Centre for Internet and Society

sahana

praskrishna — 2011-11-23T04:32:54Z

Sahana Sarkar

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/sahana.JPG

Sagarika

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T02:23:17Z

Sagarika

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/sagarika.png

SAARC 2

praskrishna — 2019-07-04T02:46:53Z

SAARC 2019, Day 2

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/SAARC2.png

SAARC 1

praskrishna — 2019-07-04T02:45:40Z

SAARC 2019 - Day 1

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/SAARC1.png

S Bose

praskrishna — 2012-01-04T07:31:05Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/bose.jpg

Rupee Trail

praskrishna — 2012-12-21T08:16:13Z

Rupee Trail

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/SupplyConstraints.png

Ruling in India shields Web posts

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T00:38:34Z

The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal for anyone to spread ‘‘offensive messages’’ on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.

This is the modified version of the article originally published by Washington Post and mirrored in Boston Globe. Sunil Abraham is quoted. Picture by Manjunath Kiran, AFP.

Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘‘chilling’’ effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.

‘‘Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,’’ the judge wrote. ‘‘If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.’’

India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it did not turn out that way.

‘‘Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,’’ he said.

In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.

The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued that the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely ‘‘liked’’ the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.

The case of the ‘‘Palghar Girls’’ inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.

‘‘It’s a big victory,’’ Singhal said after the ruling. ‘‘The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.’’

Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.

Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for religious and minority groups.

In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a documentary film on a 2012 gang rape case, ‘‘India’s Daughter.’’

Along with India, other nations have sharply increased monitoring and crackdowns on perceived insulting Web posts in recent years.

Across the Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the country’s rulers or tarnishing the national image.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/boston-globe-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-ruling-in-india-shields-web-posts

RTI Response to Accessibility in States

praskrishna — 2015-02-08T14:36:08Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/rti-response-to-accessibility-in-states

RTI response dt. 18.12.2014.pdf

praskrishna — 2016-05-27T12:50:14Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/RTI%20response%20dt.%2018.12.2014.pdf

RTI Reply 2016

praskrishna — 2016-11-17T14:39:05Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2016.pdf

RTI Reply 2015

praskrishna — 2016-11-17T14:48:30Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2015.pdf

RTI Reply

praskrishna — 2016-01-13T02:27:04Z

Reply to RTI

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/RTIReplytoSh.VanyaRakesh.jpg

RTI PDF

praskrishna — 2015-12-22T02:54:15Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti.pdf

RTI on Use of DPI Technology by ISPs

praskrishna — 2012-07-19T07:14:38Z

CIS had filed a Right to Information on use of DPI Technology by ISPs.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/use-of-dpi-technology-by-isps.pdf

RTI on Officials and Agencies Authorized to Intercept Telephone Messages in India

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T05:23:54Z

In an RTI mailed on April 17, 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society sought comprehensive information on the officials and agencies authorized to intercept telephone messages in India.

A portion of the RTI still awaits response, as it was redirected to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. But on May 23, 2013 Rakesh Mittal of the Ministry of Home Affairs responded in brief and directed us to the 2007 Amendment to the 1885 Indian Telegraph Act.

Referring to rule 419-A of the amendment and the Ministry of Home Affairs website, we find that within central government the power to order communications surveillance is normally reserved for Union Home Secretary, a position held by Shir Anil Goswami as of June 30, 2013 (previously R.K. Singh). The amendment goes on to say, “In unavoidable circumstances,” however, such an order can be commanded by a Joint Secretary who has been authorized by Union Home Secretary Goswami. On the federal level, the Ministry of Home Affairs includes nearly 20 such Joint Secretaries able to be authorized for making interception commands.

A listing of the original question requests are given below:

Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies authorized by the Central Government to issue an order for interception under section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885
Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers authorized to issue interception orders under Rule 419A(1) of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 in unavoidable circumstances when such orders cannot be issued by the secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Please provide a list containing the name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies designated as “competent authority” in terms of the Rule 419A(1) proviso of the Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorized by the Central Government to intercept, monitor, decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorized by the Central Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under section 69-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies authorized to issue interception orders under Rule 3, first proviso, of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorised to intercept, monitor, decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under Rule 4 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rti-on-officials-and-agencies-authorized-to-intercept-telephone-messages-in-india