11:22 Conclusion | |
To sum up, I can say that my superficial analysis of this topic, showed that the right of individuals to privacy of personal communication not only protected, but also significantly restricted by law. Use of CPD for personal purposes is fraught with liability. Telecom operators shift the responsibility for breach of confidentiality on their employees. Just give the correction that I did not climb into the depths of normative documents, which may be easing a ban on unlicensed use of the CPD, which is still failing to protect the rights of individuals in networks where the use of such funds is difficult (phone, sms) . If I'm somewhere grossly mistaken, please correct me and I'll include amendments to the text. P.S. We must pay tribute to the State Service of special communication and information protection - they have on the site all the necessary laws and regulations are easy to find. OBNV: As I mentioned, my research was superficial. I am prompted that a person is not a "business entity" that changes the picture. Then it turns out that the rights of the individual to use encryption tools for personal purposes not related to the conduct of economic activity, faktivcheski not explicitly regulated by law (except rules of import of encryption). The above licensing restrictions on the use of CPD relate to the subjects of economic activity. Thus, physical persons have the ability to use cryptographic personal use. but should be aware that if their activities fall under the definition of "economic activity", the restrictions would apply to them. A more detailed study of the legislative framework has not found about the use of encryption for individuals. I beg your pardon, that brought readers into error Thanks Rustam ®. | |
|
| |
| Total comments: 0 | |