Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Russian Law To Forbid Storing Russians' Data Outside the Country

timothy posted about a month ago | from the just-one-small-restriction dept.

The Internet 206

TechWeek Europe reports that on Friday Russia's parliament passed a law "which bans online businesses from storing personal data of Russian citizens on servers located abroad[.] ... According to ITAR-TAAS, the changes to existing legislation will come into effect in September 2016, and apply to email services, social networks and search engines, including the likes of Facebook and Google. Domain names or net addresses not complying with regulations will be put on a blacklist maintained by Roskomnadzor (the Federal Supervision Agency for Information Technologies and Communications), the organisation which already has the powers to take down websites suspected of copyright infringement without a court order. In the case of non-compliance, Roskomnadzor will be able to impose 'sanctions,' and even instruct local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to cut off access to the offending resource." According to the article, the "measure is widely seen as a response to reports about the intrusive surveillance practices of the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK’s GCHQ. Edward Snowden, who revealed sensitive data about the operations of both, is currently residing in Russia, with his asylum application up for a review in a couple of months." The writer points out that this would mean many web sites would be legally unavailable altogether to Russian users.

cancel ×

206 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a shame, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386573)

The Russian people's have some VERY educated & BRIGHT folks in their populace (I've worked with them, or went to school with them as well: They're generally MILES AHEAD of U.S. students, especially in mathematics, generally I've found)

So, I guess, I suppose I am *trying* to say that this move of theirs will deprive us of their inputs + insights, imo... but, "oh well"!

(Since I personally DO see their "pov" on this given the reasons we all just read about in the article summary above).

* Hey - The 1 thing I totally RESPECT about the Russians, & the Chinese (both communist state & world powers pretty much)? At least THEY ARE HONEST ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, & it is, what they do (so what's new? They have essentially TOTAL power by gov't. & iirc, don't *really* have to "answer to the people" as our gov't. SUPPOSEDLY has to here in the USA).

I.E.-> They're no bullshitters - they do, what they feel they have to, & that IS that (it's standard operating procedure for them - & expected, as it's "how they roll"/"what they do" and it's THEIR NATION, not ours - we've no RIGHT to tell another man how to live in his own nation imo).

APK

P.S.=> Now, *IF* any Russian or Chinese citizenry care to correct me about any misconceptions I have above? I'd be glad to listen, & be enlightened (or possibly others also as well)... apk

Re:What a shame, but... apk (4, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a month ago | (#47386641)

Don't be naive. The only reason Russia and other oppressive nations pass laws like these is so they can better monitor what their 'citizens' are doing and saying. It's a lot easier to lock up whoever wrote "Putin Sucks" online if the data is in a Russian server.

Re: What a shame, but... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386687)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM
The Russians have their own datamining spy software. They're just slightly more upfront about the fact that they're watching you⦠unless you're not in Russia, in which case there's a full-court PR press on to convince you that Russia stands for Freedom and Privacy.

Re:What a shame, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386651)

just tell the ruskies to use fucking HOSTS files and be done with it.

stupid APK. hosts file is a text file. not a bullshit bloated untrusted .exe program. im not dumb enough to run windows but if i was id never ever dowload a fucking .exe just to get a text file to work. terrible security practice. training users to do this kind of bull shit is why they fell for photo.jpg.exe back in teh day. do you learn nothing? you sure do talk a good game, you psychotic raving lunatic timecube bastard.

I suck cocks, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386833)

I suck cocks, but you should have pity for me since I have nothing better to do on the 4th of july than troll slashdort.

APK

P.S.=> If any of u are seeking gay sex, u know where to find me... apk

Re:What a shame, but... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387181)

Malwarebytes hphosts rates him as best of breed at the top of their pages though http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... [hosts-file.net] so he's not talking that good game as you put it. They are.

Re:What a shame, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386675)

Holy shit! It's the madman, APK!

Re:What a shame, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386947)

Yeah, but you don't want a Russian roommate or tenant, they're filthy pigs and enjoy living in squalor. They have little to no concept of sanitation or common sense when it comes to garbage. It's fascinating, but disgusting.

Re: What a shame, but... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387023)

Fuck you.

Americans are the dirtiest motherfuckers I have ever seen. Always they make litter and live in it, like sleeping in the bed with clothes and food and shit all over it. If they can even fit in the bed, you fat fucks. And roaches and bugs all over the place that crawl in you when you sleep. And none of you have heard of the invention called a mop.

Re:What a shame, but... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387501)

"The Russian people's have some VERY educated ..."

I agree. They even know where to use apostrophes and where not.

The FSB is gratefully for assistance citizen! (1)

dumael (1172411) | about a month ago | (#47386589)

The FSB is grateful for your assistance citizen! I

Re:The FSB is gratefully for assistance citizen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387525)

NSA is never collect info about citizens of course , how can they do that .
They cant corrupt privacy.
Guys i gonna fly away in deep space without nigthmares in Orwell's style .

Not really surprised... (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47386591)

There are plenty of countries that already do this at the federal and state/provincial levels. And a lot of companies are following suit, especially after privacy laws have been toughened up by federal law.

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | about a month ago | (#47386819)

The problem I can see here is what do you define as being personal data. There are tons of social media sites with Russians posting content and they need to hand over some personal details to create an account.

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a month ago | (#47386937)

and they want that data to be inside their reach.

and the emails of course too.

watch russians start lying their country in about 3 minutes and companies that have any presence in russia for selling ads going to either ban russians from using their online services or migrate the company completely out of russia(more likely, since it's easier and possibly becomes a selling point as well, to russians).

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a month ago | (#47387285)

In soviet russia your e-mail communication reads you! .. and in the US, Sweden (I don't dare typing UK, Denmark, possibly Australia and so on because I don't really know, guess it happen in China too.)

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a month ago | (#47387287)

Actually I don't know about Russia either.

In Soviet America? .. :D

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a month ago | (#47387547)

In Soviet America? .. :D

In Soviet America, witch hunts you, Sen. McCarthy.

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387441)

Actually, as we have seen in China, this is bullshit. All that happens is you get similar companies rise in your own country, take the market freed by leaving foreign companies, build up the solid R&D without being oppressed by anti-competitive incumbent and then come to challenge those foreign companies in third markets.

That is, for example, why Microsoft wants Chinese to pirate windows instead of leaving the country. Unlike many others, they understand that if they do, in a matter of few years there will be a powerful competitor to all Microsoft products born in China out of necessity.

Same thing that happened to Google in China (Baidu) and Facebook in Russia (Vkontakte). Many US companies are currently desperately trying to keep the information in Europe to meet similar EU demands, and their business is slowing here massively because of NSA/privacy issues, while European companies are rising to pick up the slack.

Re:Not really surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387145)

Personal data is something that belongs to a private individual and/or isn't public information. Doesn't matter if the person chooses to publish it to a select friends. Anyhow most countries and companies in the world have definitions and rules regarding this, it's considered integral part of ... integrity ...

Re:Not really surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386861)

It isn't surprising, but it fits the current "Russians is TEH EVIL" theme, so it got into the news.

Re:Not really surprised... (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a month ago | (#47387369)

Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.

Re:Not really surprised... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47387473)

Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.

Not off the top of my head, but I do remember Brazil, and Germany making some changes. Canada is doing something similar via pipeda [justice.gc.ca] this as well [wikipedia.org] Where the law doesn't cover it, companies are doing it on their own including avoiding routing through the US. For online in Canada see openmedia's bit. [openmedia.ca] Individual ISP's as well have been replying on what they give/send/comply/refuse to do, this is Teksavvy's response. [dslreports.com]

popular with Americans (1, Insightful)

BradMajors (995624) | about a month ago | (#47386601)

These Russian online services will be very popular with Americans.

Re:popular with Americans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386639)

Americans in general don't care about privacy. There are very few countries where the public gives a shit.

Correction (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386793)

STUPID and/or FOOLISH Americans don't care about their privacy; they Tweet, and Facebook, and store "their" files in the cloud (1960's style on a server they neither own nor control) and so on. MANY Americans, on the other hand, value our privacy just as much as our founders did back when they wrote a Constitution that limited our government to doing only a handful of specific things (NONE of which included either facilitating OR regulating OR snooping on ANY communications within the country other than the creation of a postal service) and prohibited the government from going through our "stuff" without a warrant that [1] is attached to some claim of a crime, [2] is taken-out by sworn oath of the officer [3] is specific about WHO, WHAT, and WHERE to search:

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Those of us who still believe in those "quaint" and "out-dated" ideas, and who deny that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be evaded by any judge who wishes to "re-interpret" it to fit the current mood store OUR data on our own servers and do not use completely unnecessary "social media" sites that encourage adults to behave like self-absorbed teenage girls. Many of also resist using sites like Facebook where every click contributes to an empire of advertizing and data-snooping that funds political efforts to tear down all the limits on importing labor so its founder can get even richer by suppressing the wages of middle-class American IT people.

Re: Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386885)

Heh, who's effects are on Facebook's servers? Facebook's last I checked.
The email on Google's servers? Um yah, Google's.

That's the first problem with the fourth amendment... privacy... internet theory.
We wouldn't need laws against wiretapping if it were as clear as you think. Throw Internet into the mix and forget it, you need new legislation.

Re: Correction (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about a month ago | (#47387315)

We wouldn't need laws against wiretapping if it were as clear as you think.

Just like we wouldn't need laws against the TSA, free speech zones, and protest permits if it were as clear as we think? No, it is *very* clear, but the government just ignores the constitution, and the ignorant masses put up with it.

The fact is, the spirit of the constitution is being violated. Had this technology been used against the founders, it's plainly obvious they would have taken steps to stop it in the constitution, just as what they did with many other evil practices.

Apparently (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387325)

You are SO poorly educated (I'm NOT calling you "stupid", just saying you had bad teachers) that you do not understand what our founders wrote; For "effects" do not substitute "computer graphics" or Zuck's, Page's or Brin's software. Try substituting the word "stuff" - you'll probably "get it" then. Our founders did not believe the government had any right to dig through and look at ANY of your "stuff" without a valid, explicit warrant from a judge where the investigator/policeman had to swear under oath that his application was accurate; this provided accountability.

Like any good short-sighted progressive, you seem to assert that the internet is some new magical thing that renders the Constitution obsolete; it does not because the constitution is not concerned at all with the specific technology of communications (your right to be secure in your papers and effects has NOTHING to do with whether those are transported by pony express rider or by teleportation device). Half or our founders were inventors and they won the Revolutionary war, in part, aided by the advance of technology in the colonies (for example by pioneering advances in the mass-production of firearms with interchangeable parts). They very wisely knew technology was advancing and would continue advancing and they tied NONE of our rights to any fixed technology. Yes, laws that other men added to our country later are plentiful, sometimes narrow, frequently overlapping, and often tied to various technologies (therefore needing amendments when technology changes) BUT that's NOT the Constitution and many of those laws were narrowly-tailored and tied to bits of tech in the first place as corrupt acts of crony-capitalism.

I know there are people from all parts of the political spectrum who think that anything, when tied to the Internet, becomes something shiny and new, but that just is not the case. The existence of the Internet does NOTHING to the definition of the word "privacy", does not magically obliterate the Constitutional requirements for warrants or anything else. Some judge or prosecutor or patent troll is free to make such assertions, but that just does not hold water.

Oh, and in your wiretapping comment you displayed more ignorance. The Constitution does not give the federal government any wiggle room to wiretap people without a warrant, and it was not permitted to intercept such private civilian communications before progressive judges and prosecutors who claim it is a "living document" started pretending such wiggle room existed. The president arguably has the right Constitutionally to wiretap communications that cross international borders particularly to/from "hostile" countries or "enemies" as part of his authority as "Commander in Chief" but a careful reading of what our founders wrote can lead to the belief that they intended that CinC authority to be in the context of wars declared by Congress. Wiretapping laws at the state and local level are certainly needed both because the Constitution is not designed to regulate the behaviour of individuals toward each other, and because the Constitution leaves all matters it does not explicitly grant to the Feds to the states and to the people themselves. In other words, it's up to California to have laws that keep californians from snooping on each-other, and being snooped upon, in any way that does not involve the Federal government.

Re: Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386895)

I hate to have to point this out, Captain Amurrica, but if the constitution wasn't a living document, there would be no such thing as the 4th amendment.

Re: Correction (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month ago | (#47387121)

The term "living document" is used in the context of its meaning changing outside the amendment process, where what it means changes because how people choose to interpret it changes.

Many people disagree with that concept -- there are very good reasons to force people to amend the constitution to make such large changes to what the government is permitted to do. Mainly that historically, politicians leading people on rage crusades to increase the politician's power is standard operating procedure on the failure of freedom.

