In situation, when possible introduction of social networks’ legal control is discussed without business sector and publicity, we run high risks that we get a law, which infringes on citizens’ rights.

Such an opinion shared Uladzimir Matskevich, the Head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”.

— Let us recall that recently, during the online conference “Social networks: for good or to the damage?” at BelTA website, there was a serious discussion about the possible introduction of social networks’ control. How should we treat such a suggestion?

— Any social phenomenon can’t escape legislative regulation. Actually, the tendency to develop legislation at all times has been that it spreads further, on the spheres, which were not under such control before. Today, when social networks are very important in the Internet, there is no way social networks escape legislative regulation. However, the question is what kind of control it is going to be.

We really need legislative definition of social networks and their difference from other information sources in the Internet. We should mold our attitude towards the possibility to use the information we get from social networks in press, Mass Media; we also should discriminate between official and non-official information.

If we want this control to be democratic, then the indispensable condition is to restrict the infringement of privacy. Therefore, any attempts of tracking, control and censorship are subject to be brought into correlation with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutional rights of citizens.

As social networks are not only the means for spreading rumors, they can be used in different ways: for news leaking and disinformation. And it is clear that without control and certain legal skills law-enforcement agencies merely don’t have any possibility to use information from social networks. Should we consider messages about threats of terrorism, accidents, etc. from social network? So, in order to treat such kind of information, certain legislative control is required.

Thus, regulating social networks is both risky (as Belarusan state can pursue its own interests and forget about the citizens' rights and freedoms) and all the same necessary.

— And how should we react to the fact that the discussion of introducing Internet control starts within ideologists and Foreign Ministry’s press-secretaries? 

— We shouldn’t view it as a case that they suddenly get interested, as from the early steps of Belarus’ connection to the global network in the 90s Belarusan law enforcement agencies and ideologists got very interested in it. And that is why there existed great restrictions since the very beginning; thus, we didn’t have private providers, which was an attempt to control Internet development. There has never been too little interest in the Internet on law enforcement agencies’ side.

The fact that today it is the subject of discussion among the representatives of the law enforcement agencies is a widespread practice in Belarus. What is remarkable here is the lack of public voice and business structures concerned. If it is high time for Belarus to engage in legal control of social networks, it has to be done with participation of all interested parties.

— Is there any danger that some new trend will substitute social networks, and it will result in constant struggle to control something that has already gone? 

— There is no danger in that. Many laws become obsolete. Different legislative acts have different life cycles. Sometimes they remain topical for years, sometimes their relevance disappears soon after the law enters in force.

However, there are universal and comparatively lasting laws. Turning back to what I’ve been saying, let me recall if contradicting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any legislation can infringe on privacy and freedoms of citizens and will be considered an unlawful regulation. And this is where the danger lies.