Slashdot Log In
New "Iron Curtain" for Russian Internet
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:09 PM
from the search-no-evil-browse-no-evil-blog-no-evil dept.
from the search-no-evil-browse-no-evil-blog-no-evil dept.
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, points out a story about the Russian government's interest in expanding anti-extremism laws to include the blocking of websites and ISPs. The laws would match those already in use for the country's print media. Russian internet users may soon be forced to deal with the same issues facing Chinese citizens. Quoting:
"An official at the Russian prosecutor's general office, Vyacheslav Sizov, told the Russian-language newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta that any web site that is determined to host what he terms 'extremist material' would be blocked from being accessible from within the Russian Federation. Given the Putin government's history with the media, 'extremist material' may be very broadly interpreted as any content unfriendly to the interests of the Russian government."
Related Stories
[+]
China Blocks YouTube Over Tibet Videos 343 comments
Screaming Cactus writes "Internet users in China were blocked from seeing YouTube.com on Sunday after dozens of videos about protests in Tibet appeared on the site. 'Chinese leaders encourage Internet use for education and business but use online filters to block access to material considered subversive or pornographic. Foreign Web sites run by news organizations and human rights groups are regularly blocked if they carry sensitive information. Operators of China-based online bulletin boards are required to monitor their content and enforce censorship.' The blocking added to the communist government's efforts to control what the public saw and heard about protests that erupted Friday in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, against Chinese rule."
[+]
China's Battle to Police the Web 171 comments
What_the_deuce writes "For the first time in years, internet browsers are able to visit the BBC's website. In turn, the BBC turns a lens on the Chinese web-browsing experience, exploring one of the government's strongest methods of controlling the communication and information accessible to the public. 'China does not block content or web pages in this way. Instead the technology deployed by the Chinese government, called Golden Shield, scans data flowing across its section of the net for banned words or web addresses. There are five gateways which connect China to the internet and the filtering happens as data is passed through those ports. When the filtering system spots a banned term it sends instructions to the source server and destination PC to stop the flow of data.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like America. Despite all the hoopla about freedom and whatnot in america, there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'. IMHO America is probably one of THE most indoctrinated societies in the world at the moment. You can't have a discussion about much
Re:Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Been done before (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners [nytimes.com].
I think if I lived in a place with that rate of imprisonment, I'd be keeping my head down and avoiding controversy too.
Parent
or rather (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i think you will find that people living in places with low prison populations and huge corruption would love to see some more american style prison population levels
So you're saying people in these places want their corrupt officials to imprison them? Really?
If you look at American prisons you'll find they're not filled with corrupt officials. It's mostly petty street criminals that are given excessively long sentences due to "3 strikes", mandatory minimums, and elimination of parole.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. american culture breeds lots of criminals
Relative to Northern Europe, yes.
2. american justice is puritanical and extreme
Again, relative to Northern Europe, yes.
3. the usa does a better job of catching criminals than other countries do
American criminal justice certainly likes to make this claim, but this is something notoriously difficult to measure. Conviction rates really only tell you how biased the system is towards the prosecution/defense. Matching actual crimes to convictions is extremely difficult for outside researchers due to the unwillingness of police agencies to release accurate records and the lack of independent records.
The reality is that US law en
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would make sense if you could simply divide the population into criminals and non-criminals. Unfortunately it's not that simple - people move between the two categories. So when judging whether a particular method of punishment works, we need to ask three questions:
1) Does it keep criminals off the streets?
2) Does it dissuade non-criminals from becoming criminals?
3) Does it persuade criminals to become non-criminals
Re:Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Does it keep criminals off the streets?
2) Does it dissuade non-criminals from becoming criminals?
3) Does it persuade criminals to become non-criminals?
You forgot the most important one:
0. Should they even be considered a criminal in the first place ?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do governments create legislation as a way to increase control on it's population or to actually maintain social peace?"
Getting a $100-$200 ticket for burning a red light(which can kill) vs a $750 fine per song for downloading "illegal" MP3s (which doesn't kill anyone) seems rather unfair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the people are aware of censorship, that's a vital piece of information, and if one wants information badly enough, (s)he will get it, especially with the technology in the last decade.
However, if one simply believes that information given to him/her is free and unbiased, (s)he will never seek other perspectives and probably will dismiss any other views that conflicts with his/hers.
This willful ignorance can be even more dangerous in some situations. For the person who's aware o
Re:Been done before (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically enough, most western mass media plays along by creating an image of Russia that has little in common with what is actually happening here. Not saying the western mass media is to blame, but it's most certainly a factor.
On a brighter note, it's not all that bad as it may seem. These tricks 'only' work with the generally badly educated population, and lack of a proverbial 'middle class' which is about the worst thing about today's Russia. If said middle class will develop and achieve a certain threshold, the process will become irreversible and no iron curtain policies will be sustainable.
