08 February 2001 00:00
INTERVIEW GIVEN BY FIRST DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION V.P. SHERSTYUK TO THE NEWSPAPER KRASNAYA ZVEZDA PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 24, 2001
-- Vladislav Petrovich, it is common knowledge that some people perceived the Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation as the beginning of an offensive by the authorities against the mass media. Could you, one of the authors of this conceptual document, tell us what really necessitated the adoption of this Doctrine? Is it really fraught with a danger to freedom of speech in Russia?
-- Not in the least. Freedom of mass information as, incidentally, the ban on censorship are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The conditions in which the Russian mass media works are determined by a number of laws which, let us be honest, are much more liberal than similar legislation in other countries. The Information Security Doctrine by no means encroaches on the constitutional order. Besides, problems of the mass media hold quite a modest place in the Doctrine. You see, information security is a much broader term than the sphere of application of the work of journalists.
Mankind today has approached the line beyond which there begins a new stage of its development that has become known as "information society". It is for good reason that in his address to the Federal Assembly the President of the Russian Federation noted that "we have no right to miss the information revolution which is mounting in the world".
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the future of the world economy will be determined, along with natural resources, by information resources and services and leadership in the development of the information sphere will have a substantial influence on the alignment of forces in the world arena in this new century. These circumstances determine, on the one hand, the further intensification of the development of the world information sphere, intensification of competition for world leadership in this process and, on the other hand, make the information sphere an increasingly attractive arena for struggle in order to exert economic, political, military or cultural pressure. It directly follows from this that information security is acquiring an ever more important place in the activity of the state designed to protect its national interests and is becoming an ever more important component of our country's national security.
The practice of state-building in recent years shows that the country needs a program document determining the policy of the state in the field of ensuring information security. And the Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation, endorsed by the Security Council and approved by the President of the Russian Federation last September 9, has become such a document.
-- What do you mean by the term "information security"?
-- As is known, a country's national interests are the foundation of its state policy in any field of ensuring the country's security. The Doctrine clearly singles out the four main components of the Russian Federation's national interests in the information sphere.
Firstly, observance of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the field of obtaining information and using it, ensuring Russia's spiritual renewal, preservation and strengthening of society's moral values, traditions of patriotism and humanism, the country's cultural and scientific potential.
Secondly, and I must say that this component was identified directly by the President of Russia, information support for the state policy of the Russian Federation connected with the supply of the Russian and international public with truthful information about the official position on socially important events in Russian and international life and ensuring access for citizens to open state information resources.
The third component of the national interests of the Russian Federation in the information sphere encompasses the development of modern information technologies, the national information industry, meeting the needs of the domestic market in its products and accessing the world market with these products, as well as ensuring the accumulation, preservation and effective use of national information resources.
Finally, the fourth component implies protection of information resources from unauthorized access and ensuring the security of information and telecommunication systems that already exist or are being created on the territory of Russia.
According to the Doctrine, information security means the protected state of Russia's national interests in the information sphere. In turn, these national interests are determined by the sum total of the balanced interests of the individual, society and the state. The word "balanced" is the key one here.
-- What is the present state of Russia's information security?
-- The Doctrine provides a sufficiently clear and, unfortunately, far from optimistic answer to this question. An analysis of the present state of Russia's information security shows that its level does not fully accord with the requirements of society and the state.
The existing conditions of the country's political, social and economic development cause an aggravation of contradictions between society's need for an expanded free exchange of information and the need to preserve certain regulated restrictions on its dissemination. What does this mean? For instance, the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees every citizen the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations and so on. And this, by the way, exactly is one of the embodiments of the sphere of the individual's information security.
The cavalier fashion in which some journalists operate today in this sphere is well known. Pleading "freedom of speech", they often arrogantly and flagrantly intrude into the private life of people, violating in the process not only universal moral standards but also the very clearly stated provisions of our Constitution. This, of course, cannot but give rise to protest in society. And it is here that we should recall the "sum total of the balanced interests of the individual, society and the state" in the information sphere. I regret to say that we have not yet managed to achieve such a balance.
We cannot but be alarmed by the situation with ensuring the security of information that constitutes a state secret. The lag in the development of national information technologies forces the federal bodies of state power, the bodies of state power of subjects of the Federation and local government bodies, when creating their information systems, to buy equipment abroad and contract foreign firms. And this increases the probability of unauthorized access to the information that is being processed and increases Russia's dependence on foreign manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, computer hardware and software.
The dangers of the use of "information weapons" against Russia's information infrastructure have grown in connection with the intensive use of foreign information technologies in the spheres of activity of the individual, society and the state and also the extensive use of open information-telecommunications systems, the integration of national and international information systems. There is insufficient coordination and inadequate budget financing of work to properly and comprehensively counter these threats. Insufficient attention is being given to the development of means of space intelligence and radio-electronic counter-action. Other problems also exist.
So the obtaining situation requires the urgent drafting of the main guidelines of state policy in the field of ensuring the information security of the Russian Federation and also of measures and mechanisms to implement this policy. In particular, we are speaking about the development and upgrading of the system of ensuring the Russian Federation's information security designed to ensure the pursuance of a single state policy in this field and also about the solution of a number of other tasks set forth in the Doctrine.
-- What is your attitude to the idea of strengthening state-owned media outlets?
-- It is a favorable one. I think you will agree with me that a strong state should have an effective state information policy. And the existence of effective state-owned media outlets, which objectively and fully inform society about the activities of the state, is a mandatory attribute of this policy. In a democratic society private media outlets do not have and cannot have such a duty. So why in this case shouldn't the state show concern for and support the media outlets that it owns? It is simply obliged to do this. But this is a far cry from and definitely is not "encroachment on freedom of speech", as it seems to some.
I must say that Russia is not an exception in its striving to strengthen the state sector in the mass media. The Americans, for instance, are investing huge sums in the development of the state sector in the mass media and paying the closest of attention to the provision of information support for their state policy in other counties. The leading countries of the world are not lagging behind the United States in this sphere. The state leadership of these countries very seriously sees to it that its point of view be clearly heard not only inside the country but also beyond it. Why should Russia be any different?
-- How do assess the effectiveness of the information policy pursued by the state today through its media outlets?
-- The experience of recent years shows that individual citizens and society as a whole are not getting in sufficient volume the truthful information that they need about the activities of government, its plans and intentions. This information reaches people in a different, sometimes even in a diametrically opposite interpretation. It if very difficult to find one's bearings in this mosaic, to distinguish truth from fiction.
At the same time the federal bodies of the executive branch of government often do not know how to reach out to people through the mass media. I am compelled to note the need of a drastic improvement of the state information policy which is pursued through state-owned media outlets. One of the aims set forth in the Doctrine, and I have actually already mentioned this, is precisely to expand the possibilities of the state-owned media to promptly convey truthful information to Russian and foreign citizens. Transparency, openness and truthfulness in the coverage of the activities of state bodies should be a result of this.
-- Incidentally, the letters that we get from our readers indicate that many of them are wary about the planned conversion of the existing benefits enjoyed by servicemen into their cash equivalent, fearing that this may worsen their material conditions. How justified are these fears?
-- Considering the composition of your readership I will dwell on this question in greater detail.
The existing system of the social security of servicemen basically formed in conditions of a planned centralized economy. But in conditions of a market economy it ceased to be effective and began to perform with hitches. For instance, the utilities, transport and other enterprises of various form of ownership are developing by investing the money that they earn. But what if a bus service links a military settlement with a district center and most of its passengers are servicemen? How much will this transport service be able to earn? And what should be done in such a situation -- discontinue the bus service or deprive the military of their benefits? There is a way out -- to convert the benefits of servicemen into their cash form.
On November 19, 2000 the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin instructed the government to work out a mechanism of converting into cash form the benefits in kind to which servicemen are entitled (payment for rent and utilities, for fuel, for installing a telephone at home, for using wired-radio outlets, shared television antennas and the telephone at home). Government was also instructed to work out the procedure of levying the income tax on servicemen from January 1, 2001. The government's proposals were studied at a conference of members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation on December 8, 2000 which was chaired by Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Ivanov.
The conference supported the procedure suggested by the Finance Ministry of paying servicemen from January 1, 2001 a monthly cash compensation in the amount of the tax on the income of natural persons that is levied on their cash allowance, other remuneration and payments received by them in connection with their military service. In accordance with this procedure a serviceman will be paid a cash compensation for the tax paid by him and this will be done simultaneously with the payment of the cash allowance to him. So the serviceman actually will not even notice that he has paid his income tax, but there will be a substantial addition of revenue to the local budget.
As to the conversion into cash form of the benefits in kind to which servicemen are entitled (for the payment of rent and utilities, for the purchase of fuel, for installing a telephone and other benefits), the conference found the measures worked out by the Finance Ministry to be imperfect and recommended that it continue improving the mechanism suggested by it so as to ensure reliable guarantees of its hitch-free functioning. The decision on the time schedule for converting benefits in kind into cash form will be taken only after this work is completed and all the necessary changes in legislation are approved. In any case, the interests of servicemen will not be hurt. This question is being personally monitored by the President of Russia.
