Slow Broadband, Usage Caps Could Mar Google Stadia's Game Streaming Ambitions

from the ill-communication dept

I can remember being at E3 in 2000 and being pitched on the idea of a sort of "dumb terminal" for gaming. As in, you wouldn't need a computer or game console in your home, since all of the actual game processing would be accomplished in the cloud then streamed to your TV via broadband. Most of these early pitches never materialized. Initially because cloud computing simply wasn't fully baked yet, but also thanks to America' shoddy broadband.

Cloud-based game streaming is something the industry has continued to push for, though nobody has yet to truly crack the market. Onlive probably tried the hardest, though again a lack of real cloud horsepower and sketchy residential broadband prevented the service from truly taking off.

Undaunted, Google took to the stage at the Game Developers Conference to unveil Stadia, a looming game streaming platform that will let gamers play top-shelf games on any hardware with a Chrome browser. Google insists that the service, when it launches this summer, will be able to drive games at up to 4K resolution and 60 frames per second seamlessly between multiple devices with no need for game consoles, high-end PCs, loading times, or installs. The whole presentation is available here:

If anybody can make the idea work it's certainly Google, whose massive transit and cloud computing firepower should give it a leg up on past efforts. Unfortunately for Google, the service still faces a daunting foe. One Google has previously tried and failed to disrupt: the shoddy state of US broadband:

"Generally, streaming a game at 1080p requires latency of less than 20ms and downstream speeds of at least 25 Mbps. But raw throughput is just one of numerous factors that can impact the responsiveness of game streaming. Upstream speeds, the quality of your router, and even congestion at internet peering and interconnection points can impact game play.

Google hopes to sidestep some of this by having the lion’s share of the streaming traffic travel over its own datacenter and transit links. But that data still needs to make its way to your home via the “last mile,” or your ISP. And if your ISP is terrible, your Google Stadia experience is likely to mirror that reality."

In addition to slow speeds (thanks to countless US telcos that refuse to upgrade their networks), Google's new service will also need to contend with the bullshit, arbitrary usage caps and overage fees giants like Comcast have been imposing on their networks in the wake of little to no real competition. While there are not many services that can blow through Comcast's 1 terabyte cap ($10 per each additional 50 gigabytes thereafter), streaming games at 4K or 8K certainly will. Many ISPs, especially slower telcos, impose usage caps that are far less generous.

The other issue to keep an eye on will be net neutrality. ISPs like Verizon are working on their own game streaming services. Given that incumbent ISPs are already removing usage caps if you use their own video streaming service, there's really not much stopping an ISP from doing the same thing with gaming. It's the culmination of a vision telecom giants like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T have had for years, where they impose arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions and caveats to simultaneously cash in on--and disadvantage--companies they want to directly compete with. If you can't win, cheat.

Given its cloud firepower Google can certainly pull the idea off. And if Google doesn't, somebody else will. Replacing high-end PCs and pricey game consoles with a simple cloud-based, multi-device game streaming subscription service seems like the obvious next step. But the process is going to once again shine a light on how the broken, monopoly-dominated telecom sector has some very real problems tech refuses to address and fix. Problems that harm not only the public, but countless attempts to innovate and disrupt other, existing sectors. Game streaming is going to shine a very bright light on this reality.

Filed Under: broadband, cloud gaming, competition, stadia, streaming, video games
Companies: at&t, google, verizon

Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

from the last-chance dept

As we noted earlier this week, a bunch of sites are taking part in an internet blackout today and urging their visitors, especially those in the EU to contact their MEPs, asking them to sign the pledge not to vote for Article 13. As the page notes, Article 13 is bad for the public, bad for creators and bad for innovation.

Because this is being pushed (misleadingly) as being good for creators, I wanted to go into a bit more depth as to why that's wrong and why this will be bad for most creators. Over the past two decades, contrary to what some lobbyists will tell you, the internet has been an incredible boon to creativity and creators. The internet has made it easier to create, to promote, to distribute, to build a fan base, and to monetize your works than ever before in history. The idea that the internet has somehow harmed creators is a laughable myth. What the internet did do was change the model by which creators could make money. Historically, outside of the absolute fringes, it required you to get "accepted" into the club by a giant gatekeeper -- a giant gatekeeper most creators couldn't even get in front of, let alone sign a deal with. And, since that was the only path to success, those gatekeepers signed insanely bad deals with creators. They would own your copyright, not you. They would be in charge of what you created. They would be in charge of the relationship with fans. They would control how the content was distributed. You might have some input, but it was theirs now.

And, yes, they might give you an "advance," but it was structured as a loan. You would need to use that advance to pay for everything having to do with the creation of your work -- and then the gatekeeper would bill against that "advance" for any revenue that came in. The amount of money you actually made would be tiny -- and the likelihood of ever actually "recouping" the advance is so slim, that record labels were known to not even keep records because they knew they'd never have to give you another dime.

Compare that to the world today, with the internet. In the modern world, any content creator can just go online. They can create using tools available online. They can upload their content for free at a ton of different sites. They can reach a worldwide audience. They can promote. They can build a fanbase. They can make money from a bunch of different platforms. And they retain their copyright. They retain control. They don't have some giant company telling them what to do or keeping every penny that comes in.

But Article 13 changes how things work. Supporters insist that it will magically make the big internet companies start paying artists more. But that's a myth. The entire structure of Article 13 is designed on purpose to be bad for the internet. The entire setup is to try to pressure internet companies into purchasing licenses, and it does that by basically saying "if you don't buy a license for every piece of content, you will face crippling and impossible lawsuits."

But that's an impossibility. How do you license every piece of content that anyone might post on your service? There is no such way. Supporters of the bill insist that collection societies will step into the void -- but need I remind you of the myriad stories of how nearly every collection society falls prey to corruption, that frequently involves artists simply not getting paid at all?

Even if collection societies do fill the void, how will lesser known artists actually get paid? As we've seen, the answer is they don't. Collection societies collect all the money, and since they can't track what belongs to less well known creators, they just give the money to the successful ones.

And even if they could figure all of that out, most creators would still get screwed. The only way this system works is if there are just a few giant organizations on each side of the negotiations. The giant content creator gatekeepers and the big internet platforms. There is no room for smaller, more innovative internet platforms. There is no place for more targeted, niche communities to spring up, where artists can build closer relationships with their fans. Bandcamp is one of the best tools out there right now for musicians -- and has provided millions of dollars to musicians. How does it survive in a post-Article 13 world? I'm not sure it can. How does that help musicians? I have no idea. Patreon has become an amazing source for crowdfunding for musicians. How does it handle Article 13? Does Patreon really need to license all content? Again, how does it help artists to shut down Patreon?

And even if you still think that it's fine to just have some giant licensing orgs on one side and a few giant internet platforms on the other, if the costs for the internet paltforms goes up drastically, how much "free" services will they still offer? Do you remember the bad old days before you had YouTube/Vimeo where you could upload videos for free? You had to do something like set up a "RealNetwork" server -- which cost a ton and didn't work most of the time. And you had to pay for a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to hose and stream your own video. YouTube, Vimeo and others made that all totally free. But if they now have to give a massive chunk of money to license-holders, why will they keep providing such services for free?

The end result is that a few gatekeepers regain their position as gatekeepers. A few internet giants get locked into their position without much fear of competition. And artists and creators get totally screwed.

This is not the internet we should want. Tell the EU to reject Article 13.

Filed Under: #saveyourinternet, article 11, article 13, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, filters, intermediary liability, licenses

Unknown Nintendo Game Gets Digitized With Museum's Help, Showing The Importance Of Copyright Exceptions

from the lost-history dept

Roughly a year ago, we wrote about how museums were requesting an exception to the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions in order to preserve online games. While the Librarian of Congress has already allowed for exceptions for preserving non-online games, the request led to pushback by the Entertainment Software Association, which indicated preserving online games would be copyright infringement. Nintendo is a member of the ESA and the gaming giant was at the same time going around to ROMs sites all over the internet and either threatening them with legal action or scaring them into shutting down. This happened all while Nintendo also released several retro consoles, essentially cashing in on the nostalgia that the emulation sites had kept alive for the past decade or so.

All of which is to say this: Nintendo is not generally friendly to the idea of preserving Nintendo games via digitization that it does not control itself. Standing in contrast to that is the recent discovery of an otherwise essentially unknown Nintendo game from 30 years ago that, upon discovery, was swiftly digitized for posterity.

When UWC—a NES game that had been hidden from the world for 30 years—was uncovered last week, one of the first orders of business was getting the game off a cartridge and into the digital realm so that it could be properly preserved.  The new owner of the game, Stephan Reese, aka Archon 1981, said as much last week, and that job has now been completed thanks to the efforts of the Video Game History Foundation.

Saying “we were more than happy to lend our expertise and digitize the game for its owner”, the VGHF haven’t just ripped the game, but also went and finished it (as in, played to the end, not finished development), uploading gameplay footage to YouTube so we can all see some more of UWC in action.

Were it not for the exceptions that allowed the VGHF to have helped Reese out, the game could quite easily have been lost to history. Perhaps more importantly, if the general posture of companies like Nintendo led someone like Reese to believe the illegality of this wasn't even worth questioning, the world may never have seen this game at all. And, whatever you think of the importance of gaming to our culture, it cannot be argued that this would have been a cultural loss concerning the history of a popular entertainment medium.

These exceptions to copyright law are very, very important. This is just one of many examples as to why and yet another reminder that the pervasive culture of ownership and restriction carries with it a danger to literally everyone else who is living or will live. That danger is the potential to lose parts of our culture and history.

Filed Under: archives, copyright, copyright exceptions, digitization, lost content, lost games, nes, uwc, video games
Companies: nintendo

Using Networks To Govern Network Problems

from the internet-governance dept

Today, botnets and the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks that can accompany them, are considered among “the most severe cybersecurity threats.” Botnets have caused extensive economic harm to businesses, banks, hospitals, and government agencies around the world. Furthermore, botnets are used to spread political propaganda aimed at distorting democratic elections. In fact, U.S. government officials concluded that the Russian propaganda campaign has not stopped since the 2016 election and the magnitude of the issue is expected to grow. Yet, a time-tested framework for addressing the problem already exists. Governing complex internet-based problems is best accomplished by a network of stakeholders similar to the way the internet is currently governed.

In her Nobel Lecture, Elinor Ostrom emphasized the necessity to study human economic behavior in any complex system. She added that no “one size fits all” policy solution would work for a highly complex socio-economic issue, but approaches created by a disperse, spontaneously self-organized group are far more innovative. This is the essence of polycentric order as defined by Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. A polycentric order has multiple overlapping decision-making centers comprised of individuals equipped with necessary knowledge and expertise to create better outcomes for issues of high complexity.

In the case of cybersecurity, where dynamic response is critical - distributed network actors are best suited to govern complex cyber problems. While policymakers are one such group in this governance network, the efforts of other stakeholders are critical to maintaining flexibility and adaptability to emerging threats. The role of policymakers is to facilitating the emergence of multiple decision-making centers, which is key for resolving botnet issues.

In his book Networks and States, Milton Mueller offers a comprehensive analysis of network actors outside of the nation-state system as well as their effectiveness in addressing cybersecurity issues. Mueller outlines distinct challenges of cybercrime such as its globalized scope, boundless scale, and its decentralized and distributed nature. He argues that efficient institutions and new organizational forms are in a continuous process of emerging out of the interactions between public and private actors.

Mueller asserts that meaningful solutions to cybersecurity issues are only possible at the trans-national level. Such large international organizations as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) among others, provide governance at the international internet governance. Mueller highlights that an effective global internet security policy will recognize the interdependence of markets, nation-state specific property rights protections, and shared information and communication resources. He proposes that a “denationalized liberal approach” would be effective in resolving this dilemma. Moreover, he concludes that a true denationalized liberal governance will emerge out of the interactions of globally networked communities. His conclusions regarding internet security governance are, therefore, aligned with the Ostromian approach.

There have been some promising developments in collaboration between private and public sectors. In 2018, USTelecom and ITI announced the creation of the Council to Secure the Digital Economy. The Council brings together the leaders from the Information and Communication Technology sector to create a more resilient digital ecosystem. For example, they produced the botnet guide, a compilation of best practices by large scale enterprises that can be implemented in a variety of industries to mitigate the threats of the distributed denial of service attacks. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission has been facilitating meetings between stakeholders.

Past and future administrations can learn from the Clinton Administration’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce that made space for stakeholders to be involved in governing the internet and maximized cooperation between public and private initiatives for cyber-security. Indeed, the Obama administration’s cybersecurity plan included a call for technology companies to fight botnets collectively. The Trump administration declared its commitment to giving the Federal agencies legal authority to combat botnets.

Government should not be the only source of governance in addressing cybersecurity problems. Botnets are best combated by a multistakeholder effort between public and private entities. The tenants of “polycentricity” and “decentralized liberalism” capture the wisdom of a more distributed governance approach.

Anne Hobson is a program manager at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Yuliya Yatsyshina is an MA Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Filed Under: ddos, denial of service attacks, internet governance

California Becomes 20th State To Push 'Right to Repair' Legislation

from the monopolized-repair dept

A few years back, frustration at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM culminated in a grassroots tech movement. The company's crackdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska that not only proposed protecting the consumers' right to repair their own tech, but protected independent, third-party repair shops from efforts by many major companies to monopolize repair (Apple and game console vendors like Sony and Microsoft usually come first to mind). This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven by a groundswell of consumer annoyance.

Last week, California became the twentieth state in the country to support such a law. It's the second year in a row the legislation has been proposed, with the folks at iFixit explaining that this latest version eyes simply updating the state's existing lemon law:

Last year’s bill was proposed to California law at large, while this year’s bill is an amendment to California’s effective Lemon Law, a.k.a. the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Unique to the state of California, this law requires companies to provide a repair option. It’s been effective at making sure that you can get your six-year-old MacBook Pro fixed by Apple in California—a service that Apple refuses to perform across the border in Arizona. But manufacturers found a loophole in the law allowing them to monopolize repair rather than providing parts to the repair provider of the consumer’s choice. This bill closes that loophole.

Granted the reason no bill has actually been passed yet is thanks to the extensive lobbying done by companies including Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, and Sony, who obviously don't want smaller independent shops (or smart consumers) eroding their repair revenues. More often than not, these companies have tried to scare folks away from such legislation by insisting it will create all manner of new and diabolical privacy and security problems. Apple in particular notoriously warned that the law in Nebraska would somehow make the state a "mecca for hackers."

The efforts proceed all the same. Of the 20 state laws proposed, Minnesota's effort (which has now passed through two state committees) has managed to proceed the furthest. For its part, iFixit notes that the legislation doesn't just aid consumer rights, it can help rein in waste made worse by companies like Apple which impose counterproductive restrictions on re-use and recycling:

"Consumers should have the right to choose their repair provider. Increasing independent repair options will encourage people to fix the electronics and appliances they already own, rather than toss their broken belongings and buy new ones. Independent and self-repair also help people save money, create local jobs, and prevent e-waste—which is now the fastest growing waste stream in the world."

And while numerous giants are working hand-in-hand to scuttle such legislation, it seems like 2019 is likely to see the first such bill finally passed, with many more clearly waiting in the wings as consumers grow increasingly annoyed by high costs and arbitrary restrictions.

Filed Under: california, right to repair

Washington Prison Management Software Setting People Free Too Early, Keeping Other People Locked Up Too Long

from the on-average,-it-works dept

All this technology is getting in the way of justice being served. For the second time in five years, Washington's Department of Corrections is dealing with issues created by its prisoner management software. Four years ago, this happened:

For three years, state Department of Corrections staff knew a software-coding error was miscalculating prison sentences and allowing inmates to be released early. On Tuesday, Gov. Jay Inslee gave the damning tally: up to 3,200 prisoners set free too soon since 2002.

For thirteen years, officials knew there was a problem with the software but did nothing about it. It wasn't until the state's governor got involved that anyone at the DOC started caring about its malfunctioning code. The code was supposedly fixed but new problems arose, affecting both sides of the jail walls.

A software problem has caused at least a dozen Washington prison inmates to be released too early — or held too long — and has sparked a review of as many as 3,500 cases.

Department of Corrections (DOC) officials are scrambling to determine whether the other inmates’ sentences were miscalculated and are still working to gauge the scope of the problem.

The previous bug miscalculated "good time" credits, resulting in thousands of premature releases. This time around, buggy code is screwing up calculations for inmates who have violated their parole. A few have benefited from the problem. But most of the cases being reviewed involve inmates who have been jailed for too long.

The previous calculation error resulted in two homicides by an inmate who was released too early. This time around, it's far more likely inmates who have served their time aren't being released. Either way, there's life and liberty on the line and the Department of Corrections is showing little sense of urgency when addressing these problems.

If there's a silver lining, it's this: with enough votes, the state's convoluted sentencing laws will be simplified, potentially making the calculation of sentences easy enough any human can do it.

[State Representative Roger] Goodman has proposed legislation, House Bill 1495, creating an 18-member task force that would review and recommend simplifications to the state’s sentencing guidelines, with a final report due by the end of 2020. He said his committee also may ask DOC leaders for a public briefing and explanation of the latest sentence-calculation problems.

Of course, this could take as long to fix as it took the state DOC to fix its original software problem. No answers would be expected for another 18 months, by which point new bugs in the DOC's software may surface and start handing out get out of jail free cards to some inmates and go directly to jail cards to others who've already served their time.

And if it's not working now, there's a good chance the DOC's software will never function properly. Part of the problem is the legislature itself, which complicates sentence calculations by adding new wrinkles with each legislative session. According to the Seattle Times, at least 60 bills in the pipeline could affect sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance of new calculation errors developing.

Software may be the only way to handle a job this complex. But those overseeing the software's deployment have shown they're not too interested in proactive maintenance of this complex system. Problems are eventually solved, years after the fact. That sort of responsiveness is unacceptable when guidelines are being constantly altered by new legislation.

Filed Under: department of corrections, inmates, mistakes, prison management, software, washington

@DevinCow Now Has More Twitter Followers Than Devin Nunes

from the good-job-everyone dept

Yesterday we wrote about the completely ridiculous lawsuit that Rep. Devin Nunes -- a real live Congressional Representative -- filed against Twitter, a political communications expert, and two satirical fake Twitter accounts: one pretending to be his cow, and one pretending to be his mom. As we noted, in the lawsuit itself, Nunes' lawyer points out that the satirical cow had a grand total of 1,204 followers when the lawsuit was initiated. For reference, Devin Nunes' own Twitter account has ~394,000 followers. When we did our post yesterday, @DevinCow was up to 106,000. And now?

Yup, 399k. Actually, as I've been typing this, it's kept going up, but I'm not going to keep taking screenshots. And, yes, the Cow now has more followers than Rep. Nunes himself:

Great job, Devin. You really shut up that satirical cow.

Now, Twitter, how do we go about getting the satirical fake cow a blue checkmark?

Filed Under: censorship, defamation, devin cow, devin nunes, devincow, free speech, nunes effect, satire, streisand effect
Companies: twitter

Daily Deal: The Foundational Cisco CCNA Security Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

In the Foundational Cisco CCNA Security Bundle, you'll get access to three complete courses and 53 hours of training to prepare you to pass Cisco's CCNA certification exam track. You'll learn how to install, operate, configure, & verify a basic IPv4 and IPv6 network, how to become proficient with network switching and routing concepts, how to deploy basic firewalling services, and more. The bundle is on sale for $29.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Federal Judge Tosses Cops' Lawsuit Against A Councilmember Who Said The Police Dept. Had Committed Murder

from the being-offended-isn't-the-same-as-being-harmed dept

A federal judge in Washington just reminded two Seattle police officers that a politician saying unkind things about law enforcement is not defamation. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

Following the killing of Che Taylor by Seattle police officers, councilwoman Kshama Sawant issued statements criticizing the Seattle Police Department for the shooting. From the decision [PDF]:

Approximately five days after the shooting, Sawant appeared before a crowd and media in front of the police department. This was not official city council business, and certainly not a “legislative function.” Sawant, however, implied awareness of inside factual information, and appeared to be making a statement against interest. With gravitas established, she went on to pronounce Che Taylor’s death a “brutal murder” and product of “racial profiling.”

Sawant reiterated these comments throughout the year, according to the lawsuit. However, she never directly accused the two suing officers -- Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding -- of being murderers. Her comments called the shooting a "brutal murder" and implied the PD engaged in biased policing, but at no time did she mention these two officers by name.

The officers argued Sawant's statements impugned them individually even though she only spoke about the police department as a whole. The court says suing as individuals and advancing a group theory of defamation takes far more than the officers showed in their complaint.

[W]whether proceeding under an individual or group theory, Plaintiffs must plead that the statements “specifically” identified or singled them out, or was understood as “referring to [them] in particular.” Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 236.

Here, Plaintiffs have not done so, and the Court finds that Councilmember Sawant’s statements do not satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement. According to the SAC, Councilmember Sawant, while standing in front of the Seattle Police Department, stated that “the police” committed a “brutal murder” which was “racially motivated.” (Dkt. No. 23 at ¶¶ 46, 54.) Councilmember Sawant did not identify Officers Miller and Spaulding by name, nor did she provide any information that would even remotely allow listeners to ascertain their identities, such as their rank or position, division or unit, precinct, or length of time on the force. Finally, Councilmember Sawant’s statements referred broadly to “the police,” the “Seattle Police Department,” and “systematic police brutality and racial profiling.”

Feeling insulted by blanket statements isn't a solid basis for a defamation lawsuit. The officers' attempt to tie reporting from local papers to the councilmember's statements fares even worse.

While Plaintiffs contend that Councilmember Sawant “continually brings it back to these specific officers and this specific incident” her references to “holding the Seattle Police Department accountable for their reprehensible actions, individual actions” and seeking “justice on the individual actions” do not clearly establish Officers Miller and Spaulding as their target. See Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 237 (“[T]he plaintiff must show with convincing clarity that he was the target of the statement.”) (emphasis added).

That the Seattle Times contemporaneously published an article identifying Officers Miller and Spaulding by name does not change this outcome. The “identification of the plaintiff[s] as the person[s] defamed” must be “certain and apparent from the words themselves,” without reference to extrinsic sources. Id. at 234 (emphasis added) [...] Finally, even if Plaintiffs were correct that the references to “individual actions,” coupled with their identification in the Seattle Times, could somehow transform what are otherwise vague and oblique statements into actionable defamation, the SAC does not plead any of these facts.

The officers have already been given one chance to turn their complaint into something actionable. The court isn't willing to give them a third try -- not when it's apparent this defamation lawsuit can't be fixed.

[E]ven if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend to include these statements, they cannot satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement, and Plaintiffs make no effort to explain how they could resolve this deficiency, or how additional discovery could possibly uncover additional actionable statements.

The lawsuit is done. Dismissed with prejudice. These cops paid for the chance to learn that people saying unkind things is not actually defamation, especially when the person saying these things never names names. Thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Seattle taxpayers will be doubling up paying for these officers' actions. First, they paid for the city's defense of Councilmember Sawant's non-defamatory statements. They'll be asked to foot the bill again in the near future to defend these officers from a lawsuit brought by the family of the man they killed.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, che taylor, defamation, free speech, kshama sawant, michael spaulding, scott miller, seattle, washington

Terrified Of The Internet, Putin Signs Laws Making It Illegal To Criticize Government Leaders Online

from the freedom-is-slavery dept

Russia's efforts to clamp down on anything resembling free speech on the internet continues unabated. Putin's government has spent the last few years effectively making VPNs and private messenger apps illegal. While the government publicly insists the moves are necessary to protect national security, the actual motivators are the same old boring ones we've seen here in the States and elsewhere around the world for decades: fear and control. Russia doesn't want people privately organizing, discussing, or challenging the government's increasingly-authoritarian global impulses.

After taking aim at VPNs, Putin signed two new bills this week that dramatically hamper speech, especially online. One law specifically takes aim at the nebulous concept of "fake news," specifically punishing any online material that "exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia." In other words, Russia wants to ban criticism of Putin and his corrupt government, with experts telling the Washington Post that the updated law effectively removes the pesky legal system from what was already a fairly draconian system:

"Prosecutors can direct their complaints about online media to the state, which can block access to websites if the offending material isn’t taken down.

This, experts say, is new. “The Prosecutor’s office may now block such fake news sources prior to the judicial decision. It gives the Prosecutor’s office an extremely high authority and almost completely eliminates the Russian (albeit completely non-free) courts from the game,” Maria Snegovaya, an adjunct fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, wrote in an email.

“In other words, it significantly expands the repressive power of Russia’s repressive apparatus. This may be compared to the Stalin’s Troika, a commission of three for express judgment in the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin who issued sentences to people after simplified, speedy investigations and without a public and fair trial,” she added.

Websites that now spread "fake news" in Russia (defined as anything that criticizes Putin and his coalition of mobster oligarchs) now suddenly face fines of up to 1.5 million rubles ($22,900) for repeat offenses. Another companion law signed by Putin this week is equally problematic; it would update existing laws to make it a federal offense to insult the Russian government or political leaders. Repeat violators of that law face fines up to 300,000 rubles ($4,700) — and 15 days in jail:

"The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech. The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia."

Both law updates quickly passed through the Russian Parliament in less than two months despite widespread condemnation and a petition of more than 100 journalists and academics lambasting the proposal as ham-fisted authoritarianism. It's an amusing and slightly terrifying escalation from a government busted for pushing buckets of hateful and idiotic disinformation online, yet simultaneously pretending to wage a war against inauthentic news coverage and critical thinking. It's clearly a model Putin hopes to export to numerous countries, not least of which being the already-factually-challenged United States.

Of course while Russia would frame this as a show of strength, it's really a show of fear. This, combined with Russia's efforts to disconnect itself from the internet makes it abundantly clear how afraid the government is of not only free speech, but its own people too. A Russian public that has not only been increasingly protesting these obnoxious internet restrictions, but also the underlying Russian economic problems Putin very clearly doesn't want highlighted online.

Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, government criticism, internet, russia, vladimir putin