Russia may deem civil servants’ use of Gmail, Facebook ‘high treason’
rt.com
rt.com
Who's to say we'll ever see a major international company like that again? I foresee a future where DNS root server control is yanked away from the USG and the internet is partitioned.
The pendulum has peaked at globalization and now it's swinging towards isolationism. Whether we like it or not borders have been drawn along the previously wild-west-like internet, and it may take on the form of virtual Berlin Walls.
Hopefully someday we can enjoy the same euphoria that followed Germany's reunification but on a global scale, and that day may take a century to get here.
On a more serious note, I hope the internet stays together, but that the pendulum will start swinging back from "cloud" to decentralized, federated or even P2P protocols and services. Wasn't it originally meant that way? (with NNTP, email, ...).
I was thinking this after the NSA thing. People could end up in 150 person (Dunbar number) sized LLCs like the city-states in the novel.
Brilliant insight. Globalization will probably be only a blink of an eye when compared to the history of human civilization. A snapshot in time when conditions were favorable.
Now the conditions are changing again: peak oil, international surveillance and rising labour costs in developing countries are all deal breakers.
Fact is, Russians don't use Facebook and Gmail because they have more popular local alternatives. This decision is ultimately more about trade protectionism than anything else, much like the US witch-hunt on ZTE and Huawei.
huh? Gmail/FB and local alternatives (yandex/vk) take about the same market share. Russia has it's own NSA (SORM-2), so I'd stay away from it.
In this context, it makes sense.
Firstly, the proposal is covering specifically military and state employees. No one is going to shut down Gmail or Facebook countrywide. This is ridiculous.
Secondly, it's not a ban, but a request to develop a set of instructions on handling in-house data for the employees.
Thirdly, the proposal calls for encryption of all sensitive data sent over the internet.
A little less sensational, is it? :)
If the NSA can get details of the personal lives of individuals then it could open them up for blackmail and therefore to be a security risk.
So I kind've understand this move from Russia, too, even though it will probably end badly for Russia, to the point where they become more like China, but I feel that US deserves this from every country in the world, until they roll back all the spying, and end these programs and laws (Patriot Act, FISA).
I imagine that if there are hundreds of corporations lobbying the US government to stop because they are losing business overseas, they will eventually do it, because they know that the end of the day, and despite all their public statements, the spying is not that useful for catching terrorists, and specific investigations and wiretapping should still be possible under reasonable laws anyway.
In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia. The treaty had been active since the 70s and sought to decrease the amount of those very systems installed. In the same year, no longer bound by the treaty, the US started to look into expansion of its defense arsenal in Europe, which eventually led them to Poland.
It is no surprise then that Russia saw it as an unfriendly gesture at best. Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders.
The EU has traditionally been used as a playground to advance the US agenda. The proposed defense system is no exception. Gladly, it did not come to fruition. Otherwise, we'd seen a very different Europe now.
Given our attachment to history, Russia is still often seen as this "cold war" aggressor out to get you. But if the past decade is of any lesson, I think we have a new candidate on this role.
US decided to be sneaky and said it was to protect against nuclear missiles from Iran and North Korea and other rogue terrorist states. That was to reply to Russia' public objections and accusation of restarting the nuclear arms race.
That was a PR stunt most of all, so Russia replied in like, they offered a an already existing Russian base to be upgraded and used jointly. It would have been even closer to Iran and North Korea. It would have protected Russia and Western Europe from "terrorist rogue states".
US kind of got caught with its pants down ... "oh oh, we can't and ... stuff".
Russia then said ok, put missiles in Poland we'll just put our theater tactical nuclear missiles (Iskander) in Kaliningrad and at first whiff of danger destroy all of Poland.
US backed down and now I think they are courting Romania or the Czech Republic to install systems there. (Presumably out of range of Iskander missiles)
Look at this from Poland's side. Not building the defensive shield means that Russia has still the right to pressure the country with missiles. Russia wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case Russia was clearly the bad guy. Russia is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for Europe, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
Look at this from Cuba's side. Not deploying the missiles means that the US has still the right to pressure the country with its military might. The US wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case US was clearly the bad guy. US is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for the world, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_P...
There's an argument to be made about ABM against small-state actors like Iran and NK, but any system that becomes a serious deterrent to ballistic missiles puts an incredible upheaval in our "balance of power" and potentially leads to an arms race, increase in conflict, proxy wars, etc. Not good news.
I don't agree that Russia should have a say in when NATO would be able to operate such a system, but a notification requirement would be fine, if not actually allowing a Russian liaison to be stationed with the operations center controlling such a system.
Just because one side of a conflict starts to do something bad does not make the other side the good guys!
Not sure what you mean by this.
As a European I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a foreign government being able to snoop on my internet communications and I'm hoping European leaders take a stand on this. I don't see that leading any where bad though.
I can't see why any governments would be happy with the US monitoring their citizens communication. If the US laws don't change I'd imagine you will find a lot of alternative services having to appear pretty quickly.
Yes, they will have to look after it. No, it won't be cheap. But in terms of intelligence gathering, it has the potential to significantly impact the US' ease of access to huge bodies of information by cutting North America out of the heart of the internet.
It may be worth reminding people that if the US currently seems to be heading into a police state, that Russia within living memory has manifested one.
I'm all for holding the US accountable, but let's not collectively be idiots and think that this is all uniquely a US problem, and that therefore we can just stop worrying about everywhere else in the world and let them do whatever because they aren't the US, they must be awesome. We're still criticizing the US for heading in a direction that quite a few other major countries have already arrived at. It's great criticism, it's legitimate concerns, but don't get overexcited and give everybody else a pass.
