a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the foundation of the modern Russian state).
The "Smart voting" has a lot of connections to "The fund to fight corruption", so the Russian state can go here pretty far. A comment from a political pundit in the top Russian commercial media:
"There is a technical capacity to block. The government understands the disadvantages of it, and initially will try to make Google to cooperate and to block by their own means. If such "goodwill" approach wouldn't work, the government will force it the hard way."
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
I like how you missed the part, that this fund operated for years on legal terms, but Navalny started to use this non profitable organization to fund his political activities and to launder money. That’s why it was shut down.
What would the legal process look like if the app were made by anonymous unaffiliated Russian developers and merely recommended by Navalny?
Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization.
If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes.
In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.
This is not Russia asking, this is the Russia's ruling party which has nothing to do with the people whose vote it seeks to suppress. Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them.
Also it's not asking, it's a ruling by a court in Russia in favor of a small wool trading company who just happened to register 'Smart Voting' as a trade mark.
The original title "Russia: Google told to clamp down on Navalny's 'Smart Voting'" is more accurate. Preferrably the submission should be changed to that.
That depends on just how fine-grained their control on the election is. They might not lose, but they could still be embarrassed or greatly inconvenienced by the results. And you don't always need to chip away at the armor too much before a critical weakness is revealed. Once the party is no longer viewed as unassailable things could change more rapidly.
I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
Election rigging is a finite resource. After certain amount regime loses it's legitimacy. This in turn creates a regime phase transition, which in certain scenarios could be not fatal (as Belarus and Venezuela examples shows us), but very painful for the elites and increases all sorts of risks, especialy for current incumbent.
Also there are investors, external and internal, which are too all over risks, this damages economy and national currency.
That's not what "Smart voting" is about. The SV works by recommending the candidates that a) are not the ones actively pushed by the Kremlin b) have a shot at winning or credibly pretending they did. These could be some batshit crazy Stalinists, mobsters or whatever - the point is that they aren't the guys that the suits in Kremlin have already secretly anointed.
In short, this will hurt Kremlin's credibility and put an organizational tax on all its future efforts. With the pandemic, an economy in deep crisis and Putin's term ending in 2024 he'd need a lot of political capital and SV hits him where it hurts.
Here's a bit longer explanation. The point is that in autocracies elections are not rigged by altering an Excel column. In Russia we have empirical statistical evidence to this: the presence of poll watchers has a very clear effect on the electoral outcomes, the rigging elasticity is capped by the anti-Putin sentiment etc. This is a consequence of how the elections are organized: the local authorities are handed the required numbers and told to deliver, as a test of their loyalty, capability and popularity. They have limited number of ways for this: they can mobilize their base, force their dependents (state employees, the military etc) to vote or press local polling committees to alter the results. If they overplay their hand, they will face local unrest (this actually happens a lot) and the Kremlin will jettison them without a second thought - so this is a balancing act. The efficiency of all their tools is capped by the popularity of Kremlin and the overtly pro-Kremlin forces, and it is at all-times low and still going down. So to get things done they need to depress the turnout - and this creates an opening for organized opposition. If openly pro-Kremlin candidates are hurt en mass then the president's admin would have to renegotiate with both the winners and the losers, effectively losing a lot of organizational cohesion, and that's on top on very public humiliation. With Putin's popularity near its all-time low and going down and 2 years before a very uncertain end to his current term, that's a lot of damage - although likely far from enough to topple the guy. But we take what we can get and this may be a rather large take.
Eventually there's a time where corporations, like individuals have to decide what's important, putting their money where their mouth is as it were. What matters more to Google, profit or accessibility of information. Issues like these highlight those choices.
It takes immense pressure for Google to even choose morals over money in the US.
No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in.
I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0
In this case, profit and accessibility of information go hand in hand:
if Google does not comply with the government, Google does not get to exist in Russia.
for all the modern self loathing of tech, it ongoingly feels to me like we have just barely scratched tbe surface of what connected technologies could do for us. i dont know how probable it is that there be any change- any people feeling more empowered amid their authoritarian oppressors- from an communication system like this. but that the government is so afraid of it is certainly promising.
[+] [-] trhway|4 years ago|reply
The "Smart voting" has a lot of connections to "The fund to fight corruption", so the Russian state can go here pretty far. A comment from a political pundit in the top Russian commercial media:
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616
"There is a technical capacity to block. The government understands the disadvantages of it, and initially will try to make Google to cooperate and to block by their own means. If such "goodwill" approach wouldn't work, the government will force it the hard way."
[+] [-] phkahler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selivanovp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dane-pgp|4 years ago|reply
Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization.
If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes.
In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
[+] [-] wruza|4 years ago|reply
Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.
[+] [-] qwerty456127|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cookieswumchorr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3np|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FDSGSG|4 years ago|reply
This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hamburgerwah|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
[+] [-] ParoxysmalVigor|4 years ago|reply
Also there are investors, external and internal, which are too all over risks, this damages economy and national currency.
[+] [-] monday_|4 years ago|reply
That's not what "Smart voting" is about. The SV works by recommending the candidates that a) are not the ones actively pushed by the Kremlin b) have a shot at winning or credibly pretending they did. These could be some batshit crazy Stalinists, mobsters or whatever - the point is that they aren't the guys that the suits in Kremlin have already secretly anointed.
In short, this will hurt Kremlin's credibility and put an organizational tax on all its future efforts. With the pandemic, an economy in deep crisis and Putin's term ending in 2024 he'd need a lot of political capital and SV hits him where it hurts.
Here's a bit longer explanation. The point is that in autocracies elections are not rigged by altering an Excel column. In Russia we have empirical statistical evidence to this: the presence of poll watchers has a very clear effect on the electoral outcomes, the rigging elasticity is capped by the anti-Putin sentiment etc. This is a consequence of how the elections are organized: the local authorities are handed the required numbers and told to deliver, as a test of their loyalty, capability and popularity. They have limited number of ways for this: they can mobilize their base, force their dependents (state employees, the military etc) to vote or press local polling committees to alter the results. If they overplay their hand, they will face local unrest (this actually happens a lot) and the Kremlin will jettison them without a second thought - so this is a balancing act. The efficiency of all their tools is capped by the popularity of Kremlin and the overtly pro-Kremlin forces, and it is at all-times low and still going down. So to get things done they need to depress the turnout - and this creates an opening for organized opposition. If openly pro-Kremlin candidates are hurt en mass then the president's admin would have to renegotiate with both the winners and the losers, effectively losing a lot of organizational cohesion, and that's on top on very public humiliation. With Putin's popularity near its all-time low and going down and 2 years before a very uncertain end to his current term, that's a lot of damage - although likely far from enough to topple the guy. But we take what we can get and this may be a rather large take.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod775|4 years ago|reply
No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in.
I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0
[+] [-] Jyaif|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemiprague|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amerine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glaucon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baybal2|4 years ago|reply
Apple famously went to all extremes to "gift" iPad to Dimitry Medvedev
[+] [-] rektide|4 years ago|reply