When anti-government protests erupted on Russia’s side of the Caucasus Mountains in October last year, authorities did something they had never done before: They cut mobile Internet service to an entire geographical area.
For almost two weeks, tens of thousands of mainly Muslim Russians were prevented from accessing social media Web sites and sharing videos through their smartphones.
Unlike China, where control of the Internet is uniquely centralized, Russia does not yet have an easy way to quarantine negative news, so it had to force commercial carriers to curtail local services one by one.
Illustration: Mountain People
Russia’s censorship deficit relative to China is about to narrow. Backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, lawmakers in Moscow are pushing a bill dubbed “Sovereign Internet” through the Russian Duma that is designed to create a single command post from which authorities can manage and, if needed, halt information flows across Russian cyberspace.
Putin is touting the initiative as a defensive response to US President Donald Trump’s administration’s new cyberstrategy, which permits offensive measures against Russia and other designated adversaries.
However, industry insiders, security experts and even senior officials said that political upheaval is the bigger concern.
“This law isn’t about foreign threats, or banning Facebook and Google, which Russia can already do legally,” said Andrei Soldatov, author of The Red Web: The Kremlin’s Wars on the Internet and cofounder of Agentura.ru, a Web site that tracks the security services.
“It’s about being able to cut off certain types of traffic in certain areas during times of civil unrest,” he said.
Tensions might have subsided along Russia’s southern border over the past four months, but they are ticking up across the country.
Since winning re-election by a landslide in March last year, Putin’s approval ratings have sunk to multiple-year lows, dragged down by decisions to cut spending and raise taxes, while wages continue to slide and consumer prices creep ever higher.
The draft law, which was coauthored by Andrei Lugovoi, a KGB veteran who is wanted in Britain for the 2006 murder of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, is actually a hodgepodge of bills, some of which have been in the works for years.
According to Putin, the ultimate goal is to ensure that the Runet, as the domestic Internet is known, continues to function in the event that the US tries to isolate its former Cold War foe digitally.
Putin last month told media executives at the Kremlin that he doubted that the US would unplug Russia from the Web, because “it would cause them enormous damage.”
Still, he said the threat is real, so Russia has to prepare.
“They sit there, it’s their invention, and everyone listens, sees and reads what you say,” Putin said. “The more sovereignty we have, including in the digital field, the better. This is a very important area.”
The first step toward the kind of independence envisioned in the legislation is the establishment of the “technical means of countering threats.”
This refers to installing special boxes with tracking software at the thousands of exchange points that link Russia to the wider Web.
The units would feed a single nerve center, allowing regulators to analyze both the volumes and kinds of traffic in real time and selectively block or reroute certain types of flows, be they YouTube videos or Facebook feeds.
So-called deep-packet inspection (DPI) has been a popular tool for operators of large networks for years because it helps optimize user loads.
Content providers use the technology to harvest the increasingly valuable metadata about consumers that they sell to advertisers, but DPI is also a “powerful mechanism” for repression, former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt wrote in 2014.
Not only can DPI censor “objectionable activities,” it can also slow the Internet “for target users or communities,” Schmidt said.
Lugovoi said during hearings that officials have “absolutely no clue about the communications networks laid in Russia and cross-border connections — who owns them, how they’re used, what kind of information is sent.”
Once the monitoring hub is set up, “we’ll be able to see all this online,” he said.
The BBC last month caused an uproar on social media in Russia when it reported that authorities in Moscow were planning to isolate the Runet completely for a few hours this spring to test the system.
However, that is neither true nor technically possible, officials and industry executives who have been briefed on the project said.
Internet providers and wireless carriers are objecting to the bill as written on several grounds, not least of which is expense.
While the government has pledged to pay the costs of implementation, the 20 billion ruble (US$304.20 million at the current exchange rate) estimate put forward by one of the authors would not be enough for procurement, installation and refinement, let alone maintenance, they said.
However, even before getting to that point, officials need to involve market participants in extensive tests of all relevant hardware and software to avoid “major disruptions” that could cost companies tens of billions of rubles in lost revenue, the industry’s main lobby group said in a statement.
Rongbin Han (韓榮斌), a professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia who studies the “Great Firewall of China,” said that all major countries are extending their sovereignty into cyberspace for one very good reason — new threats are emerging all the time.
“Russia is moving in a similar direction as China,” Han said. “You don’t necessarily need to shut down the entire Internet to quash political dissent. It’s smarter just to filter online content.”
One Russian official said that the new law would make it easier for authorities to monitor and disrupt scores of apps and message groups that are have been classified as illegal.
As many as 30 million Russians use such services, the most popular of which is Telegram, a platform founded by rebellious tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov and his mathematician brother, the official said.
Russian efforts in April last year to force Durov, who is based in Dubai, to hand over his encryption keys resulted in protests and mass ridicule. Authorities tried to pull the plug on Telegram in Russia, but ended up bringing down hundreds of unrelated Web sites in the process, including retailers, banks and airline ticketing systems.
The Runet went largely unregulated in the early years of the Putin era as the Kremlin focused on bringing to heel the most influential media outlets of the time, which were in broadcasting and print.
However, censorship has been systematically tightened, particularly since nationwide protests erupted in late 2011, when then-Russian prime minister Putin announced his return to the presidency.
Russia now censors a variety of topics online, often under the pretext of rooting out “extremism.” It also blocks foreign companies such as LinkedIn and Zello that refuse to locate servers inside the country.
In total, about 80,000 sites are currently blacklisted, according to Roskomsvoboda, a Moscow-based group that campaigns against online restrictions.
Group founder Artem Kozlyuk said that if Russia is truly afraid of getting kicked off the Web by the US, then it is playing into the US’ hands by trying to centralize a distributed system.
That would both make the Runet easier to attack and increase the likelihood of some unskilled official crimping connection speeds around the world by mistake, he said.
“Russia is one of the world’s largest hubs for exchanging of traffic, with fast channels,” Kozlyuk said. “Putting monitoring boxes on every node may slow down not only the Runet, but the global Internet. It’s like closing your airspace.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers