Internet

Our program today is completely devoted to the problem of regulating the Russian Internet. I convey the word to Alexander Kostinsky.

Kostinsky

Recently, Russian officials vied with the need to talk about the need to regulate the Internet. Why this is happening and what consequences can we lead to we asked the coordinator of the Internet Nizl Moscow Libertarium Anatoly Lovenchuk and one of the authors of the server " Human Rights in Russia " by Sergey Smirnov.

Do you read that for the Russian Internet the time has come for regulation and why did this happen?

Lovenchuk

I do not think that for the Russian Internet the time has come for regulation, but on the other hand, for the Russian Internet, the time has come for regulation. And it happened for a clear reason - still thin streams of money flowed on the Internet and more and more officials are interested in dealing with these streams. Therefore, try to regulate the Internet. And therefore, various departments, both the government and various committees of the Duma, and even some in the administration of the President of the Russian Federation are thinking about how to take the entire Russian segment of the Internet to their departmental hands.

Smirnov

Well, I think that it has not reached the regulation as such. In the meantime, we see only attempts by the state to “do something with this Internet”, figuratively speaking. Such attempts occur in many countries, and Russia here has not created anything original. Measures of this state control, they differ in breadth there, intensity, in terms of awareness of the officials themselves, in terms of concrete consequences. But all officials have one approach: to limit or ban. It seems to me that this is because, on the one hand, for the official a ban -

This is the easiest way to solve the problem. Well, so he wants to think. It seems to him that if you close the door and beat the “no move” plate on it, then the porch can not be repaired, the bulb is not screwed and so on. And on the other hand, because officials very subtly feel the danger when some kind of gap is found in their large fence from the instructions. And then they rush to close this gap. And here not

The hole, and the huge information field, in fact, is uncontrolled to the state. And, of course, they have the first reflex-to build something on this field, build some kind of fence, put some slingshots and so on.

Kostinsky

Is it possible to regulate the Internet in principle, because the network is not an interstate education and its division into state plots very conditionally?

Lovenchuk

The fact is that the network is a technical tool. You can regulate everything. You can even regulate what the boundaries of states crosses. On the other hand, you can regulate it, but the question: "Is it possible to use this regulation itself?" It means - to say that it is forbidden to do "then" or "this", but the question: "Will it be to do?" It is enough to eat technical tools, as the regulation to apply, and it is enough to eat technical means to get away from this regulation of the forcibly. The question of Internet regulation is more a question than a statement.

Smirnov

Well, of course, it is possible to regulate everything. In a totalitarian society, you can regulate the actions of people, or even thoughts. But I agree with my colleague Anatoly Lovenchuk, is that between the instructions, between the decree, between the law and the real execution of this instruction, the decree and the law, a rather large space is especially in Russia. A good example is, for example, Decree N 334 of April 1995, signed by President Yeltsin then, in fact, on the complete ban on cryptography in Russia. That is, with cryptographic programs it is impossible to use, nor produce them, nor distributed FAPSI without a license. So who observes this decree? Almost no one. Is that those who have never heard anything about cryptography. This, of course, is so, but, basically, Internet users are quite free to use this program.

Kostinsky

Who or what is the greatest danger to the Russian Internet, have recently appeared other dangers except the well-known problem of SORM-2?

Lovenchuk

For the Russian Internet, the most in my opinion is nothing. That is, I see that the larger the number of people who participate on the Internet, the less danger for him. The Internet, as you recall, was conceived as a network that survives even in the event of an atomic war. So, the more people on the Internet, the more technologies on the Internet, the more conversations around the Internet, the, in my opinion, more security. Sorm is also not a danger, it is a danger not for the Internet, it is a danger to society. The fact is that SORM is simply an example of how power services can be completely uncontrolled. On the Internet itself, the means of cryptography allow you to easily leave, completely, totally protect against SORM, but a society that allows the existence of such phenomena is a danger in it.

Smirnov

The most important danger to the Russian Internet, as for civil society as a whole, is, of course, a state official. So he is the main source of danger. Unfortunately, he was supported by this state official part of the Russian people, by the townsfolk. Indeed, civil society has not yet formed in our country and people are often sure that “they” (that is, officials) are so strong in nature that it is not sense to fight against them, to fight or somehow raise a voice at all. After all, no one wants, who is in their right mind, to be regulated, so that strangers, for example, listen to his phone. But at the same time, a huge part of our population supports special services, as sociological surveys and even indirectly the results of the latest elections shows. That is, people admit that the problem exists, but they would like that they themselves would not become this victim of this problem, but officials, that is, the state, solve this problem. In general, the same people who create this problem. There is such a word, the expression is more accurate: state paternalism. This is when the state takes care of its citizens in everything, in all details. Where to go, how to study, with whom to communicate, it teaches them, heals and so on, says where to live, where to work, what to think. Here we once had such a state, and then it died - and we all remained orphans. Some used their capabilities natural or acquired in order to establish their own business and live their own life, and the majority, well,, in any case, a significant part of society still regrets that the state threw them as if to fate, and all the time tries to move them to deal with the problems of society, and not the society itself solve these problems. Unfortunately, this is happening.

Kostinsky

I would like to add that under the current law on operational-search activities to listen to any private person or organization, it is necessary, having provided sufficient arguments, to obtain permission from the prosecutor or even the court, and exclusively for eavesdropping this particular person or this particular organization. This resolution is documented. The introduction of SORM-2 in the current form simply contradicts the law on operational search activities. Moreover, SORM-2 cleverly circumvents this law. Indeed, according to the law, even in the most emergency cases, “which are not delayed” when there is a threat of “state, military, economic or environmental safety of the Russian Federation” and the life of specific persons, the head of the law enforcement agency may decide on eavesdropping, but at the same time necessarily notify the relevant courts within 24 hours and prove to the court that this holding was justified. If the court is not satisfied with the arguments, then it may demand to stop the audition.

The introduction of SORM -2, as a system of operational and search measures, leads to the fact that special services can uncontrollably, without any permission to listen to any Internet user, without leaving any documentary evidence. And this, as we know, very often leads to the use of eavesdropping funds for personal purposes of those who can listen to this listening to either those who can pay for special services for receiving confidential information.

Recently, officials have argued that Internet publicity itself asked them to regulate the Internet, a kind of varyags calling in Internet Rus', where are such trends?

Lovenchuk

I have never heard that the public asked for myself to adjust or some representatives of the public. Maybe separate crazy people are located, who say: "Come, uncle, and adjust me." But, in general, so that somehow the public organized, or after some discussion, such calls are heard-I did not hear this. Providers may say that there should be order on the network, but it is not at all necessary that new people from the state should be brought by this order. This order may well be imposed by self -regulation and this order means that it may well be imposed by the forces of the providers themselves. Actually, calls to establish order on the Web can relate to themselves, and not at all to the alleged security forces.

Smirnov

Well, this is not new. In Soviet times, many decisions were made by a bunch of officials allegedly at the numerous requests of workers. All letters there from reindeer herders and milkmaids. For example, the case was before the parliamentary elections, when on the Internet Lenta.ru website, this is a fairly well -known news server, the call of some kind of anonymous “public” was printed, well, in the quotes, almost to the introduction of a presidential rule in Moscow regarding the upcoming rally of Luzhkov supporters. This is such an battered technique that, in my opinion, it is impossible to even talk about it seriously.

Kostinsky

Is it legitimate that anyone could call himself Internet publicity at all?

Lovenchuk

Certainly. I can even name one such group of people who will call myself Internet publicity - this is an association of documentary power. But this organization at the moment is social-state and therefore I would not talk directly that it is a public. On the other hand, I see protection from this in order for many organizations of Internet community that would compete among themselves for the brains, for the votes, in fact, the participants of this very Internet publicity. These are the sites where hot discussions could take place on the most interesting questions about the development of the Internet, about the ethics of providers, users, the same “self -regulators”. And the mechanism of protection against this, I would say the totalitarian control of one of such groups that will assign the right to speak from the whole public - the protection mechanism - one so that there are a lot of these organizations and that they represent a fairly large range of opinions. The second protection mechanism is always to watch what mechanism for developing these opinions. The English word is Deliberation. What mechanism of discussion was undertaken in this society in order for us to hear an opinion, as if from Internet community. For example, we know some of the kind of public organizations, let's say the same Rocyte in which a very private mechanism for developing opinions. This is the opinion of a very narrow group of persons and, as a rule, the opinion expressed without discussion. There are no procedures, some vowel discussion of opinions that are then expressed by this organization. I think that checking the existence of such mechanisms, and we see a good example of such particularly - social mechanisms, for example, in the Internet consortiums, say, www -conservatory, which, in fact, came up with a worldwide web and came up with standards that allow you to take into account many interests and express a fairly consolidated opinion. I think that the example of such rules of discussion that will be in our communities would be very good for our country and then we are easily distinguished by communities with which you can discuss issues and that express the opinions of their members from communities that say that they express someone’s opinion, but in fact they do not express any opinion, except for the opinions of their own leaders.

Kostinsky

Question: Anatoly, but you mentioned such a strange education - socially -state. What is it at all? How can it be either a public organization or state?

Lovenchuk

You know, we already had such a period when we had a restructuring, then from time to time all sorts of social-state associations, education, all kinds of intermediate stages between private life, private society and between a completely socialist, state apparatus, society, and the formation of life appeared. As I understand it, now no one can even imagine what it is, well, except for those lovers at the expense of the state or those under -in -laws or re -polished industries, except, for example, the field of telecommunications. Therefore, this is a great unity, I would say officials and regulated. I will not ask the reasons, especially the economic reasons for such unity - I think that this is already clear. Well, the Association of Documentary Electric Science is just such an organization. No one knows what it is. But the fact that this is, like a public organization, headed by the Minister and in which, as they say, the FSB and FAPSI are members, and, mostly, unprovable power supply, that is, local monopolists, well, this is how we have an association. I think this is more - our trouble than our achievement.

Smirnov

As far as I understand, we are talking about prominent figures of the Internet? My opinion is twofold. On the one hand, of course, the "public" is not a very successful word. Anyway, as if, let's say there, several brewery and famous tasters would say that they will answer on behalf of all beer lovers from some day. And on the other hand, it seems to me that the authorities should know that in Russia there are not some fragmented piles of Internet users, unrelated to each other, but there is-Internet publicity, it has a specific person, or rather a person, there is Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov. And these people can negotiate with them. You can talk to them, discuss specific problems. And “prominent Internetmen”, I think they understand well that the network is developing at a very rapid pace and it has already outgrown the stage when it was just a unification of a small number of professionals. Now a variety of people have come there and, I think that “prominent Internetmen” do not claim to express the interests of millions of users of the Russian Internet.

Kostinsky

Recently, it seems that even among officials there is no common point of view on the regulation of the Internet. How do you feel about this, Sergey?

Smirnov

Even among officials? Perhaps not. Because, as I have already said, we are now observing some of such reflective attempts to somehow regulate the Internet and projects that appear from the pen of government officials, they often amaze with their own, how can this be said, not like not elaborate, but simply amazing in essence for those who work on this Internet. It may well be that these are inconsistent actions of officials. So in the process, in the process, I think that in the process of lawmanships there will be officials to acquire some professionalism, therefore, civil society should mobilize their forces in order to confront, say, such attempts by state control over the Internet in more organized. Well, here are what other examples can be brought in this regard. Now this situation arises when state officials offer some of their own, from our point of view, not worked out and even ridiculous methods of Internet regulation, but this does not mean that all the work of Internet publicity, response measures should be reduced to criticism as such, that is, we should not sit and say: “Well, you know, we don’t like it, and, in general, we should not regulate the Internet and we need to come up with something else, but we need to work, create it, create it for this. commission and so on. " I can bring a similar example from another area. For about six years, the State Duma has not been able to adopt the law on alternative civil service, although the right to alternative civil service is recorded in the Constitution, in the 59th article and every citizen, each conscript has the right, but, unfortunately, there is no mechanism for its implementation, mainly due to its inconsistency, the State Duma could not adopt this law, and the liberal bill was lost in the 98th year, and the 98th year, and the liberal bill, but Now new attempts arise in my point of view updated in my point of view for the worse, the updated Duma has new attempts to develop a bill "On the Alternative Civil Service" of such an inquisition nature. What can liberal deputies and the public supporting them do? Предложить свой собственный вариант законопроекта, такой, чтобы он обеспечивал все права граждан в данной области, и, скорее всего, конечно же, непроходной в нынешней Думе, но такой законопроект создаст картину борьбы, то есть будет существовать плохое предложение и хорошее предложение и в таких условиях принять, однозначно принять плохое предложение, пусть даже с поправками, будет куда сложнее, можно будет вести дискуссию. Вот и в случае с Интернетом, я предполагаю, дело идет к тому, что нужно будет предлагать свои варианты, ну как бы это сказать, регулирования Интернета, для того, чтобы предлагать хорошее в оппозицию тому, что будут делать чиновники.

Kostinsky

Каков Ваш прогноз на будущее?

Lovenchuk

Число попыток будет расти. Будет расти число как попыток законодательного регулирования, и я, вот бываю сейчас в Думе, там очень активно обсуждается множество разных законов, которые хотелось бы многим разным заинтересованным сторонам принять по поводу Интернета и в правительстве, где мы уже видели множество проектов постановлений, я думаю, что и администрация нас скоро порадует какими ни будь указами. Попыток число будет расти. Я не могу сказать, чтобы все эти попытки были удачными и я думаю, что даже если некоторые варианты регулирования будут приняты, то вовсе необязательно они так с готовностью будут исполняться. Я не думаю, что сейчас хватит каких ни будь административно-технических усилий, чтобы удержать всех в рамках и пределах этого регулирования, ведь кроме домена RU, кроме, собственно Runet'а, есть множество альтернативных доменов, стран, серверов, кроме проводов всегда существует чистое небо над головой, где можно всегда иметь Интернет - коннект с ближайшим спутником. Я не думаю, чтобы регулировать Интернет было так просто, и я не думаю, чтобы убежать от этого избыточного регулирования было так сложно.

Lovenchuk

Я думаю, чт то, что я сказал, не означает, что надо опустить руки и ничего не делать в плане предотвращения избыточного регулирования. Потому что, даже если пострадают сто или двести человек, которых будут ловить и принуждать к какому ни будь такому, вредному на мой взгляд регулированию - это ни есть хорошо. Я бы сказал это - плохо. И даже сто жертв государственной машины - это все - таки жертвы и хорошо бы, чтобы до этих жертв дело не дошло.

Smirnov

Ну, я как правозащитник - оптимист по определению, поэтому, я всегда надеюсь на самое лучшее, но, опять же, как правозащитник, я, у меня такое поле деятельности, что рассчитываю я всегда на самое худшее, вот, поэтому, думаю попытки установить государственный контроль над Интернетом будут приниматься снова и снова, причем во все более жесткой и, возможно, более такой профессиональной форме со стороны чиновников. Но, к счастью, Россия идет здесь по проторенному пути. У нас перед глазами опыт многих стран, где чиновники точно также начинали в свое время, в каждой стране в разное время, начинали вот эту компанию по введению мер контроля над Интернетом, но в основном все кончалось очень благополучно для Интернета и общественность могла мобилизоваться и предложить какие-то альтернативные пути, договориться, критиковать, организовывать компании протеста и так далее. Я думаю, что в этом смысле нам очень хорошо помогут наши зарубежные коллеги, имеющие здесь больше опыта.

Kostinsky

У вас очень хороший прогноз. Мне хочется к нему присоединиться.

All links in the text of the programs lead to the pages of persons and organizations not related to the Radio "Freedom"; The editors are not responsible for the content of these pages.