Russian Cops to Monitor All Internet Traffic

st. augustine writes "Just like the bad old days, only now with IP: according to this article in Mother Jones, Russian ISPs are now being required to provide -- and pay for -- 'black boxes' that copy all traffic to KGB, er, FSB headquarters. The big news is that now not only the FSB but 'seven other federal security agencies, including the tax police and the interior ministry,' are going to be given access. Hope that Russian crypto is as good as they say it is."

Crypto is Illegal in Russia

ANY use of cryptography in Russia is strictly prohibited by law (even if it is 56-bit or even smaller).

FSB managed to get the law passed through the Duma (Russian parliament) because they said that they are too far behind in that area and don't have the technology/people to even break the weakest algorithms.

Re:Another reason, but it'll be ignored.

This post probably is incoherent and offtopic, but can't we, the slashdot community(!) use the supposed far-flung power of collaboration to take a stand on at least this one issue, and force the US and other governments to take action?

Uh, oh... Dear me, you yanks are really funny people...

It's quite amazing to see ./ 'community' react when something about China or Russia is mentioned - and of course, everything they do is 'against the freedom'. But yet, in your own HOUSE, you have shitloads of problems related to privacy and freedom - but you just can't do ANYTHING to stop the govt. Why don't you clean your house first, then start cleaning others?

DVD, Echelon, DCMA, etc, etc, etc... So many problem you need to solve.

Russians simply say "We're gonna monitor the traffic!" - and that's it. But at your place, you don't say "We're gonna monitor the traffic!" - you say "It's of interest for national security - we can not talk about that".

And you both do the same thing, but call it different names.

Another reason, but it'll be ignored.

We harass Cuba and Iraq for human rights violations, because it is popular. We're harassing Austria (and with good reason) because it is popular. What about Russia? The Evil Empire of my childhood has become ruled by weak governments who oppress civillians (chechnya?) the same way that other unpopular regimes do (Milosevic?) but we do nothing. Now this happens, and we will say nothing. Why? Russia has the potential to be a huge market, and already is. They have nuclear weapons, and we're afraid to take a stand on anything with them because of this. This post probably is incoherent and offtopic, but can't we, the slashdot community(!) use the supposed far-flung power of collaboration to take a stand on at least this one issue, and force the US and other governments to take action? Let's put our resources to good use, eh? Let's save the Internet.
Andrew G. Feinberg

Re:*We're* not there yet...

I wouldn't go so far as to say logging will ever occur without a court order. Those legislations are the equivalent of not allowing nudity on television. That juvenile law especially, is to protect kids against pron, which _is_ known to have lasting psychological effects (mostly when combined with sexual abuse). I don't have a problem with that because I don't really see that there's a need for someone to lookup pron in a library or a school. I don't consider that a necessity.
As for what appears to be all-out restriction of the Internet in exhibit b,c, I can't see that as passing and actually being enforced. See, we have this branch of government called the Judicial branch. Everytime something is unconstitutional, they nix it. So the only way something like this will ever come to effect (for more than a couple months) is if they write an actual amendment into the constitution. They're a long way away from taking a bold measure like that.

I'm not worried. We've already seen the Computer Decency Act or whatever it was called. That didn't hold up as much... just a waste of Congressional time and money.

Unfunny Business

This is another example of governments using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is more appropriate, and in the process are bludgeoning everyone to death except their lawful targets.

Information security is a reality nowadays. Want to browse the Web securely? Use https (but don't forget to verify the certificates). Want a secure remote login? ssh. Want to keep your EMail safe from prying eyes? That's why God (er -- Phil, I guess) gave us PGP. Want a secure VPN? IPsec.

The tools exist, and when used properly these tools are guaranteed to give the signals-intelligence agency of your choice a migraine headache. (Notice: using the tools properly is hard. It's far easier said than done, but it can be done.)

People who use the Net to commit crimes (or as an aid in committing the same) are probably tech-savvy enough to (a) know they're being monitored and (b) to use these tools. So I don't see that this Draconian measure will have any significant effect on computer crime.

It will have a chilling effect on the communications of law-abiding citizens who are not tech-savvy, though. As a rule, they either don't know these tools exist, don't know why they should use them and/or don't know how to use them -- so they get their civil liberties raped over a cheese grater, all in the name of apprehending criminals who are smart enough to use basic information-security techniques.

Gotta love it, huh?

The problem with "Just ignore it"

Many people say, "So what is we are being monitored? Just use encryption and ignore it, nothing much will happen anyway."

Sorry, you are missing the point. As is the case with many extant laws, what happens is this monitoring becomes one more way "the powers that be" can trip you up if you come into their notice.

Consider: Some agency decides they don't like the look of you. So, they go fishing for an excuse. Maybe you use encryption, maybe you don't have your vehicle registration in your car, maybe you aren't carrying your drivers' license while you are out for a walk. Whatever it is, it becomes the hook for further investigations. Given enough time, they WILL find something wrong.

The solution to bad laws is to repeal them as quickly as possible, before they dilute the good laws. As a wise man says, "If you add a bucket of dirty water to a bucket of clean water, you get dirty water."

Re:*We're* not there yet...

Everytime something is unconstitutional, they nix it.

That magical place called the judicial branch doesn't always nix these things on their own. The opinions of representatives have always been at least partially influenced by their constituients (that is, the voting body or state/city responsible for electing them). An apathetic attitude of "they'll fix it for me" is one of the first steps toward governmental control. If citizens don't control things, the gov't will have to.

Those legislations are the equivalent of not allowing nudity on television.

Now, about the porn thing - I firmly believe that viewing porn at a public library or school is a little (ahem) outside the realm of free speech. This is a reasonable limitation of expression - I wouldn't do it, and would probably be a bit dismayed if people could. The language in the bill, however, is much broader than this. The bill calls for a local determination of "decent", differing from site to site. What's legal at one location may not be at another, and local/corporate interests could easily make their way into the filtering. Even worse, locations may just rely on some NetNanny crap that filters out all pages with the word "breast" in it. Anyway, how hard is it to simply prohibit using public computing resources to display things defined as pornography? For enforcement, employ the human nodes - if Joe Schmo views porno at his library, Joe is asked to leave. Debates as to what porno is would be relatively rare, especially if libraries drafted a quick policy on what porno is and isn't. These restrictions on intrusive "indecency" are a good thing - the definition of "decent" needs to be limited and tightened up. Nudity is on my television alot (HBO). It's voluntary, though, and within my definition of good taste. (Okay, so HBO was a bad example ... heh...)

...to protect kids against pron

"Protection" of kids is a very gray area, infinitely granular depending upon the circumstances. I've known parents who abhor violence yet accept nudity and even to a certain extent pornography. Even a certain kind of pornography. I'm trying to tread lightly here, but I really do believe in a minimum of involuntary governmental control and a delegation of this authority to parents. What about those without responsible parents? There needs to be governmental aid and assistance, but on an as-needed basis. Wait for a parent ask for specific limitations on Internet access for their children - it shouldn't be forced down everyone's throats.

I probably left a bunch of holes in this, but there's a pretty simple central idea - there are easier answers to fostering control over indecency than federal restrictions and mandatory purchases of approved "filters". Those of us with good judgement shouldn't be forced to use some "filter" instead.

*We're* not there yet...

...but not far removed, either. If you take a look at the EFF site [eff.org], there's a link to H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice Bill. If you remember the CDA, this should be old hat.


Exhibit A:
SEC. 1402. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

Exhibit B:
Senate version, 401-406 - formation of industry cartel to restrict access to First Amendment-protected content that some find offensive.

Exhibit C:
Senate version, Section 1504 - mandatory ISP provision of filters


Yeah, we're not logging it yet. BFD. Prohibiting information from libraries/public institutions and forcing private companies to comply is a giant step toward Russia's situation. In fact, logging that information is the next logical step toward compliance with censorship. Before we sit back and laugh at Russia, let's take a good look here at home (in the US).