THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTERNET ON THE INFORMATION SECURITY OF CHILDREN

UDC 004+659.4

BBK 60.524

THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTERNET

ON THE INFORMATION SECURITY OF CHILDREN

Koroleva Yu. A.

S. Yu. Witte Moscow University (2023)

E-mail: felo@inbox.ru

Abstract. The article discusses the current problems of information security of children in the Internet space. Close attention is paid to the risks faced by teenagers on the Internet. The types of common Internet crimes are disclosed in detail. The author analyzes the legal norms of Federal Law No. 436-ФЗ dated 29.12.2010 “On the protection of children from information that harms their health and development”. In the context of the escalation of the hybrid warfare waged by Western countries against Russia, solving the problems faced by children on the Internet is becoming a priority task for the state. The article shows the methods of the cyber warfare being waged by the West, the goals that the US political and financial elite sets for themselves by unleashing this war on the Internet, and the threats that this warfare brings to Russian children. The article examines the huge impact of social networks on teenagers and demonstrates how the United States and its allies use social networks for destructive purposes.

Using the example of China, the author shows how the Chinese authorities achieve the information security of children on the Internet, and the ways invented by teenagers to circumvent parental control and censorship. The article presents regulations in the field of information security of children in recent years, reflecting the realities of the modern era, and analyzes in detail the mechanisms of implementation of state policy in this area in modern conditions. At the end of the article, statistics are provided on how much time teenagers spend on the Internet a day, how many percent of them view prohibited content, how many percent of this content creates, etc.

The purpose of the article is to characterize the national sources of legal regulation of ensuring the information security of minors on the Internet, to analyze their current state and the task of developing legislation on ensuring the information security of children on the Internet.

Keywords: information security of children, Internet crimes, online risks, social networks, ensuring the safety of children on the Internet, Internet fraud, cyberbullying, Internet manipulation, cyberattack, hybrid warfare, cyberwarfare, tolerance, Internet propaganda, Internet censorship, foreign agent, Internet addiction, protection of children on the Internet.

Some 20 years ago, the video industry had just begun to switch from the VHS format to DVD, there were cassette audio tape recorders, and mobile phones were push-button, and the newly appeared smartphones were bought exclusively as a fashion gadget because of the fashionable touch screen. No one imagined that they could be used not only as a phone with a camera function. Since then, a real revolution has taken place in the field of communications and information technology. Now it is difficult to imagine a person without a smartphone or tablet connected to the global information and telecommunications network Internet. The smartphone combines not only the functions of a universal communicator. Thanks to the Internet, it has become a pocket computer that has replaced not only newspapers, television, and radio, but even credit cards and money.

20 years ago, the main means of information were printed publications, television and radio, and the main means of communication was verbal communication by phone. In the modern era, the Internet has almost completely replaced the entire information space. TV channels and print media have gone to the global network, an endless number of Internet media, blog platforms and video hosting have appeared. In the field of communications, verbal communication has been replaced by social networks and instant messengers. The very nature of communication between people has undergone radical changes. Telephone conversations have been replaced by short written messages, and the main flow of information has turned into sending printed posts, photos and videos to each other. Webinars and conference calls have become very popular, replacing face-to-face training and educational programs.

The general availability of the Internet is ensured, firstly, by the high technical level of modern gadgets, affordable conditions for their purchase, from sparing prices to acceptable terms of purchase on credit or in installments, and, secondly, by low prices for Internet traffic, as well as the availability of free wi-fi in fast food establishments, cafes and transport.

Of the 147 million population of Russia, 30.2 million people are minors (20.6 percent), of which 27 million people (89.4 percent) are active Internet users^[1]. As a rule, this age category is much better adapted to the technical innovations of the modern era than the older generation, including their parents and school teachers. As a result, it is adept at circumventing restrictive measures such as parental controls, website blockings and other tricks that parents use to protect their children from inappropriate content on the Internet. At the same time, due to their age, minors are deprived of the opportunity to independently critically assess the information obtained through information and telecommunication networks, and thus risk finding themselves in an unsafe environment. The instability of the emotional sphere, the low level of criticality of perception and processing of the information flow by children and adolescents indicate that it is children and adolescents who are at potential risk for negative impact and Internet manipulation with subsequent involvement in destructive activities.

What are the threats posed by the Internet to minors?

The report of the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for 2010 – 2011 “Protecting children on the Internet: risks faced by children on the Internet, and policies for their protection”^[2] lists three categories of the main online risks for children. They can be conventionally called everyday risks.

The first is pornography, cyberbullying, and online harassment.

Federal Law No. 436-FZ of 29.12.2010 “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” as amended on 28.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as Federal Law No. 436-FZ) gives the following definition of pornographic information (Clause 8 of Article 2): “information presented in the form of naturalistic images or descriptions of human genitals and (or) sexual intercourse or an act of a sexual nature comparable to sexual intercourse, including such an action committed against an animal.”

Child pornography in Russia includes only photo and video images showing the genitals of real children and acts of a sexual nature with their participation. Sexual exploitation does not at all mean the obligatory sexual intercourse of an adult with a child – it is enough to involve children in the commission of certain actions understood by law as sexual (depraved), including “non-contact”. It is not uncommon for minors (in the vast majority of cases teenagers) to post sexualized images of themselves on the Internet, as a rule, in search of additional popularity (the so-called “sexting”). As a result, the exploitation of interest in sex with minors actually remains poorly punished – textual descriptions of sex with children, as well as non-documentary (fiction) images of characters with underage features (works of artists, anime, hentai, etc.) do not belong to child pornography. Also, at present, according to Russian law, it is impossible to classify as child pornography images where adult characters are given the image of minors (for example, high school students).

Cyberbullying and cyber-attack are forms of bullying or harassment using electronic means. Cyberbullying and cyberbullying are also known as online bullying. It is becoming more common, especially among adolescents and the younger generation, due to the development of communication technologies and the increased use of such technologies by young people. Cyberbullying is when someone, usually a teenager, bullies others online and in other digital spaces, especially on social media sites. Harmful bullying behaviour can include spreading rumours, threats, sexual remarks, divulging the victim’s personal information, or inciting hatred. Bullying or harassment can be identified by repetitive behavior and intent to cause harm.

Cyberbullying is often similar to traditional bullying, with some notable differences. Victims of cyberbullying may not know the identity of their bully or why the bully is harassing them based on the online nature of the interaction. Harassment can have far-reaching consequences for the victim, as the content used to harass the victim can easily spread to many people and often remains available long after the initial incident.

Other studies have shown a spike in cyberbullying during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many young people and adults quarantined at home and, as a result, went online more often than before the pandemic. For example, an adult study published in The Journal of Social Psychology (USA, 2021) found a statistically significant increase in attitudes towards cyberbullying, as well as abusive cyberbullying behaviour^[3].

The second category of the main online risks for minors includes the risks associated with Internet marketing and fraudulent transactions.

Internet fraud is a type of fraud or deception in the field of cybercrime that uses the Internet and can involve withholding information or providing knowingly false information in order to defraud victims of money or property. Internet fraud is not considered a separate crime, but covers a range of illegal actions committed in cyberspace. However, it is distinguished from theft, since in this case the victim voluntarily and knowingly provides the offender with information, money or property. It is also different in that it involves criminals who are separated in time and space.

According to the FBI’s 2017 Internet Crime Report, the U.S. Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC-3) received approximately 300,000 complaints. In 2017, victims lost more than $1.4 billion to online scams^[4]. According to a study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and McAfee, cybercrime costs the global economy $600 billion, which is 0.8% of the total global GDP.^[5] Internet fraud comes in many forms. It ranges from email spam to online fraud. Internet fraud can take place even if it is partially based on the use of Internet services and is primarily or entirely based on Internet use.

This is not a complete list of types of Internet fraud.

Charity fraud is the use of deception to extract money from people who believe they are donating to charity. Often, individuals or groups provide false information, claiming to be or affiliated with a charity (usually a foundation) and then asking potential donors to donate to that defunct charity. Charity fraud includes not only fictitious charities, but also fraudulent business practices. These deceptive actions by businesses can include accepting donations without using the funds for their intended purpose or collecting funds under the false pretense of need.

Online ticket fraud. A type of online marketing scam is the offer of tickets to popular events such as concerts, shows, and sporting events. Tickets are fake or simply not delivered.

Store gift card fraud. As retailers and other businesses become increasingly concerned about what they can do to prevent the use of gift cards purchased using stolen credit card numbers, cybercriminals have recently focused on the use of fraudulent gift cards. In particular, malicious hackers have tried to get their hands on information regarding gift cards that have been issued but not sold. Some of the ways gift card data is stolen include the use of automated bots that carry out a brute force attack on the systems of the retail stores in which they are stored. First, the hackers steal gift card details, check the existing balance through the retailer’s online service, and then try to use these funds to purchase products or resell them on a third-party website. In cases of resale of gift cards, attackers take the balance in cash, which can also be used as a method of money laundering. This harms customer perception of gift cards, the retailer’s brand, and can cost the retailer hundreds of thousands in revenue. Another way gift card fraud is to steal a person’s credit card information to purchase brand-new gift cards.

Fraud in online sales. A scammer uses the World Wide Web to advertise non-existent goods or services. Payment is made remotely, but the product or service never arrives at the buyer. The methods that these scammers use are that they offer products at very low prices and require payments to be made via electronic funds transfers with 100% prepayment. Scammers use stores that do not exist in reality. Such fake stores, on behalf of which the attackers act, exist on social networks virtually. This is done primarily because there are a lot of social networks, and their number is growing every day. Such fly-by-night stores hold only a couple of sales, then the scammers leave and close the site. Usually, the way to spot these fake stores is to look for online reviews. If they don’t have reviews, then they’re most likely fake. Similar schemes are used when selling through online auction platforms such as eBay.

Often, scammers attract their victims online with clickbait. Clickbait is an enticing, flashy text link or thumbnail of a link designed to attract attention and entice users to click on that link and read, view, or listen to a related piece of online content that is usually deceptive, sensational, or otherwise misleading. Clickbait headlines tend to add an element of dishonesty by using decoys that do not accurately reflect the content being delivered. The suffix “-bait” draws an analogy with fishing, where the hook is disguised with a lure, giving the fish the impression that it is a desirable thing to swallow.

The third category of the main online risks for minors includes risks related to the confidentiality of personal data, including the use of social networks without understanding the possible consequences.

On their social media profiles, minors tend to disclose their personal information (e.g., birthday, email address, home address, hometown, phone number, and relationship status). This personal information can be used by fraudsters to steal users’ personal data, and posting such information on social media makes it much easier for fraudsters to gain control over it.

В упомянутом мною отчёте Организации экономического сотрудничества и развития (OECD) перечислены далеко не все категории рисков информационной безопасности, угрожающих детям в сети Интернет. Отчёт перечисляет риски, которые можно назвать бытовыми, вне поля зрения остались важные политические риски, связанные с агрессивной политикой США, стремящихся к тотальной мировой гегемонии.

After the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the political and financial elites of the United States and their junior partners in Western Europe tried to turn the former Soviet republics into their semi-colonies, staging “color” revolutions, infiltrating the economies of these states and creating puppet regimes in these countries with the help of political technologies. They managed to fully implement this in the Baltic countries, in Georgia, Moldova and, by 2014, in Ukraine. In all these countries, fierce anti-Russian propaganda has been deployed, and young people are indoctrinated with the image of Russia as an enemy from childhood. This is due to the fact that the West in the 1990s failed in its attempts to dismember Russia and turn it into a raw material appendage of the “developed countries” piece by piece. The United States and its junior partners in Europe have again returned to an aggressive policy towards our country, unleashing a hybrid war against Russia and Belarus.

According to the definition proposed by Frank Hoffman^[6], hybrid warfare is a military-political strategy that combines traditional warfare, irregular warfare and cyber warfare with other methods of influence, such as fake news, diplomatic pressure, funding of anti-government organizations and foreign interference in elections. From the point of view of children’s information security, the greatest danger is the cyber war being waged against our country, anti-Russian propaganda and the spread of fake news (so-called “stuffing”) on the Internet.

What is meant by cyber war? There is considerable debate among experts about the definition of cyberwar, if such a concept exists. According to one point of view, this term is used incorrectly, since today no cyberattack can be called a war. An alternative view is that it is an appropriate name for cyberattacks that cause physical damage to people and objects in the real world. Cyber warfare is the use of cyber attacks against an enemy state that cause damage comparable to a real war or disrupt vital computer systems. Possible targets could be espionage, sabotage, propaganda, manipulation of public opinion, and economic warfare.

Young people, and especially teenagers, on the one hand, are the most energetic part of the population, and on the other hand, they are especially susceptible to the influence of Internet propaganda. The United States and its partners pay special attention to social networks as a powerful unifying force for young people. Suffice it to cite the example of North African and Middle Eastern countries during the so-called “Arab Spring” of 2010, when externally imposed uprisings and revolutions took place in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen; and in Libya, Yemen and Syria, bloody civil wars broke out in addition. All these events began with social networks, with the help of which experienced overseas puppeteers gathered young people in the main squares of the capitals of these states to organize riots and armed uprisings. In 2011-2013, civil disobedience actions were organized in Russia through social networks in exactly the same way, which, according to the minimum program, were supposed to cause destabilization of the situation and mass riots in the country, and according to the maximum program, to overthrow the existing constitutional order. It was thanks to social networks that the United States managed to stage a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, which brought to power a pro-Western openly anti-Russian regime, which resulted in the war in Donbass that broke out at the same time and a special military operation by Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine that began in 2022.

Another danger that awaits minors on the Internet is the Western propaganda of the false concept of tolerance.

Tolerance in sociology is when a person allows, allows, or accepts an action, idea, object, or person that he or she does not like or agree with.

Political scientist Andrew R. Murphy explains, “We can improve our understanding by defining ‘tolerance’ as the totality of social or political actions, and ‘tolerance’ as the totality of social relations.”^[7] The Random House dictionary defines tolerance as “a fair, objective and lenient attitude towards those whose opinions, beliefs, customs, racial or ethnic origin, etc., differ from their own.”^[8] Both of these concepts contain the idea of otherness – a state of dissimilarity. In some cases, tolerance has been seen as a “vicious virtue” because it concerns the acceptance of things that are better overcome. Thus, tolerance cannot be defined as is a universal good, and many of its uses and uses remain controversial.

In pursuit of their destructive goals, the political and financial elite of the United States replaces the vague concept of tolerance with the imposition of false ideas about what is good and what is bad on Internet users. For example, the propaganda of national and racial tolerance ultimately boils down to a complete rejection of patriotism and national self-identity, while calls for the establishment of representative democracy are aimed at arousing the population against the existing government and overthrowing legitimate ones. Governments. In 1991, the head of the Rockefeller banking house, David Rockefeller Sr., clearly formulated the goals pursued by this type of propaganda: “The supranational sovereignty of the intellectual elite and the world’s bankers is undoubtedly preferable to the national self-determination practiced in past centuries.”^[9]

Back in 1975, the U.S. National Security Council passed an unprecedented piece of legislation known as NSSM-200: “Memorandum 200 on the National Security Study: The Implications of Global Population Growth for U.S. Security and Interests Abroad.”^[10] The main meaning of the memorandum is that the United States, in order to ensure its well-being and prosperity associated with access to sources of mineral raw materials, should do everything possible to reduce the population in countries rich in natural resources. The unprecedented nature of this act lies in the fact that the United States, discarding demagogic slogans about democracy and human rights, openly declared the goals of its foreign policy: interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and the organization of genocide for its own benefit. Over the past half century, the US foreign policy doctrine has not undergone significant changes. The methods by which the United States achieves depopulation, that is, a stable decrease in the population both on the planet as a whole and in specific regions, are not the topic of this article. But one of the components of the depopulation process – a decrease in the birth rate – is achieved by changing values and transforming the institution of the family. And in this process, destructive forces are actively using the Internet. Under the guise of tolerance in the sexual sphere, there is a real popularization of homosexual relations and same-sex marriages. Child-free ideas are spreading. There is blatant propaganda of sex reassignment surgery. More and more new forms of non-traditional sexual identification are being invented, such as, for example, genderqueer or people with a non-binary gender identity, agender (i.e. asexual people), bissu (all gender aspects combined into a single person), butch and fem (active and passive lesbians), gendervaig (non-binary gender not defined by words due to its status neuro-different), demiboi (gender identity that is both male and genderless), demigirl (gender identity that is both female and genderless), xenogender (gender that cannot be limited by human understanding of gender), neuter (having one non-binary neutral gender identity: not female, not male, and not mixed), and a host of others that raise doubts about the mental state of the inventors of this. The unifying factor for these groups is that these people cannot create offspring. Propaganda of all this is designed mainly for a minor audience, as the most vulnerable part of Internet users. It is designed for the unstable psyche of the child and is designed to form in him the desire for non-traditional sexual self-identification, rejection of generally accepted family values or the desire to change gender.

According to Part 2 of Article 5 of the Federal Law of 29.12.2010 N 436-FZ (as amended on 28.04.2023) “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development”, content containing information of a pornographic nature, containing an image or description of sexual violence; denying family values and forming disrespect for parents and (or) other family members; promoting or demonstrating non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences; promoting pedophilia; capable of causing children to want to change their gender – refers to information prohibited for distribution among children.

According to the definition given in Federal Law No 436-FZ, “information security of children is a state of protection of children, in which there is no risk associated with the infliction of harm to their health and (or) physical, mental, spiritual, moral development by information”. It is quite obvious that it is extremely difficult for the Russian legislator to fight so many Internet risks that threaten the information security of children. Federal Law No. 436-FZ lists the types of information that are harmful to the health or development of children (Article 5). He divides such information into 2 types: 1) information prohibited for distribution among children, and 2) information the distribution of which among children of certain age categories is restricted. The law also classifies information products into 5 categories depending on the age of the child (Article 6): 1) information products for children under the age of 6 years; 2) for children who have reached the age of 6 years; 3) under 12 years of age, 4) under 16 years of age, and 5) information products prohibited for children. The law lists the requirements for the circulation of information products, the procedure for their examination, establishes the procedure for state and public control and indicates that violation of the legislation on the protection of children from information harmful to their health and (or) development entails liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, implying criminal and administrative sanctions for violators.

The imperfection of this law lies in the fact that it is addressed to producers of information products located in Russia and falling under its jurisdiction. But the vast majority of malicious content creators on the Internet are registered on foreign domains and are physically located abroad, or use a proxy server that acts on behalf of the client when making a request, masking the true origin of the request to the resource server as much as possible. In addition, the classification of information products by age categories with mandatory signs of information products (0+, 6+, 12+, 16+ years) is not intended for children and is not a detailed characteristic of an information product, but is a signal to parents that it contains information that may pose a certain threat to the child. It must be admitted that neither parents nor teachers are able to fully control the information consumed by children. The law does not apply to information distributed in instant messengers, forums and chats, as well as advertising posted on the network. From all this, the conclusion suggests itself that protection against information disseminated on the Internet that is harmful to the health and development of children is practically not regulated by law.

If we turn to foreign experience, the People’s Republic of China has achieved the highest indicators in the field of information protection of children on the Internet. However, we must not forget that the PRC is a totalitarian state, and the information protection of children is carried out there within the framework of general political censorship sanctioned by the Communist Party of China (CCP). capable of reaching a wide audience. This includes television, print media, radio, film, theater, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature, and the internet. In 2003, the Golden Shield project, a system for filtering Internet content, was put into operation in China. This system includes such subsystems as a security management system, an offense reporting system, an exit and input control system, an information monitoring system, and a traffic management system. The “golden shield” is one of the components of the so-called “e-government”. It automatically blocks web pages for keywords related to state security, as well as a “blacklist” of site addresses. It filters websites that the Chinese authorities consider anti-communist, including sites dedicated to religious content, news sources that cover topics deemed defamatory of China, and websites that contain anything that the Chinese authorities deem obscene or pornographic. Websites that are dedicated to criminal activity or are deemed subversive. Most websites and blogs experience frequent or constant outages. A recent large-scale study published in 2021 found that more than 311,000 domain names have been blocked. Of these, 41,000 were blocked by accident. ^[11]The banned sites include YouTube (since March 2009), Facebook (since July 2009), Twitter, Instagram, Dropbox, Foursquare and Flickr, and the Google search engine. Chinese counterparts have been created instead of the blocked popular Western Internet services. According to the NGO Reporters Without Borders, there are more than 2,800 text messaging surveillance centers in China. Shanghai and Beijing risk being disconnected from the text messaging service if they are found to have sent “illegal or unhealthy” content.

However, Chinese teenagers have found a way to circumvent even such strict censorship. In the early 2000s, Taiwanese fans of the popular online game Audition Online came up with a way to encode Chinese characters. To encode a word, traditional Chinese characters, Japanese script, pinyin, Latin alphabet, and emojis are randomly combined, separated, and rearranged in combination with Arabic numerals. This type of writing was called the “Martian language”. The term came from the 2001 Hong Kong comedy Shaolin Football, in which a character named Sing says to another character, “Go back to Mars. The earth is so dangerous.” In 2007, the Martian language began to take root in mainland China. The first to learn the Martian language were mostly teenage netizens. They use it in their nicknames, short messages, and chats to show off their personality. Later, they discovered that their teachers and parents did not understand their new language, which quickly became their secret code for communicating with each other. Chinese online bloggers have followed the trend of using the Martian language as they have found that their blog posts written in the new language can easily get through the internet censorship systems that are currently based on text-matching techniques. The Martian language has become so popular in cyberspace that software has been created to translate from Chinese to Martian.

The example I have given shows, firstly, that neither prohibitive measures nor the strictest censorship are able to completely protect children from prohibited content, and, secondly, that children will always find a way to circumvent parental and pedagogical control.

A system of political Internet censorship and website filtering exists all over the world, and especially in the United States and Western countries. Since the early 2000s and in connection with the conduct of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine since February 24, 2022, the United States, EU countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have blocked the Internet broadcasting of Russian media: TV channels Channel One, Russia 1, NTV, Russia Today (RT International), RT France, RT America, RT UK, RTD, Sputnik, Russia RTR / RTR Planeta, Russia 24, International TV Center, RT Balkan, Oriental Review, Tsargrad, Katehon, the online magazine New Eastern Outlook, the news agencies Southern Front, News Front, Inforos and in general all Internet sites that, in the opinion of the West, reflect the official political position of the Russian leadership. In March. by decision of the European authorities, the regional Internet registry RIPE NCC, which distributes IP addresses in Europe, refused to serve Russian telecommunications companies Rostelecom and Megafon and issue them new IP addresses and ASNs. In 2022-2023, YouTube video hosting blocked all channels associated with RT and Sputnik in Europe, NTV channels are blocked in more than 70 countries, the Ruptly channel is blocked, the channels of the State Television and Radio Fund: “Soviet television. Gosteleradiofond” and “Soviet Radio. Gosteleradiofond, the channels of the Aurora news agency – Radio Aurora and Radio Yunost, the Duma TV channel owned by the State Duma, the account of the Orthodox TV channel Spas and the account of the LenTV24 TV channel were blocked due to the “broadcast of events dedicated to Victory Day.” On June 25, 2022, almost 500 allegedly pro-Russian channels with an audience of over 15 million people were blocked following an appeal from the SBU. On March 11, 2022, all Russian channels associated with the state around the world were blocked. 2022 г

At the same time, after February 24, 2022, the American multinational holding company Meta Platforms, which owns the social networks Facebook and Instagram, lifted restrictions on users regarding the so-called “hate speech” against Russians, refusing to ban the slogans “Death to the Russian occupiers!”. Company spokesman Andy Stone confirmed this information and stressed in a statement that the phrase “death to Russian invaders” is now the norm for social networks^[12]. Emails to content moderators indicate that Meta has also temporarily allowed some posts calling for the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. In ^[13]response, Roskomnadzor blocked the social network Facebook on March 4, 2022, and Instagram on March 14. On March 5, 2022, Twitter was blocked by the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. I have already pointed out the huge role that social networks play in the lives of minors, and how destructive Western politicians take advantage of this. In November 2013, with the help of social networks, teenagers stupefied by anti-Russian propaganda – participants of the Euromaidan – gathered on Independence Square in Kiev to speak out against the legitimately elected President of Ukraine. The weather was cold, and these children, in order to warm up, jumped on the spot and frantically shouted: “Whoever does not jump is a Moskal!” Everyone remembers how the Euromaidan ended: with bloody clashes on the square and an anti-constitutional coup that brought to power in 2014 a pro-American openly anti-Russian regime. And the same teenagers began to shout completely different slogans: “Muscovites to knives!”, “Moskalyaku to gilyaku!” (i.e. to the gallows). American puppeteers tried to organize exactly the same riots in Moscow, and the gathering on Bolotnaya Square was also organized through social networks.

These events were financed from abroad, and an important role in them was played by anti-constitutional propaganda and agitation carried out by the so-called “independent” media, non-profit organizations, foundations and individuals, whose activities were paid for by the governments and structures of states unfriendly to Russia. In 2012-2022, Russia adopted legislative acts that introduced the legal status of “foreign agent” in relation to these persons. There was nothing new in world practice in such a status. In the United States, a similar law was passed back in 1938 under the name of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). According to this law, a foreign agent is not a spy, but a lobbyist who acts in the interests of a foreign state and receives money from abroad for his work. It can be both individuals and legal entities. Foreign agents are required to register with the U.S. Department of Justice in this status. If they fail to do so, the US authorities must prove the need to include them in the list of foreign agents. For this, it is sufficient that the organization or individual is directly managed by a foreign state or organization. Violation of this law is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Following the passage of the Lobbying Act of 1995, the law was narrowed to include lobbyists who advocate only for the political interests of foreign governments, while economic lobbyists are registered under the Lobbying Act.

A foreign agent (foreign agent) in Russia is a person who has received support and (or) is under foreign influence in other forms and carries out political activities, purposeful collection of information in the field of military, military-technical activities of the Russian Federation, distribution of messages and materials intended for an unlimited number of persons and (or) participation in the creation of such messages and materials, other types of activities, the types of which are established by Federal Law of 14.07.2022 N 255-FZ (as amended on 24.07.2023) “On Control over the Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence”. In fact, this is not just a lobbyist, but an agent of influence, although according to the definition given in the law, the boundaries between these concepts are blurred. The legal status of a foreign agent is officially assigned by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and imposes a number of restrictions on the activities of a person or organization. According to the law, foreign agents are required to indicate their status in all publications in the media and on the Internet. The form of the instruction and the place of its placement are determined by the editorial board independently. The absence of such an instruction is a violation and the mass media may be issued a written warning in accordance with Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 27.12.1991 No 2124-1 “On Mass Media”. Administrative liability is also provided in the form of a fine in accordance with Article 13.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The foreign agent itself must label its materials as follows: “This material (information) (produced, distributed and (or) sent) by the foreign agent (name or full name) or relates to the activities of a foreign agent (name or full name).” Foreign agents are required to report their status when applying to public authorities, and are also deprived of the right to teach and participate in election campaigns. Foreign agents in Russia are divided into five groups:

1. NPOs – Non-Profit Organizations (Federal Law of July 20, 2012 No. 121-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Part of Regulating the Activities of Non-Profit Organizations Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent”). By the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 26, 2012 No. 1101 of Moscow “On the Unified Automated Information System “Unified Register of Domain Names, Indexes of Pages of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” and Network Addresses Allowing to Identify Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” Containing Information Whose Distribution is Prohibited in the Russian Federation” the Register of Sites Distributing Prohibited in the Internet Russia. The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) was entrusted with maintaining the Register.

Order of Roskomnadzor dated 27.02.2023 No 25 “On Approval of the Criteria for Evaluating Materials and (or) Information Necessary for the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media to Make Decisions That Are the Grounds for the Inclusion of Domain Names and (or) Indexes of Pages of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet”, as well as Network Addresses Allowing to Identify Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet”, An expanded list of criteria for assessing information prohibited in Russia was approved in the unified automated information system “Unified Register of Domain Names, Indexes of Pages of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” and Network Addresses Allowing to Identify Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” Containing Information Whose Distribution is Prohibited in the Russian Federation. The preventive task of these regulations is to achieve a safe information environment without the use of punishment.

2. Mass media (Federal Law of November 25, 2017 No 327-FZ “On Amendments to Articles 10.4 and 15.3 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” and Article 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media”). The recognition of media as foreign agents is somewhat different from the existing rules for NGOs. This status is granted to Russian, not foreign non-profit organizations. The situation with the media is different. The Ministry of Justice can recognize as a foreign agent any media outlet that receives funding from abroad from the authorities of another state, organizations, citizens or Russian organizations that receive money from foreign sources. The law was adopted as a response to the US Department of Justice’s demand in 2017 to recognize the Russian channels Russia Today and Sputnik as foreign agents.

3. Individuals – media (Federal Law of 02.12.2019 No 426-FZ “On Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” and the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection”). In the law, an individual who disseminates messages and materials that are created by a foreign media outlet performing the functions of a foreign agent, or a Russian legal entity established by a foreign media outlet performing the functions of a foreign agent, or participating in the creation of these messages and materials, can be recognized as performing the functions of a foreign agent if he receives funds or other property from foreign states, their state bodies, international and foreign organizations, foreign citizens, stateless persons or persons authorized by them, foreign media performing the functions of a foreign agent, Russian legal entities established by foreign media performing the functions of a foreign agent, Russian legal entities receiving funds or other property from these sources, or from Russian legal entities, established by such foreign media.

