It sounds evil but balkanisation of the Internet is a natural result of the erosion of trust in corporations and other stewards of this medium. The NSA/GCHQ scandal only pushed it a little further. We all know that any great medium starts out as a bastion of understanding, sharing and common good until a bunch of trolls show up to ruin it all (ahem, reddit, ycombinator, digg, etc). Until that moment we enjoy all the freedoms that such a medium offers and we assume it is something of and unto itself, never to be destroyed. In the Internet's case the trolls were capital coming to understand how to modify the Internet to extract wealth and governments looking for a competitive edge over others using the Internets structural flaws to obtain that edge.
The erosion in this case is more harmful to many people than trolls showing up to reddit. So I think it's natural that people recede slightly from the idea a globalised common communal identity created by the Internet and look toward their national structures to protect them. As Snowden said in some QA "Our founding fathers did not say that all [US persons] were created equal". Until the irony of that statement is not cleared up internationally and human rights are absolutely universal balkanisation of the Internet will come. Russia, despite being an odd democracy, is only jumping onto a boat that already sailed in Brazil and other locations.
balkanisation of the Internet is a natural result of the erosion of trust in corporations and other stewards of this medium
Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.
Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities. And no, it wouldn't matter if the US had the same problems.
> So I think it's natural that people recede slightly from the idea a globalised common communal identity created by the Internet and look toward their national structures to protect them.
Communal identities are built along lines manned by people with guns. All that's happening now is that the internet has become an important resource, and countries are seeking to control it, like they do with any strategic resource.
where the FSB can easily access it without those pesky court orders - this is part of Putins crackdown along with banning certain words from use period.
>We all know that any great medium starts out as a bastion of understanding, sharing and common good until a bunch of trolls show up to ruin it all (ahem, reddit, ycombinator, digg, etc).
No, we don't. I don't agree with your statement and I don't think you should be speaking for other people. None of those places were bastions of any of those things. They were places where like-minded people gathered to talk about common interests. Don't make the mistake of thinking because they represented your interests that these places were bastions of all that is good.
That is such a dim and cynical and solipsistic view to take. I don't agree that the people who came to those networks are trolls just because they showed up after me. This is a natural consequence of networks getting popular, not a bunch of trolls coming to ruin the things I love because I love them. It's like saying that the people who came to America after the initial European colonists were trolls because they had different interests from original colonists.
This is such a common tactic on internet 'debates.' To call someone who disagrees with you a troll, thereby absolving you from the mental work of understanding their viewpoint (I don't need to engage this troll, they're just fucking with me) and dealing with the possibility that someone has different opinions than you.
Exactly - this is only the "natural" response countries should take to both punish US for its shameless foreign spying, but also for national security reasons (which US touts an excuse so much, for everything), to protect their data from being stolen.
The only action US companies can do now to avoid more countries doing this (short of US gov creating serious and radical reforms of its spying, along with radically stronger and more transparent oversight - which let's face it, is not going to happen anytime soon), will be to turn more and more of their services in "trustless" services, where you don't have to trust the company for keeping your data protected, because you know solid encryption system is keeping it protecting, along with open sourcing as much as possible of their software (especially if they are hardware manufacturers).
Brilliant move: Protect the Russian citizens from foreign government spying by making sure that all their data stays in their own country under the protection of their democratic government. Oh wait...
Granted they could have done it before as well, it is just that the shining example of "open" and "free" has been revealed to suck up and spy on everything and everyone so now they can easily do it because there NSA did the PR bit for them. "Oh look the evil NSA is taking out citizens' data". You see, it actually is so and no matter how sarcastic you want to get it is still true.
Same with terrorism. When we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq with the War Of Terror. That opportunity didn't escape the Russians, they quickly issues a letters of support of American people blah blah and then proceeded to switch to running their own War of Terror in Chechnya. This was very nice as they just let the US Dept Of State do all the PR for them.
> of their democratic government.
