Video: Risks in the draft law on a unified information register - Igor Ashmanov
2023 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-11-26 22:42
On May 21, the State Duma adopted the law "On a unified federal information register containing information about the population of the Russian Federation." What are the risks inherent in this bill? Commentary by IT specialist Igor Ashmanov.
I have the impression that in the current difficult time, when people think first of all about how to survive, where to make money, how to get a pass for themselves, and so on, supporters of universal digitalization have become more active "on the sly".
The arguments in favor of the adoption of the law on the creation of the Unified Federal Register of Citizens (EFIR) were presented by its initiators in an explanatory note for the first reading. These arguments are rather strange, since the purpose of creating a register is the creation of the register itself. The note says that the bill "was developed in order to create a system for recording information about the population." Complete reliable data will be collected about everything: not only full name, SNILS, TIN, but also data on family ties, as well as "other information about an individual." This will allow, according to the authors, firstly, "to increase the efficiency and quality of decisions in the field of state and municipal administration." How, not explained. And, secondly, "to ensure the transition to a qualitatively new level of calculation and accrual of taxes on personal income." The fight against delinquency, tax and benefit fraud was also mentioned. That is, it is very cool to know everything about everyone, and more taxes will be collected.
But there are no arguments at all why all data about a person should be reduced to one point.
In fact, for people planning to manage this base, the main argument (of course, not spelled out in the bill) is the creation of a new type of power - digital power. And since a new center of power is being created, then everything should be in the center, in a single register.
It may be objected that since the base is centralized, it will be protected by the best information security specialists, etc. But still think: now all the data is there, but they are in different places, therefore, in order to dig for someone, a hacker must solve a very difficult problem - to get into the registry offices, to get into medical institutions, and so on. After creating a single database, access to a record about a specific person, where everything is available, will be orders of magnitude cheaper. It will only be necessary to corrupt one person - the system administrator, programmer or official.
If these data about a person are needed by state bodies, then a system of interdepartmental interaction for the exchange of data has long been created. Therefore, the idea of collecting everything in one place is not really about technical perfection and not about convenience, but about the fact that someone would like to have it all at hand and due to this to gain more power.
Yes, for an official to know everything about everyone is very cool, but he does not understand anything about technology. But he has "magic" assistants - IT-schnicks, who tell him that it is possible. Of course, the official is fascinated by this. It seems to him that he will have some kind of magic wand. And this is very bad, because he will really have it. But what this wand actually does, only the "magicians" -IT-shniki themselves will know. In fact, we delegate power to them without formally delegating it.
And formally, according to the bill, the Federal Tax Service will be the operator of the EFIR. It will become a data collection center, and all other departments will simply have to give them to the Federal Tax Service. There will be no way not to give it.
I think that the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are against the creation of such a base. Because this is their sphere of competence, and here suddenly civilians will begin to steer these data. Think about it: if the operator of this database were FSB officers, they would still be military people, that is, those who took the oath. They have regulations, they have an internal security service. They understand that if they use the data for personal purposes, they will be held liable, etc.
And now, all of a sudden, some civilians start to steer very toxic data (akin to radioactive materials or biological weapons). Maybe they will give some kind of nondisclosure agreement, but this is completely different from the oath of a security officer.
By the way, there were no public hearings on this bill. And this, in my opinion, is a disgrace, because it really affects the constitutional rights of citizens. The citizen here is an object, just minced meat from which cutlets are fried. That is, they collect all the data about you, and you don't even have the right to object. Such an attitude towards citizens can, unfortunately, later lead to distrust of the authorities.
When we are told that this has already been introduced in other countries, we can agree. The Americans, for example, have built such a system long ago, albeit within the framework of intelligence (the National Security Agency). They collect everything about their citizens, adding to this database, of course, the state of accounts, medical records and so on, and they are trying to do this in relation to the whole world.
But we must understand that we, the United States and China are three superpowers that really decide what will happen on the planet. But we are not three countries, but three civilizations with completely different value systems. And if the Americans or the Chinese are doing something, then it is not at all a fact that we need to do it.
Americans have a purely hierarchical society in which there are literally a number of very bad and very good areas, where the main indicator of life is money, etc. Yes, they are building an electronic concentration camp. Moreover, when a virus attacks them, we see what is going on with them. That is, the welfare of the masses does not interest them at all. Therefore, point to the United States and say: "But look, they have already done!" - it is absolutely irrelevant. We need to decide what we need. From our point of view, we do not need to build an electronic concentration camp. Moreover, it has nothing to do with geopolitical competition. We are told that only the one who will drive all his citizens into the matrix and control them like robots will win. And then he will win the planet. But this is clearly not the case! The winner is the one whose citizens will love their state more and will be the most independent and loyal, and not robots.
Moreover, the largest software and hardware platforms are mainly American. They are controlled by the US government and operate under their jurisdiction. For example, neither Facebook, nor Google, nor Instagram remove anything from what our Roskomnadzor requires to remove, for which they are fined insignificant amounts. But when these corporations want to remove the photo with the Red Flag over the Reichstag, they do it calmly, and no Roskomnadzor can even punish them for this.
Or the Zoom system, with which we are now communicating remotely. This video conferencing platform has now skyrocketed by three orders of magnitude due to its self-isolation regime. So, the Americans brought in a professional intelligence officer to the Zoom Board of Directors. At Google, professional intelligence agent Eric Schmidt was the CEO for 15 or 20 years.
That is, the Americans are well aware that hardware and software platforms are their strategic weapons in the world. With their help, they carry out the so-called digital colonization. We are in many ways a digital colony of the United States. We are no longer an economic or political colony, fortunately, we got out of this state in 20 years, but digitally we are still largely a colony. And in this sense, collecting data about citizens in one place, operating them with the help of Western databases, Western search engines and other platforms, is, of course, extremely risky.
But still, I believe that there are much more internal risks than external ones. What can an external adversary do? He can steal data or shut down these systems remotely. This is, of course, very unpleasant. But it is much more dangerous that we have a new kind of power inside us - digital power over data. This power will not belong to officials who are trying to create this single register, hang cameras everywhere, etc. Power will belong to the new digital class, namely the sysadmins, programmers and implementers of these systems.
These people are not from the special services, they do not take any special oaths. At the same time, they have access to data outside all systems of access rights, since they themselves assign these access rights. A certain invisible layer of power appears, which will belong to people to whom this power has not been delegated.
Detailed theses of speech at the Parliamentary hearings in the State Duma of Natalya Kasperskaya, member of the Expert Council on domestic software, head of the Working Group of the Digital Economy Program in the direction of Information Security
Everyone knows from history that in Ancient Egypt there was a culture and civilization developed at that time. And some researchers of alternative history are sure that the civilization was highly developed, with a high level of technology, in particular, the technology of stone processing, which in some places is inaccessible even now
The phenomenon of the "Dagestan Unified State Exam" suddenly became popular not only among the local population, but also among residents of other regions of Russia. Parents with graduates come to Dagestan auls
Why do we need a central database of personal data for all citizens? We have not been able to hear any meaningful answers either in the rationale for the bills or in the press. Why are officials so actively promoting this idea?
Despite the fact that this textbook reflects the traditional version of history, it helps to destroy many Russophobic myths about our recent past, in particular, ideological mines on the history of the twentieth century. Without a good knowledge of the traditional version of history, it is impossible to have meaningful discussions about alternative versions