So, the law on messengers: let's be surprised together ...

We did not even have time to finish the discussion of the online cash registers when a new law entered the arena. You can read the pdf-version, for example, on the Consultant , and, in fact, the text with all the notes is here .

Again the situation when the bill has already been submitted, and the discussion has just begun. I mean a wide discussion. Why is it?



First, then, that later people of a certain format, like, say, chuprun , come to the scene , and begin to rebuke that:
')

If everyone rushed in the year ... to persistently write about it, call, submit applications, etc., then by the current time everything would have happened. As you know, demand is moving. There would be a demand - and everything will be fine. And here in the Russian Federation, as usual - they sit until the rooster bites. Still say wrong?

Everything would be fine, but by experience: then all this is picked up, if not by the legislators, then always - the performers and the situation turns out twice worse for those for whom it was not so simple anyway. Online cash registers are a good example, but I have already talked about the history of electronic money (I think that the same is waiting for crypto), you can also recall the “law” of Spring and many other projects.

Secondly, without discussing the law, we always get the same situation:

the technical execution of the initiative requires improvement, since the “draft law is very crude in terms of technical execution”

Now actually about the biggest absurdities that catch the eye:

1. "The identification of network users should be carried out by the communication operator using the subscriber number , which is in the identification agreement." That is, MTS, Megafon, Beeline, Tele2, and their ilk will say from year to year that they have nothing to do with it when it comes to the user's relationship with banks, social networks, etc., and the legislator more and more often will bind services to subscriber number?

How so? Either let's toughen the laws regarding mobile operators, in particular, the aspect of protecting communications secrets , or ... I do not even know what alternative is possible here.

Moreover, let us assume that all this is done for the good: against terrorists, pedophiles, scammers, etc. But then the question arises: what measures have been taken to combat virtual numbers? Dead souls (aka BOMZHI, grandmothers from villages, etc.)? And in general, the phenomena that use (virtual numbers are taken out of the brackets) by terrorists, fraudsters and other persons with clearly not good intentions. There are certainly exceptions: for example, encryption. But they are exceptions.

It comes out of a simple analysis: are we again fighting the effect, not the cause?

2. "Information and communication services ( hereinafter - IKS: note - mine ) - information system and (or) program for electronic computers, which is designed and (or) used for receiving, transmitting and (or) processing electronic messages of network users “The Internet” for the purpose of exchanging electronic messages between users of the Internet, including the transmission of electronic messages to an indefinite number of persons ”.

Is the TOR network a part of the Internet? I will not answer this question, I will wait for comments, but I would recommend not to hurry with the answer. This is the first .

Second : I can not answer that the concept of a computer is something that for me has long (and, apparently, for a long time) defines the legal regulation of the Runet. Archaic, meaningless even in the days of mining and in general - shows how far we are lagging behind, trying to call global things with our own names. But it is more lyrics.

Third : What is X?

I understand that there is WhatApp, Viber, Telegram ... And a lot of chats, some of which have already been blocked by Roskomnadzor (like WeChat) without any special law.

But what about the internal chats, which, as a rule, are designed as a separate computer program (or even registered) in games, social networks. How to deal with the mail? Email in the sense?

In particular, at Habré already such questions were asked by Ugrum , denismaster , kibitzer , but I would like to turn to the law, so:

X is:

1. Program that
2. Intended
3. Used (I would put a separate emphasis on this word)
4. for receiving, transmitting and / or processing (again - pay attention to the union "or")
5. electronic messages users.

And then what is not suitable chats in games? Email? Chat rooms in social networks? I am waiting for comments below, but for now I imagine the situation in “Tanki” (I have never played, therefore, if anything, correct it) when someone from team No. 1 “shouts” in the general chat:

- urine Fritz right!
- hit the Russians on the left! - echoing him from team number 2.

And all this is “analyzed” by someone for the “stick” and Wargaming.net receives instructions to eliminate this disgrace, because “The organizer of information dissemination on the Internet is obliged to limit the distribution of mass electronic messages at the request of the authorized federal executive body.” Say can not? After the actions of the prosecutor's office , which contradict not only sound logic, the law, but even the Central Bank Prescriptions (!) For cryptocurrencies - I can’t say that this is not possible.

To supplement I will quote the draft law on another point: “it is used for technologically inextricably linked with communication services messaging only between users of this information system and (or) a program for electronic computers, in which the sender of an electronic message determines the recipient (s) of the electronic message ". Chat - the most that neither is without reference to anything else. Or not?

By the way, Nomad1 , for example, went even deeper into the forest (and correctly) and indicated:

Operators of online games, dialers, chats, support services, video chats for adults, etc. fall under the category “organizer of instant messaging”. All of them are obliged to bring their activities into the fold of the law before January 1, 2018 ...

But we go further?

Another right direction chosen by the legislators is identification. Probably the right one in this sense should be “right”.

Let me explain: today, p2p systems are developing more than ever. And instant messengers are no exception. I found in the discussions: FireChat, Tox, Bitmessage ... And on Darknet there is Stronghold Paste, CrypTor, ZeroBin or Pasta and you can send a message with their help and quite easily. Encrypted. Anonymously. And there is also a favorite tutanota.com/ru : how to be with her? However, it will block the ILV and calm down.

And this phrase: “ensure the transfer of electronic messages only to those Internet users who are identified in order,” I have a lot of doubts.

Why?

Firstly, because, to put it mildly, this order itself is new and not worked out. Secondly, the binding to the number - see above. Third, does the Government of the Russian Federation know the concept of “drop”?

Let me explain: for about 8 years I worked with one of the WebMoney certification centers. It took a lot of effort, money and time to set up a system that would identify exactly “living” people, and not fake ones. But it was not about millions of people: about thousands, which are also stretched for years.

As the practice of social networks shows (I can say about vk, in particular): tying the phone number - again, we’ll take out the virtual numbers for the brackets: everything is clear with them - even if it is for an uncle, aunt, or even for a second cousin on the pivot line of the father. But the main thing: it is hacking. Regular users in the same vk break every day and a lot. Then "dogs" appear in their place. But at this moment, the newsletter is made by someone clearly, but not by the user himself. The same goes for spam on yandex, mail, gmail services. And who would be to blame if, instead of “ordinary” phishing, there would be something related to the same terrorism?

Yes, block the newsletter. But how then to recover? If you can register multiple accounts, then what's the point? And if one, then start a new number? And who needs it? In general, in this direction issues too.

3. And then there goes the super-position: “to restrict, upon request of the authorized federal executive body, the distribution of mass electronic messages, as well as the transfer of electronic messages containing information that is distributed in violation of the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation”.

Violations of the transfer process or content? Apparently, so - and that way. But then the question arises, why not give here a complete (aka closed) list, at least with reference to the Government Decree? After all, an open list is arbitrariness and a violation of the secret of communication in many cases? And this is article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

I understand that the period of 01/01/18 indicates preparation for quite understandable events of a given year, but what about the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation? In particular:

Everyone’s right to the secrecy of telephone conversations in its constitutional legal meaning implies a set of actions to protect information received via telephone communication, regardless of the time of receipt, the degree of completeness and content of information recorded at certain stages of its implementation. Therefore, information constituting the secrecy of telephone conversations protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws in force in the Russian Federation are any information transmitted, stored and installed using telephone equipment, including data on incoming and outgoing signals connecting telephone sets of specific users of communication ...

Soon an article about this will be released. While for those interested - sending: Art. 63 of the Federal Law "On Communications", Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 02.10.03 No. 345-O.

So, the summary:

1. It is surprising, but this project is not only not worked out, but in fact and not discussed with the community, because there are obvious and too large spaces;
2. I consider this project unconstitutional, but, apparently, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation will not agree with me if it makes an appropriate Definition;
3. The wording regarding the Organizers is too broad and requires either an explicit clarification or a closed list;
4. Today, among other things, the law again takes us back to identification by telephone, which will lead to even greater problems.

This is not all, but the first impression from the analysis is as follows.

UPD. Meanwhile, the 1st reading passed .