4. Individuals who are not media outlets (Federal Law of December 30, 2020 No 481-FZ “On the Establishment of Additional Measures to Counter Threats to National Security”). An individual, regardless of his/her citizenship or in the absence thereof, may be recognized as an individual performing the functions of a foreign agent if he/she carries out political activities and/or purposeful collection of information in the military, and non-governmental activities in the territory of the Russian Federation, its state bodies, international or foreign organizations, foreign citizens or stateless persons (hereinafter referred to as the “foreign source”). military-technical activities of the Russian Federation, which, if obtained by a foreign source, can be used against the security of Russia (in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in Articles 275 and 276 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), in connection with the influence exerted on it by a foreign source or by citizens of the Russian Federation, Russian organizations acting in the interests of a foreign source, expressed in support of these types of activities (including provision of funds, other property or organizational and methodological assistance. Such persons are included in a separate Register of Individual Foreign Agents, which differs from the Register of Individual Media Entities.

5. Unregistered public associations, i.e. public associations financed from abroad, which operate without acquiring the rights and obligations of a legal entity.

According to paragraph 9 of part 2 of article 5 of the Federal Law of 29.12.2010 N 436-FZ (as amended on 28.04.2023) “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development”, information contained in information products produced by a foreign agent is classified as information prohibited for distribution among children.

Returning to this law, I would like to note with regret that it is more declarative than practical, and it has absolutely not developed a mechanism for the information protection of children on the Internet. The laws and by-laws I have listed above over the past 10 years, which make it possible to block websites that are extremist in nature, promote hatred of Russia, call for mass riots, etc., have been much more useful in this area. The Concept of Information Security of Children in the Russian Federation, adopted by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2023 No 1105-r, lists among the basic principles of ensuring the information security of children the preservation and strengthening of traditional values, countering the spread of destructive information; the need to form children’s ability to navigate in the modern information environment; education of children’s skills of independent and critical thinking; teaching children information security issues; ensuring wide access for children to the historical and cultural heritage of Russia through the use of modern means of mass communication; the formation of an objective idea of Russian culture in children as an integral part of world civilization and other measures that seem easy to implement, but are unlikely to fully take into account the mentality of modern children. Social networks, online computer games, the opportunity to join any, even the most taboo information in society with the help of the Internet, seem to have been deliberately created for teenagers whose psyche has not yet been formed, because children of this age (12-16 years old) have a desire to escape from reality into virtual space, fantasize, a tendency to pass off wishful thinking as reality, etc. who can use them to become anyone in his virtual world. Thanks to modern gadgets, children do not part with the Internet at home and during breaks at school, in transport, in catering establishments and even on the street. Most Russian children go online uncontrollably. About 80% of children in Russia access the Internet through separate computers in their rooms or through smartphones. More than 80% of Russian teenagers have a profile on social networks, and every sixth of them has more than 100 friends. More than half of Internet users under the age of 14 view sites with inappropriate content, 19% observe scenes of violence, and 16% are fond of gambling. Approximately one-third of the malicious software that currently exists is created by children and teenagers. About 25% of Russian children are addicted to the Internet, almost 85% spend all their free time on the Internet, more than 6 hours a day, and everyone believes that the Internet has practically no negative impact on health.

Taking into account the data of these statistics and the trend towards a constant increase in Internet risks, the legislator needs to continue to improve the regulatory framework for the information protection of children on the Internet. Perhaps a special law is needed to protect children from information that is harmful to their health and development on the Internet.

References

1. Federal Law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” dated 29.12.2010 No. 436-FZ (as amended on 28.04.2023).
2. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 9, 2022 No. 809 “On Approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values”.
3. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2023 No 1105-r “On Approval of the Concept of Information Security of Children in the Russian Federation and the Invalidation of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 2, 2015 No 2471-r”.
4. Order of the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia dated 22.03.2022 N 226 “On the list of federal measures aimed at ensuring the information security of children, the production of information products for children and the circulation of information products, for 2022 – 2027”.
5. Federal Law of 14.07.2022 N 255-FZ (as amended on 24.07.2023) “On Control over the Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence”.
6. Federal Law of July 20, 2012 N121-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Regulation of the Activities of Non-Profit Organizations Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent”.
7. Federal Law of November 25, 2017 No 327-FZ “On Amendments to Articles 10.4 and 15.3 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” and Article 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media”.
8. Federal Law of 02.12.2019 No 426-FZ “On Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” and the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection”.
9. Federal Law of December 30, 2020 No 481-FZ “On the Establishment of Additional Measures to Counter Threats to National Security”.
10. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 26, 2012 No. 1101 Moscow “On the Unified Automated Information System “Unified Register of Domain Names, Indexes of Pages of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” and Network Addresses Allowing to Identify Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” Containing Information Whose Distribution is Prohibited in the Russian Federation”.
11. Order of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media dated 27.02.2023 No 25 “On Approval of the Criteria for Evaluating Materials and (or) Information Necessary for the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media to Make Decisions That Are the Grounds for Including Domain Names and (or) Indexes of Pages of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet”, as well as network addresses that allow identifying sites in the information and telecommunication network “Internet” to the unified automated information system “Unified Register of Domain Names, Page Indexes of Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” and Network Addresses Allowing to Identify Sites in the Information and Telecommunication Network “Internet” Containing Information Whose Dissemination is Prohibited in the Russian Federation”.
12. Facebook allowed users to wish death to Putin. How did they react in Russia? // BBC News. Russian Service. 11 Mar 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220311105026/https://www.bbcrussian.com/russian/news-60699063
13. Vlasenko M.S. Ensuring the Information Security of Minors on the Internet. State and improvement of legal regulation // Bulletin of the Volga University named after V.N. Tatishchev No 3, vol. 1, 2019, pp. 98-105.
14. Nikolaev, S.V. O nekotorykh perspektivnykh mekhanizakh realizatsii gosudarstvennoy politiki v oblasti obespecheniya informatsionnoy bezopasnosti detei v seti “Internet” [On some promising mechanisms for the implementation of state policy in the field of ensuring the information security of children on the Internet]. – 2016. – № 31. – P. 134-138.
15. Ситкова О.Ю., Шварц Л.В. — Promising Directions of State Legal Policy in the Field of Information Security of Underage Citizens on the Internet // Право и политика. – 2021. – № 8. – С. 71 – 86. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2021.8.36200 URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=36200
16. Soldatova A. V. Problems of ensuring the information security of children on the Internet. UDC 004+659.4 BBK 60.524

