Am I obliged under Russian law to remove comments of a user if he / she wants?

Good day.
In General, the subject.
There are blozhik user posted comments, some time requires to remove it, although there is nothing illegal (offensive/disclosure of private information, etc. in my opinion).
Do I, as the administrator of the blog, to remove it? If Yes, which law regulates it?
PS, the media are not, the registers are not listed.
March 19th 20 at 09:19
4 answers
March 19th 20 at 09:21
This is a complex issue. One engaged in Internet-resources, a solid Russian company argues that the law requires, and the administration Stackoverflow claims that under the terms of any publication immediately ceases to be the property of the author and becomes part of the public domain, and therefore the author can not demand anything. Well, of judicial practice on this issue yet, apparently.
Thank you. If may had a question about user agreements: Legal validity of the user agreement in Russia? - agnes_Dicki commented on March 19th 20 at 09:24
March 19th 20 at 09:23
The question is ambiguous.
It all depends on the contract with the user of the resource, and the information itself.

In General it is not - the user posted his problem.
On the other hand there are a lot of nuances - which is spelled out in the contract, whether it is personal information, etc.

One engaged in Internet-resources, a solid Russian company argues that the law requires
If a company collects data about the user specifically, or specially, according to the law the user has the right to request removal of the information. Here, for example, the search engine keeps a history of your requests, etc.
To use search from Yandex user vynujdena to betray him to request some information.

Another thing is when you post a review or blog on a special platform - none of the user specific information is not collected, he published - made public domain information.
And here no one is obliged.
There are some subtleties, but in any case only through the courts, and the court can safely send the user to his wishlist.
Here I also argue that it is not necessary to remove the user content together with uchetku when the user leaves the site, and they answer me that copyright is inalienable and the user can easily gall the court if it is published will not be removed upon the first request. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:26
@clifton97, Read GK Article 1255. Copyright
"Intellectual rights to works of science, literature and art are copyright rights.

and they answer me that copyright is inalienable and the user can easily gall the court if it is published will not be removed upon the first request.
If it is copyright you first need to prove that this content is a work of science, literature or art.
Even if it is proven that the user has published this information, it's his decision, so his rights are not violated.
Another thing is if the copyright has been posted without permission of the author. Then Yes - a court can order you to delete this information.

easy gall court company
The task of judges is not to bend anyone.
The court simply obliges the company to remove this information.

In order to simplify your life and minimize the risks you need to write a custom agreement. Although it can live.

" - Angelita8 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:29
@Angelita8,
the user posted this information, it's his decision, so his rights are not violated.

And then just decided to uninstall it, and his rights would be violated if you deny him that. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:32
@clifton97, the Politician decided to make a promise - came to the podium and announced.
And then changed his mind and forced all to erase the memory.
So about?

Posted information - it's his decision.
If you want to delete - it may request the resource owner. If not in court - to prove infringement.
From the resource owner is a violation of rights? It is something published without your knowledge?
And the fact that he denied - he was not employed in workers to do some work to remove. - Angelita8 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:35
@Angelita8,
Politician decided to make a promise - came to the podium and announced.
And then changed his mind and forced all to erase the memory.
So about?

Yeah, Russia is right to oblivion is called.

From the resource owner is a violation of rights?

The Department argues that it is. All user-published - it's his property he has the right to remove. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:38
@clifton97,
Yeah, Russia is right to oblivion is called.
No.
Right to be forgotten is a 264-FZ If you read carefully you'll see that it only applies to search engines, and it clearly States what information is about.

The Department argues that it is. All user-published - it's his property he has the right to remove.
Overclocking lazy nafig. Even though 149-FZ revere at your leisure.
And in General a good legal Department when something claims argues with reference to legislation and review. - Angelita8 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:41
@Angelita8, I to mouth, I do not argue. The lawyers there really good, as far as I can tell. Maybe just touching base. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:44
Maybe just touching base.
Most likely - it is less than problems. - Angelita8 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:47
March 19th 20 at 09:25
It's like with personal data. Unlikely to uniquely identify the user. They told you the passport is not shown.
March 19th 20 at 09:27
soft delete in help
What is it? - Savanna_Koch commented on March 19th 20 at 09:30
soft delete something
realize usually the following:
in the comments table is created the field type enum or set with the name isdel with values 1 and 2 default 1
when a user deletes for example a user comment removed this comment in the isdel is given a value of 2, your actions are easy to filter additional comments for mere mortals where isdel = 1 and can write a filter and keep you all in the spring pack then he will Google and commas will put - Rosella.Stokes commented on March 19th 20 at 09:33
@Rosella.Stokes, GDPR is required to remove data and not to mark remote. And Russian laws, as far as I know. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:36
And here it? - robyn11 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:39
@clifton97, but from backup how to remove they are not told? - Flavio_Witting55 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:42
@Flavio_Witting55, lawmakers are not required to tell you how to do it, they just make laws telling what to do, and then our problems and our pain. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:45
@clifton97, GDPR generally curve tightly. But the law should be even and comments. Although in Europe, maybe not such. - Flavio_Witting55 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:48
@Flavio_Witting55when he was just starting to be developed among developers of systems based on event sourcing stood weeping and gnashing of teeth. But lawyers do not care that in some products, such as the removal mechanism simply does not exist or that immutability facilitates competitiveness. As a European I do not care, and our. - clifton97 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:51
@Flavio_Witting55, and any comments on the requirement on the transfer of encryption keys ? In particular the case when those keys do not leave the recipients. Out of curiosity, interested. - Dan.Roob commented on March 19th 20 at 09:54
@Dan.Roob, to the law are usually accompanied by comments. At least to the bill. It is better to see if I am not mistaken in the program Garant. - Flavio_Witting55 commented on March 19th 20 at 09:57
Then, too, even cooler, the shadow ban. - timmy_Strac commented on March 19th 20 at 10:00

Find more questions by tags Jurisprudence in IT