Russian Lawmakers Propose New Regulations for Gaming Services and Data Protection

Recently, the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology, and Communications announced the development of a bill that would require major IT companies to open official offices in Russia. This requirement would apply to companies with a daily Russian audience exceeding 500,000 users.

Commenting on the initiative, United Russia party member Anton Gorelkin stated that the measure would not only affect large social networks and messengers like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Google AdWords, YouTube, WhatsApp, Viber, and Telegram, but also gaming industry services such as Steam and World of Tanks (WoT). The publication BFM tried to clarify why gaming resources were included in the regulation, but the deputy was unavailable for comment at the time. The next day, Gorelkin confirmed that the new amendments would indeed cover gaming platforms:

“Steam and WoT, in addition to their gaming components, include elements of social networks. These services have platforms where tens of millions of people, including Russians, communicate simultaneously. There are built-in chats, both in-game and outside the gaming process. Most importantly, millions of Russian citizens use paid services from these companies every day. Therefore, these companies should have a full presence in our country, just like other gaming services of this scale. This seemed obvious to me. But since it’s unclear to some, here’s my explanation.”

Proposals for Internet Patrols and Incentives

Another unusual initiative was put forward by Anatoly Vyborny, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security and Anti-Corruption. He suggested creating squads of internet patrols, internet investigators, and internet judges.

“We need to ensure that we have, for example, internet patrols, internet investigators, internet prosecutors, and internet judges. We already have people’s patrols. When we go to a park during public events, we see two or three people’s patrol members alongside police officers,” the parliamentarian said.

Vyborny also added that incentives should be developed for internet patrol members, such as allowing them to take time off work for their participation.

Previously, a similar proposal was made by Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. In addition to internet patrols, Patrushev considered it necessary to “bring together” patriotic bloggers to foster patriotic and moral education among children and youth.

Legislative Initiatives Following Kazan School Shooting

As noted by “MBK Media,” various legislative initiatives began to appear after the mass shooting at a school in Kazan. On the morning of May 11, at School No. 175 in Kazan, 19-year-old Ilnaz Galyaviev opened fire with an automatic weapon. Seven children and two teachers were killed, and 21 people were injured. The Investigative Committee opened a criminal case for the murder of two or more people (Part 2, Article 105 of the Criminal Code).

Increased Fines for Disclosing Law Enforcement Data

Vasily Piskarev, head of the State Duma Committee on “Foreign Interference,” proposed introducing fines for the “collection” and “distribution” of data on law enforcement officers, judges, and their relatives. According to a report by “Mediazona” citing a copy of the document, Piskarev submitted amendments for the second reading of his bill No. 1023005-7.

Piskarev suggested adding a second part to Article 17.13 of the Administrative Code, which currently provides for a fine of up to 1,000 rubles for disclosing information about law enforcement officers under state protection. The new part would introduce liability for publishing such data “in violation of personal data legislation.”

The table of amendments with the specific fine amounts has not yet been published. According to “Kommersant,” the fines would be up to 40,000 rubles for individuals, up to 100,000 for officials, up to 200,000 for individual entrepreneurs, and up to 300,000 for legal entities.

The explanatory note to the bill states that there is a growing practice of unauthorized publication, including online, of information about the private lives of law enforcement officers. The stated goals of such actions are often not to hinder official duties, but for other motives such as profit, revenge, or publicity.

The Committee on Legislation noted in its review that the amendments “do not align” with the article they are being added to, since the fines would apply “regardless of whether a decision on state protection measures for the named individuals has been made.”

According to “Kommersant,” Piskarev also proposed increasing the fine for individuals from 500 rubles to 70,000 rubles and setting the fine for legal entities at up to 500,000 rubles. At the end of 2020, President Putin allowed the protection and concealment of data on law enforcement officers, judges, and their relatives even in the absence of threats to their safety.

The bill being amended was introduced by Piskarev in September 2020. It proposes increasing fines tenfold—to 50,000 rubles for legal entities—for disclosing restricted information by employees who had access to it through their work.

For the second reading, Piskarev also introduced amendments to add a new Article 13.14.1 to the Administrative Code, which would establish liability for the “illegal acquisition of information restricted by federal law.” According to “Kommersant,” the fine would be up to 10,000 rubles for individuals and up to 200,000 for legal entities.

“Since these are ‘amendments to amendments,’ it’s a real mess,” noted Dmitry Kolezev, editor-in-chief of It’s My City. “But the essence is that they plan to punish not only those who leak data from databases, but also those who buy and use this data in any way. And it’s not about protecting ordinary citizens—no one is hiding that this is being done specifically in the interests of law enforcement personnel.”

Kolezev believes this is a new measure to pressure journalists and investigative activists, although ordinary citizens could also be affected:

“Deputy Sergey Ivanov, who reviewed the amendments in the legislative committee, believes that fines could also apply to those who simply repost journalistic investigations containing personal data of law enforcement officers. There are many fines for every taste, but here’s an impressive example: the fine for illegal disclosure of confidential data of protected persons for individuals is proposed to increase from the current 500 rubles to 70,000 rubles—that’s 140 times higher.”

“In short, law enforcement wants 140 times more privacy protection than before. If only they protected citizens 140 times better, the quality of life in the country would improve… well, maybe not 140 times, but at least a little,” the journalist concludes.

These statements and legislative initiatives once again demonstrate the increasing regulatory role of the state in the Russian segment of the internet, while finding a logical justification for this is becoming increasingly difficult.