Centre for Internet and Society

IT Act if enforced will leave internet use in India no freer than in China

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:38Z

The Centre for Internet & Societies (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, recently filed an RTI query with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), asking for a list of websites blocked by the Indian government under the IT Act. The department handed them a list of 11 websites. It was just one department’s list, but this was the first time such a list was being made public. This news written by R Krishna was published by the Daily News & Analysis on May 15, 2011.

"The information given was not comprehensive. For instance, we still don’t know who ordered these blocks," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, "We will file another RTI application to get those details out."

As of now, Indians enjoy considerably free access to information online, and the right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution. But you run into a veil of secrecy when trying to find out what sort of information is being blocked online, who is doing it, and for what reason. The list of 11 revealed by the DIT is only representative — no one can even guess the real number because, well, there is no way of knowing when a website gets blocked.

What is more disturbing is that the government has formulated a set of rules that can block content considered "disparaging", "harassing", or "blasphemous", besides a whole range of other labels that are vague and hence open to interpretation. The rules put the onus of removing such material on intermediaries such as ISPs (internet service providers) and websites that host the content — within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. And just about anyone can request that the content be taken down — all they have to do is write a letter or an email with an electronic signature. There is no provision for the intermediary to challenge the complainant’s assessment of the content in question.

Users will be afraid

In other words, censorship will now be a free-for-all exercise. Protests, such as the one we saw during the Jan Lokpal agitation, can be nipped in the bud since anyone, including politicians, can claim that they are being "harassed". Information revealed by websites like WikiLeaks can be blocked because they may "threaten friendly relations with foreign states".

There is a sense of shock among the handful of netizens who are aware of these rules and the potential for their misuse. "What are we, Saudi Arabia? We don’t expect this from India. This is something very serious," Pushkar Raj, general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, has been quoted as saying. MediaNama, a website reporting on the media industry, points out, "Who defines 'blasphemous'?... India doesn’t even have a blasphemy law, so who interprets what is blasphemous or not?" Media watchdog The Hoot’s Geeta Seshu says, "This is chilling. Websites will be wary of putting up content. How can one appeal? How can one have a free discussion on anything at all online?"

Vishal Anand, product manager at Burrp, an online startup that hosts user-generated reviews of restaurants, is worried about the impact it will have on the discussions happening on the website. "I hope the ecosystem is not impacted. Users may be more afraid to respond, and businesses will be afraid about the content they host."

Guilty until proven innocent

The fundamental issue is that the onus is on the carrier or host to prove that the content is inoffensive, if any objection is raised. "The regulation is placing the burden on the intermediary so that there is no need to go to court (to get content blocked). This is going to lead to a lot of private intervention. You will have to go to court to get the content back up online, rather than the other way around," says Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta.

In fact, intermediary liability is a contentious topic globally, and this is not the first time it has caused a controversy in India. Back in 2004, Ebay India’s CEO Avinash Bajaj was arrested because a user tried to sell a pornographic CD on its website. This set off a furious debate on the issue, with the government finally agreeing to amend the IT Act. Gupta notes on his blog, "Even after the IT Act was amended, the government failed to make any rules… In the absence of rules, intermediaries continued to be dragged to court and to the police station. This includes a recent incident where an FIR was registered against Facebook."

Checks and balances exist

These developments lend credence to a recent report on internet freedom released by US-based NGO Freedom House, which ranks India 14th out of the 37 countries surveyed. Stating that the internet in India is only "partly free", the report notes, “Pressure on private intermediaries to remove certain information in compliance with administrative censorship orders has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended IT Act. The revised law grants (the government) the authority to block internet material that is perceived to endanger public order or national security… and assigns up to seven years' imprisonment for representatives of a wide range of private service providers… if they fail to comply with government blocking requests." What is even more troubling is that the current rules weren’t even in place when this report was being prepared.

The new rules could worsen India’s internet freedom rankings. Responding to DNA, Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor, Freedom House, said, “We would have concerns over some of the rules and how they came about. This includes broad and vaguely worded censorship criteria, apparent initiation of the regulations "quietly" without significant consultation with key stakeholders, and absence of an appeals process for those who might disagree with censorship decisions."

Legal experts in India too are puzzled by the new restrictions when there are already reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that the Constitution defines.

"There are anti-defamation provisions in the law. Then why include 'disparaging' in the new rules? Why is impersonating being made illegal? For example, on online dating websites for gays, users may not feel comfortable revealing their identities straightaway. And if somebody is impersonating to commit fraud, there are laws that already exist that deal with it. Instead of incorporating existing offences, the scope of what may be considered illegal is being broadened," says CIS’s Abraham.

The new rules are so broad-based that anyone can claim they are offended and demand that content be taken down, even out of business rivalry.

For example, Zone-H.org, run by Italy-based Roberto Preatoni, was one of the 11 websitesblocked by the Department of Information Technology. This was done after the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte interim order (where the other party is not present) in the E2 Labs versus Zone-H case to block the website.

"This seems unnecessary since it is some kind of private business battle between E2 Labs and Zone H. Where was the need for the Indian government to get involved?" asks Abraham.

Bangalore-based cyber law expert N Vijayashankar agrees. "Websites are being blocked using interim orders. There is no national interest involved in some of these cases. Plus, there is no need to block the entire website, just a particular page could be blocked."

In fact, one of the webpages blocked was an opinion piece Vijayashankar had written about the Zone-H case on BloggerNews.net. "I had no intimation that the webpage was being blocked," says Vijayashankar, who got to know about the blockage only after CIS published the DIT’s response.

Learn from the world

Globally, excessive regulation of online discussions, particularly those related to political and social issues, can kill the open exchange of information. "In many countries, we saw that new laws, prosecutions, or proactive government censorship contributed to greater self-censorship among users. This is particularly pernicious when it affects discussions that relate to public interest or that affect people's well-being — such as an Indonesian housewife facing high fines for circulating critical comments about a local hospital, the Chinese authorities censoring content on torture in police custody, or the Korean government prosecuting a blogger who posted pessimistic predictions about the country’s economy," says Cook.

Cook acknowledges that balancing the right to freedom of expression against security threats, hate speech or child pornography is quite difficult — even for nations that rank high in their study. But there are a few best practices that India could learn from. "Examples of good practices would include no criminal defamation provisions (though criminal penalties for inciting violence would be appropriate), immunity for online content providers from being held liable for the information posted by their users (there is such a law in the United States), and multi-stakeholder consultations prior to the passing of regulations related to the internet/digital media."

The new rules India has come up with fly in the face of such best practices. Authorities and netizens alike should be on the guard, lest we go the China way.

Read the original story published by DNA here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/it-act-internet-use

Your Privacy is Public Property

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:11Z

Rules issued by a control-obsessed government have armed officials with widespread powers to pry into your private life. This article was published in Mail Today on Sunday, May 15, 2011.

The government has gifted itself the power to pry into your electronic personal details without a search warrant. With new IT Rules, it can lay claim to an array of your most sensitive and zealously guarded personal details — ranging from your ATM pin, your net banking password, your credit card details, to the status of your mental health, your DNA profile, and even your sexual orientation. “These rules are a complete invasion of privacy
with immense potentiality of misuse,” says Supreme Court advocate and cyber law expert Pawan Duggal. Drawing attention to the fact that such executive orders are often drafted by government officials who aren’t legally qualified, Duggal asks: "Our medical records and sexual orientation have no bearing on the verification of our identity or our cyber crime record. So why should the state want access to this data?" That is not all. Every key stroke you make at a cyber cafe will now be under the scanner — with cafe owners being asked to maintain logs of your online activities for a minimum of one year. The rules have also turned the heat on internet service providers and social-networking sites to remove objectionable content posted on them, leading to strong objections from Google.

Under provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, the state already has the power to snoop through the letters you post, the emails you send and the calls you make. But while such surveillance came with several checks and balances, cyber law experts and internet activists say that the government can now access private data with far more ease.

"Whenever any government agency needs to access information on individuals, detailed processes need to be followed so that the rights of the citizen are protected. You need a magistrate — who is not part of the government — to sign a search warrant. A home secretary with the centre or state has to sanction a phone tapping request," points out M.R. Madhavan, head of research, PRS Legislative Research.

These safeguards have not been included for access to electronic databases. "An investigating officer simply needs to give a request in writing, in contravention of all other norms," says Madhavan.

Your privacy is being violated at several levels with the new rules, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore’s Centre for Internet and Society. "Cyber cafe owners across the country can now take photos of women coming to their cafes. They also have to show their identity proof. Many women fear they can be harassed on the basis of this information." Cyber cafe owners also have to maintain records on who you are mailing, the subject, how often you access a web page, the packets of data sent and received, etc. Be prepared for rampant leakage of personal information with this provision, warns Abraham.

