The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
Northeast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus
<b>The government has passed the blame buck on social media and blocked hundreds of websites, which it claims, hosted hate speech and inflammatory content, enough to incite violence. But is it feasible to pre-screen objectionable or provocative content, and reject it before posting so that there is no chance of such rumours?
</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Wahid Bukhari was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.merinews.com/article/northeast-exodus-is-there-a-mechanism-to-pre-screen-social-media-content/15874014.shtml">published in merinews</a> on August 23, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government took the action after Home Minister RK Singh alleged that the exodus of northeastern people from southern states such as Bangalore, Mumbai and Pune was a result of the panic and rumours created because of the content uploaded on these websites, many according to him were created by elements across the border in Pakistan. Though many suspected that Mr Singh's claim was an excuse to save the government from its inefficiency in controlling the riots, and the exodus of the northeastern people who were seen boarding the trains to their home states with their belongings amid fears of reprisal attacks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Was the action meant to pass on the inefficiency buck or not - the government has, at least, managed to shift the focus of the media from exodus to the debate - as to whether social networking sites or websites promoting hatred should be blocked or not - given the democratic rights of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Around a hundred more websites have been reported promoting hate speech and <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/Google">Google</a>, <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/facebook">Facebook</a> and other social networking sites like <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/Twitter">Twitter</a> have been asked to remove such content as soon as possible but in this whole debate one question remains unanswered: How does removing a post from Twitter or Facebook make a difference, several hours after it was published? One might argue even an hour is enough for an inflammatory picture or comment to incite violence or hatred. As a consequence, one might demand that a comment is screened before it is posted on a website, otherwise it doesn't serve any purpose.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whether pre-screening is technically possible, Pranesh Prakash maintains: "Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Perhaps, a mid way is to intervene prior to registration on social media websites. All those who register should be made aware of the content that's not permissible, and make them aware of relevant laws and repercussions of breaking them if their complicity is proved. Similarly, these sites can be asked by the Indian government to continuously remind registered users as well as general public, through mass media advertizing, about what kind of content is not permissible. The government, from its side, can strengthen cyber laws to empower sites such as Facebook and Twitter to curb posting of provocative content due to presence of these stringent laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Terming the government action unfortunate, Mr Prakash who is a programme manager with the Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, The Centre for Internet and Society believes that government botched up at so many levels. “I don't think the government should be going after Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter. It should be going to them, to work with them on removing content,” Mr Prakash suggests. "The larger social networks have dedicated complaints mechanisms, which the government could have asked them to run 24x7 for a few days, and to expedite that process, and both complained itself and asked the public to use the complaints process,” he adds.<br /> <br /> Though Pakistan has rubbished the claims that it has any role in fomenting trouble, but it has also asked the Indian government to provide it with evidence so that it could nab the accused. Whether or not there is any evidence is a secondary question, the primary blame will always rest with both the state and central governments who failed to stop the exodus of fear-stricken people from the northeast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Experts like Mr Prakash are wondering why the government didn't pay back in the same coin by using the social media to dispel the rumours. “It is a pity that they notified a new policy to encourage governmental use of social media only today; they sorely needed it this last week,” Mr Prakash rues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has blocked content related to thirty Twitter accounts but another surprising thing is that only accounts using the web interface have been blocked, and such accounts can still be accessed on BlackBerrys or other smartphones.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The only visible thing government did on ground when the exodus started taking place in Bangalore was the setting up of helplines but did they help in preventing the exodus - there are enough reasons to believe against it. "There were some complaints that the people attending some of these helplines could only speak in Kannada, and not the English or Hindi that people calling for help were expecting. Even such positive steps were executed badly." Mr Prakash informs.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-04T04:06:46ZNews ItemAnalysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism
<b>Pranesh Prakash does preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government.</b>
<hr />
<p><b>Note</b>: This post will be updated as more analysis is done. Last update: 23:59 on August 22, 2012. This is being shared under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence</a>.</p>
<hr />
<img src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AqefbzxbW_b_dE5rTG9XbkRab0cxWFdoOEgyN01YcWc&oid=1&zx=dskyfic7thzd" />
<hr />
<h2><b>How many items have been blocked?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that have been blocked. This number is meaningless at one level, given that it doesn't differentiate between the blocking of an entire website (with dozens or hundreds of web pages) from the blocking of a single webpage. However, given that very few websites have been blocked at the domain-level, that number is still reasonably useful.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please also note, we currently only have information related to what telecom companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were asked to block till August 21, 2012. We do not have information on what individual web services have been asked to remove. That might take the total count much higher.</p>
<h2><b>Why have these been blocked?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As far as I could determine, all of the blocked items have content (mostly videos and images have been targeted, but also some writings) that are related to communal issues and rioting. (Please note: I am not calling the content itself "communal" or "incitement to rioting", just that the content relates to communal issues and rioting.) This has been done in the context of the recent riots in Assam, Mumbai, UP, and the mass movement of people from Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were reports of parody Twitter accounts having been blocked. Preliminary analysis on the basis of available data show that parody Twitter accounts and satire sites have <i>not</i> been targetted solely for being satirical. For instance, very popular parody Twitter accounts, such as @DrYumYumSingh are not on any of the four orders circulated by the Department of Telecom. (I have no information on whether such parody accounts are being taken up directly with Twitter or not: just that they aren't being blocked at the ISP-level. Media reports indicate <a href="http://goo.gl/GI9jP">six accounts have been taken up with Twitter</a> for being similar to the Prime Minister's Office's account.)</p>
<h2><b>Are the blocks legitimate?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The goodness of the government's intentions seem, quite clearly in my estimation, to be unquestionable. Yet, even with the best intentions, there might be procedural illegalities and over-censorship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are circumstances in which freedom of speech and expression may legitimately be limited. The circumstances that existed in Bangalore could justifiably result in legitimate limitations on freedom of speech. For instance, I believe that temporary curbs — such as temporarily limiting SMSes & MMSes to a maximum of five each fifteen minutes for a period of two days — would have been helpful.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However it is unclear whether the government has exercised its powers responsibly in this circumstance. The blocking of many of the items on that list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a some of the items ought, in my estimation, to be removed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the government has blocked these sites under s.69A of the Information Technology Act ("Power to Issue Directions for Blocking for Public Access of Any Information through any Computer Resource"), the persons and intermediaries hosting the content should have been notified provided 48 hours to respond (under Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009). Even if the emergency provision (Rule 9) was used, the block issued on August 18, 2012, should have been introduced before the "Committee for Examination of Request" by August 20, 2012 (i.e., within 48 hours), and that committee should have notified the persons and intermediaries hosting the content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Importantly, even though many of the items on that list are repugnant and do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed, ordering ISPs to block them is largely ineffectual. The people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering Internet service providers (ISPs) to block them. All larger sites have clear content removal policies, and encouraging communal tensions and hate speech generally wouldn't be tolerated. That this can be done without resort to the dreadful Intermediary Guidelines Rules (which were passed last year) shows that those Rules are unnecessary. It is our belief that <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules">those Rules are also unconstitutional</a>.</p>
<h2><b>Are there any egregious mistakes?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yes, there are numerous such examples of egregious mistakes.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Most importantly, some even <b>people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked</b>.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the Twitter accounts are of prominent people who write for the mainstream media, and who have written similar content offline. If their online content is being complained about, their offline content should be complained about too.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Quite a number of the links include articles published and reports broadcast in the mainstream media (including a Times Now report, a Telegraph picture gallery, etc.), and in print, making the blocks suspect. Only the online content seems to have been targeted for censorship.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are numerous mistakes and inconsistencies that make blocking pointless and ineffectual.</p>
<ol>
