The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 251 to 265.
'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws
<b>Global hacking movement Anonymous has called for protesters to take to the streets in 16 cities around India on Saturday over what it considers growing government censorship of the Internet, writes Pratap Chakravarty. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsnDdnLf9f_PmycvKCR-5aHsJiNw?docId=CNG.56f38ef15f6205d33c4a9b392db46ad0.551">This was published in AFP on June 8, 2012</a></p>
<p>The call for demonstrations by the Indian arm of the group follows a
March 29 court order issued in the southern city of Chennai demanding 15
Indian Internet providers block access to file-sharing websites such as
Pirate Bay.</p>
<p>The order has resulted in access being denied to a host of websites
that carry pirated films and music among other legal content, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.isohunt.com/">www.isohunt.com</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pastebin.com/">www.pastebin.com</a>.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, the Anonymous forum fired an opening shot by attacking
the website of state-run telecom provider MTNL, pasting the logo of the
group -- the mask of 17th century revolutionary Guy Fawkes -- on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mtnl.net.in">www.mtnl.net.in</a>.</p>
<p>In an open letter the same day, the group accused the government of
trying to create a "Great Indian Firewall" to establish control on the
web and issuing a "declaration of war from yourself... to us."</p>
<p>Internet users and supporters have been asked to join peaceful
rallies in cities including the capital New Delhi and the tech hub of
Bangalore, with detailed instructions issued online to participants.</p>
<p>Tech website <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pluggd.in/">www.pluggd.in</a>
reported the demonstrators have been asked to wear Guy Fawkes' masks,
download a recorded message to play to police, and are to chant "United
as one! Divided as zero! We are Anonymous! We are legion!"</p>
<p>Concerns about Internet freedom in India go beyond the court order in
Chennai, however, and stem from an update to India's Information
Technology Act that was given by the IT and communications ministry in
April last year.</p>
<p>The new rules regulating Internet companies -- providers, websites
and search engines -- instruct them that they must remove "disparaging"
or "blasphemous" content within 36 hours if they receive a complaint by
an "affected person".</p>
<p>Groups such as the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based
research and advocacy group, have waged a year-long campaign for
amendments to the rules, which were quietly released in April.</p>
<p>Industry groups have also objected, saying they are unclear on the
changes which are in any case impossible to implement when it comes to
acting on individual complaints about specific content.</p>
<p>"A lot of education is required in this field," secretary of the
Internet Service Providers Association of India S.P. Jairath told AFP.</p>
<p>The government has also become embroiled in a row with social
networks after Telecoms Minister Kapil Sibal held a series of meetings
with IT giants Google, Yahoo! and Facebook last year to discuss the
pre-screening of content.</p>
<p>The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of
obscene images found online that risked offending Muslims or defamed
politicians, including his boss, the head of the ruling Congress party,
Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p>Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and
Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower
courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their
platforms.</p>
<p>Anonymous is a secretive "hacker-activist" network and is thought to
be a loosely knit collective with no clearly defined leadership
structure.</p>
<p>It has claimed dozens of online attacks on sites ranging from the
Vatican to Los Angeles Police Canine Association, but is increasingly
the target of law enforcement agencies who have arrested dozens of
members.</p>
<hr />
<p>The above was published in the following places as well:</p>
<ol><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/anonymous-hackers-call-for-protests-across-india-today-against-internet-censorship-229238">NDTV</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://post.jagran.com/anonymous-to-protest-internet-policing-1339243820">Jagran Post</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-09/internet/32140515_1_internet-firms-websites-internet-companies">The Times of India</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/09185541/8216Anonymous8217-activi.html">LiveMint</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-09/news/32140719_1_government-websites-anonymous-facebook-page">Economic Times</a>, June 9, 2012<br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-18T04:55:51ZNews ItemHackers Take Protest to Indian Streets and Cyberspace
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace
<b>First there was self-styled Gandhian activist Anna Hazare who took to the streets to protest corruption. Now a group agitating against censorship on the Internet has arrived in India.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/06/08/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace/">This article by Shreya Shah was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 8, 2012 </a>Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>Only this time, the location is cyberspace and their modus operandi hacking.</p>
<p>In the last few months, Anonymous –a group of hackers, or hacktivists as they like to call themselves –has gone after Web sites of political parties, government sites and Internet service providers, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article3496968.ece">the latest being MTNL</a>, to protest censorship on the Internet.</p>
<p>The group says they are opposing laws including the 2008 Information Technology (Amendment) Act and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules of 2011, which they say unfairly restrict Internet freedom.</p>
<p>On Saturday, the hackers will take their protest to the streets, with an Occupy Wall Street-style march called ”Operation Occupy India” planned in 17 cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur in Maharashtra and Kundapur in Karnataka. The group has requested all protestors to wear Guy Fawkes masks, the symbol of Anonymous.</p>
<p>“This time the common man wants to help us,” an “anon,” which is what members of the group call themselves, told India Real Time.</p>
<p>Anonymous, which has a global presence, catapulted to fame with its <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011873881591338.html">attacks on Visa, Mastercard and Paypal</a>.</p>
<p>This is how the group attacks Web sites: It overwhelms them with thousands of requests from different computer systems simultaneously. The Web site is unable to handle the load and crashes.</p>
<p>The group intensified its attacks after Internet Service Providers like Reliance, MTNL and Airtel temporarily <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/18/vimeo-ban-more-web-censorship/">blocked file sharing sites like Vimeo</a>, Dailymotion, Patebin and Pirate bay, citing a Court order.</p>
<p>But many question the method used by Anonymous.</p>
<p>“I don’t believe in defacing or hacking government Web sites to prove a point,” says Ankit Fadia, a cyber security expert. “You can’t hold the government ransom,” he adds.</p>
<p>In an <a class="external-link" href="http://opindia.posterous.com/open-letter-from-anonymous-to-government-of-i">open letter</a> to the government, Anonymous India defended its actions. It wrote that traditional ways of protesting are losing meaning and this is a new method to pressure the politicians.</p>
<p>Members of the group say that like a regular protest on the street, they too block the infrastructure of their opponents. Except in this case, the infrastructure is located in cyberspace.</p>
<p>This is a “geek method of attacking,” said the anon who spoke to India Real Time. The group does not plan to attacks sites like that of the Indian railways, for instance, which is used by the masses, he explained.</p>
<p>But not everyone is convinced.</p>
<p>The group attacked the Web site of India’s Supreme Court even when it says it does not attack Web sites used by the common man, says Pranesh Prakash, Program Director of the Center for Internet and Society.</p>
<p>The IT Act is another reason Anonymous is protesting. The Act gives the government the power to remove content it finds offensive. The government can also restrict public access to a Web site.</p>
<p>Anonymous is also protesting the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">Intermediary Guidelines of 2011</a>. According to this Act, a site that hosts offensive content will have to remove it within 36 hours of a complaint against it.</p>
<p>As a result, Web sites like Google and Facebook are <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577381791461076660.html%20%20%E2%80%9CThis%20government%20does%20not%20stand%20for%20censorship;%20this%20government%20does%20not%20stand%20for%20infringement%20of%20fr">facing criminal cases</a> for hosting objectionable content on their site.</p>
<p>“This government does not stand for censorship; this government does not stand for infringement of free speech. Indeed, this government does not stand for regulation of free speech,” Kapil Sibal, the Communications and Information Technology Minister told the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of the Indian Parliament, last month.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash, of the Center for Internet and Society told India Real Time that he does not believe that Anonymous will influence policy makers. He says that the main aim of a protest is to get media attention, and in turn get the attention of the people.</p>
<p>But he agrees that India’s cyber laws are “hopelessly flawed” and create a framework by which not only the government but <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/01/11/invisible-censorship-how-the-government-censors-without-being-seen-pranesh-prakash/">everyone can censor</a>.</p>
<p>He adds, “The laws are a greater threat than Anonymous.”</p>
<p>Photo Source: Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-18T04:02:21ZNews ItemThe War for India's Internet
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet
<b>Why is the world's biggest democracy cracking down on Facebook and Google? Rebecca Mackinnon's article was published in Foreign Policy on June 6, 2012. </b>
<p>"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India -- according to a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0VN7QSg2oE">YouTube video</a> uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement. With popular websites like <a class="external-link" href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo.com</a> blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18114984">distributed denial-of-service attacks</a> against websites belonging to <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/257032/indian_isps_targeted_in_anonymous_censorship_protest.html">Internet service providers</a>, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.</p>
<p>Street protests <a class="external-link" href="https://opindia.posterous.com/anonymous-to-stage-street-protest-on-9th-june">are being planned </a>for this coming Saturday, June 9, in as many as 18 cities <a class="external-link" href="https://opindia.posterous.com/need-of-opindia">to protest laws and other government actions</a> that a growing number of Indian Internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online. A lively national Internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year. The most colorful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "<a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/05/06/india-freedom-fast-to-save-your-voice/">freedom fast</a>," held in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3390327.ece">early May</a> on a New Delhi sidewalk by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/01/04/cartoonist-faces-ban-on-right-to-poke-fun/">shut down this year</a> in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."</p>
<p>Escalating political and legal battles over Internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom -- not only in countries like China and Iran where the Internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated. Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements -- many of them globally interconnected -- are arising in response to these failures.</p>
<p>Only about 10 percent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that Internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "<a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/internet-it-ministry-kapil-sibal-facebook-youtube-google-twitter/1/189230.html">humorless babus</a>," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organizers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people. </p>
<p>The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf">Information Technology (Amendment) Act</a>, whose <a class="external-link" href="http://chmag.in/article/jan2012/powers-government-under-information-technology-act-2000">Section 69</a> empowers the government to direct any Internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource. Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which Internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" -- designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse. It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google<a class="external-link" href="http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-google-india-censorship-trial-postponed-again-2012-05"> are facing trial</a> for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.</p>
<p>Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/2012/04/20/why-the-it-rules-should-be-annulled/">2011 rules</a> and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for Internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of <a class="external-link" href="http://telecomtalk.info/freedom-internet-stake-300-sites-blocked-india/94309/">hundreds of websites</a>, including the file-sharing services<a class="external-link" href="http://www.isohunt.com/"> isoHunt</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thepiratebay.se/">The Pirate Bay</a>, as well as the video-sharing site <a class="external-link" href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pastebin.com/">Pastebin</a>, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links. Internet service providers were <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-18/chennai/31764563_1_isps-internet-service-providers-websites">responding to a court order</a> from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The Internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content -- which had nothing to do with the film in question. </p>
<p>Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterized "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," <a class="external-link" href="http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22copyright-madness%22/952088/">argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala</a>, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net." More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote<a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/news/column/indias-skewed-internet-censorship-debate/20120430.htm"> in a recent essay</a>: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India -- blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules -- are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests." </p>
<p>Not only are the rules abused, but researchers find that they are causing extralegal censorship by companies that overcompensate in order to err on the side of caution. Last year, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" class="external-link">performed an experiment</a> in which it sent "legally flawed" takedown demands to seven companies that provide a range of online services, including search, online shopping, and news with user-generated comments. The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" class="external-link">report</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/2012/04/20/why-the-it-rules-should-be-annulled/">growing public opposition</a>, a motion to annul the 2011 rules was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/motion-to-kill-it-rules-defeated">defeated by voice vote</a> in the upper house of Parliament last month. Yet the criticism was sufficiently sharp that Communications Minister Kapil Sibal announced that he will hold consultations with all members of Parliament, representatives of industry, and other "stakeholders" to discuss the law's problems and how it might be revised. Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening." </p>
<p>Abraham worries that what is really happening is a government effort at Internet "behavior modification" through a process akin to an experiment involving caged monkeys, bananas, and ice water. Put four monkeys in a cage and hang a bunch of bananas on the ceiling. Every time one of them climbs up to reach the bananas, you drench all of them with ice water. Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves -- attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 percent [Internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys." Companies will act as private Internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."</p>
<p>India is not China or Iran, however. Its politicians may be corrupt, and most of its voters may not understand why Internet freedom matters because they've never used the Internet. But it still has an independent press and boisterous civil society that are not going to give up their critiques and protests anytime soon. India also has a strong, independent judiciary, with a record of ruling against censorship and surveillance measures when a strong case can be made that they conflict with constitutional protections of individual rights. "On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary," says Abraham. "There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge."</p>
<p>If Google and Facebook lose at their <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277263704300998.html">impending trial </a>-- now scheduled for July -- they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behavior modification" process that Abraham warns against. Now India's burgeoning Internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behavior modification" strategy -- imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's Internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article. Read the original <a class="external-link" href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/06/the_war_for_india_s_internet?page=0,0">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-14T09:12:34ZNews ItemScared by a spoof? You’ve got to be kidding me!
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/scared-by-a-spoof
<b>Whether it is Mamata Banerjee's recent crackdown on a comic strip or the new legal guidelines that allow touchy readers to have objectionable content taken down, what you say online is under scrutiny. What, then, will happen to news satire websites?</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-03/people/32005348_1_spoof-comic-strip-website/2">The article by Dhamini Ratnam was published in the Times of India on June 3, 2012</a></p>
<p>"Meri site www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com kabse band ho chuki hai (...) Humara sabse bada hathiyar humse chheena ja raha hai (...) Aaj chup rahe toh phir bolne ke liye zubaan bhi nahin bachegi." (My site <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com">www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com</a> has been shut down (...) Our biggest weapon is being taken away from us (...) If we remain silent, we won't be left with anything to articulate with").</p>
<p>That's the first thing you read on Kanpur-based blogger Aseem Trivedi's new site, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.blogspot.in">www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.blogspot.in</a>, on which he transferred all his satirical cartoons earlier this year, after he found that his website had been arbitrarily blocked based on a complaint lodged with the Mumbai Crime Branch last December.</p>
<p>In May, Trivedi went on a hunger strike. His point was simple. The police had no right to have his website taken down, under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, or even under the new Information Technology (intermediary guidelines) Rules, 2011. These rules came into effect last April, and give 36 hours to the intermediary (read Internet Service Provider) to take down content deemed 'objectionable'.</p>
<p>At the face of it, this may seem like a handing over of power to Internet users. But what does this hold out for news satire websites that routinely critique public figures, spoof politics and play an important role in raising public awareness through humour?</p>
<p>For one, in a surprising move, the editors are giving up being anonymous. Says Rahul Roushan, editor, Faking News, "I began this site under the pseudonym Pagal Patrakar in 2008. By the end of 2009, I didn't want to remain anonymous anymore."</p>
<p>Roushan, who is based in Gurgaon, felt readers weren't taking him seriously. "Unless there's a face to such sites, people will think you're spreading lies," says the 33-year-old former television news anchor. Yet, coming out wasn't a cakewalk. "A post I wrote about on the anti-people policy of Mr Thackeray received a comment that I am a Bihari, and therefore against Marathi manoos. Had he not known my name, the reader would never have written such a comment," says Roushan.</p>
<p>Yet, Roushan would rather have his readers - his blog gets 10 lakh page views a month - trust his judgement.</p>
<p>However, recent events, including Pashimbanga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's crackdown on a comic strip, and Union human resource development, communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal's suggestion to Internet giants to "regulate themselves" has left Roushan and other news satire website editors wary.The new IT guidelines, fears Roushan, will create an army of self-righteous people with "a lot of hurt sentiments".</p>
<p>"I'm scared of sentiments," he says, wryly.</p>
<p>T S Sudhir, editor of Tenali Rama Reports, a news spoof site that was started in September 2011, feels the trick to safeguard against such "sentiments" is to maintain a rigorous editorial policy. "No obscene, lewd or toilet humour," says the Hyderabadbased former journalist.</p>
<p>The recent fracas over Mamata's 'Maoist' concerns, for instance, elicited a light-hearted piece that said all dosa-eaters are Maoists, because 'mao' in Tamil means 'batter'. "India has a long-standing political tradition of satire, and readers are used to political cartoons with biting humour."</p>
<p>Mangalore-based political cartoonist Satish Acharya, however, has faced the brunt for his biting humour. In September 2011, a Mumbai Crime Branch officer asked him to take down a cartoon depicting <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sharad-Pawar">Sharad Pawar</a> in a red gown that Acharya had posted on his blog, after it was published in a Mumbaibased tabloid. "In political cartoons, what is the yardstick to measure what is objectionable," asks Acharya. "Can a policeman decide whether a political cartoon is objectionable and have it taken down?"</p>
<p>Programme manager at The Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, Pranesh Prakash has a one word reply: No. Together with his teammates, Prakash is working on a set of guidelines that counters the Intermediary Rules and offers checks and balances without trampling on fundamental rights. For instance, says Prakash, after a complaint is made, the content owner - say the website editor, or cartoonist - should be allowed to reply. If the problem persists, the complainant can go to court.</p>
<p>If cartoons are an effective vehicle of critique online, so are videos. The UnReal Times, run by New Delhi-based IIM graduates C S Krishna and Karthik Laxman, shot to online fame last year after they released a video depicting the Prime Minister as Singham, the heroic character played by Ajay Devgn in a film.</p>
<p>"The best sort of satire," says Krishna, "is when you can't prove in the court of law that the piece is insulting." Krishna and Laxman, who do policy research work for BJP MP Uday Singh, insist that they are not card-holders for the party, and have taken pot-shots at the BJP, too. "Since political satire focuses on mocking the establishment, the UPA government is the subject of most our (satirical) pieces on politics," says Krishna. Tanay Sukumar, editor of News That Matters Not, feels that the content should be directed at a problematic policy, not person. Engineering students Sukumar and Sugandha, who founded the site in 2009, feel that a satirist needs to distinguish between what is necessary and what isn't. "Portraying a political figure using sexual innuendo might be funny for several readers, but would be "unnecessary" in most cases. Our job is to to critique governance." In the case of a crackdown, however, they are clear about what they'd do: they'll take down the 'offending' piece, and then write about having done so. "We will not offend them; we will wear them out," they say.</p>
<p>Want to start a news satire website? here's how:</p>
<p>Have a disclaimer page. Apologise in advance for "hurt sentiments", offer readers a chance to get in <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Touch">touch</a> with you directly for redressal, explain why you're using satire as a tool to critique. If your ISP is asked to remove content, the current IT guidelines are such that they would need to obey. However, since the law doesn't require ISPs to keep track of content that has been removed, make noise about it. There'll be enough people online who will fight for your freedom of expression. Study satire - it's an effective tool - but learn to distinguish it from slander and falsehood. Keep the post grounded in a real event or phenomenon. Critique the agenda, not the person. Consult an IT lawyer if you are in doubt about a piece. It's always good to know your legal argument beforehand.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/scared-by-a-spoof'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/scared-by-a-spoof</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-05T05:24:09ZNews ItemDo IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/do-it-rules-indirectly-lead-to-censorship-of-internet
<b>Pranesh Prakash along with Dr. Arvind Gupta, National Convener, BJP IT Cell and Ms.
Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC participated in a panel discussion on censorship of the Internet on May 8, 2012.
</b>
<p>The discussion was broadcast on Yuva iTV. See the video below:</p>
<h2>Video</h2>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KRIJRhpW-Bc" frameborder="0" height="315" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRIJRhpW-Bc">Click for the video on YouTube</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/do-it-rules-indirectly-lead-to-censorship-of-internet'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/do-it-rules-indirectly-lead-to-censorship-of-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActInternet GovernanceVideoIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-05-31T09:00:41ZNews ItemWhy this blocking di?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking
<b>In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_why-this-blocking-di_1694228">The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.</p>
<p>The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.</p>
<p>Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.</p>
<p>The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.</p>
<h3>Acting against unknown offenders</h3>
<p>According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.</p>
<p>By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.</p>
<p>“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.</p>
<p>“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.</p>
<h3>Carpet blocking websites</h3>
<p>But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”</p>
<p>A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.</p>
<p>“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.</p>
<p>ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.</p>
<p>According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?</p>
<h3>What is happening internationally</h3>
<p>John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-05-28T05:47:20ZNews ItemGoogle Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/">Google Policy Fellowship</a> offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.</p>
<p>To apply, please send to<a class="external-link" href="mailto:google.fellowship@cis-india.org"> google.fellowship@cis-india.org</a> the following materials:</p>
<ol><li><strong>Statement of Purpose</strong>: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).</li><li><strong>Resume</strong></li><li><strong>Three references</strong></li></ol>
<h2>Fellowship Focus Areas</h2>
<ul><li><strong>Access to Knowledge</strong>: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.</li><li><strong>Openness in India</strong>: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public. </li><li><strong>Freedom of Expression</strong>: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.</li><li><strong>Privacy</strong>: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.</li><li><strong>Telecom</strong>: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.<br /></li></ul>
<h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2>
<ul><li><strong>What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?</strong><br />Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?</strong><br />For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.</li><li><strong>I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li><li><strong>I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li></ul>
<h2>Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff</h2>
<h3>How do payments work?*</h3>
<p>Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.</p>
<ul><li>Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.</li></ul>
<p>Please note: <em>Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend</em>.</p>
<p><strong>*</strong>While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.</p>
<h3>What documentation is required from students?</h3>
<p>Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).</p>
<h3>I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?</h3>
<p>Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.</p>
<h2>Host Organizations<br /></h2>
<h3>What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?</h3>
<p>Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.</p>
<h2>Important Dates<br /></h2>
<h3><strong>What is the program timeline?</strong></h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>June 27, 2012</td>
<td>Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>July 18, 2012</td>
<td>Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>August 2012</td>
<td>Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>September 2012</td>
<td>Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>October 2012</td>
<td>Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceResearchTelecomIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipOpenness2012-05-24T15:38:28ZBlog EntryMPs 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 ItemKapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules
<b>The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/motion-to-kill-it-rules-defeated">This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012</a></p>
<p>Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”</p>
<p>Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/05/17225536/Govt-pledges-to-review-plans-t.html">Mint</a>.</p>
<p>"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/pranesh_prakash">Pranesh Prakash</a> of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.</p>
<p>Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."</p>
<p>Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511(1).pdf">Rule 3(2)</a> which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from <a class="external-link" href="http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/information-technology-act/section66A-information-technology-act.htm">Section 66A of the IT Act</a>, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.</p>
<p>Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.</p>
<p>"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/aparatbar">Apar Gupta</a> in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.</p>
<p>Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."</p>
<p>Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”</p>
<p>To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”</p>
<h3>Jaitley in-perspective</h3>
<p>Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory”<a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201201182502/Legal-opinions/sopa-blackout-day-bah-wheres-the-kolaveri-about-indias-it-act-intermediaries-rules"> not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content</a>, could be misused, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Internet-would-have-made-1975-Emergency-a-fiasco-Arun-Jaitely/articleshow/13219214.cms">Times of India</a>.</p>
<p>IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".</p>
<p>Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to<a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/govt-for-consensus-on-rules-for-internet-content-control/999876.html"> PTI</a>.</p>
<p>He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.</p>
<h3>Draconian Censorious Rules</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/mps-to-be-taught-draconian-it-act-rules-as-indianet-support-galvanises-for-annul-motion">Legally India</a> reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.</p>
<p>The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.</p>
<p>Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.</p>
<p>Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201203062622/Bar-Bench-Litigation/read-first-writ-challenging-censorious-it-act-intermediaries-rules-in-kerala">are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression</a>.</p>
<p>CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201112072434/Regulatory/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act">“over-complying” intermediaries</a> who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).</p>
<p>"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-05-24T09:45:43ZNews ItemVimeo Ban: More Web Censorship
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban
<b>When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://goo.gl/dd6ZQ">This article by Preetika Rana published in the Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.</p>
<p>When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."<br /><br />The websites were blocked by private telecom operators following a ruling by Chennai’s High Court in March.<br /><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/file-sharing-sites-like-vimeo-com-torrentz-eu-others-blockage-sets-off-torrent-of-abuse/articleshow/13231127.cms">The story began</a> when Chennai-based Copyrights Labs, a firm specializing in copyright infringement, petitioned the High Court to take pre-emptive action against people who might illegally upload two Tamil-language films: "3" and "Dammu."<br /><br />The court ruled that Internet service providers, or ISPs, could block video-sharing sites where those films were illegally available.<br /><br />The court named 15 prominent ISPs who were covered by the order.<br /><br />But the court did not name any particular video-sharing websites to be taken down. And it remains unclear if any of those affected this week even carried the two films in question.<br /><br />Two major Indian ISPs, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications, blocked content sharing websites including U.S.-based Vimeo and France-based Dailymotion and Pastebin.<br /><br />They cited the court order as a reason but without proof the sites were carrying the movies. Other ISPs named in the court order did not attempt to block any websites.</p>
<p>The two telecom giants offered little further clarity on why these websites were blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders,” Bharti Airtel said in a statement.</p>
<p>Reliance Communication’s statement said: "Under Section 79 of the IT Act, an ISP has to adhere to any copyright infringement notice and court orders."</p>
<p>Responding to reports of the ban, Harish Ram, chief executive of Copyrights Labs said Thursday: "We have been fighting for this for long and it seems the ISPs are finally responding."</p>
<p>By Friday, the ISPs had restored services for Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin, although some users still reported access problems.</p>
<p>It is still unclear why the March order came into effect only now or why Reliance and Airtel decied to unblock the websites. The telecom firms did not immediately respond to request for comment.</p>
<p>Experts attacked ISPs for clamping down on free speech on the web.</p>
<p>"Why and how did telecom giants target select websites," said Pranesh Prakash, a program manager at Bangalore based-Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit group advocating free speech on the web. He pointed out that the High Court did not spell out the names of websites that should be blocked.</p>
<p>"Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web," he said. "Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?"</p>
<p>Bhupendra Kainthola, a spokesman for the telecom ministry, noted that the "government or the telecom ministry had nothing to do with the high court ruling.” When asked why the ministry did not intervene, Mr. Kainthola responded: “What can we do? If an order has been passed, we have to follow it… that is the law of the land."</p>
<p>The move comes <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204542404577158342623999990.html">only a few months after</a> the central government issued an official sanction to prosecute internet giants Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that they host "blasphemous" content on their websites. A criminal case against the two companies is ongoing.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-05-24T09:19:38ZNews ItemShould the censors tighten Savita Bhabhi’s hook?*
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/should-censors-tighten-savita-bhabi
<b>"Should the censors tighten Savita Bhabhi's hook, asks a blog entry published in Churumuri on May 1, 2012.</b>
<p>GAGAN KRISHNADAS writes from Bangalore: With the <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/03/23/how-india-made-it-easy-for-everyone-to-play-internet-censor/">Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011</a> in place, internet censorship has gone high and degree of criminality has fallen down. Be it <strong>Kapil Sibal</strong> or <strong>Mamata Banerjee</strong>, the people at the helm of power are trying to gain a control over internet.</p>
<p><strong>The effect of existing law</strong>: To put it in simple terms, if anybody finds a particular post on this blog illegal, he/she may bring it to the notice of the owners of this blog. If the blog owner does not take any action within 36 hours, the liability on the content immediately shifts to the owner of the blog.</p>
<p>If at all there are about 200 ‘take down’ requests in a day, the blog owner surely cannot ascertain the legality of the content within 36 hours. Surely, the owner will find it convenient to remove the content instead of contesting the claim.</p>
<div align="center"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_hook.jpg/image_preview" alt="Hook" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Hook" /></div>
<p><strong>Resistance</strong>: The resistance for the said rules was not strong until recently when Kapil Sibal became vocal on pre-censorship on internet.</p>
<p>On April 21, there was <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/04/22/press-release-against-it-2011-rules">a press conference </a>in New Delhi by Knowledge Commons, Software Freedom Law Center, Delhi Science Forum, Save Your Voice Campaigm, Internet Democracy Project, Center for Internet and Society, Free Software Movement India, IT for Change, and Alternative Law Forum.</p>
<p>Two events were organised in Bangalore on the same day to voice against Internet Censorship. Let me juxtapose how media professionals and Free Software Movement people respond on the issue.</p>
<p class="callout">Senior Journalist<a class="external-link" href="http://www.india50.com/abni/paranjoY.html"> Paranjoy Guha Thakurtha </a>said: “This is a matter of considerable concern. It is known to a relatively small section because; ordinary people do not understand the intricacies. It is a matter of freedom of speech and hence it concerns not just the netizen, but every citizen. At the legal and larger philosophy, Article 19 lays down reasonable restrictions like public order, national security and so on. But who decides these reasonable restrictions on the internet?”<br /><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pinstorm.com/team.htm">Mahesh Murthy</a>, went a step ahead to declare: “I feel there should be no censorship of any kind of information, be it Savitha Bhabi or pornography or a hate speech. All such information already exists in the society. By censoring them, you are not achieving any results. The Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s alleged sex video was removed from Youtube just within 5 hours, but if someone hosts it on Piratebay, it’s almost impossible to censor.”<br /><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.naavi.org/naavi_profile.html">Na Vijayashankar</a> said that the internet cannot be left unregulated and at the same time the regulation should not take away the basic rights of the citizens. He recalled that right from the initial days of the internet, he advocated for an internet law made by the netizens themselves, because the lawmakers hardly understand the technology.</p>
<p>Soon after the meeting, I moved to the town hall to participate in a protest convened by the representatives of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fsmk.org/">Free Software Movement of Karnataka</a> (FSMK) along with <a class="external-link" href="http://softwarefreedom.in/">Software Freedom Law Centre</a> (SFLC). The crowd predominantly comprised of Engineers and Engineering students.</p>
<p>I was surprised that the Engineers also had acquired a good understanding of the rules which are in detriment of their interest. While the group of media persons was more worried about censorship and freedom of speech, the ambit of concerns was larger with the Freedom Software advocates.</p>
<p><strong>Senthil</strong> from the Free Software Movement of Karnataka was skeptical about similar laws being passed in other jurisdictions. Recently, USA was on its way for passing the controversial SOPA/PIPA legislations which was halted due to public pressure.</p>
<p>People have used internet to question the established governments, be it wikileaks, networking during the Egypt revolution or Lokpal movement. Senthil feels that the intermediary guidelines would be a hindrance in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore/article245413.ece">taking technology to the people</a>.</p>
<p>Member of Parliament, <strong>P. Rajeeve </strong>has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha calling for the Internet censorship law passed last year (“Intermediary Guidelines Rules”) to be annulled. This motion will be taken up once the Budget Session 2012 reconvenes, and will need the support of the majority of both Houses to be passed.</p>
<p>Until the Parliament meets again, we the netizens and citizens need to ask our MPs to support the motion when it is introduced.</p>
<p>(<strong>Gagan Krishnadas</strong> is a post-graduate student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/should-the-censors-tighten-savita-bhabhis-hook/">Read the original post</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/should-censors-tighten-savita-bhabi'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/should-censors-tighten-savita-bhabi</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionCensorship2012-05-02T06:31:11ZNews ItemChilling Effects and Frozen Words
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-frozen-words
<b>What if the real danger is not that we lose our freedom of speech and expression but our sense of humour as a nation? Lawrence Liang's op-ed was published in the Hindu on April 30, 2012. </b>
<p>While freedom of speech and expression is an individual right, its actualisation often relies on a vast infrastructure of intermediaries.</p>
<p>In the offline world, this includes newspapers, television channels, public auditoriums, etc. It is often assumed that the internet has created a more robust public sphere of speech by doing away with many structural barriers to free speech. But the fact of the matter is that even if the internet enables a shift from a ‘few to many' to a ‘many to many' model of communication, intermediaries continue to remain important players in facilitating free speech. Can one imagine free speech on the internet being the same without Twitter, social networks or Youtube?</p>
<p>One way of thinking of the infrastructure of communication is in terms of ecology, and in the ecology of speech — as in the environment — an adverse impact on any component threatens the well-being of all. The idea of cyberspace as a commons is a much cherished myth and in the early days of the internet we were perhaps given a glimpse into its utopian possibility. But we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the problems that plague free speech in the offline world (including ownership of the avenues of speech) are absent in cyberspace. Recall in recent times that one of the most effective ways in which various governments retaliated to the leaking of official secrets on WikiLeaks was by freezing Julian Assange's PayPal account.</p>
<h3>Direct & Indirect Controls</h3>
<p>It may be useful to distinguish between direct controls on free speech and indirect or structural controls on free speech. India has had a long history of battling direct and indirect controls on free speech and with a few exceptions the interests of the press have often coincided with the interests of a robust public sphere of debate and criticism.</p>
<p>In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a number of large media houses battled restrictions imposed on the press by way of control of the number of pages of a newspaper, regulation of the size of advertisements and the price of imported newsprint. On the face of it, some of these restrictions may have seemed like commercial disputes but the Supreme Court rightly recognised that indirect controls could adversely impact the individual's right to express himself or herself as well as to receive information freely.</p>
<p>In the online context, there has also been a similar recognition of the role of intermediaries in providing platforms of speech and it is with this view in mind that a number of countries have incorporated safe harbour provisions in their information technology laws.</p>
<p>Section 79 of the Information Technology Act is one such safe harbour provision in India which provides that intermediaries shall not be liable for any third party action if they are able to prove that the offence or contravention was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence or contravention. But this safe harbour has effectively been undone with the passing of the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.</p>
<p>The rules clarify what standard of due diligence has to be met by intermediaries and Sec. 3(2) of the rules obliges intermediaries to have rules and conditions of usage which ensure that users do not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that is in contravention of the Section. This includes the all too familiar ones (defamatory, obscene, pornographic content) but also a whole host of new categories which could be invoked to restrict speech (“grossly harmful,” “blasphemous,” “harassing,” “hateful”).</p>
<p>As is well known, any restriction on speech in India has to comply with both the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, as well as ensuring that the grounds of censorship are located within 19(2). Even though there are laws regulating hate speech in India, blasphemy is not a category under Art. 19(2) and has hitherto not been a part of Indian law. Some of the other categories such as “grossly harmful” suggest the people who drafted the rules seem to have taken a constitutional nap at the drafting board.</p>
<p>Sec. 3(4) of the rules provides that any intermediary who receives a notice by an aggrieved person about any violation of sub rule (2) will have to act within 36 hours and where applicable will ensure that the information is disabled. In the event that it fails to act or to respond, the intermediary cannot claim exemption for liability under Sec. 70 of the IT Act. It is worth noting that most intermediaries receive from hundreds to thousands of requests from individuals on a daily basis asking for the removal of objectionable material. The Centre for Internet and Society conducted a “sting operation” to determine whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on free expression.</p>
<p>In the course of the study, frivolous takedown notices were sent to seven intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled. The takedown notices which were sent by the researcher were intentionally defective as they did not establish how they were interested parties, did not specifically identify and discuss any individual URL on the websites, or present any cause of action, or suggest any legal injury. Of the seven intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, six over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them.</p>
<h3>Caution</h3>
<p>Even in cases where the intermediaries challenged the validity of the takedowns, they erred on the side of caution and took down the material. While a number of intermediaries would see themselves as allies in the fight against censorship, more often than not intermediaries are also large commercial organisations whose primary concern is the protection of their business interests. In the face of any potential legal threat, especially from the government, they prefer to err on the side of caution. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed.</p>
<p>The procedural flaws (subjective determination, absence of the right to be heard, the short response time) coupled with the vague grounds on which such takedowns can be claimed, clearly point to a highly flawed situation in which we will see many more trigger happy demands for offending materials to be taken down.</p>
<p>We have already slipped into a state of being a republic of over sensitivity where any politician, religious group or individual can claim their sentiments have been hurt or they have been portrayed disparagingly, as evidenced by the recent attack and subsequent arrest of Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University for posting cartoons lampooning Mamata Banerjee.</p>
<h3>Nervous State</h3>
<p>In the era of global outsourcing it was inevitable that the state censorship machinery would also learn a lesson or two from the global trends and what better way of ensuring censorship than outsourcing it to individuals and to corporations. The renowned anthropologist, Michael Taussig, once compared the state to a nervous system and it seems that the Intermediary rules live up to the expectations of a nervous state ever ready to respond to criticism and disparaging cartoons.</p>
<p>What if the real danger is not even that we lose our freedom of speech and expression but we lose our sense of humour as a nation?</p>
<p>The evident flaws of the rules have been acknowledged even by lawmakers, with P. Rajeeve, the CPI(M) M.P., introducing a motion for the annulment of the rules. The annulment motion is going to be debated in the coming weeks and one hopes that the parliamentarians will seriously reconsider the rules in their current form.</p>
<p>When faced with conundrums of the present it is always useful to turn to history and there is reason to believe that while censorship has a very respectable genealogy in Indian thought, it has also been accompanied in equal measure by a tradition of the right to offend.</p>
<p>In his delightful reading of the <em>Arthashastra</em>, Sibaji Bandyopadhay alerts us to the myriad restrictions that existed to control Kusilavas (the term for entertainers which included actors, dancers, singers, storytellers, minstrels and clowns). These regulations ranged from the regulation of their movement during monsoon to prohibitions placed on them, ensuring that they shall not “praise anyone excessively nor receive excessive presents”. While some of the regulations appear harsh and unwarranted, Bandyopadhay says that in contrast to Plato's <em>Republic</em>, which banished poets altogether from the ideal republic, the <em>Arthashastra</em> goes so far as to grant to Kusilavas what we could now call the right to offend. Verse 4.1.61 of the <em>Arthashastra</em> says, “In their performances, [the entertainers] may, if they so wish, make fun of the customs of regions, castes or families and the practices or love affairs (of individuals)”. One hopes that our lawmakers, even if they are averse to reading the Indian Constitution, will be slightly more open to the poetic licence granted by Kautilya.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3367917.ece?homepage=true">Click</a> for the original published in the Hindu on April 30, 2012. Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher based at Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. He can be contacted at <a class="external-link" href="mailto:lawrence@altlawforum.org">lawrence@altlawforum.org</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-frozen-words'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-frozen-words</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence LiangFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-30T07:32:17ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society in partnership with Google India conducted the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. This was offered for the first time in Asia Pacific as well as in India. Rishabh Dara was selected as a Fellow and researched upon issues relating to freedom of expression. The results of the paper demonstrate that the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ notified by the Government of India on April 11, 2011 have a chilling effect on free expression.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediaries are widely recognised as essential cogs in the wheel of exercising the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. Most major jurisdictions around the world have introduced legislations for limiting intermediary liability in order to ensure that this wheel does not stop spinning. With the 2008 amendment of the Information Technology Act 2000, India joined the bandwagon and established a ‘notice and takedown’ regime for limiting intermediary liability.<br /><br />On the 11th of April 2011, the Government of India notified the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ that prescribe, amongst other things, guidelines for administration of takedowns by intermediaries. The Rules have been criticised extensively by both the national and the international media. The media has projected that the Rules, contrary to the objective of promoting free expression, seem to encourage privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression. On the other hand, the Government has responded through press releases and assured that the Rules in their current form do not violate the principle of freedom of expression or allow the government to regulate content.<br /><br />This study has been conducted with the objective of determining whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression. In the course of the study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 prominent intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled.<br /><br />The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.<br /><br />Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritize the allocation of its legal resources according to the commercial importance of impugned expressions. Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgement) complies with the takedown notice.<br /><br />The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is also no recourse to have the removed information put-back or restored. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice.</p>
<p>The Rules in their current form clearly tilt the takedown mechanism in favour of the complainant and adversely against the creator of expression.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>The research highlights the need to:<br />
<ul>
<li> increase the safeguards against misuse of the privately administered takedown regime</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>reduce the uncertainty in the criteria for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> reduce the uncertainty in the procedure for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> include various elements of natural justice in the procedure for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>replace the requirement for subjective legal determination by intermediaries with an objective test</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Intermediary Liability in India">Click</a> to download the report [PDF, 406 Kb]</p>
<hr />
<h3>Appendix 2</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf" class="internal-link">Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary</a> (PDF, 263 Kb)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.odt" class="internal-link">Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012</a> (Open Office Document, 231 Kb)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.pdf" class="internal-link">Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012</a> (PDF, 422 Kb)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>The above documents have been sent to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Human Resource Development and Minister of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Shri Milind Murli Deora, Minister of State of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Anita Bhatnagar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Gulshan Rai, Scientist G & Group Coordinator, Director General, ICERT, Controller Of Certifying, Authorities and Head of Division, Cyber Appellate Tribunal </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherRishabh DaraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceResearchFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-12-14T10:22:24ZBlog EntrySocial Media 1, Indian Government 0
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/social-media-indian-govt
<b>The futility of the Indian government’s attempts to control what is posted on Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites was thrown into high relief this week, after a video purportedly showing Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singvi having sex in his office resulted in his resignation.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/social-media-1-indian-government-0/">The article by Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on April 26, 2012</a></p>
<p>Mr. Singhvi, who also is a prominent lawyer, said the video was a fake, but resigned from his spokesman spot and from a parliamentary law committee he headed Monday evening, to “<a class="external-link" href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/abhishek-manu-singhvi-cd-scandal-resigna-idINDEE83M0HH20120423">prevent even the slightest possible parliamentary disruption</a>,” he said in a statement.</p>
<p>The video, which has now been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people on YouTube and other social media sites, is neither explicit, nor immediately incriminating – most of it appears to show little more than the top of Mr. Singhvi’s balding head, in profile, bobbing above the top of his desk. He might be waxing his office floor, or searching somewhat frantically for a dropped contact lens.</p>
<p>Still, a Delhi High Court injunction on April <a class="external-link" href="http://news.biharprabha.com/2012/04/court-bans-broadcast-of-abhishek-manu-singhvi-tape/">13 banned television stations from broadcasting the video</a>, which was originally distributed to media outlets on a CD. Perhaps frustrated by their inability to show the footage in question, India’s television news stations have been engaged in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/left-right-centre/singhvi-cd-row-does-it-involve-parliamentary-ethics/230260">unusually highbrow debate</a> about whether India actually needs stricter privacy laws for public figures.</p>
<p>There’s no such talk on social media sites, though.<br /><br />The video was quickly posted on Facebook, Pirate’s Bay and other social media and video-sharing sites. While a Facebook page especially created for it has been taken down, there are now dozens of versions of the video on YouTube, in increasingly pixelated versions as users copy and post it again and again. (One YouTube user even helpfully posted a video of the Facebook page, and filmed the process of opening all the links on the page.)<br /><br />Social media companies received requests from Indian law enforcement officials and court orders asking them to remove the video, which they did, executives in social media companies said on background. But it kept popping up again and again.<br /><br />Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga of the Delhi-based Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena, a right-wing group, told wire service IANS that he posted the video on Twitvid, which allows users to distribute videos via Twitter. “I am not afraid of these people and they deserve this,” he said. “I am prepared for any consequences,” he said.<br /><br />Facebook officials said they couldn’t comment on the situation. The page in question that featured the Singhvi video was created with by a “fake” user, which is against Facebook’s rules.<br /><br />Google received a copy of a generic court order from Mr. Singhvi’s lawyers on April 24 asking it to remove the video, which it followed.<br /><br />“Our policy prohibits inappropriate content, on YouTube and our community effectively polices the site for inappropriate material,” the company said in an e-mailed statement. Inappropriate material includes videos that “contain pornography, harassment, content that violates privacy, illegal acts or explicit violence violate the YouTube community guidelines,” it said. Users can flag content they feel is inappropriate, she said, and then the company’s staff reviews the content and removes it if it violates guidelines. “In addition, Google acts to promptly remove an offending video if a court order requires it,” the statement said.<br /><br />But since Google has taken down the first offensive videos and copies of videos, others have sprung up. Per Google’s general policy, these will only be removed if YouTube users or others complain about them.<br /><br />On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by the Bar Council of Delhi (of which Mr. Singhvi is a member) seeking to take action against Mr. Singhvi’s driver, who had allegedly originally distributed the CD.<br /><br />Investigating who first introduced the video to social media sites and circulated it there is next to impossible, Internet experts say.<br /><br />“No country, even though its law might say so, is able to exercise jurisdiction across the world” on the Internet, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bangalore’s Center for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy group. Because India does not have a bilateral cyber-crime agreement with the United States (as the European Union does), getting American companies like Facebook and Google to take down or investigate the source of content that offends Indian government officials can be a slow and cumbersome process, he said.<br /><br />The Indian government may never be able to track down who first posted the video, Mr. Abraham said. “Drawing a chain of causality and trying to arrive at the first person who introduced it onto the Internet is a bit of a complicated task,” he said. “Even if you find one version of the story, there might be another one,” he said. In addition, the Indian government might only be able to access records from Indian telecommunications providers, he said, and related to Indian ISP addresses.</p>
<hr />
<p align="center"> A screenshot of the YouTube page displaying several video clips that show up with the search terms “Abhishek Manu Singhvi sex CD.” <br /><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/singhvi.jpg/image_preview" alt="Singhvi" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Singhvi" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/social-media-indian-govt'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/social-media-indian-govt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-27T04:44:39ZNews ItemIndia's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism
<b>Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.</b>
<p>(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/941491/">"Practise what you preach"</a> on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)</p>
<p>The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/www.mit.gov.in/content/cyber-laws-security">Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group</a> in the <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in">Department of Electronics and Information Technology</a> (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/s65.htm">"computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act</a> is a great example of that.)</p>
<p>The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx??relid=74990">clarification through a press release</a>, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/940682/">"arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev</a>, who has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules">introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules</a> ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.</p>
<p>Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1740460/">s.5 of the Telegraph Act</a> only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.</p>
<p>Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in">Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)</a> has been granted <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in/">very broad functions</a> under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.</p>
<p>All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body. </p>
<p>The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an <a href="httphttp://www.cgi.br/english/">"Internet Steering Committee"</a> which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/content/internet-governance">Internet Governance Division</a>, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionIntermediary LiabilityFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-26T13:45:25ZBlog Entry