"A boy who fancies you could easily bribe the cafe owner to get the list of websites you access. The owner will have all the information on you stored for a minimum of one year. No process of destroying the logs has been specified by the IT rules and regulations," says Abraham.

The trouble, says Venkatesh Nayak, the Programme Coordinator for Access to Information, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, is that everyone is suspect in the eyes of the government because of the perception that terrorists don’t function like organised crime syndicates.

Privacy concerns are taken far more seriously in the West. "In countries which have a data protection law, there are data protection tribunals and data protection commissioners. It is not that easy for governments to collect sensitive information on individuals and keep it away from them," says Nayak.

The government, meanwhile, denies any invasion of privacy with the rules. "The intent of the rules is to protect sensitive personal information. The rules do not give any undue powers to government agencies for free access of sensitive personal information," the department of Information Technology has said in a statement.

Cyber experts aren’t convinced, and believe that the days of greater surveillance lie ahead. "After 9/11, the US Homeland Security had started accessing databases of public libraries to find out what people were reading. The day may not be far for us," is Nayak’s dark projection.

Read the original published by Mail Today here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/privacy-public-property

Point By Point Rebuttal Of Indian Government’s Statement On Internet Control Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T12:46:48Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has published a point-by-point rebuttal of the statement issued by India’s Department of Information Technology on India’s Internet Control Rules. The text below is reproduced from CIS India’s website, under a CC-BY license (which means anyone can re-publish it, with attribution. You can, too). We’ve highlighted (in bold) certain statements in the rebuttal. This article by Nikhil Pahwa was published in Medianama on May 13, 2011.

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.

In its press release on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 , the DIT stated:

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.

There are actually more issues than merely "subjective interpretation" and "arbitrary governmental regulation".

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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, does not have such an overarching policy. Indiatimes, another ‘mega corporation’ intermediary, does not either. Just because a company like Rediff and Blizzard’s World of Warcraft 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.

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.

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 may 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.

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."

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?

Indeed, the courts have insisted that presumption of validity is the only constitutional way of dealing with speech. (See, for instance, Karthikeyan R. v. Union of India, a 2010 Madras High Court judgment.)

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.

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.

"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."

This is a blatant lie.

Civil society voices, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and individual experts (such as the lawyer and published author Apar Gupta) sent in comments. Companies such as Google and others had apparently raised concerns as well. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Read the original published in Medianama here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/point-by-point-rebuttal

The Second IJLT-CIS Lecture Series at National Law School, Bangalore

praskrishna — 2011-05-13T11:03:04Z

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology and the Centre for Internet and Society, present the second IJLT- CIS Lecture Series, an event comprised of an intensive series of lectures by luminaries with expertise in law and technology to give students, professionals and anyone interested in a comprehensive idea about the theme, "Emerging Issues in Privacy law".

The focus will be on contemporary sub-issues of critical relevance such as:

The Unique Identification Project and Challenges to Privacy
Cloud Computing and Behavioural Tracking
The State and Privacy: Electronic Surveillance

Speakers

The following delegates would be speaking at the conference:

Usha Ramanathan
Malavika Jayaram
Vivek Durai
Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy

Profiles of the Speakers

Usha Ramanathan

Dr. Usha Ramanathan is an internationally recognized expert on law and poverty. She studied law at Madras University, the University of Nagpur and Delhi University. She is a frequent adviser to non-governmental organisations and international organizations. She is a member of Amnesty International's Advisory Panel on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has been called upon by the World Health Organisation as a expert on mental health on various occasions. Her research interests include human rights, displacement, torts and environment. She has published extensively in India and abroad.

Malavika Jayaram

Malavika Jaya has an experience of more than 15 years as a lawyer with a specialization in information technology and intellectual property. She is a partner in Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore managing a portfolio of work that has a strong focus on IT/IP and commercial work, especially with an international angle and is a fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society. She works with CIS in its efforts to explore, understand, and affect the shape and form of the Internet, and its relationship with the cultural and social milieu of our time.

More info on Malavika Jayaram can be found here

Vivek Durai

Vivek G Durai is co-founder and managing partner at Atman Law Partners. He represents Indian and overseas clients in connection with their India entry strategies, venture capital and private equity investments, infrastructure projects, technology contracts, procurement and supply agreements and real estate investments.

