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
Bank of Russia Publishes Methodological Recommendations No. 3-MR on AI Security for Financial Market Participants
The Bank of Russia has released methodological recommendations No. 3-MR dated 16 June 2026, providing detailed guidance on ensuring information security during the development and use of artificial intelligence systems in the financial sector. The document builds on the earlier Code of Ethics for AI in finance and integrates with existing risk management, operational resilience, and data protection frameworks already familiar to credit institutions and other market participants. It introduces standardized terminology for AI-specific threats such as hallucinations, data drift, and poisoned datasets while outlining six risk categories and a four-stage AI system lifecycle model. Organizations are advised to apply threat modeling based on FSTEC methodology, implement proportional controls across data preparation, development, training, and operation phases, and maintain human oversight for high-risk automated processes. Special attention is given to supply chain risks involving third-party vendors and open-source components, requiring due diligence, provenance tracking, and contractual safeguards aligned with existing outsourcing standards. The recommendations remain non-binding yet signal clear regulatory expectations that are likely to influence future compliance checks and audits.
Aladdin Obtains New FSB Certificate for CryptoFlash Encrypted USB Drive Valid Until 2029
Aladdin has received a new FSB Russia certificate for its Aladdin CryptoFlash hardware-encrypted USB drive. The certificate number СФ/124-5574 confirms compliance with cryptographic protection requirements for classes KS1 and KS2 and remains valid until 16 July 2029. The device now supports additional Russian Linux distributions including RED OS 7.3 and 8, Alt 8 SP Workstation, Alt Workstation 10, and the OS of the Moscow Electronic School. Read and write speeds have been increased to 11 MB/s while the graphical interface received improvements. The product uses the Magma encryption algorithm in hardware and operates as a clientless solution that requires no additional drivers or software. The previous certificate remains active until December 2028, allowing both versions of the device to be used in parallel for storing and transferring official and confidential information marked DSP.
Microsoft Tightens Corporate Windows Activation with TPM-Bound KMS Servers
Microsoft is strengthening its corporate Windows licensing controls by introducing new requirements for KMS servers used in volume activation. The changes will bind KMS hosts to TPM hardware attestation, preventing cloned or fake servers from issuing licenses to unlicensed devices. Warnings will begin appearing in Windows Server 2025 in August 2026, with mandatory enforcement planned for the next LTSC release. Existing KMS systems will continue operating normally until the new rules take effect. The update targets enterprise environments with on-premises KMS infrastructure and does not affect individual consumer devices or common non-KMS activation bypass methods. Administrators can already verify TPM support on physical servers using the Get-TpmSupportedFeature command.
Russia's Article 10.1 on Personal Data Dissemination: Apparent and Real Contradictions in Federal Law 152-FZ
Part II of the analysis examines how the rushed redrafting of Article 10.1 between the first and second readings created serious interpretive problems in Federal Law 152-FZ. The core issues include undefined terms such as 'disclosure', conflicting definitions of 'access', 'provision' and 'dissemination' between 152-FZ and 149-FZ, and the removal of the legal basis for processing publicly available data while retaining the consent mechanism that was meant to control it. Courts have consistently held that mere openness of data does not constitute a valid processing ground, forcing subsequent operators to find their own basis under Article 6. The article highlights that the mechanism for subjects to set conditions and prohibitions was preserved, yet the underlying legal foundation that would make those rules effective was eliminated. Two possible readings of the special consent are explored, with judicial practice leaning toward the narrower interpretation that leaves conditions and prohibitions as mere additional restrictions rather than a source of authorization.