Can anyone say with a straight face that Russia won't sniff Internet traffic with the same basic purposes and approaches, either now or anytime in, say, the next ten years? I sure wouldn't bet any money on that claim.
- If the US becomes a totalitarian regime, then all of your data can be used to imprison you for political transgressions. If you live in the US, but your data is in Russia, the Russians aren't going to care about your political transgressions (e.g. calling for a protest) against the US government.
- If your data is in a different country than where you are physically located, then there is less of a chance of your local machine being compromised. For example, Russia is going to be less likely to send an agent to the US to bug a computer (e.g. hardware keylogger) unless you are a really high-value target.
However, spreading it around is at least somewhat better than having the majority of traffic snooped on by a single power. Right?
And then if the government say that they stopped, how can you ever be sure they did?
Unless we use free (as in freedom) software, open encrypted communication protocols, and decentralized network services, we are trusting too much of our computing and communication to third parties, which are subject to political powers, that always do whatever they can to protect themselves. The government should not be trusted, it must be controlled. Corporations should not be trusted either.
The Government has been taking away our rights for years, the general public seems to expect the government to solve all of their problems and give them free paychecks.
Of course, I really would be surprised to find out the America is the only country spying on their own citizens.
This has been going on for years and everyone knew it.. now with the leak hopefully we can reign in our own government and abolish the practice officially.
The rest of the world doesn't care if the US government is spying on its own citizens. The US government is ACCOUNTABLE to its own citizens (well nominally, but hey...), so if they don't like it they're in a position to do something about it.
As a none US citizen, I care that the US government is spying on ME, unilaterally and without any accountability.
This is what the rest of the world cares about. Stop pissing away what little sympathy you have by moaning like a spoiled child about the bad shit your government is doing to YOU, and open your fucking eyes to what it's doing to EVERYONE ELSE.
So, more defenses can lead to more conflict. Also, more offensive weapons can lead to less conflict:
One man has a gun. The other one buys a gun. Now there's peace.
So many people don't get game theory...
FTFY. The fact is, laws/constitutions/whatever are utterly meaningless. Without enforcement, that is. And it's not up to us to enforce it, it's up to government officials. They can and do simply ignore laws whenever they wish. Sometimes a check/balance kicks in and makes them pay some kind of penalty, sometimes nothing happens.
The US is known to have particularly weak human intelligence networks (few spies actually capable of infiltrating foreign terrorist groups). Al Qaeda and the rest know that it's incredibly risky to use electronic communications, so the people that you'd want to monitor already know they're being targeted.
Naturally, the US government's response to this has been to bet more heavily on signals intelligence.
Since China block google, Facebook, twitter already, they can also make the demand for Apple imsg, icloud, Microsoft and Skype servers be inside China , else they are blocked. Apple, M$ will have to agree or risk loosing that market.
Up until now, it may have been tolerated as long as it didn't concern obviously sensitive information, but you can expect a total ban in most countries on the planet, not just paranoid Russia.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can tell us if Russian law requires intent to prove "high treason"? And how influential is this "Lower House deputy" anyway?
>if Russian law requires
there is no such thing as "Russian law" in the sense "law" is understood in the Western world. There is though a will of whoever has the power - it is real Russian law and it doesn't require any prove for a guilty verdict.
>And how influential is this "Lower House deputy" anyway?
Just a government mouthpiece. The elections are based on party lists. So beyond 10th position in the leading party and 2-3rd position in other parties, these people are unknown nobodies. Some just buy the position in the list to get immunity from various criminal prosecutions the face.
The head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament, predicted "hysteria in the United States," if Russia were to agree to shelter Mr. Snowden, whom he likened to controversial WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
“Having promised Snowden refuge, Moscow is taking up the defense of those persecuted for political reasons. There will be hysteria in the United States,” Alexei Pushkov wrote on Twitter. “In listening to phone calls and tacking Internet activity, U.S. intelligence agencies have violated the laws of their own country. In this sense, Snowden—like Assange—is a human-rights activist.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732463430457853...
Note: You can search the URL in Google to get the full story)
He did or he didn't, the rumor now is that FSB doesn't need classified intelligence committee hearings to access vkontakte.ru data now.
Another thing to keep in mind: even if you "delete" your profile, given the situation there's zero guarantee that all copies of the data will be destroyed.
Why not? If they then arrested him, what would we do about it? Nothing. And, of course, they could always just use some nonsense charge if they want to pretend they were following their own made up rules.
We grow up wanting to believe that rules, constitutions and so on are firm, solid entities we can depend on, but it's all just an illusion. It's no more real than those in power allow it to be.
[1] In case that's not clear, consider: who would trust them?
That could be deterred by a threat to leak more, but then that becomes a dangerous game for both sides.
It would take a super human effort though. Unlikely it would happen but here's hoping.
That would definitely send a message to the corporate system of America.
Mess with our privacy and you loose your audience.
That said, the options look unappealing. If it really comes down to it, would you rather be giving your information away to US, Chinese or Russian agents?
I don't know if that's the best thing for privacy. I would appreciate a lot to hear some pros/cons.
I have to say, if I were asked by a business which valued privacy, I'd tell then to contractually and physically block all US services.
I mean, if I were working one some product I wanted to keep secret for reasonable market reasons, like hell would I want my employees using gmail and the like to discuss it. I would also be nervous about employees leaving them selves open to blackmail because of facebook posts. Look at Alan Turing's experience of being gay. Say my lead developer was a member of a "secret" gay group on FB and became compromised? Now imagine I was not a business, but a government.