On the constitutionality of the ban on the use of the Internet by a suspect or accused

Bakradze Andrei Anatol'evich Doctor of Law Lawyer of the Branch No. 1 of the Moscow Regional Bar Association, Doctor of Law, Associate Professor 125009, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Sadovaya-Triumfal'naya, 2/30 Bakradzeaa@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Belov Dmitry Olegovich Lawyer, Director of the law firm "Zheleznyak and Partners", the Law firm "Zheleznyak and Partners" 107045, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, bul. Rozhdestvenskii, 17, of. 4 BELOV@zpartners.ru

Kalinin Aleksandr Nikolaevich PhD in Technical Science Member of the Board of the RSPP, Deputy Head of the RSPP Commission on Communications and Informatization, Head of the RSPP Expert Group on Information Security, Chief Designer of GAS "Elections" in 2003-2005. 123242, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Bol'shaya Gruzinskaya, 20-24 ank@aq.ru

Federal Law No. 72-FZ of 18.04.2018 "On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regarding the Election and Application of preventive Measures in the Form of a Ban on Certain Actions, Bail and House Arrest" has been amended to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and in relation to the stated topic - Article 105.1 (Prohibition of certain actions) has been introduced, Part 8.1 of Article 106 (Bail) and is set out in the new version of part 7 of Article 107 (House arrest).

In all cases and taking into account the circumstances of the case, these preventive measures provide for the right of the court to impose a number of duties on the suspect or the accused, including compliance with the ban on the use of the Internet information and telecommunications network.

This type of prohibition and (or) restriction was previously applied only when house arrest was chosen as a preventive measure and has been known to domestic criminal procedure legislation for more than 10 years - since the moment when Federal Law No. 420–FZ of 07.12.2011 "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation was set out in a new edition [see also 1; 2; 3].

According to the current law, and as E.V. Larkina correctly noted, the suspect or the accused is not subject to "restrictions and prohibitions", but only to "prohibitions" provided for in paragraphs 3 - 5 of Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (to communicate with certain persons, send and receive postal and telegraphic items, use means of communication and the Internet)^{[4, p. 116]}.

The investigative and judicial practice that has been formed over such an impressive period of time in the part of interest, some changes in recent years that have had a serious impact on communication systems, life and safety of the population, rapid technologization, digitalization and development of our society allow us to revisit the question of the justification of the ban on the use of the Internet information and telecommunications network by suspects or the accused when choosing a preventive measure in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail or house arrest in relation to new socio-economic conditions.

The grounds for choosing any measure of restraint are provided for in Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. According to the legislator's plan, the prohibitions and (or) restrictions imposed upon their election should exclude or reduce, as far as possible, the likelihood that the suspect, the accused will hide from the inquiry, preliminary investigation or court, continue to engage in criminal activity, threaten a witness, other participants in criminal proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings. In other words, the availability of sufficient data on the possibility of the occurrence of the listed risks acts as the basis of a preventive measure, and their prevention is the goal.

The study of investigative and judicial practice showed that in most cases the ban on the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" was imposed on the suspect or the accused without any exceptions or assumptions. In their decisions, law enforcement agencies consistently avoided isolating the possibility of using the Internet in a risk-free area for the interests of justice, although there are quite balanced approaches.

For example, having chosen a preventive measure in the form of house arrest, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow banned the accused:

- to leave and change the place of residence without the written permission of the investigator, except in cases of appearance in investigative and law enforcement agencies on the investigator's call; 

- communicate with participants in criminal proceedings in the case, with the exception of relatives, defenders, investigators of the investigation team, without the written permission of the investigator;

- receive and send correspondence, including letters, telegrams, parcels and e-mails;

- to negotiate without the written permission of the investigator using any means of communication, including radio, telephone, television and the Internet.

As you can see, the ban on the use of the Internet was initially established only in terms of communications between the accused and participants in criminal proceedings in the case (communication, receiving and sending emails, negotiating).

However, later, having changed the measure of restraint in the form of house arrest to a measure of restraint in the form of a ban on certain actions, the same court, among other things, forbade the accused to use communication means and the Internet network without the written permission of the investigator, with the exception of telephone communication to call emergency medical services, law enforcement officers, emergency rescue services in case of emergency situations, as well as for communication with the investigator, defenders and employees of the supervisory authority.

In this case, the ban already extended to the use of the entire Internet by the accused without the written permission of the investigator, that is, it acquired a stricter form of procedural coercion.

According to another material, having chosen a preventive measure in the form of house arrest, the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg, among other characteristic restrictions, prohibited the suspect from sending and receiving postal and telegraphic items and using the Internet information and telecommunications network without any exceptions or assumptions, while allowing daily three-hour walks.

It is worth recalling here that Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any walks, since the essence of house arrest is isolation from society, therefore, if the court is ready to resolve them without risks to the interests of criminal proceedings, it would be more correct to choose a preventive measure against the suspect or accused in the form of a ban on certain actions. Otherwise, such decisions are subject to cancellation or amendment (See the Appeal Decision of the Moscow City Court of December 26, 2018 on material No. 10-23220/2018).

Analyzing the changes in the design of house arrest, Stelmakh V.Yu. rightly notes that "in the new edition, this preventive measure consists in isolating a person in a residential building or a medical organization (Part 1 of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), i.e. in a ban on leaving its limits, and in addition to this, prohibitions provided for in paragraph 3 - 5 Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Part 7 of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Thus, when house arrest is chosen, the accused's exit from the living room is excluded. If such a goal is not initially set and exits are expected at a certain time, a ban on certain actions should be chosen. The new construction of the law raises questions. It is obvious that the accused in any case should be able to visit shops (at least for the purchase of essential goods, food), medical organizations, etc. The adopted amendments exclude the possibility of electing house arrest in relation to single people, disabled people and similar categories of citizens, since isolation without the right to leave the premises is physically impossible for them." ^{[5, pp. 22-23]}.

It is unlikely that any other point of view can be formed on the issue of the use of the Internet by this category of citizens in similar cases [see also 6; 7; 8].

In their article, Derishev Yu.V. and Zemlyanitsin E.I. cite V.T. Tomin's remark on this matter, with which it is difficult to disagree, that the legitimate interests of individuals involved in criminal proceedings should not be infringed one iota more than is necessary to achieve the goal of the criminal process ^{[9, pp. 33-34]}.

Being a kind of structural elements of the preventive measure, the prohibitions provided for in Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relate to it as a part and a whole, and if this is the case, then the requirements imposed on the measure of restraint equally apply to those prohibitions of which it consists.

According to Kalinovsky K.B., from the point of view of the theory of coercion in criminal proceedings, "this measure has a mixed character, since it combines the features of both psychological-coercive and physically-coercive measures of restraint" ^{[10, p. 9]}.

We agree with this statement, but at the same time we recall that court rulings, decisions of a judge, prosecutor, investigator ... must be lawful, justified and motivated (Part 4 of Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Comparing the ban on the use of the Internet as one of the structural elements of the preventive measure with the provisions of Article 97 and Part 4 of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Legality in the proceedings), we can conclude that the court ruling, the decision of the judge, prosecutor, investigator, being legitimate, justified and motivated, must contain specific data, testifying to the need to prohibit the use by the suspect or the accused of the entire Internet network with its characteristic diversity of social relations [see also 11; 12].

This is hardly feasible. No law enforcement officer is able to discern and even more so to substantiate the real interests of justice here. The norm itself seems to us to be a legal fiction protecting imaginary risks.

For this reason, an unconditional ban on the use of the Internet by a suspect or accused will always remain illegal in some part.

As a legislative guideline, a ban on being in certain places, as well as closer than the established distance to certain objects, attending certain events and participating in them (paragraph 2 of Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) can act here.

This approach is quite applicable in terms of the ban on the use of the Internet by suspects or accused.

The introduction of the practice of describing specific actions from which a suspect or accused is obliged to refrain on the Internet, of course, will require more diligence from the law enforcement officer, but this circumstance in itself should not stop the legislator.

Currently, practitioners have sufficient competence to formalize investigative and judicial materials in the part of interest, without resorting to the help of a specialist.

This area of knowledge has become publicly available, at least only due to the significant rejuvenation of the personnel of investigative and judicial bodies, who have gained experience now in completely new conditions related to the disclosure, investigation and consideration of criminal cases at the modern (digital) stage of development of our society.

Some other prohibitions provided for in Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also testify to the risk-free transition to the practice of selective restriction of the use of the Internet by suspects or accused persons. By their legal orientation, they seem to "wash out" the content of the ban in question.

For example, acting in its own direction as a general norm, the ban on communication of a suspect or accused with certain persons (paragraph 3, Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) fully applies to the use of the Internet, and therefore does not require repeated application, including along with other prohibitions provided for by Part 6 Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Quite interesting and quite suitable for use in the context of the stated topic, we see the approach proposed by the legislator in paragraph 6, part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the essence of which is to prohibit a suspect or accused from driving a car or other vehicle if the crime is related to violation of traffic rules and operation of vehicles.  

By such a ban, the suspect or the accused, in fact, is targeted out of the area of public relations in which the risks of committing a repeat crime have increased.

Similarly, it is necessary to determine the limits of the use of the Internet when imposing an appropriate ban on a suspect or accused, of course, taking into account the fact that even in this case, that part of social behavior represented on the Internet that is not related to the commission of the alleged crime should not fall under it.

It should be noted that the Internet information and telecommunications network itself is a technological infrastructure that unites a huge number of computers interacting with each other, working on the TCP/IP technical protocol, and actually became a full-scale replacement for all classical tools for obtaining information, communication and communication in the second half of the 2010s.

Meanwhile, by the "Internet" network, the legislator naturally and unambiguously means not the infrastructure, but the services provided by it (Internet resources, applications), and there are a great many of them now: social networks, messengers, video hosting, online stores, online cinemas and much more.

Referring in the most general way to the role of the Internet in the modern life of society and man, it is impossible not to notice the massive introduction of information technologies in almost all spheres of social relations, including, of course, the system of public administration, that has taken place literally in the last five and a little years.

The observed changes can be conditionally attributed to the first wave of "digitalization", the most significant results of which, perhaps, should be recognized as built and constantly developing digital services that have taken on a fairly impressive part of the social needs of society and man.

Not limited to what has been said, here it is still necessary to highlight the opportunities that have appeared for remote receipt of public services, banking, education, leisure activities, including through online cinemas, also bearing in mind the transition to digital broadcasting format, remote electronic voting (DEG), which took place almost throughout our country, obtaining electronic identity and health documents (COVID-passports), providing a security system, for example, through the Ministry of Emergency Situations or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, property control, remote payment of taxes and fines, reading electronic books and newspapers, remote operation, including holding court sessions, meetings and other events using video conferencing- connections.

The activities of such services, in fact, influenced the formation of an absolutely new legal system that gives its users "digital legal personality" on a wide range of issues.

The technological basis and transport environment here are the Internet network with its inherent only one "circulatory system" in the form of wired (fiber–optic) and mobile broadband access networks that have reached the most remote corners of our country, and stationary and mobile subscriber devices that have become popular with the population with the ability to connect to the Internet - personal computers, laptops, tablets, and of course smartphones.

Like any social environment, the Internet information and telecommunications network is not free from the same risks and (or) threats caused by actual or possible deviant behavior, and therefore requires control primarily from society and the state [see also 13; 14; 15; 16].

For the purposes of creating, implementing and implementing an effective mechanism of social regulation, the state apparatus has deployed and successfully used over the past few years powerful systems of operational investigative measures (SORM), now presented by several generations and allowing almost complete control of "digital behavior", to establish participants in information exchange in communication systems, to identify connections between subscribers, the content and nature of both the transmitted information and the negotiations themselves, geographical location (geolocation), viewed (interesting) and reviewed content, etc. [see also 17; 18]

The second wave of "digitalization" will take place in the next 5-7 years, and its characteristic features will be the introduction of artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies, VR (VR, virtual reality, VR, artificial reality), NFT (NFT, non-fungible token – non—interchangeable token), 5G (fifth generation - "fifth generation") as the basis of the Internet 2.0 (Web 2.0), satellite Internet with access anywhere in the world, quantum computing with data transmission.

At its final stage, there will be permanent ones that use a variety of digital technologies and create separate laws and economies within themselves, and, in fact, a single state, "Metaverses", the development and creation of which are currently actively engaged in the world's largest corporations and the most developed states in the IT industry.

What has been said calls for the need to compare, for anachronism, the ban on the use of the Internet (provided services) by suspects or accused who are not in custody with the scale of what is happening in the IT industry at the present stage of society's development.   

It is difficult to deny the significantly increased role of the IT industry in the life of society and man since the introduction of such a ban, which can only arise in other, "simplified" socio-economic conditions, whereas at present a kind of objective dependence on digital services has been formed, into the power of which the state itself has transferred most of the social needs.

The second wave of "digitalization" also led to the development of special capabilities that minimize the risks provided for in Part 1 of Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and taken into account when choosing a preventive measure.

In particular, the current system of operational search measures (SORM) of the new generation is radically different in terms of increased computing power, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, which leaves no room for any privacy of the individual in the virtual space, while the use of electronic bracelets for remote identification and tracking of the location of a controlled person not only loses it makes no sense from a technical point of view, but it also leads to unjustified spending of budget funds. In the next few years, quantum computing will compromise and leave behind the traditional cryptography used in the most "reliable" messengers by today's standards, which nevertheless does not prevent the special services of cryptographically developed countries, including the Russian Federation, from already having their so-called "backdoors" (backdoor) in them. The solution of control tasks is quite feasible due to the opportunity provided to the suspect or the accused, or even the obligation imposed on him to use his own mobile device legally.

The law-making process to adapt the needs of society and man in accordance with the realities of the first and expectations of the second wave of "digitalization" should be carried out on an ongoing basis, with consistent deliverance of the law, including criminal procedure, from any stagnation and obvious inveteracy, and using their own positive experience of the 2000s, when created with "clean slate" domestic information systems surpassed their counterparts in developed countries in terms of modernity.

It would also be a mistake to identify the ban on the use of the Internet by a suspect or accused when choosing a preventive measure in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail or house arrest only as an inconvenience caused by the lack of access to digital services.

The problem is somewhat broader and it consists in the following.

In the preamble of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 19.12.2013 N 41 (ed. of 11.06.2020) "On the practice of application by courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest, bail and prohibition of certain actions" states that "restrictions on rights and freedoms may be justified by public interests if such restrictions meet the requirements of justice, are proportional, proportionate and necessary for the purposes of protecting constitutionally significant values. When resolving issues related to the application of legislation on preventive measures, courts, based on the presumption of innocence, should maintain a balance between public interests related to the use of procedural coercion measures and the importance of the right to personal freedom."

According to the current criminal procedure law, the application of the prohibition of certain actions is possible in two forms - as an independent preventive measure and in a subsidiary manner in conjunction with bail and house arrest. At the same time, their different coercive potential and the possibility of combining with each other make it possible to give the procedure for electing a preventive measure greater variability [see also 19; 20].

Meanwhile, whatever they may be by their legal nature, it should be recognized that the development of information technologies requires an absolutely new reading of the criminal procedure law.

The most severe of them is house arrest, which consists in finding a suspect or accused in isolation from society in a residential building in which he lives legally, with the imposition of prohibitions and the exercise of control over him or a medical institution.

According to paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 22.03.2018 N 12-P "In the case of checking the constitutionality of parts one and three of Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of citizen S.A. Kostromin", the application of a preventive measure in the form of house arrest on the basis of criminal procedural norms as in force before January 1 2012, and those currently in force, are connected with the forced stay of the suspect, the accused in a confined space, with isolation from society, termination of performance of labor (official) duties, the impossibility of free movement and communication with a wide range of persons, i.e. with the restriction of the constitutional right to freedom and personal inviolability.

As you can see, termination of performance of labor (official) duties, etc. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation associates exclusively with isolation from society, which is quite logical and understandable, but only on the condition that such work involves the exit of the suspect or accused beyond the limited space at the place of execution of house arrest.

This is the mentality of legal stereotypes that have existed for a long time, which can only be formed in a "pre-digital" society, when, in addition to restricting the constitutional right to freedom, placement under house arrest optionally implied other restrictions on constitutional rights, even if not explicitly specified in the law.

As it was shown above, the essence of isolation from society in relation to house arrest consists in the physical stay of the suspect or accused in a certain room and compliance with the prohibitions imposed on him in accordance with Part 7 of Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

In other words, the suspect or the accused is deduced from the group form of people's life activity, which forms the basis of any society, but only within the limits stipulated by the court.

For the rest, the suspect or the accused must retain such rights and freedoms, the exercise of which is quite possible in conditions of isolation from society and imposed prohibitions, for example, the performance of labor (official) duties, the search and receipt of information, various types of creative activity (literature, painting, science, technology, etc.).

In accordance with Part 7 of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, when choosing house arrest as a preventive measure, the court may establish prohibitions provided for in paragraphs 3-5 of Part six of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (communicate with certain persons, send and receive postal and telegraphic items, use communication means and the Internet information and telecommunication network).

These prohibitions, as well as being under house arrest in isolation from society, not only do not cancel the opportunity to exercise certain rights and freedoms in a limited space from the standpoint of the law, but also allow the suspect or accused to use them from an organizational point of view.

Next, let's move on to the question of the possibility of using the Internet in the same conditions and for the same purposes.

 As it was shown above, being a structural element of the preventive measure, the imposed prohibitions are aimed at preventing the risks provided for in Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

If these rights and freedoms are quite feasible in themselves, and their implementation in a limited space is not prohibited by law, since it does not affect the interests of justice in any way, then what is the legislative spirit of the digital ban, for example, on performing similar labor (official) duties, but only now using the Internet?

As you can see, the problem of an indiscriminate ban on the use of the Internet easily reveals itself even in relation to such a measure of restraint as house arrest, but it becomes even more obvious when it comes to its application when bail and the prohibition of certain actions.

At the legislative level, the problem under consideration can be presented as follows.

The application of the ban on the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" initially implies the exclusion of any access to it by the suspect or the accused.

If, for example, when assigning the obligation to comply with the prohibition on the use of communications, the legislator specifically stipulates in Part 8 of Article 105.1. and Part 8 of Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that a suspect or accused cannot be restricted in the right to use telephone communication to call an ambulance, law enforcement officers, emergency rescue services in in the event of an emergency, as well as to communicate with the investigator, with the investigator and the supervisory authority, then in similar cases, but already in relation to the ban on the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet", such actions apparently seem unacceptable to him.

However, the biggest defect still lies in the legislative structure of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the provisions of which are also used when choosing bail or house arrest as a preventive measure, and consists in the fact that the ban on the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" as if "just in case" and completely unreasonably affects the whole circle public relations in which the suspect or the accused has previously participated or been represented.

In other words, the formula currently applies – absolutely all actions on the Internet are prohibited to the suspect or the accused, including those that directly or indirectly have nothing to do with the event under investigation.

We still see the opposite approach as preferable, in which the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" should not initially (by default) be prohibited, however, if necessary, certain restrictions are selectively imposed on the suspect or accused, one way or another related to the interests of justice.

For this reason, it is more correct to speak in the law not about a ban, but about the restriction of certain actions, including for obtaining a number of services when using the Internet information and telecommunications network.

It is noteworthy that a similar legal construction has already been used by the legislator when describing the disposition of Part 7 of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (ed. Federal Law of 07.12.2011 N 420-FZ), according to which, the court, taking into account the data on the identity of the suspect or accused and the actual circumstances when choosing house arrest as a preventive measure, may prohibit and (or) restrict him: ... the use of means of communication and the information and telecommunications network "Internet".

Unfortunately, the legislator excluded the word "restrict" from the law, and the current version of it knows only the ban on the use of the Internet information and telecommunications network.  

Ambiguous in this regard is the explanation contained in paragraph 40 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 19.12.2013 N 41 (as amended. dated 11.06.2020) "On the practice of application by courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest, bail and prohibition of certain actions."

Despite the seemingly obvious categorical disposition of Clause 5, Part 6 of Article 105.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which did not leave room for any assumptions or exceptions in the application of the ban in question, since it is about him that the law is all about, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (ed. Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 11.06.2020 N 7) nevertheless indicated that when imposing on a suspect or accused a ban on using the Internet information and telecommunications network, the court should indicate the cases in which a person is allowed to use this network (for example, for the exchange of information between a person and an educational institution - if the suspect or accused is students of this institution).

In our opinion, the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, although partially compensated for the legislative gap, was guided by common sense rather than the letter of the law.

Moreover, such a position, in fact, was mechanically transferred from the above-mentioned Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to the ed. dated 05/24/2016, but then it looked quite logical, since it concerned precisely the restriction, not the ban, that is, it was formed in relation to the previous version of the law.

Thus, explaining the provisions of Part 7 of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (ed. Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011), the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that when restricting a suspect or accused in using the Internet information and telecommunications network, the court should indicate the cases in which a person is allowed to use this network (for example, for the exchange of information between a person and an educational institution - if the suspect or accused is a student of this institution).

As you can see, the changes in legislation did not affect the position of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which consists in the fact that in both cases – whether it is a restriction or a ban – the suspect or the accused, if necessary, should be able to use the services of the information and telecommunications network "Internet", which hardly correlates with the etymology of the ban.

At the legislative level, we see a solution to the problem by making appropriate amendments to Articles 105.1, 106 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, including the title of Article 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which we propose to state in the following wording: "Prohibition and (or) restriction of certain actions."

A change in the investigative and judicial practice of applying these norms is possible by including in the above-mentioned Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explanations regarding the obligation of the court to indicate specific actions of the suspect or accused, from which he should refrain from using the Internet information and telecommunications network.