On November 29, 2013 the Federation Council (CF) of the Russian Federation held parliamentary hearings on the draft of the Concept of Russia’s Cyber Security Strategy. Participants of the hearing, recognizing the significant security implications of the proposed cyber security strategy, offered to submit the draft online for public discussion. The main concerns of the draft concept were gaps in the overall cyber security posture for Russia, incorporation of both state and private-sector entities, and establishing clear incident response models for individuals, businesses and the state.
On January 10, 2014 the CF published a 10-page draft of the Concept of the Russian Federation Cyber Security Strategy and allowed commentators to personally email one of the lead senators overseeing the concept’s development. The senator, Ruslan Gattarov, is the head of the Federation Council Committee on Development of Information Society which established a working group of experts to work on the cyber security strategy a year ago. Several other Russian government organizations also contributed to the final draft, including the Security Council, the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
(Pictured Above: Senator Ruslan Gattarov)
However, the FSB criticized the draft strategy pointing out the use of incorrect terminology: the term “cyber security” as used in western countries primarily encompasses the protection of equipment and communication channels. The term “information security”, which the FSB insists on, has a broader meaning and includes Internet content.
On January 13 of this year, RBK-TV, (currently Russia’s only 24-hour business news television channel), aired a report on Cyber Security (2:32 – 9:28) in Russia and invited two subject matter experts to express their opinions about the subject. During this broadcast RBK-TV stated that the Concept of the Russian Federation Cyber Security Strategy offers seven key directions, in particular, the improvement of the legal framework in the field of information technology. The authors suggest that for crimes committed on the Internet, there should be harsher punishment, including criminal prosecution. Furthermore, among the general objectives of the strategy is to increase “digital literacy” of the population and improve the culture of information security. The strategy also proposes to abandon the need of foreign programs and computers and instead rely on domestic products. However, the strategy does concede that technical support and consultation from foreign experts is still necessary for the protection of strategic resources.
Yuriy Gatchin, Chair of the Computer Security Systems Department at the St. Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics (St. Petersburg NRU ITMO) disagrees with the draft strategy’s proposal that Russia still needs outside technical support. Mr. Gatchin argues that there should be no such need of foreign experts since there are plenty of “competent and smart professionals” within Russia and that Russia “needs to rely on its own strength”. Another expert, Artem Kozlyuk, one of the leaders of the Pirate Party of Russia and also the head of the project “RosKomSvoboda“/RuBlackList.Net, sees this document as mostly “focused towards the domestic market”. Kozlyuk clearly identifies the Russian government’s recent trend of fostering fear and then responding with quick policy solutions issued through the State Duma.
According to Mr. Kozlyuk, cyber security responsibility should lie on private companies’ and structures’ self-regulation as well as individuals self-policing their online activities instead of relying on the government’s implementation of an information blocking directive. Although the draft strategy currently welcomes public suggestions, Mr. Kozlyuk is pessimistic about what influence the commentators will have since there is no legal framework to support any type of publicly determined policy.
“The Future of the Internet – is blocking, censorship under the pretext, aggressive defense of copyright, widespread identification and criminal liability for the comments. In short, the state, with some delay, but still came to the Internet”.
(Picture Above: Artem Kozlyuk)
“Personally, I think that the next year will be a turning point for Runet (Russian Internet): either State will choose “Chinese version” of Internet regulation with the Ministry of censorship, total information control, burdensome sanctions for Internet business and the introduction of thousands of army pro-government bloggers to refute negative impact of censorship on civil society. Or perhaps our efforts will not be wasted, and the process of integrating adequate public interests and the leveling of the negative impact of laws to limit the information will begin. I’m not saying that everything will be decided within the next year, but I’m almost certain a vector will be given, and all of us will feel what it will be”.
It is difficult to predict if Russia’s idea will prove to be successful. The draft of the Concept will be accessible for discussion, comments and suggestions for approximately one month. We will have to wait until all the results are in to see whether the final product of this endeavor will become Russia’s first publicly inspired piece of legislation or simply sputter out of existence.
– by Olga Volcsko, graduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies