Russia threatens to ban Twitter, Google, Facebook

[Thanas]

....Unless they hand over user data

A further step was taken in Russia’s slow authoritarian regression on Friday after it was revealed Google, Facebook and Twitter would be banned by the regime unless they disclose user data in line with the country’s blogging laws.

Media watchdog Roskomnadzor contacted the technology giants to demand they comply with legislation that requires bloggers with more than 3,000 daily readers to register with the state. As such, Roskomnadzor has asked the companies to hand over details of Russian bloggers, as well as censor any content "recognised as extremist information" by the Moscow government.

Speaking to CNBC on Friday, Vadim Ampelonskiy, spokesman for Roskomnadzor, said: "Such correspondence is regular in dealing with foreign Internet companies. Usually after sending official requests and letters, we can see some positive movements and progress in communication. Roskomnadzor hopes this time all the companies will respond again and will fulfill those requirements, which were asked many times before.”

According to Reuters, Ampelonskiy warned that sites would be banned that did not comply with the rules. Critics are framing the latest crackdown on the Internet in Russia as part of Putin’s ongoing restrictions on freedom of speech. Recent changes in the law allow prosecutors to block websites detailing unauthorised protests without a court order.

Transparency reports fort the three technology firms show they have previously rejected most but not all of Russian requests for user data. It is unclear how each will respond to this latest demand.

I see Russia is trying to do what the NSA does.

[Purple]

It's just your regular cold war politics at play. Putin can not permit the creation of a dickishness gap.

[Simon_Jester]

Does the NSA require special registration for popular blogs? And does it put up blocks on Internet sites that discuss 'unauthorized protests?'

[Thanas]

Does the NSA require special registration for popular blogs? And does it put up blocks on Internet sites that discuss 'unauthorized protests?'

Nope, but it sure as hell already has what Putin wants - access to user data.

[K. A. Pital]

"Slow authoritarian regression" - that was the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. What is happening now is definetely worse than this.

[Irbis]

Critics are framing the latest crackdown on the Internet in Russia as part of Putin’s ongoing restrictions on freedom of speech.

Yeah, poor Twitter, Google, Facebook who frame every single request they should comply with local laws as gross breach of 'freedom of speech', even the minor, innocent EU demands EU laws for privacy and removing of defaming, blatantly false content be respected. Boo hoo, poor colossal net giants who refuse to listen to peasants from countries where they suck billions from local markets, completely unregulated.

FYI, this 'terrible' Russian law stems purely from subjecting big internet sites to the same regulations as press and other media, something that makes a great deal of sense for exactly the same reason we don't let newspapers or TV programs go wild, and IMHO, EU should do the same. Well, unless you postulate we should ban organizations like Ofcom or Bundesnetzagentur/Landesmedienanstalten. It's far too easy and devoid of consequences to fling defaming lying shit if you call your site 'blog' instead of 'press portal'.

Now, can this law be used to suppress dissent? Maybe. But so can be existing law that applies in Germany, and somehow, we don't see people criticizing these. In any case, law is IMHO solid and needed, it's misapplication is entirely different issue and sadly not the one tackled in OP article.

Does the NSA require special registration for popular blogs?

No, they just arrest you for 'unamerican activities' if the page's content happens to be not what they want to hear. See for example all file sharing sites the US law enforcement shut down in its own vassals after MPAA/RIAA demanded it, even in countries where running such site was completely legal.

Not that I support PirateBay but the idea FBI can claim a page breaks US law and can get it taken down without anyone verifying it even if it complies with local regulations is kind of chilling - see Wikileaks, where 'illegal' activities were pure, supposedly enshrined in USA whisteblowing but unfortunately it's whistleblowing USA doesn't want to see.

And does it put up blocks on Internet sites that discuss 'unauthorized protests?'

Please. They are not foreign pleb that can just threaten to cut access if US company starts flouting your laws. Thanks to hands on access to VISA, DNS, and other basic infrastructural managers they just disappear you off the data and finance net completely:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2 ... s-everydns

[Irbis]

To expand a bit on the above post - this law is like police force. Sure, you can use it to beat dissidents, but it also has a lot of far more important functions, keeping order and preventing crime. To claim regulation in the internet is bad is like claiming police due to singular excesses is bad and should be disbanded. It just doesn't make sense. And it's not even like this regulation is mainly targeted at dissidents, Russian law enforcement already has a lot of tools to do that and won't waste time using something so delicate.

Why I think such law is needed in any democratic country? Why, because democracy is supposed to be informed choice of the people. If voters are uninformed, there is no democracy anymore. Period. I still remember pre-1989 media, and frankly, the 1989 democratic revolution was driven in huge part by desire to read truth, not whatever controlling interest wants us to, in newspapers. Wild, unregulated internet portals don't guarantee that, more, they drive conventional, regulated media that actually bother to document and research topics out of market with incessant vomit of extremely cheap, scandalous and blatantly false torrent of trash content produced by unpaid interns. Clickbaiting? Slideshowing? Bite-chomping? How you expect to keep anyone informed with that?

Then there is indirect influence the IT giants have, distorting public space in often not very obvious ways. Take Google for one - whatever they don't like, disappears. When they were trialling price compare tool in Poland, suddenly all other similar tools disappeared from searches. They were very popular, so people noticed that quickly and protested, but what if it's done more subtly? Google can say ally with political party promising it privileges and move all other parties to further pages unless searched for directly - this is far more insidious threat than presented by biased sources like Fox News or Daily Mail because it's nearly invisible. If no one is watching to ensure they play fair, we can soon wake up in really dystopian nightmare. And it's already reality today, Facebook was caught running illegal psychological news tailoring experiments on its users:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... s-on-users

Oh, and that bit on Google is no longer hypothetical either:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... -can-it-do

Can you imagine someone targeting depressed people for fun giving them articles on best method of committing suicide, worthlessness of life, lack of perspectives, etc? It's completely legal today. Any claim regulating that somehow breaks 'freedom of speech' is so utterly laughable I don't even know where to start.

I remember depressing book on dystopian future written by Polish SF author in worst days of pre-1989 Poland. Oppressive government printed newspapers on rapidly decaying paper - supposedly for ecological reasons, in truth, so they could say A one week and B the other, without paper trail documenting it. Heh. Today, Google and Facebook can produce you entire perfectly tailored and targeted fake past (with references) in a few mouse clicks

[Guardsman Bass]

Uh, Irbis - a law that bans certain kinds of speech or text on the grounds of "the government doesn't like it and doesn't want you to see it" is still censorship. Nice try, though - it's been a while since I saw someone defending censorship on the grounds of democracy.

And it's not even like this regulation is mainly targeted at dissidents, Russian law enforcement already has a lot of tools to do that and won't waste time using something so delicate.

It's precisely because it's delicate that they'd love to have it. Censorious regimes love being able to track and take down dissident media without much more public, heavy-handed ways of doing it.

[Grumman]

There is justification for regulating broadcast television and radio - as a finite, public resource, there are only so many channel-hours of broadcasting available, so some form of rationing is necessary by default.

There is justification for wanting a specific title (like "news organisation") that carries the specific legal meaning that you aren't making shit up, but even that is troublesome because a corrupt government would naturally wish to falsely claim you're not a real news organisation if you say true things they don't like.

There is absolutely no justification for demanding that all speech be subject to those regulations. If Joe Random wants to tell the internet that the President's favourite food is babies, the power to force him to stop (as opposed to simply revoking his Guarantee of Truthfulness) is far more dangerous than allowing him to continue.

[K. A. Pital]

1. Other methods are less delicate - they involve maiming and killing people. But they do create a problem unless your nation's human rights record is not under scrutiny (Russia's is, at least for now).
2. The power to quickly find out who is who is very important to a modern police state, of which Russia is a prime example. No matter if there are other states to be criticized on these grounds, the criticism of the Russian police state stands on its own and remains valid.
3. There is nothing nice about defending Russia here.