Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Social Networks Twitter

Putin's Plan For Controlling the Internet In Russia (time.com) 63

Posted by EditorDavid from the throttling dept.
Time magazine reports: On March 10, photos and videos on Twitter were loading more slowly than usual for users in Russia. It was not a network fault or server error but a deliberate move by Russia's state internet regulator Roskomnadzor to limit traffic to the social media site, in what experts say was the first public use of controversial new technology that the Russian authorities introduced after 2019... The action came after Russian authorities had accused Twitter and other social networks in January of failing to delete posts urging children to take part in anti-government protests... In response to the slowdown, Twitter said it did not support any "unlawful behaviour" and was "deeply concerned" by the regulator's attempts to block online public conversation.

But on March 16 Roskomnadzor gave a fresh warning that if Twitter refused to comply with its removal requests within a month, the regulator will consider blocking access to the social network in Russia outright... Twitter has only 700,000 monthly active users in Russia, a fraction of the 68.7 million in the U.S. Despite its use by opposition politicians and journalists the Kremlin doesn't consider it "the most dangerous" platform, says Andrei Soldatov, a Russian cyber expert. Experts say that the authorities used the Twitter slowdown to test technology that could be used to disrupt other, more popular social networks like Facebook, which has an estimated 23 million active monthly users in Russia...

As the government has ramped up its efforts to control what citizens can access online it also has several projects in the pipeline that experts say is part of a strategy to push foreign tech companies out of the Russian market completely. From April 1, Roskomnadzor requires tech companies selling smartphones in Russia to prompt users to download government-approved apps, including search engines, maps and payment systems... In November 2019, the Kremlin made its most controversial move yet toward controlling the country's Internet infrastructure with the so-called "sovereign Internet" law. A series of amendments to existing laws theoretically enabled the Russian authorities to isolate "RuNet" — the unofficial name for websites hosted in Russia and sites on Russian domain names — from the global web in vaguely defined times of crisis, giving the Russian authorities control over flows of data coming in and out of the country... The "sovereign Internet" law required Internet Service Providers to install Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) equipment, which has been used by some countries, like China, for censorship. DPI equipment enables Russia to circumvent providers, automatically block content the government has banned and reroute internet traffic.

Russia's major ISPs have now installed DPI equipment, according to Alena Epifanova, a researcher at the German Council on Foreign Relations. But no one knows if or when Russia will be able to cut off its Internet from the global web.
The article also notes Russia passed a law in December which gives Roskomnadzor "the power to restrict or fully block websites that, according to officials, discriminate against Russian state media."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Putin's Plan For Controlling the Internet In Russia More

Putin's Plan For Controlling the Internet In Russia

Comments Filter:

  • ...to connect to the unfettered internet.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ...to connect to the unfettered internet.

      On the unfettered Internet, one can run one's own servers. Not so on Starlink.

    • Re:Some countries need a few Starlink dishes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday April 04, 2021 @06:27PM (#61236598) Homepage Journal

      Actually Putin should have his own Internet to rule as he pleases. Things would be better for everyone else if the Russian government didn't have any access to the Internet the rest of us use.

      • Re:Some countries need a few Starlink dishes... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fabioalcor ( 1663783 ) on Sunday April 04, 2021 @06:47PM (#61236648)

        Actually Putin should have his own Internet to rule as he pleases. Things would be better for everyone else if the Russian government didn't have any access to the Internet the rest of us use.

        Unfortunately it won't be the case, i.e. North Korea has maybe the most controlled Internet of the world, yet they launch cyber-attacks on other governments and even companies.
        RuNet goal is to protect the Kremlin and silence their opposition, it won't protect the rest of the world from Russian scammers or even state-sponsored attacks.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          So you have a series of exposes of the UK government actively attacking other countries via the internet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). I mean what else would you expect. Especially tossing in how much tech corporation cheat on taxes, all the profits disappearing in tax havens.

          It was inevitable, every country will take control of their own internet. To make sure other countries can disrupt or propagandise it and that everyone generating revenue from it, in that country pays taxes on the revenue. C

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          > RuNet goal is to protect the Kremlin and silence their opposition

          And it's worth remembering why, it's pretty clear Russia has had some insanely successful online propaganda campaigns over the last 5 - 10 years that changed the course of global politics.

