it;s not just Putin.
Every Government is against internet.
They try to deanonymise it in every way.
Why so obsessed with Russia?
Topic: Putin at war with the internet.. who is going to win? (Read 3694 times)
It isn't the subject, but when it comes about Internet access in public places in Italy, it's easy to get anonymous connections. I went to one Mc Donald's and when I asked the girl who served me about Internet, she had a small paper card on hand to tell me what number and what pass I could use to log in.
A phone number is also required in Switzerland to get a SMS, but I asked the girl sitting next to me if I could use her number and she agreed with a smile.
The most funny thing here is that Wi-Fi doesn't require any authentication, and it's not planned to implement any kind of authentication for Wi-Fi, even through SMS. This law can't be applied to Wi-Fi access points, because the concept of "public access points" is already defined in the law... And it has nothing to do with Wi-Fi access points, it's only about publicly available computers provided by the state-owned organizations. A phone number is also required in Switzerland to get a SMS, but I asked the girl sitting next to me if I could use her number and she agreed with a smile.
So the entire set of news on this subject in the western media is just a big pile of bullshit, which has no connection to reality. Actually it's funny to see how many people have spent so much time to discuss something non-existent.
It is not that hard to control and identify the dissent citizens of the country if the country put its mind into it.
Tor and anonymous browsers are way overrated when it comes to privacy.
Tor and anonymous browsers are way overrated when it comes to privacy.
It isn't the subject, but when it comes about Internet access in public places in Italy, it's easy to get anonymous connections. I went to one Mc Donald's and when I asked the girl who served me about Internet, she had a small paper card on hand to tell me what number and what pass I could use to log in.
A phone number is also required in Switzerland to get a SMS, but I asked the girl sitting next to me if I could use her number and she agreed with a smile.
Back to the subject, there are more and more Russians in Switzerland and France. They're all fleeing their country, and it's easy to understand why. I guess the only people who will stay in Russia are the poor uneducated people who've never been abroad, and who don't know how beautiful life can be.
A phone number is also required in Switzerland to get a SMS, but I asked the girl sitting next to me if I could use her number and she agreed with a smile.
Back to the subject, there are more and more Russians in Switzerland and France. They're all fleeing their country, and it's easy to understand why. I guess the only people who will stay in Russia are the poor uneducated people who've never been abroad, and who don't know how beautiful life can be.
How in hell are they going to effectively ban Bitcoin?
Captain Obvious: They're not going to do that.
Meh, he should just disconnect his country for his own good.
Putin is not really at war with the internet but rather, I believe he is taking control with a strategic way, but tbh similar steps are being implemented or discussed in EU countries or US but we don't talk about them as much but since it's the evil Putin and it's Russia it becomes a headline article
How in hell are they going to effectively ban Bitcoin?
Captain Obvious: They're not going to do that.
How in hell are they going to effectively ban Bitcoin? Of course they could stop any banks from letting you cash out BTC money but if we got a massive amount of shops all over the world accepting BTC payments, how could the gov know that you bought the package with BTC? unless they open ever single package to check the bills? 
Thanks for the bump:)
http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/142200/russia-demands-internet-users-show-id-to-access-public-wifi
Quote
Putin, who alarmed industry leaders in April by saying the Internet is "a CIA project", says the laws are needed to fight "extremism" and "terrorism."
Quote
The decree, signed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on July 31 but published online on Friday, also requires companies to declare who is using their web networks. The legislation caught many in the industry by surprise and companies said it was not clear how it would be enforced.
I see no reason to use such "services" though.
People make there money, it's a reason enough?
Wait, you can get paid for spreading propaganda and malware? Count me in! Give me the info!
If You have nothing to sale, VK is not for You.
I see no reason to use such "services" though.
People make there money, it's a reason enough?
Wait, you can get paid for spreading propaganda and malware? Count me in! Give me the info!
after the February revolution of 1917, when the foundation for constitutional monarchy and for state Duma were laid
It was a republic, not a constitutional monarchy, and it was very similar to modern Ukraine.Actually constitutional monarchy could be the best system, and Peter Stolypin (one of the greatest Russia's prime ministers) has done the most of work in order to implement it. But he was assasinated by "The People's Will" terrorists and didn't finish the reform.
What bothers me the most is the title of the thread. It makes it as if Tzar Putin sits on a throne and hands out laws. Whereas in reality, the legislative branch in Russian Federation is State Duma (Parliament), and they can be quite creative with the laws they coin. Putin may suggest that something needs attention. So can a quite powerful lobby that has seen a number of laws not favourable to Russia passed.
This blogger law, as well a number of laws targeting the internet are not well thought-out, but they are there to protect Russia from the 5th column and a repeat attempt on performing a colour revolution, just like it was done in many post-Soviet countries. Russia has military to protect it against an open armed invasion. No one says that Russia should not have an army. (OK, maybe US complains a bit that Russia moves its army within its own borders.) But the world is changing and an invasion can take different forms. These laws are forming a groundwork for a defence system that aim to protect Russia from this new threat vector. These laws will also need to be refined and revised. And the current outcry and pointing out of the absurdities will be a valuable feedback to further legislative effort.
And to digress. If Russia, as a democracy, decides to have a ruler with monarch-like powers, is it in US jurisdiction to say that such a choice is wrong undemocratic and perform a corrective democratic bombing/sanctioning? There's been precedents for such a democratic choice of monarchy: Novgorod Republic is one. So what if Putin has the support of the population and said population chooses to go the way of more authocratarian leader? Russia in general has a tendency to view a need for a strong central figure. If Obama became a president of Russia, he would be expected to look into all local affairs and to personally direct local bureaucrats on complaints from the citizens. There was one time when Russia started to drift away from the strong central ruler - after the February revolution of 1917, when the foundation for constitutional monarchy and for state Duma were laid. However, that path of development was cut short, and Russia again fell under the central monarch-like rule of the Soviet leaders. What Russia is going through now is a way of finding a governance system that works for it and the mindset of the people populating the country. That this emergent form might not coincide with what the Western "democracies" view as "correct", is not the business of those Western countries.
This blogger law, as well a number of laws targeting the internet are not well thought-out, but they are there to protect Russia from the 5th column and a repeat attempt on performing a colour revolution, just like it was done in many post-Soviet countries. Russia has military to protect it against an open armed invasion. No one says that Russia should not have an army. (OK, maybe US complains a bit that Russia moves its army within its own borders.) But the world is changing and an invasion can take different forms. These laws are forming a groundwork for a defence system that aim to protect Russia from this new threat vector. These laws will also need to be refined and revised. And the current outcry and pointing out of the absurdities will be a valuable feedback to further legislative effort.
And to digress. If Russia, as a democracy, decides to have a ruler with monarch-like powers, is it in US jurisdiction to say that such a choice is wrong undemocratic and perform a corrective democratic bombing/sanctioning? There's been precedents for such a democratic choice of monarchy: Novgorod Republic is one. So what if Putin has the support of the population and said population chooses to go the way of more authocratarian leader? Russia in general has a tendency to view a need for a strong central figure. If Obama became a president of Russia, he would be expected to look into all local affairs and to personally direct local bureaucrats on complaints from the citizens. There was one time when Russia started to drift away from the strong central ruler - after the February revolution of 1917, when the foundation for constitutional monarchy and for state Duma were laid. However, that path of development was cut short, and Russia again fell under the central monarch-like rule of the Soviet leaders. What Russia is going through now is a way of finding a governance system that works for it and the mindset of the people populating the country. That this emergent form might not coincide with what the Western "democracies" view as "correct", is not the business of those Western countries.
Seems like titles like
Ethnic cleansing in Ukraine
Donetsk, Kharkov, Lugansk - way to Russia
EU contractors in Ukraine
Russian Federation against paid trolls.
MH17 - Where is shrapnel?
Are not bothering you.
The title is because of his statements:
Putin calls internet a 'CIA project' http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-calls-internet-cia-project-144259718--finance.html
The Russian president told a media conference in St Petersburg that America's overseas espionage agency had originally set up the internet and was continuing to develop it.
Speaking Thursday at a media forum in St. Petersburg, Putin said that the Internet originally was a "CIA project" and "is still developing as such."
To resist that influence, Putin said, Russia needs to "fight for its interests" online.
What bothers me the most is the title of the thread. It makes it as if Tzar Putin sits on a throne and hands out laws. Whereas in reality, the legislative branch in Russian Federation is State Duma (Parliament), and they can be quite creative with the laws they coin. Putin may suggest that something needs attention. So can a quite powerful lobby that has seen a number of laws not favourable to Russia passed.
This blogger law, as well a number of laws targeting the internet are not well thought-out, but they are there to protect Russia from the 5th column and a repeat attempt on performing a colour revolution, just like it was done in many post-Soviet countries. Russia has military to protect it against an open armed invasion. No one says that Russia should not have an army. (OK, maybe US complains a bit that Russia moves its army within its own borders.) But the world is changing and an invasion can take different forms. These laws are forming a groundwork for a defence system that aim to protect Russia from this new threat vector. These laws will also need to be refined and revised. And the current outcry and pointing out of the absurdities will be a valuable feedback to further legislative effort.
And to digress. If Russia, as a democracy, decides to have a ruler with monarch-like powers, is it in US jurisdiction to say that such a choice is wrong undemocratic and perform a corrective democratic bombing/sanctioning? There's been precedents for such a democratic choice of monarchy: Novgorod Republic is one. So what if Putin has the support of the population and said population chooses to go the way of more authocratarian leader? Russia in general has a tendency to view a need for a strong central figure. If Obama became a president of Russia, he would be expected to look into all local affairs and to personally direct local bureaucrats on complaints from the citizens. There was one time when Russia started to drift away from the strong central ruler - after the February revolution of 1917, when the foundation for constitutional monarchy and for state Duma were laid. However, that path of development was cut short, and Russia again fell under the central monarch-like rule of the Soviet leaders. What Russia is going through now is a way of finding a governance system that works for it and the mindset of the people populating the country. That this emergent form might not coincide with what the Western "democracies" view as "correct", is not the business of those Western countries.
This blogger law, as well a number of laws targeting the internet are not well thought-out, but they are there to protect Russia from the 5th column and a repeat attempt on performing a colour revolution, just like it was done in many post-Soviet countries. Russia has military to protect it against an open armed invasion. No one says that Russia should not have an army. (OK, maybe US complains a bit that Russia moves its army within its own borders.) But the world is changing and an invasion can take different forms. These laws are forming a groundwork for a defence system that aim to protect Russia from this new threat vector. These laws will also need to be refined and revised. And the current outcry and pointing out of the absurdities will be a valuable feedback to further legislative effort.
And to digress. If Russia, as a democracy, decides to have a ruler with monarch-like powers, is it in US jurisdiction to say that such a choice is wrong undemocratic and perform a corrective democratic bombing/sanctioning? There's been precedents for such a democratic choice of monarchy: Novgorod Republic is one. So what if Putin has the support of the population and said population chooses to go the way of more authocratarian leader? Russia in general has a tendency to view a need for a strong central figure. If Obama became a president of Russia, he would be expected to look into all local affairs and to personally direct local bureaucrats on complaints from the citizens. There was one time when Russia started to drift away from the strong central ruler - after the February revolution of 1917, when the foundation for constitutional monarchy and for state Duma were laid. However, that path of development was cut short, and Russia again fell under the central monarch-like rule of the Soviet leaders. What Russia is going through now is a way of finding a governance system that works for it and the mindset of the people populating the country. That this emergent form might not coincide with what the Western "democracies" view as "correct", is not the business of those Western countries.
I see no reason to use such "services" though.
People make there money, it's a reason enough?
Wait, you can get paid for spreading propaganda and malware? Count me in! Give me the info!
You can get paid for developing malware and spyware actually. A quick search on the internet reveals malware development services
I see no reason to use such "services" though.
People make there money, it's a reason enough?
Wait, you can get paid for spreading propaganda and malware? Count me in! Give me the info!
Jump to: