Decisions obliging the Ukrainian operators and providers of telecommunications to block resources by limiting access to them Ukrainians, much more than is known at the moment the General public.
This was at a round table “How and why to block sites through court decisions in Ukraine,” said the representative of the operator “Kyivstar” Anna Savchenko, InternetUA reports.
We will remind as we already reported earlier, from 12 to 29 July of this year, Ukrainian courts for its decisions obligate Ukrainian Internet service providers to limit user access (read – block) to a total of 26 Internet resources, including websites “Enigma.ua” blog resource “Correspondent” and other news sites. As we have already mentioned, these solutions are lawyers and human rights groups say are illegal and we interviewed experts in the Telecom industry – “an example of incompetence” of the judicial system.
August 2 the owners of the sites caught in the decision of Pechersky regional court about blocking news resources, filed an appeal – the first meeting was held on August 20, but it was postponed for September 9.
August 28, members of the public Telecom market and the Internet community discussed the problem at the round table “How and why to block sites through court decisions in Ukraine. “held in UKRINFORM.
As told to Anna Savchenko, at the moment, the decisions of the courts on the locks a lot more than known to the General public.
– Today we have confirmation that the problem locks, deeper and wider. There are decisions of the investigating judge Goloseevskogo district court, court of the city Nikoleva… – said the representative of Kyivstar.
Anna Savchenko noted that the operator does not agree with such decisions of the court and each received the decision on the obligation of the operator to block the access to the resource is being appealed in the courts of appeal. Such decisions fairly and many of them have not yet come to the attention of the public.
– We would like to such judicial practice of blocking access to Internet resources was discontinued because it did not comply with the legislation, said Anna Savchenko. – Moreover, operators and providers of telecommunications put in a position where they have to decide how to perform another court ruling about the lock and, thus, does not violate the rights of subscribers to access telecommunications services. We believe that this issue should be resolved primarily at the legislative level, taking into account the positions of all stakeholders.
What the Internet needs to remain free, is emphasized in the press service of Kyivstar.
The company believes that the Internet should remain free, therefore, the object of a prohibition may be information that violates the law, but no online resource that published it. Recall that in December 2018 Ukraine has improved its position in the ranking of Internet freedom, compiled by Freedom House – it is important to maintain this achievement, – assured the press service of the operator.
As noted during the round table a representative from the Internet Association of Ukraine Maxim Tulev, resuming such practices of locks (such cases have been found earlier, but was not so massive), can lead to the establishment of Internet censorship in Ukraine, “the Russian scenario”.
– The blocking of Internet resources by restricting access may be effective in only two cases – the fight against business (for example, if someone wants to restrict access to Rozetke, it is essential to hit their business) and political censorship. Those are the things where the lock will be effective, – said Tolev. – I’m afraid. what if Internet censorship at full capacity, we will find ourselves in the Russian Federation.
Tulev also said that the discussions at the round table decisions about locks are illegal and the majority of operators and providers does not execute them, awaiting the decision of the court of appeal.
– Ujwala, which obliges all operators and providers in the country to block a particular site without specifying a document to a specific operator/provider, and provide a copy of the decision is de facto legal act, and, as each ABO requires registration with the justice Ministry. It was not, respectively, the decision to execute is not worth it. If the definition appears specific legal entity and the document is delivered in a lawful way (and not, for example, is partly posted on the website of the NCSRCI), the provider is forced to do it, – said Maxim Tulev.