Not so long time ago the Russian internet watchdog Roskomnadzor has claryfied that the hyperlink to web-site or web-page, containing informatino forbidden for dissemination in Russia, is also dissemination of information in violation of Russian law. In other words if you place hyperlink to web-site, regardles of its updating with content, you are liable for information on such web-site, even if the operator or owner of such web-site updated such information you have hyperlinked to.
The Russian ministry of communication believes the draft law, recently proposed and introduced to Russian state duma and providing blocking of electronic mail’ and messengers’ users are technically non-feasible. If the service would refuse to block user, it could face penalty up to 1 mln roubles. The ministry dislikes this draft law because it also contradicts to the principle of net neutrality. If the messengers and operators of electronic mail would be force to see and read their users’ correspondence they could migrate to VPN and foreign communication services like Gmail, Yahoo and others.
On other words if the access to certain web-site or online service is restricted in Russia wether under Russian law, court order or prosecutor’s requirement, you would not violate the law by visiting such service. The purpose of blocking is restriction of access, but such restriction should be justified. By why to block certain web-site or service? One of the reasons could be the violation of law. But if the service or web-site is blocked does it mean its availability is forbidden in Russia?
The Russian ministry of communication in order to implement the law on Russian internet autonomy or sovereignty has drafted new rules on protection from phishing. The experts from Russian union of manufacturers and entrepreneurs have analyzed this proposal and were shocked. According to their opinion the new rules provide mandatory shifting to VPN by all market participants. It is impractical and surreal they believe.
A new draft law has been introduced to Russian state duma. This draft law proposes to enable electronic mail box for internet user only after checking of user’s cell phone. In other words under the draft law the emailing services is available for internet user only after his/her identification by cell phone. If identification fails for any reason the mailing service provider can disable emailing service.
According to current Russian law if the VPN provides any internet user in Russia with access to any web-resource blocked in Russia such VPN is to be blocked. How Russian internet watchdog – The Roskomnadzor (RKN) – aims to implement such task is not clear, perhaps to block entire internet. Anyway, it considers another idea: to penalize them – imposing fines on VPN failing to block access to forbidden web-resource in Russia.
Russian authorities have intention to “proactively protect” the country from any external or potential threats
Yandex was required to provide Russian Federal security service (FSB) with session encryption keys. Now, Yandex’s managing director has stated that Yandex and FSB have found solution. Does it mean Yandex provided FSB with encryption keys? There would not other solution except the one appropriate – providing access to keys.
As almost everybody knows the access to Telegram messenger services is to be restricted in Russia under court order. Despite the blocking the Telegram is functioning in Russia and the administration of Russian president has even announced a tender to monitoring popular Telegram channels. But Yandex can’t be so brave and strong like Telegram because it could lose its business in Russia, in other words it could be destroyed and the Russian internal market could be absolutely free for Google.
Impact on creative industries’ and right holders’ capacity to control better the availability of their content on user uploaded content services and thereby negotiate with the services the conditions of such use: as the implementation by the services of technologies, such as content identification technologies, will remain voluntary and based on the terms set by the services, it is likely that the baseline scenario will not lead to improvements for rightholders who are likely to continue having difficulties to enter into negotiations and/or negotiate fair terms for the use of their content.