Russia:Telegramblockleadstowidespreadassaultonfreedomofexpressiononline

Wednesday16May2018

We, the undersigned 53 international and Russian human rights, media and Internet freedom organisations,strongly condemn the attempts by the Russian Federation to block the Internetmessaging service Telegram,whichhaveresultedinextensiveviolationsoffreedomofexpressionandaccesstoinformation,includingmasscollateralwebsiteblocking.

WecallonRussiatostopblockingTelegramandceaseitsrelentlessattacksonInternetfreedommorebroadly.WealsocalltheUnitedNations(UN),theCouncilofEurope(CoE),theOrganisationforSecurityandCooperationinEurope (OSCE), theEuropeanUnion (EU), theUnitedStatesandother concernedgovernments to challengeRussia’s actions and uphold the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy online as well asoffline.Lastly,wecallonInternetcompaniestoresistunfoundedandextra-legalordersthatviolatetheirusers’rights.

MassiveInternetdisruptions

On13April2018,Moscow’sTaganskyDistrictCourtgrantedRoskomnadzor,Russia’scommunicationsregulator,itsrequest to block access to Telegram on the grounds that the company had not compliedwith a 2017 order toprovidedecryptionkeystotheRussianFederalSecurityService(FSB).Sincethen,theactionstakenbytheRussianauthoritiestorestrictaccesstoTelegramhavecausedmassInternetdisruption,including:

● Between16-18April2018,almost20millionInternetProtocol(IP)addresseswereorderedtobeblockedbyRoskomnadzorasitattemptedtorestrictaccesstoTelegram.Themajorityoftheblockedaddressesareowned by international Internet companies, including Google, Amazon andMicrosoft. On 30 April, thenumberofblockedIPaddresseswas14.6million.Asof16May2018,thisfigureiscurrently10.9million.

● ThismassblockingofIPaddresseshashadadetrimentaleffectonawiderangeofweb-basedservicesthathave nothing to do with Telegram, including, but not limited to, online banking and booking sites,shopping,andflightreservations.

● Within aweek, Agora, the human rights and legal group, representing Telegram in Russia, reported itreceivedrequestsforassistancewithissuesarisingfromthemassblockingfromabout60companiesandwebsite owners, including online stores, delivery services, and software developers. The number ofrequestshasnowreached100.

● At least six onlinemedia outlets (PetersburgDiary, Coda Story, FlashNord, FlashSiberia, Tayga.info, and7x7)foundaccesstotheirwebsiteswastemporarilyblocked.

● On17April 2018, Roskomnadzor requested thatGoogle andApple remove access to the Telegramappfrom their App stores, despite having no basis in Russian law to make this request. At the time ofpublication, theapp remainsavailable,butTelegramhasnotbeenable toprovideupgrades thatwouldallowbetterproxyaccessforusers.

● VirtualPrivateNetwork(VPN)providers–suchasTgVPN,LeVPNandVeeSecurityproxy-havealsobeentargetedforprovidingalternativemeanstoaccessTelegram.FederalLaw276-FZbansVPNsandInternetanonymisers fromprovidingaccess towebsitesbanned inRussiaandauthorisesRoskomnadzor toordertheblockingofanysiteexplaininghowtousetheseservices.

● On 3 May 2018, Rozkomnadzor stated that it had blocked access to around 50 VPN services andanonymisers in relation to theTelegramblock.On the sameday, theRussia’sCommunicationsMinisterrefusedtoruleoutthatothermessagingservices,includingViber,couldpotentiallybeblockedinRussiaifthey do not hand over encryption keys upon request. The minister had previously warned, during aninterviewon6April 2018, that action couldbe takenagainstViber, aswell asWhatsAppand FacebookMessenger.

BackgroundonrestrictiveInternetlaws

Overthepastsixyears,Russiahasadoptedahugeraftoflawsrestrictingfreedomofexpressionandtherighttoprivacyonline.Theseincludethecreationin2012ofablacklistofInternetwebsites,managedbyRoskomnadzor,and the incremental extension of the grounds upon which websites can be blocked, including without a courtorder.

2

The 2016 so-called ‘Yarovaya Law’, justified on the grounds of “countering extremism”, requires allcommunicationsprovidersandInternetoperatorstostoremetadataabouttheirusers’communicationsactivities,todisclosedecryptionkeysatthesecurityservices’request,andtouseonlyencryptionmethodsapprovedbytheRussiangovernment-inpracticalterms,tocreateabackdoorforRussia’ssecurityagentstoaccessinternetusers’data,traffic,andcommunications.InOctober2017,amagistratefoundTelegramguiltyofanadministrativeoffenseforfailingtoprovidedecryptionkeys to the Russian authorities – which the company states it cannot do due to Telegram’s use of end-to-endencryption. The company was fined 800,000 rubles (approx. 11,000 EUR). Telegram lost an appeal against theadministrative charge inMarch2018, giving theRussianauthorities formal grounds toblockTelegram inRussia,underArticle15.4oftheFederalLaw“OnInformation,InformationTechnologiesandInformationProtection”.TheRussianauthorities’latestmoveagainstTelegramdemonstratestheseriousimplicationsforpeople’sfreedomofexpressionandrighttoprivacyonlineinRussiaandworldwide:

● ForRussianusersappssuchasTelegramandsimilarservicesthatseektoprovidesecurecommunicationsarecrucialforusers’safety.Theyprovideanimportantsourceofinformationoncriticalissuesofpolitics,economicsandsociallife,freeofunduegovernmentinterference.FormediaoutletsandjournalistsbasedinandoutsideRussia,Telegramservesnotonlyasamessagingplatformforsecurecommunicationwithsources,butalsoasapublishingvenue.Throughitschannels,Telegramactsasacarrieranddistributorofcontent for entiremedia outlets aswell as for individual journalists and bloggers. In light of direct andindirect state control over many traditional Russian media and the self-censorship many other mediaoutletsfeelcompelledtoexercise,instantmessagingchannelslikeTelegramhavebecomeacrucialmeansofdisseminatingideasandopinions.

● Companiesthatcomplywiththerequirementsofthe‘YarovayaLaw’byallowingthegovernmentaback-

doorkeytotheirservicesjeopardisethesecurityoftheonlinecommunicationsoftheirRussianusersandthe people they communicate with abroad. Journalists, in particular, fear that providing the FSB withaccesstotheircommunicationswouldjeopardisetheirsources,acornerstoneofpressfreedom.Companycompliance would also signal that communication services providers are willing to compromise theirencryptionstandardsandputtheprivacyandsecurityofalltheirusersatrisk,asacostofdoingbusiness.

● Beginning in July2018,other articlesof the ‘Yarovaya Law’will come into force requiring companies to

store the content of all communications for six months and to make them accessible to the securityserviceswithoutacourtorder.ThiswouldaffectthecommunicationsofbothpeopleinRussiaandabroad.

Suchattemptsby theRussianauthorities to controlonline communicationsand invadeprivacygo farbeyondwhatcanbeconsiderednecessaryandproportionatetocounteringterrorismandviolateinternationallaw.

InternationalStandards

● Blocking websites or apps is an extrememeasure, analogous to banning a newspaper or revoking thelicense of a TV station. As such,it is highly likely to constitutea disproportionate interference withfreedomof expression andmedia freedom in the vastmajority of cases, andmust be subject to strictscrutiny.Ataminimum,anyblockingmeasuresshouldbeclearlylaiddownbylawandrequirethecourtstoexaminewhetherthewholesaleblockingofaccesstoanonlineserviceisnecessaryandinlinewiththecriteria established and applied by the European Court of Human Rights. Blocking Telegram and theaccompanyingactionsclearlydonotmeetthisstandard.

● Various requirements of the ‘Yarovaya Law’ are plainly incompatible with international standards on

encryption and anonymity as set out in the 2015 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom ofExpression report (A/HRC/29/32). The UN Special Rapporteur himself has written to the Russiangovernment raising serious concerns that the ‘Yarovaya Law’ unduly restricts the rights to freedom ofexpression and privacy online. In the European Union, the Court of Justice has ruled that similar dataretention obligations were incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Although theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasnotyetruledonthecompatibilityoftheRussianprovisionsforthedisclosureofdecryptionkeyswiththeEuropeanConventiononHumanRights, ithas foundthatRussia’s

3

legal framework governing interception of communications does not provide adequate and effectiveguaranteesagainstthearbitrarinessandtheriskofabuseinherentinanysystemofsecretsurveillance.

We,theundersignedorganisations,callon:

● TheRussianauthoritiestoguaranteeinternetusers’righttopublishandbrowseanonymouslyandensurethatanyrestrictionstoonlineanonymityaresubjecttorequirementsofacourtorder,andcomplyfullywith Articles 17 and 19(3) of the ICCPR, and articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on HumanRights,by:o Desisting from blocking Telegram and refraining from requiring messaging services, such as

Telegram,toprovidedecryptionkeysinordertoaccessusersprivatecommunications;o Repealing provisions in the ‘Yarovaya Law’ requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to store all

telecommunications data for sixmonths and imposingmandatory cryptographic backdoors, andthe 2014 Data Localisation law, which grant security service easy access to users’ data withoutsufficientsafeguards.

o Repealing Federal Law241-FZ,whichbansanonymity forusersofonlinemessagingapplications;andLaw276-FZwhichprohibitsVPNsandInternetanonymisersfromprovidingaccesstowebsitesbannedinRussia;

o AmendingFederalLaw149-FZ“OnInformation,ITTechnologiesandProtectionofInformation”sothattheprocessofblockingwebsitesmeets internationalstandards.Anydecisiontoblockaccesstoawebsiteorappshouldbeundertakenbyanindependentcourtandbelimitedbyrequirementsof necessity and proportionality for a legitimate aim. In consideringwhether to grant a blockingorder,thecourtorother independentbodyauthorisedto issuesuchanordershouldconsider itsimpactonlawfulcontentandwhattechnologymaybeusedtopreventover-blocking.

● Representatives of the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe (CoE), the Organisation for the

Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), the European Union (EU) the United States and otherconcerned governments to scrutinise and publicly challenge Russia’s actions in order to uphold thefundamentalrightstofreedomofexpressionandprivacybothonlineand-offline,asstipulatedinbindinginternationalagreementstowhichRussiaisaparty.

● Internetcompaniestoresistordersthatviolateinternationalhumanrightslaw.Companiesshouldfollow

the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights, which emphasise that theresponsibility to respect human rights applies throughout a company’s global operations regardless ofwhere its users are located and exists independently ofwhether the Statemeets its ownhuman rightsobligations.

Signedby

1. ARTICLE19

2. AgoraInternational

3. AccessNow

4. AmnestyInternational

5. AsociatiapentruTehnologiesiInternet–ApTI

6. AssociaçãoD3-DefesadosDireitosDigitais

7. CentrefortheDevelopmentofDemocracyandHumanRights

4

8. CommitteetoProtectJournalists

9. Citizens’Watch

10. CivilRightsDefenders

11. ElectronicFrontierFoundation

12. ElectronicFrontierNorway

13. ElectronicPrivacyInformationCentre(EPIC)

14. EuropeanFederationofJournalists

15. FreedomHouse

16. FreeWordAssociation

17. GlasnostDefenceFoundation

18. HumanRightsHouseFoundation

19. HumanRightsWatch

20. TheIndependentHistoricalSociety

21. IndexonCensorship

22. InternationalMediaSupport

23. InternationalMemorial

24. InternationalPartnershipforHumanRights

25. InternetSocietyBulgaria

26. InternationalYouthHumanRightsMovement(YHRM)

27. InterregionalHumanRightsGroup

28. KharkivHumanRightsProtectionGroup

29. MassMediaDefenceCentre

5

30. MemorialHumanRightsCenter

31. MoscowHelsinkiGroup

32. Movement‘ForHumanRights’

33. NorwegianHelsinkiCommittee

34. OpenMedia

35. OpenRightsGroup

36. OVD-Info

37. PENAmerica

38. PENInternational

39. PENStPetersburg

40. PeopleinNeed

41. PressDevelopmentInstitute-Siberia

42. PrivacyInternational

43. ReporterswithoutBorders

44. RosKomSvoboda

45. RussianJournalists'andMediaWorkers'Union

46. SakharovCenter

47. SOVACenter

48. Team29

49. TransparencyInternational

50. TransparencyInternationalRussia

51. WebpublishersAssociation(Russia)

6

52. WorldWideWebFoundation

53. Xnet