Transformation of the Circle of Subjects of the Secrecy of Communication: the Impact of Digitalization

The current legislation lacks the concept of «secrecy of communication». Also, the idea of the circle of subjects the relevant regulatory requirements should apply to remains ambiguous. At the same time, in the conditions of the digital economy, compliance with the confidentiality regime of certain types of information, including the secrecy of communication, requires an unambiguous understanding of by whom, by what methods and to what extent such confidentiality should be ensured. The study analyzes theoretical concepts, as well as judicial practice on the secrecy of communication as a legal institution and on the peculiarities of regulating the position of subjects of communication secrecy. The author identifies groups of subjects of secrecy of communication, namely: subjects who are entitled to communication secrecy; subjects who, by virtue of their professional activities, have gained access to the secret of communication of the former and for whom the secret of communication is a professional secret; subjects who have the right of access to the secret of communication. The author provides a comparative legal analysis of approaches to the definition of subjects of communication secrecy in the models of regulation of communication secrecy of other jurisdictions (Europe and the USA). The paper describes a number of gaps and legal uncertainties in the regulation of the legal status of subjects of communication secrecy due to the emergence of new information objects because of the digital technologies’ development, makes; proposals for optimizing the regulation of the legal status of subjects of communication secrecy. The study was conducted in order to identify ways to optimize the legal regulation of the legal regime of communication secrecy in the Russian Federation, in particular the activities of subjects of communication secrecy. The paper is based on a comprehensive methodological approach. Methods of analysis, analogies, formal-legal, formal-logical, comparative methods, the method of legal modeling are employed by the author.

1. Abdrahmanova G. I., Vishnevskij K. O., Gohberg L. M. [i dr.] Chto takoe cifrovaya ekonomika? Trendy, kompetencii, izmerenie: doklad k XX Aprel’skoj mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii po problemam razvitiya ekonomiki i obshchestva, Moskva, 9–12 apr. 2019 g. / nauch. red. L. M. Gohberg. — M. : Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki, 2019. — 82 s.

2. Apanasenko S. S., Gladkih E. L. Tajna telefonnyh peregovorov v ugolovnom prave Rossii // Rostovskij nauchnyj zhurnal. — 2019. — № 1. — S. 278–293.

3. Belickaya A. V., Belyh V. S., Belyaeva O. A. [i dr.] Pravovoe regulirovanie ekonomicheskih otnoshenij v sovremennyh usloviyah razvitiya cifrovoj ekonomiki / otv. red. V. A. Vajpan, M. A. Egorova — M. : Yusticinform, 2019. — 376 s.

4. Vajpan V. A. Pravovoe regulirovanie cifrovoj ekonomiki // Predprinimatel’skoe pravo. Prilozhenie «Biznes i Pravo». — 2018. — № 1. — S. 12–17.

5. Naumov V., Avakyan E., Chuburkov A., Yankovskij R., Belova S., Tevs M., Mahnonosov E., Rybalko V. Cifrovaya sreda doveriya: kommentarii ekspertov // Zakon. — 2019. — № 9. — S. 25–38.

6. Romashov P. A. K voprosu o neprikosnovennosti chastnoj zhizni v cifrovoj vek // Permskij yuridicheskij al’manah. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 103–118.

7. Ryazanov N. Yu. Nekotorye voprosy samocennosti tajny svyazi // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo gumanitarnogo instituta. — 2012. — № 1. — S. 84–86.

8. Tenishev A. P. Ob antimonopol’nyh kiberprestupleniyah, dostupe k tajnam i cifrovom specpodrazdelenii // Konkurenciya i pravo. — 2018. — № 5. — S. 14–20.

9. Tereshchenko L. K. K voprosu o pravovom rezhime informacii // Informacionnoe pravo. — 2008. — № 1. — S. 20–27.

10. Freiwald S. California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA): A Case Study in Legislative Regulation of Surveillance. The Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law / Gray D., Henderson S. (eds.). — Cambridge University Press. — 2017. — October 12. — P. 623–641. — URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=3285424 (data obrashcheniya: 29.06.2021).

11. Goldfarb R. In Confidence: When to Protect Secrecy and When to Require Disclosure. — New Haven : Yale University Press, 2009. — 289 p.

12. Hirsch D. Privacy, public goods, and the theory of the trust commons: A response to professors Fairfield and Engel // Duke Law Journal. — 2016. — Vol. 65. February. — URL: https://dlj.law.duke.edu/2016/02/privacypublic-goods-and-the-tragedy-of-the-trust-commons/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.06.2021).

13. Hoboken J., Zuiderveen Borgesius F. Scoping Electronic Communication Privacy Rules: Data, Services and Values // Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law. — 2015. — 6, 198, para 1. — URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2777156 (data obrashcheniya: 29.06.2021).

14. Loideain N. Surveillance of Communications Data and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights // Gutwirth S., Leenes R., De Hert P. (eds) Reloading Data Protection. — Dordrecht : Springer, 2014. — P. 183–209.

15. Manheim K. M., Kaplan L. Artificial Intelligence: Risks to Privacy and Democracy // 21 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 106. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Legal Studies Research Paper. — 2019. — № 2018-37. — P. 108–185. — URL: https://yjolt.org/artificial-intelligence-risks-privacy-and-democracy (data obrashcheniya: 29.06.2021).

16. Papakonstantionou V., Hert P. The amended EU Law an ePrivacy and electronic communications after its 2011 implementation; new rules on Data protection, Spam, Data breaches and protection of intellectual property rights // The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law. — 2011. — Vol. 29. — Iss. 1. — P. 29–74. — URL: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol29/iss1/2/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.06.2021).