How Russia's Article 10.1 on Personal Data Dissemination Emerged: Legislative History and Reform Flaws
The Russian personal data protection regime underwent significant change with the introduction of Article 10.1 in Federal Law No. 152-FZ. The reform, formally enacted through Federal Law No. 519-FZ, took effect on 1 March 2021 and required separate consent for processing personal data that a subject permits to be disseminated.
Author Anton Gorelk in, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology and Communications, sponsored the original bill 1057337-7 on 17 November 2020. The explanatory note claimed that once data appeared on websites, operators could freely accumulate, supplement and analyse it for purposes such as targeted advertising, without further control by the data subject.
This framing overlooked existing judicial practice. In case No. A40-5250/2017, courts upheld Roskomnadzor positions that data from open profiles on VKontakte, Odnoklassniki, Twitter and Avito did not automatically become publicly available personal data under Article 8. The Supreme Court refused to review the case. A further Tagansky District Court ruling on 3 March 2020 ordered an internet page that provided unrestricted access to personal data without consent to be included in the register of violators under Article 15.5 of the Law on Information.
The initial draft proposed a detailed consent mechanism: subjects would list specific categories of data, name the exact internet resources where data could appear, and set conditions or prohibitions. Two distinct prohibitions were envisaged—one preventing the operator from transferring data to an unlimited circle of persons (except providing access), and another preventing that circle from further processing (except receiving access). The draft also allowed subjects to demand cessation of processing at any time without proving a violation.
During the first reading on 9 December 2020, the responsible committee itself stated that the bill’s declared objectives were not achieved by its provisions. The Legal Department warned that the bill’s use of the term “access” conflicted with the definition already contained in 152-FZ, where processing includes transfer and transfer includes access. The committee nevertheless recommended passage, promising corrections before the second reading.
The final text preserved the broad definitions of processing, transfer and dissemination while adding new exceptions and a lengthy new category of data alongside the existing Article 8. The resulting framework mixes several legal models without adequate reconciliation, rendering consistent practical application extremely difficult for operators.
Related articles
Protecting Data Centers from Kinetic and Cyber Attacks: What Regulators Worldwide Are Proposing
InfoWatch experts have updated their April report on data center resilience, highlighting how physical and cyber threats now directly threaten business continuity and national security. Regulators in the United States, European Union, and Russia are treating data centers as strategic infrastructure requiring layered defenses that combine physical hardening, geographic distribution, and strict cybersecurity controls. The United States has launched the Cyberstrategy for America 2026 emphasizing offensive operations, Zero Trust modernization, and supply-chain restrictions. The European Union is implementing ProtectEU and the Cyber Solidarity Act with real-time threat sharing and mandatory resilience standards under DORA. Russia is advancing technological sovereignty targets, new siting rules for data centers, and Presidential Decree No. 604 that enables temporary state management of inadequately protected critical facilities. The report also notes growing recognition that attacks on data centers can constitute acts of aggression under the Tallinn Manual.
US Department of Homeland Security Orders Federal Agencies to Remove DeepSeek Products
The US Department of Homeland Security issued an order on October 19 requiring federal civilian agencies to cease purchasing products from DeepSeek and to remove related technology from government systems. The directive, published the following day, targets Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence, its affiliates, and any third-party products or services built on DeepSeek implementations. The measure stems from the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 and follows a recommendation by the Federal Acquisition Security Council, though no specific incidents or evidence were detailed in the notice. The restriction applies only to federal environments and does not prohibit private sector or individual use outside government systems. No removal deadline was set, and the document does not name the signing authority. The order is filed under docket DHS-2026-0628 with the CISA implementation team listed as the contact point.
AKIT Requests Temporary Permission for Russian Companies to Transfer Personal Data Abroad After Data Center Incidents
The Association of Internet Trade Companies (AKIT) has sent a formal letter to Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin proposing a temporary exemption from strict data localization rules. The measure would allow affected companies to move critical systems and Russian citizens' personal data to data centers in friendly countries when domestic infrastructure is unavailable due to accidents or damage. Members including Ozon, Wildberries, Cooper, and Yandex Market argue that services must continue operating even if Russian facilities are compromised. The proposed special regime would apply only after an officially confirmed incident, require compliance with information security standards, and end no later than March 1, 2028. After recovery, companies would be required to return to normal data processing within Russia. Expert Alexey Muntyan noted that the mechanism activates only after incidents occur and questioned whether countries should be selected based on data protection levels rather than political alignment.
Anthropic Model Reconstructs NSA Seeds for NIST Elliptic Curves in Under 30 Minutes
An internal Anthropic research model traced the origins of the five seeds used by the NSA to generate the NIST elliptic curves P-192, P-224, P-256, P-384, and P-521. The discovery resolves a 25-year-old question that arose when the curves were standardized in FIPS 186-2 for ECDSA in 2000. Researchers combined analysis of 1990s random number generators, 34 generator-output combinations, and lattice reduction techniques to identify lrand48 initialized with Unix timestamps from May 1997 to April 1998. The P-256 seed corresponds to the 1842nd candidate from a run started on 16 August 1997, and example seeds from ANSI X9.62 follow the same pattern. The work does not demonstrate any cryptographic break or backdoor in the curves and does not recommend changes to production systems. Several questions remain open, including the seed for curve B-163 and the reason certain candidate values were discarded.