No abstract

No abstract

The paper is devoted to such a new threat to human rights arising amid digitalization as deepfake technologies. The author shows that the use of such technologies is a tool that can have both positive and negative effects. In particular, the use of dipfakes entails a threat to privacy, violations of the honor and dignity of citizens. In this regard, the legislator is faced with the task of developing and implementing a set of measures, the application of which will minimize the possibility of violation of citizens’ rights by deepfake technologies. It is proposed to direct the efforts of the state: to create automated tools for detecting deepfakes with the ability to determine the date, time and physical origin of their contents, and, if there are signs of potential danger, capable of stopping the placement and distribution of deepfakes; development of fact-checking services and tools; regulatory consolidation of requirements according to which mandatory marking of deepfake content should be carried out in social networks and messengers; formation of a regulatory framework providing for responsibility for the creation and distribution of deepfake materials that can damage business reputation, humiliate the honor and dignity of a person. From the standpoint of copyright, it is proposed to consider deepfakes through the prism of a derivative work, in which the use of the original work without the consent of its copyright holder will be illegal. Taking into account the threats of deepfake technologies to human rights, a set of measures has been proposed. Its use will minimize the possibility of violating citizens’ rights by means of these technologies. These measures are: the introduction of a fact-checking mechanism, the development of its services and tools; mandatory labeling of deepfake content in social networks and messengers; the creation of a regulatory framework providing for responsibility for the creation and distribution of deepfake materials capable of damage the business reputation, humiliate the honor and dignity of a person.

The article analyzes the problem of the content of the legal definition of “personal data”. On the basis of the study, the author concludes that, due to its breadth, almost any information falls under the definition of personal data, which has a regulatory framework, which does not allow for adequate protection of the rights of the subject of personal data, in addition, may violate other rights guaranteed by law. The author shows that the flexible mode of personal data eliminates the need to establish an exhaustive list of them, which allows for the possibility of enshrining in the legislation the types of personal data subject to free circulation, including the definition of a list of cases of using personal data without obtaining the consent of the person concerned. When deciding whether to classify this or that information as personal data, the following algorithm is proposed: analysis of the provisions of sectoral legislation for listing information related to personal data; in the absence of such, an analysis of judicial practice in similar cases, the application of clarifications from Roskomnadzor and the Ministry of Digital Development; use of the identification method. It is substantiated that due to the ambiguous judicial interpretation of the category “personal data”, which in some cases does not coincide with the position of Roskomnadzor, it is necessary to develop common approaches to the interpretation of the norms of legislation on personal data by the highest court.

The article considers disciplinary liability of officials of the Russian Empire from the point of view of assessing the effectiveness of its application. The author concludes that the establishment of an exhaustive list of disciplinary offences in the 19th century legislation was primarily due to the fact that disciplinary liability had not yet been separated from criminal liability, had a negative impact on it as a means of influencing the conduct of officials. Thus, the existence of an exhaustive list of disciplinary offences made it difficult to impose effective disciplinary measures on officials who did not fully cope with their work, but whose actions did not fall within any particular composition. At the same time, certain rules on disciplinary liability of that period deserve attention and the experience of their use can be taken into account at present. In particular, the legislation of the Russian Empire flexibly regulated the admission to public service of persons dismissed on guilty grounds: depending on the penalty applied, they could re-enter the service immediately; three years after the enforcement of the penalty, or have been deprived of that right. The article justifies that this experience can still be applied to public servants dismissed for loss of trust.