who have been arguing since 2002 that Internet is a common noun, when it definitely is not. The Associated Press and The New York Times both decided to stop capitalizing the word in 2016, even when referring to the singular, properly named Internet. Oxford English Dictionary claims the common noun spelling is more common than the proper name spelling in the UK as of April 2016, while admitting the proper name is still more common in the US.

      Journalists are ignorant. Two corporate campus networks linked with a bridge over a leased line is an internet but are not the Internet.

      What's funny is they still use the definite article in front of the word, while completely ignoring the contradiction.

  13. Re:I made my own internet in college by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    You can get acceptable levels of bandwidth if you are willing to give up latency.

    What is the bandwidth of a cargo plane loaded with 512 GB micro SD cards making an eight hour flight? (but ignore the latency)

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  14. what governments really fear by swell · · Score: 1

    Almost every government talks about threats from outside their borders, while in reality they most fear the threat inside their border. China, with more than a billion citizens is most afraid of what they might do if not carefully 'managed'. All the petty dictators of the world fear their citizens but it goes way beyond that. Even the US (fill in your own observations of US repression) . . .

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  15. Obligatory... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    ...in soviet Russia, internet wants YOU!!!

  16. Re:Bender! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Hookers?

    You must be referring to those bent wire things in the closet that I hang my shirts on?

    One time at this one hotel, I looked in the closet and there were only three hookers in the closet! And I have more than three shirts! So I called the front desk and insisted that they send at least a dozen hookers to my room IMMEDIATELY !!!

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  17. What can you expect from an ex-KGB thug? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    The man is anchored in the Cold War, and will remain there till he dies.

    1. Re:What can you expect from an ex-KGB thug? by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're the one stuck, along with much of our government. Projection much? This anti-Russia everything has driven us closer to war, just to mess with Cheeto - he can't attempt any worthwhile diplomacy without being called a traitor doing treason now. Is war really what you wanted? If so, you're the one who needs a head removed - from the neck, after pulling it out of your nether region. Are you so hate filled you don't care about the rest of us getting killed? Sure looks that way - there are thousands of examples of anti-cheeto hate speech that basically are driving what's possible in foreign affairs. Try to pull out of the sand and death in Syria? Treason to the military industrial congressional complex (Eisenhower's original title for it). Try to stop a stupid Korean war that's been going on since I was born, quite a long time ago? Treasonous legitimizing of the actual (like it or not, and I don't) leader of DPRK. Not useful if you want to end that war, pull up mines, and start economic recovery which would be good for all. Too many examples of total evil being used just because some cheeto snuck past the usual "selection process" and got elected - note the choice of words carefully there. We've had plenty of dolts as presidents. Making it worse is productive how?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  18. Cue the Russian Reversal jokes by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 1

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

  19. Central point of failure by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    Considering the early expansions of ARPANET to try to guarantee network survival in the event of nuclear attacks, going to a centralized hub for your country is a bit funny. Oh well, less to compromise or take out in the event of diplomacy failures.

    1. Re:Central point of failure by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The network will be spread all over Russia. Thats not a "centralized hub".
      The phone system will work.
      Computers will send and get information for education.
      Games will connect and play.
      No outside peering, global networks needed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Re: Does that mean he gets his own goatse? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Funny

    And can we ship APK to PutiNet?

    How about Cyberia? [badum-*tish*]

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  21. Re:Geekmux you have below-zero credibility on that by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The next six years are really gonna suck for you.

    Get some help.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. He is concerned about election hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Putin is likely concerned that a foreign agent might interfere with his elections, skewing the results, reducing his victory from 95% to 94%

  23. Fine. Get an axe. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    If that's the way they want to do things, then fine; get an axe, and chop all the lines connecting Russia. Isolate them. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Fine. Get an axe. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Chances are the Internet is going to die completely at some point anyway because of POLITICIANS and COPS anyway. Keep voting funds for your local Public Libraries, you'll likely soon need them.

  24. Re:I made my own internet in college by bobbutts · · Score: 1

    So ignoring the time and labor needed to insert and then write to these devices and then remove and load them into the plane, then finally do the same in reverse in order to read them it will come down to either the maximum load of the airplane or maximum volume. I have no idea about the volume, so I'm going to assume that this payload will fit.

    I chose pre-order 1TB Sandisk "Extreme" cards from Amazon for $404 each since the release is only 10 days away, and we can double our bandwidth over 512GB cards. For the cargo plane, we'll use a Boeing 747-8 which has a cargo capacity of 140 tons. Each card weighs .5g so each pound of capacity is enough for ~900 cards. Multiply that by 2000 and we have 1,800,000 sd cards per ton, multiply that by 140 and we end up at 252M sd card capacity for a 747. So we're talking about 252 EB (exabyte) per 747. The cost of the SD cards is $102B USD.

  25. Re:GEEKMUX. You support autocracy directly. YOU do by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    History? Trump has a history of supporting authoritarian autocratic murderous dictatorships.

    FTS: Putin is touting the initiative as a defensive response to the Trump Administration's new cyber strategy,

    You have a strange definition of "support".

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  26. My own internet! Without blackjack or hookers! by ToTheStars · · Score: 1

    N/T

  27. Don't laugh by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The EU seems to be on its way to a sealed-off Internet of its own.

  28. Re:Hopelessly stuck by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Nyet, tovarich. You Russian trolls and astroturfers are SO transparent. Give uncle Volodya a big middle finger from all of us.

  29. Political upheaval by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    But industry insiders, security experts and even senior officials say political upheaval is the bigger concern.

    Given Putin's popularity in Russia, which is much higher than Trump, Macron, May or Merkel in their own countries, that seems odd.

    1. Re:Political upheaval by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The difference is, in Putinland the people admitting opposition expect to be secretly executed for it, and having 5% admitting opposition signifies a huge amount of latent demand for the ability to be opposed.

      In the other places you named, the number includes basically everybody with a mild preference for somebody else, not just those willing to fight to to the death over it.

      Places where it is dangerous to dissent have to worry about 9% becoming 95% very rapidly if people's emotions change, or their perception of the government's current power level changes.

  30. Re:Yay by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    My hovercraft is full of eels.

  31. Red Internet by Hydrian · · Score: 1

    Where the web browses you!

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  32. SO much misinformaton in comments... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    The actual goal of these proposals is to ensure that in the event of conflict traffic originating at point A in Russia can reach Point B, also in Russia. That's what "sovereign" Internet means. Considering Internet is not just for d/l warez and cat pics it's a responsible thing to do for any country.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  33. You asked for it by NewYork · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Casteism
    1. Re: You asked for it by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Except that what he wants is unlikely to *not* be an internetwork.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20