balkanisation of the Internet is a natural result of the erosion of trust in corporations and other stewards of this medium
Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.
Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities. And no, it wouldn't matter if the US had the same problems.
Russia is obviously preparing for a war. They are trying to build and control their own services for everything (finance, e-commerce, even CPU manufacturing etc.) so that the country doesn't collapse once it is cut off from the West, the weakness China doesn't have. It sucks for all the people that want to enjoy freedom there.
Or rather it has to do with Russia and the Brics trying to subvert the dollar, not war. Not to mention, there's no way it would get cut off from the west at this point, if only in political rhetoric. Nordstream and Southstream kicked Washington in the balls at every turn, to the point where they're almost dropping their intentions.
Next, the west has a shit ton of money invested in the Russian stock markets. Their stock markets rebounded back to previous levels a few weeks after the sanctions.
>It sucks for all the people that want to enjoy freedom there.
Or you know, it's beneficial for all the people that want to enjoy freedom there, since freedom is not "the freedom to have your data on a server on Mountain View" but to live in a free, sovereign country.
Both mistrust of foreign companies and desire to suppress dissent could be reasons this law is being enacted. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
And, there could even be a third element. Economic protectionism and "keep the money here". Or even a forth element. The lawmakers cousin owns a data center in Moscow:)
I could easily see the EU strengthening our data protection laws in the next few years to take us in this direction. In light of the NSA scandals there's probably a strong justification for this… except that the UK is a bigger danger to privacy and it operates within the EU.
Nearly every EU country is documented to have similar programs, not just the UK. Some are even much more aggressive about industrial espionage - for example, France. When European politicians make noise about using European-based services, it isn't so they can be sure your privacy is protected, it's so EU-based organizations can access those servers without having to negotiate with the NSA. As a side benefit, they can claim it's good for the local economy.
The NSA revelations are just a pretext. Every European country knew exactly what was going on; they were complicit in it and they had varying levels of sharing agreements with the NSA.
It's not as clear-cut. The motivation of pro-privacy MEPs from the left-wing EU parties are most likely entirely different from the ones of the Council of Europe. But your point about most EU intelligence services being engaged in spying on EU citizens stands, unfortunately.
Whilst most of the larger EU countries have some civil spying program, the UK operates on a much wider scale throughout the world. It is also particularly concerning for me in Ireland as a large portion of Irish internet traffic must flow through the UK, and there are specific monitoring stations setup to intercept this fibre.
The statement you quoted of mine doesn't directly relate to Russia at all, considering that other democratic nations are taking the same steps and many citizens, even in the EU, are asking for the same. Russia is different, I understand. However to imply that their actions were not influenced by the actions and complacency of Western nations is to assume they are fools.
>Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.
Russia, as a sovereign state has the right to make its own mind, including for what it considers dissidents. It's not the place of some foreigners to judge that. Especially since it's a democracy, and people voted for their government, however some foreigners might or might not like it.
Even if you disagree with their current regime, it's the regime the Russian people voted for, and they can also change it in the future.
And regardless if it is a good or a bad government, there is really no excuse for a sovereign country to give access to its citizens data to an external power, especially one which treats foreign information like intelligence data and doesn't care at all about their privacy.
Better to be abused by your own government, the one you voted for, even if it's bad and abusive, than by some regime outside your borders.
If Americans had their Facebook/Google/etc data in a third country and those countries services treated them as US services do, they would be screaming bloody murder.
>Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities.
And why shouldn't they be strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities? It's their country, their rules, not something for multinationals to piss all over.
It's certainly not that Putin needs to suppress dissent from his own people. It's a very small minority in Russia that would like Putin removed.
Now, if we're talking about the west investing x billion in "democratic institutions"(Ukraine, anyone?), it makes some sense for Russia to isolate itself. Obviously, it's easy to paint Russia as evil, but the cold war is over, buddy.
That's hilarious. People in Russia support Putin exactly because there are virtually no free mass media. This is one of the latest steps to block access to all media channels that may oppose Russian cleptocratic government.
don't always believe what you read here, there are a lot of Russians who want to relive the glory days, real or perceived. Just because we in the West don't like him doesn't mean much to them, if anything it might bolster his image there.
plus, considering what our President(s) do/done where do we have room to brag/gloat? I cannot find those news articles where Putin is using drones to kill his citizens abroad.
This is spot on. Russians had a ton of structure for ~70 years, then one day all of that disappeared. Outside the big cities, things did kind of go to shit for a long time, with many youth addicted to drugs or simply jobless and desperate. This led to a rise in extreme nationalism among the youth, who pine for the "good old days" when Russia was a global superpower.
You know those racist, alcoholic rednecks in Alabama who fly confederate flags, praise Jesus and love America? Russia has a lot of those. Except the government actively encourages their insanity, because redirecting their furor at outside forces (Ukraine/Crimea, US, the EU, etc) distracts from the kleptocracy that runs the country and has quietly been consolidating wealth and business ownership into the hands of a very small group of oligarchs. Putin is a hero to these guys; he projects a nationalist ideology onto the global stage, where Russia is the bully that gets its way.
Not saying the US doesn't do its share of geopolitically shady crap (NSA spying, etc) but it never reached these levels of crazy. What Russia and Putin are doing is very reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and not in a "they're acting line Nazis" kind of way. By promoting the dangerous idea that "ethnic Russians" in other countries need protection, it elevates that nationalism to the point where it can be used as a context for an invasion of a country. Never mind that the idea of "ethnic Russian" could apply to any person living in a country that was formerly part of the USSR.
Just to make it clear, I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs regarding nationalism and alcoholism, but your apologetic attitude for the US is somewhat worrying.
Except for Ukraine, which is a controversial subject, when was the last time Russia directly threatened a sovereign nation and overthrew their governments?
Now, how about the US in the last 14 years - Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, Gaza Strip, Somalia, Iran, Lybia and Syria. Does that not come off as "crazy" to you?
EDIT: oops, sorry. Forgot Yemen and Pakistan, against whom there is no official declaration of war either.
Except for Ukraine, which is a controversial subject, when was the last time Russia directly threatened a sovereign nation and overthrew their governments?
What did Russia in Georgia with Abhazia and South Ossetia? How about Republic of Moldova where Russia still holds a standing army with no legal status? (It's the former 14th USSR army, which just happen to remain on the Moldova's territory after the fall of USSR, but to submit to Moscow nevertheless, and which was/is being used to support the so-called Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, BTW.)
P.S.: Please, don't use USA's action to justify Russia. If crimes are being committed by someone somewhere doesn't mean that a crime are no longer a crime.
You are right - we overthrew Iran's government way back in the 1950s, not recently. Their president was a popular moderate (a medical doctor I think). Then we forced the Shah of Iran on the Iranian people.
In my lifetime I believe that we have tried to overthrow 30+ governments around the world when in the interests of America's financial elite.
Do you know what I consider patriotism to be? It includes admitting things that we did wrong and try very hard to do better in the future.
This whole thread started from "US does more bad things than Russia, just look at recent history." You can't start tossing things that the US did in the 50's on the table, and not do the same for Russia. The whole point (as I see it) of the "in the last 14 years" qualifier is that we're talking recent history. It's disingenuous to dredge up things from much further into the past.
It was also a different time period with different considerations. Now I'm not being an apologist for this stuff, but I would say that similar actions in the more recent past have much less justification, even if you are someone that buys into the "Domino Effect" defense from the Cold War-era.
Or other information about Russian atrocities in that war. (The whole point with drones is that they are pinpoint attacks, with relatively low civilian casualities.)
And USA is a tempering influence, re Gaza. Consider what would happens if Finland or a Baltic country used rocket artillery against St Petersburg? No, better to not consider that... (shudder.)
1) That was not what I was doing. He was comparing Russia and the U.S. in the last paragraph, so it was very relevant.
2) If we're talking about atrocities, let's talk about 100,000 casualties in Iraq.(most conservative estimate). Additionally, 2,400 dead from drone strokes. Most, if not all, without due process in Pakistan and Yemen.
3) Tempering influence? Are you serious? Is it tempering to overthrow governments and install new ones while denationalizing oil contracts? I heard Lybia's a democracy now and not a shithole.
U.S. is just as bad as Russia. Your time of being the beacon of light and democracy is gone.
>>Tempering influence? Are you serious? Is it tempering to overthrow governments
"Tempering influence" was specifically about Gaza.
But you know that.
>>100,000 casualties in Iraq
First, let me note I am not defending the Iraq invasion. Not because I cares about the rights of evil juntas, but because it was so badly managed it even increased the suffering.
Second, those in Iraq were mainly killed in a civil war by people also trying to kill Americans. It is not trivial to blame Americans for that...
I think you know that, too.
About drone strikes -- both the Pakistani and Yemeni governments accepted them. In Pakistan unofficially, because the extremists targets polticians/media/etc with the "wrong" opinions.
I think you know that, third...
Etc.
Edit: I might add that I'm not American. Please keep personal attacks relevant at least, propagandist.
I think you're painting everything black and white here. I'm Russian, I have no TV at home, I get all my news from reddit and twitter, and I still support Putin, though I don't like him a lot. You're right about mass media, but that doesn't mean you can't have sources of information you like. Russia is not North Korea.
Putin brought quality of life in Russia to a pretty nice level, and he keeps doing it, and a lot of people like that. And I see no point in becoming involved in protest movement and revolution rage. We all saw what happened to our neighbour, we need evolution, not revolution.
Just like it was the russians in Odessa that burned all those people alive? Please.
Russia barely supports anyone in the east. Even NY times(the newspaper that was fully pro Iraq war) went in, talked to the separatists and found out they're just pro federalization.
Your blind hate for Putin is apparent. You'll start blaming earthquakes in Oklahoma on him soon.
I have a good friend who is an Israeli citizen and he has been complaining for the 20 years I have known him that his country's politics are so warped by the people he calls 'the rich American assholes' (like AIPAC) who fund the right wing in Israel that sometimes his country does not seem to be such a good democracy. Imagine a whole lot of external money being injected into the politics of your country - you would probably not like it either.
As for my country, the USA: we are certainly a democracy but there is so much cheating via gerrymandering, etc. that I feel like we have lost something very precious since the end of the second world war when our financial elites started to step up their game.
Why should I define democracy, chemical entropy or anything else which I am not an expert on -- and lots of academics have put much time and energy into defining?
Look up democracy index and freedom index on wikipedia, which I referenced.
Russia has fallen a lot further on the central ones of those, as I wrote. I asked if that ALSO was a Western conspiracy, which the Russian media are full of.
The POINT was -- the paid Russian propagandists aren't allowed to write that. They mostly go away.
It seems the whole internet quality suffers, not only HN, from those Russian astroturf trolls in most languages.
(Israel is not only beside the point -- as I've heard it described, if you put three Israelis in a room you'll find at least four hard opinions on most any subject. :-) The same goes for the media. In general, democracies put under pressure from terrorism aren't pretty: By definition, terrorism scares the voters. That results in that the governments throw out the law books, because they want to get reelected. See Germany, USA, Italy, Israel, Britain, etc.)
So you refuse to criticize the Putin junta for being non democratic? Thanks, that is all I need for an opinion about you.
[I guess it is time for you to use another account to lower the HN quality? :-( A quick browsing through your comment hostory is mostly USA criticism and pro-dictators, mainly Russia. Very little to none of programming or development. ]
How is the weather in Moscow, by the way? (St Petersburg? Some military base somewhere?)
>That's hilarious. People in Russia support Putin exactly because there are virtually no free mass media.
That's BS. They support him because he is not a bloody puppet like Yeltsin and co, and the alternatives are worst.
He might support cronyism, but that's nothing compared to selling your country wholesale to the highest western bidder, like a sorry excuse of a lackey.
Russians prefer a cleptocratic government with Putin than a cleptocratic government without Putin. There are no non-cleptocratic governments in the world. Power corrups ... you know the rest of this, right?
Just stop this craptastic argument of "every government is the same". Another favorite argument taken directly from putinbots social media guidance.
And stop using strawman arguments. No government is perfect but there are degrees of corruption in the government. Russian government is extremely corrupt, Iceland government is a little bit corrupt. One is better than another. God, do I really have to post trivia on HN?
Don't think trivial and you'll be safe. There are degrees of corruption between of the biggest countries and the tiny ones, but not so much inside the group. The methods vary, of course.
Heh, Right. Is there free mass media anywhere else? Are you aware that any journalist who spoke out against the Iraq war never had a career again? Free mass media is a political talking point, not a real thing.
Would you prefer Yeltsin? Putin is what Russia needs.
Since you're more concerned with attacking me ad hominem, I guess I'll just join in. You are paid by the NSA[0]. Mind-blown!Since, after all, character assassination is the way lead a discussion.
Additionally, your name sounds ukrainian. You must be a right wing ULTRA then! How is that for being a putinbot. See how ridiculous you look throwing accusations at people just because they disagree with you.
> This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along.
No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens. China's firewall can only exist because the Chinese people are accepting it in the name of protecting children or other such bullshit - brits should watch out, as their personal liberties have been eroded in the name of safety for too long. And if you live in the US, I suppose you're familiar with the Patriot Act ;-)
No, governments don't do this unless a majority approves - that they approve for the wrong reasons, that's another story entirely. But as I kept saying ever since Snowden's leaks happened - the US government fucked things up, they won't even admit to how badly they fucked up and this will have deep repercussions internationally regarding the future of the Internet. A lot of international (mostly US) companies will get hurt by this, because (1) they didn't have a saying in the matter, yet the public views them as being guilty nonetheless and (2) because of balkanization.
And the US can't point fingers and say "look who's talking", as that won't achieve anything. Say that to the Russian public who approves this. The US, as the stewart of the Internet, should have been careful to not fuck things up so badly in the first place. And after Snowden's leaks I would have liked to see some apologies, some heads falling - but ALAS, no, nothing of the sort - only a direct confirmation that they don't care about the rights of foreign individuals and as a non-US citizen, how do you think that makes me feel?
I think you're conflating "not actively overthrowing their government in violent revolution" with majority acceptance.
That governments are inevitably an extension of their citizens' will is a thing that sounds nice to believe, but isn't necessarily true. It's easy to imagine situations where a small minority gains forceful control of a majority. Whether that is the case for any one nation is a much trickier question, but it certainly can happen.
> No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens.
This is not a contradiction to the original statement. Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.
> Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.
Let me follow your definition, say, in the case of Ancient Rome. There is a minority of masters and a majority of slaves. Minority of masters has a dissent (from the slave's point of view, of course) that slaves should stay slaves. So, according to you, it is wrong for them to fight for their freedom, right?
This statement makes sense for some specific ethic systems.
For instance, in almost all modern states there are ideas, which are shared by some majorities and considered unethical in Christian ethic system.
But bad_user seems to imply ethic system which is based on the aggregate citizens vision. With such ethic system opinions of majorities are ethical by tautology.
Well, I have lived 7 years as a child under dictatorship and we've executed our dictator without a fair trial, on Christmas Day. Saddam Hussein in particular became extra paranoid after watching this particular execution on TV.
I do know a thing or two about the difference - and one has to understand the mentality of people living under a certain political system - the system only survives when there's enough acceptance, from a majority no less and acceptance happens because that's what people grow up with. That's why under stalinism at least there was so much emphasis on propaganda.
I guess you haven't heard:
"The Five Eyes are cooperating with various 3rd Party countries in at least two groups: The "Nine Eyes", consisting of the Five Eyes plus Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Norway. The "Fourteen Eyes", consisting of the same countries as the Nine Eyes plus Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden.[41] The actual name of this group is SIGINT Seniors Europe (SSEUR) and its purpose is coordinating the exchange of military signals intelligence among its members.[42]
Germany is reportedly interested in moving closer to the inner circle: an internal GCHQ document from 2009 said that the “Germans were a little grumpy at not being invited to join the 9-Eyes group." Germany may even wish to join Five Eyes.[43] Referring to Five Eyes, French President François Hollande has said that his country is "not within that framework and we don't intend to join."[44] According to a former top U.S. official, "Germany joining would be a possibility, but not France – France itself spies on the US far too aggressively for that."
But of course. I wasn't denying anything of the sort.
But you see - it's one thing for my country to do it, because if I suffer from it, I have legal ways to fight it. It's another thing entirely for a foreign government with so much power to do it, let alone a government that directly controls and that can subdue the biggest companies that operate on the Internet. Depending on the country, the NSA doesn't have enough jurisdiction or power to subdue a foreign company, regardless of any treaties, therefore depending on the country, I can trust a more local company more than I can trust a US company - since a US company can be quietly subdued to whatever the NSA wants without recourse or without me finding out about it.
And I do realize that if I'm targeted directly, then short of keeping myself offline, there's no way to protect my data. But my biggest fear is that my personal data will end up being processed in bulk by incompetents. My personal ID ended up in a local newspaper by mistake because of incompetents running our governmental institutions (even though that's illegal). I've got important data that I care about - while at the same time I've got nothing to hide - but do I want my personal data, like pictures, love or angry letters, source code of personal projects and so on and so forth to end up being processed by incompetents? Hell no. And if it does happen, I want to be able to strike back.
With the US government doing it, I have no recourse, no path I could take - since I'm not a US citizen and I don't have money for the fees practiced by US lawyers anyway, while at the same time, my voice is not heard because I'm a foreigner. Heck, I don't even have a right to vote, if that counted for something. Can you see my problem here?
That's why I'm of the opinion that the US government should try really hard to fix what they broke, since we all have enjoyed the freedoms provided by the global Internet and it would be a pity if balkanization happens because some idiots thought it would be cool to process the emails of individuals without warrants and in bulk.
Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.
Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities. And no, it wouldn't matter if the US had the same problems.