We are anonymous, we are legion

Multiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality

sunil — 2015-04-16T13:33:03Z

In the global debate there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.

The article was published in DNA on April 16, 2015.

One — blocking of destinations or services in order to force the consumer to pay extra charges for access, two — not charging or zero-rating of certain destinations and services with or without extraction of payment from the sender or destination, and three — throttling or prioritisation of traffic between competing destinations or services and four — specialised services wherein the very same Internet infrastructure is used to provide non-Internet but IP based services such as IP-TV.

The main harms of network neutrality violations are as follows: one, censorship by private parties without legal basis; two, innovation harms because the economic threshold for new entrants is raised significantly; three, competition harms as monopolies become more entrenched and then are able to abuse their dominant position; four, harms to diversity because of the nudge effect that free access to certain services and destinations has on consumers reducing the infinite plurality of the Internet to a set of menu options. The first and fourth harm could result in the Internet being reduced to a walled garden.

It is insufficient to try and address this with networking rules for engineers such as “all packets should be treated equally.” But a set of principles could be developed that can help us grow access without violating network neutrality. Wikimedia Foundation has already developed their principles which they call “Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles”. In India our principles could include the following. One, no blocking without legal basis. Two, transparency — all technical and commercial arrangements are to be disclosed to the public. Three, non-exclusivity — all arrangements should be available to all parties, no special deals for those you favour. Four, non-discrimination between equals — technologies and entities that are alike should be treated alike. Five, necessity — whilst some measure may be required occasionally when there is network congestion they should be rolled back in a time-bound fashion.

Once these principles are enforced through a network neutrality regulation, ISPs and telecom operators will be allowed to innovate with business and payment models. Steve Song, inventor of Village Telco says “My preferred take on zero-rating would be to zero-rate gprs/edge data in general so that there is a minimum basic access for all.” My colleague Pranesh Prakash says “One possibility, of many, is to create a single marketplace or exchange for zero-rating, through which one can zero-rate on all telecom networks for standard tiered rates that they publish, and terms that are known to the regulator. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly” Jochai Ben-Avie of Mozilla told me yesterday of experiments in Bangladesh where consumers watch an advertisement everyday in exchange for 5Mb of data. My own suggestion to address the harms caused by walled gardens would be to make them leak – mandate that unfettered access to the Internet be provided every other hour.

There is many other ways in which the Internet has been transformed in India and other countries but these are not commonly considered network neutrality violations. Here are some examples. One, blocking of port 25 — a port that is commonly used to relay email spam. Two, blocking of port 80 – so that domestic connections cannot be used to host web servers. Three, the use of private IP addresses, ISPs who are delaying migration to IPv6 infrastructure because of cost implications leverage their IPv4 address inventory by using Carrier Grade — Network Address Translators [CG-NATs]. Four, asymmetric connections where download speeds for consumers are faster than upload speeds. With the exception of the first example — all of them affect end users negatively but do not usually impact corporations and therefore have been unfortunately sidelined in the global debate.

The TRAI consultation paper reveals many of the concerns of the telecom operators that go beyond the scope of network neutrality. Many of these concerns are very legitimate. There is a scarcity of spectrum — this could partially be addressed by auctioning more spectrum, scientific management of spectrum, promotion of shared spectrum and unlicensed spectrum. Their profit margins are thinning – this could be addressed by dismantling the Universal Service Obligation Fund, it is after all as Rohan Samarajiva puts it “a tax on the poor.” Internet companies don't pay taxes – this could be addressed by the Indian government, by adopting the best practices from the OECD around preventing tax avoidance. But some of their concerns cannot be addressed because of the technological differences between telecom and Internet networks. While it is relatively easy to require telecom companies to provide personal information and allow for interception of communications, those Internet companies that use end-to-end encryption cannot divulge personal information or facilitate interception because it is technologically impossible. While the first two concerns could be addressed by TRAI, the last two should be addressed by other ministries and departments in the Indian government.

There are other concerns that are much more difficult to address without the deep understanding of latest advancements in radio communication, signal processing and congestion control techniques in packet switched networks. A telecom expert who did not wish to be identified told me that “even 2G TDM voice is 10 to 15 times more efficient when compared to VOIP. IP was developed to carry data, and is therefore not an efficient mode to carry voice as overhead requirement for packets destroys the efficiency on voice. Voice is best carried close to the physical layer where the overheads are lowest.” He claims that since “VOIP calls are spectrally inefficient they should be discouraged” through differential pricing. We need accessible scientific literature and monitoring infrastructure so that an evidence base around concerns like this can be created so as to address them effectively through regulatory interventions.

You know you have reached a policy solution when all concerned stakeholders are equally unhappy. Unfortunately, the TRAI consultation paper assumes that Internet companies operate in a regulatory vacuum and therefore places much unnecessary focus on the licensing of these companies. This is a disastrous proposal since the Internet today is the result of “permission-less innovation”. The real issue is network neutrality and one hopes that after rigorous debate informed by scientific evidence TRAI finds a way to spread unhappiness around equally.

The author works for the Centre for Internet and Society which receives funds from Wikimedia Foundation which has zero-rating alliances with telecom operators in many countries across the world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality

Live Chat: For a neutral net

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T07:13:40Z

How much do you know about net neutrality? How does it affect you?

This was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash participated in the chat.

Join us at The Hindu for a live chat at 5 p.m., today with Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society, Vijay Anand from The Start Up Centre and Sriram Srinivasan, The Hindu's Business Editor - Online.

Here is the transcript of the chat:

The debate on net neutrality

The Hindu: Hello and welcome to The Hindu's live chat on net neutrality in India.

The Hindu: We have with us Pranesh Prakash from The Centre for Internet and Society and Vijay Anand from The Start Up Centre joining us today!

The Hindu: Also on the panel is The Hindu's Business Editor Online - Sriram Srinivasan who will be moderating this discussion.

Pranesh Prakash: Hi Sriram, thanks for having me on.

Sriram Srinivasan: Hi Pranesh, thanks for joining us

Vijay Anand: Thanks for the invite and looking forward Sriram.

Sriram Srinivasan: The topic of the day is proving to be of huge interest to the public. Pranesh, do you want to start off outlining why Net neutrality is such a big deal.

Sriram Srinivasan: Welcome Vijay, thanks for joining us.

Sriram Srinivasan: Vijay, would like to have your thoughts on the Net neutrality issue too. And how do you see the recent events, starting from the consultation paper that Trai published?

Vijay Anand: Sure, I'll get started as Pranesh puts together his thoughts. In the past few years if you have noticed, entrepreneurship has taken off with a boom. And I'd credit it mostly to the nature of the web - the web being open and allowing anyone with an entrepreneurial thought to build a solution over it. Considering the various constraints we have in a country like India, being ranked over 100 in a list of 146 countries when it comes to the ease of doing business, the fact that the internet is the equaliser has been a huge relief. Thats been recently threatened when Airtel forced TRAI's hand in putting out that 118 page consultation paper. Though, the issue has been brewing for a while now.

Pranesh Prakash: Today, we no longer live in a world of “roti, kapda, makaan”, but in the world of “roti, kapda, makaan aur broadband”. Telecom regulation and net neutrality has a very important role in enabling this vision of Internet as a basic human need that we should aim to fulfil. According to the IAMAI, as of October 2014, India had 278 million internet users. Of these, the majority access Internet through their mobile phones, and the WEF estimates only 3 in 100 have broadband on their mobiles. Thus, the bulk of our population is without broadband.

Pranesh Prakash: All ICT regulation should be aimed at achieving three goals: achieving universal, affordable access; ensuring effective competition in an efficient market and avoiding market failures; protecting against consumer harms.

Sriram Srinivasan: We have sort of taken the openness of the Internet for granted isn't it!

Pranesh Prakash: Given that background, net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers like ISPs to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, we have. The internet by default is open. Thats the way it was built as well, and by nature, carries it through.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, Vijay, were you both surprised by the kind of reactions that have come in to the Trai paper?

Pranesh Prakash: Currently, ISPs get to play gatekeepers: they can throttle speeds for any service, they can say that a service they don't like (such as WhatsApp) should have to pay them more money to reach their customers (or that customers ought to pay more money to use WhatsApp), etc.

Pranesh Prakash: Well, the Internet has generally been an unregulated space, but the carriers -- those on whose pipes the Internet gets delivered -- have always been highly regulated.

Pranesh Prakash: So, no, the openness of the Internet (by which I guess you mean the unregulated aspect of the Internet) cannot be taken for granted.

Sriram Srinivasan: Just to highlight the issue in a more stark manner, what do both of you see as the best case scenario and worst case scenario facing us now?

Pranesh Prakash: No, I believe that the kinds of responses to the TRAI paper has attracted are predictable. There is a large group of people (including me) who believe the TRAI paper is incredibly biased toward the telecom industry who want greater regulation of "OTTs" like WhatsApp and Facebook and Flipkart.

Pranesh Prakash: What is unexpected is the volume of responses.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, there has been hints of this coming quite sometime back infact. Folks like Nikhil Pawa from Medianama has been raising flags about this issue for almost a year. I dont think it was the TRAI Paper that stirred the waters much as Airtel announcing the differential pricing to charge VoIP calls that woke people up.

Pranesh Prakash: More than 5 lakh responses have been sent in so far!

Vijay Anand: I agree with pranesh. We thought we'd do phenomenally well if we got 10,000 folks to write to TRAI. As of now thats crossed 500,000.

Sriram Srinivasan: That's huge!

Sriram Srinivasan: Vijay is referring to Airtel's decision to charge extra for VoIP apps, which they rolled back immediately.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, they sneakily announced the plan a day after Christmas, hoping everyone was on holidays. But yep the backlash started almost immediately.

Sriram Srinivasan: At that time, Airtel said they were waiting for more clarity from Trai. And then Trai's consultation paper was released around the end of March.

Pranesh Prakash: The worst case scenario is that we have TRAI & the govt setting regulations to enshrine "net non-neutrality" or "network discrimination". The best case scenario is we have TRAI and the govt setting in place good net neutrality regulations and creating an effective marketplace for competitive zero-rating.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, could you elaborate on what an effective marketplace for competitive zero-rating would look like?

Pranesh Prakash: That's a complicated question... but let me give it a shot.

Vijay Anand: IMO, thats leaving the web as is. Operators not taking a call or having the power to decide, but letting users decide. :)

Sriram Srinivasan: Readers will remember that plans like internet.org and Airtel Zero are zero-rating plans, where some select sites are allowed for access by subscribers free of charge

Pranesh Prakash: Leaving the web as it is, for me, isn't a viable option, since currently operators (who are *gatekeepers*) have the power to decide winners and losers.

Pranesh Prakash: Zero-rating is the practice of not counting (aka “zero-rating”) certain traffic towards a subscriber’s regular Internet usage. The zero-rated traffic could be zero-priced or fixed-price, capped or uncapped, metered or unmetered, subscriber-paid, Internet service-paid, or unpaid. Further, depending on the terms, zero-rating could be competitive or anti-competitive.

Pranesh Prakash: I believe that anti-competitive zero-rating (for instance, Airtel zero-rating it's own Hike chat service's traffic) should be prohibited.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, what do you think about internet.org?

Sriram Srinivasan: Thanks Vijay, this is very useful

Pranesh Prakash: Internet.org provides free access to a range of Internet services. I hate that they are calling it "Internet.org", when they don't provide access to the whole of the Internet.

Pranesh Prakash: But having said that, Internet.org (for which no operator gets paid) could be competitive or anti-competitive depending on the existence of regulations to ensure a competitive marketplace.

Vijay Anand: I agree with Pranesh on that bit. The name is a bit misleading, and even papers reported it as facebook's web, or facebook giving the Internet for free.

Sriram Srinivasan: But isn't it surprising that criticism against it has been muted, compared to say Airtel Zero. Is that because of its message that it wants to reach out to those who aren't connected with the Net?

Pranesh Prakash: And the good side of Internet.org is that it provides access. That, as I pointed out earlier, is one of the three goals of ICT regulation.

Vijay Anand: Sriram: It could also be that there arent a lot of subscribers on Reliance, as compared to Airtel, Vodafone and Idea, which i believe has close to 75% of the user base.

Sriram Srinivasan: Let's also remind readers that this isn't a fight confined to India. It's happening all over the world, each with their own unique issues. The one in the US was the most high-profile and recent and would be fresh in everyone's mind.

Pranesh Prakash: I think the reason why people view them as being different is that Airtel Zero is explicitly commercial but Wikipedia Zero and Airtel.org are non-commercial (in that they don't pay Airtel or any other provider for carrying their content). But I, personally, don't think this should make a difference.

Comment From Sabiya

What is the scope of zero-rating vis-a-vis important government websites?

Vijay Anand: Its something to think about. And i think this proposal will get floated. But one has to think about Net Neutrality from the perspective of "is this person who is picked, the best person to provide the service (forever)". In the future, i somehow anticipate that it would make far more sense for the government to build the fundamental system and build APIs that other entrepreneurs can build front-ends to, rather than them ending up more clones of IRCTC. Does that answer your question?

Comment From Sankar

Is net neutrality the socialism of the internet world? Is it sustainable on a long run?

Pranesh Prakash: 1. I don't believe it is socialism. In fact, the most important concept that underlies Net Neutrality is competition law. 2. It is sustainable in the long run, since discriminatory practices hurt competition, and harm consumers as well. In fact, not having Net Neutrality will be unsustainable.

