SORM-2 Sergei Smirnov http://www.hro.org Not long ago Dave posted one more article on SORM - Russian surveillance system or ECHELON analog, if you want. The author spoke about the problem at whole and focused on relations between human rights activists, ISPs and FSB (a successor to KGB and "the bad guy" in this story), not mentioning other governmental structures. Unfortunately, FSB seems to be not the only one player on that side. Below there is a summary of correspondence between one of Moscow-based human rights NGOs and Procurators office in Volgograd region. The background (as Moscow Times described it) was as follows. A Volgograd-based ISP called Bayard-Slavia Communications "has repeatedly refused to cooperate with FSB requests for information, demanding first to see a warrant... In telephone interviews from Volgograd, officials at Bayard-Slavia Communications say they have recently been threatened by the FSB with losing their license. They also say they have faced a tax police audit that turned up nothing but was harrowing just the same". Glasnost Defence Foundation, a well-known Russian human rights NGO, send official letter to Yuri Skuratov, General Public Prosecutor of Russian Federation on December 12, 1998. In this letter Alexei Simonov, President of Glasnost Defence Foundation, said the Volgograd FSB Department violated human rights defined by European Convention and some other international agreements signed by Russia and home legislation, including the Constitution. He said that this structures activities can be examined as a crime covered by article of Russian Criminal Code. The human rights activist criticized the "agreement" which Volgograd FSB Department has been forcing the ISP to sign and noticed that it would allow FSB "to carry out a control behind all electronic messages of the networkers without any judicial sanctions". He also stressed that the ministerial act that bind ISPs to pay for SORM equipment cannot be used since it had never been published in open press. "We ask you to accept urgent measures to stop illegal actions of Volgograd FSB Department", -addressed Simonov to General Prosecutor. But Skuratov did not reply to this letter; instead, his office transferred it to the Prosecutors office of the Volgograd region(common practice among Russian bureaucrats). On February 22, 1999 (more than 2 months after the original letter was sent)Mr.Gogolkin on behalf of the Volgograd prosecutors answered that activities of secret services that bounded constitutional rights of the citizens were carried out "only on the basis of judicial solutions" but these solutions are secret and cannot be opened for public access. He once again quoted the ministerial act as legal base for SORM equipment being paid by ISPs and completely ignored the fact stressed by Simonov (that this act had not ever been published). He also ignored all references to international agreements and the Constitution which had been made by Simonov. The prosecutor concluded that investigation made by his office had shown no violations of law and that there was no basis for any prosecutors' actions. Beside that this correspondence is a typical example of bureaucrats' reaction on public requests in Russia, it also shows that the opposition to human rights activity concerning SORM may be stronger than it is usually described in mass media.