More info on Vivek Durai can be found here

Professor (Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy

Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy graduated from National Law School Bangalore with a BA LLB (Hons) degree. He then went onto finish a BCL and DPhil in Law from the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. He has taught at National Law School, Bangalore and Pembroke College, University of Oxford among other places. His research interests include constitutional law, administrative law, intellectual property law, legal profession and reform of the legal system.

More info on Prof. Krishnaswamy can be found here

Admission will not charged but in order to enable us to ensure adequate seating, do register without fail by the 18th of May by email at editorialboard@ijlt.in.

Updates regarding the conference will be posted here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/ijlt-cis-lecture-series

New rules to ensure due diligence: IT dept

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T06:12:39Z

Facing widespread criticism over new IT rules that put certain amount of liability on intermediaries like Google and Facebook for user-generated content, the government clarified that the rules are simply seeking "due diligence" on the part of websites and web hosts. This news was published in the Times of India on May 11, 2011.

The new rules were notified on April 11. Activists and Internet companies say that the rules are archaic and loosely worded and may lead to harassment of web users and website owners. The Times of India was first to report on the issue on April 27.

The ministry of information and technology said, "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."

It also clarified the "department of telecommunication has reiterated that there is no intention of the government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these rules".

The government has claimed that before it made the rules final, it had sought public comments over the draft. "None of the industry associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is now being cited in some section of media," it claimed.

However, sources told TOI that companies like Google had objected to loose wordings of the documents and asked government not to put any liability on intermediary for user-generated content on the web. "We too approached the government with our concerns. For our communication, we never received any acknowledgment," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

"Given the fact that final rules are more or less similar to the draft rules, I can say that nobody in the government took into account the objections raised by CIS and many other organizations," he added.

Google had earlier told TOI that new rules would adversely affect businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper. "We believe that a free and open Internet is essential for the growth of digital economy and safeguarding freedom of expression.

If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," a Google spokesperson said.

Read the original published by the Times of India here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/new-rules-for-due-diligence

Indian civil liberties groups are now geared to fight the draconian IT Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-11T09:49:26Z

There is a price for liberty and that is eternal vigil against forces that seek to grab it from you. Civil Liberties groups are now coming to terms with the recently issued Information Technology Rules 2011 of the Government of India, which they fear would curtail the freedom of expression of Internet users in the country, writes Akash Bisht. This article was published in the Weekend Leader.com, Vol 2 Issue 18, 6 - 12 May, 2011.

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) is taking steps to bring the issue to public attention. Recently, Pushkar Raj, general secretary of PUCL, forwarded a mail that contained a couple of links of published articles on the subject to his contacts.

The Rules aim to restrict web content that can be considered ‘disparaging', ‘harassing', 'blasphemous' or 'hateful'. “We want to bring this issue to public attention,” Pushkar said.

India’s new IT Rules has already caught the attention of the international media, which sees it as an attempt to curb freedom of expression of internet users. The New York Times ran a story with the headline, ‘India puts tight leash on Internet free speech.’

The article pointed out that the new rules “allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable on the basis of a long list of criteria.”

Lurking danger: Oblivious to many internet users, the IT Rules 2011 seeks to restrict their online freedom (Photo: Senthil Kumaran)

Pushkar expressed concern about these new rules and its impact on the debate and discussion on the internet that is gaining popularity among the estimated 100 million internet users in the country.

According to one of the rules, internet intermediaries – for example, internet publishers or popular websites like Facebook, You Tube etc - have to respond to any demand made by any individual or group to take down content that they consider offensive within 36 hours. “It is a dictatorial directive. Anybody can interpret this to his liking and demand any website to take down such ‘offensive content’,” says Pushkar.

According to the new rules, the objectionable content also includes anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order''. An article in www.medianama.com reacted to this clause stating: “didn’t the Jan Lokpal protests threaten public order, and wasn’t a lot of the commentary online anti-government? Who decides whether ‘anti-government’ statements are ‘anti-national, or for that matter, statements criticizing a particular politician or political family?”

Centre for Internet and Society is also critical of these rules. “There are many areas of concern and it is a disservice to the freedom of expression. There is a clause wherein cybercafé owners can fine somebody watching pornography. Only courts can decide what is offensive and not cyber café owners,” says Sunil Abraham, Director, Centre for Internet and Society.

Pushkar sums it up: “Democracy helps nations evolve into greater civilisations, but once you restrict thoughts there is no possibility of going ahead. These new set of rules are problematic and can have wider interpretations and thus need to go. ”

Read the article published by the WeekendLeader.com here

Sunil Abraham has been misquoted in this article.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/a-fight-against-draconian-IT-rules

New Internet rule: 'Objectionable' content can be removed without notifying users

praskrishna — 2011-05-11T09:31:58Z

In the age of internet-fuelled information explosion, the government's new rule allowing telecom companies and blogging sites, among others, to remove "objectionable" content from the web without informing users is a violation of the right to freedom of speech, say netizens and cyber law experts. This article was published in dailybhaskar.com on May 11, 2011.

The Information Technology (Due Diligence Observed by Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, say that intermediaries - which include telecommunication companies, internet service providers (ISP), blogging sites, search engines, as well as cyber cafes - can remove "objectionable" content without notifying the user.

The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology announced the rules last month.

Pavan Duggal, cyber law expert and Supreme Court advocate, said: "It (the new rules) is in direct violation to the freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right and mentioned in article 19 of the constitution."

"The new rules say that intermediaries should remove such kind of objectionable items within 36 hours without informing the users. They have the right to remove any post on a blog or site, work with the user to correct the post or disable access to their services altogether," Duggal said.

According to InternetWorldStat.com, India stands fourth in the world in internet surfing with 8.5 percent of the country's population using the internet.

Nishant Shah, director (research) of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, said the government should recognise blogging as the right of the people and that the new rule is "against the fundamental right of freedom of speech".

Pushkar Raj, general secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), plans to knock the door of the Supreme Court in a week's time on the issue.

"The biggest problem of this rule is that it gives a lot of power to lower-ranking police officials without any kind of supervision. In this era of information flow, it is very hard to define the term 'intermediaries'," Raj said.

The rules also say that the intermediaries will preserve such kind of information and maintain records for at least 90 days for investigation purposes.

Taha Sahil, a management student in Amity University, said the internet was the only weapon to spread the truth and these rules would curb that.

"It's like snatching away our freedom of speech. We all know that the media is biased and blogs and other web portals are the only unbiased source through which people can write and spread the truth. Moreover, this rule does not give any opportunity to the user to defend his work or even appeal," Sahil said.

The new IT rule specifies that the intermediaries should not display, upload, modify or publish any information that is "harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, pornographic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, disparaging, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, relating to money laundering or gambling".

Bloggers say the new rule is too tedious and will discourage them from blogging.

Shivam Vij, a Delhi-based journalist and blogger, said: "This rule is so vast that it causes confusion and annoyance. Who defines that the content is objectionable and how?"

The new rule also gives the government easier access to content from the intermediaries. The intermediaries will be required to provide information to authorised government agencies for investigation and cyber security.

Ghulam Muhammed, a Mumbai-based blogger, is one of the net users who partly agreed with the reasons behind the government's initiative.

"The government's control on internet is in essence a draconian measure. But on the good side, it will control things like the spread of pornography," Muhammad said.

Internet service providers argue that the rules are transparent enough and it was high time such legislation was put in place as people had suffered in the past because of malicious content being posted against them.

"There are sets of words defined and most of them are illegal under the law, though there are a few loose words which need to be taken care of," said Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India.

"If the user has a problem with his content being removed, he can move court and if the court agrees to his appeal his content can be put back again," he added.

Read the original article published by dailybhaskar.com here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/objectionable-content-can-be-removed

India Chills Online Speech

praskrishna — 2011-05-05T03:19:50Z

While most governments try to control online freedom of speech in a somewhat restrictive manner, either as a collaborator or as a regulator, rarely do they formulate a law to curb online speech. Rarer still does a government provide sweeping powers to intermediaries like an ISP and administrators of Internet sites to control content based on a long list of criteria. This news was published in 'digital communities' on May 3, 2011.

In a quiet move early last month, India passed a new set of rules called Information Technology Rules Act 2011, that curtail freedom of Internet speech by not only empowering the Department of Information Technology to block any site that displays disparaging content based on a list of criteria defined by the Department. But it also empowered any official or private citizen to demand the removal of content that they consider objectionable.

