The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified what “special means for secretly obtaining information” is

The Supreme Court of Russia prepared an explanation on the use of the notorious article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Illegal circulation of special technical equipment intended for secretly obtaining information”), according to which more than 1,000 people were convicted in Russia . For example, a loud resonance was received by a criminal case against a Kurgan farmer who bought a Chinese GPS tracker for a cow (he was detained by FSB officers near a post office with a package in hand).

In a broad sense, the definition of "technical means intended for secretly obtaining information" includes numerous innocent at first glance devices, including DVRs, trackers, voice recorders and even smartphones, so that law enforcement agencies open a wide field for abuse.

Thanks to the explanation of the Supreme Court, in the future these abuses will be less. At least, it is now officially not possible to prosecute the acquisition of GPS trackers for animals under Article 138.1. But for installing a special program on a smartphone - you can.

Clarifications on Article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are intended to “exclude cases of unreasonable criminal prosecution,” explained the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Peter Kondratov, presenting the draft resolution, reports TASS.

Explanation of the plenum of the Armed Forces:

“The mere fact of illegal trafficking in special technical equipment cannot indicate that a person is guilty of committing a crime under Article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation if his intention was not to acquire and (or) sell just such technical equipment (for example, through publicly available Internet -resource has acquired a special technical means, advertised as a device for domestic purposes, and in good faith was mistaken about its actual purpose) "...

According to this clause, the “action of a person who acquired a device intended for secretly obtaining information for use, for example, for personal security, the safety of family members, including children, the preservation of property or for tracking animals, and did not intend to use it as a means of violating the constitutional rights of citizens (including interfering in someone else’s privacy). ”

However, special smartphones can recognize conventional smartphones, voice recorders, DVRs and other household appliances, “provided they deliberately, through special technical refinement, programming, or otherwise give new qualities and features that allow them to receive information tacitly” . In such cases, the court should receive expert advice.

The ruling of the Supreme Court will be made after making a number of editorial corrections. Then it will publish in full on the official website .