Putin bans forced biometrics collection, allows opt-out and deletion of personal information

Is there such a law in the west? Nope! Why Not?

Easy for Putin to do the right thing, all he has to do is wait and see what the west does and do the opposite.

Not so fast say the patriots in Russia who call B.S on this RT story.... [Link]
"... The data that has been collected in various structures will be transferred to state structures and systematized and stored. But this does not mean that this biometric storage will not be replenished with new data. And these new data will sooner or later be collected from everyone. The signs of this are obvious. […]

* A lot of problems are waiting for anyone who [tries to opt out of biometrics] … this person will remain outside this system… The pension reform was adopted despite the fact that almost 9 million signatures were against it. But the situation with QR codes was curtailed only because, according to the calculations of those people who are in the management structures, almost almost 80% of the country’s population was against these codes, and this could result in very serious problems. Therefore, they have temporarily curtailed it and will be reintroduced with biometrics, so that it is not as noticeable as with codes, so that people automatically accept all this.

We have another indicator to determine who the president of the Russian Federation really is; if he does not veto this law, then he continues to listen to the globalists and carries out their plans. If he vetoes this law, it will be just a miracle, and then we will figure out what is happening with the President of the Russian Federation..."

Political polemic issues becoming clearer & less opaque.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't have to concern ourselves with others using biometric data nefariously?

Can this be entrusted to the state?

I don't think so, but if it keeps corporate entities from utilizing personal data, then I'm all for it.....

Plus.......

O forget it.

Odessa beckons.

They won't be refused anything they already get from the government. But those who give their biometrics will get something extra or easier, and like giving your data to Facebook, most people will blindly go along with it.

Dear SOTT editors and all friends of SOTT , it seems SOTT has been included in a blog on this very topic; 'Putin bans forced biometrics collection, allows opt-out and deletion of personal information' by RT. Check it out SOTT.

' Russia's Unified Biometric System: Question More? Why are so many "indy" media outlets indistinguishable from Russian state media?'

The commentary was put out by the person with the moniker Edward Slavsquat. [Link]
First the bit that SOTT is mentioned:

"Now compare the above article to what RT.com published.

The RT “article” goes so far as to cite Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the Duma, as proof that this law is amazing and privacy-protecting.

Yeah, the guy who voted for this bill says it’s good—shocking."

Imagine “indy media” in 2001 copy-pasting a Voice of America article hailing the US PATRIOT Act as legislation that keeps Americans safe and creates more patriots. Source: Dennis Hastert.

This is exactly what some so-called “indy” media outlets and pundits have just done, by blindly parroting a Russian state media “report” about a law that does the exact opposite of what it was billed as..."

And then there's a screen capture image of the SOTT regurgitated article from RT. Just the image, nothing quoted because the whole SOTT article is the RT article with one exception, the tiny little comment added at the end, " Comment: Who is the real defender of personal freedom in the world today?"

R iley, the author's real first name, goes on to explain;

"RT does a decent job of shining a light on stories that are often overlooked (or rather, ignored) by western mainstream media.

RT also excels at providing much-needed context about stories or unsubstantiated claims circulating in western mainstream media.

Finally, RT hosts many talented writers (almost exclusively disaffected westerners) who use the site’s op-ed page to excoriate their depraved western governments.

It is nice that RT does these things.

"But there are some things that RT.com doesn’t do very well. For example: coverage of Russian domestic policy."

Riley then directs this question to alternate media editors and the like:

"It is beyond comprehension that “indy” media continues to cite RT as an all-knowing, omnipotent authority on Russian domestic policy. AND WITHOUT EVEN SEARCHING FOR NOT-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VIEWPOINTS. Are you guys OKAY?"

My question exactly.... Again, check it out at [Link]
"...In short, adopted in a desperate hurry, on New Year's Eve and under an incomprehensible name, the law is not only illiterate, senseless and harmful—it is dangerous! True, officials, in an effort to obtain a convenient instrument of control over society, do not yet realize this. But the longer they remain in the dark, the higher the risks will be."