8 ms·

Russia asks Google to clamp down on Navalny′s ‘Smart Voting′

140 points by t23 5y ago

amerine 5y ago
Disgusting. I hope Google ignores.
- glaucon 5y ago
  Don't hold your breath.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
    - mynameisash 5y ago
      I'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
      - LAC-Tech 5y ago
        Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
        kadoban 5y ago
        You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
        LAC-Tech 5y ago
        I'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness. "I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say. I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        How is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
        buran77 5y ago
        Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means. Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
        buran77 5y ago
        No, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing. [0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c/tumblr_nkdjhspeoX1rwkrdbo1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
        cinquemb 5y ago
        > assuming that all governments are equally legitimate Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general: When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?). If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
        SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
        Maybe "picking and choosing principles" is not the ideal phrase, rather "picking and choosing targets", because not all actors are equally benevolent, and it can certainly be the case that some violate principles that others don't. For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        It's not picking and choosing your principals if the principal is "don't enable authoritarians" and so in one country you can follow all local laws and still live by that principal, but in another you need to ignore the local law to do so. Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government. HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
    - smt88 5y ago
      I disagree. I think most people want Google to ignore local governments in the context of secret subpoenas (US), govt-mandated hosting of content (as pushed by GOP in the US), censoring content (China/India/elsewhere), etc.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Google been all over Kremlin as early as 2005. Apple famously went to all extremes to "gift" iPad to Dimitry Medvedev
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rektide 5y ago
for all the modern self loathing of tech, it ongoingly feels to me like we have just barely scratched tbe surface of what connected technologies could do for us. i dont know how probable it is that there be any change- any people feeling more empowered amid their authoritarian oppressors- from an communication system like this. but that the government is so afraid of it is certainly promising.
trhway 5y ago
a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the foundation of the modern Russian state). The "Smart voting" has a lot of connections to "The fund to fight corruption", so the Russian state can go here pretty far. A comment from a political pundit in the top Russian commercial media: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616 "There is a technical capacity to block. The government understands the disadvantages of it, and initially will try to make Google to cooperate and to block by their own means. If such "goodwill" approach wouldn't work, the government will force it the hard way."
- phkahler 5y ago
  I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
  - chrischen 5y ago
    The best way to run things is the way I run things.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]? [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs [2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook
  - NotChina 5y ago
hamburgerwah 5y ago
Lovely theatre to pretend the outcome isn't rigged already.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  That depends on just how fine-grained their control on the election is. They might not lose, but they could still be embarrassed or greatly inconvenienced by the results. And you don't always need to chip away at the armor too much before a critical weakness is revealed. Once the party is no longer viewed as unassailable things could change more rapidly. I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings. It's one of the only places in Russia a jury acquits a person 3 times, just for him to finally get jailed for the 4th. 2018 token provincial elections had Lutun's candidate lose despite ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE fraud. And yet they still pulled this at the end: https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQSXRusxU/resizing_type:fit/width:1040/height:0/enlarge:1/quality:95/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWR1/emEuaW8vaW1hZ2Uv/YXR0YWNobWVudHMv/aW1hZ2VzLzAwMy8y/ODcvODU2L29yaWdp/bmFsLzZpSm1CQm1C/T29KVzdULWpndkg1/d3cucG5n.webp https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQ...
    - gbuk2013 5y ago
      > Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings. Citation needed. In the last election in Primorsky Kray Putin got 65% up from 57% in the previous election. Pretty much the lowest in the country, but far from the single digits you claim. https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html Even Levada approval polls (pro-opposition “foreign agent”) shows he is the most popular politician (although they don’t provide a breakdown by region). https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-polozhenie-del-v-strane/ https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-po...
dane-pgp 5y ago
What would the legal process look like if the app were made by anonymous unaffiliated Russian developers and merely recommended by Navalny? Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization. If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes. In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
- wruza 5y ago
  deceased person Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.
cik 5y ago
Eventually there's a time where corporations, like individuals have to decide what's important, putting their money where their mouth is as it were. What matters more to Google, profit or accessibility of information. Issues like these highlight those choices.
- golemiprague 5y ago
  Google doesn't care about the accessibility of information, they care about their politics and that's why, like other SV companies, they were very upfront about their support to certain causes and candidates. The problem is that when it comes to other countries they got no clue about the politics of the place and they don't even know who they want to support. I am sure once they figure out who are the "baddies" they are going to censor them without even a slight regard to accessibility of information.
- vmception 5y ago
  yes, but on a municipality by municipality basis because geofences and switch statements are free
- Jyaif 5y ago
  In this case, profit and accessibility of information go hand in hand: if Google does not comply with the government, Google does not get to exist in Russia.
  - plugger 5y ago
    Yea, I kinda thought the whole idea of corporations, especially the big multinationals, was that profit was ALWAYS the number one priority. When you view them with that lens it helps a lot in terms of attempting to understand their decisions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chmod775 5y ago
  It takes immense pressure for Google to even choose morals over money in the US. No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in. I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0
qwerty456127 5y ago
This is not Russia asking, this is the Russia's ruling party which has nothing to do with the people whose vote it seeks to suppress. Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cookieswumchorr 5y ago
  Also it's not asking, it's a ruling by a court in Russia in favor of a small wool trading company who just happened to register 'Smart Voting' as a trade mark.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  > Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them. This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
  - cookieswumchorr 5y ago
    it also doesn't reflect the views of Navalny and his team, this is tactical voting driven to the extreme. But when there's no one left on the lists to vote for, what would be your alternative?
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Then there is nothing for the ruling party to fear and no reason for the ban.
- 3np 5y ago
  The original title "Russia: Google told to clamp down on Navalny's 'Smart Voting'" is more accurate. Preferrably the submission should be changed to that.

140 points by t23 5y ago

amerine 5y ago

Disgusting. I hope Google ignores.

glaucon 5y ago
Don't hold your breath.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
  - mynameisash 5y ago
    I'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
    - LAC-Tech 5y ago
      Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
      - kadoban 5y ago
        You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
        LAC-Tech 5y ago
        I'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness. "I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say. I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        How is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
        buran77 5y ago
        Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means. Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
        buran77 5y ago
        No, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing. [0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c/tumblr_nkdjhspeoX1rwkrdbo1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
        cinquemb 5y ago
        > assuming that all governments are equally legitimate Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general: When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?). If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
      - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
        Maybe "picking and choosing principles" is not the ideal phrase, rather "picking and choosing targets", because not all actors are equally benevolent, and it can certainly be the case that some violate principles that others don't. For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        It's not picking and choosing your principals if the principal is "don't enable authoritarians" and so in one country you can follow all local laws and still live by that principal, but in another you need to ignore the local law to do so. Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government. HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
  - smt88 5y ago
    I disagree. I think most people want Google to ignore local governments in the context of secret subpoenas (US), govt-mandated hosting of content (as pushed by GOP in the US), censoring content (China/India/elsewhere), etc.
baybal2 5y ago
Google been all over Kremlin as early as 2005. Apple famously went to all extremes to "gift" iPad to Dimitry Medvedev
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rektide 5y ago

for all the modern self loathing of tech, it ongoingly feels to me like we have just barely scratched tbe surface of what connected technologies could do for us. i dont know how probable it is that there be any change- any people feeling more empowered amid their authoritarian oppressors- from an communication system like this. but that the government is so afraid of it is certainly promising.

trhway 5y ago

a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the foundation of the modern Russian state). The "Smart voting" has a lot of connections to "The fund to fight corruption", so the Russian state can go here pretty far. A comment from a political pundit in the top Russian commercial media: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616 "There is a technical capacity to block. The government understands the disadvantages of it, and initially will try to make Google to cooperate and to block by their own means. If such "goodwill" approach wouldn't work, the government will force it the hard way."

phkahler 5y ago
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
- chrischen 5y ago
  The best way to run things is the way I run things.
- ghoward 5y ago
  To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]? [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs [2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook
- NotChina 5y ago

hamburgerwah 5y ago

Lovely theatre to pretend the outcome isn't rigged already.

ineedasername 5y ago
That depends on just how fine-grained their control on the election is. They might not lose, but they could still be embarrassed or greatly inconvenienced by the results. And you don't always need to chip away at the armor too much before a critical weakness is revealed. Once the party is no longer viewed as unassailable things could change more rapidly. I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
- baybal2 5y ago
  Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings. It's one of the only places in Russia a jury acquits a person 3 times, just for him to finally get jailed for the 4th. 2018 token provincial elections had Lutun's candidate lose despite ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE fraud. And yet they still pulled this at the end: https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQSXRusxU/resizing_type:fit/width:1040/height:0/enlarge:1/quality:95/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWR1/emEuaW8vaW1hZ2Uv/YXR0YWNobWVudHMv/aW1hZ2VzLzAwMy8y/ODcvODU2L29yaWdp/bmFsLzZpSm1CQm1C/T29KVzdULWpndkg1/d3cucG5n.webp https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQ...
  - gbuk2013 5y ago
    > Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings. Citation needed. In the last election in Primorsky Kray Putin got 65% up from 57% in the previous election. Pretty much the lowest in the country, but far from the single digits you claim. https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html Even Levada approval polls (pro-opposition “foreign agent”) shows he is the most popular politician (although they don’t provide a breakdown by region). https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-polozhenie-del-v-strane/ https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-po...

dane-pgp 5y ago

What would the legal process look like if the app were made by anonymous unaffiliated Russian developers and merely recommended by Navalny? Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization. If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes. In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.

wruza 5y ago
deceased person Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.

cik 5y ago

Eventually there's a time where corporations, like individuals have to decide what's important, putting their money where their mouth is as it were. What matters more to Google, profit or accessibility of information. Issues like these highlight those choices.

golemiprague 5y ago
Google doesn't care about the accessibility of information, they care about their politics and that's why, like other SV companies, they were very upfront about their support to certain causes and candidates. The problem is that when it comes to other countries they got no clue about the politics of the place and they don't even know who they want to support. I am sure once they figure out who are the "baddies" they are going to censor them without even a slight regard to accessibility of information.
vmception 5y ago
yes, but on a municipality by municipality basis because geofences and switch statements are free
Jyaif 5y ago
In this case, profit and accessibility of information go hand in hand: if Google does not comply with the government, Google does not get to exist in Russia.
- plugger 5y ago
  Yea, I kinda thought the whole idea of corporations, especially the big multinationals, was that profit was ALWAYS the number one priority. When you view them with that lens it helps a lot in terms of attempting to understand their decisions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chmod775 5y ago
It takes immense pressure for Google to even choose morals over money in the US. No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in. I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0

qwerty456127 5y ago

This is not Russia asking, this is the Russia's ruling party which has nothing to do with the people whose vote it seeks to suppress. Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cookieswumchorr 5y ago
Also it's not asking, it's a ruling by a court in Russia in favor of a small wool trading company who just happened to register 'Smart Voting' as a trade mark.
FDSGSG 5y ago
> Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them. This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
- cookieswumchorr 5y ago
  it also doesn't reflect the views of Navalny and his team, this is tactical voting driven to the extreme. But when there's no one left on the lists to vote for, what would be your alternative?
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Then there is nothing for the ruling party to fear and no reason for the ban.
3np 5y ago
The original title "Russia: Google told to clamp down on Navalny's 'Smart Voting'" is more accurate. Preferrably the submission should be changed to that.