https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/59153/1/978-5-91256-403-1_2018_080.pdf?ysclid=llz2yywcrr625643572

1. OECD (2011), “The Protection of Children Online: Risks Faced by Children Online and Policies to Protect Them”, OECD Digital Economy Papers no. 179, OECD Publishing // URL http://www.oecd.org/sti/ ieconomy/childrenonline_with_cover.pdf
2. Konareva Y.P. Internet Dependence in Children and Adolescents. International Scientific Journal “Symbol of Science”. # 9-1 / 2022.
3. Barlett, Christopher P.; Simmers, Matthew M.; Roth, Brendan; Gentile, Douglas (July 4, 2021), “Comparing cyberbullying prevalence and process before and during the COVID-19 pandemic”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 161 (4): 408–418.
4. Catalin Cimpanu (2021). China’s Great Firewall is blocking around 311k domains, 41k by accident. https://therecord.media/chinas-great-firewall-is-blocking-around-311k-domains-41k-by-accident
5. “Definition of tolerance”. dictionary.com. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
6. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (PDF). Arlington, Virginia: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
7. “The Economic Impact of Cybercrime— No Slowing Down” (PDF). McAfee. 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
8. “FBI 2017 Internet Crime Report” (PDF). FBI.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. May 7, 2018. Retrieved 28 August 2018.
9. Murphy, Andrew R. (1997). “Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition”. Polity. The University of Chicago Press Journals. 29 (4): 593–623.
10. “National Security Study Memorandum – NSSM 200” (PDF). USAID. 1974-12-10. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf
11. The “Proud Internationalist”. The Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller by Will Banyan © March 2006 (PDF version).
12. Vinton Cerf. How the Internet Came to Be. “The Online User’s Encyclopedia,” by Bernard Aboba, Addison-Wesley, November 1993, ISBN 0-201-62214-9.
13. Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. As amended 2 June 2022 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-e

1. Clause 1 of Section I of the Concept of Information Security of Children in the Russian Federation, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2023 N 1105-r. ↑
2. OECD (2011), “The Protection of Children Online: Risks Faced by Children Online and Policies to Protect Them”, OECD Digital Economy Papers no. 179, OECD Publishing // URL http://www.oecd.org/sti/ ieconomy/childrenonline_with_cover.pdf ↑
3. Barlett, Christopher P.; Simmers, Matthew M.; Roth, Brendan; Gentile, Douglas (July 4, 2021), “Comparing cyberbullying prevalence and process before and during the COVID-19 pandemic”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 161 (4): 408–418 ↑
4. “FBI 2017 Internet Crime Report” (PDF). FBI.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. May 7, 2018. Retrieved 28 August 2018. ↑
5. “The Economic Impact of Cybercrime— No Slowing Down” (PDF). McAfee. 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018. ↑
6. Hoffman, Frank (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (PDF). Arlington, Virginia: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. ↑
7. Murphy, Andrew R. (1997). “Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition”. Polity. The University of Chicago Press Journals. 29 (4): 593–623. ↑
8. “Definition of tolerance”. dictionary.com. Retrieved 2 January 2023. ↑
9. The “Proud Internationalist”. The Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller by Will Banyan © March 2006 (PDF version), p. 67. ↑
10. “National Security Study Memorandum – NSSM 200” (PDF). USAID. 1974-12-10. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf ↑
11. Catalin Cimpanu (2021). China’s Great Firewall is blocking around 311k domains, 41k by accident. https://therecord.media/chinas-great-firewall-is-blocking-around-311k-domains-41k-by-accident ↑
12. Facebook allowed users to wish death to Putin. How did Russia react? BBC News. Russian Service. 11 Mar 2022.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20220311105026/https://www.bbcrussian.com/russian/news-60699063 ↑

13. Ibidem. ↑