Official about Internet regulation: the more the stench, the better

Through the efforts of the Minsk office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe today, a round table was set up, which concerned the effects of government intervention in the national segment of the Internet.

Independent experts agree that the government attempts to take control of the Belarusian sector of the Internet conflict with international agreements, including in the framework of the OSCE. However, the developers of sensational documents insist that in this area to restore order. Sergey Kravtsov, representative of the Operational and Analytical Center of the Presidential Administration, with responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of the decree of Alexander Lukashenko and government regulations, I am convinced that in the current environment to let the Internet can not be left to chance:

"The steps that have been taken in Belarus to the Internet was opened, right. At the dawn of its history, the Internet was regulated by a set of social norms, and the main measure of punishment for the offense was an exception to the online community. The growth of the Internet has made such provisions ineffective. And we can see that the legislation regarding the Internet seriously intensified. The priority sectors are the protection of privacy, user data, intellectual property, anti-kiberzlachynnastsi. We advocate an approach in which the Internet is seen as a phenomenon similar technologies that preceded it. Any rules that exist, may also apply to the Internet. But in some cases where these standards is not enough, there should be new legal acts. "

In accordance with the presidential decree number 60 provides for measures such as mandatory registration of sites, identification of Internet users log in Internet clubs passports, maintaining customer information in the database providers, banning foreign host, the ability to block access to "suspicious" sites and etc. However, the deputy minister of information Alexander Slobodchuk does not consider restrictions uncommon:

To protect society from international terrorism from drug trafficking from prostitution and other negative manifestations that are international in nature, should be developed legal framework.

"Today, information technology has become an important factor in the further development of our country. All this requires the development of relations between the state subject to the Internet, the development of its national segment. Internet at the present stage of development of society is a tool to increase the intensity of social communication and control in society. And in this connection in order to protect society from international terrorism from drug trafficking and prostitution and other negative manifestations that are international in nature, should be developed legal framework. Again, to restrict the public from all of the above. There must be a reasonable and balanced approach. And we look forward to an objective, transparent, comprehensive review this topic . "

Some officials still agree that the stick in the control of the Internet went too. But at the same time claim are trying to shift to civil society — say, that at the stage of systematization proposals did not want to discuss anything. In the words of the deputy head of the "K" of the Interior Ministry Igor Parman, they hid so that the police can not be found. Wonder of such arguments did not hide the representative of the OSCE Office in matters of freedom of speech Media Dunja Mijatovic, which believes that on the eve of the presidential elections are just careless statements:

"I do not believe that in Belarus there is no civil society, which can not be found and can not talk. I'm sorry, this is absolutely untrue. I am not a citizen of Belarus and do not live here, but a lot of people who work here, get in touch. I know that authorities in different countries use a similar approach as an excuse to say that there is no civil society, and to apply appropriate control measures. Therefore on this topic I will speak in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Information. I will talk about what restrictions are imposed as part of legislation, including bans on those who need the government to crack down on "immoral content" and "immoral content" of the Internet. But in fact it is only used by the government as an excuse to avoid dialogue with representatives of civil society. "

Lawyer, Director of the Institute of Media Law Andrei Richter prepared a thorough examination of legislation that are designed to streamline the Belarusian sector of the Internet. Here is one of his comments:

"The decree number 60 was the cause of the resolution of the Council of Ministers, which regulates the mechanism for restricting access information at the request of users of Internet services for information, the content of which is aimed at the distribution of pornography, violence and cruelty, etc. Sometimes, it is believed that the restriction on-demand access of the users is a form of self-government. And indeed, when anxious parents or caregivers feel that you need to block access to minors to the different sites, the provider will block access. But the fact that automatically closes access to restricted information to public authorities, institutions of culture and education, of course, is not a government. The more so that the process is based on the decision of the head of the Committee of State Control, the Prosecutor General, Operational and Analytical Center, etc. The problem with the rules that determine the types of harmful and illegal information supplied to the Belarusian legislation in a way that will certainly allow legal uncertainty. They are not formulated with sufficient precision and do not allow the citizen to regulate his conduct and the possible consequences of a situation. "

The Director-General of the unitary enterprise "Reliable Software" Yuri Zisser says that the direct participants in the Internet market for most government measures to regulate the network will know after the fact. But this is no reason to talk about common aspirations in this area:

"The problem I see is that many things can not be explained simply. That is first received a document, it falls from above, and then trying to guess what was on each item is worth. It was only after a few months you get an explanation. Because we have this kind of innovations introduced by decree, decrees, regulations, and no bills. Accordingly, there is no public discussion. I've even heard the opinion of one official, who said bluntly: if we adopt a new document and a lot of stink — so right. And should be the opposite: the less, in the words of an official, the stink, the more must be better. And the state primarily because the state first suffers from the fact that her steps are misunderstood. Perhaps the developers wanted something good, but in the end it looks bad. This including public relations problem, the problem of the relationship of the state to its citizens — in the same business community, non-governmental. "



Like this post? Please share to your friends: