The Yarovaya laws and the rise of Russia's surveillance state
The Yarovaya laws, named after United Russia lawmaker Irina Yarovaya, required telecom firms to store all communications for up to six months. Metadata needed to be kept for three years. This data had to be stored in Russia, and companies had to give officials tools to decode encrypted messages. These sweeping new requirements marked a major shift in how the Russian government could access private communications and monitor citizens.
These laws were passed with little resistance from Russia's parliament. Despite some protests in cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, public pushback was minimal. A few thousand people gathered to protest, but the majority of the population remained indifferent. The legislation moved forward quickly, showing the government's confidence in enforcing repressive measures. Many Russians at the time did not see the immediate consequences of such laws.
The Cost of Compliance
Experts initially dismissed the Yarovaya laws as impractical. Russian business news outlet Vedomosti published an article titled, 'This can't be.' It reported that telecom companies estimated compliance costs at 5.2 trillion rubles ($66.49 billion). That amount was nearly a third of the country's budget. Analysts doubted that Russian firms could afford or manage such a massive data storage and processing operation.
Dr Mariëlle Wijermars, an associate professor in internet governance at Maastricht University, said the legislation was ahead of what the government could do in terms of infrastructure control. Early discussions often mocked the Russian state, especially the internet watchdog Roskomnadzor, for being unable to implement the laws. Some media even joked about how the Russian government would struggle to build the necessary data centers or maintain the required systems.
Despite early skepticism, Russia moved forward with the laws. The government used private companies to build the infrastructure needed for surveillance. This shift showed the Kremlin's long-term plan to control digital spaces gradually. Rather than waiting for companies to find solutions on their own, the state pushed them to comply or face penalties. Over time, telecom providers began investing in the systems required to meet the new laws.
Russian journalist Arseniy Vesnin said it was already clear in 2016 that the laws were part of a chain leading toward dictatorship. The illegal annexation of Crimea and the assassination of Boris Nemtsov were already warning signs. But many Russians at the time did not see the immediate threat. Vesnin, who attended a protest in St. Petersburg, noted that most people were not interested in the issue. For them, the idea of the government collecting data was not enough to mobilize mass resistance.
Vesnin attended an anti-Yarovaya protest in St. Petersburg with several hundred people.
Many would say: 'I have nothing to hide,' or 'If they want to find something out about me, they will do it anyway.'”
The long-term effects of the Yarovaya laws have become clearer over the past decade. What began as a controversial piece of legislation has now evolved into a cornerstone of Russia’s surveillance apparatus. The government has continued to expand its digital capabilities, using the infrastructure built under these laws to further monitor and suppress dissent.
The Yarovaya laws have set a precedent for future legislation, enabling the Kremlin to justify increasingly invasive digital policies. With the backing of private companies, Russia has been able to establish a digital landscape where the government has near-complete control. This control has not only impacted political activists but also everyday citizens, who now live under the constant threat of surveillance and censorship.
The events of 2016 now appear as a turning point in Russia’s trajectory toward authoritarianism. What may have seemed at the time like a minor policy shift has turned into a full-scale effort to dominate the digital realm. As Vesnin points out, these laws were just one link in a long chain of repression. Today, the chain is tighter, and the consequences more severe.
