Post-USSR Nationality Confusion (plus different off-topics)

Often when I read about people in Russia and other ex-USSR countries it turns out that their "nationality" is a bit confusing, at least for someone who doesn't understand the exact dynamics of this part of the world.

For example, Ukrainian politician Сергей Леонидович Тигипко), born in Dragonesti, Moldavia (USSR). His mother tongue is Russian and he now lives in Ukraine...!

Then people like TranslationsNMRU on this forum who said that he grew up in Kazakhstan.. And SpenZA on this forum who lives in Kazakhstan but clearly considers himself Russian, and admits that he can only say "What's your name" in the Kazakh language...

I have some Estonian relations (my aunt is married to one). The family lived in Leningrad throughout the 1980s and the kids spoke better Russian than Estonian. But this doesn't stop them from now being strongly patriotic Estonians.... To everyone else it is hard to understand.

Plus lots of Russians that I read about have names that are clearly from the Caucausus, for example Georgia.

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani by ethnicity and background -- but now he is a Russian politician!

Russia is clearly full of Central Asian immigrants. Can they stay and become citizens if they want?

How do you keep track of all this? It's quite confusing. How was it decided which country people would become a citizen of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani by ethnicity and background -- but now he is a Russian politician!

---

I saw one of his interviews on TV where he said that he always considered USSR as his homeland and Moscow as the capital; Baku and Azerbaijan, to him, are like, say, Penza region and its administrative center Penza to someone who was born there, but now lives in Moscow.

Quote:

---

Plus lots of Russians that I read about have names that are clearly from the Caucausus, for example Georgia.

---

Well, a Georgian surname does not yet mean that the person is a Georgian. It's like a German with a Polish surname. One can have a Pole or a Georgian only among his ancestors... But sometimes it's really strange, as you noticed. For example, the famous Russian/Soviet film director Георгий Данелия is originally Georgian and when he was a boy, he lived in Georgia and went to school there... But he lives in Moscow for many years and now has even forgot Georgian language, although he loves his motherland, and many of his films are connected with Georgia and Georgian characters. Then again, I always considered the famous Russian actor Олег Басилашвили absolutely Russian; there's nothing Georgian in his appearance, even. But during the South-Ossetian conflict, his point of view on the events was quite anti-Russian and typically Georgian... and still, he was not even born in Georgia; he was born in Moscow!
Well, as you see, all things are very complicated...

About citizenship. In USSR there was so called registration (прописка): everybody had a note in an internal passport where does he/she currently resides officially (It is kept in xUSSR countries even now). So after USSR dissipated all USSR citizens became citizens of countries according to their registration.

There are a number of ways (more or less complicated) to change a citizenship, each country has its own laws and practice.

About nationality. It is really confusing. :) In USSR passports there was an entry "nationality" which was put according to the nationality of the parents. I do not remember rules but originally it was supposed to reflect ethnics of the passport owner. Ethnics is determined only by genes: neither by the first first language and culture, nor by the self-identification. But in fact with intensive cross-breed and cultural assimilation it became very confusing.

Nowadays nationality is mostly a problem of self-identification and it is often reflects the ideology. Namely many people supporting "imperial" ideology call themselves Russians even if they live outside Russia and are citizens of other xUSSR countries and their names and appearance are not like Russian ones. And vice versa many people disliking "imperial" ideology identify themselves in a different way.

There are also many nuances.

This is actually a very fascinating and unique situation.

What happened with the USSR is a bit like what happened with the Roman Empire (or am I silly to think that...?) only it happened so incredibly quickly!

I think the multicultural aspect of the USSR seems like a positive thing. It doesn't seem like countries were exploited or discriminated against, certainly not in the later years of the USSR. Plus many of the USSR leaders were from countries other than Russia. (But of course, it seems like some people DO feel like they were discriminated against.)

The internal passport policy is really strange. I think someone said that details about education and civil status are in this!

It seems a bit like invasion of privacy to have people like shop assistants, librarians and civil servants be able to see such information every time you need to show ID! Or am I misunderstanding it?

In England people are paranoid about carrying ID. They think it is an invasion of privacy -- so you never show ID for anything!

Quote:

---

Often when I read about people in Russia and other ex-USSR countries it turns out that their "nationality" is a bit confusing, at least for someone who doesn't understand the exact dynamics of this part of the world.

---

There are several keys to understand:

1. The difference between nationality in the sense of citizenship and in the sense of ethnicity. Like the Swedes who live in Finland. They're Swedes by ethnicity and Finns by citizenship.

2. The fact that the USSR was a multi-ethnical country. Therefore people of different ethnicities could settle everywhere within the coutry. Like many examples you've mentioned. Moreover, children of mixed marriages often became Russians by culture if their parents' ethicities weren't culturally close.

3. The non-Russian ethnicities of the USSR had their traditional territories and were entitled to a certain autonomy. The largest had so-called 'union republcs' which could de-jure leave the union. That was a fiction before the perestroyka period when Gorby was dramatically loosing central power. The smaller had narrower autonomies.

