State Control (Supervision) is a Tool of Threat Countermeasure to National Security in the Information Sphere or Means of Privacy Protection: Balance of Public and Private Interests

Cover Page

Cite item


The article discusses some problems related to the ratio of two fundamental values - the legal protection of the public and the private interests in the sphere of computer data processing. On one hand, the use of information and communication technologies is potentially utilized as networking platforms for the preparation, organization, and implementation of crime and thereby is threatening the security of the state, society, and the individual. However, these technologies are a means of data collection, storage, conversion, and the distribution of private information about citizens' (personal data). It is important to note the threat to public order and the inviolability of privacy forming in the information sphere is being addressed in the context of the adopted package of amendments designed to ensure public safety and security, as well as counter-terrorism, which is called the “Yarovaya Law”, Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation, Russian Federal Law on Personal Data Protection, and additionally as the Russian Federation Government Draft Resolution on State Control and Supervision over the Compliance of Personal Data Processing with the Requirements of the Personal Data Legislation of the Russian Federation. However, in accordance with the Federal Law on Personal Data, the purpose of processing personal data is limited to the achievement of pre-defined and legitimate objectives. Moreover, the Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation recognizes the security and protection of privacy when using information technology vis-à-vis national interests. However, along with the above indicated regulations aimed at protecting the information on the private lives of citizens, the purpose of collection, storage, and use of personal data according to the “Yarovaya Law” is counter-terrorism and public safety. It follows that the legislation regulates both mutually exclusive purposes of processing personal data. Meanwhile, Roskomnadzor is an authorized federal executive for the protection of the personal data bearing subjects' rights, carrying out state control (supervision) functions over compliance requirements of legislation of the Russian Federation, which include the definition of the purpose of processing of personal data. Due to the fact that purposes of processing of personal data are legitimate, but conflicting with each other, the Roskomnadzor is forced to violate the principle of impartiality in the implementation of the control (supervision), initially defending the public interest, thereby infringing upon them and consisting of the protection of the information aspect of the inviolability of private life. In connection with the above-mentioned circumstances, the authors propose is to balance public and private interests in the formation of a supervisory bodies system for the protection of personal data based on the legislative experience of developed countries.

About the authors

Valeriy P Ivanskiy

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.

Law Institute

6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198

Grigory V Melnichuk

RUDN University


Law Institute

6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198


  1. Kovalev SI, Ivanskaya AV. Legal defense problems of the confidential information in the conditions of scientific-technological progress development. RUDN Journal of Law. 2014;1:44–52. (In Russian).
  2. Demin AA. Value Bases of Community Identity Formation. Historical, Philosophical, Politi-cal and Law Sciences, Culturology and Study of Art. Issues of Theory and Practice. 2015;2–1(52):73–78. (In Russian).
  3. Dupan (Gutnikova) AS, editor. Novaya paradigma zashchity i upravleniya personal'nymi dannymi v Rossiiskoi Federatsii i zarubezhnykh stranakh v usloviyakh razvitiya sistem obrabotki dannykh v seti internet [New paradigm of protection and management of personal data in the Russian Federation and foreign countries in the conditions of development data processing systems on the Internet]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House; 2016. 344 p. (In Russian).
  4. Bachilo IL Sergienko LA, Kristal'nyi BV, Areshev AG. Personal'nye dannye v strukture informatsionnykh resursov. Osnovy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Personal data in the structure of information resources. The legal regulation]. Minsk: Bellitfond; 2006. 474 p. (In Russian)
  5. Savelyev AI. (2015) The Issues of Implementing Legislation on Personal Data in the Era of Big Data. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2015;1: 43–66. (In Russian).
  6. Karpovich OG. “Yarovaya Law” and “Patriot Act” – comparative analysis. Law and Legislation. 2016;9:15–18. (In Russian).
  7. Bolgova VV. Public Interest and Privacy: Some Balance Problems. Vestnik of Volzhsky Uni-versity after V.N. Tatischev. 2016;1(2):112–117. (In Russian).
  8. Lyubimov AP, Avdeev MYu. Konstitutsionnoe pravo na neprikosnovennost' chastnoi zhizni v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh [The constitutional right of privacy in Russia and foreign countries]. Moscow: Yurkompani; 2015. 216 p. (In Russian).
  9. Bygrave LA. Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. 272 p.
  10. Calo M.R. Against Notice Skepticism in Privacy (and Elsewhere). Notre Dame Law Review. 2012;87(3):1027–1072.
  11. Carey P. Data Protection: A Practical Guide to UK and EU Law. 2nd ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. 532 p.
  12. Crawford K, Schultz J. Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms. B.C.L. Rev. 2014;55(1):93–128.
  13. Freedman W. The right of privacy in the computer age. New York: Quorum Books; 1987. 163 p.
  14. Mantelero A. The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten'. Computer Law & Security Review. 2013;29(3):229–231. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.010.
  15. Gorelikhina OA, Shlin'kov AA. Pravovaya zashchita personal'nykh dannykh v Germanii [Le-gal protection of personal data in Germany]. Economic and Law Issues. 2012;45:322–326. (In Russian).
  16. Proskuryakova MI. Konstitutsionno-pravovye osnovy zashchity personal'nykh dannykh v Rossii i Germanii v istolkovanii organov konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [ The constitutional and legal foundations of personal data protection in Russia and Germany in the interpretation of the bodies of constitutional justice]. Comparative Сonstitutional Review. 2015;1(104):29–44. (In Russian).
  17. McDonald AM, Cranor LF. The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. 2008;4(3):540–568.
  18. Murphy R. Social Distance and Veil. In: Schoeman FD, editor. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. An Anthology. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1984. x, 426 p.

Copyright (c) 2017 Ivanskiy V.P., Melnichuk G.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies