Russia's Anti-VPN Law Goes Into Effect (theregister.co.uk) 185
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: A Russian law that bans the use or provision of virtual private networks (VPNs) will come into effect Wednesday. The legislation will require ISPs to block websites that offer VPNs and similar proxy services that are used by millions of Russians to circumvent state-imposed internet censorship. It was signed by President Vladimir Putin on July 29 and was justified as a necessary measure to prevent the spread of extremism online. Its real impact, however, will be to make it much harder for ordinary Russians to access websites ISPs are instructed to block connections to by Russian regulator Roskomnadzor, aka the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. The law is just one part of a concerted effort by the Russian government to restrict access to information online. While Russia does not appear to be going the same route as China -- which has a country wide, constantly maintained censorship apparatus, known as the Great Firewall of China -- it is clearly following its lead. At the same time as Putin signed the VPN legislation, he signed another that will come into effect in January. That law, like a similar one passed by the Chinese government earlier this year, will require operators of messaging services to verify their users' identities through phone numbers. And it will require operators to introduce systems to cut off any users that are deemed by the Russian government to be spreading illegal content.
Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of the kind of paranoia ancient kings used to have, thinking everyone was out to get them.
Re: Wikipedia (Score:1, Interesting)
Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Re: (Score:3)
I am not paranoid!
Because if you are, THEY notice!
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the targeted should probably start trying to understand why.
Really? Ok, I'll give it a try. Centuries of antisemitism: Jews were hated because they were too parochial or too cosmopolitan, too rich or too poor, etc. Why? And don't tell me any religious fairy tales from millenia past. None of the Jews alive could had been participants in those acts. So, once again, why the hate? And do you really need to understand why they hate you if they are already out to get you? To what end? To make yourself more suitable to those trying to destroy you?
Re: (Score:2)
That government regulator has even blocked themselves once.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wow, Russia really has blocked Wikipedia?
I'm from Russia. Wikipedia is not banned. The claim in the article is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for letting us know. I can't imagine such a vast trove of information being wholesale blocked by a modern country.
You are welcome.
More precisely, Wikipedia was blocked for a brief period of time -- perhaps a day -- in 2015, over some article about a drug. However, very soon the officials backtracked, so not all ISPs have even implemented the ban by the time the block was lifted.
Using Google translate, you can read the Russian Wikipedia entry about that event [google.com]. Or just can read about that story in some English media, such as Guardian [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:1)
What is this "article" thingy you keep talking about?
The first link in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, all the cool dictatorships do it today.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the kind of paranoia ancient kings used to have, thinking everyone was out to get them.
History professor or a book author discussing various political leaders during WWII, Hitler and Stalin signed agreement but later Hitler invaded USSR which just prior Germany was receiving many resources from the Soviets (steel, oil, etc). Germany, Japan, and Italy could have coordinated closer which they could have cut off England of oil from Iraq. However, he said dictators tend to be suspicious of each other.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're the murdering thief, thug despot of a country where the others who have power are murdering thieves and thugs, you hafta do what you can to stay ahead of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ancient kings, or Stalin? And now Putlin
It suffices to say there were no mobile phones in Russia under Stalin — so brutal was his rule!
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.hoover.org/researc... [hoover.org]
Hal_Porter, thanks for an inspiring article. Beyond its value as a history reminder, it's interesting as a lesson in psychology, because reading about other people's motivation is always fun.
That said, I take some issues with that article. First is the ease with which Schmemann connects the dots between the Soviet Union and Putin's Russia:
The sad truth is that the collapse of the Soviet state, which seemed to vindicate everything the dissidents fought for, did not lead to the democratic state they presumed would follow. ... Sakharov would be ninety-three now, and I presume he would be enormously active, writing letters and statements...
... He did not, alas, leave behind a Russia democratic and free. That may take generations.
There is a lapse in that logic and it is failing to account for Russia's 1990s. If you wish to get a better insight into contemporary Russia (than Schemann and his likes
Re: (Score:2)
In Marxism-Leninism you need to take away human rights from opponents of the regime in order to build socialism, otherwise those regime opponents will overthrow the regime and reinstate capitalism.
Owing to that indoctrination, conflating economy with human rights was natural for Soviet dissidents. However, in the year of 2017, Marxism-Leninism has no viability as a concept. Contemporary socialism is associated with European welfare states such as Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, etc., in which massive state interventions into the economy are accompanied with a perfect situation with human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Well none of those states claim to be socialist. They're multiparty democracies with a social democratic party.
And they don't have 'perfect human rights records'. All of them ban hate speech for example and defined hate speech widely enough that disagreeing with the groupthink is potentially illegal. E.g. disagreeing with state policies on mass immigration, or welfare.
They do all have high taxes though. Which is ironic as a society which taxes people heavily but grants them lots of benefits when they're unemployed is probably only possible with a small and culturally homogenous population. E.g. in a great article from Rosengard, an immigrant ghetto in Sweden...
Of course dissenting on immigration is basically impossible in Sweden. Same in Germany. Unfortunately as Engels' article points out high welfare combined with a generous asylum policy means you end up with a lot of people who will probably never work. And they'll have children who will also never work. This is not good for social stability.
What you said makes sense. Thanks for the articles; that's high-quality reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for having a civil discussion!
For what it's worth I used to be a firm believer in the Swedish model. What changed is that I spent four years in Sweden and became aware of the effect that welfare has on motivation. Refugees are particularly disadvantaged by it, but the effect on native Swedes is dire too.
Thank you, too! Europeans' concerns about immigration help put into perspective their attitudes towards Russia. For example, consider 2004 report by Alvaro Gil-Robles [coe.int] on human rights in Russia. Section V ("Rights of national minorities") almost looks like he was desperate to find a good model which could be useful for Europe, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like the article says, Russia is trying to stop the spread of extremism online. Since Wikipedia is a right-wing extremist propaganda site, it is well within the scope of the Russian Law to block it.
Contrary to what's written in the article, Wikipedia is not blocked in Russia. I live there so I can attest that from personal experience. U.S. journalists typically do not burden themselves with verifying information regarding that country.
Re: (Score:2)
It is sort of right. Wikipedia itself wasn't banned, but several articles from Wikipedia were, mostly about drugs and suicide [wikipedia.org].
Here is an example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
It is sort of right. Wikipedia itself wasn't banned, but several articles from Wikipedia were, mostly about drugs and suicide [wikipedia.org].
Here is an example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]
Legally, sure. However I can access those pages from Russia, without using a VPN or a proxy. When I try any of those addresses, I get redirected to https protocol, and, as they say, ISPs technically cannot block a single page from a website if https is used.
Re: (Score:2)
In Russia, it is "extremism" to say things like "Crimea belongs to Ukraine". Or even "there should be a referendum in Crimea to determine its future status".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, extremely stupid is still extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, extremely stupid is still extreme.
:-) Just kidding.
Re: (Score:1)
Just two of the many mainstream news publications with articles about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/russia-bans-jehovahs-witnesses-extremist/
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-and-religion-why-putins-regime-so-afraid-jehovahs-witnesses-638640
Re: (Score:2)
The only extremists are those in power looking to control everybody so they remain in power.
Re: (Score:2)
What? They banned Theresa May?
Finally.
Re: (Score:2)
Iirc, Bill Clinton tried to introduce an ID for people to get on the Internet. It won't fly anymore because it's a speech platform and you have a constitutional right to speak anonymously, and the government tracks traffic anyway, so can get all the "who is talking to who" info they actually want.
Which is one of the things the Founding Fathers were scared of -- those in power having the power, without a warrant, to feel out networks of people talking. It is one of the tools of tyranny that should be forbi
This is a good thing (Score:1)
If Putin does it, it becomes much harder for the EU/US to justify crippling VPNs.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
You really haven't been paying attention to the Trump administration, have you?
Re: (Score:1)
Germany recently massively expanded their own "extremism/hate speech/for the children" censorship laws, and the EU is trying to get this shit EU-wide.
If anything they're trying to keep up with Putin.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it doesn't. The West’s authoritarians are falling over themselves to follow Russia and China’s lead when it comes to surveillance and oppression. And just like Putin, they claim it’s all about “extremism.”
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to getting rid of services that make it more difficult to trace people through the internet, the biggest supporters would be those who have an interest in increased surveillance. Here in Germany we had ideas of installing spyware on the phones of immigrants, track their social network activities, internet searches and so forth - things that are unconstitutional, because those laws don't only apply to German citizens but humans in general. Of course it's justified because it is all in the name of the greater good, and it would only be used to protect the innocent people. Services and technologies like DNScrypt, VPNs, TOR, SSL are thorns in their side. Criticism is brushed aside because 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Fortunately the majority still doesn't see it that way in my country, but fear is a very strong motivator that may very well change things within the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Thersa May is pro-migrant? lolwut?
Theresa May was (possibly still is) a Remainer, she wanted to remain in the EU. To the far-right whingers that basically makes her pro-immigrant even though most of the arguments to remain in the EU have a solid basis in economics.
21st century fascism (Score:5, Informative)
Basically China has show the way
1) Stop foreign companies operating - ban them, spy on them, drive them out
2) Force people to use domestic companies, and force those domestic companies to censor and spy on people.
3) Ban VPNs so people can't see sources outside the country
Claim it's all to stop 'extremism'.
I remember back in the 90's the left in the US and UK claimed that censorship wouldn't work in China and China would eventually be forced to democratize. Now those same left want US social media companies to clamp down more and more on 'hate speech' which in this case means 'speech they hate'. In the UK people have gone to prison for a Facebook posts.
But hey, at least it's not the government censoring people. Rather it's an unelected oligarchy in tech companies that between them have a monopoly on the means of communication. So it's not violating the First Amendment which means it's fine.
The US and UK of course don't block VPNs, because they don't need to - most VPNs are US based and the NSA can zap 'em with a national security letter [wikipedia.org] if it needs to spy on them. What about foreign companies? Well the US government apparently wanted a US buyer for Skype. Microsoft - which is US based and thus vulnerable to a national security letter - bought it. At which point Microsoft did this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Chinese, Russian and United States law enforcement agencies have the ability to eavesdrop on Skype conversations, as well as have access to Skype users' geographic locations. In many cases, simple request for information is sufficient, and no court approval is needed. This ability was deliberately added by Microsoft after they purchased Skype in 2011 for the law enforcement agencies around the world. This is implemented through switching the Skype client for a particular user account from the client-side encryption to the server-side encryption, allowing dissemination of an unencrypted data stream.
The interesting thing is that when it comes to intelligence cooperation where a company is owned makes a great deal of difference. US companies cooperate with US intelligence. Chinese and Russian ones cooperate with their intelligence agencies. Thus allowing people to use foreign companies is a national security risk. It also runs the risk of political contamination - witness the 'Russians-under-the-bed' paranoia in the US about Russian companies spending a few tens of thousands of dollars during the last US election.
Re:21st century fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't "the left" that said China would democratize, you jackass. If you claim to remember that, you're either lying or a fool.
It was corporations like Apple and Google and a bunch of others that couldn't wait to get their hot corporate hands on all that lovely Chinese money. The whole "we'll make them free" argument was just a sop to willfully-credulous Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle who needed an excuse to turn a blind eye while their corporate masters helped build "The Great Firewall of China".
Those corporations ran their PR-as-news stories in every publication they could beg or bribe to publish it. It works like this: a corporation provides a nice, long article or video, complete with pretty pictures, accurate descriptions of technology and all the bells and whistles, and they do it for free. Oh...and it contains an interview with some techy-looking pseudo-geek who explains how China will have no choice but to let information run free in the Brave New Infoworld they're building. News media owners are delighted to get this crap, because it's free and it looks good. Publish enough of it and you get to lay off a real reporter who might dig down enough to figure out what's really going to happen when you turn all that lovely technology and software over to a brutal totalitarian government.
No sane person on either the left or the right believed China would do anything but enlist those corporations in their efforts to utterly control their subjects' access to information, and threaten them with expulsion if they even made a whimper about "free information".
Smarten up
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for a very thoughtful comment. You deserve to be modded up even higher than mine, I think.
Re: 21st century fascism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's far to early for government intervention. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTune dominate the market, but as of yet there's no evidence that competitors can't grow. It's legitimate to rant at these companies for abusing their near-monopoly power to push their political agendas, however - it especially pisses me off as an (indirect) stockholder.
The right answer is to support any credible competition that doesn't seem to be pushing a political agenda (or, failing that, an opposing bias, but really, can't we ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now those same left want US social media companies to clamp down more and more on 'hate speech' which in this case means 'speech they hate'.
You mean like athletes kneeling during their national anthem.
But hey, at least it's not the government censoring people.
It is in the case of Trump actually. The free market couldn't convince the NFL to take a unified stand, but the threat to revoke their tax status quickly got the job done. It's like the constitution never even existed.
witness the 'Russians-under-the-bed' paranoia in the US about Russian companies spending a few tens of thousands of dollars during the last US election.
A few tens of thousands of dollars? Really, I thought the current tally was at $300,000 + 247,000 (by Russia Today) + tens of thousands of dollars. And what about Paul Manafort, he may have been the unpaid Campaign Manager of the Tru
Re: (Score:2)
Like so many Americans, you're a size queen. You believe more money means more influence. If that were true, guerrilla marketing wouldn't be so devastatingly effective.
You might also consider the effect of small changes on a system in equilibrium...even a very large system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Butterfly Effect my ass. Guerrilla Marketing has proved to be effective. The downside comes when people find out they've been manipulated. In this case, buyer's remorse is too late.
Go troll somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop repeating the rightwing talking points, it's getting nonsensical, and just think for yourself for one minute.
Treason is still treason, even if it's unsuccessful. And President Trump is just protesting too much. If some of Trump's underlings have been compromised by Russian interests, he needs to know that. Everyone needs to know.
Furthermore, some of his underlings, including his son-in-law and son, have been moving the goal post every time they have been caught in a lie. First, it was the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: I meant to use the word 'legal' instead of 'valid' in my previous post.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought we were discussing the magical properties of Russians being able to outcompete massive campaigns on a shoestring budget, or the more likely theory that this is frantic handwaving by a very biased media to blame the Russians for the failings of a political party. I didn't even realize that being highly skeptical of buzzword terms like 'guerrilla marketing' to explain Clinton's defeat was repeating rightwing talking points.
How fortunate that you're here to encourage independent, critical t
Re: (Score:2)
Your math needs work. From your own article you cited. It said "less than 100,000" for Google, 100,000 for Facebook, and it didn't say an amount for Twitter.
This is not to mention the DNC servers that someone hacked into, or socially engineered themselves into. Or the 21 states, in which elections were breached, even if nothing was changed.
Because let's face it, if a large foreign power attacks your election process, it is an act of war. It is still an act of war, whether they succeeded or not. And if an Am
Re: (Score:2)
In the West a person can think they have freedom but their VPN use can be well understood by the security services with efforts like TURMOIL, APEX, POISENNUT GALLANTWAVE, VALIANTSURF, MALIBU.
Inside the NSA's War on Internet Security (Dec 28, 2014)
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Basically China has show the way
1) Stop foreign companies operating - ban them, spy on them, drive them out
The first premise in your argument is completely wrong, the rest of your ill thought out post is even worse.
China does not force foreign companies from operating, quite the opposite, they encourage it as long as China is benefiting (either through access to technology they aren't able to replicate or by financial incentives). Lots of honest, god-fearing western companies use china to get around those pesky environmental or workplace protection laws. As long as a palm gets greased and they dont rock the b
Must be wanted (Score:2)
Re: Must be wanted (Score:2)
Re: Must be wanted (Score:3)
VPN? I aint using no stinking VPN (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see the deep thought behind it; just like they killed the Lycos MP3 search engine and napster and gnutella p2p - no one shares files anymore. If you can do that to file sharing why not VPN? -BAN ALL VPNs!
I'm just tunnelling this information via encrypted link end to end. TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO VPN.
Time to start using MAID - encryption via mutli-port-multi-protocol distributed means. VPN is a joke.
Thank you to China for starting this process and for Russia to accelerate it. I hope more countries follow suit.
What's the point anyhow? Putin throws whoever he wants in jail regardless of wrong doing and makes rich people "share" their wealth with him. -call it the loving embrace of a bear.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess I'm wondering how they're implementing this.
Blocking PPTP / L2TP? Fine. I'll use OpenVPN on port 443 - go ahead and block all secure HTTP and see what happens to your economy.
Using some kind of deep inspection to find out that it's OpenVPN traffic? Ok, I'll just set up an SSH tunnel on any arbitrary port I want to and use Docker to put up a SOCKS5 proxy to pass all traffic from my local network through that tunnel. Good luck.
Re: (Score:3)
And with https://github.com/yrutschle/s... [github.com] you can run https and openvpn on the same port (443), further hiding your openvpn server from prying eyes, although MITM could still happen, but openvpn would likely flag that immediately if you have it set up right. Although I'm sure traffic pattern analysis could still flag such a setup.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, VPNs are an existing technology that is directly supported in pretty much all computer OSes, and is easy to use. If you ban them, sure, there are workarounds - but they require a lot more effort. They don't need to make things foolproof; they just need to make them hard enough, that most people don't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
So why the hell did we sell him 20% of our uranium?
That one is easy; you didn't. [factcheck.org]
Hypocrisy (Score:1)
When Russia enacts laws to censor the internet it's bad (no argument here).
When EU countries do it, suddenly liberals are cheering and it's the best thing ever (because they know these laws are being used to silence their opposition).
The end of the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we had a good run, 30 years or so for the old-fashioned global internet. But having that much information available is simply too threatening to powerful people. We the commoners are supposed to keep our heads down and do their work for them, not crowdsource cases of corruption and essentially solve them, nor correctly point out where the ruling class is totally full of shit.
Right now, all of that is happening on Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. Trump's election was a severe shock not just to American elites but to ruling classes the world over. The writing on the wall is clear: if you want to remain ruling class, don't let the proles know the real story. Youtube is ruthlessly demonetizing, Facebook is censoring, Twitter is deleting accounts and governments are blocking off the outside world. The future will be national networks with limited access to the outside, like China's today. In February a VPN ban will go into effect in China and that will be the end of that. So there will be a Chinese network, a Russian network, and increasingly fragmented networks the world over that don't really connect to each other. Good try internet, you did some good there for a while, but you were just too threatening to allow to continue to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The end of the internet (Score:2)
Russia has no choice but to ban VPNs, censor websites and prosecute operators because, er, the west does it, no wait the Chinese do it, no, terrorists that's why, because of Scary Scary Terrorists. Russia must protect its poor people from Scary Terrorists by controlling all their communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Roscomnadzor once blocked itself (Score:1)
Whereas the "Great Firewall of China" may be considered a tragedy, Roskomnadzor's efforts are the proverbial farce that follows: the agency has blocked itself [bloomberg.com] — apparently, on more than one occasion...
The Russian Four-Step (Score:5, Interesting)
First, see what kind of social and economic mischief you can carry out in the West by way of "anonymous" activity on the Internet - do it cheap, like get kids to help out [dailymail.co.uk], and take note how hard it is to trace back to the culprit.
(in parallel, see how much actual damage [wired.com] can be carried out, using Ukraine as a guinea-pig [npr.org]).
Next, notice well it all worked, beyond all reasonable expectations, even to the extent of swaying elections of public officials in the U.S. (they're holding Congressional hearings about us!), and encouraging open revolt against the state [businessinsider.com] and inflaming street unrest [cnbc.com].
Third, in view of the fact that Russian officials do not tolerate street unrest and open revolt against the state, conclude that this "research experiment" has proven without question that the Internet is a danger to the Motherland and its beloved leader, Valdimir Putin.
Fourth and finally, take pre-emptive action based on this valuable research to crush this threat and make sure it don't never happen here (Russian military take note... could be useful someday; continue research).
P.S.: President Xi says to Putin in his heavy Chinese accent, "way ahead of you."
P.P.S.: Kim Jong-un says it was all my idea [news.com.au].
Technical Censorship (Score:2)
Soviet Union 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am *not* dead wrong. Russia has a terrible position. They're no Soviet Union. They're surrounded, where are they going to go? The US won't allow anything to happen to its captive vassal states in Europe. China is on the other border, and worthless central Asia in between. There are NATO bases in Kyrgzstan, for fuck's sake.
You should really check out the current real strengths of the European armies and Russia. [imgur.com] The European Union is already strong enough to defend against Russia, an opponent not eve
Re:Soviet Union 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I am *not* dead wrong. Russia has a terrible position. They're no Soviet Union. They're surrounded, where are they going to go?