Well presumably our democratic government is terrific. We have great income inequality, we torture people in some hidden loophole prison on a island, we invaded multiple countries with some WMD fake pretest. We are blasting away even our own citizens with drones in countries we are not even at war with. So one can argue democracy is not really that nice, it obviously doesn't work very well or out people are just mean and evil. Which, then, maybe they don't deserve democracy.
I don't agree. The difference is you vote for your own government (Russia has a democratic voting system, how the candidates are selected...well...). If you vote in a government that does that to its people, that's your business.
Foreign governments owe you nothing, you can't reasonably complain about them abusing your rights if you put them in a position where they can.
What makes you think that a democratic government is different from any other system of government in this regard? It's funny how ideology and reality never seem to align, isn't it?
I think the problem with privacy violation is twofold.
1) Protecting Citizen's data from snooping attempts of foreign intelligence agencies. Which is state's responsibility imo, which in this case it's carrying out. In this regard, this is good news,
2) Protecting Citizen's data from the state itself. This is a particularly tricky one, since there's no government agency which acts as counterweight to the intelligence agencies. In this regard, I am not so sure if its good news. What if this law was only passed to enable Russian intelligence agencies to gain easy access to all the citizen's data? Which seems plausible and predatory (nobody spies on our Citizens but us).
It will probably take a combination of Technological and Legal changes to really ensure privacy of the people. I can see how it could possibly come about. There's a small set of people (read Big Government) who want to maintain control over Citizens by compromising their privacy. There's a big set of people who stand to get harmed by privacy violations. But there is a third set of people who has influence on first set (read wealthy class in all its forms), but who also stands to lose from privacy violations, and who also has means to fight it legally and legislatively. The third class would probably be the drivers of privacy reforms we'll see in coming years/decades.
It's sad that it's spiraling down to this but it is in practice no different than what the US is doing. There's no free speech without privacy so this looks like a "choose your dictator" kind of thing.
The difference here is that America does not care whether you store your data on services in Europe or Russia, but Russia does. Clearly in practice this is very different to what the US is doing.
While at 143 million people Russia has the largest population, this is rapidly shrinking, Russian internet (runet as they call it) was already mostly balkanised mainly due to language.
I find it amusing that they are doing this in "the name of combating piracy" when right now a certain russian site is hosting 1.2 million (mostly western) pirated ebooks and 28 million pirated scientific articles
I do not think stated reason is necessary the same as the real reason. Real reason is more likely to have to do with control over local population, possibly with trying not to export local data to outside world (e.g. national security) and is likely an attempt to give an advantage to local companies.
Combating piracy is just something west is supposed to react more positively at.
I'm wondering if this is a direct attack on Livejournal, which is still incredibly popular in Russia, used for political dissent, and hosted in the US...
Aside from the politics, this causes me to have 2 questions:
1) Are there any cloud file storage systems along the Drive/DB lines in Russia that apps providers can integrate with?
2) Not that anyone here knows the answer, but will the cloud storage providers implement data routing that complies with these rules (I guess yes, if the money is worth it)?
If anyone here is interested in country specific SaaS integrations (Germany, Brazil and Russia, for example), my email in profile.
This does make sense from a purely logical point of view. If personal data is to be exploited and plundered, at least make sure it's done by your own villains under the control of your own laws. Why volunteer anything to the competing spy agencies?
It's a post-Snowden world, so I can't say I'm surprised nor that I think it's ridiculous. I also strongly suspect that EU will follow the suit shortly.
Outside bubbles such as HN and others on the internet, the post Snowden world doesn't exist. What you'll see is just grandstanding as it was with Germany. There is no benefit to the EU or rationale to take similar measures.
Yup, politicians are starting to realize that digital data in all its forms is now a competitive advantage and they are looking to control it like any other national resource.
>The Russian government has moved one step closer towards a “China-like” approach towards Internet services.
Bad news for Russian. In China sometimes you want to use google to search something is deny. We use some software to cross the "Great Fire Wall" to see the whole world.
May be i am missing something, but having servers in one country's border doesn't mean that data is not available to those whom you don't trust. How does this fit in a proactive strategy to identity theft or similar things.
Europe has similar law (personal data should not leave Europe), but it is not as widely enforced.
Edit: since I am getting down voted let me explain.
> The EU Data Protection Directive requires that personal data a company collects can not be moved somewhere where the consumer will have weaker protections than in the EU.
Practically it means that data can not be moved outside of EU, since they would be under different jurisdiction. For example court in EU must approve all data disclosures. If data are in US the disclosure could bypass courts in EU, there could be even gag order.
Simply put, the EU can not enforce its law in foreign countries. Safe Harbor and similar are nice in theory, but it still does not put them under EU jurisdiction.
BTW: Irish Google got sued already for sharing data with american mother-ship.
Not quite. The EU Data Protection Directive requires that personal data a company collects can not be moved somewhere where the consumer will have weaker protections than in the EU.
This has required some workarounds, such as "safe harbour" provisions that US companies need to accept in order to receive personal data from EU companies that have collected them from users, which basically boils down to that the US company need to agree to comply with the same basic rules as if the data had stayed in the EU.
End users can pass their data to whomever, whether or not they comply with these rules.
The EU laws allows for data to leave assuming you follow guidelines that makes sure the EU laws around privacy are respected in the country the data is exported to.
Makes sense. Data at this point is as much of a economic competitive advantage as anything else and managing it like any other national resources makes a lot of sense.
[+] [-] cyphunk|11 years ago|reply
The erosion in this case is more harmful to many people than trolls showing up to reddit. So I think it's natural that people recede slightly from the idea a globalised common communal identity created by the Internet and look toward their national structures to protect them. As Snowden said in some QA "Our founding fathers did not say that all [US persons] were created equal". Until the irony of that statement is not cleared up internationally and human rights are absolutely universal balkanisation of the Internet will come. Russia, despite being an odd democracy, is only jumping onto a boat that already sailed in Brazil and other locations.
[+] [-] spindritf|11 years ago|reply
Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.
Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities. And no, it wouldn't matter if the US had the same problems.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
Communal identities are built along lines manned by people with guns. All that's happening now is that the internet has become an important resource, and countries are seeking to control it, like they do with any strategic resource.
[+] [-] walshemj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benihana|11 years ago|reply
No, we don't. I don't agree with your statement and I don't think you should be speaking for other people. None of those places were bastions of any of those things. They were places where like-minded people gathered to talk about common interests. Don't make the mistake of thinking because they represented your interests that these places were bastions of all that is good.
That is such a dim and cynical and solipsistic view to take. I don't agree that the people who came to those networks are trolls just because they showed up after me. This is a natural consequence of networks getting popular, not a bunch of trolls coming to ruin the things I love because I love them. It's like saying that the people who came to America after the initial European colonists were trolls because they had different interests from original colonists.
This is such a common tactic on internet 'debates.' To call someone who disagrees with you a troll, thereby absolving you from the mental work of understanding their viewpoint (I don't need to engage this troll, they're just fucking with me) and dealing with the possibility that someone has different opinions than you.
[+] [-] higherpurpose|11 years ago|reply
The only action US companies can do now to avoid more countries doing this (short of US gov creating serious and radical reforms of its spying, along with radically stronger and more transparent oversight - which let's face it, is not going to happen anytime soon), will be to turn more and more of their services in "trustless" services, where you don't have to trust the company for keeping your data protected, because you know solid encryption system is keeping it protecting, along with open sourcing as much as possible of their software (especially if they are hardware manufacturers).
[+] [-] ThePhysicist|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|11 years ago|reply
Same with terrorism. When we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq with the War Of Terror. That opportunity didn't escape the Russians, they quickly issues a letters of support of American people blah blah and then proceeded to switch to running their own War of Terror in Chechnya. This was very nice as they just let the US Dept Of State do all the PR for them.
> of their democratic government.
Well presumably our democratic government is terrific. We have great income inequality, we torture people in some hidden loophole prison on a island, we invaded multiple countries with some WMD fake pretest. We are blasting away even our own citizens with drones in countries we are not even at war with. So one can argue democracy is not really that nice, it obviously doesn't work very well or out people are just mean and evil. Which, then, maybe they don't deserve democracy.
[+] [-] davidjgraph|11 years ago|reply
Foreign governments owe you nothing, you can't reasonably complain about them abusing your rights if you put them in a position where they can.
[+] [-] bottled_poe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4k|11 years ago|reply
1) Protecting Citizen's data from snooping attempts of foreign intelligence agencies. Which is state's responsibility imo, which in this case it's carrying out. In this regard, this is good news,
2) Protecting Citizen's data from the state itself. This is a particularly tricky one, since there's no government agency which acts as counterweight to the intelligence agencies. In this regard, I am not so sure if its good news. What if this law was only passed to enable Russian intelligence agencies to gain easy access to all the citizen's data? Which seems plausible and predatory (nobody spies on our Citizens but us).
It will probably take a combination of Technological and Legal changes to really ensure privacy of the people. I can see how it could possibly come about. There's a small set of people (read Big Government) who want to maintain control over Citizens by compromising their privacy. There's a big set of people who stand to get harmed by privacy violations. But there is a third set of people who has influence on first set (read wealthy class in all its forms), but who also stands to lose from privacy violations, and who also has means to fight it legally and legislatively. The third class would probably be the drivers of privacy reforms we'll see in coming years/decades.
[+] [-] alexro|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] therealunreal|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abc123xyz|11 years ago|reply
I find it amusing that they are doing this in "the name of combating piracy" when right now a certain russian site is hosting 1.2 million (mostly western) pirated ebooks and 28 million pirated scientific articles
[+] [-] watwut|11 years ago|reply
Combating piracy is just something west is supposed to react more positively at.
[+] [-] insuffi|11 years ago|reply
They are making steps to legalize content, such as vkontakte legalizing 70% of their media material.
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidjgraph|11 years ago|reply
1) Are there any cloud file storage systems along the Drive/DB lines in Russia that apps providers can integrate with?
2) Not that anyone here knows the answer, but will the cloud storage providers implement data routing that complies with these rules (I guess yes, if the money is worth it)?
If anyone here is interested in country specific SaaS integrations (Germany, Brazil and Russia, for example), my email in profile.
[+] [-] tonymon|11 years ago|reply
>Data storage ~0.088$ for 1GB per month or ~0.131$ for 1 TB per hour
>Network (outgoing traffic) ~0.023$ per 1GB
>Network (incoming traffic) free-of-charge
They also recently announced CDN option with Akamai partnership at no additional cost
[+] [-] tempodox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|11 years ago|reply
Great, so now I have a deadline to get out of here. Anyone hiring?
[+] [-] huhtenberg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnybgood|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bedane|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganwar|11 years ago|reply
They are only moving ahead to level the playing field as much as they can.
[+] [-] dkarapetyan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dschiptsov|11 years ago|reply
Pelevin (the best modern Russian writer) came up with another more appropriate name - "Patsaneriya".
This "protection" of personal data is the same as "protection" of Russian-speaking in Crymea - just an excuse for a grab.
[+] [-] hexleo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dattanin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwerta|11 years ago|reply
Edit: since I am getting down voted let me explain.
> The EU Data Protection Directive requires that personal data a company collects can not be moved somewhere where the consumer will have weaker protections than in the EU.
Practically it means that data can not be moved outside of EU, since they would be under different jurisdiction. For example court in EU must approve all data disclosures. If data are in US the disclosure could bypass courts in EU, there could be even gag order.
Simply put, the EU can not enforce its law in foreign countries. Safe Harbor and similar are nice in theory, but it still does not put them under EU jurisdiction.
BTW: Irish Google got sued already for sharing data with american mother-ship.
[+] [-] vidarh|11 years ago|reply
This has required some workarounds, such as "safe harbour" provisions that US companies need to accept in order to receive personal data from EU companies that have collected them from users, which basically boils down to that the US company need to agree to comply with the same basic rules as if the data had stayed in the EU.
End users can pass their data to whomever, whether or not they comply with these rules.
[+] [-] jib|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dkarapetyan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nux|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] th3iedkid|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] homhomhom|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ulfw|11 years ago|reply