-- Let's, however, go back to the Information Security Doctrine. What is your attitude toward the expansion of foreign information structures on Russia's domestic information market?
-- There are 38 electronic and 66 printed mass media that are registered in Russia. They have been created with the participation of foreign investments or foreign legal entities as their founders. Permission to spread products in our country has been granted to 1,157 foreign media.
What is our position on this issue? On the one hand, we welcome the expansion of investment in our country, including in the information sector. But on the other hand, we will consistently press for equal "rules of the game" for domestic and foreign mass media. Why, say, does Radio Liberty -- a company fully owned by foreign capital -- have the right of unlimited broadcasting in Russia but Mayak Radio does not have similar rights in the US? The reason is that section 310 of the 1934 US law on mass media establishes stringent restrictions on the issue of licenses for foreign broadcasting in the country. No corporation where more than one-fifth of capital belongs to foreign citizens or their representatives directly or through the right to dispose of it can receive or hold a broadcasting license.
However, when we formulated this problem in the Doctrine in terms of streamlining the status of foreign information agencies, mass media and journalists in Russia, we came under a storm of indignant inquiries as to where democracy is. I would not like to make accusations without facts, but this makes one wonder if this criticism did not come from outside of Russia where they are used to creating "most favored regions" only in their own national interests?
-- How much harder does the rapid development of computer technology make the task of ensuring information security?
-- Not only does it make it harder, but it also brings these tasks to a more important, in terms of national security, level. As I have already said, society is rapidly moving toward a new level of development where information services will provide the basis for its existence. In turn, information services are based primarily on modern information technology which can both benefit and harm mankind. Hence new information security threats. Some of them should be emphasized. These include the desire of some developed countries to dominate the world information space and devise a concept of information warfare which calls for the creation of means that will have a dangerous impact on information spheres in other countries. The spiritual environment (sphere) of society, information resources, automated management and data transmission systems can become potential targets. This threat must be countered in a comprehensive way. On the one hand, the state must create conditions for the development of modern information technology inside the country; on the other hand, it is necessary to protect society from negative information and psychological impacts, and to ensure the security of information protected by law and the country's information infrastructure.
It should be noted that Russia has always opposed and will oppose the resolution of interstate disagreements in the information sphere by uncivilized methods. Russia initiated the adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution 53/70 of December 4, 1998 "Development in the Field of Informatization and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security".
The advent of computer technology created a new threat -- rapid growth of computer crimes.
-- How can it be countered?
-- In 1999, 852 computer crimes were registered in Russia, which is 12 times more than in the previous year. So, it seems to be the most rapidly growing type of crime. However, like any civilized state we must fight it by legal methods. The Russian Criminal Code has corresponding articles -- 272, 273 and 274 -- which envisage punishment for unauthorized access to computer information, for the creation, use and spread of harmful software, for violations of the rules of operation of computers, computer systems and networks.
The Russian Interior Ministry and the Federal Security Service have created corresponding structures.
The problem is the training of qualified personnel in this field. By the way, a round table held recently at Moscow State University's Department of Information Security was devoted to ways of solving this problem.
In addition, the growth of computer crimes is often provoked by information system users who, in search of immediate benefits, prefer cheaper information protection means that are not certified by the state.
-- A new year has just begun, the first year of a new century and a new millennium. What, in your view, is a priority information task now? Where should the focus be this year?
-- One of the internal political priorities in the implementation of the Information Security Doctrine is undoubtedly the social and moral rehabilitation of society, including the need to overcome alarmist and apocalyptical feelings among Russian citizens both with regard to themselves and the future of their children and to the future of Russia as a whole. These feelings were largely evoked by the imposition of Western "heroes" upon Russian society, especially by means of cheap "mass culture" (suffice it to name numerous primitive thrillers and soap operas on television). This creates psychological complexes in society ("Soviet mentality", "market inferiority", "backward and defective mentality", etc.), as well as various mythological "humanist heroes" from the same thrillers. The cultural, ideological and psychological condition of our society generates many motives for information and psychological wars against Russia. The country cannot live normally and develop successfully under continuous social and psychological stress. The role of media in the spiritual revival of Russia can hardly be overestimated.
Today the possibilities for reviving the credibility of power are as great as never before. The country has a new president who is supported by the majority of Russian people. The population has felt some positive changes in the economy and living standards during Vladimir Putin's presidency. As a result, apocalyptical feelings are giving way to calmer and moderately optimistic assessments of our life in the foreseeable future.
I would like to use this opportunity to wish the readers of Zvezdochka in the new year 2001 good deeds for the prosperity of our country where we all live and which we all serve.
___________________________________________________________
© Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
| 
RUSSIA IN FACTS