Facebook Group Added to Russia’s Black List

Posted on by
Reply

The Russian Federal Surveillance Service for Mass Media and Communications (RosKomNadzor) officially notified Facebook that it has added a Facebook page to Russia’s “black list” of forbidden websites on 28 March. The page belongs to a group called “Shkola Suitsida” (School of Suicide) and features various images and information on how to commit suicide, which violates the provisions of the law “On protection of children from information that threatens their health and development” or black list law. If the social network fails to block access to the offending group, according to the black list law, the entirety of Facebook could be blocked in Russia.

The black list law, which came into effect on 1 November last year, targets sites that feature child pornography, the promotion of narcotics or psychotropic substances, or those that encourage children to undertake actions that would threaten their lives or health. The list is made up of sites that have been deemed illegal by a court as well as sites that have been found illegal without a court order (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSKN, Rospotrebnadzor, and Roskomnadzor will all have the ability to have sites added to this list without a court order). Once a site has been added to the list, Roskomnadzor has one day to notify the hosting provider that there is illegal content on the site and the hosting provider must notify the owner of the site in another day. The site’s owner is required to delete the offending page and, if he fails to do so, the entire site may be shut down.

The law was touted by the Safe Internet League, its sponsor, as an attempt to fight child pornography and ban sites that could be harmful to children, but many experts have cited concerns that the vaguely worded law will also be used to censor content that the government finds undesirable.  It is not uncommon for the government to use vaguely worded laws to do so. In fact, the Russian government’s efforts to use the law to force YouTube to block the “Innocence of the Muslims” video in Russia demonstrate how the law can be used to block content even if it is unrelated to children’s “health and development.”

In this case, however, experts do not anticipate that Facebook will be blocked. They expect that the company will comply with this request, at least on Russian territory. Moreover, Roskomnadzor appears to be reluctant to add such important sites to the black list, with the head of the organizations’s press service, Vladimir Pikov, even promising that Roskomnadzor will attempt to ensure that the entire website is not blocked.

According to Izestiya, large social media companies’ compliance with such requests varies. In accordance with its new terms Twitter blocks tweets with content that is illegal in Russia only for users coming from Russian territory, but allows the tweet to remain accessible to residents of other countries. Russian Facebook clone V Kontakte, however, deletes forbidden pages all together. Google, which owns YouTube, will comply with Russia’s request to delete videos if it receives a court order outlawing it. 

*** Update: Facebook deleted the page on 29 March.  

*** Update Facebook deleted the content

Putin Orders FSB to Fight Cyber Attacks

Posted on by
Reply

Russian President Vladimir Putin on 15 January issued a decree ordering the Federal Security Service (FSB) to create a government cyber protection system for finding, issuing warnings about, and fixing computer attacks on Russian information resources as well as information telecommunications networks located on Russian territory and diplomatic and consulate facilities abroad. The decree would further grant the FSB authority to place non-government information resources under monitoring for such attacks with the consent of the owners of the information sources.

An anonymous Vedomosti source “close to the FSB” claimed that the decree will create a branch within the FSB that will coordinate questions of cyber security in government bodies, taking over the functions of already existing branches working on similar issues. The decree became effective on the day of its signing.

Hacking attacks, many of them politically motivated, on both government and non-government resources are common in Russia. According to the FSB, there are over 10,000 hacking attacks on the websites of the president, Duma, and Federation Council each day. State-owned daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta also raised the spectre of the growing use of “information weapons” as justification for the move.

Introduction of Russia’s Bill Barring Critical Foreigners From Working in State Media Delayed

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that Mikhail Starshinov, Andrey Lugovoy, Oleg Denisenko, and Igor Zotov did not manage to finish writing their “anti-Pozner” bill by the 18th as promised. Starshinov explained the delay by asserting that the group had run into difficulty because “it’s not that easy to write it,” but pledged that work on the new bill would continue.

Experts do not expect the bill to be signed into law and many journalists have sided with famous Russian commentator and journalist Vladimir Pozner.

Former Kremlin spin doctor Gleb Pavlovskiy gave the bill no chance of passing. He said the Duma had “gotten too big for its britches” and that the issue should be a private matter. He opined that passing such a law would “invite scandal and strengthen the hostile attitude towards the Duma among journalists.”

The leader of Duma party Just Russia, Sergey Mironov, said he would not support such a law if it were introduced in session. He stated: “I do not think we need a law for every sneeze.” He continued “I think this is not the topic and these are not the questions on which the Duma should be working.”  Asked about the bill’s chances of being passed, he said: “A lot of stupid things are adopted by the Federal Duma, I cannot rule out that this will be one of them, but I do not know.”

Pavel Gusev, the editor in chief of Moskovskiy Komsomolets also predicted failure for the bill, calling it a “bluff” and accusing the bill’s sponsors of participating in a PR stunt to garner press attention and prove their loyalty.

But Pozner is still not out of the woods yet. The Duma has many ways of making people talk (or not talk in this case).

Last week, the Duma approved an order to the committee on security and fighting corruption to prepare and present information on salaries at Pozner’s employer, Pervyy Kanal. Specifically the deputies wanted to inquire 1) Do journalists with foreign citizenship receive higher salaries than employees who only have Russian salaries. 2) If so, on the basis of what documentation. 3) Does the journalist Vladimir Pozner receive a higher salary for having American and French citizenships compared to those who only have Russian citizenship.

According to Izvestiya, the bill’s sponsors will raise the topic of Pozner during their 22 January meeting with Russian prime minister Dmitriy Medvedev in order to suss out the government’s position.

Proposed Russian Law Could Ban Critical Foreigners From Working In State Media

Posted on by
Reply

After some back and forth, Duma deputies will present a bill that, if passed, would bar foreign-born journalists who criticize Russia or its government bodies from holding positions in Russian media, especially television stations, that have government participation or support.

The draft bill was prompted by comments made by famous Russian journalist and commentator Vladimir Pozner on the ban on Americans adopting Russian children. He called the Federal Duma “Gosudarstvennoy duroy” (“Federal Dummy”). He later apologized. In response, four Duma deputies representing all of the parties in the Duma sent Pozner a letter in which they criticized his words, saying they “offended the Russian parliament” and “discredit the government” and came together to sponsor this bill. Pozner holds Russian, French, and American citizenships.

Mikhail Starshinov, the head of the group of deputies who sponsored the bill, pledged to have it written by 18 January. He stated that the main goal of the bill is to “forbid those with foreign citizenships to work in government mass media and use it to conduct systematic defamation of Russia and its government bodies.”

If passed the law would potentially have great reach in Russian because the Russian state is the major player in the country’s media sphere. According to Freedom House, the Russian government owns all six national television networks, two national radio networks, two of the 14 national newspapers, more than 60 percent of the roughly 45,000 registered local newspapers and periodicals, and two national news agencies. Many other media sources are owned by companies with close ties to the government.

Shares of TV audience as of December 2012

Shares of TV audience as of December 2012. Stations in blue are government-owned, stations in purple are owned by government-friendly companies, the station in red is politically independent, stations in yellow are privately owned and largely entertainment-focused.

However, it seems the bill will not have much actual impact on anyone besides Pozner at this time. According to TV Rain, there are not many journalists on Russian federal channels who have multiple citizenships.

The Russian government, and ruling party United Russian in particular, appear to be highly concerned about foreign influence in the country. In July United Russia  floated a bill to dub media sources that receive financing from abroad or work in partnership with foreign media “foreign agents.”  The bill’s sponsor Yevgenyy Fedorov, justified the move, stating “many mass media sources obtain funds from abroad and act as the mouthpiece of foreign governments.”  Fedorov stated that he was inspired to write the bill because “manipulation [of the Russian political sphere] takes place with the help of foreign money not only through NGOs, but possibly through the mass media as well.” The bill was not approved at the time, but in November, a softer bill was introduced that required media sources with more than 50% foreign financing to inform their readers that they are financed from abroad. This followed the passing of a controversial law that required NGOs that receive financing from abroad to register as foreign agents and undergo much more intense auditing.

Kazakhstan’s Union of Journalists and Head Editors’ Club Adopt Ethics Codex

Posted on by
Reply

The leaders of the Journalists’ Union of Kazakhstan and the Head Editors’ Club presented on 30 October an ethics codex for Kazakh journalists that is intended as an “instrument of self discipline and moral and ethical orientation” to facilitate “gaining trust and respect for journalists and the mass media.” The original document was developed by the ministry of culture at Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev’s direction, but the journalists adopted a version that eliminated one of the worst clauses and, according to the chairman of the union of journalists, Saytkazy Matayev,” is satisfactory to the entire journalistic community.”

The adopted version of the codex stipulates:

1. Professional Duty

1.1. A journalist acts in the interests of the profession, freedom of speech and information, and maintaining internal political stability, inter-faith and interethnic harmony, national information security, and social morals.

1.2. A journalist is accountable in name and reputation for the veracity of reports propagated under his signature, pseudonym, or anonymously with his knowledge and consent.

2. Social Accountability

2.1. A journalist facilitates the strengthening of society’s moral and ethical principles.

2.2. A journalist is aware of his responsibility and strives to ensure that his activities do not harm society’s interests.

2.3. A journalist refrains from publishing or spreading incomplete information or indicates that the report has not been verified to avoid destabilizing the social order or inciting social discord.

3. Honesty and Impartiality

3.1. A journalist adheres to the principles of honesty and impartiality and rejects any attempts at outside pressure.

3.2. A journalist uses legal methods to obtain information and does not put pressure on sources of information.

4. Reliability and Objectivity

4.1. A journalist adheres to the principle of objectivity and impartiality.

4.2.  A journalist takes into account the complete spectrum of opinions on any given issue and only transmits information of whose reliability he is certain.

4.3. A journalist applies the maximum effort to obtain information from a variety fo sources in order to ensure reliability, completeness and objectivity.

4.4. A journalist clearly demarcates facts, opinion, analysis, prognosis, explanations and assumptions including his own point of view.

5. Sources and Confidentiality

5.1. A journalist will make an independent decision about disclosing or keeping an information source confidential if a conscious distortion of events or its discovery is the only way to avoid panic, political or socio-economic destabilization, or material damage of national scale.

5.2. A journalist will not use confidential information that was obtained through his professional activities for personal benefit or for the benefit of other parties.

6. Respect for Private Life, Dignity and Professional Reputation

6.1 A journalist is guided by the principles of respect for private life, human dignity and professional reputation.

6.2. A journalist acknowledges the right of a citizen and a legal entity to refuse to give information except in cases where it is required by law.

6.3. A journalist adheres to the principle of presumption of innocence.

7. Competition and Solidarity

7.1. A journalist respects intellectual property rights, including those resulting from the activities of his professional colleagues.

7.2. A journalist respects the rights of his colleagues and obeys the laws of fair competition.

7.3. A journalist helps colleagues who have suffered as a result of fulfilling their professional duties.

8. Protection and Accountability

8.1. A journalist is guaranteed all the protections the court system and other provisions of the law of Kazakhstan in the case of violence or the threat of violence, harassment, and material or moral damages.

8.2. A journalist acknowledges the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and accepts responsibility for any violations thereof. However, the points of the Codex will not be used as a legal basis by legal entities or physical persons to initiate court proceedings against a journalist.

8.3. Journalists’ violations of the points of the Codex will be subject to moral condemnation.

The last point of the document underlines that the code will not be mandatory or enforced in courts of law, but originally, before the changes made by the journalists’ union, violations were to be subject to professional censure.

Although Matayev asserted that the document was satisfactory to the entire journalistic community, some journalists disagreed. They objected to its adoption, citing the absence of independent journalists from the conference and lack of any referendum on the matter among journalists. Exiled banker Mukhtar Ablyazov’s opposition online daily Respublika further alleged that the supposedly open process was not as public as the state press asserted it was. Independent journalist Lukan Akhmedyarov, who received a prize from Reporters Without Borders for professional courage, called the document “superfluous” and stated that he did not see the point in it.

One can only hope that journalists will be able to implement such standards in their reporting. Despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, Freedom House found that Kazakhstan’s press is “not free” with a ranking of 175 out of 197. The NGO found that journalists and media outlets that dare to criticize the government face harassment, physical attacks, and various other obstacles. Given that the code was developed at the President’s direction, it is reasonable to expect the codex will be used to continue to suppress unflattering reporting. If it is, websites, chat rooms, blogs, online stores, and electronic libraries will not be immune as they are all considered “media” under Kazakh law and some, such as Livejournal, have at times been blocked. Whether or not authors of blogs or social media postings qualify as “journalists” is unclear.

Russian Government Moves Forward with Innopolis Development

Posted on by
Reply

Russia’s new tech city, Innopolis, is seeking 25 billion rubles (almost 800 million dollars) in federal financing for the Innopolis project by 2015 as well as special economic zone status, which would allow it to offer special tax incentives or large grants to attract innovation companies like those Skolkovo offers.

The president of the republic of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov proposed that financing for the various infrastructure elements could be done through the special economic zone status, which is controlled by the ministry of economic development, the ministry of communication’s “information society 2011-2020″ program, and with money from the Russian Federation’s Investment Fund, which is controlled by the ministry of the regions.

The Russian government appears keen to propel the development of the city forward. According to Cnews.ru, Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev asked the ministry of finance, ministry of communications, and the ministry of the regions to approve the proposal quickly. Head of the ministry of communications and former minister for communications and mass media for the Republic of Tatarstan Nikolay Nikiforov remarked: “The Russian ministry of communications considers it essential to support the project to create the Innopolis innovation center” and stands ready to reallocate funds for 2012 projects. The ministry of economic development quickly put together a document recognizing Innopolis as a special economic zone and sent it to the other interested parties for approval.

The proposal, if approved, would require the ministry of economic development and ministry of finance to allocate up to 25 billion rubles through 2015 to the Innopolis project and also stipulates that at least 33% of the total sum necessary for building the infrastructure of the city will come out of Tatarstan’s budget (the republic is currently running a deficit).

The plan’s sponsors hope that the city will become a center for IT specialists and companies, but they also believe that it will be a new source of economic growth. The Russian government hopes that building Innopolis will “increase Russia’s share of the world’s high-tech products markets.” It expects that by 2030, the total volume of taxes received from Innopolis and its residents will reach 38.6 billion rubles.

Innopolis had a setback in July when the federal government refused to allow local authorities to rename the village originally selected to host the city from Elizavetino to Innopolis. The decision will force Tatarstan to build an entirely new city from scratch, which could take up to two additional years. However, it appears that construction has already begun in earnest.

The Innopolis technology campus was expected to be completed by 2014 and feature a 5,000-student IT university (partnered with Carnegie Mellon University) and a city that will support 60,000 highly qualified IT specialists and their families. The plan’s supporters believe Innopolis will create 15,000 jobs servicing the new city for residents of Tatarstan and 10,000 jobs for IT professionals.

The 2016 International Olympiad in Informatics is scheduled to be held at Innopolis and Kazan. It will be the first time that Russia has hosted the event.

 

Prof-Dialog Launches Platform To Open Up Hidden Government Tenders

Posted on by
Reply

According to high tech and computer news website Cnews.ru, Prof-Dialog has launched a new portal devoted to uncovering hidden tenders that are not available to the majority of contractors.

The site collects data from a large variety of government and municipal tender sites as well as commercial deals. Hidden tenders, according to Prof-Dialog, are a common occurrence and do not turn up in search systems that are part of the official government tender sites. Prof-Dialog claims to “fight dishonest government purchases and offers the ability for all those who want to examine the full list of tenders to do so for free.” The new platform will give information about specific ordering parties, their preferred suppliers, and their basic demands of potential contractors as part of its anti-corruption measures.

The most widely known government contracting site is the zakupki.gov.ru site, which provides public access to information on Russian government tenders and is part of a government transparency initiative. Others include rosspending.ru and gostorgi.gov.ru. Usability of such sites remains an issue, with user complaints ranging from poor interface and a low level of data accessibility to the lack of interactive functions and analysis tools, so there is certainly space for such services as the Prof-Dialog portal. The problem of data quality, harmonization, and accuracy will, of course, remain. Garbage in, garbage out.