Recently Departed Founder Of Russia's Facebook Says Gov't Demanded Data On Ukrainian Protestors

Privacy

from the surveillance-made-simple dept

While we’re still puzzled by Ed Snowden’s question to Vladimir Putin concerning Russian surveillance, it’s pretty well accepted that the Russians have significant surveillance powers, and they’re not afraid to use them. Now the outspoken ousted founder of “Russia’s Facebook,” VKontakte, Pavel Durov, has said that Russian intelligence service FSB had demanded info on Ukrainian protestors — and that VKontakte had refused to provide it. As Mashable explains:

“On December 13, 2013 the FSB demanded from us to turn over the personal data of organizers of the Euromaidan protesters,” Pavel Durov wrote in a post (English translation) on his VKontakte page on Wednesday.

“Our response has been and remains a categorical refusal — Russian jurisdiction does not extend to Ukrainian users VKontakte,” he wrote. “Giving personal details Ukrainians Russian authorities would not only be against the law, but also a betrayal of all those millions of people in Ukraine who have trusted us.”

This actually provides some more background details on what happened with VKontakte and Durov in the past few months. In January, Durov “sold” his stake in the site to the CEO of a Russian mobile operator. Many people noted at the time that this was unlikely to have been a wholly voluntary transaction. Having known some folks working for startups/tech companies in Russia, stories of being “forced” to sell are not exactly uncommon.

Durov himself had been outspoken for a while about the importance of secure communications, and had criticized both the NSA and the FSB for mass surveillance. He’s also been working for a while on a secure messaging app (separate from VKontakte).

Then, just a few weeks ago, despite promises that when he sold his shares, nothing would change about his management role, he abruptly resigned. It was noted at the time that he had been under pressure to shut down pages related to Alexei Navalny, an opposition candidate to the current government, whose web presence was broadly censored by the Russian government last month. However, it was also hinted at that Durov had been asked to give up info on Ukrainian protestors. His latest comments appear to confirm those rumors.

Also, given that he’s no longer there, and this appears to be part of the reason, it seems reasonable to believe that the FSB now does likely have access to such information via VKontakte. For whatever Putin thought he was proving with his answer to Snowden’s question, it’s pretty clear that Russian surveillance reaches far and wide. And, of course, the NSA’s activities allow him to play it off as less intrusive than the NSA (even if that’s not true). Either way, all of this seems to highlight why we all need much more secure communications systems.

Filed Under: fsb, pavel durov, privacy, surveillance, ukraine, vladimir putin
Companies: vk, vkontakte

Snowden Asks Putin Live On TV If Russia Carries Out Mass Surveillance; But Why?

Say That Again

from the what-on-earth-was-he-thinking? dept

Edward Snowden has generally been staying out of the limelight so that the NSA story is about the surveillance not the whistleblower. He’s given occasional interviews and delivered a few short speeches via videolink, but usually of a fairly low-key nature. That makes his unexpected appearance today on a marathon televised question-and-answer session with Vladimir Putin — again by videolink — extremely odd. Here’s his question, as reported by The Guardian:

To which Putin replied:

It’s really hard to know why Snowden asked this question. Perhaps he wanted to emphasize the disproportionate nature of NSA spying by contrasting it with Russia’s approach; perhaps he thought his appearance would jolt a jaded public and focus renewed attention on the key issues. But surely he must have guessed that Putin would answer as he did — whether or not it is true — that Russia uses surveillance strictly according to the law, that there is no massive, disproportionate spying of the kind practiced by the NSA, etc. etc. He must have known that Putin would easily turn Snowden’s question into a wonderful opportunity to score points against the US.

Inevitably, then, this appearance will be leapt on by those who have maintained that Snowden is some kind of Russian spy, and that he has been working for Putin all along. As Techdirt has noted, that story doesn’t stand up, but this unexpected intervention by Snowden certainly doesn’t do anything to dispel it. For someone who until now has judged when and how to make public statements so skilfully and effectively, this seems like an incredible misstep. It really makes you wonder what might lie behind it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: ed snowden, fsb, mass surveillance, nsa, russia, surveillance, vladimir putin

Russia Admits Its Strict Anti-Piracy Laws Aren't Working… So They'll Just Try Some More

Copyright

from the definition-of-insanity dept

For years, we’ve pointed out the ridiculousness of how copyright maximalists are always screaming about the need for “anti-piracy” laws to stop infringement, which they insist is killing them. In the US, new anti-piracy laws are proposed (and often passed) every couple of years — and the end result is always the same: infringement continues unabated. But rather than learn from that, and realize that a different approach is needed, maximalists always assume the answer is MOAR ENFORCEMENT!. Despite basically all of human history showing that enforcement is no real solution, including some rather detailed modern evidence, maximalists see enforcement/anti-piracy laws as the only hammer to deal with the infringement nail.

The latest example of this is in Russia, a country that the US attacked for years for its supposedly lax approach to dealing with copyright infringement. However, in the last year or so, Russia has massively ratcheted up its “anti-piracy” laws, giving the government incredible powers to censor sites that it deems infringing. And it’s been using that law, demanding sites be blocked entirely by ISPs. Yet, it appears that both providers of authorized services and government officials (all the way up to Vladimir Putin) are admitting that the law simply hasn’t been “working” to stop infringement or drive people to legitimate services.

But, rather than recognize that perhaps a different approach is needed, the Russians have apparently decided to double-down on the failed policy:

“It is necessary to consider additional steps to protect intellectual property rights,” Putin concluded.

Of course, it should be noted that there is also an ulterior motive in Russia. Putin and others long ago realized that copyright laws are an incredibly effective tool for attacking government critics, stifling dissent and censoring political opponents. And, even better, Russia knows that it can do this with US approval, because the US stupidly keeps demanding Russia do more to fight copyright infringement. So, they keep ratcheting up those laws… and then use them to stifle dissent and censor critics. But… none of it actually drives people to buy legitimate content. But I doubt the Russian government really cares, as that will just give them another excuse to ratchet up those censorship laws for other purposes.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, enforcement, free speech, russia, vladimir putin

Now That The NSA Has Made It The Norm, Total Surveillance During The Sochi Olympic Games Is No Longer Noteworthy

Privacy

from the welcome-to-the-(permanent)-olympics dept

In addition to being an opportunity to stretch copyright and trademark rules way beyond the law, over the years, the Olympics has also become an occasion when the feeble “because terrorism” excuse is deployed to justify all kinds of additional restrictions on personal freedoms. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Vladimir Putin’s pet project, will continue the tradition:

The CBC News report quoted above goes on:

If this piece had been written a year ago, those paragraphs could have been read unironically. But today, in the post-Snowden world, it is impossible not to replace “FSB” with “NSA” or “GCHQ”. Since we now know that practically “every phone call, every email, every social media message” in the world — not just in Sochi — is accessible to the US authorities, it’s as if we find ourselves in a global Olympics lockdown. But unlike the quadrennial Olympics, this particular circus shows no sign of moving on.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: olympics, russia, sochi, surveillance, vladimir putin

When Vladimir Putin Is Envious Of Your Surveillance State, You've Gone Too Far

Politics

from the that's-quite-a-statement dept

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a big press conference on Thursday, and spent some time talking about President Obama, Ed Snowden and the various US surveillance programs that have been revealed. Putin appeared to be quite supportive of the surveillance programs, saying that he believes that the US’s surveillance programs are a “necessity” and “mainly directed at fighting terrorism,” so there’s not a real problem with them. He even defended collecting data on everyone “because you have to monitor not only a specific terrorist suspect, but rather his whole network of relationships.” That Vladimir Putin would appreciate vast spying power is hardly a surprise. But this claim is raising some eyebrows:

“How do I feel about Obama after Snowden’s revelations? I envy him because he can do this without incurring any consequences.”

Did you catch that? Putin, the former head of the KGB, and very well known for using Russian intelligence services to his strong advantage is envious that President Obama has all this surveillance capabilities at his fingertips and that all of this can be revealed “without incurring any consequences.” It seems like there should be a general rule of thumb: when Vladimir Putin is envious of your surveillance state, you’ve gone too far.

Filed Under: barack obama, nsa, surveillance, surveillance state, vladimir putin

US Hypocrisy Exposed: Has A Long History Of Rejecting Extradition Requests

Politics

from the dear-obama:-get-over-yourself dept

We’ve already discussed the general immaturity and petty nature of President Obama’s decision to cancel his planned summit with Vladimir Putin over granting Ed Snowden asylum. Glenn Greenwald is now pointing out that beyond just being petty, it also shows astounding hypocrisy by the Obama administration. Various members of the administration (along with Congress) have been acting like it’s the worst offense in the world that Russia — with whom we do not have an extradition treaty — turned down the request for extradition. Yet, as Greenwald highlights, the US quite frequently turns down these requests, and they don’t turn into massive international incidents that top the headlines like this story.

New York Times, February 28, 2007:

Washington Post, July 19, 2013: The Guardian, September 9, 2012: [US refuses Bolivia’s request to extradite its former CIA-supported president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, to stand trial on charges of genocide and other war crimes after de Lozada hires Democratic lobbyists to represent him]

El Paso Times, December 30, 2010:

The US constantly refuses requests to extradite – even where (unlike Russia) they have an extradition treaty with the requesting country and even where (unlike Snowden) the request involves actual, serious crimes, such as genocide, kidnapping, and terrorism. Maybe those facts should be part of whatever media commentary there is on Putin’s refusal to extradite Snowden and Obama’s rather extreme reaction to it.

There may, in fact, be legitimate reasons for refusing extradition requests. But for the US government to act like Russia’s decision to give Snowden temporary asylum is some major slap in the face just seems pretty ridiculous in the face of its own actions.

Filed Under: barack obama, extradition, hypocrisy, vladimir putin

Obama Cancels Putin Meeting Because Of Snowden, Because Diplomacy Is Like Kindergarten

Politics

from the petty-disputes dept

The White House had hinted at this earlier, but now it’s been confirmed that President Obama has cancelled a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin because of Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to Ed Snowden. This seems petty in the extreme. No one honestly thought that Putin would simply hand over Snowden. And, really, of all the things to cancel a meeting about, this is the one that pushes him over the edge? He could have cancelled it over Putin’s recent homophobic remarks or Russia’s latest focus on censoring the internet or putting activists in jail or any number of other things that generally should offend American sensibilities. But using the Snowden asylum as the reason just seems like the federal government is really losing perspective in this whole NSA surveillance debate — the one Obama claimed he “welcomed.”

Honestly, this whole thing feels like kindergarten-style diplomacy. The Russians took “our ball” and so now we’re mad at them and won’t talk to them. In an adult world, cancelling a meeting over something like this just looks incredibly immature and petty. It’s all for show, rather than any legitimate purpose. I’d rather we had a government that didn’t do things for show, but for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, it seems we’re well past having that kind of government.

Filed Under: barack obama, diplomacy, ed snowden, vladimir putin

US Officials Freak Out Over Russia Giving Snowden Temporary Visa

Politics

from the well-of-course dept

The news of the morning, of course, was that Russia had agreed to grant Ed Snowden a temporary one-year visa, so that he could at least leave the airport (which he promptly did). In response, US government officials seem to have lost all perspective in making it sound like this is the worst offense ever:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a “slap in the face of all Americans.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called the development a “setback to U.S.-Russia relations.”

[….]

“If these reports are accurate, Americans in Washington should consider this a game changer in our relationship with Russia,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement, calling Russia’s decision “provocative” and “a sign of Vladimir Putin’s clear lack of respect for President Obama.”

A slap in the face? A game changer? Who do they think they’re kidding? The White House is being equally ridiculous if only slightly less hyperbolic, in suggesting it may cancel an upcoming Putin/Obama summit:

“We’re extremely disappointed,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. “We’re evaluating the utility of a summit in light of this and other issues.”

You know what? These arguments would have a lot more weight if they didn’t come a day after the US government was able to successfully convict a guy who leaked classified documents to the press in order to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. And the fact is that the American public is increasingly realizing that, yes, Ed Snowden is a whistleblower, not someone guilty of “espionage.” And yet the US government is trying to paint him as some sort of evil hacker spy.

However, the very fact that Congress is actually having the debate about these programs, that the NSA and the FISA Court are declassifying various documents, and that it’s clear that the NSA’s surveillance powers are going to be somehow limited, seems to support, very strongly, the claim that Snowden was, in fact, a whistleblower. The defenders of the government can whine and moan about this or that, but if they wanted to have any credibility on this topic at all, perhaps they shouldn’t have tried to brand Snowden as a criminal when everything that’s happened since has proven he’s a whistleblower.

Filed Under: asylum, barack obama, bradley manning, ed snowden, russia, visa, vladimir putin

Russia Confirms To The World That It's Not A Fan Of Free Speech: Pussy Riot Gets Two Years In Jail

Free Speech

from the pussy-riot-in-jail dept

Hopefully, many of you have been following the legal fight in Russia over the band/collective Pussy Riot, who performed an anti-Putin song inside a key Moscow cathedral. If so, then you know that, today, the band was sentenced to two years in jail. The sentence could have been worse, but just the fact that they’re being punished, at all, for expressing their views is troubling enough. The three women have already been in jail since March, while the case moved forward. At the beginning, it was assumed that they would end up with jail sentences, but there had been some hope that the Russian judiciary would recognize the general horror of the rest of the world at the case and perhaps back down. The women are planning to appeal, so this isn’t over yet.

Either way, the verdict is unfortunate in many ways. We talk about free speech issues all the time around here, and we recognize that other countries don’t always view freedom of speech as being as central or as important as the US does. That said, the whole idea that a band would end up in jail over political speech should be distressing and problematic to anyone with a developed sense of “right” and “wrong.” Some will say this isn’t surprising, or that this is the way that some countries operate, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still be offended by the decision on principle.

Filed Under: free speech, protests, pussy riot, russia, vladimir putin