Let me restate: the way I understand it, having a sizable middle class is not compatible with any iron curtain policies whatsoever. And as a middle class is like a pre-requisite to be able to compete in today's globalized world, I hope these attempts at creating an informational shield are just convulsions of the old system where people would just blindly believe what their government tells them to.
Parent
Re:Been done before (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Sounds like America? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, confirm for the record, that it is your belief, one or more generations of Americans have grown up behind an 'iron curtain' unable to get information from an outside source.
Thank you.
Re:Sounds like America? (Score:5, Insightful)
By being able to obtain the will of the people without having to close-off outside info, you've achieved much more than just simple censorship. It's much worse. It's willful ignorance, and THAT'S the scariest of all.
Parent
Re:Sounds like America? (Score:5, Insightful)
By being able to obtain the will of the people without having to close-off outside info, you've achieved much more than just simple censorship. It's much worse. It's willful ignorance, and THAT'S the scariest of all.
I think the converse is also true - provided a society as a whole is happy that it has the next three meals coming, it will continue in its own status quo and is safe from revolution. It follows that most people will not seek out challenge the status quo.
I'll tell you which societies will change first - regardless of how indoctrinated they are. It'll be in those areas where peoples' wages barely cover buying food already. The worldwide increase in food costs will hit them first, and hardest. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another round of communist governments get in, subsidising staples like rice but letting everything else in the country go to hell.
Interestingly, the list of countries affected will very likely include at least a few places where it's possible to get decent Internet access but wages are very low - just the kind of place that things get outsourced to. Hmmm.
Parent
Re:Sounds like America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conceptually, the strategy of having a vocal "mainstream media" that labels anyone outside of a narrow political range as a "crazy extremist" can be even more powerful as an indoctrination tool than an "iron curtain". In the USSR, everyone knew that the news was all government propaganda. In the USA today, most people believe in the "free press".
Parent
Re:Sounds like America? (Score:4, Interesting)
I strongly believe that while one can turn on the television and be disheartened by Faux news, the fact that information is out there that is readily available sets America apart from countries such as Russia and China. None of us can really relate to how life must be in a country such as N. Korea. Drawing parallels from these countries to America is a bit cynical, no? Is it not belittling the extreme censorship they endure?
You cant expect the masses to get it, thats why they have their title as the masses. While one could argue that the masses control who gets elected, I think it is just as easy to argue that the masses do not know what they are getting in a representative.
Long gone are the days where candidates actually take meaningful stances on issues. Even campaign promises can quickly be broken due to "unexpected" budget cuts.
I believe our founding fathers were quite familiar with this idea, and hence decided that we should not govern our selves directly, since we clearly do not know what is best for us.
Now whether the people making the decisions in America... that is a whole different nut to crack...
Parent
Re:Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Been done before (Score:4, Insightful)
I know Bashing America at every change is fun and profitable, but you could at least get the story straight first. I mean with all the valid reasons to Bash America, you have to go and basically make something up.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, when you want to use my resources to help others, then I will call you a socialist. It is my decision how I use my resources (money, property, time). The fact is that those most opposed to using tax dollars to help others are the ones most likely to use their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you're the indoctrinated one, and you only believe in Socialism because you avoid reading anything that disagrees with your preconceptions. Certainly what I've read about planned economies and dictatorships of the proletariat makes me think they just end up making most people poor, unfree and unhappy while a spoiled, vicious elite wields absolute power. If someone seriously advocated them to me, I'd argue with them just like people argue with you.
The GP doesn't seem to favor Socialism or Capitalism or whatever from his post. Why the digression anyway? Pointing out "self-indoctrination" that exists in many so called "free" countries doesn't mean that he wanted to avoid reading things he disagrees with. Quite the contrary I think.
And incidentally the fact that you're able in America to read only progressive media that agrees with you while other people are free to watch only Fox news that agrees with them tells me that the government is not indoctrinating people, it's more that they indoctrinate themselves. Which is fair enough of course, they will all end up being wrong politically but in different ways.
Exactly. But if everybody gets indoctrinated one way or the other, isn't that a problem? If that's not a problem, why is government indoctrination worse than "self-indoctrination"? If it is, why not try to tackle the proble
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say this like it's a bad thing.
It depends on whether people value their culture or not.
Also about 50% television programming and some music does not equal culture.
I never said the original culture was replaced. Rather, a vacuum is left and we find country after country with a youth that has become hedonistic, shallow, selfish, consumerist and unhappy.
But that's not a bad thing if you want to make money from those people. They make great customers.
Democracy did win right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy did win right? (Score:5, Funny)
Here, hot means alive and breathing.
