ONI Testing Results
The OpenNet Initiative tested from different locations and several access points on a
number of main ISPs in the major cities and regions. The ONI tested on the following
ISPs: AltaiTelecom, ASN-Yartelecom, Comstar, Corvette, Metrocom, North-West Telecom (ASN SPBNIT), Rosnet, RiNet, St. Petersburg State University (ASN-SPBGU), and
Wiland. The ONI found first-generation filtering that targeted erotic and pornographic
content. Second-generation filtering methods were largely undetected by the ONI, as
they occur only during significant political events. The ONI did not monitor the 2007
parliamentary or 2008 presidential elections, during which numerous instances of
second-generation and third-generation controls were reported in the Russian and
foreign press.
Conclusion
Control of media has a long-established history in Russia. As the Internet has proliferated, the government has moved to design suitable control mechanisms. Compared to
other countries, the Russian approach represents a notably different method of controlling Internet activity. Instead of utilizing Chinese-style filtering to control Internet
access, the Russian government prefers to employ second- and third-generation techniques such as legal and technical instruments and national information campaigns
to shape the information environment and stifle dissent and opposition.
As many countries around the world struggle with Internet regulation, it is likely
that this Russian model will be emulated by other governments, in the CIS and beyond.
Notes
1. Helen Womack, ‘‘Russia’s Governors Reluctantly Accept Putin Curbs on Power,’’ The
Independent, July 27, 2000, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russias-governorsreluctantly-accept-putin-curbs-on-power-707944.html; Nikolay Petrov and Michael A. McFaul,
‘‘How Much Has Federal Power Increased Under Putin?’’ Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, September 8, 2004, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail
&id=747.
2. Centre for the Study of Public Policy (University of Aberdeen) and Levada Center (Moscow),
‘‘Russia Votes,’’ January 22, 2009, http://www.russiavotes.org/president/presidency_performance
_trends.php#190.
3. Freedom House sets Russia’s country status as ‘‘nonfree’’ for 2006 and 2007.
4. Clifford J. Levy, ‘‘Is Russia’s Economy a Threat to Putin’s Power?’’ The Seattle Times, February 1, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008694591_worldweek01.html
?syndication=rss.
220
Russia
The OpenNet Initiative tested from different locations and several access points on a
number of main ISPs in the major cities and regions. The ONI tested on the following
ISPs: AltaiTelecom, ASN-Yartelecom, Comstar, Corvette, Metrocom, North-West Telecom (ASN SPBNIT), Rosnet, RiNet, St. Petersburg State University (ASN-SPBGU), and
Wiland. The ONI found first-generation filtering that targeted erotic and pornographic
content. Second-generation filtering methods were largely undetected by the ONI, as
they occur only during significant political events. The ONI did not monitor the 2007
parliamentary or 2008 presidential elections, during which numerous instances of
second-generation and third-generation controls were reported in the Russian and
foreign press.
Conclusion
Control of media has a long-established history in Russia. As the Internet has proliferated, the government has moved to design suitable control mechanisms. Compared to
other countries, the Russian approach represents a notably different method of controlling Internet activity. Instead of utilizing Chinese-style filtering to control Internet
access, the Russian government prefers to employ second- and third-generation techniques such as legal and technical instruments and national information campaigns
to shape the information environment and stifle dissent and opposition.
As many countries around the world struggle with Internet regulation, it is likely
that this Russian model will be emulated by other governments, in the CIS and beyond.
Notes
1. Helen Womack, ‘‘Russia’s Governors Reluctantly Accept Putin Curbs on Power,’’ The
Independent, July 27, 2000, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russias-governorsreluctantly-accept-putin-curbs-on-power-707944.html; Nikolay Petrov and Michael A. McFaul,
‘‘How Much Has Federal Power Increased Under Putin?’’ Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, September 8, 2004, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail
&id=747.
2. Centre for the Study of Public Policy (University of Aberdeen) and Levada Center (Moscow),
‘‘Russia Votes,’’ January 22, 2009, http://www.russiavotes.org/president/presidency_performance
_trends.php#190.
3. Freedom House sets Russia’s country status as ‘‘nonfree’’ for 2006 and 2007.
4. Clifford J. Levy, ‘‘Is Russia’s Economy a Threat to Putin’s Power?’’ The Seattle Times, February 1, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008694591_worldweek01.html
?syndication=rss.
220
Russia