Uhh, Crimea [bloomberg.com], for a start? They have Syria [reuters.com], too.
The US won't allow anything to happen to its captive vassal states in Europe.
I think the people of Ukraine would disagree with you [forbes.com] on that.
The European Union is already strong enough to defend against Russia
So far, they've been strong enough to impose some sanctions [europa.eu] over the invasion of Ukraine and the taking of Crimea. But it's kinda over... nobody believes Russia is going to just pack up and leave. Re-draw the maps: Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation [wikipedia.org].
Don't fall for the old "blame the dirty foreigners" line, it's the oldest trick in the book.
Unless the dirty foreigners are actually playing dirty. They play dirty in Ukraine, they play dirty in Syria [theguardian.com]. They play dirty on the high seas [go.com]. They have vast oil wealth [wikipedia.org], hold real estate interests worldwide [reuters.com], and maintain the largest nuclear stockpile in the world [newsweek.com], which Putin said (over dinner) could destroy America in a half-hour or less [businessinsider.com].
And then there's that whole internet hacking thing. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Putin/Russia isn't outwardly strong doesn't mean he can't be a troublemaker. What I see is Russia covertly influencing all sorts of things to destabilize NATO countries, NATO being the main roadblock to Putin invading other countries. We here in the U.S. sure feel 'destabilized', don't we? Did anyone think that Russian influence was because Putin like Trump or something? LOL no, the U.S. is one of t
Re: (Score:2)
The NATO countries have been demanding we leave for decades. Stop playing world police has been shouted loudly and often. "Ami go home" is spraypainted outside every US military base. Do we really have something to lose as Americans if we pull back our external activity? The Cold War is over, and it seems the more fingers we have in pies like NATO, the Middle Eastern countries, and so forth, the more problems we create.
Let Europe defend Europe. They are not incapable nascent and fragile democracies anym
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine isn't a part of NATO and thus not a US vassal state. Crimea had a free and fair vote to join Russia - the same kind of vote a lot of people would like to have in California to see if they want to join Mexico. You appear to be beating the drums of war and making Russia out to be some gigantic scary threat when in fact the US has the problem well in hand already. Russia a long time ago lost its place as a superpower. Now it's a regional power with nukes.
The biggest threat to world peace is American
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine isn't a part of NATO and thus not a US vassal state.
... and therefore open to be invaded and annexed by Russia. Sucks to be them, right?
Crimea had a free and fair vote to join Russia - the same kind of vote a lot of people would like to have in California to see if they want to join Mexico.
Do you hear yourself? Free and fair [quora.com]? and Californians want to secede to Mexico? You got a cite for that? Your credibility has dropped to zero with that one.
The biggest threat to world peace is American imperialism and NATO is merely their tool.
What imperialism? What country is the U.S. attempting to annex, militarily or otherwise? Imperialism suggests that "vassals" pay to the emperor state. If NATO is paying so much, where's the fucking money?!?!?!? why the FUCK is the U.S. in DEFICIT if its world-wid
Re: (Score:2)
A substantial number of Hispanics in California wish to join their part of the state politically to Mexico. Northern California becomes the state of Jefferson. Just hold a plebiscite, composed of all residents. Doesn't matter about citizenship, just the people on the territory. This is standard UN practice, it's how East Timor got away from Indonesia.
I feel you don't understand international relations very well, or more likely never had any interest until a year or so ago. You have a very surface und
Re:If VPN is blocked, what else do we have? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The whole point of this is to implement blocks on ISP level. They already have the existing blacklist system that is currently used to take down "extremist" websites in this manner - it'll just make use of that.
So, anyone who is using a Russian ISP will have problems with VPNs, even foreign VPNs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If VPN is blocked, what else do we have? (Score:1)
The reality is, it's 2017 and digital fingerprinting is a very real thing. Without blocking ads and trackers, a VPN only gives plausible deniability if the legislation you have to defend yourself against tolerates loopholes. You could try DNSCrypt to see if that still works. Tor probably will if you set it up to only use 80/443 and let it know you are in a place that blocks it. I do that by default anyway. There's also no reason to not start using encryption tools like VeraCrypt or a Tox client for messagin
Re: (Score:2)
We have this:
"For every motherfucker out there with a computer, there's another motherfucker out there with a computer." ~ © 2017 CaptainDork
On deck: The replacement to VPN.
Re: Make America great again ! (Score:1)
Squirrel! Both parties want to use the power of government to control you. As long as they can keep us divided in meaningless party arguments we are guaranteed to lose. Trump blows, but so does Hillary.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
She also colluded with Russia to affect the US election. She paid $9 million to an MI-6 agent with Russian contacts to make up fake dirt on Trump, the DNC, Obama, and Comey with the FBI's money also helped pay for it.
They then used this false information to go to a FISA judge to wiretap Trump's campaign, using information they knew were lies.
Yea, but CNN (who ALSO works with the MI-6 guy and company that hired him) still say Trump is the one who colluded with Russia. Better believe a biased news source th
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: When you want to buy the election, buy both sides. This isn't roulette after all, you CAN put your money on blue AND red.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see Obama and the Israeli election. Obama and the French election. Obama and Brexit.
Did Obama (and the US) try to influence those elections? Yes. And. Did Obama and the US "buy" the French election. No. Of course not.
I think there is no reason for Putin to actively want Trump over Hillary. There was no strategic opposition to Hillary. Not only that it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no evidence of Russian tampering with the US election.
Tampering would be changing votes; hiring people to physically intimidate voters (in other words the klan or the black panthers).
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true. Uranium One mines less than 2% of US uranium, so it's not possible tor the sale of that company to have given Russia 20% of US uranium.
Second, the Russian company, Rosatom, that purchased Uranium One, does not have a license to export uranium from the United States. So, none of that 2% of US uranium ever left the United States.
If you want a good metric to judge whether or not someone gets all their news from Fox News and Breitba
Re: (Score:2)
And the figures I've seen place it far closer to 20% than 2%. Be careful about impugning the intelligence and education of people with whom you disagree.
As a case in point - Fox News (not the opinion shows such as Hannity) is not free market or right-wing in any way. Long gone are the days where they actually invited someone over from CATO or AEI or Heritage. In fact, since the children took over, there
Re: (Score:2)
The figures you've seen are wrong.
Uh-oh.
So, if Uranium One mines 2% of the uranium in the US, and Rosatom acquired 16.6% of the shares, then how much of the US uranium has Rosatom bought? Do the math. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
But to your points - Fox News for the last few years (the news program - not Hannity, not opinion people) are in tune with the other news outlets. No longer do they bring in CATO , AEI and others. I hear both CNN and Fox at work and the gym - there is precious little difference.
The figures for the uranium are moving around because of different definitions - of what is american uranium. Is it in the United States (or owned by Amer
Re: (Score:2)
Again - to the point of the OP: "Why wouldn't Putin want Hillary?"
Because Trump would be more disruptive to the day-to-day operation of the U.S. due to his lack of experience, erratic behavior, total non-connection with U.S. career bureaucrats, easy-to-get-at family, wide-spread financial interests, and, of course, his out-of-control Twitter thumb. And if you're a bettin' man, Trump supporters are probably more susceptible to Internet rumors than Hillary's. Nationalistic propaganda? That's the same trick Putin pulled in Crimea.
Big picture, it wasn't about Trump or Hil
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true. Uranium One mines less than 2% of US uranium, so it's not possible tor the sale of that company to have given Russia 20% of US uranium.
It's only 2% today. At the time the deal was signed it was 20% of the produced uranium. And Clinton made her decision based on the 20% number (which was true at the time) rather than a future number (the current levels) that she couldn't possibly know anything about.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Clinton wasn't involved in the decision,
2) and none of the uranium ever left the country.
You have to start getting your news from outside the right-wing echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Clinton wasn't involved in the decision,
False and irrelevant to the fact that it was 20% rather than the 2% that it has become today.
2) and none of the uranium ever left the country.
False. It part of it went to Canada and cannot be tracked after that.
Re: (Score:2)
That was before the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company.
Re: (Score:2)
That was before the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company.
Do you have a not-journalist citation or did you just make it up?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to start getting your news from outside the right-wing echo chamber.
Oh, and if the "echochamber" is so wrong, then you shouldn't have to use falsehoods to debunk it.
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law, it's not just for religion anymore...