Parent
Re:Democracy did win right? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Anaerobic organisms (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Back when Putin was first elected my friend read that he flew his own fighter down to Chechnya. And it's true, he has flown to official visits in jet fighters [reuters.com].
Which, whatever you think about the guy as a politician is damn cool. He's like James Bond, or maybe a James Bond villian. Rumours about his personal life [telegraph.co.uk] just confirms the impression.
In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Funny)
or... (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know how yet, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I'm American and I think the Bush Administration is one of the likely targets of such an effort.
We have the Internet, it is free, information flows around the globe. For all the faults that might bring it has been hailed as an equalizer and liberator of peoples all over the globe. Freedom of information is the basis of the good inside an OLPC.
FTFA:
In times past it was said that Monarchy's that do not hang together will 'hang' separately. I think that time has not changed this at all, and many of the so called republics are merely facades for the ruling classes to hide behind.
Wow, that sounded a bit socialist or something, but I truly think that the Internet has the power to change things for the better. If the Russian people are unable to, perhaps we outside of Russia should make our voices known and heard.
Does anyone have any ideas?
ideas (Score:3)
A bit like the so called "ethic funds" who buy stocks in companies with good ethics first, then try to influence the companie's decision according to that agenda (which many entities do, only they do so with an "ethic" agenda in mind")
As an optimistic person, I think that if the mass of internet users did that, they would be more powerful than the few rich people right now (that might ne
Re: (Score:2)
It can seem like that idea focuses only on western consumers (like influencing a software companie's choces or stuff like this), but when you look at the role of oil companies in affecting the stability of some african governments (including dictatorships), or the importance of economic embargo in diplomatic relations, you'll see it can be much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm working with another person on brainstorming ways to push democratic 'public opinion' onto the politicians, and this fits in with that goal.
Thanks again.
Re:I don't know how yet, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea. How about we just realize that people need to sort their own shit out? The best you can possibly do is elect a government that realizes that it isn't going to beat another nation into submission with rhetoric. If the west wants to do anything for the poor huddled masses of all the oppressed people around the world, it should happily and merrily jump in to help fledgling democracies, reward leaders who bring about democratic change, make some vague attempt to hold a little moral high ground, and serve as example and rewarder.
Tongue lashing Putin is a waste of breath. Words are worth their weight in gold. The best thing to do is give Russia a pat on the head, a hug, and a wad of cash when they do right, and wait for a less drunk and incompetent Yeltsin to appear to bring Russia back to something closer to a democracy.
Parent
"message force multipliers"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that we have to rail against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iraq with little actual knowledge of those countries. Those countries will "always" be our public villians or such even if they are more our allies than enemies.
My 10 year old daughter has it in her head that she hates China. I ask her "why what did China ever do
Shouldn't that be called ... (Score:3, Funny)
US and Europe not far behind (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU just passed a resolution making it illegal to publish "terrorist propaganda" [arstechnica.com], even though the actual definitions are quite vague. That vagueness is incredibly broad:
While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Something like it is inevitable for all countries (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It makes many laws nearly impossible to enforce on people in your country (the various laws in France banning Holocaust denial, globalised P2P in less RIAA/MPAA friendly countries).
2. It makes it easier for corporations and other employers to provide services and product in your country while employing few if any of your citizens.
3. It creates a tax-gathering nightmare for revenue officials.
4. It provides free and open access for foreigners who are inclined to break your laws, and exploit and defraud your citizens. Commercially operated botnets and the total hijacking of e-mail for spam, protected with a wink and a nod by corrupt officials and organized crime sponsors are just the start.
5. Foreign militaries, paramilitaries, intelligence agencies, and terrorist groups have a direct, hard to trace, and nearly impossible to stop communications line into your country, on top of a map to attack your critical network infrastructure (and physical infrastructure too, if you're like the US and are stupid enough to connect power plant control systems directly to the Internet).
6. Critical Internet infrastructure, and new development is often at the whim of an unfriendly or hostile government. (though this government is generally the US in just about every case, with its control of ICANN)
Again, this is governments. The people don't like a lot of the negatives too, and that means that in general they are going to be pleased if action to cut off "bad actors" from flooding their inboxes with spam, or stopping the US government from controlling the DNS system, or the Chinese military from attacking their country, or Russian hackers taking their entire country offline if they do something that Russia doesn't particularly like. The fact that it gives governments nothing but nightmares is eventually going to create a lot of little internets, with countrycountry access governed by treaty. The Wile West was tamed a long time ago, and the Internet will be as well, just like every other frontier. You've just got to create a new one.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The one good thing I can think of is high oil prices. But the Russians should thank Bush and Jiang Zemin for that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference being, in Russia, they don't release you at the end.
P.S. I just followed up an "in Russia" clause with a statement in normal order. What is Slashdot coming to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[...gets out "Karma Fire Extinguisher"...]