Russia security chief: foreign sites foment protests - Polidicks

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Ez6tX.png[/img] [quote] [b](Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin's top security adviser said on Friday that foreign-based websites were being used to foment anti-Kremlin protests, a sign authorities are seeking means to hamper access to social media sites used by activists.[/b] Opposition leaders and ordinary Russians used Facebook to organize a wave of winter rallies which attracted tens of thousands of people onto Moscow's streets to protest alleged fraud by Putin's ruling party in a December 4 parliamentary election. Since Putin's return to the Kremlin for a six-year presidential term on May 7, activists have relied on Twitter to defy riot police and coordinate sit-ins in the capital's parks. Echoing Putin's accusation that the United States was backing his domestic opponents, his presidential Security Council secretary, Nikolai Patrushev, said the Internet was being used by unspecified external forces "interested in aggravating the socio-political situation." "Making use of internet freedom in our country, foreign sites are spreading political speculation, calls to unauthorized protests," Patrushev, a longtime Putin ally who headed Russia's FSB security service during his 2000-2008 presidency, told the Interfax news agency. "The Russian blogosphere is also subject to outside influence directed at creating and maintaining constant tensions within society," he said. Critics say the Kremlin's worry over the role of such sites is apparent in a draft law the ruling party proposed last month that would impose fines for internet users who spread the word about rallies at which demonstrators then violate city rules. Russia's vibrant blogosphere and new web-based media are often the only alternative to tightly controlled media, particularly in its far-flung provinces. BLOGGERS' FEARS Many bloggers fear hardliners in former KGB officer Putin's government such as Patrushev, who has called for "reasonable regulation" of the web, will push to restrict these freedoms. After his inauguration, Putin kept Patrushev in his post as secretary of the Security Council, which the president chairs. While experts say Russia has not ruled out blocking access to sites that pose a threat in a moment of crisis, they say the FSB has few technical means and lacks a strategy for countering the opposition's use of social media sites. Patrushev's comments were mainly posturing, said Andrei Soldatov, an author and expert on Russia's security forces. "He wants a strategy on how to prevent the use of social networks as a mobilizing tool, but in fact (the security services) have failed to do this," Soldatov said. "Technically it seems that they don't know how to counter social networks, and what to do about these mobilization campaigns, especially on Facebook." Under Russian regulations, the intelligence services have access to all data transmitted by domestic internet providers via mandatory interception equipment on their premises, he said, but virtually no control over sites based abroad. Unlike in China, where the state has control over the communication lines, Russia has thousands of channels and cannot easily limit access to the web at the source. Moscow has called for a globally binding U.N. treaty on cyber security to crack down on Web crime. Western countries have balked at the proposal but highly-publicized attacks by hacker groups Anonymous and LulzSec, including against U.S. and British government websites, have highlighted the Internet's vulnerabilities.[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-russia-internet-freedom-idUSBRE8500UA20120601[/url]

Lets get this revolution started. :v:

Russia sounds not very fun at the moment.

[quote]Opposition leaders and ordinary Russians used Facebook[/quote] i thought russians didn't use facebook

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36273229]Russia sounds not very fun at the moment.[/QUOTE] It was never fun. But now people are trying to change it.

[QUOTE=Aurora93;36273260]i thought russians didn't use facebook[/QUOTE] [b]everyone[/b] uses facebook

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36273166]Lets get this revolution started. :v:[/QUOTE] Let's not wreck the entire country again.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;36273357]Let's not wreck the entire country again.[/QUOTE] It's already broken. Russia is on the 154th place out of 178 in the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International. According to some expert estimates, the market for corruption in the country exceeded US$240 billion in 2006. The Russian think tank Indem estimates that bribes accounted for 20% of Russia's GDP as of 2005. The economic growth that Putin used to boast about slowed down, and now amounts to only the average rates of 3% per year, despite having low GDP per capita figures (lower than Libya). There are political prisoners, lawyer, journalist and human rights activist assassinations. Top TV channels are owned by the state, and routinely broadcast pro-regime documentaries and advertisements. In the name of what, may I ask? In the name of maintaining this corrupt regime? Revolutions can be quick (coup d'etat). Coup d'etat is one of the most common methods of overthrowing corrupt governments, and doesn't lead to much, if any damage to the country. The goal is destroying the state apparatus in a timely manner, by taking over the principal central government administrations. Also, the Russian freedom of the press ratings are among the lowest ones in the world. In the name of what? In the name of maintaining some self-proclaimed kleptocrat in power? Sorry, I don't and can't support this. The Russian society could advance far faster, and become far more civilized and developed if it overthrew the corrupt Putin-Medvedev regime.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36273457]It's already broken. Russia is on the 154th place out of 178 in the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International. According to some expert estimates, the market for corruption in the country exceeded US$240 billion in 2006. The Russian think tank Indem estimates that bribes accounted for 20% of Russia's GDP as of 2005. The economic growth that Putin used to boast about slowed down, and now amounts to only the average rates of 3% per year, despite having low GDP per capita figures (lower than Libya). There are political prisoners, lawyer, journalist and human rights activist assassinations. Top TV channels are owned by the state, and routinely broadcast pro-regime documentaries and advertisements. In the name of what, may I ask? In the name of maintaining this corrupt regime? Revolutions can be quick (coup d'etat). Coup d'etat is one of the most common methods of overthrowing corrupt governments, and doesn't lead to much, if any damage to the country. The goal is destroying the state apparatus in a timely manner, by taking over the principal central government administrations. Also, the Russian freedom of the press ratings are among the lowest ones in the world. In the name of what? In the name of maintaining some self-proclaimed kleptocrat in power? Sorry, I don't and can't support this. The Russian society could advance far faster, and become far more civilized and developed if it overthrew the corrupt Putin-Medvedev regime.[/QUOTE] Russia is messed up very badly, yes. It's just that history has shown that revolutions don't help here. I don't like the way my country is, I just fear that it may get even worse.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36273166]Lets get this revolution started. :v:[/QUOTE] Because the last one turned out so well for the people :v: And in response to the article, my only thoughts are "[B]No shit[/B]". Internet was a strong tool used by reformers and revolutionaries in the Arab Spring. You would have to be brain dead to believe that the same doesn't go for other places in the world.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36273868]Because the last one turned out so well for the people :v: And in response to the article, my only thoughts are "[B]No shit[/B]". Internet was a strong tool used by reformers and revolutionaries in the Arab Spring. You would have to be brain dead to believe that the same doesn't go for other places in the world.[/QUOTE] "Because the last one turned out so well for the people" - Most revolutions turned out to be good for the people. The fall of monarchies, the end of corrupt regimes. If the previous Russian revolution didn't turn out to be good as you say it, it doesn't mean that a second one isn't worth it. It's statistically more likely for it to be good for the average person, due to the various historical examples from other countries.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36273940]"Because the last one turned out so well for the people" - Most revolutions turned out to be good for the people. The fall of monarchies, the end of corrupt regimes. If a previous revolution didn't turn out to be good as you say it, it doesn't mean that a second one isn't worth it. It's statistically more likely for it to be good for the average person.[/QUOTE] The Russians went from a complete autocracy to a complete autocracy with gulags. Not saying the Russian Empire was better for the people, but the Soviet Union wasn't exactly people-friendly.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36273988]The Russians went from a complete autocracy to a complete autocracy with gulags. Not saying the Russian Empire was better for the people, but the Soviet Union wasn't exactly people-friendly.[/QUOTE] Where's your argument again? How does this even relate to my post? And also, the Soviet Union wasn't autocratic, it had people-elected Soviets, which in turn elected higher lever Soviets, up to the Supreme Soviet, which elected the General Secretary of the Communist Party. It was authoritarian and totalitarian - yes. But it wasn't autocratic. Nonetheless, I still don't see how this relates to my post.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36274045]Where's your argument again? How does this even relate to my post? And also, the Soviet Union wasn't autocratic, it had elected Soviets, which in turn elected higher lever Soviets, up to the Supreme Soviet, which elected the General Secretary of the Communist Party. It was authoritarian and totalitarian - yes. But it wasn't autocratic. Nonetheless, I still don't see how this relates to my post.[/QUOTE] When Stalin was ruling the land it was

[QUOTE=Aman VII;36274076]When Stalin was ruling the land it was[/QUOTE] Yes, it was to a big extent. Not (or at least not much) during the non-Stalin times, though.

[QUOTE=Mastahamma;36273328][b]everyone[/b] uses facebook[/QUOTE] I don't.

I honestly wonder how long my government has left. All governments will go down eventually.

Another revolution seems like fantasy. Its my impression that russians have great political apathy following the 90s. IMO the only coups i think will happen will be military ones.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36274172]Another revolution seems like fantasy. Its my impression that russians have great political apathy following the 90s. IMO the only coups i think will happen will be military ones.[/QUOTE] It's true that a great deal of Russians are still politically apathetic, which makes Libya-like scenarios and revolutions highly unlikely. A coup d'etat, if done by the right people, would still do more good than harm, but even this one is highly unlikely.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;36273801]Russia is messed up very badly, yes. It's just that history has shown that revolutions don't help here. I don't like the way my country is, I just fear that it may get even worse.[/QUOTE] Except it cannot go any worse. It's better to take chances with a revolution,hoping that it'll achieve something or continue being oppressed. [editline]10th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36273940]"Because the last one turned out so well for the people" - Most revolutions turned out to be good for the people. The fall of monarchies, the end of corrupt regimes. If the previous Russian revolution didn't turn out to be good as you say it, it doesn't mean that a second one isn't worth it. [/QUOTE] As soon as Stalin took over,he technically erased all the progress Lenin has made.

The coup that got gorbachev out of power fucked up russia alot more due to shitty neo liberalism installed afterwards by a puppet, every standard dropped.

[QUOTE=znk666;36275258] As soon as Stalin took over,he technically erased all the progress Lenin has made.[/QUOTE] And didn't Lenin try to tell everyone to watch the fuck out when it came to Stalin gaining power?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36273988]The Russians went from a complete autocracy to a complete autocracy with gulags.[/QUOTE] Actually they had prison camps in Siberia during the Tsarist era too. The great shame is that Russia was reforming itself during the early 20th century, and then it got fucked up due to the collaspe of logistics and confidence in the regime during World War one.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;36278235]And didn't Lenin try to tell everyone to watch the fuck out when it came to Stalin gaining power?[/QUOTE] Sort of. He already had power when lenin called for his removal.

Russia's walking a fine line here. Very fine line. One mis-step could end it all.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36278255]Actually they had prison camps in Siberia during the Tsarist era too. The great shame is that Russia was reforming itself during the early 20th century, and then it got fucked up due to the collaspe of logistics and confidence in the regime during World War one.[/QUOTE] There really isnt anything to regret over the collapse of the empire and the kerensky regime.

Great, now Russia might do the same thing various third-world countries did. And if the outcome's similar at all... This could be dangerous.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36278397]There really isnt anything to regret over the collapse of the empire and the kerensky regime.[/QUOTE] Yes there is, arguably the third Duma was somewhat successful in implementing reforms before the First World war. Kerenskys regime was incredibly weak, and unfortunately it was more or less forced to keep fighting in the war, which eventually proved to be its downfall in the end. Russia then ended up being ravaged further in the Civil War, and took years to recover. Even then, Stalin made sure that agriculture would not recover for decades.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;36273801]Russia is messed up very badly, yes. It's just that history has shown that revolutions don't help here. I don't like the way my country is, I just fear that it may get even worse.[/QUOTE] "history has shown that revolutions don't help here" - Wrong. The fall of monarchies, Park Chung-hee's South Korean coup, under whose leadership South Korea became a highly developed economy with a very high level of technological advancement, and a major exporter of various high-tech commodities. There are hundreds more examples.