          The law change in 2019 was a realisation by Russia that, shit, other countries have started to figure out it's us, and they could use our own tactic against us. Giving Putin the ability to cripple or turn off the internet in part or whole on a whim is th

      • Ironic. Just like here.

      • The russians can't do 1/1000th of what our own intelligence agencies have already done to spread disinformation. Just go look at any thread about Assange and you'll see endless shills hating on him. Somehow we're supposed to believe that country with a GDP of less than South Korea has more control over spreading disinfo on the internet than the country that created it. Such horseshit. Enjoy your MSNBC drip feed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xua ( 249955 )
      This is already thought of and Starlink use in Russia is banned according to Russian law 1086353-7. Uses will be fined for up to 1 million rubles. Importing dishes and other necessary devices may be problematic too because they are not approved by regulators. However the biggest problem with using Starlink in Russia may be that it doesn't currently work without land support because traffic from satellites has to somehow get to the Earth and this requires land based antennas. Russian government certainly wil

    • Satcomms can be jammed with ground-based infrastructure. I'm sure Russia would just take a page from the Soviet Union's playbook and set up regional jamming installations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Or maybe test some of those anti-satellite missiles out. Also just owning a Starlink transceiver would be illegal anyway.

  • When anyone one tries to control the internet (Score:3)

    by ClueHammer ( 6261830 ) on Sunday April 04, 2021 @06:28PM (#61236606)
    Its show just how delusional and f**ked in the head they are.
  • but russia wanting it makes them a bad guy
  • but blocking social media could lead to more dissidence in the long run. When sheep are cut off from the flock they are forced to think and act for themselves. Sheep which survive the experience can be more difficult to herd in the future.

  • The West is Paying Attention, Not Opposing This. (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheNameOfNick ( 7286618 ) on Sunday April 04, 2021 @07:18PM (#61236726)

    When Russia wanted to block Telegram, the block was evaded by using "domain fronting [wikipedia.org]", which hides the actual destination of a transmission in an encrypted connection to a reverse proxy operated by a big CDN which serves many web sites. In the case of Telegram, the CDN was Amazon Web Services [theverge.com], which promptly shut down the technique. If you click on that link and read the article, you'll notice that they "followed Google's lead" on this. Cloudflare had already disabled domain fronting too. This was the point where the West could have said, you get the internet all or nothing, but the freedom loving people preferred to throw the services that irked Russia and other totalitarian countries under the bus. The West isn't just idly watching. It's complicit.

    • Russia just needs to make it criminal for people to avoid their filters. I would not want to be a Uighur that got caught evading filters.

      But it is indeed very sad when US companies are complicit.

      The base problem is centeralized social media. It will always be easy to control. What is needed is peer to peer messaging, forming cell like structures. That is needed in the west, let alone dictatorships.

    • Russia could have blocked all of AWS. An extreme option, but they might do it. Amazon didn't want to test that. Understandable. Even the tech giants don't want to upset too many powerful countries.

  • "But no one knows if or when Russia will be able to cut off its Internet from the global web."

    Please do! Please do!
  • Russia may be a shithole, but i wouldnt say using twitter is a measure of freedom or some superior goal.
  • Americans are manipulated by corporations, military service, lack of medicare care all because of corporate greed or a combination. I would hardly smile and say america is some world goal of freedom and happiness.
    • Meh, the other guy put it better, if you're into that

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • I never said Russia was better, im just saying you must be a sad life if you think America is the pinnacle.
        • Eh. America is currently, objectively, tops in a LOT of areas.

          top military power
          controls the world reserve currency
          dominates certain cultural aspects
          number one in most science and engineering fields
          #2 manufacturing power
          worlds oldest democracy
          large (if somewhat strained) network of alliances with other highly developed nations.

          And that's just rattling off the top of my head. The list goes on. I'm not some "Amrica Frk Yeah" type and history tells us that top-dogs come and go. But at the
          • > Eh. America is currently, objectively, tops in a LOT of areas.
            > top military power

            Its NOT even your military, you may pay the taxes, and you may contribute your sons to die, but you have no control, the control of the military belongs to your corporations.

            > dominates certain cultural aspects
            Again how does this improve your life knowing Google or Facebook are big ?

            > number one in most science and engineering fields
            Only because of size, and not for long, because china because of i

          • Oldest democracy? Oh, right - American education system. History starts in 1776, nothing notable happened before then.
            (British education starts in 1066, so we're a few centuries better)

            • (British education starts in 1066, so we're a few centuries better)

              Britain had a democracy in 1066??? I think not. Might want to look over its history a bit closer....

              • > Britain had a democracy in 1066??? I think not. Might want to look over its history a bit closer....
                Britain had an education system far before America was independent. Sir Isaac Newton is a product of the English public school system, just one of many. The reason Britain was a world leader in many areas is because they were amongst the first to have an education system for the masses, not all but far more than everybody else.

              • I think Iceland beats both.

              • No, I said British education starts in 1066. That's the first event that our school curriculum considers notable: The Norman invasion. Things happened before then, but they aren't covered in history classes.

            • Aight, you have a bit of a point regarding Britain. There were pieces of representation floating around well before. But, the monarchy was still pretty much in the drivers seat through much of the last millenium. The US has 300 years of continuous representative democracy with regular peaceful transfer of power from elected leader to elected leader. Ok, we had a bit of a hiccup during the civil war. I acknowledge that nothings perfect. Again, Im not saying that the US is perfect or will be on top forever. B
              • > But, the monarchy was still pretty much in the drivers seat through much of the last millenium.
                So what if they were, that doesnt make the statement about democracy untrue. England has had a parliament for over 500 years.
                > The US has 300 years of continuous representative democracy with regular peaceful transfer of power from elected leader to elected leader.
                England has had for over 500 years, a large part of the american system is a copy of what England had. England has had peaceful elected le
                • Interesting points. Maybe you can educate me a bit. I understand that there was a parliament in England for about a thousand years, but most of that time it was largely a way of legitimizing the rule of the king. The authority was still in the hands of a hereditary ruling family. Parliament was there to keep the public from getting too uppity when taxed.

                  I would argue that's not really democracy. Democracy is when REAL LEADERSHIP POWER is invested through an ELECTION. When Obama was president, dammit he
                  • > Interesting points. Maybe you can educate me a bit. I understand that there was a parliament in England for about a thousand years, but most of that time it was largely a way of legitimizing the rule of the king.
                    Legitimizing is completely the wrong word. Even today the Queen is the sovereign, she rules in all her dominions. I dont think you will be silly enough to say that Australia, NZ, Canada, Scotland, England or any of her other lands are not democracies.
                    NZ was the first country on the planet t
                  • > With regards to America's strengths - I agree that many of our strengths don't actually benefit the little man. We tolerate more poverty, more concentration of wealth and power, partly due to plain old fashioned human greed and apathy, but also partly in pursuit of a common goal
                    Talk is cheap, Hitler also said bullshit about a perfect germania in the 30s.
                    The facts are if you live in a land with her majesty on the money you have won lifes greatest lottery. Because if you are poor, sick or want opport

    • America does not need something as primitive as open totalitarian leadership.

      They got the latest in psychological manipulation.

      Why make people do something against their will, when you can make them WANT to do something?

      That's why I like the Russian people more: At least they usually know it's all lies and bullshit, and that's why they drink. They are so unlike their leaders.
      In the US, people are well-meaning too, but *believe*. In religion, in propagana, in everything. So they are easy to control. They don

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • INB4 "we're doing the same, but we're 'good'!".

    Man, why is everyhi!g going totalitarian on this planet?
    Why are China, Russia, the USA and the EU all doing the exact same evil things as if they were organized?
    Adversaries my ass! To me they are de-facto one single group. Now necessarity knowingly. But in their actions. (Think Anonymous, the social dynamic, not the later FBI-created agens provocateurs group.)

  • America also controls "Internet", for example social networks . All the major social networks are based in the US and are subjects to the US laws. (And these laws can be easily enforced because they are based in the US). They collaborate with FBI, CIA etc. Zuckerberg, Dorsey often are called for "hearings" before American senators.

    If Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube with all their popularity among Americans were based in China for example, and therefore were not subject to US laws, were not collaborating

  • https://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/n... [rkn.gov.ru]

    And you know what. Here in Moscow we see things not so black and white. Time magazine makes it look like all that content is free speech. Not at all. There is plenty of content about child abuse, suicidal instructions and drugs. And there is no restriction on posting political content on Twitter in Russia. Check Navalny messages -- all his reports are there.

    On the other hand certainly there are lots of pro-government guys that will try to abuse the law and request to remove

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close