<li>Some of the items are not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included).</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the items they have tried to block do not even exist (e.g., one of the Wikipedia URLs).</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">An entire domain was blocked on Sunday, and a single post on that domain was blocked on Monday.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">For some Facebook pages, the secure version (https://facebook.com/...) is listed, for others the non-secure version (http://facebook.com/...) is listed.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">For some YouTube videos, the 'base' URL of YouTube videos is blocked, but for other the URL with various parameters (like the "&related=" parameter) is blocked. That means that even nominally 'blocked' videos will be freely accessible.</li>
</ol>
<p>All in all, it is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite a clear warning by the DIT that "above URLs only" should be blocked, and not "the main websites like www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, www.twitter.com, etc.", it has been seen that some ISPs (like Airtel) <a href="http://www.labnol.org/india/india-blocks-youtube/25028/">have gone overboard in their blocking</a>.</p>
<h2><b>Why haven't you put up the whole list?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the sensitivity of the issue, we felt it would be premature to share the whole list. However, we strongly believe that transparency should be an integral part of all censorship. Hence, this analysis is an attempt to provide some much-needed transparency. We intend to make the entire list public soon, though. (Given how porous such information is, it is likely that someone else will procure the list, and release it sooner than us.)</p>
<h2><b>Why can I still access many items that are supposed to be blocked?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One must keep in mind that fresh orders have been issued on a day-by-day basis, that there are numerous mistakes in the list making it difficult to apply (some of these mistakes have been mentioned above), and the fact that that this order has to be implemented by hundreds of ISPs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Your ISP probably has not have got around to enforcing the blocks yet. At the time of this writing, most ISPs don't seem to be blocking yet. This analysis is based on the orders sent around to ISPs, and not on the basis of actual testing of how many of these have actually been blocked by Airtel, BSNL, Tata, etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, if you are using Twitter through a client (on your desktop, mobile, etc.) instead of the web interface, you will not notice any of the Twitter-related blocks.</p>
<h2><b>So you are fine with censorship?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">No. I believe that in some cases, the government has the legal authority to censor. Yet, exercising that legal authority is usually not productive, and in fact there are other, better ways of limiting the harms caused by speech and information than censorship. Limiting speech might even prove harmful in situations like these, if it ends up restricting people's ability to debunk false rumours. In a separate blog post (to be put up soon), I am examining how all of the government's responses have been flawed both legally and from the perspective of achieving the desired end.</p>
<h2><b>So what should the government have done?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given that the majority of the information it is targeting is on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, the government could have chosen to fight <i>alongside</i> those services to get content removed expeditiously, rather than fight <i>against</i> them. (There are <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/videos/govt-to-use-social-media-to-prevent-misuse-of-technology-sibal-426231.html">some indications</a> that the government might be working with these services, but it certainly isn't doing enough.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For instance, it could have asked all of them to expedite their complaints mechanism for a few days, by ensuring that the complaints mechanism is run 24x7 and that they respond quickly to any complaint submitted about communal incitement, spreading of panic, etc. This does not need the passing of an order under any law, but requires good public relations skills and a desire not to treat internet services as enemies. The government could have encouraged regular users to flag false rumours and hate speech on these sites. On such occasions, social networking sites should step up and provide all lawful assistance that the government may require. They should also be more communicative in terms of the help they are providing to the government to curtail panic-inducing rumours and hate speech. (Such measures should largely be reactive, not proactive, to ensure legitimate speech doesn't get curtailed.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The best antidote for the rumours that spread far and wide and caused a mass movement of people from Bangalore to the North-Eastern states would have been clear debunking of those rumours. Mass outreach to people in the North-East (very often the worried parents) and in Bangalore using SMSes and social media, debunking the very specific allegations and rumours that were floating around, would have been welcome. However, almost no government officials actually used social media platforms to reach out to people to debunk false information and reassure them. Even a Canadian interning in our organization got a reassuring SMS from the Canadian government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is indeed a pity that the government <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/citizen-engagement-framework-for-e-governance-projects-and-framework-and-guidelines-for-use-of-social-media-by-government-agencies">notified a social media engagement policy today</a>, when the need for it was so very apparent all of the past week.</p>
<h2><b>And what of all this talk of cybersecurity failure and cyber-wars?</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cybersecurity is indeed a cause of concern for India, but only charlatans and the ignorant would make any connection between India's cybersecurity and recent events. The role of Pakistan deserves a few words. Not many Pakistani websites / webpages have been blocked by the Indian government. Two of the Pakistani webpages that have been blocked are actually pages that debunk the fake images that have been doing the rounds in Pakistan for at least the past month. Even Indian websites <a href="http://kafila.org">like Kafila</a> have noted these fake images long ago, and <a href="http://kafila.org/2012/08/05/national-contestation-not-religion-responsible-for-the-plight-of-myanmars-rohingyas-ayesha-siddiqa/">Ayesha Siddiqa wrote about this on August 5, 2012</a>, and <a href="http://kafila.org/2012/08/13/how-to-start-a-riot-out-of-facebook-yousuf-saeed/">Yousuf Saeed wrote about it on August 13, 2012</a>. Even while material that may have been uploaded from Pakistan, it seems highly unlikely they were targeted at an Indian audience, rather than a Pakistani or global one.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Domain</th><th>Total Number of Entries</th><th>Tuesday, August 21, 2012</th><th>Monday, August 20, 2012</th><th>Sunday, August 19, 2012</th><th>Saturday, August 18, 2012</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ABC.net.au</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>AlJazeera.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>4</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">4</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>AllVoices.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>WN.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>AtjehCyber.net</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>BDCBurma.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bhaskar.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blogspot.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>4</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">3</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blogspot.in</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>7</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">3</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Catholic.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>CentreRight.in</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ColumnPK.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Defence.pk</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>4</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: right; ">
<td style="text-align: left; ">EthioMuslimsMedia.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Facebook.com (HTTP)</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>75</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">36</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">7</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">18</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">14</td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: right; ">
<td style="text-align: left; ">Facebook.com (HTTPS)</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>27</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>3</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Farazahmed.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>5</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Firstpost.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>HaindavaKerelam.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>HiddenHarmonies.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>HinduJagruti.org</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hotklix.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>HumanRights-Iran.ir</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Intichat.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Irrawady.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IslamabadTimesOnline.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Issuu.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>JafriaNews.com</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>JihadWatch.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>KavkazCenter</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>MwmJawan.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>My.Opera.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Njuice.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>OnIslam.net</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>PakAlertPress.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Plus.Google.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>4</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Reddit.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rina.in</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SandeepWeb.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SEAYouthSaySo.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sheikyermami.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>StormFront.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Telegraph.co.uk</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TheDailyNewsEgypt.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TheFaultLines.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ThePetitionSite.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>TheUnity.org</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com <br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TimesOfUmmah.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tribune.com.pk</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Twitter.com (HTTP)</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Twitter.com (HTTPS)</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>11</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Twitter account</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>18</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">16</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TwoCircles.net</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">2</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Typepad.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Vidiov.info</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Wikipedia.org</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>3</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">3</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: right; ">
<td style="text-align: left; ">Wordpress.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>8</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>YouTube.com</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>85</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">18</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">39</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">14</td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>YouTu.be</td>
<td style="text-align: right; "><b>1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right; ">1</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Totals</th><th style="text-align: right; ">309</th><th style="text-align: right; ">65</th><th style="text-align: right; ">88</th><th style="text-align: right; ">80</th><th style="text-align: right; ">75</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The analysis has been cross-posted/quoted in the following places:</p>
<ol>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/09/04231942/Need-a-standard-strategy-to-de.html">LiveMint</a> (September 4, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-aug-26-v-sridhar-regulating-the-internet-by-fiat" class="external-link">The Hindu</a> (August 26, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/08/25/opinion-indias-clumsy-twitter-gamble/">Wall Street Journal</a> (August 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india" class="external-link">tech 2</a> (August 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-china-post-aug-24-2012-india-threatens-action-against-twitter-for-ethnic-violence-rumors" class="external-link">China Post</a> (August 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3812819.ece">The Hindu</a> (August 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/08/23210529/How-ISPs-block-websites-and-wh.html?atype=tp">LiveMint</a> (August 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/08/24/india-strong-reactions-to-social-media-censorship/">Global Voices</a> (August 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/news/in-reuters-com-david-lalmalsawma-aug-24-2012-indias-social-media-crackdown-reveals-clumsy-govt-machinery" class="external-link">Reuters</a> (August 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/PZN75N">Outlook</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/epic-fail-how-india-compiled-its-banned-list-of-websites-427522.html">FirstPost.India</a> (August 23, 2012) </li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/haphazard-censorship-leaked-list-of-blocked-sites/284592-11.html">IBN Live</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://newsclick.in/india/analysing-latest-list-blocked-sites-communalism-rioting-edition">News Click</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2012/08/223-india-internet-blocks/">Medianama</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/08/23/an-analysis-of-the-latest-round-of-internet-censorship-in-india-communalism-and-rioting-edition-pranesh-prakash/">KAFILA</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ciol-com-aug-23-2012-blocked-websites" class="external-link">CIOL</a> (August 23, 2012)</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFeaturedCensorship2012-09-06T11:52:47ZBlog EntryDo 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 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 EntryViews | Why the Left may for once be right
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right
<b>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1"><u>The article by Pramit Bhattacharya was published in LiveMint on April 23, 2012</u></a>.</p>
<p>India’s information technology (IT) minister, Kapil Sibal appears to be running into rough weather over IT rules framed last year, which curb freedom of expression on the internet. The rules have incensed India’s growing blogging community and piqued at least a few of his fellow parliamentarians.</p>
<p>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a rediff.com report said. Ironically, the party that still treats Stalin as a hero (quoting him unfailingly in its political resolutions) has become the first to stand up for internet freedom.<br />Rajeeve is of course not the only parliamentarian to take exception to the rules. Jayant Choudhry, a member of parliament (MP) from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, was the first to draw attention to the draconian rules late last year, and MPs from other regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Asom Gana Parishad criticized the rules in a parliamentary discussion in December.<br /><br />Two sets of rules, one governing cyber cafes and the other relating to intermediaries have attracted most criticism. The rules relating to intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines or interactive websites such as Twitter and Facebook are the most disturbing. Intermediaries are required under the current rules to remove content that anyone objects to, within 36 hours of receiving the complaint, without allowing content creators any scope of defence.<br /><br />The criteria for deciding objectionable content, laid down in the rules, are subjective and vague. For instance, intermediaries are mandated to remove among other things, ‘grossly harmful’ content, whatever that may mean.<br /><br />This is a unique form of ‘private censorship’ that will endanger almost all online content. In this age of easily offended sensibilities, it is virtually impossible to write anything that does not “offend” anyone. For instance, even this piece may be termed ‘grossly harmful’ to the CPI(M) party.<br /><br />However far-fetched this may sound, this has already become a reality. A researcher working with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) tried out such a strategy with several different intermediaries, and was successful in six out of seven times, always with frivolous and flawed complaints, Pranesh Prakash of CIS wrote in a January blog-post. It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book, Prakash pointed out.<br /><br />The rules regulating cyber cafes are no better. Cyber cafes are required to keep a log detailing the identity of users and their internet usage, which has negative implications for privacy and personal safety of users, analysis of the rules by PRS legislative research said.<br /><br />Internet freedom in India has declined over time and is only ‘partly free’, a 2011 report on internet freedom by US-based think tank, Freedom House said. India has joined a growing club of developing nations where, “internet freedom is increasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque censorship procedures, or expanding surveillance,” the report noted.<br /><br />The only saving grace is that some of the IT rules are drafted in a language so arcane that anyone will find it hard to decipher them, leave alone implementing them. Sample this: “The intermediary shall not knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of computer resource or become party to any such act which may change or has the potential to change the normal course of operation of the computer resource than what it is supposed to perform thereby circumventing any law for the time being in force: provided that the intermediary may develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of securing the computer resource and information contained therein.”<br /><br />The first task at hand for Sibal may be to explain to fellow lawmakers what the above rule is supposed to mean, before he defends such rules.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1">Click</a> for the original, Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:48:50ZNews ItemMPs to be taught ‘draconian’ IT Act Rules as India.net support galvanises for annul motion
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/draconian-it-rules
<b>The blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on April 23, 2012.</b>
<p>Rajya Sabha’s member of parliament (MP) from Kerala, P Rajeeve, whose <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=49472">statutory motion</a> to annul the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 is slated for discussion in Parliament tomorrow, aims to convene a meeting of MPs, internet societies, and bloggers in the first week of May to create awareness against the <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">draconian effect</a> of the rules.</p>
<p>“Most of the MPs need to know about this,” Rajeeve told Legally India, explaining that statutory motions are generally not easy to pass. “Actually we are trying to create awareness by organizing a session. The issue will be the IT Rules 2011 and how it is against the constitution, how it is against natural justice, how it is against due process of law.”<br /><br />“The motion has been accepted. The committee has allotted time for discussion on the twenty fourth. Thereafter it will come to the house. In this part of the session I am trying to coordinate other MPs to get support”, he said.</p>
<p>Rajeeve’s motion of 23 March 2012, as first reported by <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules/" class="external-link">CIS-India</a>, was not his first attempt at bringing the IT rules into the spotlight. When the rules were in draft stage, he had made a <a class="external-link" href="http://rajeev.in/pages/..%5CNews%5Ccensorship_Blogs%5CBloggers_Internet.html">zero hour mention</a> against them for being in violation of freedom of speech and expression, by over-scrutinising bloggers, over-authorising intermediaries, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.</p>
<p>Rajeeve was one of the nine panelists in the open discussion on “Resisting Internet Censorship”, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Foundation for Media Professionals, in Bangalore on Saturday, 21 April. The discussion, addressing an audience of 40, was moderated by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.</p>
<p>Other panelists included Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing website Pinstorm, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, founding member of Centre for Law and Policy Research, Na Vijayashankar, director of Cyber Law College, and Siddharth Narain from the Alternative Law Forum.</p>
<p>Also on the panel were Rishabh Dara,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/"> Google policy fellow</a> who conducted <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india" class="external-link">a study last year on intermediary liability in India and its chilling effects on free expression</a>, BG Mahesh, founder of Oneindia.com, Ram Bhat, co-founder of community media collective Maraa, and Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at CIS.</p>
<p>Prakash said that the discussion brought together different perspectives, even those of the entrepreneur, like BG Mahesh and Mahesh Murthy. “Transparency in the terms of censorship is good. We are not saying all censorship is bad, but that it should be transparent.”</p>
<p>Prakash told Legally India about the various experiences shared by panelists, of the lack of transparency in the present system of censorship. While one faced harassment by the police over trivial procedural compliances, there was complaint for defamation against an article syndicated by another from a different publication’s press release. “And we read the article over and over and over again but couldn’t find anything which was remotely defamatory.”<br /><br />Legal experts on the panel, Kirshnaswamy and Vijayashankar, spoke about the constitutionalism behind free speech provisions. Narain shed light on the fact that while excessive energy has been expended on highlighting which content should not be banned, little has been spent on examining the operative procedures behind censorship.<br /><br />Dara spoke about his research and how it not only revealed that content was being frivolously removed on complaints to intermediaries, but also that the people whose content was being removed were not being informed of the same. There was no public notice of the removal.<br /><br />Bhat’s discourse drew attention to the history of censorship in India and elicited the fact that the Indian press has in fact been censored in an upsetting manner even since the revolt of 1857.</p>
<p>Murthy made the observation that statistically speaking, in India the number of internet users exceeds television watchers, which has made social media unfathomably important while the internet is no longer elitist.<br /><br />A number of related Indian initiatives have been gathering momentum in recent months, such as <a class="external-link" href="http://softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97:campaign-for-freedom-on-the-internet&Itemid=83"> signature campaigns</a> for <a class="external-link" href="https://www.change.org/petitions/mps-of-india-support-the-annulment-motion-to-protect-internet-freedom-stopitrules">internet freedom</a>, and offline protests such as the <a class="external-link" href="http://friendsofinternet.wikispaces.com/">Free Software Movement in Karnataka</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/04/21/freedom-in-the-cage-22-april-2012/">Save your Voice in Delhi</a>, are the order of the day. Other actions include <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">writing to MPs</a>, asking them to vote in favor of Rajeeve’s statutory motion for annulment of the IT rules.</p>
<p>Kerala-based advocate Shojan Jacob filed the f<a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201203062622/Bar-Bench-Litigation/read-first-writ-challenging-censorious-it-act-intermediaries-rules-in-kerala">irst ever writ challenging the rules</a> in the Kerala High Court last month.</p>
<p>The rules enable any individual or public or private institution to get content removed from websites, in most cases simply by notifying the website owners or intermediaries such as Google, Yahoo and others.</p>
<p>Takedown requests can be based on any of <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">15 vaguely drafted parameters</a>, without stating any reasons or requiring any judicial or quasi-judicial order in support. </p>
<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">Click</a> to read the original.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/draconian-it-rules'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/draconian-it-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActInternet GovernancePublic Accountability2012-04-25T10:39:48ZNews ItemStatutory Motion Against Intermediary Guidelines Rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules
<b>Rajya Sabha MP, Shri P. Rajeev has moved a motion that the much-criticised Intermediary Guidelines Rules be annulled. </b>
<h2>Motion to Annul Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=49472">motion to annul</a> the <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/intermediary-guidelines-rules">Intermediary Guidelines Rules</a> was moved on March 23, 2012, by <a href="http://india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=2106">Shri P. Rajeeve</a>, CPI(M) MP in the Rajya Sabha from Thrissur, Kerala.</p>
<p>The motion reads:</p>
<p>"That this House resolves that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under clause (zg) of sub-section (2) of Section 87 read with sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th April, 2011 vide Notification No. G.S.R 314(E) and laid on the Table of the House on the 12th August, 2011, be annuled; and</p>
<p>That this House recommends to Lok Sabha that Lok Sabha do concur on this Motion."</p>
<p>This isn't the first time that Mr. Rajeeve is raising his voice against the Intermediary Guidelines Rules. Indeed, even when the Rules were just in draft stage, he along with the MPs Kumar Deepak Das, Rajeev Chandrashekar, and Mahendra Mohan drew Parliamentarians' <a href="http://rajeev.in/pages/..%5CNews%5Ccensorship_Blogs%5CBloggers_Internet.html">attention to the rules</a>. Yet, the government did not heed the MPs' concern, nor the concern of all the civil society organizations that wrote in to them concerned about human rights implications of the new laws. On September 6, 2011, Lok Sabha MP <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/164.100.47.132/debatestext/15/VIII/0609.pdf">Jayant Choudhary gave notice</a> (under Rule 377 of the Lok Sabha Rules) that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules as well as the Reasonable Security Practices Rules need to be reviewed. Yet, the government has not even addressed those concerns, and indeed has cracked down even harder on online freedom of speech since then.</p>
<h2>Fundamental Problems with Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>The fundamental problems with the Rules, which deal with objectionable material online:</p>
<h3>Shifting blame.</h3>
<p>It makes the 'intermediary', including ISPs like BSNL and Airtel responsible for objectionable content that their users have put up.</p>
<h3>No chance to defend.</h3>
<p>There is no need to inform users before this content is removed. So, even material put up by a political party can be removed based on <em>anyone's</em> complaint, without telling that party. This was done against a site called *CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com". This goes against Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<h3>Lack of transparency</h3>
<p>No information is required to be provided that content has been removed. It's a black-box system, with no one, not even the government, knowing that content has been removed following a request. So even the government does not know how many sites have been removed after these Rules have come into effect.</p>
<h3>No differentiation between intermediaries.</h3>
<p>A one-size-fits-all system is followed where an e-mail provider is equated with an online newspaper, which is equated with a video upload site, which is equated with a search engine. This is like equating the post-office and a book publisher as being equivalent for, say, defamatory speech. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires that unequals be treated unequally by the law.</p>
<h3>No proportionality.</h3>
<p>A DNS provider (i.e., the person who gives you your web address) is an intermediary who can be asked to 'disable access' to a website on the basis of a single page, even though the rest of the site has nothing objectionable.</p>
<h3>Vague and unconstitutional requirements.</h3>
<p>Disparaging speech, as long as it isn't defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and can't be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.</p>
<h3>Allows private censorship.</h3>
<p>The Rules do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request.</p>
<h3>Presumption of illegality.</h3>
<p>The Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court (if they ever discover that it has been removed). This is contrary to the presumption of validity of speech used by Indian courts, and is akin to prior restraint on speech. Courts have held that for content such as defamation, prior restraints cannot be put on speech, and that civil and criminal action can only be taken post-speech.</p>
<h3>Government censorship, not 'self-regulation'.</h3>
<p>The government says these are industry best-practices in existing terms of service agreements. But the Rules require all intermediaries to include the government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to dictate those terms of service.</p>
<h2>Problems Noted Early</h2>
<p>We have noted in the past the problems with the Rules, including when the Rules were still in draft form:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence">CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011</a> </p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279712">E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://kafila.org/2012/01/11/invisible-censorship-how-the-government-censors-without-being-seen-pranesh-prakash/">Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op280112proscons.asp">The Quixotic Fight To Clean Up The Web</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical">Online Pre-censorship is Harmful and Impractical</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">Killing the Internet Softly With Its Rules</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Other organizations like the Software Freedom Law Centre also sent in <a href="http://softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=79">scathing comments on the law</a>, noting that they are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>We are very glad that Shri Rajeeve has moved this motion, and we hope that it gets adopted in the Lok Sabha as well, and that the Rules get defeated.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActParliamentFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-03T09:35:41ZBlog EntryMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPageInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog EntryPress Coverage of Online Censorship Row
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship
<b>We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.</b>
<h2>Monday, December 5, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?pagemode=print">India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<h2>Tuesday, December 6, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2690084.ece">Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content</a> | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2691781.ece">Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal</a> | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692821.ece">Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended/">Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended </a>| Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692047.ece">After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory </a>| (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-india-internet-idUSTRE7B50CV20111206">Online uproar as India seeks social media screening</a> | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/news/30481824_1_kapil-sibal-objectionable-content-twitter">Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship</a> | (IANS)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245548/india_may_overstep_its_own_laws_in_demanding_content_filtering.html">India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering</a> | John Ribeiro (IDG)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481147_1_shashi-tharoor-objectionable-content-bjp-mp">Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp8HOPzc7k">Websites must clean up content, says Sibal </a>| (NewsX)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-Google-says-wont-remove-material-just-because-its-controversial/articleshow/11008985.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial </a>| Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/06155955/Views--Censorship-by-any-othe.html?h=A1">Censorship By Any Other Name...</a> | Yamini Lohia (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481193_1_facebook-and-google-facebook-users-facebook-page">Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people</a> | Associated Press</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/india/30481473_1_digvijaya-singh-websites-content">Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening</a> | Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Sibal-gets-what-he-set-out-to-censor/Article1-778388.aspx">Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor </a>| (Hindustan Times, Agencies)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/objectionable-matter-will-be-removed-censorship-not-picture-yet-kapil-sibal">Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal</a> | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)</p>
<h2>Wednesday, December 7, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-for-monitoring-offensive-content-on-internet/1/163107.html">Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet</a> | Shivam Vij (India Today)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/screening-not-censorship-says-sibal/457797/">Screening, not censorship, says Sibal</a> | (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07202955/Chandni-Chowk-to-China.html">Chandni Chowk to China</a> | Salil Tripathi (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07131308/Views--Kapil-Sibal-vs-the-int.html">Kapil Sibal vs the internet</a> | Sandipan Deb (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/No-need-for-censorship-of-internet-Cyber-law-experts/articleshow/11014990.cms">No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695832.ece">Protest with flowers for Sibal</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kapil-sibal-cannot-screen-this-report_1622435">Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report</a> | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-but-experts-say-prescreening-of-user-content-not-practical/articleshow/11019481.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical </a>| (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/sibal-s-remarks-brought-disgust">Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust</a> | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695884.ece">BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/move-to-regulate-networking-sites-should-be-discussed-in-parliament-bjp/articleshow/11023284.cms">Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/top-story/26016-sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace.html">Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-Govt-wanted-358-items-removed/articleshow/11021470.cms">Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-gets-BJP-support-but-with-rider/articleshow/11020128.cms">Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Sibal-s-way-of-regulating-web-not-okay-says-BJP/Article1-779221.aspx">Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/just-faith/?p=1034">Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings</a> | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222500/India_wants_Google_Facebook_to_screen_content">India wants Google, Facebook to screen content</a> | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/should-we-be-taming-social-media-62303153.htm">Should we be taming social media?</a> | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_kapil-sibal-gets-lampooned-for-views-on-web-control_1622491">Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control</a> | (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/We-dont-need-no-limitation/articleshow/11020244.cms">'We don't need no limitation'</a> | Asha Prakash (Times of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Five-reasons-why-India-cant-censor-the-internet/articleshow/11018172.cms">Five reasons why India can't censor the internet</a> | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-the-web/884753/">We Are the Web</a> | (Indian Express)</p>
<h2>Thursday, December 8, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace/articleshow/11029319.cms">Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a>, (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/speak-up-for-freedom/885132/">Speak Up for Freedom </a>| Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/newswallah-censorship/">Newswallah: Censorship</a> | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-question-of-censoring-internet-says-sachin-pilot-156281">No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot </a>| (NDTV)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/web-censorship-india">Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You</a> | A.A.K. (The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Take-Parliaments-view-to-regulate-social-networking-sites-BJP-tells-govt/articleshow/11025858.cms">Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2696027.ece">India wanted 358 items removed</a> | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.barandbench.com/brief/2/1891/indian-government-v-social-networking-sites-expert-views">Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views</a> | (Bar & Bench News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://business-standard.com/india/news/can-government-muzzle-websites/457909/">Can Government Muzzle Websites?</a> | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-concerned-over-internet-curbs-sidesteps-india-move/articleshow/11029532.cms">US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-internet-companies-are-upset-with-kapil-sibal/20111208.htm">Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal</a> | (Rediff)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Why_Censor_Facebook_When_You_Dont_Censor_Sunny_Leone-nid-99931-cid-1.html">Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone?</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2697432.ece">Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S.</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0BfQkpJMZISTc3fjs3VgH7orciw?docId=CNG.8dc3992299cb598cecde0fffb1db8bcd.1c1">US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan</a> | Agence France-Presse</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActLinksFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2011-12-08T11:31:30ZBlog EntryOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryBig Brother is Watching You
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-brother-watching-you
<b>The government is massively expanding its surveillance power over law-abiding citizens and businesses, says Sunil Abraham in this article published by the Deccan Herald on June 1, 2011.</b>
<p>Imagine: An HIV positive woman calls a help-line from an ISD/STD booth. The booth operator can get to know who she called, when and for how long. But he would not have any idea on who she is or where she lives. </p>
<p>Now, instead of a phone call, imagine that she uses a cyber café to seek help on a website for HIV positive people. The cyber-cafe operator would have a copy of her ID – remember that many ID documents have phone numbers and addresses. He may then take her photograph using his own camera. One can only hope that he will take only a mug-shot without using the zoom lens inappropriately. He would also use a software – to log her Internet activities and make a reasonable guess on her HIV status. </p>
<p>The average Facebook page may have 50 different URLs to display the various images, animations and videos that are linked to that page. Each of those URLs would be stored, regardless of whether she scrolls down to see any of them. </p>
<p>The cyber-cafe operator is obliged under the Cyber Cafe rules to store this information for a period of one year. But there are no clear guidelines on when and how he should dispose of these logs. An unethical operator could leak the logs to a marketeer, a spammer, a neighbourhood Romeo or the local moral police. A careless operator maybe vulnerable to digital or physical theft and before you know it, such logs could end up on the Internet. </p>
<p>Ever since 26/11, cyber-cafes in metros have been photocopying ID documents – but so far not a single terrorist attack has been foiled or a crime solved thanks to this highly intrusive measure. But despite the lack of evidence to prove the efficacy of the current levels of surveillance, the government has decided to expand them exponentially.</p>
<p>Imagine again: A media organisation such as Deccan Herald is investigating a public interest issue with the help of a whistle-blower or an anonymous informant. Deccan Herald reporters may think that by turning the encryption on when using Gmail or Hotmail they are protecting their source. </p>
<p>But the ISP serving Deccan Herald is obliged by the license terms to log all traffic be it broadband, dial-up or mobile users passing through it. Again, there are no clear guidelines on when to delete these logs and none of the Indian ISPs publicly publish a data retention policy. Besides retaining data, the ISPs have to install real-time surveillance equipment within their network infrastructure and make them available for government officials. If a government official wants to track who is talking to Deccan Herald reporters, he just has to ask. </p>
<p>With ISPs and online service providers – all the police have to do is send an information request under Section 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, they don't even have to bother about a court order. Between January 2010 to June 2010 Google received 1,430 information requests from India. Many other companies, for example, Microsoft, are not as transparent as Google about the state surveillance. So we will never know what they are subjected to. </p>
<p>If the whistle-blower was using Blackberry, all traffic would be transferred from the device to the RIM's Network Operation Centre situated outside India in an encrypted tunnel before it travels onto the Internet. This prevents the government from learning which mail server is being used from the logs and surveillance equipment at the ISP premises. And that is why the government has been engaged in a five-year long public fight with RIM over access to Blackberry traffic. </p>
<p>Now, thanks to the IT Act, the government can demand the service providers, including RIM, to hand over the decryption keys by accusing any individual of a variety of vague offenses -- for example engaging in communication that is ‘grossly harmful’ or ‘harms minors in any way’ – under the IT Act. Refusal to hand over the keys is punishable with a jail term of three years. </p>
<p>Finally, imagine that an Indian enterprise is developing trade-secrets or handling trade-secrets on behalf of their international partners. This enterprise is using a VPN or virtual private network for confidential digital communication. As per the ISP license all encryption above 40-bit is only permitted with written permission from DoT along with mandatory deposit of the decryption key. </p>
<p>In the age of wire-tap leaks, only a miniscule minority of international business partners would trust the government of India not to leak or misuse the keys that have been deposited with them. Most individuals, SMEs and large enterprises routinely use encryption higher than 40 bit strength. For example, Gmail uses128 bit and Skype uses 256 bit encryption. Many services use dynamic encryption, that is generate different keys for each session. </p>
<p>So far I have not heard of anyone who has actually secured permission or deposited the keys. In other words, the Indian enterprise has two choices – either break the law to protect business confidentiality or obey it and lose clients. </p>
<p>The IT Act (Amendment 2008) and its associated Rules, notified in April this year are a massive expansion of blanket surveillance on ordinary, law-abiding Indians. They represent a paradigm shift in surveillance and a significant dilution in privacy protections afforded to citizens under the Telegraph Act. </p>
<p>This has terrifying consequences for our plural society, free media and businesses. Department of Information Technology in particular Dr. Gulshan Rai's office has so far only brushed aside these concerns and denied receiving feedback from the industry and civil society. If our media continues to ignore this clamp down on our civil liberties, we will soon have to furnish ID documents before purchasing thumb drives. After all, Bin Laden was found using them in his Abbottabad home. </p>
<p>Read the original <a class="external-link" href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/165420/big-brother-watching-you.html">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-brother-watching-you'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-brother-watching-you</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIT ActInternet Governance2012-03-21T09:32:28ZBlog EntryKilling the Internet Softly with Its Rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped
<b>While regulation of the Internet is a necessity, the Department of IT, through recent Rules under the IT Act, is guilty of over-regulation. This over-regulation is not only a bad idea, but is unconstitutional, and gravely endangers freedom of speech and privacy online.</b>
<div class="visualClear"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">A slightly modified version of this blog entry was published as </span><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">an op-ed in the Indian Express on May 9, 2011</a><span class="Apple-style-span">.</span></div>
<h2>Over-regulation of the Internet<br /></h2>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<p>Regulation of the Internet, as with
regulation of any medium of speech and commerce, is a balancing act.
Too little regulation and you ensure that criminal activities are
carried on with impunity; too much regulation and you curb the
utility of the medium. This is especially so with the Internet, as
it has managed to be the impressively vibrant space it is due to a
careful choice in most countries of eschewing over-regulation.
India, however, seems to be taking a different turn with a three sets
of new rules under the Information Technology Act.</p>
<p>These rules deal with the liability of
intermediaries (i.e., a large, inclusive, group of entities and
individuals, that transmit and allow access to third-party content),
the safeguards that cybercafes need to follow if they are not to be
held liable for their users' activities, and the practices that
intermediaries need to follow to ensure security and privacy of
customer data.</p>
<h3>Effect of not following the rules</h3>
<p>By not observing any of the provisions
of these Rules, the intermediary opens itself up for liability for
actions of its users. Thus, if a third-party defames someone, then
the intermediary can be held liable if he/she/it does not follow the
stringent requirements of the Rules.</p>
<p>The problem, however is that, many of
the provisions of the Rules have no rational nexus with the due
diligence to be observed by the intermediary to absolve itself from
liability.</p>
<h3>What does the Act require?</h3>
<p>Section 79 of the IT Act states that
intermediaries are generally not liable for third party information,
data, or communication link made available or hosted. It qualifies
that by stating that they are not liable if they follow certain
precautions (basically, to show that they are <em>real</em>
intermediaries). They observe 'due diligence' and don't exercise an
editorial role; they don't help or induce commission of the unlawful
act; and upon receiving 'actual knowledge', or on being duly notified
by the appropriate authority, the intermediary takes steps towards
some kind of action.</p>
<p>So, rules were needed to clarify what
'due diligence' involves (i.e., to state that no active monitoring is
required of ISPs), what 'actual knowledge' means, and to clarify what
happens in happens in case of conflicts between this provision and
other parts of IT Act and other Acts.</p>
<h3>Impact on freedom of speech and privacy</h3>
<p>However, that is not what the rules do.
The rules instead propose standard terms of service to be notified
by all intermediaries. This means everyone from Airtel to Hotmail to
Facebook to Rediff Blogs to Youtube to organizations and people that
allow others to post comments on their website. What kinds of terms
of service? It will require intermediaries to bar users from
engaging in speech that is disparaging', It doesn't cover only
intermediaries that are public-facing. So this means that your
forwarding a joke via e-mail, which "belongs to another person
and to which the user does not have any right" will be deemed to
be in violation of the new rules. While gambling (such as betting on
horses) isn’t banned in India and casino gambling is legal in Goa,
for example, under these Rules, all speech ‘promoting gambling’
is prohibited.</p>
<p>The rules are very onerous on
intermediaries, since they require them to act within 36 hours to
disable access to any information that they receive a complaint
about. Any 'affected person' can complain. Intermediaries will now
play the role that judges have traditionally played. Any affected
person can bring forth a complaint about issues as diverse as
defamation, blasphemy, trademark infringement, threatening of
integrity of India, 'disparaging speech', or the blanket 'in
violation of any law'. It is not made mandatory to give the actual
violator an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the cardinal
principle of natural justice of 'hearing the other party' before
denying them a fundamental right. Many parts of the Internet are in
fact public spaces and constitute an online public sphere. A law
requiring private parties to curb speech in such a public sphere is
unconstitutional insofar as it doesn't fall within Art.19(2) of the
Constitution.</p>
<p>Since intermediaries would lose
protection from the law if they don't take down content, they have no
incentives to uphold freedom of speech of their users. They instead
have been provided incentives to take down all content about which
they receive complaints without bothering to apply their minds and
coming to an actual conclusion that the content violates the rules.</p>
<h3>Cybercafe rules</h3>
<p>The cybercafe rules require all
cybercafe customers be identified with supporting documents, their
photographs taken, all their website visit history logged, and these
logs maintained for a year. Compare this to the usage of public
pay-phones. Anyone can use a pay-phone without their details being
logged. Indeed, such logging allows for cybercafe owners to
blackmail their users if they find some embarrassing websites in the
history logs—which could be anything from medical diseases to
sexual orientation to the fact that you're a whistleblower.</p>
<p>The cybercafe rules also require that
all of them install "commercially available safety or filtering
software" to prevent access to pornography. In two cases along
these lines in the Madras High Court (<em>Karthikeyan R.</em> v. <em>Union
of India</em>) and the Bombay High Court (<em>Janhit Manch </em>v.
<em>Union of India</em>), the High Courts refused to direct the
government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet
pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis
to be constitutionally valid under Art.19(1)(a) [Right to freedom of
speech and expression].</p>
<p>Such software tends to be very
ineffective—non-pornographic websites also get wrongly filtered,
and not all pornographic websites get filtered—and the High Courts
were right in being wary of any blanket ban. They preferred for
individual cases to be registered. If the worry is that our children
are getting corrupted, it is up to parents to provide supervision,
and not for the government to insist that software do the parenting
instead.</p>
<p>Given that all of these were pointed
out by both civil society organizations, news media, and industry
bodies, when the draft rules were released, it smacks of governmental
high-handedness that almost none of the changes suggested by the
public have been incorporated in the final rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2011-08-20T12:51:42ZBlog EntryRebuttal of DIT's Misleading Statements on New Internet Rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rebuttal-dit-press-release-intermediaries
<b>The press statement issued on May 11 by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) on the furore over the newly-issued rules on 'intermediary due diligence' is misleading and is, in places, plainly false. We are presenting a point-by-point rebuttal of the DIT's claims.</b>
<p>In its <a class="external-link" href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=72066">press release on Wednesday, May 11, 2011</a>, the DIT stated:
<blockquote>The
attention of Government has been drawn to news items in a section of
media on certain aspects of the Rules notified under Section 79
pertaining to liability of intermediaries under the Information
Technology Act, 2000. These items have raised two broad issues. One is
that words used in Rules for objectionable content are broad and could
be interpreted subjectively. Secondly, there is an apprehension that the
Rules enable the Government to regulate content in a highly subjective
and possibly arbitrary manner. <br /></blockquote>
<p>There are actually more issues than merely "subjective interpretation" and "arbitrary governmental regulation".</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;">The
Indian Constitution limits how much the government can regulate
citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Any
measure afoul of the constitution is invalid. </li><li style="list-style-type: disc;">Several
portions of the rules are beyond the limited powers that Parliament had
granted the Department of IT to create interpretive rules under the
Information Technology Act. Parliament directed the Government to merely
define what “due diligence” requirements an intermediary would have to
follow in order to claim the qualified protection against liability that
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides; these current
rules have gone dangerously far beyond that, by framing rules that
insist that intermediaries, without investigation, has to remove content within 36-hours of receipt of a
complaint, keep records of a users' details and provide them to
law enforcement officials.</li></ul>
<p>The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of
Communications & IT has clarified that the Intermediaries Guidelines
Rules, 2011 prescribe that due diligence need to be observed by the
Intermediaries to enjoy exemption from liability for hosting any third
party information under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,
2000. These due diligence practices are the best practices followed
internationally by well-known mega corporations operating on the
Internet. The terms specified in the Rules are in accordance with the
terms used by most of the Intermediaries as part of their existing
practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on
their website.</p>
<ol><li>We are not aware of any country that actually goes to the extent of
deciding what Internet-wide ‘best practices’ are and actually converting
those ‘best practices’ into law by prescribing a universal terms of
service that all Internet services, websites, and products should enforce.</li><li>The Rules require all intermediaries to include the
government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services
they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its
terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to
dictate those terms of service. As long as the terms of service of an
intermediary are not unlawful or bring up issues of users’ rights (such
as the right to privacy), there is no reason for the government to jump
in and dictate what the terms of service should or should not be.</li><li>The DIT has not offered any proof to back up its assertion that 'most'
intermediaries already have such terms. Google, a ‘mega corporation’
which is an intermediary, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en">does not have such an overarching policy</a>. Indiatimes, another ‘mega
corporation’ intermediary, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiatimes.com/policyterms/1555176.cms">does not either</a>. Just because <a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/termsofuse.html">a
company like Rediff</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/wow_tou.html">
Blizzard's World of Warcraft</a> have some of those terms does not mean a) that they should have all of those terms, nor that b) everyone else should as well.<br /><br />In
attempting to take different terms of service from different Internet
services and products—the very fact of which indicate the differing
needs felt across varying online communities—the Department has put in
place a one-size-fits-all approach. How can this be possible on the Internet, when we wouldn't regulate the post-office and a book publisher under the same rules of liability for, say, defamatory speech.</li><li>There is also a significant difference between the effect of those
terms of service and that of these Rules. An intermediary-framed terms of service
suggest that the intermediary <em>may</em> investigate and boot someone off a service for violation, while the Rules insist that
the intermediary simply has to mandatorily remove content, keep records of users' details and provide them to law enforcement officials,
else be subject to crippling legal liability.</li></ol>
<p>So
to equate the effect of these Rules to merely following ‘existing
practices’ is plainly wrong. An intermediary—like the CIS website—should have the freedom to choose not to have terms of service
agreements. We now don’t.“In case any issue arises concerning the interpretation of the terms
used by the Intermediary, which is not agreed to by the user or affected
person, the same can only be adjudicated by a Court of Law. The
Government or any of its agencies have no power to intervene or even
interpret. DIT has reiterated that there is no intention of the
Government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these
Rules. It has categorically said that these rules do not provide for any
regulation or control of content by the Government.”</p>
<p>The
Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant
mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the
incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court. Why not just
invert that, and presume that all complaints need to be proven first, and the correctness of the complaints (instead of the take-downs) be disputed in court? </p>
<p>Indeed,
the courts have insisted that presumption of validity is the only
constitutional way of dealing with speech. (See, for instance, <em>Karthikeyan R. v. Union
of India</em>, a 2010 Madras High Court judgment.)</p>
<p>Further,
only constitutional courts (namely High Courts and the Supreme Court)
can go into the question of the validity of a law. Other courts have to
apply the law, even if it the judge believes it is constitutionally
invalid. So, most courts will be forced to apply this law of highly
questionable constitutionality until a High Court or the Supreme Court
strikes it down.</p>
<p>What
the Department has in fact done is to explicitly open up the floodgates
for increased liability claims and litigation - which runs exactly
counter to the purpose behind the amendment of Section 79 by Parliament
in 2008.</p>
<blockquote>“The
Government adopted a very transparent process for formulation of the
Rules under the Information Technology Act. The draft Rules were
published on the Department of Information Technology website for
comments and were widely covered by the media. None of the Industry
Associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is
now being cited in some section of media.”<br /></blockquote>
<p>This is a blatant lie.</p>
<p>Civil
society voices, including <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/2011/02/25/intermediary-due-diligence" class="external-link">CIS</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_idoblog&task=viewpost&id=86&Itemid=70">Software Freedom Law Centre</a>, and
individual experts (such as the lawyer and published author <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iltb.net/2011/02/draft-rules-on-intermediary-liability-released-by-the-ministry-of-it/">Apar Gupta</a>)
sent in comments. Companies <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576314652996232860.html?mod=WSJINDIA_hps_LEFTTopWhatNews">such as Google</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://e2enetworks.com/2011/05/13/e2e-networks-response-to-draft-rules-for-intermediary-guidelines/">E2E Networks</a>, and others had apparently
raised concerns as well. The press has published many a cautionary note, including editorials, op-ed and articles in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1487299.ece">the</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article1515144.ece">Hindu</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?sectionId=6&mod=1&pg=1&valid=true&storyid=5163">the Hoot</a>, Medianama.com, and Kafila.com, well before the new rules were notified. We at CIS even received a 'read notification'
from the email account of the Group Coordinator of the DIT’s Cyber Laws
Division—Dr. Gulshan Rai—on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM (we had
sent the mail to Dr. Rai on Monday, February 28, 2011). We never
received any acknowledgement, though, not even after we made an express
request for acknowledgement (and an offer to meet them in person to
explain our concerns) on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 in an e-mail sent to Mr.
Prafulla Kumar and Dr. Gulshan Rai of DIT.</p>
<p>The
process can hardly be called 'transparent' when the replies received
from 'industry associations and other stakeholders' have not been made
public by the DIT. Those comments which are public all indicate that
serious concerns were raised as to the constitutionality of the Rules.</p>
<p>The Government has been forward looking to create a conducive
environment for the Internet medium to catapult itself onto a different
plane with the evolution of the Internet. The Government remains fully
committed to freedom of speech and expression and the citizen’s rights
in this regard.</p>
<p><span id="internal-source-marker_0.8528041979429147">The DIT has limited this statement to the rules on intermediary due
diligence, and has not spoken about the controversial new rules that
stifle cybercafes, and restrict users' privacy and freedom to receive
information.<br /></span></p>
<p><span id="internal-source-marker_0.8528041979429147"></span>If
the government is serious about creating a conducive environment for
innovation, privacy and free expression on the Internet, then it wouldn’t be
passing Rules that curb down on them, and it definitely will not be
doing so in such a non-transparent fashion.</p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rebuttal-dit-press-release-intermediaries'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rebuttal-dit-press-release-intermediaries</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActFeaturedIntermediary Liability2012-07-11T13:18:04ZBlog EntryDIT's Response to RTI on Website Blocking
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking
<b>For the first time in India, we have a list of websites that are blocked by order of the Indian government. This data was received from the Department of Information Technology in response to an RTI that CIS filed. Pranesh Prakash of CIS analyzes the implications of these blocks, as well as the shortcomings of the DIT's response.</b>
<h2>Quick Analysis of DIT's Response to the RTI<br /></h2>
<h3>Blocked websites<br /></h3>
<p>The eleven websites that the DIT acknowledges are blocked in India are:</p>
<ol><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zone-h.org">http://www.zone-h.org</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://donotdial100.webs.com">http://donotdial100.webs.com</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bloggernews.net/124029">http://www.bloggernews.net/124029</a> [<strong>accessible from Tata DSL, but not from others like Reliance Broadband and BSNL Broadband</strong>]</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.co.in/#h1=en&source=hp&biw=1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=dr+babas&gs_rfai=&fp=e791fe993fa412ba">http://www.google.co.in/#h1=en&source=hp&biw=1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=dr+babas&gs_rfai=&fp=e791fe993fa412ba</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.cinemahd.net/desktop-enhancements/wallpaper/23945-wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html">http://www.cinemahd.net/desktop-enhancements/wallpaper/23945-wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/kamasutra-hindi-movie">http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/kamasutra-hindi-movie</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged-to.html">http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged-to.html</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta-wardrobe.html">http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta-wardrobe.html</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/l-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076">http://www.facebook.com/pages/l-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indybay.org">http://www.indybay.org</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://arizona.indymedia.org">http://arizona.indymedia.org</a></li></ol>
<p> </p>
<p>Of the eleven blocked websites, one was still accessible on a Tata Communications DSL connection. Two of the blocked websites are grassroots news organizations connected to the Independent Media Centre: IndyBay (San Francisco Bay Area IMC) and the Arizona Indymedia website. The Bloggernews.net page that is on the blocked list is in fact an article by N. Vijayashankar (Naavi) from March 12, 2010 titled "Is E2 labs right in getting zone-h.org blocked?", criticising the judicial blocking of Zone-H.org by E2 Labs (with E2 Labs being represented by lawyer Pawan Duggal). The Zone-H.org case is still going through the judicial motions in the District Court of Delhi, but E2 Labs managed to get an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial_10/e2labs_zoneh_org.pdf"><em>ex parte</em> (i.e., without Zone-H being heard) interim order from the judge</a> asking Designated Officer (Mr. Gulshan Rai of DIT) to block access to Zone-H.org.</p>
<p>As has happened in the past, the government (or the court) <a class="external-link" href="http://support.webs.com/webs/topics/india_problems_seeing_your_site_read_this_first">accidentally ordered the blocking of all of website host webs.com</a>, instead of blocking only http://donotdial100.webs.com (which subdomain apparently hosted <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_police-still-to-shut-down-fake-account-maligning-force_1419951">'defamatory' and 'abusive' information about mafia links within the Maharashtra police and political circles</a>).</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that for most of the websites on most ISPs one gets a 'request timed out' error
while trying to access the blocked websites, and not a sign saying:
"site blocked for XYZ reason on request dated DD-MM-YYYY received from the DIT". On Reliance broadband connections, for some of the above websites an error message appears, which states: "This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom".</p>
<h3>Judicial blocking<br /></h3>
<p>As per the response of the government, all eleven seem to have been blocked on orders received from the judiciary. While they don't state this directly, this is the conclusion one is led to since the Department admits to blocking eleven websites and also notes that there have been eleven requests for blocking from the judiciary. Normally the judiciary is often thought of as a check on the executive's penchant for banning (seen especially in the recent book banning cases in Maharashtra, for instance, where the Bombay High Court has overturned most of the government's banning orders). However, in these cases the ill-informed lower judiciary seem to be manipulated by lawyers to suppress freedom of speech and expression, even going to the extent of blocking grassroots activist news organizations like the Independent Media Centre.</p>
<h3>Websites not blocked by DIT<br /></h3>
<p>The DIT also notes that the blocks on Typepad.com was not authorized by it (nor, according to the RTI response received by Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama was the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2011/04/223-indiablocks-indias-it-depts-response-to-our-rti-request-our-stand/">Mobango.com block authorised by the DIT</a>). Typepad.com, Mobango.com, and Clickatell.com don't seem to be blocked currently. However, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2011/03/223-indian-government-blocks-typepad-mobango-clickatell/">as was reported by Medianama</a>, for a while when they were being blocked, some sites and ISPs (such as Typepad.com on Bharti Airtel DSL) showed a message stating that the website was blocked on request from the Department of Telecom, which we don't believe has the authority to order blocking of websites. While we still await a response from the Department of Telecom to the RTI we filed with them on this topic, in a letter to the Hindu, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1574444.ece">the Department of Telecom has clarified</a> that it did not order any block on Typepad.com or any of the other websites. This leaves us unsure as to who ordered these blocks. Further, it points out a lacuna in our information policy that ISPs can <em>suo motu</em> block websites without justifications (such as violation of terms of use), proper notice to customers, or any kind of repercussions for wrongful blocking.</p>
<h3>Insufficient information on Committee for Examination of Requests</h3>
<p>All requests for websites blocking (except those directly from the judiciary) must be vetted by the Committee for Examination of Requests (CER) under Rule 8(4) of the Rules under s.69A of the IT Act. Given that the DIT admits that the Designated Officer (who carries out the blocking) has received 21 requests to date, there should be at least 21 recommendations of the CER. However, the DIT has not provided us with the details of those 21 requests and the 21 recommendations. We are filing another RTI to uncover this information.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Text of the DIT's Response<br /></h2>
<p>Government of India <br />Ministry of Communications & Information Technology <br />Department of Information Technology <br />Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, <br />New Delhi-110003<br /> <br />No : 14(3)/2011-ESD<br /><br />Shri Pranesh Prakash <br />Centre for Internet and Society <br />194, 2-C Cross, <br />Domulur Stage II, <br />Bangalore- 560071.<br /><br />Subject: Request for information under RTI Act,<br /><br />Sir,<br />Reference your request dated 28lh February 2011 on the above subject.<br />The point wise information as received from the custodian of Information is enclosed for your reference and records.<br /><br />sd/-<br />(A.K.Kaushik) <br />Additional Director & CPIO <br />Tel: 011-24364803<br /><br /><br />Subject : RTI on website blocking requested by Shri Pranesh Prakash</p>
<blockquote>(i) Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under S.69A of the Information Technology Act ("IT Act"), 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 ("Rules") or any other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in contravention of S.69A of the IT Act?<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply </strong>- This Department did not order Airtel to block the said site.<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote>(ii) Has the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply</strong> - The Department has issued directions for blocking under section 69A for the following websites:<br />(a) www.zone-h.org.<br />(b) http://donotdial100.webs.com (IP 216.52.115.50)<br />(c) www.bloggernews.net/124029<br />(d) http://www.google.co.in/#h 1 =en&source=hp& biw=1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+ wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql =&oq=dr+ babas& gs_rfai=&fp=e791 fe993fa412ba<br />(e) http://www.cinemahd.net/desktop-enhancements/wallpaper/23945- wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html<br />(f) http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/ kamasutra-hindi-movie<br />(g) http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged- to.html<br />(h) http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta- wardrobe.html.<br />(i) http://www.facebook.com/pages/l-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076<br />(j) www.indybay.org<br />(k) www.arizona.indymedia.org<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote>(iii) How many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply</strong> - Designated Officer received 21 request for blocking of information. 11 websites have been blocked on the basis of orders received from court of law. One request has been rejected. For other requests, additional input/information has been sought from the Nodal Officer.<br /><br />No request for emergency blocking under rule 9 of the Rules have been received.<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote>(iv) Please provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply</strong> - The present composition of the Committee is :<br />(a) Designated Officer (Group Coordinator - Cyber Law)<br />(b) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs<br />(c) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting<br />(d) Additional Secretary and Ministry of Law & Justice<br />(e) Senior Director, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote>(v) Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, and copies of their recommendations.<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply</strong> - The Committee had met on 24-08-2010 with respect to request for blocking of website www.betfair.com.<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote>(vi) Please provide us the present composition of the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.<br />(vii) Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of all orders issued by the Review Committee.<br /></blockquote>
<p><strong>Reply</strong> - This Department do not have details for above. The said information may be available with Department of Telecommunications.<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2011-08-02T07:13:47ZBlog Entry