4.

Quote:

---

How do you keep track of all this? It's quite confusing. How was it decided which country people would become a citizen of?

---

After the USSR broke up many most new states granted citizenship to those whose residence was registered with the police. (at the USSR times anyone was required to receive a residence permit. The men of draftable age were to be registered with a local draft-office before applying for a residence permit. The same is effective in Russia now.)

Quote:

---

Russia is clearly full of Central Asian immigrants. Can they stay and become citizens if they want?

---

Yes, but the procedure is quite complicated and long. Those who 1)have been legally living in Russia for 5 years, 2) have a legal income, 3) denied their countries' citizenship (unless there's a dual citizenship treaty), and 4) have passed an exam in Russian, can apply for citizenship.
There are many privileges, though.

Quote:

---

I think the multicultural aspect of the USSR seems like a positive thing. It doesn't seem like countries were exploited or discriminated against, certainly not in the later years of the USSR. Plus many of the USSR leaders were from countries other than Russia. (But of course, it seems like some people DO feel like they were discriminated against.)

---

The Russian Empire (and Tsardom before) had muslim generals in charge of Russian soldiers unlike, for example, the British. The central powers traditionally shared authority with local elites. Of course, the issue is a complicated one and needs much words to be covered.

Quote:

---

The internal passport policy is really strange. I think someone said that details about education and civil status are in this!

It seems a bit like invasion of privacy to have people like shop assistants, librarians and civil servants be able to see such information every time you need to show ID! Or am I misunderstanding it?

In England people are paranoid about carrying ID. They think it is an invasion of privacy -- so you never show ID for anything!

---

Groceries don't check identity. But such checks are a good thing when bigger issues are on the table, like applying for a loan or opening an enterprise. Identity theft is much more difficult when an internal passport must be showed.

The Russian law require employers to do many things for their employees like paying income tax, social insurance, alimonies, applying for government subsidies. Therefore they collect much personal data.

People moved around a lot in the Soviet Union, so... I mean, quite apart from forced resettlements. The place I live in now -- the so-called Academgorodok, a surburb of Novosibirsk with lots of research institutes -- was founded by scientists from Moscow and Saint Petersburg in the 1950s who came to Siberia to establish the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences here. Then, people from various regions moved to the North, attracted by much higher wages for working in such extreme conditions. Millions were (and still are) drawn to Moscow from all regions to enter various universities. So, yeah, Russia is a multinational country. Why should it be confusing? Irish and Scots do move to England and vice versa.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
"Russia is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world, with over 160 nationalities living in the country."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

What happened with the USSR is a bit like what happened with the Roman Empire (or am I silly to think that...?) only it happened so incredibly quickly!

---

I s'pose all empires are a bit similar in this respect -- doomed to dissolve in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I think the multicultural aspect of the USSR seems like a positive thing. It doesn't seem like countries were exploited or discriminated against, certainly not in the later years of the USSR.

---

No, maybe not in the later years, but there was a lot of mixing and forced resettlement under Stalin. Who, of course, wasn't even Russian. :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

The internal passport policy is really strange. I think someone said that details about education and civil status are in this!

---

Hmm... I dunno if passports ever had those details but we certainly don't have anything like it now. There's no nationality in my passport either. Anyway, it's not necessary -- if you want to know a person's nationality all you have to do is know their name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

It seems a bit like invasion of privacy to have people like shop assistants, librarians and civil servants be able to see such information every time you need to show ID! Or am I misunderstanding it?

In England people are paranoid about carrying ID. They think it is an invasion of privacy -- so you never show ID for anything!

---

Very strange concept for me. Didn't know about this. :-o I don't remember ever having to show my passport in a shop but it's better to have it on you when you have to deal with any civil servants. I don't usually carry it around with me unless I know I'm gonna need it. Besides it's dangerous -- if your handbag gets stolen, you'll lose your documents and it'll be a pain in the a** to find it or get another passport.

ETA: Turns out our last Patriarch -- Alexy II -- was of German descent. Didn't know this. I'm not a believer but I liked him a lot and was sorry when he died...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

In England people are paranoid about carrying ID. They think it is an invasion of privacy -- so you never show ID for anything!

---

It doesn't matter - you're under camera surveillance 24/7 in England.
(Except if you're a terrorist then they suddenly don't work.)

You are right, it's terrible. Smile, you're on camera! All the time....

About a year ago I realised that my entire walk to the train station in the morning is on camera. There is one in every corner. Spooky! They are called CCTV (closed circuit tv) The idea is that they absolutely cannot be accessed from outside a closed network, which supposedly makes it less intrusive.

Every time a serious crime is committed, the first thing that police does is to pick up the tapes from all the nearby cameras, and scrutinise it. At least half the time that solves the crime.

I think the CCTV system does discourage criminality to some degree. But it is a VERY high price to pay. Walking around central London as I did today, you are almost constantly on camera which is monitored by the police.

They can zoom in on individuals if they want (the system was explained on TV). They showed an episode where they filmed a gang of pickpocketers and some people who were shoplifting.

The police saw everything that the gang did. But they let them carry on until they had committed enough crimes to warrant a prison sentence.

Re your other comment: England's so called anti-terrorist laws are nothing but an excuse for the State to do whatever they like and not be accountable. Basically, if you suspect somebody is a terrorist all normal civil rights and protection for that person dissappears. So all they need to do is say that they suspect somebody of being a terrorist. Anyone seemingly can be be suspected. Including people who are not moslem or an IRA sympathiser. Joe Bloggs of the street if he has annoyed the wrong people.

The shamelessly abuse this on people who are clearly not terrorists. Like the Icelandic banks that went bust last year. Terrorists from Iceland who work in banking?! The steps between this and opening a British Guantanamo is not very big as far as I am concerned.

And your cellular phone will soon spy on you too. And the satellites can pick up the time on your wrist-watch. And biometrics are getting incorporated into identification documents.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

Has anyone tried to sabotage the cameras yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Has anyone tried to sabotage the cameras yet?

---

What for? Cameras are good -- they can help catch criminals. I wish we had more of them. When a girl disappeared right from her appartment, the first thing people were saying, check the cameras but there were none, as there are none in most places. You don't resent cameras in, say, supermarkets, do you? I couldn't care less who's watching me since I'm not doing anything naughty. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Has anyone tried to sabotage the cameras yet?

---

What for? Cameras are good.

---

Because it's spooky. It's worse than "1984", and I'm amazed that modern (Western) people are so deluded that they call this 'freedom'. Yeah, sure, "it's all for your own good". Brainwashing accomplished. :bad:

Quote:

---

You don't resent cameras in, say, supermarkets, do you? I couldn't care less who's watching me since I'm not doing anything naughty. :wink:

---

Actually I do. A little. ;) They imply, that I'm going to do something naughty the second they stop spying on me. And that I resent. BTW, do you think that cameras help significantly to decrease shoplifting? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Has anyone tried to sabotage the cameras yet?

---

What for? Cameras are good -- they can help catch criminals. I wish we had more of them. When a girl disappeared right from her appartment, the first thing people were saying, check the cameras but there were none, as there are none in most places. You don't resent cameras in, say, supermarkets, do you? I couldn't care less who's watching me since I'm not doing anything naughty. :wink:

---

You do know where good intentions lead to?
In the end these cameras might turn from a security measure into a population contol instrument. Police can spend more time patrolling the streets instead of growing their bottoms before the surveillance monitors with equal efficiency. It's healthier too.

Besides, as a security measure cameras are a little bit overrated. The picture quality varies from bad to worse to awful and you don't usually see the face of a criminal especially when it is dark. And sometimes the camera is pointed in the wrong direction. A human patrol, from the other side, sees everything.

I do not believe in good intentions of the government. Quite the opposite actually - I expect the worst from them. This way I can get only good surprises from it, but though I am sad to say that the governments usually answer my worst expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

They imply, that I'm going to do something naughty the second they stop spying on me. And that I resent. BTW, do you think that cameras help significantly to decrease shoplifting? I doubt it.

---

But it's nothing personal, you know. You may not want to steal anything but others do it regularly (even with cameras and security guards). If you're not actually doing anything wrong there's nothing to be worried about... It does feel a bit awkward, I agree, but I'm quite willing to put up with it for the short time I'm in the shop.

*I'm now gonna write in Russian since I can't be bothered to look up some words... And don't have the time, to be honest*

Помогают, имхо. Я работала в книжном магазине. У нас не было ни камер, ни охранника -- в некоторых магазинах сети они были (и есть), у нас -- нет. Т.е. когда-то был охранник, но после "малюсенькой" недостачи в 40,000, руководство посчитало, что у нас "благополучный" район, и охранник -- это лишние расходы. В итоге, в следующий переучёт (у нас он был раз в год), не хватало книг на миллион рубликов. Если не на два -- точную информацию нам не огласили. Слава богу, что эту недостачу не повесили не на нас, продавцов, хотя мы подписывали бумажку про материальную ответственность. А пёрли там здорово, всякие ушлые подростки -- площадь магазина большая, куча закоулков, народу много, т.к. место бойкое. В общем, когда ты там один продавец на весь зал, попробуй уследи. Правда, многие всё равно думали, что нас что-то есть. Там такие зеркала были под потолком... Сложно объяснить, но в общем, под углом они висели, наверно с целью помочь продавцам и охраннику (когда он там был), ну да нам всё равно некогда было на них пялиться. Однажды я стояла на кассе и увидела, как проходящая девушка показала язык этим зеркалам. :-) Потом в продажу поступили т.н. "Модные штучки" -- такие колечки, кот. якобы меняют цвет в зависимости от твоего настроения, плюс брелки и ещё какая-то мелочь. Их пёрли школьники, предварительно сорвав обёртку и спрятав её за книги -- наверно, думали, что у нас есть противокражные воротца на выходе, хотя их же видно...

Потом пришла новая заведущая, велела хотя бы повесить объяву, что, мол, в магазине ведётся видеонаблюдение, хотя на самом деле, ни фига там не было. :mosking:

Собственно, я это к тому, что при нормальном подходе такого не должно быть в магазине самообслуживания. У нас была девчонка, которая раньше работала в "Меломане" -- магазинчик небольшой, продавцов несколько, если сопрут пару дисков -- с продавцов обязательно вычитали. А как с нас вычесть миллион, когда зряплата 7 тысяч? :ROFL:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, as a security measure cameras are a little bit overrated. The picture quality varies from bad to worse to awful and you don't usually see the face of a criminal especially when it is dark. And sometimes the camera is pointed in the wrong direction. A human patrol, from the other side, sees everything.

---

This is very true... They don't always help but it is something. If not identify the criminal, they might help clarify how the crime happened. I s'pose they're particularly helpful on the roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I do not believe in good intentions of the government. Quite the opposite actually - I expect the worst from them. This way I can get only good surprises from it, but though I am sad to say that the governments usually answer my worst expectations.

---

Well, I dunno... What interest is there for the government to hurt its law-abiiding citizens?... Не руби сук, на котором сидишь.

110% agree with GromoZeka on this.
I am not doing anything illegal or very strange either... it's the PRINCIPLE I oppose.

Electronic spying is the latest type of spying. Say for example I joined an extreme anarchist group, a revolutionary communist group or moslem group. I might find that the "anti-terrorist" laws are used against me to find out EVERYTHING about me.

My working life, medical history is already recorded in state databases. They can get everything else from Sweden which keeps amazing track of everything that people do. All you need to access is it somebody's personal ID number and system access. Britain does not use ID cards or ID numbers. But it has much more aggressive anti-terrorist laws.

Next, they could easily check my financial sitation: The bank would have to hand over all information... There is no way to shop online in the EU without revealing your identity. Every purchase with bank cards or credit cards are registered. The only things they could not find out about would be things that I had bought in the market and paid with cash. It might be caught on camera though!

The mobile phone can be used to pin down where someone is at all times... The only way to get around that is to use an "unlocked" phone that you buy for cash in the market, and likewise use a second hand or anonymous SIM card. The shops asks for details of who the purchaser is.

Basically with the right access (which terrorist laws grant), they can find out ALL about me in only a few hours based on electronic registers that already exists.

Another thing is that all of the internet is constantly filtered to pick up "threats" and illegal activities. At a place in North Yorkshire in Britain (Menwith Hall) there is an American spying station which basically tries to monitor all telephone and internet communication in Europe --- it automatically looks for key phrases and suspicious decryption. when it finds something suspect, it drills into it. Allegedly this it is partly used against industrial espionage. I find it scary and disturbing that Britain is happy to have such a base on its territory.

In Sweden there was a huge debate a couple of years ago about spying on all the internet traffic within the country -- a new law was passed about this, and people were furious.

"Don't worry, citizens" said the government, this is just for monitoring the Russian traffic and has nothing to do with internal Swedish traffic.... (80% of Russian internet traffic passes through Sweden). Most people did not believe this at all and at any rate people in general did not approve of any spying on Russian traffic either -- since it clearly was for the purpose of "sharing" the info with certain other countries and is totally against the principle of neutrality and freedom from military alliances. I don't know what came of it. No doubt Russia followed the debate and took appropriate action.

Then there is the peadophilia hysteria: If somebody is suspected of being a peadophile (rightly or wrongly) police can immediately get all his surfing history info from his internet provider and confiscate his computer for investigation. People can very easily be "framed" for this and a lot of people who are suspect turn out to have been innocent or possibly framed.

I think that protecting the internet from become owned or controlled by anyone is one of the most important political questions for people across the world who have internet access.

To any readers at MI6, Menwith Hall, Säpo, FSB..... Hi guys I promise I'm not a terrorist and have no extreme political opinions. I just don't like to be spied on.

Quote:

---

*I'm now gonna write in Russian since I can't be bothered to look up some words... And don't have the time, to be honest*

---

Go for it! I keep forgetting how much of an effort it is to write in English, and read..I still remember the pain when I had to start reading and writing in English (at university). Lord, that was hard work.

I ought to write in Russian really, but my quality is not good enough for this type of discussion. I can just say simple things. I will read your post in Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Say for example I joined an extreme anarchist group, a revolutionary communist group or moslem group. I might find that the "anti-terrorist" laws are used against me to find out EVERYTHING about me.

My working life, medical history is already recorded in state databases. They can get everything else from Sweden which keeps amazing track of everything that people do. All you need to access is it somebody's personal ID number and system access. Britain does not use ID cards or ID numbers. But it has much more aggressive anti-terrorist laws.

Next, they could easily check my financial sitation: The bank would have to hand over all information... There is no way to shop online in the EU without revealing your identity. Every purchase with bank cards or credit cards are registered. The only things they could not find out about would be things that I had bought in the market and paid with cash. It might be caught on camera though!

The mobile phone can be used to pin down where someone is at all times... The only way to get around that is to use an "unlocked" phone that you buy for cash in the market, and likewise use a second hand or anonymous SIM card. The shops asks for details of who the purchaser is.

Basically with the right access (which terrorist laws grant), they can find out ALL about me in only a few hours based on electronic registers that already exists.

---

But since you're not a terrorist and not going to become one... what's the problem? No one's gonna be interested in your medical story or whatever unless you engage in illegal activities. I personally was cheering while I read the above -- terrorism is a very serious threat, anything that's gonna help prevent it is good. In fact, there are results already -- I'm talking of that failed attempt before Christmas (?) to bring explosives on a plane from GB to US, if I remember correctly. If you were on one of those buses that were blown up in London in 2005 and survived it, you'd probably think differently about the whole security issue. People always think that it's gonna be anyone but them who dies in an plane crash or a terrorist attack when in fact the danger is very real.

I mean, of course, more things should be done to combat terrorism than mere spying -- like, drawing the US troops from Middle East and stopping meddling and aggravating the situation...

All in all, I can't say cameras create any problems for me or make my life in any way less happy. :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I will read your post in Russian.

---

If you don't understand/find in a dictionary some words, do feel free to pm me. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

But since you're not a terrorist and not going to become one... what's the problem?

---

The problem is that this kind of power can be easily abused. Moreover, it is abused on a regular basis, and it will be abused every time, when the state deems it necessary for the greater good of people in general, but not yours or someone else specifically, however law-abiding you are. if you has not suffer from it yet, it does not mean that this cannot happen. As the fact, that your views are acceptable now does not mean that they cannot be viewed as dangerous in the future.

All this paranoid stuff is almost exactly what happened during Stalin's rule. The people with 'terroristic' views (according to the state standards) were persecuted, and law-abiding citizens turned the blind eye or were outright grateful and happy as sheep. Because it was for their safety, and nothing like that could happen to them, right? They didn't do anything wrong after all.
And don't tell me that that was a dictatorship. It does not matter. A state is a state, and democracy is the same, it just sugarcoats things better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Then there is the peadophilia hysteria: If somebody is suspected of being a peadophile (rightly or wrongly) police can immediately get all his surfing history info from his internet provider and confiscate his computer for investigation. People can very easily be "framed" for this and a lot of people who are suspect turn out to have been innocent or possibly framed.

---

Has there already been stories about this? People "framed" for pedophilia and turning out to be innocent? :upset: The only people who could possibly put anything on my computer are hackers and I'm not sure there are too many of those wandering about, interested in framing anybody. And if there's nothing fishy on your computer, what does it signify if they check it? Perhaps this hysteria has not yet reached Russia. Here we rather have thousands of children who are abused by adults on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

All this paranoid stuff is almost exactly what happened during Stalin's rule. The people with 'terroristic' views (according to the state standards) were persecuted, and law-abiding citizens turned the blind eye or were outright grateful and happy as sheep. Because it was for their safety, and nothing like that could happen to them, right? They didn't do anything wrong after all.
And don't tell me that that was a dictatorship. It does not matter. A state is a state, and democracy is the same, it just sugarcoats things better.

---

Well, perhaps you do have a point and there is cause to be worried... I'll just have to think about it a while yet. I'm not sure it resembles Stalinism. Like, no one's gonna put you in jail if you tell a joke about Putin or something. Or if your neighbour reports on you. Hopefully, modern law requires some solid evidence before it can pronounce you a "people's enemy." I'm not talking from mere theory -- my family has had to deal with police and prosecutors and investigators in the past; they all seemed very normal, decent people who wouldn't judge rashly or unfairly. They are bound by law, of course, and will have to act according to it. The laws are lax now, much more so than they were 20 years ago...

Any kind of power is always gonna be abused by someone. There are always gonna be some schoolchildren bullied by peers, soldiers suffering from "дедовщина", corrupt police officers. If you wanna change it, you'd have to impose stricter surveillance, wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

If you wanna change it, you'd have to impose stricter surveillance, wouldn't you?

---

@starrysky: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Yep, the temptation is very strong. Imagine a police officer whose cause is just and his heart is pure from evil thoughts. He thinks that there will be nothing wrong to spy upon a suspect 'illegally' just to gather some information, he's hesitant about this, after all this IS illegal. He exposes the criminal and justice is done. He then starts using such methods on a regular basis, one little step after another and he becomes corrupt. Then, finally, mafia approaches him secretly and offers to trade some unimportant information. He swallows the bait. The system starts working for criminals.

Then imagine Russia with strong traditions in corruption. There was a case about one such police officer who was registering stolen cars in the global database. When a car was stolen he didn't register it immediately after the report but delayed it for several hours so that thieves could make a safe getaway. He was caught only after he rejected his due promotion for the third time (after promotion he woudln't have had the direct access to the database).

Electronic security systems tend to get bigger and bigger with every passing year. And the more sophisticated the system is the more chances for it to malfunction. Add to the picture many people who yearn to get access to such systems.

Such a simple thing as cellular phones database can provide an opportunity for many crimes, not to mention the car registration databases, etc. Business espionage is also very profitable. Imagine you work for some cellular operator and a friend of yours asks you to check some phone number. Would you refuse the request? What if it's your mom who asks? Or loved one?

About hackers: you don't need to be a nerd or smth to look for the right people. Just ask around and you can contact an unscrupulous person who would do anything for money. Planting a tojan into somebody's computer is not great a task, by the way, especially if the person is not very advanced with computers.

Call me paranoid, but I have an anonymous SIM card and an anonymous internet access gate (which I don't use but pay regularly for them just in case). If things will go as they go I might consider purchasing a passport for another name.

P.S. Knowing how the system works is knowing its weak and blind spots. There are many hi-tech persons who KNOW how to deceive such systems or even DESIGN them. This is also an open field for all kinds of abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

as there already been stories about this? People "framed" for pedophilia and turning out to be innocent?

---

Maybe not exactly 'framed', but accused without any solid evidence, then having had their personal life and files searched for anything that can be interpretered this way, and imprisoned after the evidence was all but fabricated. There are dozens of such caes. Some of these people were pardoned after spending years in prison. Check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_car...abuse_hysteria

Quote:

---

Like, no one's gonna put you in jail if you tell a joke about Putin or something.

---

Actually, I think that Russia and CIS are much more free in that respect. Simply due to being desorganised and a bit 'pofigistic". ))

What I don't like about their snooping in your personal info, files, emails, phone calls, etc. is that they can use it to accuse you of a crime, which was not actually commited, and which you probably won't even think of, or have absolutely no desire to commit. This is mind police, is it not? A beginning of antiutopia in all its glory.

Quote:

---

Any kind of power is always gonna be abused by someone. ... If you wanna change it, you'd have to impose stricter surveillance, wouldn't you?

---

No, I don't even agree with this logic ("less power <-> "stricter surveillance"), because in my opinion there's a direct correlation between the two. Anyway I'm all for self regulating systems (in a society such self regulating instruments are moral, traditions, public opinion, etc.). Some things just can't be replaced by laws, and when they are, it's harmful in the long run.

Someone might find this interesting: About RAF Menwith Hill which is an old American cold war spy station in England: Now it is used used to intercept European phone, fax, email and web traffic on behalf of the US. It's apparently used for industrial espionage too. Article is old (Sunday Times) but things have only got worse since it was written:

http://jya.com/nsa-f83.htm

9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to Western intelligence services... It gave them "carte blanche" to shout "terrorist!" and spy and harrass whoever they want, including people who are clearly not terrorists.

--------------------------------------------------

The way that the peadophilia framing works is simple: Either somebody calls in an anonymous tip against a person just to create nuisance for him.

Or their wireless network can very easily be intercepted so that "their" IT address gets picked up on sleasy sites that the intruder visits, which are under monitoring by the police.. The person can leave messages on forums etc, using the name of the person that they are trying to frame.

They can be emailed lots of pictures which they open to see what it is... That means the picture gets saved in the cache on the persons' hard drive. Voila, he has "stored" indecent pictures of children on his hard drive.

Some people who were framed had "normal" porn on their computers, but some of the actresses happened to be only 15 (classed as child) therefore the photo qualifies as peadophile material EVEN though the person had believed he was watching normal porn.

Nothing good comes of these framings for the person set up. Sometimes the police finds something ELSE illegal on their computer and they are caught for that instead, even though they did not in fact have pictures of children.

This seems to happen to 1) politicians 2) Headmasters of schools.

You need about one braincell to realise that the REAL peadophiles are laughing in-disturbed in some dark spot of the internet while innocent people have their lives torn apart and exposed in media.

I think it's a sensible precaution to use a proxy server online, like Ramil does. You never know.... I wouldn't want anyone to have a record of my internet usage even though it is legal. Besides, I use bittorrent, so that saves me the risk of being sued for copyright crimes.

Also, what if one is just curious about what some extremist groups thinks? Even if one does not actually sympathise with them...? For example: If I lived in Russia and wanted to visit this site: http://www.kavkazcenter.com/russ/ I'd be very careful... It seems reasonable that the site is under surveillance, so I wouldn't then want my real IP address logged there..

(I only know about this site because it's hosted in Sweden and Russia asked for it to be closed down on the grounds that it is run by anti-russia Caucasian terrorists... It was in the news.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

@starrysky: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

---

I was terrible at Latin when we studied it at the uni but I've got a handy dictionary of Latin sayings so I looked it up... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_s ... e_hysteria

---

Фуй. Кошмар.

Thanks for the explanations, everyone. I guess I'm now somewhere in the middle on this issue as it is a very tricky one. Imprisoning people on false allegations is quite disgusting... It does seem as though Russia is actually more 'normal' in this respect and the US is way out of line... :upset: I ultimately believe in the 'common sense' and 'clear conscience' and 'truth will out' but it's better to be one your guard...

We have strayed very far from the topic, havent' we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrysky

...We have strayed very far from the topic, havent' we?

---

Not anymore. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani by ethnicity and background -- but now he is a Russian politician!

---

I saw one of his interviews on TV where he said that he always considered USSR as his homeland and Moscow as the capital; Baku and Azerbaijan, to him, are like, say, Penza region and its administrative center Penza to someone who was born there, but now lives in Moscow.

---

Interesting to hear that this is his view.
I used to be a *serious* admirer of his when I was my teens.

Later I was totally gutted when he was beaten by Deep Blue - it was inconceivable that a legend like him could be beaten by a poxy machine.

I know he is now a politician but I have no idea what he supports and whether he is successful/appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I know he is now a politician but I have no idea what he supports and whether he is successful/appreciated.

---

Quote:

---

The police broke the rally into several groups but activists eventually forced their way through police cordons and the march spilled onto Nevsky Prospekt.

Other Russia, an anti-Putin alliance, held a similar but smaller event in Moscow in December. Other Russia was created with an eye to the 2008 presidential elections when it hopes to put forward a strong alternative to Kremlin-backed candidates.

The umbrella group incorporates, among others, Garry Kasparov’s United Civil Front, Mikhail Kasyanov’s People’s Democratic Union and Eduard Limonov’s National Bolshevik Party.

The police estimated the number of protesters at Saturday’s march at “more than 2,000.”

Kasparov, one of the leaders of Other Russia, said the number of protesters exceeded 6,000.

The demonstration was by far the largest that Putin’s home town has seen in recent years, with numerous independent eye-witnesses at the demonstration putting the number of participants at around 5,000. During the last five years opposition gatherings have typically managed to draw no more than a few hundred supporters.

---

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_ ... y_id=20875

[b]
Saturday, November 24, 2007

Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov has been arrested along with other opposition leaders after leading protests against current Russian president Vladimir Putin. Kasparov, a prominent critic of Putin, founded the United Civil Front and named the Other Russia umbrella of opposition parties after retiring from chess.

The protest began peacefully, after a legal rally held by Kasparov and the other opposition leaders to protest what they see as unfair election practices including the barring of Other Russia candidates from running in the upcoming election. After the initial rally some of the demonstrators tried to march to the offices of the election commission.

Kasparov said that the government's response showed that the "the only language they can use with their own people is the language of violence, truncheons and riot police."

The ruling party United Russia has broad popular support and the state-controlled media have paid little attention to the opposition parties.

Others arrested included Maria Gaidar, daughter of former prime minister Yegor Gaidar and human-rights activist Lev Ponomaryov.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chess_grand ... er_protest

Quote:

---

A man who certainly knows a thing or two about protesting for freedom is Russian chess champion Gary Kasparov.

Vladimir Putin has no greater foe in Russia than Kasparov. He’s been arrested too many times to count for leading marches in Russia against the authoritarian regime that Putin has created.

If Kasparov were not famous the world over, he would have been killed long ago. His fame is the only thing that has kept him alive under a regime that routinely murders journalists and jails people who speak out against the government.

Therefore, when Kasparov speaks out on issues like the protests in Iran he has a certain amount of credibility.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Kasparov has an excellent Op-Ed about the protests in Iran and offers an interesting perspective.

Mr. Putin has a great deal riding on the outcome in Iran. With the Russian economy teetering, he needs a steep increase in oil prices to stave off the collapse of his government. So he has been working to increase tension in the Middle East and now sees the Iranian crisis as potentially helpful — if Ahmadinejad comes out on top.

…For Mr. Putin, the unknown factor in all of this is how the West will respond to what’s happening in Iran. It could give him pause if Iran faces penalties of real significance for using lethal force against nonviolent protestors. Surprisingly, European leaders are showing unusual assertiveness in condemning the Iranian regime.

Kasparov goes on to say that president Obama is wrong to sit on the sidelines while everything plays out.

---

http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/06/25/ ... rotesters/


I talked my wife out of marching with Kasparov by my residence near Metro Vostania, on the day where he was arrested by police and charged with fighting with another party leader, before the march. I did not think it a good idea for her at the time to participate because I did not have enough money to get her out of jail or for doctor bills. Previously, at the last march, 300 marchers were clubbed and taken to jail. Anyone holding the smallest piece of paper no matter what sex or how old was clubbed by police and dragged off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I know he is now a politician but I have no idea what he supports and whether he is successful/appreciated.

---

I can tell you a secret - only people in the West know he's a politician now. The overwhelming majority of Russian people have no idea about that. The more ridiculous sounds the idea about him as a possible President of Russia, as some people outside Russia see him.

Quote:

---

I can tell you a secret - only people in the West know he's a politician now.

---

Well, a lot of people admire him... It seems DDTs wife has heard of his political party.

But I agree with you that he could not be president! I don't think he has the right personality and he is probably too much of an idealist!

Regarding DDTs post: Disgusting that people get beaten up in prison. Apparently today, a regular person in Tomsk was killed by the police after they picked him up when he was drunk on town.

I think it's a disgrace for Russia that the police cannot be made to behave in a civilised way towards citizens. People should not have to fear for their lives while in police custody!

But I do not believe that Putin is egging on the troubles in Iran to increase oil prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Quote:

---

I can tell you a secret - only people in the West know he's a politician now.

---

Well, a lot of people admire him... It seems DDTs wife has heard of his political party.

But I agree with you that he could not be president! I don't think he has the right personality and he is probably too much of an idealist!

---

It's an interesting point. I've never thought of him as an idealist, though you are probably right. Not that that's a good thing.

You can find a few opinions on Kasparov and his political activity in this topic:
Kasparov to run for Russian presidency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I know he is now a politician but I have no idea what he supports and whether he is successful/appreciated.

---

He is just an adrenaline addict. When he became too old for the top-level chess, he went to extremal sports in politics and social activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani :shock: by ethnicity and background

---

He is a Jew. Initially his name was Weinstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wowik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani:shock: by ethnicity and background

---

He is a Jew. Initially his name was Weinstein.

---

Haha, why am I not surprised to hear that...

I will always admire him for his accomplishments in chess no matter how bad a politician he might be.

It was so sad when he was beaten by the "Deep Blue" chess computer. Does anyone remember that Kasparov himself said that he suspected the computer was reprogrammed by top players while the game was in progress --- which would not have been fair play. I certainly wouldn't put that past IBM which had a lot at stake and a lot to gain by having their computer beat Kasparov. I think he started to gradually lose interest in playing after that.

I know about Kasparov's political activities but only because I read it once in "Moscow News" which is paper printed in Russia in English -- not widely read. I seem to remember he was protesting against Khodorkovsky's imprisonment.

I've watched an item on Euronews today about a demonstration in London against tightening security measures. All people were taking photos with their cameras and cell phones and some were wearing sort of tablets on their backs that said "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist." Apparently, there's a law now that prohibits taking pictures of some buildings. Which is really annoying. Suppose I came to London -- of course, I'd be taking lots of pics. How am I supposed to know which places it is prohibited to take photos of? :shock: How are mlns of foreigners supposed to know that such a law even exists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wowik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gary Kasparov is Azerbadjani:shock: by ethnicity and background

---

He is a Jew. Initially his name was Weinstein.

---

Haha, why am I not surprised to hear that...

I will always admire him for his accomplishments in chess no matter how bad a politician he might be.

It was so sad when he was beaten by the "Deep Blue" chess computer. Does anyone remember that Kasparov himself said that he suspected the computer was reprogrammed by top players while the game was in progress --- which would not have been fair play. I certainly wouldn't put that past IBM which had a lot at stake and a lot to gain by having their computer beat Kasparov. I think he started to gradually lose interest in playing after that.

---

Hell yea ! I exactly remember those times,i've watched it.It was more than a trick than a fair play.But it showed that he was like unbeatable and immortail chess.However,having beaten by a computer,he seemed to discouraged from playing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starrysky

I've watched an item on Euronews today about a demonstration in London against tightening security measures

---

England is getting totally out of control. Here is an example of the craziness of the UK: I am starting a new job after a break, and as part of the hiring process, the company has a security vetting company that will check the following:

Criminal record
Tax record
Credit check
Check my passport
Bank statements for 6 months (!!!!)
Employment history for 5 years
University and school records
I need to sign a paper that says they can contact my doctor to get my complete medical history (consent form) !!!
Statement about why I took time off work, signed by witness.
Do a medical check which they can see.
:bad: :bad: :bad:

This is NORMAL nowadays. Based on this, they will determine whether it's suitable to hire me (in reality I will start working there before this check can realistically be completed). But this gives this multinational corporation full disclosure of everything about my life. Unless everything checks out in full, they have carte blanche to sack me any time.

I seriously doubt whether people in the USSR were checked up on to this degree by the notorious "KGB" organisation!!!!

Perhaps I should submit a report about my sexual preferences and political views while I am at it!

If you are reading this and live in a different country, is this happening in your country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Орчун

Hell yea ! I exactly remember those times,i've watched it.It was more than a trick than a fair play.But it showed that he was like unbeatable and immortail chess.However,having beaten by a computer,he seemed to discouraged from playing it.

---

I just checked this in Wikipedia. According to Wiki:
Kasparov asked to see the log files but this was declined. Why would anyone with a CLEAR conscience deny access to the log files? If they were fine, then it would have further supported their case. The reason they didn't do it was clearly because their had been human interaction with the computer during the game.

Secondly, Kasparov asked for a re-match which they declined. Again, obvious: In a rematch there would be an observer checking what was happening with the computer, and the computer would have had to play with pure processing power ONLY, instead of maximum processing power PLUS the best dishonest elite chess player that IBMs money can buy....

No wonder he became disillusioned when he realised he'd been scr*d over with no way of proving it, and no way to get a rematch.

Nobody who is a lover of chess or admires Kasparov ought to buy anything from IBM!
:evil: