The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact
<b>There are currently ten cases before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Information Technology Act, the rules made under that, and other laws, that are being heard jointly. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who's arguing Anoop M.K. v. Union of India has put together this chart that helps you track what's being challenged in each case.</b>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table class="tg" style="undefined;table-layout: fixed; border=">
<tr>
<th class="tg-s6z2">PENDING MATTERS</th>
<th class="tg-s6z2">CASE NUMBER</th>
<th class="tg-0ord">PROVISIONS CHALLENGED</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 167/2012</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Common Cause & Anr. v. Union of India</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 21/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A, 69A & 80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(C) NO. 23/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A & Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 3(7) of the Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Dilip Kumar Tulsidas Shah v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 97/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 199/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A, 69A, Intermediaries Rules 2011 (s.79(2) Rules) & Blocking of Access of Information by Public Rules 2009 (s.69A Rules)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Mouthshut.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 217/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A & Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Taslima Nasrin v. State of U.P & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 222/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Manoj Oswal v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 225/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A & 499/500 Indian Penal Code</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Internet and Mobile Ass'n of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(C) NO. 758/2014</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">79(3) & Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Anoop M.K. v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 196/2014</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A, 69A, 80 & S.118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActCourt CaseFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntermediary LiabilityConstitutional LawCensorshipSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2014-12-19T09:01:50ZBlog EntryOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryOn the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/on-the-legality-and-constitutionality-of-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021
<b>This note examines the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The analysis is consistent with previous work carried out by CIS on issues of intermediary liability and freedom of expression. </b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-6127737f-7fff-b2eb-1b4a-ff9009a1050f"></span></p>
<p dir="ltr">On 25 February 2021, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter, ‘the rules’). In this note, we examine whether the rules meet the tests of constitutionality under Indian jurisprudence, whether they are consistent with the parent Act, and discuss potential benefits and harms that may arise from the rules as they are currently framed. Further, we make some recommendations to amend the rules so that they stay in constitutional bounds, and are consistent with a human rights based approach to content regulation. Please note that we cover some of the issues that CIS has already highlighted in comments on previous versions of the rules.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">The note can be downloaded <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/legality-constitutionality-il-rules-digital-media-2021">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/on-the-legality-and-constitutionality-of-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/on-the-legality-and-constitutionality-of-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021</a>
</p>
No publisherTorsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover, Raghav Ahooja, Pallavi Bedi and Divyank KatiraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityInternet FreedomInformation Technology2021-06-21T11:52:39ZBlog EntryNo more 66A!
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a
<b>In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact">set of petitions</a> heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries <i>need not</i> act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHomepageIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedChilling EffectSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2015-03-26T02:01:31ZBlog EntryNew Release of IPR Chapter of India-EU Free Trade Agreement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta
<b>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made publicly available now for the first time, provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.</b>
<p>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/upload/india-eu-fta-ipr-july-2010/at_download/file" class="external-link">publicly available for the first time</a> (PDF, 296Kb), provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.
The consolidated draft which was prepared to serve as the basis of talks that took place from July 12-14, 2010, in New Delhi, reveals parties' negotiating stances in response to preliminary positions put forth earlier (see <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?article17290">IPR Chapter May draft</a>).</p>
<p>In particular, this draft reflects India's rejection of many EU proposals that would require India to:</p>
<ul><li>exceed its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), e.g by providing data exclusivity for pharmaceutical products; <br /></li><li>impose radical enforcement provisions, such as liability of intermediary service providers, border measures for goods in transit, and raised norms for damages and injunctions; or <br /></li><li>require legislative change, e.g., on data protection, and to accommodate the full EU demands on geographical indicators. <br /></li></ul>
<p>
A chart compiled by CIS comparing proposed language by India and the EU in several provisions with TRIPS can be found <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf" class="internal-link" title="New Release of IPR Chapter">here</a> (PDF, 402 Kb).</p>
<p>Sources close to the negotiations have also confirmed that during the July talks India reiterated its refusal to go beyond TRIPS, and its refusal to discuss issues that require changes to Indian law. India appears to have also reiterated that it could not finalise FTA copyright provisions before passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill in the Indian Parliament.</p>
<p>
It is hard to assess the current state of the negotiations on IP or to measure the outcomes of subsequently held talks without access to recent drafts, a public record of deliberations, or the schedule of full and intersessional rounds taking place. However, from press and other statements attributed to the European Commission and Indian officials after the December 2010 EU-India Summit in Brussels, it appears that:</p>
<ul><li>
both parties plan to conclude the FTA, the biggest ever for the EU, by Spring 2011; <br /></li><li>the EU has not relaxed its pursuit of at least some "TRIPS plus" provisions such as data protection for pharmaceuticals <br /></li><li>a mutually agreed solution to India's WTO case against the EU over the seizure of generic medicines may be round the corner. Its impact on the FTA is open to speculation. <br /></li></ul>
<p>Because the India-EU FTA is likely to set a new precedent for future trade agreements between developed and developing countries, and with enormous stakes for patients across the globe, India and the EU need to get it right and ensure no provision runs counter to the interests of millions of citizens.</p>
<p>For further information about the text, contact Malini Aisola <malini.aisola@gmail.com> or Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityAccess to Knowledge2011-09-22T12:34:05ZBlog EntryNew intermediary guidelines: The good and the bad
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-intermediary-guidelines-the-good-and-the-bad
<b>In pursuance of the government releasing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, this blogpost offers a quick rundown of some of the changes brought about the Rules, and how they line up with existing principles of best practices in content moderation, among others. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>This article originally appeared in the Down to Earth <a class="external-link" href="https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/governance/new-intermediary-guidelines-the-good-and-the-bad-75693">magazine</a>. Reposted with permission.</p>
<p>-------</p>
<p>The Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The operation of these rules would be in supersession of the existing intermediary liability rules under the Information Technology (IT) Act, made back in 2011.</p>
<p>These IL rules would have a significant impact on our relationships with internet ‘intermediaries’, i.e. gatekeepers and getaways to the internet, including social media platforms, communication and messaging channels.</p>
<p>The rules also make a bid to include entities that have not traditionally been considered ‘intermediaries’ within the law, including curated-content platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime as well as digital news publications.</p>
<p>These rules are a significant step-up from the draft version of the amendments floated by the Union government two years ago; in this period, the relationship between the government around the world and major intermediaries changed significantly. </p>
<p>The insistence of these entities in the past, that they are not ‘arbiters of truth’, for instance, has not always held water in their own decision-makings.</p>
<p>Both Twitter and Facebook, for instance, have locked the former United States president Donald Trump out of their platforms. Twitter has also resisted to fully comply with government censorship requests in India, spilling into an interesting policy tussle between the two entities. It is in the context of these changes, therefore, that we must we consider the new rules.</p>
<p><strong>What changed for the good?</strong></p>
<p>One of the immediate standouts of these rules is in the more granular way in which it aims to approach the problem of intermediary regulation. The previous draft — and in general the entirety of the law — had continued to treat ‘intermediaries’ as a monolithic entity, entirely definable by section 2(w) of the IT Act, which in turn derived much of its legal language from the EU E-commerce Directive of 2000.</p>
<p>Intermediaries in the directive were treated more like ‘simple conduits’ or dumb, passive carriers who did not play any active role in the content. While that might have been the truth of the internet when these laws and rules were first enacted, the internet today looks much different.</p>
<p>Not only is there a diversification of services offered by these intermediaries, there’s also a significant issue of scale, wielded by a few select players, either by centralisation or by the sheer number of user bases. A broad, general mandate would, therefore, miss out on many of these nuances, leading to imperfect regulatory outcomes.</p>
<p>The new rules, therefore, envisage three types of entities:</p>
<ul><li>There are the ‘intermediaries’ within the traditional, section 2(w) meaning of the IT Act. This would be the broad umbrella term for all entities that would fall within the ambit of the rules.</li><li>There are the ‘social media intermediaries’ (SMI), as entities, which enable online interaction between two or more users.</li><li>The rules identify ‘significant social media intermediaries’ (SSMI), which would mean entities with user-thresholds as notified by the Central Government.</li></ul>
<p>The levels of obligations vary based on these hierarchies of classification. For instance, an SSMI would be obligated with a much higher standard of transparency and accountability towards their users. They would have to fulfill by publishing six-monthly transparency reports, where they have to outline how they dealt with requests for content removal, how they deployed automated tools to filter content, and so on.</p>
<p>I have previously argued how transparency reports, when done well, are an excellent way of understanding the breadth of government and social media censorships. Legally mandating this is then perhaps a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>Some other requirements under this transparency principle include giving notice to users whose content has been disabled, allowing them to contest such removal, etc.</p>
<p>One of the other rules from the older draft that had raised a significant amount of concern was the proactive filtering mandate, where intermediaries were liable to basically filter for all unlawful content. This was problematic on two counts:</p>
<ul><li>Developments in machine learning technologies are simply not up there to make this a possibility, which would mean that there would always be a chance that legitimate and legal content would get censored, leading to general chilling effect on digital expression</li><li>The technical and financial burden this would impose on intermediaries would have impacted the competition in the market.</li></ul>
<p>The new rules seemed to have lessened this burden, by first, reducing it from being mandatory to being best endeavour-basis; and second, by reducing the ambit of ‘unlawful content’ to only include content depicting sexual abuse, child sexual abuse imagery (CSAM) and duplicating to already disabled / removed content.</p>
<p>This specificity would be useful for better deployment of such technologies, since previous research has shown that it’s considerably easier to train a machine learning tool on corpus of CSAM or abuse, rather than on more contextual, subjective matters such as hate speech.</p>
<p><strong>What should go?</strong></p>
<p>That being said, it is concerning that the new rules choose to bring online curated content platforms (OCCPs) within the ambit of the law by proposals of a three-tiered self-regulatory body and schedules outlining guidelines about the rating system these entities should deploy.</p>
<p>In the last two years, several attempts have been made by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), an industry body consisting of representatives of these OCCPs, to bring about a self-regulatory code that fills in the supposed regulatory gap in the Indian law.</p>
<p>It is not known if these stakeholders were consulted before the enactment of these provisions. Some of this framework would also apply to publishers of digital news portals.</p>
<p>Noticeably, this entire chapter was also missing from the old draft, and introducing it in the final form of the law without due public consultations is problematic.</p>
<p>Part III and onwards of the rules, which broadly deal with the regulation of these entities, therefore, should be put on hold and opened up for a period of public and stakeholder consultations to adhere to the true spirit of democratic participation.</p>
<p><em>The author would like to thank Gurshabad Grover for his editorial suggestions. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-intermediary-guidelines-the-good-and-the-bad'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-intermediary-guidelines-the-good-and-the-bad</a>
</p>
No publisherTorSharkIT ActIntermediary LiabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipArtificial Intelligence2021-03-15T13:52:46ZBlog EntryNational Consultation on Media Law
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law
<b>The Law Commission of India and the National University, Delhi have joined hands to organize the National Consultation on Media Law at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on September 27 and 28, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event. </b>
<p>Click to view the:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/national-consultation-on-media-law-schedule.pdf" class="internal-link">Schedule</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/consultation-paper-media-law.pdf" class="internal-link">Consultation Paper on Media Law</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-of-responses.pdf" class="internal-link">Overview of Responses</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-useful-sources.pdf" class="internal-link">List of Useful Sources</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2014-09-30T06:52:50ZNews ItemMPs oppose curbs on internet; Sibal promises discussions
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/mps-oppose-curbs-on-internet
<b>With MPs raising concerns over open-ended interpretations of restrictive terms in the rules seeking to regulate social media and internet, the government promised to evolve a consensus on points of contention.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://goo.gl/MCXLB">Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article published by the Times of India on May 18, 2012</a></p>
<p>Telecom minister Kapil Sibal's assurance came at the end of an engrossing debate in Rajya Sabha on a motion moved by CPM MP P Rajeeve who said the rules violated freedom of expression and free speech.</p>
<p>He found support from leader of opposition <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Arun-Jaitley">Arun Jaitley</a> who picked several examples to point out that terms or descriptions like "harmful", "blasphemous" and "defamatory" did not lend themselves to precise legal definitions.</p>
<p>Jaitley said what the government may find defamatory may not be seen in similar light by its critics. He also pointed to the difficulties of controlling technology and asked if it was desirable to do so.</p>
<p>Assuring MPs who sought the annulment of 'rules' which are aimed at regulating internet content, <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/United-Company-RUSAL">Sibal</a> said, "My assurance to the House is that I will request the MPs to write letters to me objecting to any specific words. I will then call a meeting of the members as well as the industry and all stakeholders. We will have a discussion and whatever consensus emerges, we will implement it."</p>
<p>The move to put rules in place flows from the government's annoyance with what it sees as scurrilous and disrespectful comments about senior Congress leaders. It had suggested pre-screening of content which service providers were reluctant to consider.</p>
<p>The motion for annulling the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011 was, however, defeated by a voice vote. Justifying the rules, the minister said "these are sensitive issues" as most internet companies were registered abroad and not subjected to Indian laws.</p>
<p>TOI was first to report about the new rules that put a lot of the onus on intermediaries like internet service providers, Facebook and Twitter, to manage and monitor content produced by their users. Web activists believe the IT rules are open to arbitrary interpretation and can be misused to silence freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Google, which participated in the public consultative process before the rules were framed, had told TOI, "If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information."</p>
<p>Moving the motion, Rajeeve said, "I am not against any regulation on internet but I am against any control on internet... In control, there is no freedom... These rules attempt to control internet and curtail the freedom of expression."</p>
<p>Complimenting the CPM member, Jaitley said, "I think he (Rajeeve) deserves a compliment for educating us on this rule that Parliament has a supervisory control as far as subordinate legislations are concerned, and, if need be, we can express our vote of disapproval to the subordinate legislations."</p>
<p>MPs felt the government should consider a regime where offensive content can be removed immediately after being posted rather than trying to sieve it out.</p>
<p>Noting that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defy technology and that the days of withholding information have gone, Jaitley urged the minister to "reconsider the language of restraints" to prevent its misuse. He pointed to certain words - harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory - used in the rules, explaining how these could be interpreted/misinterpreted at any stage.</p>
<p>The MPs did note that the internet had a risk of inciting hate speech and frenzy in society and therefore it needed to be restrained but the device could be swift identification of objectionable content.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash of Centre for Internet and Society, an organization that has been advocating withdrawal of the rules, said he was sad with the outcome in Rajya Sabha. "The IT minister has promised to hold consultations but the ideal way to do so would have been to scrap the rules and start from scratch," he said.</p>
<p>"It's not only about language in these rules. There is a problem with provisions like the one that empowers intermediaries to remove content without notifying the user who had uploaded the content or giving users a chance to explain themselves."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/mps-oppose-curbs-on-internet'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/mps-oppose-curbs-on-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-05-24T10:25:35ZNews ItemMinimising Legal Risks of Online Intermediaries while Protecting User Rights
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida on August 5, 2014, 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Jyoti Panday will be a panelist.</b>
<h3>Thematic Area of Interest</h3>
<ul>
<li>Internet business in the Asia Pacific region</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Consumer protection for users of global Internet services</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Internet for socio-economic development</li>
</ul>
<h3></h3>
<h3>Specific Issues of Discussions & Description</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet usage in the Asia Pacific region has been growing at a phenomenal rate and online service providers have benefited enormously from this growth. However, the region poses challenges for online service providers in terms of legal risks involved with respect to user generated content. Across the world from Europe to the US, it has been an accepted policy that service providers on the Internet cannot be held liable for user-generated content and this principle has found place in legislations enacted in this field in most countries. However, the Asian region has often seen blocking of services and websites due to user-generated content that is deemed to be illegal. There needs to be a debate on safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and the take-down provisions in legislations to ensure that the right to freedom of expression of citizens are protected while maintaining an environment that permits innovation in this space.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The workshop will also consider the different classes of intermediaries, how they differ functionally and if their differing roles should bear an impact on their responsibility with regards to protection of rights of users. Traditional models of consumer protection are based on distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of suppliers, facilitators and consumers. While developing consumer protection models for online intermediary platforms, their evolving roles and responsibilities as a supplier and a facilitator need to be considered. Intermediary platforms have also created and highlighted new consumer relations and issues that call for robust and fluid reddressal mechanisms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need to reflect on reddressal mechanisms for consumer issues pertaining to online intermediaries is also necessary, given the economic implications associated with intermediary liability. Failure to protect intermediaries stems innovation and restricts growth of start-ups and small to medium enterprises in the digital economy and has negative financial implications. Moreover, intermediaries are crucial in connecting developing countries to global markets and a failure to protect them, creates a barrier to information exchange and capacity building.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The panel will discuss the following issues:</p>
<ul>
<li>Take-down procedures and Put-back provisions used in various countries in the region</li>
<li>Safe-harbour provisions for intermediaries</li>
<li>Need for classification of Intermediaries for the purpose of a take-down regime and user rights</li>
<li>Rights of users of services provided by online intermediaries </li>
<li>Recommendations for a balanced intermediary liability regime</li>
</ul>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Expected Format and Confirmed Panel Members</h3>
<p>The workshop will be a ninety minute panel divided in two sessions of forty five minutes each. The proposed panel includes:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Mishi Choudhary</b> (Moderator) SFLC.IN Civil Society India<br />Mishi Choudhary is the founding director of SFLC India. She started working with SFLC in New York following the completion of her fellowship during which she earned her LLM from Columbia Law School and was a Stone Scholar. In addition to her LLM, she has an LLB and a bachelors degree in political science from the University of Delhi, India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jyoti Panday</b>, Center for Internet and Society, Civil Society, India <br />Jyoti Panday is Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society working on Internet governance and on issues related to the role and responsibility of intermediaries in protecting user rights and freedom of expression. She has experience in strategy, campaign management and research on issues and processes related to the development agenda, sustainability and democracy. She has completed her MSc in Public Policy from Queen Mary, University of London.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shahzad Ahmed</b>, Bytes for All Pakistan, Civil Society, Pakistan<br />Shahzad Ahmad is the Country Coordinator of Bytes for All, Pakistan and founder of the Digital Rights Institute (DRI). He is currently working on issues of ICT policy advocacy, internet rights and freedom of expression. He is a development communications expert and is at the forefront of the Internet Rights movement in Pakistan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Ahmad is a Diplo Fellow, Executive Board Member of the Association for Progressive Communications, Advisory Board Member of .PK ccTLD and a member of the International Advisory Board of Privacy International, UK. He regularly contributes to various publications and research studies on ICTs for development, freedom of expression and gender related issues. Widely travelled, he regularly participates in various forums at local, regional and global level. Mr. Ahmad maintains a strong engagement with broader civil society networks and strongly believes in participation and openness.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Professor KS Park</b>, Korea University Law School Professor <br />One of the founders of Open Net Korea, Professor Park has written and is active in internet, free speech, privacy, defamation, copyright, international business contracting, etc. He has given expert testimonies in high-profile free speech cases including the /Minerva /case, the internet real name verification case, the military’s subversive book blacklisting case, the newspaper consumers’ boycott case, and the Park Jung-Geun Retweet case. As a result, the “false news” crime and the internet real name verification laws were struck down as unconstitutional, Park Jung-Geun and Minerva acquitted, the soldiers challenging book blacklisting reinstated, the newspaper boycotters acquitted partially as to the “secondary boycotting” charge (2010-2013).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since 2006, he serves as the Executive Director of the PSPD Law Center, a non-profit entity that has organized several impact litigations in the areas of free speech, privacy, and copyright. There, the Law Center won the world’s first damage lawsuit against a copyright holder for “bad faith” takedown (2009) and the first damage lawsuit against a portal for warrantless disclosure of the user identity data to the police (2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Arvind Gupta</b>, National Head-Information and Technology, Government/ BJP Political party, India<br />National Head, BJP Information Technology Cell</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Faisal Farooqui</b>, CEO, MouthShut.com, Private Sector, India<br />Faisal Farooqui is a highly recognized entrepreneur who is among the trailblazers of his generation. Faisal has founded and managed two successful Internet and technology companies -MouthShut.com, India's largest consumer review and social media portal and Zarca Interactive, a Virginia based enterprise survey and feedback company.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ramanjit Singh Chima</b>, Google, Private Sector, India<br />Raman Jit Singh Chima serves as Policy Counsel and Government Affairs Manager for Google, based in New Delhi. He currently helps lead Google'spublic policy and government affairs work in India. He is a graduate of the Bachelors in Arts and Law (Honours) programme of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. While at the National Law School, he was Chief Editor of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. He has studied Internet regulation as an independent research fellow with the Sarai programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and contributed to Freedom House's 2009 Freedom on the Internet report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Apar Gupta</b>, Legal, India <br />Apar Gupta is a practicing lawyer in Delhi working as a Partner at the law firm of Advani & Co. His practice areas include, commercial litigation and arbitration with a focus on technology and media. Apar as a retained counsel, represents an internet industry organisation in government affairs, including consultations on draft laws and policies which effect the sector. These issues include legal risks of intermediaries, media freedom and consumer rights. He has completed his masters in law from Columbia Law School, New York and has written columns for the Business Standard, Indian Express and the Pioneer on legal issues. Apar also is a visiting faculty at National Law University, Delhi.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Full Name, Affiliation and Contact Details of the Workshop Organizer</h3>
<p>The workshop will be jointly organised by SFLC.IN and the Centre for Internet & Society, India. The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:</p>
<ol>
<li>Name: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN I<br />E: mishi@softwarefreedom.org</li>
<li>Jyoti Panday—Centre for Internet & Society, India<br />E: jyoti@cis-india.org</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceEventIntermediary Liability2014-07-29T07:50:51ZEventMediaNama roundtables on intermediary liability rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/medianama-roundtables-on-intermediary-liability-rules
<b>MediaNama hosted one policy round-table on Intermediary Liability protections in Bangalore and another round-table in New Delhi, to discuss inputs sought by MEITY on the amendments to Safe Harbor for platforms (payments services, content services, ISPs, etc.) in India. Centre for Internet & Society is a community partner for the event.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One round-table was held at St. Mark's Hotel in Bangalore on January 25, 2019 and the next one will be held at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on February 7, 2019. Gurshabad Grover participated in the meeting held on January 25, 2019. Participants discussed the draft amendments to the intermediary liability rules (under Section 79 of the IT Act) and recommendations stakeholders could respond with. For more info <a class="external-link" href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/01/223-announcing-nama-event-on-the-future-of-online-safe-harbor-bangalore-delhi-ad/">click here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>MediaNama has posted some pieces after the discussion that may be of interest:</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/02/223-namapolicy-no-clarity-on-what-constitutes-offenses-for-intermediaries-alok-prasanna-kumar/">No clarity on what constitutes offenses for intermediaries</a> (by Alok Prasanna Kumar)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/02/223-regulation-of-intermediaries-nama/">Should different sizes or categories of intermediaries be regulated differently?</a> (by Nikhil Pahwa)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/02/223-safe-harbor-intermediary-liability-traceability/">The Intent of Traceability is behavioral change</a> (by Nikhil Pahwa)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/medianama-roundtables-on-intermediary-liability-rules'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/medianama-roundtables-on-intermediary-liability-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2019-02-17T15:59:33ZNews ItemLearning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age
<b>Pranesh Prakash spoke at this event organized by Global Network Initiative on November 6, 2014 in California. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash spoke on transparency reports and their use and abuse in India; the Intermediary Liability Rules in India (and its non-provision of any transparency mechanism); and the need for transparency in private speech regulation, not just governmental speech regulation.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><img alt="GNI logo" src="https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/21069154/gnilogo.jpg" title="GNI logo" width="600" /></p>
<p><img alt="Telecom Industry Dialogue" src="https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/21069154/screenshot20141002at11.11.24am.png" title="ID logos" width="600" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Global Network Initiative and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy present:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2014 Learning Forum - Silicon Valley </b><br /><b><span>Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Hosted by LinkedIn </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>Agenda</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>1:30PM - Registration</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>2:00PM - Opening Remarks</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Mark Stephens, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: center; ">Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: center; ">Pablo Chavez, Vice President, Global Public Policy and Government Affairs, LinkedIn</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>2:15PM - Why does transparency matter for protecting and respecting rights online?</span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Arvind Ganesan, Director of Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deirdre Mulligan, Associate Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Michael Samway, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>3:00PM - What is the state of transparency reporting by companies and governments, and what's missing?</span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Jason Pielemeier, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Moderated by Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>4:00PM - Break</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>4:30PM - How do companies communicate with users in response to live events? </span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Ben Blink, Senior Policy Analyst, Free Expression and International Relations, Google</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Patrik Hiselius, Senior Advisor, Digital Rights, TeliaSonera</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights Project, New America Foundation</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Hemanshu Nigam, CEO, SSP Blue</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Moderated by Cynthia Wong, Senior Internet Researcher, Human Rights Watch</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>The program will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30pm.</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By invitation only, non-transferrable.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent">Have questions about Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age? <a class="contact_organizer_link js-d-modal" href="#lightbox_contact"> Contact Global Network Initiative </a></p>
<hr />
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent">The original was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age-tickets-13387240597">published here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-12-04T16:14:38ZNews ItemKilling the Internet Softly with Its Rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped
<b>While regulation of the Internet is a necessity, the Department of IT, through recent Rules under the IT Act, is guilty of over-regulation. This over-regulation is not only a bad idea, but is unconstitutional, and gravely endangers freedom of speech and privacy online.</b>
<div class="visualClear"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">A slightly modified version of this blog entry was published as </span><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">an op-ed in the Indian Express on May 9, 2011</a><span class="Apple-style-span">.</span></div>
<h2>Over-regulation of the Internet<br /></h2>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<p>Regulation of the Internet, as with
regulation of any medium of speech and commerce, is a balancing act.
Too little regulation and you ensure that criminal activities are
carried on with impunity; too much regulation and you curb the
utility of the medium. This is especially so with the Internet, as
it has managed to be the impressively vibrant space it is due to a
careful choice in most countries of eschewing over-regulation.
India, however, seems to be taking a different turn with a three sets
of new rules under the Information Technology Act.</p>
<p>These rules deal with the liability of
intermediaries (i.e., a large, inclusive, group of entities and
individuals, that transmit and allow access to third-party content),
the safeguards that cybercafes need to follow if they are not to be
held liable for their users' activities, and the practices that
intermediaries need to follow to ensure security and privacy of
customer data.</p>
<h3>Effect of not following the rules</h3>
<p>By not observing any of the provisions
of these Rules, the intermediary opens itself up for liability for
actions of its users. Thus, if a third-party defames someone, then
the intermediary can be held liable if he/she/it does not follow the
stringent requirements of the Rules.</p>
<p>The problem, however is that, many of
the provisions of the Rules have no rational nexus with the due
diligence to be observed by the intermediary to absolve itself from
liability.</p>
<h3>What does the Act require?</h3>
<p>Section 79 of the IT Act states that
intermediaries are generally not liable for third party information,
data, or communication link made available or hosted. It qualifies
that by stating that they are not liable if they follow certain
precautions (basically, to show that they are <em>real</em>
intermediaries). They observe 'due diligence' and don't exercise an
editorial role; they don't help or induce commission of the unlawful
act; and upon receiving 'actual knowledge', or on being duly notified
by the appropriate authority, the intermediary takes steps towards
some kind of action.</p>
<p>So, rules were needed to clarify what
'due diligence' involves (i.e., to state that no active monitoring is
required of ISPs), what 'actual knowledge' means, and to clarify what
happens in happens in case of conflicts between this provision and
other parts of IT Act and other Acts.</p>
<h3>Impact on freedom of speech and privacy</h3>
<p>However, that is not what the rules do.
The rules instead propose standard terms of service to be notified
by all intermediaries. This means everyone from Airtel to Hotmail to
Facebook to Rediff Blogs to Youtube to organizations and people that
allow others to post comments on their website. What kinds of terms
of service? It will require intermediaries to bar users from
engaging in speech that is disparaging', It doesn't cover only
intermediaries that are public-facing. So this means that your
forwarding a joke via e-mail, which "belongs to another person
and to which the user does not have any right" will be deemed to
be in violation of the new rules. While gambling (such as betting on
horses) isn’t banned in India and casino gambling is legal in Goa,
for example, under these Rules, all speech ‘promoting gambling’
is prohibited.</p>
<p>The rules are very onerous on
intermediaries, since they require them to act within 36 hours to
disable access to any information that they receive a complaint
about. Any 'affected person' can complain. Intermediaries will now
play the role that judges have traditionally played. Any affected
person can bring forth a complaint about issues as diverse as
defamation, blasphemy, trademark infringement, threatening of
integrity of India, 'disparaging speech', or the blanket 'in
violation of any law'. It is not made mandatory to give the actual
violator an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the cardinal
principle of natural justice of 'hearing the other party' before
denying them a fundamental right. Many parts of the Internet are in
fact public spaces and constitute an online public sphere. A law
requiring private parties to curb speech in such a public sphere is
unconstitutional insofar as it doesn't fall within Art.19(2) of the
Constitution.</p>
<p>Since intermediaries would lose
protection from the law if they don't take down content, they have no
incentives to uphold freedom of speech of their users. They instead
have been provided incentives to take down all content about which
they receive complaints without bothering to apply their minds and
coming to an actual conclusion that the content violates the rules.</p>
<h3>Cybercafe rules</h3>
<p>The cybercafe rules require all
cybercafe customers be identified with supporting documents, their
photographs taken, all their website visit history logged, and these
logs maintained for a year. Compare this to the usage of public
pay-phones. Anyone can use a pay-phone without their details being
logged. Indeed, such logging allows for cybercafe owners to
blackmail their users if they find some embarrassing websites in the
history logs—which could be anything from medical diseases to
sexual orientation to the fact that you're a whistleblower.</p>
<p>The cybercafe rules also require that
all of them install "commercially available safety or filtering
software" to prevent access to pornography. In two cases along
these lines in the Madras High Court (<em>Karthikeyan R.</em> v. <em>Union
of India</em>) and the Bombay High Court (<em>Janhit Manch </em>v.
<em>Union of India</em>), the High Courts refused to direct the
government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet
pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis
to be constitutionally valid under Art.19(1)(a) [Right to freedom of
speech and expression].</p>
<p>Such software tends to be very
ineffective—non-pornographic websites also get wrongly filtered,
and not all pornographic websites get filtered—and the High Courts
were right in being wary of any blanket ban. They preferred for
individual cases to be registered. If the worry is that our children
are getting corrupted, it is up to parents to provide supervision,
and not for the government to insist that software do the parenting
instead.</p>
<p>Given that all of these were pointed
out by both civil society organizations, news media, and industry
bodies, when the draft rules were released, it smacks of governmental
high-handedness that almost none of the changes suggested by the
public have been incorporated in the final rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2011-08-20T12:51:42ZBlog EntryIT (Amendment) Act, 2008, 69 Rules: Draft and Final Version Comparison
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison
<b>Jadine Lannon has performed a clause-by-clause comparison of the Draft 69 Rules and official 69 Rules under Section 69B in order to better understand how the two are similar and how they differ. Very brief notes have been included on some changes we deemed to be important.
</b>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc1.png" alt="c1" class="image-inline" title="c1" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc2.png" alt="c2" class="image-inline" title="c2" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc3.png" alt="c3" class="image-inline" title="c3" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc4.png" alt="c4" class="image-inline" title="c4" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc5.png" alt="c5" class="image-inline" title="c5" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc6.png" alt="c6" class="image-inline" title="c6" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc7.png" alt="c7" class="image-inline" title="c7" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc8.png" alt="c8" class="image-inline" title="c8" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/pc9.png" alt="c9" class="image-inline" title="c9" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similar to the other comparisons that I have done on the 69A and 69B Draft and official Rules, the majority of the changes between these two sets of rules serves to restructure and clarify various clauses in the Draft 69 Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Three new definitions appear in the Clause (2) of the 69 Rules, including a definition for “communication”, which appears in the Draft Rules but has no associated definition under Clause (2) of the Draft Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clause (31) of the Draft Rules, which deals with the requirement of security agencies of the State and Union territories to share any information gathered through interception, monitoring and/or decryption with federal agencies, does not make an appearance in the official rules. Further, this necessity does not seem to be implied anywhere in the official 69 Rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison</a>
</p>
No publisherjdineInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityInformation Technology2013-04-30T09:56:07ZBlog EntryInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability Resources
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources
<b>We bring you a list of intermediary resources as part of research on internet governance. This blog post will be updated on an ongoing basis.</b>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation. </b>The Centre for Democracy and Technology. December 2012, available at: <a href="https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf">https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf</a>: This paper analyses the impact that intermediary liability regimes have on freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation. In doing so, the paper highlights different models of intermediary liability regimes, reviews different technological means of restricting access to content, and provides recommendations for intermediary liability regimes and provides alternative ways of addressing illegal content online.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability:</b> Article 19. 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf">http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf:</a>This Policy Document reviews different components of intermediary liability and highlights the challenges and risks that current models of liability have to online freedom of expression. Relying on international standards for freedom of expression and comparative law, the document includes recommendations and alternative models that provide stronger protection for freedom of expression. The key recommendation in the document include: web hosting providers or hosts should be immune from liability to third party content if they have not modified the content, privatised enforcement should not be a model and removal orders should come only from courts or adjudicatory bodies, the model of notice to notice should replace notice and takedown regimes, in cases of alleged serious criminality clear conditions should be in place and defined.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries:</b> Prepared by Daniel Seng for WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries.pdf:This Report reviews the intermediary liability regimes and associated laws in place across fifteen different contexts with a focus on civil copyright liability for internet intermediaries. The Report seeks to find similarities and differences across the regimes studied and highlight principles and components in different that can be used in international treaties and instruments, upcoming policies, and court decisions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom of Expression, Indirect Censorship, & Liability for Internet Intermediaries.</b> The Electronic Frontier Foundation. February 2011, available at: <a href="http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf">http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf</a>:This presentation was created for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum in Chile and highlights that for freedom of expression to be protected, clear legal protections for internet intermediaries are needed and advocates for a regime that provides blanket immunity to intermediaries or is based on judicial takedown notices.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Contracted by the European Commission.</b> 2007, available at: <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf</a>. This Report provides insight on the application of the intermediary liability sections of the EU e-commerce directive and studies the impact of the regulations under the Directive on the functioning of intermediary information society services. To achieve this objective, the study identifies relavant case law across member states, calls out and evaluates developing trends across Member States, and draws conclusions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediary Liability: Identifying Best Practices for Africa.</b> Nicolo Zingales for the Association for Progressive Communications, available at: <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf">https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf</a>: This background paper seeks to identify challenges and opportunities in addressing intermediary liability for countries in the African Union and recommend safeguards that can be included in emerging intermediary liability regimes in the context of human rights. The paper also reviews different models of intermediary liability and discusses the limitations, scope, and modes of operation of each model. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda</b>: An uncertain terrain. Association for Progressive Communications. October 2012, available at: <a href="http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain">http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain</a>:This Report reviews intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda – providing background to the political context, relevant legislation, and present challenges . In doing so, the Report provides insight into how intermediary liability has changed in recent years in these contexts and explores past and present debates on intermediary liability. The Report concludes with recommendations for stakeholders affected by intermediary liability. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Fragmentation of intermediary liability in the UK</b>. Daithi Mac Sithigh. 2013, available at: <a href="http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT">http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT</a>. This article looks at the application of the Electronic Commerce Directive across Europe and argues that it is being intermixed and subsequently replaced with provisions from national legislation and provisions of law from area specific legislation. Thus, the article argues that systems for intermediary liability are diving into multiple systems – for example for content related to copyright intermediaries are being placed with new responsibilities while for content related to defamation, there is a reducing in the liability that intermediaries are held to. </li>
<li><b>Regimes of Legal Liability for Online Intermediaries: an Overview</b>. OECD, available at: <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf</a>. This article provides an overview of different intermediary liability regimes including EU and US. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b> Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose</b>. GNI. 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf</a>. This Report argues that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 are not adequate to deal with ICT innovations , and argues that the current liability regime in India is hurting the Indian internet economy. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary Liability in India</b>. Centre for Internet and Society. 2011, available at: <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf</a>. This report reviews and ‘tests’ the effect of the Indian intermediary liability on freedom of expression. The report concludes that the present regime in India has a chilling effect on free expression and offers recommendations on how the Indian regime can be amended to protect this right. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Liability of Internet Service providers and the exercise of the freedom of expression in Latin America have been explored in detail through the course of this research paper by Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and J. Carlos Lara Galvez. The paper explores the efficacy and the implementation of proposals to put digital communication channels under the oversight of certain State sponsored institutions in varying degrees. The potential consequence of legal intervention in media and digital platforms, on the development of individual rights and freedoms has been addressed through the course of this study. The paper tries to arrive at relevant conclusions with respect to the enforcement of penalties that seek to redress the liability of communication intermediaries and the mechanism that may be used to oversee the balance between the interests at stake as well as take comparative experiences into account. The paper also analyses the liability of technical facilitators of communications while at the same time attempting to define a threshold beyond which the interference into the working of these intermediaries may constitute an offence of the infringement of the privacy of users. Ultimately, it aims to derive a balance between the necessity for intervention, the right of the users who communicate via the internet and interests of the economic actors who may be responsible for the service: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf">http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf</a></li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://crm.apc.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=191">Click to read the newsletter</a> from the Association of Progressive Communications. The summaries for the reports can be found below:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Intermediaries: The Dilemma of Liability in Africa. APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/</a>. This report summarizes the challenges facing internet content regulators in Africa, and the effects of these regulations on the state of the internet in Africa. Many African countries do not protect intermediaries from potential liability, so some intermediaries are too afraid to transmit or host content on the internet in those countries. The report calls for a universal rights protection for internet intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">APC’s Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Intermediary Liability: APC, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/</a>. This report addresses common questions pertaining to internet intermediaries, which are entities which provide services that enable people to use the internet, from network providers to search engines to comments sections on blogs. Specifically, the report outlines different models of intermediary liability, defining two main models. The “Generalist” model intermediary liability is judged according to the general rules of civil and criminal law, while the “Safe Harbour” model protects intermediaries with a legal safe zone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Developments in South Africa: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri</a>. This interview with researchers Alex Comninos and Andrew Rens goes into detail about the challenges of intermediary in South Africa. The researchers discuss the balance that needs to be struck between insulating intermediaries from a fear of liability and protecting women’s rights in an environment that is having trouble dealing with violence against women. They also discuss South Africa’s three strikes policy for those who pirate material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Preventing Hate Speech Online In Kenya: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli</a>. This interview with Grace Githaiga investigates the uncertain fate of internet intermediaries under Kenya’s new regime. The new government has mandated everyone to register their SIM cards, and indicated that it was monitoring text messages and flagging those that were deemed risky. This has led to a reduction in the amount of hate speech via text messages. Many intermediaries, such as newspaper comments sections, have established rules on how readers should post on their platforms. Githaiga goes on to discuss the issue of surveillance and the lack of a data protection law in Kenya, which she sees as the most pressing internet issue in Kenya.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws in Uganda Make Internet Providers More Vulnerable to Liability and State Intervention: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne</a>. In an interview, Lilian Nalwoga discusses Uganda’s recent anti-pornography law that can send intermediaries to prison. The Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 criminalizes any sort of association with any form of pornography, and targets ISPs, content providers, and developers, making them liable for content that goes through their systems. This makes being an intermediary extremely risky in Uganda. The other issue with the law is a vague definition of pornography. Nalwoga also explains the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 bans any promotion or recognition of homosexual relations, and the monitoring technology the government is using to enforce these laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws Affecting Intermediary Liability in Nigeria: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria</a>. Gbenga Sesan, executive director of Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, expounds on the latest trends in Nigerian intermediary liability. The Nigerian Communications Commission has a new law that mandates ISPs store users data for at least here years, and wants to make content hosts responsible for what users do on their networks. Additionally, in Nigeria, internet users register with their real name and prove that you are the person who is registration. Sesan goes on to discuss the lack of safe harbor provisions for intermediaries and the remaining freedom of anonymity on social networks in Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Policies That Affect Africans: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af</a>. The Associsation for Progressive Communcations interviews researcher Nicolo Zingales about the trend among African governments establishing further regulations to control the flow of information on the internet and hold intermediaries liable for content they circulate. Zingales criticizes intermediary liability for “creating a system of adverse incentives for free speech.” He goes on to offer examples of intermediaries and explain the concept of “safe harbor” legislative frameworks. Asked to identify best and worst practices in Africa, he highlights South Africa’s safe harbor as a good practice, and mentions the registration of users via ID cards as a worst practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Towards Internet Intermediary Responsibility: Carly Nyst, November 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility">http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility</a>. Nyst argues for a middle ground between competing goals in internet regulation in Africa. Achieving one goal, of protecting free speech through internet intermediaries seems at odds with the goal of protecting women’s rights and limiting hate speech, because one demands intermediaries be protected in a legal safe harbor and the other requires intermediaries be vigilant and police their content. Nyst’s solution is not intermediary liability but <i>responsibility</i>, a role defined by empowerment, and establishing an intermediary responsibility to promote positive gender attitudes.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherelonnaiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2014-07-03T06:45:48ZBlog Entry