Internet Freedom Index: September’s Legislative Nosedive
The Internet Freedom Index dropped by another 17 points, influenced by new autumn internet regulations and the enforcement of existing strict rules in the online space. The Internet Protection Society (OZI) summed up the results of Runet regulation for September, a month packed with significant events. As OZI’s Executive Director Mikhail Klimarev notes, “It’s not surprising: first, there were elections in Russia, which increased the authorities’ desire to regulate the internet. Second, lawmakers returned from vacation with new ideas for blockings. Third, the copyright lobby found a new ‘scapegoat’ in Yandex for some reason.”
For example, lawmakers rejected a bill to decriminalize “arrests for reposts” and proposed creating a “special agency to punish spammers.” The “Journalists’ Union” suggested licensing bloggers (which sounds familiar). Roskomnadzor shook its fist at Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Rospotrebnadzor tried to save Russia from suicides by blocking tens of thousands of web pages. Unsurprisingly, the Internet Freedom Index fell again—this time by 16.9 points.
Key Events of September 2018
- Bill to Block Websites Without Court Order
The Ministry of Culture plans to submit a bill in December allowing pre-trial blocking of sites with pirated content. Natalia Romashova, Director of the Ministry’s Legal Department, explained that Roskomnadzor would be allowed to block resources by notifying ISPs if a site ignores a copyright holder’s complaint. This could reduce response time to three days.
Experts believe the anti-piracy lobby is exaggerating, as most blockings already happen with minimal court involvement. Some doubt the bill will even pass interdepartmental review. Vladimir Kharitonov, Executive Director of the Internet Publishers Association, commented: “The courts in Russia are hardly independent, but at least they can delay abuses. Pre-trial blocking means that any copyright holder—or even someone pretending to be one—could get a site blocked at Roskomnadzor’s whim.”
Damir Gainutdinov, a lawyer with Agora, added: “If this is truly ‘pre-trial’ blocking, requiring the copyright holder to later file a lawsuit, it’s not much different from the current process. Since Moscow City Court just rubber-stamps these orders, replacing it with Roskomnadzor doesn’t change much.” - Senators Approve Criminal Penalties for Refusing to Remove Disputed Content
Amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code mean that if a citizen refuses to comply with a court order to remove information from the internet, they’ll first face fines (up to twice), and “malicious” non-compliance could lead to real prison time.
The Federation Council overwhelmingly approved bills introducing administrative and criminal liability for failing to stop the spread of information or to retract it online. The law was later signed by the President (in October). Now, for “failing to stop the spread of information,” a Russian citizen can be fined up to 20,000 rubles or face 10 days of administrative arrest. For “malicious violation,” up to two years in prison.
Leonid Volkov called it “the law against Navalny.” Alexander Litreev, head of Vee Security, said: “A very bad precedent, risking the creation of an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ in Russia. Obviously, investigations like Navalny’s could be targeted, and his refusal to remove such materials could lead to more criminal cases.”
Damir Gainutdinov noted: “This shows a shift from blocking and filtering content to prosecuting users to intimidate and silence them. Criminalizing actions that pose no public danger is a serious deterioration.” - State Duma Committee Rejects Bill to End Liability for Reposts
However, a nearly identical bill was later submitted by Putin.
Valery Ledovskoy, an independent information security expert, said: “Rejecting this is very bad, as punishing people for reposts and ruining lives is clearly disproportionate. But now we know others with the right to submit bills are interested. For example, Putin submitted a bill to decriminalize Article 282. Selective application and using such laws to boost politicians’ ratings through political plagiarism does not reflect well on the political process or dialogue between society and the authorities.” - Habr Becomes First Russian Site to Report Government Requests for User Data
The popular IT portal received requests for user data and content removal not only from Roskomnadzor, but also the FSB, Ministry of Internal Affairs, FSO, Investigative Committee, Federal Bailiff Service, and Federal Drug Control Service. Some requests were fulfilled, others challenged.
Unlike VKontakte, which has helped prosecute Russians for “thought crimes,” Habr published a transparency report: “Notably, the sky didn’t fall, and Habr’s management is still free.”
Artem Kozlyuk, head of RosKomSvoboda: “A very important initiative. I hope it encourages other Russian IT companies to publish regular transparency reports and make their interactions with authorities more open.”
Alexander Litreev: “Good internet resources set the tone. Transparency reporting will spread among other Russian IT companies.”
Valery Ledovskoy: “This is a very positive sign, showing a shift in attitudes toward medieval internet control laws. Even VKontakte created a data disclosure section after Habr, though without specific numbers. Habr set the right standard, which other services can reach. This could unite the internet community and lead to better quality control and safety online in Russia.” - Russian Customs: Duty-Free Online Shopping Threshold Should Be Zeroed Out
Timur Maksimov, Deputy Head of the Federal Customs Service, said the duty-free threshold for online purchases should gradually be reduced to zero. “We proposed zero as the end point for commercial transactions, meaning when a store sells directly to an individual,” he said. For shipments between individuals, the situation would be different.
Experts didn’t see this as the worst development, but noted that repeated “initiatives” like this show that e-commerce is a sensitive topic. OZI observed: “Respondents see attacks on trade freedom as attacks on freedom in general. That’s an important insight.”
Damir Gainutdinov wrote: “Restricting competition never leads to anything good.”
Valery Ledovskoy: “Such initiatives don’t help Russian citizens or small businesses. For example, after the ruble-dollar exchange rate doubled and VAT (the ‘Google tax’) was introduced, the cost of software licenses in one of my projects tripled in rubles, with no extra profit. The law also causes other problems, like donations of medical equipment being treated as goods, requiring 30% duty or lengthy proof it’s a donation, sometimes even refusing and resending it. Now they nitpick over everything. For example, Russian FedEx recently wanted to clear a $15 Mozilla T-shirt as a gift. Thankfully, it wasn’t needed in the end. I don’t know why they’re pushing this to absurdity. The beneficiaries aren’t citizens. People and businesses pay more for products with no Russian equivalent. It doesn’t help import substitution much either—if anything, it just makes domestic producers complacent.” - Google Blocks Ads for Unauthorized Rallies on Election Day
Leonid Volkov, co-founder of FBK and OZI, reported on Telegram: “Most of our video ads were blocked at midnight, which we believe was Google’s response to a letter from the Central Election Commission.”
The blocked ads on YouTube promoted rallies against raising the retirement age on September 9, election day.
Google’s press service told RNS: “We review all reasonable requests from government agencies. We also require advertisers to comply with local laws and our ad policies.”
Experts were divided: some said “Google didn’t want to quarrel with the authorities,” others that “Google is a business and weighs risks.”
Damir Gainutdinov, Agora’s lawyer, said: “A politically motivated block by a global platform of socially significant information is very dangerous. Google violated internationally recognized internet freedom principles and set a bad example for other services, giving Russian authorities more reasons to demand censorship.”
Valery Ledovskoy: “On one hand, Google’s position is understandable. The law is harsh, but it’s the law. But banning ads for unauthorized rallies is a bad practice. Refusals to approve public events are often arbitrary and can be challenged, but by then it’s too late to spread information. This is a complex problem, and such cases make it worse, but the root issue isn’t Google’s behavior.”
It’s worth noting that Google acted within its own rules, which were published in Russian: “Ads and landing pages with political content must comply with election laws in targeted regions, including observing silence periods.”
Apparently, rally announcements were considered a “violation of the silence period.” Still, this doesn’t excuse Google’s reluctance to understand Russian politics. - DNA and Voice Samples Demanded from Woman Charged for Reposts
The Investigative Committee demanded that Elina Mamedova, a Yalta resident accused of extremism for reposts on VK, provide saliva, voice, and buccal epithelium samples. Her lawyer, Alexey Ladin from Agora, suggested the samples are for an “extremist” database. The defense refused, calling the prosecution unconstitutional.
OZI called the case astonishing and questioned the logic of linking DNA to internet activity. Experts commented: “The atmosphere of fear is growing. Sadly, not everyone has as strong a defense as Agora.”
Vladimir Kharitonov: “All modern states try to control their citizens’ bodies to some extent: what they eat, how they have sex, so no one escapes their all-seeing eye. The more authoritarian the state, the more obsessed it is—even down to saliva and DNA.”
In conclusion, while there were some signs of easing pressure on the internet over the summer—such as the Supreme Court’s decision on reposts and the bill to decriminalize Article 282—the authorities have shown no intention of loosening their grip. This is reflected in legislative activity, unprecedented pressure on Yandex from copyright holders, and other questionable government initiatives. That’s why the index dropped by nearly 17 points.