If a change is a good idea, then most people will agree, not just a transient bare majority, and will continue to agree 5 and 10 years down the road. This is the amendment process.

good grief (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387345)

Every time I think I have encountered the most ignorant person on the planet, somebody like you pops-up to induce a new level of despair (sigh)

The first half of your comment appear nothing more than a slam against me for being at least somewhat patriotic. Given that you had nothing positive to contribute there and offered no candidate for a "better" country, I can just leave that as the midless blather of a "disaffected youth" who will someday grow up.

The second half of your comment is a concentrated pile of pure unadultrated blathering ignorance. When scholars refer to the Constitution as a "living document" they mean that none of the words have any fixed meaning and that anybody backed-up with enough power is free to claim its words mean whatever they want them to mean in the current context. If the Constitution was truly a "living document", the entire Bill of Rights (including the 4th) would never have been needed and there would not even need to be an amendment process; every generation would simply be free to pretend the Constitution said what they wanted and pretend the parts they did not like were not there. A "progressive" who thinks the constitution is a "living document" feels little need to try to ammend it because he thinks its ok to just pretend the meaning of words has changed. By such reasoning, the constitution can require a warrant, but if that's too inconvenient, then some judge can simply say "yes, but in THIS new circumstance no warrant is needed..." Sadly, political progressives often love this idea when it goes their way, but then become rather outraged when somebody comes along and "discovers" some meaning that hurts them.

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387105)

I'll tell you where you can shove your overrated and outdated constitution.

Re:Correction (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month ago | (#47387123)

The taint under the balls of the future dictator you will inevitably worship?

Re:popular with Americans (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47386795)

There are very few countries where the public gives a shit.

I can't name one. Can you? The "public" is more fascist than their damn governments.

Re:popular with Americans (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387445)

"Few countries" amount to pretty much entire world outside anglo countries.

Re:popular with Americans (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a month ago | (#47386787)

The NSA will still be sniffing any traffic that crosses US borders.
In fact, the NSA might prefer that you store everything overseas,
as it gives them

Re:popular with Americans (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a month ago | (#47387283)

as it gives them

End of stream? Did the NSA not flush that last buffer they read?

Good on them... (0)

djupedal (584558) | about a month ago | (#47386603)

Nice to see this trending.

As for restricting culture, we still have actual people to interact with, so not to worry.

Re:Good on them... (3, Interesting)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a month ago | (#47387565)

As for restricting culture, we still have actual people to interact with, so not to worry.

Not for long -- Russia has made emigration almost illegal, but none of the international press have seen fit to pick up on this.

So they don't have to ask the NSA (5, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | about a month ago | (#47386623)

I wonder how such a thing is going to be enforced. Seems to me this is more about burdening Russian companies who use western services than it is about securing the privacy of Russian citizens. Besides if Putin forces all Russian companies to keep their data local then his cronies can more easily do their own spying on it, rather than have to beg the NSA to give them access, which given Russia's frosty relationship with the US, is probably pretty much cut off these days.

Re:So they don't have to ask the NSA (5, Interesting)

superwiz (655733) | about a month ago | (#47386679)

It is most definitely about burdening Russian companies. If the police raids their Russian offices they don't have the excuse "our data is stored abroad" anymore. Such an admission in itself would become and admission of guilt.

Re:So they don't have to ask the NSA (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a month ago | (#47387363)

It's economics. Russia introduced an import duty on GNSS receivers that don't support GLONASS, so now most vendors support both GPS and GLONASS on the same module. By creating this requirement Russia is giving its domestic data storage industry a boost.

Re:So they don't have to ask the NSA (1)

Kasar (838340) | about a month ago | (#47387379)

It sounds like a government imposition of a policy many companies have resorted to with increased privacy laws and liabilities to companies for protecting data. It was known pre-Snowden that anything stored on cloud servers which included one in the US was subject to warrantless perusal by US authorities, so some providers made an avoidance of US mirrors a marketing point.

Good luck buying abroad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386625)

Looks like Russians will have to find somewhere else to go to if they want to buy from somewhere abroad.

I understand the spirit of this law, but in reality it is too much like the Communications Decency Act that got passed in 1996 -- way too broad and sweeping.

Livejournal (1)

TWX (665546) | about a month ago | (#47386629)

Maybe Livejournal will just move to Russia...

Distance to Harm (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a month ago | (#47386649)

I remember a few years ago when a big US university rejected Gmail because they could not ensure US-only storage of data and they had data -privacy concerns about the foreign governments (whoops).

At this point I don't really care if my data is in Belarussian hands because they cannot hurt me. Russians should likewise consider wanting to store their data ovetseas.

Re:Distance to Harm (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month ago | (#47387135)

The entire concept is a joke because most countries' security are even more intrusive than the US, and abusing spying on their own citizens to the political benefit of the people in power there is long-term standard behavior.

My gripe with the current NSA issues is writing "Ya know, agent, ya really should get a warrant first" on a piece of paper is no barrier whatsoever to a G. Gordon Liddy type spying on citizens for some faction's political gain. I'm trying to stop that which goes on all the time in other countries.

Not all that new, but what is personal? (1)

Myria (562655) | about a month ago | (#47386655)

As another pointed out, Russia isn't anywhere near the first country to do this; in fact, doesn't the European Union require it Union-wide?

Anyway, I'm most curious how the Kremlin defined "personal". Being that a lot of us are software industry programmers, product managers, etc., it'd be useful to know what kind of changes we need to make to our respective companies' international back-end infrastructure.

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month ago | (#47387219)

This is completely different from EU directives. Those pertain to EU companies storing data. This one is about all companies storing data of Russian citizens. I am a Russian citizen residing abroad; by the letter of this law, if I create a GMail account, Google must host my inbox data on a server in Russia, even though neither of us two is there. If they do not comply, their servers will be blocked inside Russia.

This is not a privacy provision like EU directives are. It's about having the data on Russian soil, where it can be easily examined without a warrant, or even a notification that it is happening (see also: SORM-2).

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387451)

Incorrect. EU directives are not about "EU companies" but "companies operating in EU". I.e. companies that store information about EU citizens.

These measures appear to be more broad in their storage requirements, but they closely mirror European regulation in terms of who they are directed at.

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month ago | (#47387467)

Give one example of EU blocking servers of some American company, on the grounds that they're "operating in EU" because a EU citizen opened an email account there.

You can't, because there's no such thing.

Yet this is exactly what the Russian law purports to do.

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (1, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387549)

Blocking servers is currently on the table in EU, it's just not implemented yet. Juncker has made it very clear that one of parts of his IT agenda is to push for actions like those to prevent US monopolies from both serving EU customers to US intelligence on a silver platter as well as completely chocking life out of all competition through monopolistic action.

There are many other implementations, such as fines however.

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month ago | (#47387563)

How do you fine a company that does not even operate in your jurisdiction?

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a month ago | (#47387601)

EU directives are not about "EU companies" but "companies operating in EU". I.e. companies that store information about EU citizens.

No, companies that operate in the EU have operations in the EU -- offices, warehouses, datacentres etc. If I buy from Stewart-MacDonald's instrument-making supplies in the US and they ship the goods to my EU address, that's not "operating in the EU", they're operating in the US.

Yes, companies like Google did initially try to argue that they weren't really "operating" in the EU per se, but they were called up on their location-based advertising.

Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a month ago | (#47387583)

As another pointed out, Russia isn't anywhere near the first country to do this; in fact, doesn't the European Union require it Union-wide?

The EU directive isn't about local control, but about data protection standards -- non-EU countries can apply to be considered equivalent if their laws have suitable protections. Although the EU did kind of give up the moral high ground when it granted equivalent status to Israel, mere months after Mossad sent a death squad into one of the Arab countries on cloned EU passports....

NSA doesn't care (0)

symbolset (646467) | about a month ago | (#47386657)

They own the switches and the servers so where the user thinks his data is stored doesn't matter. They have versioned copies.

Re:NSA doesn't care (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month ago | (#47386769)

The good part with US servers and the US cloud was lack of hard encryption and a legal 'cut out' e.g. a federal "finding" for the NSA to get in and collect it all from tame US telco product providers.
As hinted at via ideas around "QuantumInsert" show that time and distance to a cloud or server is good news for the NSA and friends.
i.e. a man-in-the-middle fake web page is great on distant optical but may be more tricky within Russia needing tame Russian staff and an unnoticed Russian site.
If you can get the cloud or servers used by Russians out to the US or a tame friendly country with shared facilities its less hard work.
Within Russia your back to the human side
"The name is Blond... James Blond: The moment US 'spy' has shaggy wig revealed by Russian secret service after being arrested for offering millions to agent to switch sides" (15 May 2013)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Russian cannot protect its wider internet use as it moves around the EU and beyond. In Russia the US has to try the human approach - something any nations security services are always ready for in their own cities.
Russia knows it needs to project its banking, trade, science and culture out to the world on its own terms and via Russians.
Russia also knows the less vital networks it has floating around the world - the slightly less easy it is to totally tap.
Russia lost a lot in the 1930's - to early 1950's due to sloppy code use. Russia learned fast that one time pads if used correctly (no reuse) do work.
The problem is a vast rate of vital data moving on 'international' junk banking and telco crypto standards on cheap peering.
The Russian solution is to risk what it knows will be lost on international networks and do the best they can back in Russia on their own networks.
Will it work? No, the NSA and GCHQ got to many large scale internal Soviet networks over time. Back to humans, typewriters, one time pads and number stations.

AWS Russia region yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386661)

I might use it if it existed.

world war three is not far in time. (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about a month ago | (#47386669)

You can feel it in the air.

Re:world war three is not far in time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386689)

Uh, no. Those are fireworks to celebrate a much earlier war.

Security through legislation is no security at all (4, Interesting)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a month ago | (#47386671)

As stated in the subject line, security through legislation is no security at all. If anything, this will weaken information security for Russians. It's a transparent and comically unenforceable attempt to keep Russian data precisely where the Russian government wants it: on servers they can put their hands on. I'm genuinely amused.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386725)

Dude, it's not really for security, that's just an excuse to force google and facebook to rent a bunch of server space in russian datacenters. it's purely economic.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a month ago | (#47386747)

You're correct that the motivation is fundamentally economic, but it has nothing to do with revenue generated from Russian datacenter leases, which are less than a drop in the bucket compared to the value derived from legally guaranteed physical access to servers for Russian government representatives. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month ago | (#47386825)

The next step is to air gap and migrate medical, banking (at a global, trade, negotiation level), court and police databases off any US or NATO originating OS, database or rented turnkey networking solution.
New hardware imports is still the huge issue that Russia cannot escape even with all clean code and local storage.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a month ago | (#47386845)

Agreed.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

Max_W (812974) | about a month ago | (#47387203)

...security for Russians...

The Russian society is divided in numerous socioeconomic groups, the same as the US or any other society.

These groups have different understanding of security, and completely different interests in general. For some, security means keeping control over their power and billions, for some finding at last a job or starting a modest web-based business.

There are not only Russians, French, Americans, etc., but also socioeconomic groups with very similar interests and aspirations.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a month ago | (#47387409)

You're missing the point. Those who control the surface of the sphere of influence control its contents.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387483)

This is a question or power, not a question of security.

There is no weakening aspect at all - ANYTHING that the Russians do in order to get their data away from other states (namely, their not-so-close friends) is an increase in their authority to access and control that information.

Re:Security through legislation is no security at (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a month ago | (#47387557)

You must have stopped reading after the second sentence of my post. Please allow me to repeat the third sentence:

It's a transparent and comically unenforceable attempt to keep Russian data precisely where the Russian government wants it: on servers they can put their hands on.

Better than Canada's Spam Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386681)

Canada wrote a law to fine American (and other countries including their own) companies and citizens millions of dollars for sending email that does not meet Canada's standards.

At least Russia, when dealing with the Net, plays within its own borders. If a site does not meet their standards they shut access to it down. Canada would be fining the owners of the site a million or so...

Re:Better than Canada's Spam Law (1)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about a month ago | (#47386841)

Tell that to the russian SSH bots and email spam bots, and the like.

Be Direct (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a month ago | (#47386701)

"We are sorry, but we cannot let you register on our service because your president created douchbag laws against it."

Re:Be Direct (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387463)

"But it's okay, because here's a Russian service that can do all the same things, enjoy".

Injected below if they are nice.

And if they are not, it's just going to redirect to it automatically.

Or did you not learn anything from what happened to Google and Baidu?

Funny how more than a few countries dont get the (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about a month ago | (#47386705)

Concept of World Wide Web.

Re:Funny how more than a few countries dont get th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386799)

Its funny how Americans don't get the concept of the rest of the world....

It's pathetic

I'll Just Die (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about a month ago | (#47386709)

I can't live without all the wonderful Russian women asking me for money and those wonderful purchases I make from Russia. Translate that into I don't give a hoot if Russia stays off the net for a century or two.

Re:I'll Just Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386727)

Actually there'd be a lot of online gamers that would rejoice if Russia stays off the net.

Nationalism aside it's not a bad idea (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47386785)

Nationalism aside it's not a bad idea, since having your medical records sent to the Phillipines for data entry and many similar stupid shortcuts are bad ideas. If your sensitive information is being stored in a different legal juristiction where people speak a different language there's not much you can do if someone wanders off with it and puts it to other uses unless you have as many international lawyers on staff as IBM.

Re:Nationalism aside it's not a bad idea (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month ago | (#47386925)

Russia knows its user count, networking speeds (past copper, new optical) and cpu needs to switch or database at a commercial and gov level.
Some options are:
Import software and hardware that is perfect in terms of heat, speed, future needs, size, support and code supported.
The US or its competitive 'clone' is great on any site due to instant backdoor support.
Import hardware that is perfect in terms of heat, speed, future needs, size, support. Try and rewrite all needed code in Russia.
The US or its competitive 'clone' is great but did it stop on the way to Russia for an upgrade?
Russia has great staff, "unmetered" power for temperature and cpu use and huge secure sites.
Why the need for no heat, top speed, future needs, tiny size? Just line up Russian built white boxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org] end to end and code over the massive expected hardware speed drop? Heat is not an issue, size is huge, network is not going to get millions of new users added per location as designed. Russia then has new jobs, own hardware, own code, own network.
Might be slow build and physically hard to upgrade but every aspect will be fully understood by expert local staff. Just keep finding secure hall sized sizes as needed.

Re:Nationalism aside it's not a bad idea (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month ago | (#47387221)

It's not about medical records. It's about things like personal email.

They don't want to protect the users from NSA. They want to make it easier for themselves to play NSA.

Do I need a million examples instead of just one? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47387417)

Do I need a million examples instead of just one? Come to think of it personal email is another good example considering the fuckup this week by someone at Goldman Sachs who wanted an email sent to gmail deleted. Despite it being an incredibly stupid idea a lot of commercially sensitive information is sent via email where it can be easily read by anyone with access to routers on the way to it's destination. Given how there is no real boundary between government and commercial interests in some parts of US intelligence (eg. outsourcing the NSA to many little operations like Booz Allen - WTF?), it makes sense for another nation for trade reasons alone to encourage people to not host their emails on the other end of international cables that are now known to be watched.

I suggest getting out of the pointless us and them mentality and reverse the situation - would you be happy if your emails were hosted in China or Russia and you know that a great deal of the traffic in and out is being watched? Does my argument make sense now put into that context? That's why I tried to avoid pointless jingoistic arguments such as yours by putting "Nationalism aside" in the subject. Perhaps you missed it and I should have put it in bold in the body instead of the subject. Maybe we need to being back the BLINK tag so late night slashdot readers don't miss things that should be obvious.

They want to make it easier for themselves to play NSA.

That's being dealt with elsewhere and is too fucking incredibly obvious to mention since the bunch Putin used to work for inspired 1984 so why drag it in here? In this sort of field the NSA are playing like kids (Star Trek set designer and similar shit) while Russians are leaving fucking Polonium calling cards to let people know without question who did the killing. Can we discuss other implications as well without getting "corrected" by the stuff on page 1 when the rest of us know that and are half way through the book?

Re:Do I need a million examples instead of just on (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month ago | (#47387429)

Dude, I am Russian. There's no "nationalism" or "jingoism" angle in what I wrote, you're arguing with a strawman.

And yes, I would vastly prefer for my emails to be hosted in the US, for personal safety reasons. Not my own anymore - I'm already safely in US so I can wave a middle finger at the assholes in charge of ruining my home country - but my parents are still there, and they hold some, shall we say, unpopular political views. Which they don't blabber about in public, but now apparently it's not a good idea to do so in private email communications, as well.

How about one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386803)

where they don't steal from the West? Hm? For some reason that's okay in Putinland.

It's funny to watch as (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386813)

people so routinely blast America for its imperfections (it certainly IS imperfect, and the post-1990 presidencies of tawdry slumping into ends-justify-the-means bile has made things far worse) but people all too often fail to cast the same critical eye in the direction of all the other nations against which the US is measured. I'll take my country ANY DAY over countries that lack the basic protections our Constitution provides; In the US, the government can certainly behave badly, BUT there is always the chance that an honest judge/jury will reach back to the documents our founders gave us and set things right...

Once, it even took a bloody civil war, NOT to get rid of the founder's document but to FORCE part of the nation to live-up-to the document.

Happy birthday America!

Re:It's funny to watch as (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387537)

Other nations are not currently superpowers, nor do they have targeted killing programs, or conduct wars far away from their borders.

That naturally places US on top of the "existential threats" list to essentially all other countries on the globe, and as a result it faces much tighter scrutiny.

What if you're a Russian prankster? (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a month ago | (#47386817)

All a guy who wants to stir up trouble would need to do is to put their own personal details on a forum. Then they could call the authorities and go,"Look, on Joe USA's forum is my personal details".

Many web sites would be legally unavailable ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386857)

The writer points out that this would mean many web sites would be legally unavailable altogether to Russian users.

Perhaps the writer should first point out why so many web sites "including the likes of Facebook and Google" need to collect personal data of its users in order to function?

Oh, yeah, collecting and selling personal data IS their business. So, good job for the Russians!

Re:Many web sites would be legally unavailable ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386941)

They may be on to something. Nothing like bolstering the economy by requiring companies to move locally. I'm wondering if counties or even large neighborhoods can ask the same to force them to create jobs nearby to access the population.

Too late now... (1)

marcroelofs (797176) | about a month ago | (#47386867)

Google should have cut ties with the US when that was still a useful option. Now the world is looking for other options and the US is suddenly very small.

Remember... (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about a month ago | (#47386873)

Russian expatriates are Russian citizens too. And employment data is a thing that gets stored. I hope they're not looking for work with an Internet company...

Re:Remember... (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a month ago | (#47387627)

Russian expatriates are Russian citizens too. And employment data is a thing that gets stored. I hope they're not looking for work with an Internet company...

This is a hugely important point that bears repeating.

Russian expatriates are Russian citizens too. And employment data is a thing that gets stored. I hope they're not looking for work with an Internet company...

Therefore it will be illegal, on a technicality, for any citizen to work overseas. In fact, it will be pretty difficult to even do any translation work.

What has gone little noted in the press (outside of non-Russian Russian-language newspapers is that Russia has implemented laws to try to prevent emigration. Dual citizenship is illegal, and if you get a residency permit for a foreign country, you have to deregister as Russian resident, and get a special foreign-resident-Russian passport. There have even been rumours of an imminent ban on exit visas for Russian academics.

Russia doesn't want its citizens mixing with foreigners, as we are seen as "corrupting" them. Russians who travel abroad are viewed with suspicion by their neighbours. It's a genuinely scary state of affairs.

tariff (1)

psherman2001 (2739057) | about a month ago | (#47386901)

They are likely taking a cue from Brazil, in an effort to promote domestic enterprise.

That's Russian citizen's loss. (1)

fufufang (2603203) | about a month ago | (#47386919)

Does this affect the rest of the world? Nope.

Let's move on, nothing to see here.

Congress will want to do the same (1)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about a month ago | (#47387209)

There WILL be legislation proposed very soon for a similar restriction on US companies. That it is stupid, irrational and anti-privacy won;t stop some ignorant legislators from suggesting it. So in that sense alone it does affect the US...

It's impossible to secure your citizens data if... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386955)

.. you allow it to be stored somewhere else.

storing it in Russia just makes it harder for foreign powers to use.

US soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47386997)

Makes it easier for the NSA.

WTO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387025)

This must be a violation of the WTO membership conditions? This severely restricts trade on the internet. Giant companies will be able to set up servers in Russia, but for smaller companies this closes online business in Russia.

Re:WTO (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47387541)

WTO has all the appropriate clauses for "national security reasons" (put there by US no less) and NSA has provided all the necessary proof.

This is a double whammy of past actions catching up.

I actually know why they do this ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47387059)

This is really just a means of creating jobs in the country ... if a foreign company wants to do business in Russia, they now have to maintain, pay, and train a Russian workforce in the country. For smaller firms, it'll be cheaper to headquarter in Russia, and for larger firms they'll need to completely split their HR/ERP/CRM systems and maintain duplicates in Russia. Lots of countries already do this, and NONE of them do it for the reasons of data security for their citizens.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>