5/16/2023 0 Comments Telegram messenger chinaIt should be further noted that 2011-2012 protests in Russia, the biggest scale opposition demonstrations during the Putin era, also had a large social networking component. These internal and external manifestations of Russia’s willingness to control the flows of information on the internet happened simultaneously with the “colour revolutions” in the neighbouring countries, during which civil society actions were largely coordinated on the Internet. In turn, one of the authors of the highly contentious recently adopted law package increasing State powers online, the Russian parliamentarian Irina Yarovaya, stated that the Internet undermines the idea of sovereignty, encroaches on internal sovereign interests and destroys national security.or rather a strategy to suffocate critics? After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin branded the Internet network a “CIA project”. This approach of “managing the Internet” is vocally supported by the ruling elites in the media. This draft document was criticised for being “a fundamental challenge to the flourishing of global thought and discourse through the Internet, as well as to the established framework of international human rights law”.ĭomestically, these views are put forward in the 2016 Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, which calls not only for “protecting the sovereignty of the Russian Federation in the information space through nationally-owned and independent policy to pursue its national interests” but also for “developing a national system of the Russian Internet segment management”. On the international arena, the Russian views on the nature of the Internet manifested themselves in the International Code of Conduct for Information Security, which was submitted for consideration to the UN General Assembly in January 2015 by the founding Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – China, Russia and the “Stan” countries. The peculiarities of the Russian approach to Internet governance have been discussed on this website on numerous occasions. Essentially, their approach maintains and underscores that information on the Web should be managed rather than free-flowing, thus treating on an equal basis any information challenging the ruling elites and the regime arrangements alongside online terrorist threats. Internet control in Russia: a matter of national security.Īccording to Klimburg (2017) the authorities of Russia (together with like-minded states such as China and Iran), being the proponents of the second direction, have repeatedly emphasized the point that information in all its forms is a weapon, most often employed by terrorists. There are two different approaches to State cyber power: a more liberal “free Internet” approach when the proponents see the State as a mild regulator of the online domain and a more restrictive “national cyber sovereignty” approach that accentuates the authority of States to strictly control the information flows within their borders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |