Changes to the law "On the protection of children from the Internet." Parse the amendments on the merits
To say that the Russian-speaking segment of the Internet is agitated by recent amendments to the so-called law “On protecting children from the Internet” (its full name is Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2012 N139- “On Amendments to the Federal Law“ On Protection of Children from information detrimental to their health and development “and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation” ) - to say nothing. The public literally boils over discussing the law. From the moment the first information about it appears, I also follow the “process”, but did not dare to leave a note on Habré. The fact is that until now the information was extremely incomplete (and therefore theoretically unreliable) and it was difficult to say anything essentially. Now the law is published and I am ready to comment on it.
I will say at once that this time, as in the case of commenting on the law “On the tax on blanks”, I will consider the issue purely from a legal point of view, that is, with an assessment of its real capabilities and procedures. For those who are interested in the subjective point of view, I can explain that I don’t see much harm from the law. Of course, it causes certain concerns, but, in my opinion, talk of total censorship of the RuNet is too tense. Moreover, the law itself at the moment does not really give any real leverage. And that's why…
And so, on July 30, 2012, that is, yesterday, the notorious changes to the law came into force, which, according to some, would put an end to free speech in the Russian segment of the Internet. But what does he do in fact? By the way, I’ll immediately clarify: in this article, by the term “law” I understand the law itself “On the protection of children ...”, and under the amendments just what was recently adopted. And so, the amendments consist of 4 articles, and the first one has little to do with us - it concerns the clarification of certain terms, the rating system for television programs and the examination of information products. It is worth noting, however, that thanks to this article, at least some control over the programs and films being shown will appear on television. Weak, of course, but nonetheless. But back to our question. In this light, of interest is Article 2, which prescribes the duty of providers to restrict (and, by the way, renewal) access to information (that is, to sites) . But the restriction procedure is already indicated in Article 3 and here, in fact, all the salt is contained.
')
But first lyrical digression again. Recently, the topic of the amendments mentioned in the article comes hand in hand with one major provider, namely Beeline, which may cause incorrect thoughts that the law is already being applied. Yes, it was Beeline who so zealously recently undertook to block various sites, but in fact, these events have no relation to these amendments. The fact is that no one has repealed the law “On Countering Extremist Activities”, in accordance with which the list of extremist materials is valid (it is prepared by the Ministry of Justice). In principle, many people know this and so, I want to focus on two things: first, sites that fall under extremist have been blocking for a long time and, as you can see, this has not yet resulted in total censorship (although that law made no less noise than the one I am describing now), and, secondly, at the moment, the law “On protecting children from the Internet” does not work at all. Simply, I repeat, there are still no levers allowing it to be done.
Why is that? Let's return to the third article of the amendments. In accordance with it, the authorized bodies should organize the “Unified Register of Domain Names, web site indexes on the Internet and network addresses that allow identification of Internet sites containing information that is prohibited in the Russian Federation . ” There is a simple essence behind this long name: someone (either the Ministry of Justice, or the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media, I don’t say) will compile lists of domain names, addresses and individual Internet pages that were declared illegal by a court or authorized body. . This is, if briefly. The essence, as is known, is in the details. In fact, the process is not automatic at all. Initially, only individual pages are considered illegal, on which the relevant material was found and, accordingly, in the decision of the court, or by the decision of the state body, these pages are indicated. Upon the entry into force of the above decisions, the Roskomnadzor website owner will be sent a notification, to which the owner must respond within 24 hours. If the materials will not be deleted within a day, then the entire site will be added to the “black list”. Here, of course, many may notice, saying the day is too little. But the fact remains: there is time for a reaction, there is also an opportunity to avoid getting into the registry, that is, it is possible to fight the deliberate persecution of the site, for example, with competitors.
Go ahead. The site is still blacklisted. Now the “letter of happiness” is already going to the provider, which, in fact, is obliged to limit access on its own. Here, however, the amendments allowed the options, since, according to them, the requirements can be made to both the hosting site to remove the site, and the provider to close access to the site to its subscribers. In what way should the authorized persons proceed and the sequence of actions in the amendments is not spelled out. This is one of the white spots, clearly requiring improvement. By the way, how the register will be organized and whether it will be public is also not mentioned. In principle, it is these two points that can cause confusion, and its outcome is difficult to calculate (options are possible, ranging from “beating everything that moves” and ending with “well, I could not, could not”). But this is all in the future, but for now the registry has not been created, since legally, Articles 2 and 3 only come into force on November 1, 2012, and when they begin to work is virtually unknown at all. And without a registry, working with the updated law is impossible in principle, because there is neither a reason to block sites, nor persons who will have to do this.
And finally. As for the possibility of excluding a resource from the blacklist, everything is standard here: since the resource is blocked in accordance with the decision of the court or government agency, it is these decisions that need to be challenged (good, the registry provides for the possibility of both adding and excluding sites). But this is a topic for another conversation.
PS In Orel brought the case for extremist statements on the Internet . Signs of extremism were found in the content of several headings of a rather popular Internet portal in Orlovschina, the press service of the regional CS SK reported. It was established that these materials in the spring of this year were placed on the site by an unidentified person in an unidentified place, the press service of the department reports. - Investigation of the criminal case continues. This is for you to evaluate websites. Simple investigators without any special knowledge somewhere there found someone's posts there and got excited. The case, however, is likely to fall apart, but not the fact that it does not withdraw the server, which then disappears in an unknown direction. This is an example of working with extremist sites. Compare it with the system provided by the amendments, which I wrote above. I do not know about you, but at least I can say: at least in theory, the state has taken a big step forward. Yes, judges can also be mistaken, and blocked addresses belong not only to “malicious” sites, but at least there is a system in which it is known who, where, when, and what it will be for. It remains to understand how it all will work.
UPDATE: In order to make the article more informative, glazkova asked to post a link to a similar analysis of the law, which I do (in this post, the things I didn’t analyze, so I think it would be useful to read it for completeness).
I will say at once that this time, as in the case of commenting on the law “On the tax on blanks”, I will consider the issue purely from a legal point of view, that is, with an assessment of its real capabilities and procedures. For those who are interested in the subjective point of view, I can explain that I don’t see much harm from the law. Of course, it causes certain concerns, but, in my opinion, talk of total censorship of the RuNet is too tense. Moreover, the law itself at the moment does not really give any real leverage. And that's why…
And so, on July 30, 2012, that is, yesterday, the notorious changes to the law came into force, which, according to some, would put an end to free speech in the Russian segment of the Internet. But what does he do in fact? By the way, I’ll immediately clarify: in this article, by the term “law” I understand the law itself “On the protection of children ...”, and under the amendments just what was recently adopted. And so, the amendments consist of 4 articles, and the first one has little to do with us - it concerns the clarification of certain terms, the rating system for television programs and the examination of information products. It is worth noting, however, that thanks to this article, at least some control over the programs and films being shown will appear on television. Weak, of course, but nonetheless. But back to our question. In this light, of interest is Article 2, which prescribes the duty of providers to restrict (and, by the way, renewal) access to information (that is, to sites) . But the restriction procedure is already indicated in Article 3 and here, in fact, all the salt is contained.
')
But first lyrical digression again. Recently, the topic of the amendments mentioned in the article comes hand in hand with one major provider, namely Beeline, which may cause incorrect thoughts that the law is already being applied. Yes, it was Beeline who so zealously recently undertook to block various sites, but in fact, these events have no relation to these amendments. The fact is that no one has repealed the law “On Countering Extremist Activities”, in accordance with which the list of extremist materials is valid (it is prepared by the Ministry of Justice). In principle, many people know this and so, I want to focus on two things: first, sites that fall under extremist have been blocking for a long time and, as you can see, this has not yet resulted in total censorship (although that law made no less noise than the one I am describing now), and, secondly, at the moment, the law “On protecting children from the Internet” does not work at all. Simply, I repeat, there are still no levers allowing it to be done.
Why is that? Let's return to the third article of the amendments. In accordance with it, the authorized bodies should organize the “Unified Register of Domain Names, web site indexes on the Internet and network addresses that allow identification of Internet sites containing information that is prohibited in the Russian Federation . ” There is a simple essence behind this long name: someone (either the Ministry of Justice, or the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media, I don’t say) will compile lists of domain names, addresses and individual Internet pages that were declared illegal by a court or authorized body. . This is, if briefly. The essence, as is known, is in the details. In fact, the process is not automatic at all. Initially, only individual pages are considered illegal, on which the relevant material was found and, accordingly, in the decision of the court, or by the decision of the state body, these pages are indicated. Upon the entry into force of the above decisions, the Roskomnadzor website owner will be sent a notification, to which the owner must respond within 24 hours. If the materials will not be deleted within a day, then the entire site will be added to the “black list”. Here, of course, many may notice, saying the day is too little. But the fact remains: there is time for a reaction, there is also an opportunity to avoid getting into the registry, that is, it is possible to fight the deliberate persecution of the site, for example, with competitors.
Go ahead. The site is still blacklisted. Now the “letter of happiness” is already going to the provider, which, in fact, is obliged to limit access on its own. Here, however, the amendments allowed the options, since, according to them, the requirements can be made to both the hosting site to remove the site, and the provider to close access to the site to its subscribers. In what way should the authorized persons proceed and the sequence of actions in the amendments is not spelled out. This is one of the white spots, clearly requiring improvement. By the way, how the register will be organized and whether it will be public is also not mentioned. In principle, it is these two points that can cause confusion, and its outcome is difficult to calculate (options are possible, ranging from “beating everything that moves” and ending with “well, I could not, could not”). But this is all in the future, but for now the registry has not been created, since legally, Articles 2 and 3 only come into force on November 1, 2012, and when they begin to work is virtually unknown at all. And without a registry, working with the updated law is impossible in principle, because there is neither a reason to block sites, nor persons who will have to do this.
And finally. As for the possibility of excluding a resource from the blacklist, everything is standard here: since the resource is blocked in accordance with the decision of the court or government agency, it is these decisions that need to be challenged (good, the registry provides for the possibility of both adding and excluding sites). But this is a topic for another conversation.
PS In Orel brought the case for extremist statements on the Internet . Signs of extremism were found in the content of several headings of a rather popular Internet portal in Orlovschina, the press service of the regional CS SK reported. It was established that these materials in the spring of this year were placed on the site by an unidentified person in an unidentified place, the press service of the department reports. - Investigation of the criminal case continues. This is for you to evaluate websites. Simple investigators without any special knowledge somewhere there found someone's posts there and got excited. The case, however, is likely to fall apart, but not the fact that it does not withdraw the server, which then disappears in an unknown direction. This is an example of working with extremist sites. Compare it with the system provided by the amendments, which I wrote above. I do not know about you, but at least I can say: at least in theory, the state has taken a big step forward. Yes, judges can also be mistaken, and blocked addresses belong not only to “malicious” sites, but at least there is a system in which it is known who, where, when, and what it will be for. It remains to understand how it all will work.
UPDATE: In order to make the article more informative, glazkova asked to post a link to a similar analysis of the law, which I do (in this post, the things I didn’t analyze, so I think it would be useful to read it for completeness).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/284762/
All Articles