For the first time, it also made intermediaries like an ISP or an Internet site that facilitates user-generated content -- like Google, Facebook, and blogs -- responsible for censoring the Internet.

“The intermediary shall not knowingly host or publish any information or shall not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission, [of content specified by the Act]” it says.

For that matter Internet censorship is not new in India. "This country practices censorship in various forms," says Apar Gupta, a Cyberlaw expert at New Delhi-based Accendo Law Partners. "However it is usually done by a government body or a court order after balancing the interests of free speech and individual or societal harm. Hence, we have film certification and provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code under which a book or any other publication may be banned by a state government by issuing a detailed order in the official gazette. In cases where parties approach courts, courts finely balance competing interests as well.

”But the new rules have for the first time brought censorship, with regard to online content, with a force of law. The new rules even incentivize intermediaries or private parties to censor the Internet,” he added.

The new law is sweeping. For instance, it says that any statement that threatens the unity, integrity; defense, security or sovereignty of India or friendly relations with foreign states or public order, must be removed from Web content.

Moreover, besides banning content that is “harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever,” it also forbids publication of content that is “grossly harmful."

“These rules are not only unfair and blatantly clamp down on freedom of expression, they also put vague limits to freedom of expression and are thus debatable in terms of being constitutionally valid,” says Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

As an instance, Gupta points to a clause in the rules prohibiting content that “harm[s] minors in any way.”

Gupta says there is no set definition under the existing civil and criminal law as to what could be considered "harming minors in any way."

“In the absence of any definable legal standards, what then could form the basis of whether content is harming minors or not?” he asks.

The rules threaten to damage entrepreneurship in a big way as well, allege critics.

“Under the new law anyone can lodge a complaint -- say against an amateur mobile software application developer whose product competes with an application of say Apple or Google. While large companies can afford legal expenses of challenging an IPR violation claim, a small-time developer has no option but to succumb to such challenges.”says Abraham adding, “Online anonymity is vital for creativity and entrepreneurship on the Web.”

Read the original news here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/online-speech

Universal Service — An Instrument for Accessibility

praskrishna — 2011-08-17T08:53:58Z

Every year, billions of dollars are earmarked for fulfilling universal service obligations across the globe. These funds represent a prime opportunity for governments to initiate telecommunication policies and programmes for persons with disabilities, writes Deepti Bharthur.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/universal-service

Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader

praskrishna — 2011-05-13T07:24:16Z

For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia’s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform.

The essays, interviews and artworks brought together in this reader form part of the overarching Critical Point of View research initiative, which began with a conference in Bangalore (January 2010), followed by events in Amsterdam (March 2010) and Leipzig (September 2010). With an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique, contributions to this collection ask: What values are embedded in Wikipedia’s software? On what basis are Wikipedia’s claims to neutrality made? How can Wikipedia give voice to those outside the Western tradition of Enlightenment, or even its own administrative hierarchies? Critical Point of View collects original insights on the next generation of wiki-related research, from radical artistic interventions and the significant role of bots to hidden trajectories of encyclopedic knowledge and the politics of agency and exclusion.

Contributors: Amila Akdag Salah, Nicholas Carr, Shun-ling Chen, Florian Cramer, Morgan Currie, Edgar Enyedy, Andrew Famiglietti, Heather Ford, Mayo Fuster Morell, Cheng Gao, R. Stuart Geiger, Mark Graham, Gautam John, Dror Kamir, Peter B. Kaufman, Scott Kildall, Lawrence Liang, Patrick Lichty, Geert Lovink, Hans Varghese Mathews, Johanna Niesyto, Matheiu O’Neil, Dan O’Sullivan, Joseph Reagle, Andrea Scharnhorst, Alan Shapiro, Christian Stegbauer, Nathaniel Stern, Krzystztof Suchecki, Nathaniel Tkacz, Maja van der Velden

Colophon: Editors: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Editorial Assistance: Ivy Roberts and Morgan Currie. Copy-Editing: Cielo Lutino. Design: Katja van Stiphout. Cover Image: Ayumi Higuchi. Priner: Ten Klei, Amsterdam. Publisher: Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. Supported by: The School for Communication and Design at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam DMCI), the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore and the Kusuma Trust.

Download the pdf for free here
To order a hard copy of the reader, send an email: books@networkcultures.org

Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikpedia Reader, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. ISBN: 978-90-78146-13-1, paperback, 385 pages.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/wikipedia-reader

Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore seeks Programme Associate

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T11:26:00Z

The Higher Education Cell, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, is looking for a Programme Associate under its Social Justice initiative.

The job profile is as follows:

Working closely with colleges in three states, helping to organize and conduct workshops for undergraduate students and teachers;
Facilitating development of innovative student projects addressing issues of social justice/diversity;
Undertaking content management for the project website, newsletter and blogs;
Building and sustaining online communities using creative and user-friendly web-based platforms and documenting processes of growth.

The candidate should be under 35 years of age and have good knowledge of computer applications and multimedia technologies. Ability to communicate effectively with undergraduate students is a pre-requisite. The job is based in Bangalore but involves a fair amount of travel within the country. Experience in teaching/research in the higher education sector and with media organisations would be additional qualifications.

Consolidated honorarium will be in the range of 18,000-20,000 per month commensurate with experience. Send in applications in soft copy and hard copy along with an updated CV to:

Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana
Higher Education Cell
CSCS
827, 29th Main
Poornaprajna Layout
Uttarahalli
Bangalore - 560061

Deadline: May 31, 2011. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed in person. Those who have applied earlier need not apply. For detailed job description click here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/notices/programme-associate-4-cscs

Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T05:34:47Z

Consumers can be empowered, and consumer organisations can make sure this happens through sharing and networking, speakers at the 19th Consumers International World Congress in Hong Kong said. The programme of the Congress finished on Thursday evening, and on Friday the global consumer body will hold its General Assembly and Council elections. This news was published in the Consumer's International Blog on May 5, 2011.

In his closing remarks, CI President Samuel Ochieng, emphasised "our ability to shape our future," ending the event on a positive note. Acting Director General, Helen McCallum, showed, in her remarks, the real excitement of the last few days.

Earlier, CI Vice President, James Guest, who is also President and CEO, Consumers Union of United States, delivered a keynote address on one of the key themes of the Congress: "The fight for fair financial services - a battle our movement must win".

Guest had this message for delegates and consumers around the world: "If you're wondering whether you, as an individual or through your organisation, can really make a difference in a David versus Goliath battle against the power of special interests, you already know the answer — yes, you can. The banking lobbyists are rich and powerful, and they spend a lot of money trying to buy influence. But there is one important asset that they lack and we have: people power. In the end, although it will be a hard and difficult fight, I believe that people power - mobilised by the over 220 members of CI - will eventually win.

"That’s because our cause and our stories and our passion are real. We fight for change, not because we are well-heeled lobbyists paid to do so, but because we care about our lives and the lives of our children, our neighbours, our countrymen, and citizens of the world - today and tomorrow, for this generation and the next."

Other highlights:

In a video message to the CI World Congress, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, that currently holds the presidency of the G20, said that the "G20 called for action on behalf of consumers, and with OECD I am working to protect consumers of financial services". She expressed the view that "consumers should be participants in the process of ensuring their own security," and admitted that "at the time of the crisis we did not focus enough on consumers in the first instance". Christine Lagarde said she remained "interested in the proposals developed for consumer protection and involvement following a successful CI Congress".

Gerd Leonhard, CEO of The Futures Agency, attracted a lot of interest with his views. Consumer organisations must network to have greater impact, they must share and publish; this is how you engage and enable others, he suggested. The difference between MTV and YouTube is the difference between 'the network' and networked, he said.

"'When five billion people are on the internet within a few years, the power of the consumer will be greater than ever," Gerd predicted.

We use social media/mobile phones to 'review' services, and corporations are paying attention, he added and noted that with broadband culture "everything known to man will be copied".

Former CI President Anwar Fazal delivered a rousing speech, which resulted in a standing ovation from the audience. He said that "in a world of big power, big media... networking is the new democracy".

Fazal added: ''CI is a force for social justice, we can do it, we must and we will!' He warned consumer organisations to "train new people or you will have no future," and noted that we "must not allow modernity to replace fundamental human connections".

On the subject of copyright and access to knowledge, David Hammerstein, TACD IP adviser, said: "We are not against copyright, we are for a more direct relation between artists and consumers".

CI's Dr Jeremy Malcolm added: "We want to support authors but not outdated regulation". He also argued that "unbalanced copyright and IP laws hurt consumers not pirates".

We aim to have A2K included in UN guidelines on consumer protection, Malcolm said.

Go to www.a2knetwork.org to comment on draft UN guidelines for A2K.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society, argued that fake mobile phone innovators in China are not pirates but "enablers of connectivity in the developing world".

Sue Rutledge, Coordinator for Global Program on Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy, World Bank, thanked Consumers International and HKCC for tackling the issue of financial services. She said that "all financial services providers should enable consumer redress," and that she "would like to see consumer ogranisations play an active role in protecting consumer financial protection".

Interviews

A number of speakers at CI World Congress have been interviewed by young TV journalists from Hong Kong City University involved in covering the event. Check the following videos:

You can also watch:

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-world-congress-day-3-roundup

Digerati See Censorship in New Web Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-05T02:21:27Z

Attention Indian bloggers and social media fiends: the next time you’re composing a witty tweet or posting an edgy item on Facebook, please take care that what you’re writing isn’t “grossly harmful” or “harassing” or “ethnically objectionable” or – oh, the humanity! – “disparaging.” This news was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2011.

Those are among the types of content that are banned under Internet regulations the Indian government recently put into effect to enforce sections of an information technology law passed in 2008. It’s up to “intermediaries” – Internet service providers, social networking sites, etc. – to police the Web and remove content that goes out of bounds.

As word of the new rules spreads, digital media barons and commoners alike are freaking out. Is the world’s largest democracy ever-so-quietly trampling on free speech by enacting a censorship regime for the Web? How exactly will these rules affect day-to-day activity online?

On the MediaNama digital media blog, Nikhil Pahwa offers a bleak analysis: “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked,” he writes.

Concerns are also pouring out on Twitter, with user posts like “Looks like we will become China soon” and “Moving to a more draconian state” and “When the hell did this happen?”

To shed some light on that last question: These rules merely advance what has been a quiet effort for several years by the Indian government to get a grip on the Web without the kind of blanket censorship or Website-blocking practiced in countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

In a front-page story last year, The Wall Street Journal showed how Indian police and government authorities, acting on complaints from Web users, have successfully pressured Google Inc. and other companies to make inaccessible to Indian users Web content that offends figures ranging from Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi to Hindu nationalist leader Balasaheb Thackeray.

The IT law was in effect then but as the government issues more specific rules to enforce it, its powers appear to be broadening–or at least coming into much sharper focus. The cumulative impact of the government’s Web regulation regime, says Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, is to foster a culture of self-censorship not just by Web users but also Internet companies that will likely err on the side of caution by removing anything that seems edgy or potentially offensive.

Mr. Abraham cited as an example of overreach in the rules a provision that bans information that “impersonates another person,” which he said would outlaw everything from parody writing in which the author pretends to be in the shoes of a celebrity to Twitter accounts such as Dr.YumYumSingh, whose tweets are a running send-up of the honorable Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. “There are many occasions when people take on a pseudonym, or pretend to be someone else. If it isn’t done with the intention of financial fraud, there’s no need to clamp down on it,” he said.

Mr. Abraham also lamented that people whose content is taken down appear to have no recourse under the law to protest to ISPs or the government. It’s up to the ISPs to offer such recourse in their terms-of-use, if they are so generous.

To put this in its proper perspective, Indian authorities have never tried to disable Web access for large segments of the population or block very large numbers of sites, so far as we know. CIS revealed through a Right-to-Information request that 11 sites are currently being blocked, including a Facebook page that disparages constitutional framer and low-caste champion B.R. Ambedkar. There are certainly countries practicing a much, much higher degree of outright Web censorship.

But is fostering self-censorship–if that’s what’s happening here–just as bad as censorship itself?

Let us know what you think of the new rules in the Comments.

Read the article originally published in the Wall Street Journal here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/censorship-in-new-web-rules

Free expression

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:48:44Z

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content. This news was published in Watertown Daily Times on May 2, 2011.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/free-expression

Discussion on 'Press Freedom in the Era of Social Media'

praskrishna — 2011-06-23T06:25:08Z

Anja Kovacs will participate as a panelist in the conference jointly organised by UNESCO and UN Information Centre (UNIC) to commemorate World Press Freedom Day 2011 on May 3 at the UN Conference Hall, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi.

The discussions will focus on the impact of social media on press freedom: its benefits, challenges and limitations.

Download the agenda here [PDF, 166KB]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/notices/press-freedom