Vijay Anand: Sankar: Quite the opposite, it is the platform that enables a free market. In that sense its democratic.

Comment From Guest

How can we make sure that neutrality is made public in India like US or Canada did. What should we do about it? I understand that all ISP have power to decide the winner but its also about consumers who has to pay more to get basic requirements done in right way.

Vijay Anand: If the policy makers and protests that are going on do their job, we will have a net neutrality policy. Canada doesnt have a net Neutality policy by the way. Only 7 countries in the world do. Canada isnt one of them. In a way we are ahead of this trend.

Comment From Ravi

In a country which is democratic, how can one be more free in communication can the other?

Pranesh Prakash: Well put. But do remember that rich people *are* currently more free in communicating with others than poor people since the rich have greater access to the platforms of communication.

Vijay Anand: IMO, I am opposed to zero rating, because saying we want to give access to the "poor" for free, sounds a lot like the aid model. I am not a big fan of that, since I havent seen many who have been weaned of that. An entire continent of Africa has been subject to that. You are right, if you ask me.

Comment From Nayan

I hate technology. So why should I still be bothered about Net Neutrality

Sriram Srinivasan: So that your voice can still be heard.

Pranesh Prakash: To ensure that when Airtel offers you "free Internet" it isn't in fact locking you up in a walled garden of a few services instead of the Internet.

Comment From Pranav

Should we not put pressure on the government to amend the Telegraph Act, 1885 instead of focusing on TRAI? An amendment to the act would ensure that net neutrality remains rather than just focusing on consultation papers by TRAI.

Vijay Anand: Pranesh would know how to answer this best.

Comment From Abhinav Goyal

To save internet from the general perception "more you pay easier it gets for you" , neutral net is essential.

Pranesh Prakash: If we dogmatically oppose all zero rating, then it will take much much longer for Internet services to trickle down to poor people. So as things stand, the more you pay, the more free you are. And if you're poor, you're not free to access Internet services.

Comment From Guest

how is airtel zero similar to net non neutrality. isnt it like OLX/quicker who return search result with preference to their paid advertiser

Vijay Anand: Yes. or a Google for that matter. But unlike the operators who are the gateway to the internet, OLX and Quickr both have to fight to better their experience for folks to come to them in the first place. Take the case of Google for example, if you are starting to get better search results in bing, you might switch. But operators could dramatically alter the way that goes, when they start prioritizing.

Pranesh Prakash: Stated as a general principle, I don't think those two situations are alike. In economic jargon: OLX/Quickr don't exhibit as strong a network effect as Airtel does, and thus are lesser "gatekeepers" than Airtel. So them showing preferential treatment to some matters less than when Airtel does it.

Pranesh Prakash: Airtel Zero is similar to Facebook, though. Not to OLX/Quickr. Facebook exhibits huge network effects, and the shifting costs (to VK or Sina Weibo) are huge since the people and businesses you want to reach are present in Facebook but not on VK.

Comment From Guest

Could you please explain in detail what are all the possible ways in which Airtel Zero could unduly make money if the platform is given the permission to operate.

Vijay Anand: If you say come up with an idea to start a music service - or prefer Gaana.com or you listen in Saavn or rdio, but Airtel says data is free if you use Wynk, which would people prefer? Thats the issue. Operators could have the opportunity to pick winners, (based on who could pay), whereas the web, being an open platform was always about the best solution winning.

Sriram Srinivasan: It could make it difficult for internet start-ups to compete with incumbents, therefore.

Pranesh Prakash: Three potential problems which are closely linked, are cross-subsidization, tying (anti-competitive bundling) of multiple services, and vertical price squeeze. All three of these are especial concerns now, with the increased diversification of traditional telecom companies, and with the entry into telecom of companies that create content. Hence, if Airtel cross-subsidizes the Hike chat application that it recently acquired, or if Reliance Jio requires customers to buy a subscription to an offering from Reliance Big Entertainment, or if Reliance Jio meters traffic from Reliance Big Entertainment differently from that from Saavn, all those would be violative of the principle of non-discrimination by gatekeepers.

Comment From Abhishek

Sir dont u think always and everytime there is a protest when something emerges which is out of conventional stuffs......this protest culture is holding back India to develop a healthy competitive culture.

Vijay Anand: Who is protesting, usually has a lot to say. At times very very good things come out of protests. thats the way democracy works. Doesnt it?

Pranesh Prakash: There are some modes of protest that I didn't agree with (down-voting the Flipkart app on Google Play Store and on iTunes, eg). But what's wrong with protest?

Comment From abutiger@gmail.com

Panel members : Can any members explain what is Net Neutrality. In what it is going to effect the net user had the new law come in to force? Thank you. Abu

Vijay Anand: Abu, there is no new law yet. There is a proposal from the operators asking for differential pricing based on a few factors. You can read that 118 page proposal on the website. At the moment, the government is considering both sides of the argument.

Sriram Srinivasan: Comments on the paper can be sent till April 25. And counter-comments close on May 8.

Sriram Srinivasan: Apologies, it should be April 24

Comment From Badri Narayanan

How is net neutrality in developed nations? Does it work differently there?

Vijay Anand: Only 7 countries in the world (pranesh can correct me if wrong) have a policy in place. it is assumed that by default the internet is open and neutral. Its only when that is challenged that we need a policy in place, so that there are no grey areas.

Sriram Srinivasan: Also, even in developed countries, the telecom companies do keep complaining about OTT services, the apps, and how they are cannabalising into their business.

Comment From kasthuri rangan

I support the TRAI suggestion as it will put an end to unwanted sites that spoils the youth and waste their tiem

Vijay Anand: I'd agree, but one can do that on a more individual household level, rather than on a national / network level. Who decides what we consume? What if tomorrow the government decides everyone watching youtube is wasting their time, or watching cricket should be doing something better. That starts to tread into censorship - which infact is a totally different matter altogether.

Sriram Srinivasan: Totally agree with Vijay.

Comment From RAJAT

My question is that why the ISPs want to disrupt the ongoing net neautrality?/

Vijay Anand: To make more money :) Even though their revenues are doubling every year from selling data services.

Pranesh Prakash: Currently net neutrality doesn't exist. So ISPs can't destroy it.

Comment From Amit Jha

Who owns the Internet and where does money come for its maintenance/expansion etc.

Vijay Anand: Amit, thats a brilliant question, Worthy of going into Quora infact. Its a long answer. The core of the web is managed by an organization called iCANN which is infact a confederation. However the extension, hosting, services etc are put together by virtually everyone and anyone. You can plug a computer into the internet and decide to be a server or a consumer. That's the beauty of the internet.

Sriram Srinivasan: You might want to read a very interesting book called 'Tubes' by Andrew Blum. It is about "a journey to the center of the internet." The author wanted to understand the physicality of the Internet.

Comment From Jyotiranjan

In the garb of net neutrality are the companies like whatsapp, skype getting their business without paying licencing fee where as telcos had to pay substantial sum for doing business?

Sriram Srinivasan: It's a completely different business model. It's tech that has enabled of lot of these things, in the same way that telcos can now play a part, albeit small, in the banking industry.

Vijay Anand: Jyoti, In a way yes. But skype or whatapp still doesnt work unless we pay for the data through which all of this rides. So infact even when we use skype and think its a free call there is cost of bandwidth associated with it. With the fact that the call is no longer circuit switched by packet switched, the charges that the operator claims they incur are also eliminated. its a far more efficient system.

Comment From VA

If airtel is providing free access to certain websites, I welcome that. I already have access to other websites via other service providers for which I pay. I don't understand what is this fuss all about.

Pranesh Prakash: This can be a good thing if it doesn't harm competition. If it harms competition, then in the long run, it is bad (even if immediately consumers think it is good). Think about predatory pricing: http://www.ictregulationtoo... Consumers might like predatory pricing in the beginning, but that allows for a company to squeeze out competition and then raise prices later. Harming competition is harmful for consumers in the long run. That's why we need to ensure that we only allow competitive zero-rating.

Vijay Anand: I agree. Users will want this. I Would want this. But the truth is, when you think about it from the other side, of people who are building companies, and coming up with new ideas to make things better, it makes it an uphill battle.

Comment From sapan

i would like request to Trai. do not give Net Nuutrality

Pranesh Prakash: Why do you think it would be harmful? Protection of consumers from harm is something you oppose? Ensuring fair non-discriminatory competition is something you oppose? I'm unclear why.

Vijay Anand: Sapan, I presume you mean the other way around.

The Hindu: Thank you Pranesh, Vijay and Sriram for all the replies!

Vijay Anand: It was a pleasure. And thanks for having me.

The Hindu: Is there anything else you'd like to say before we close this chat?

Pranesh Prakash: Net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic. It is a democratic principle (in line with the right to equality in our Constitution) and it is important for freedom of speech and expression. Let us ensure that through effective regulation of competition we can ensure a free and open Internet that is accessible by all!

Sriram Srinivasan: Thanks! Also, readers, would be great to treat this as a consultation process initiated by Trai. There will be different points of view. It's not like a usual protest. It's just to find the right way forward for us. Also, please do participate in the process, whatever your views.

The Hindu: Well said! Thank you to all the readers who followed and participated in this live chat. Do connect with us on Twitter/Facebook for more questions and discussions on this topic.

The Hindu: Thanks and have a great evening!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-april-15-2015-chat-for-neutral-net

Net neutrality: Debate rages on

praskrishna — 2015-05-02T08:45:03Z

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on April 11, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Net neutrality campaigners have raised the pitch as the telecom regulator seeks public comments on the issue.

They argue any kind of discrimination will scuttle the Internet's growth in the country. Opponents claim technology may make it difficult for the government to stop network management.

A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free. The maker of the application pays the operator for the customer's free use. "It is wrong for me to have to pay Airtel or Vodafone money to access YouTube, Skype or any site they decide to charge for," Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing agency Pinstorm, wrote in a blog on Wednesday. "What we do with bandwidth must be up to us, not up to some profiteering telecom tycoon," he added. Sachin Bansal, founder of e-commerce company Flipkart.com, on the other hand, tweeted, "When foreign companies do it in India - innovation. Indians do it - violation". Flipkart may have signed up with Airtel's Zero platform.

"Telecom companies are saying zero-rating websites (that are offered free like Facebook or Wikipedia) are cannibalising revenues from customers who used to pay for data earlier. It is also failing to convert non-data paying customers into paying ones, so it is not working for telecom companies," said a member of an Internet think tank who did not wish to be named.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released a discussion paper on net neutrality in the last week of March and is seeking public comments by April 24 and counterviews by May 8.

Another Internet expert said people paying extra to visit select sites was like higher charges for high definition cable television. If net neutrality was restricted to price, consumers could decide what they wished to pay for, he added.

However, if websites or apps were blocked or telecom operators bumped up internet speed for certain services, the implications for innovation would be wider, he pointed out. "If the government is attempting to make a policy, it has to be as fair as possible," he said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet Society, said ensuring network neutrality might be difficult, but the government could stop censorship and discrimination. "Competition usually resolves these issues. We have competition among telecom service providers and Internet service providers. This must be protected," he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on

Net neutrality debate rages

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T14:45:34Z

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.

The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.

“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.

While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.

Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.

No such plans: Snapdeal

Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’

Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.

An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”

Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.

Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.

Start-ups for net neutrality:

Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com

“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.

Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia

“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”

Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry

“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”

Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla

“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”

Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms

“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages

Indians Join ‘Save the Internet’ Campaign

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T07:42:06Z

In India, hundreds of thousands have joined a public campaign to ensure equal access to the Internet as an impassioned debate engulfs the country on what is called “net neutrality.”

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published by Voice of America on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The controversy heated up after one of the country’s main telecom providers launched a new marketing platform, Airtel Zero, where Internet businesses could pay to have users browse their sites for free.

This triggered a nationwide backlash from those who fear that this could deny equal access to the Internet. They are demanding that the Internet remain a level playing field with all data getting equal treatment - whether it is a student’s blog or an online company with deep pockets.

Celebrities, professionals, entrepreneurs and students, are among the tens of thousands who have signed up for an online campaign “savetheinternet.”

Petitions are being sent at a furious pace to the telecom regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which invited public comments last month on various proposals such as allowing telecom companies to charge for services like Skype and YouTube.

One of the persons behind the campaign to ensure net neutrality, Kiran Jonnalagadda, in Bangalore, has been taken aback by the overwhelming response.

“400,000 users have on their own copy, pasted an email from our website and mailed it to TRAI from their own computers. It is not an automated script. There is nothing is going on from our servers. People are doing it by themselves on their own computers. That is incredible. We did not think they would do it,” said Jonnalagadda.

The strident public criticism on the issue has already had an impact. One of the country’s biggest online retailers, Flipkart, said on Tuesday that it had scrapped discussions with Airtel Zero on giving users free access to its app.

Flipkart announced its decision after some angry supporters of net neutrality denounced the company saying it would get an unfair advantage over its competitors. Some users even threatened to boycott the online retailer.

Supporters of allowing telecoms to give preferential, free access to Internet sites say providers need the funds to expand infrastructure and net coverage in countries like India, where broadband access is still limited. Opponents say such practices allow for preferential treatment for some websites over others, creating a disadvantage for upstart websites that would inhibit innovation.

Pranesh Prakash at the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society supports net neutrality. However he said that under certain conditions, companies could pay for customers using their data.

“They anyway have to pay money for using data. Right now what some companies are offering to do is not only to pay money for their data use, but also for customers data use. That can be anti-competitive, for instance if there is in exclusive deal, or if the terms of the deal are not transparent. But just the fact that a company is offering to pay for its customers data does not by itself make it anti-competitive. For instance toll free numbers are not considered anti-competitive by anyone,” said Prakash.

The government says it will wait for a report from a six-member committee due in May before it takes a position on the issue. But net users hope the government is leaning toward net neutrality.

Earlier this week, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, called the Internet “one of the finest creations of the human mind.”

“It is the property of the entire human race, not of any country or of any society. Net to become truly global must have integral link with the local and when we talk of digital inclusion, it is equally important it must be available to those who are underprivileged and on the margins,” said Prasad.

India is one of the world’s biggest Internet markets after the United States and China with an estimated 180 million users. It is not the only country to debate net neutrality - it has also been a subject of intense discussion in the United States and Europe.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-april-15-2015-anjana-pasricha-indians-join-save-the-internet-campaign

Don't Do Nothing. Take a Stand on Net Neutrality.

vishnu — 2015-05-08T14:11:23Z

Are you wondering what Net Neutrality is, and why the term has suddenly got so much attention in India among the Netizens? Do you need to be concerned about Net Neutrality? We will try to address these in this short post on Net Neutrality.

The blog post was published by NDTV on April 13, 2015.

First things first. Net Neutrality (or Network Neutrality) is a globally-accepted principle of keeping the Internet freedom intact. Now you may wonder who is threatening Internet freedom, or how that is even possible. Well, it is.

By who? Your Internet Service Provider (ISP). Some also use the term MISP, which means Mobile Internet Service Provider. How can they do it? By simply not treating the data on the Internet equally. Let's make it even simpler with an example. Imagine your cable network provider promises you access to ATV, BTV, CTV and DTV (of course we know you get 300+ channels!) and takes a monthly subscription fee. Now you have a favourite show on DTV that you have been watching for a year. Suddenly your cable network provider comes to some business arrangement with ATV (let's call it sharing revenues!) and starts tweaking his signal. So your DTV signal becomes faint and you keep getting frozen frames and breaking sounds, whereas the audio video quality of ATV is superb. Not only that, your channel numbers are automatically reset, and the channel number on which you used to watch DTV now is configured to ATV.

The same thing, when it happens in the Internet context, is called breaking Net Neutrality. That is, the ISP starts discriminating which App you can use better, which sites will stream video faster, and so on and so forth. So by breaking Net Neutrality, the ISPs, by joining hands with some big companies (content providers) will build walled Internet gardens within which your experience of the world wide web will be limited. The <www> will no more be "world wide web" but will be "walled within my web"!

Is this bad? Well, most of the Internet fraternity that believes in the unending freedom the Internet provides thinks so. For budding App makers, e-biz players, etc. it is quite a jolt. A large corporate player like Facebook can easily team up with ISPs and rob the level playing field to all these budding players. Because the ISPs can potentially discriminate against the budding players or newcomers, there is a fair chance that you are curtailing innovation and new entrepreneurship on the Internet. Well "make in India" may still happen, but with limited large players who could potentially cannibalize the Internet!

If you are a simple consumer of the Internet and not bothered about the business dynamics, the violation of net neutrality will affect you too. Definitely not in terms of increased Internet data pack prices. In fact, there is a fair chance that you will be given freebies like "Buy this Internet Data Pack and you will get 3 months free of Facebook usage". However, in the bargain, over the long run, we all will lose out on something precious that money cannot always buy, something that is considered inherent to the Internet ... the FREEDOM to choose and the FREEDOM to express.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. Why is it that the ISPs want to do this? They have realized that some data providers (those who build Apps, websites, etc.) are making quite a big buck and they want a share of that profit, because they need to meet their large infrastructural costs that they have incurred in setting up towers, cables, etc. They are bleeding, they say, and need to find sustainable business models. They do not want to burden the consumer by increasing the data charges and this is an ingenious way of making their business sustainable. Win-win scenario, only at the cost of Freedom. To hell with Freedom, we give you Internet for FREE!

To deal with this issue effectively, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has put out a consultation paper called Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services for feedback from stakeholders. It's available here. If you use the Internet in India (either on mobile or on a system) then you too are a stakeholder. We hope that this post will help you to participate in the consultation process.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ndtv-t-vishnu-vardhan-dont-do-nothing-take-a-stand-on-net-neutrality

Net neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T02:11:15Z

The idea of an open internet can bring together not just worried netizens but politicians of all hues.

The article by Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka was published in the Times of India on April 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

On a day when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got more than 2 lakh emails by Monday afternoon from Indian netizens annoyed by possible efforts to make internet an unequal space, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and DMK leader MK Stalin also defended net neutrality.

While Kejriwal tweeted that "India MUST debate #NetNeutrality. I support #Saveinternet campaign www.savetheinternet.in", Stalin in his statement said that any move to allow telecom companies to give preferential access to websites would go against the concept of equality.

Telecom minister Ravishankar Prasad, meanwhile, told media that a special DoT panel will come out with its report on net neutrality in May.

The latest fight for net neutrality — the idea that all traffic is treated equally by internet service providers — gained momentum after Trai put up a consultation paper on the topic asking users to give their views before April 24. The paper was in response to demands from telecom companies seeking to splice up internet into various packages so they could charge users based on what websites and services they were using. The companies' specific grouse is against services like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber, which they claim are eating into their profits.

"Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't end up harming universal access, effective competition and consumer benefit," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. This means that what Airtel was trying to do in December by preventing its customers from accessing WhatsApp, Skype and Viber without paying extra shouldn't be permitted, Prakash says.

One of the worst case scenarios could be the murder of innovation, says Srinivasan Ramani, 'director, National Centre for Software Technology (now, part of C-DAC).

"New ways of doing things are disruptive — Voice over Internet Protocol demonstrated how inexpensive voice calls could be. Video calls over the internet demonstrate what the old telephone technology could not do in a cost-effective manner, can now be done with ease," Ramani says. If ISPs get greater control over the internet they may end up killing the golden goose, he says.

Neutrality of the internet is essential to a wide variety of users, from bloggers, entrepreneurs and to students. "A non-neutral internet is like offering a separate driving lane to people who own a Ferrari, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle," says Harsh Agrawal, a professional blogger atshoutmeloud.com. He is clear that he can't pay telecom operators to offer better speeds to his blog. "But what if one of my competitors can afford to pay for preferential treatment for his website? It could be a huge loss to me," Agrawal says.

E-commerce startup-founder Catherine Dohling has the same fear. "We want our website to be accessed by anyone who is interested in our products and this should not be governed by which telecom provider a person buys data from," says Dohling, co-founder of TheNorthEastStore.com.

Activists like Lobsang Tseten, who relies on digital media to reach out to people, fear that if there is no net neutrality, it could mean that a huge chunk of the NGO's grassroots base could be taken away unless users pay. "This is a very underhand way of stopping people from accessing certain websites and products," says Tseten, Asia regional coordinator of International Tibet Network.

With many biggies like Flipkart considering Airtel's Zero plan, which aims to offer free consumer browsing for such companies that sign up with the telco, start-up enthusiasts are also troubled. "An internet that is non-neutral would be a huge set-back for people like me who want to create a tech start-up. We would have to factor in a good sum of money for tie-ups with ISPs," says Rahul Kumar, an IIT-Kanpur student.

However, some activists say that some nuances of what is net neutrality are getting lost as the campaign gathers steam. On Monday, several angry netizens tweeted about uninstalling Flipkart's app and actively working to get it down voted. "What we need are regulations that ensure access, competition and benefit consumers instead of proposing specific outcomes or solutions," says Prakash.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails

People voice their support for net neutrality, say Internet a utility not a luxury

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T01:56:28Z

As the campaign and support for net neutrality is picking up, Politicians, celebrities and a cross section of people are voicing their support for it. Net neutrality means all data and sites are treated and charged equally be it mobile app or any other app.

The blog post was published in IBN Live on April 13, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

According to AIB whose video on net neutrality has gone viral, more than one lakh emails have been sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) through the website savetheinternet.in. This is in response to the regulator's call for public consultation.

MK Stalin, DMK treasurer: The Internet is changing India. For the first time there is a platform that gives equal opportunity for everyone to gain knowledge and reap economic benefits. TRAI, the government telecom regulatory body is proposing to change this by allowing telecom companies to allow preferential access to websites. If this is allowed, companies will be allowed to charge extra for commonly used services like Whatsapp, YouTube, web based voice calling and many more. This will also allow telcos to allow preferential treatment of websites, allowing the big companies to destroy start-ups and internet based small business by blocking or slowing them down. This goes against the very concept of the Internet where every legal website or service is considered equal. This attempt to increase the profits of the telecom companies by surrendering social gains should be condemned. I request the TRAI to dismiss this proposal and let the Internet continue to be a neutral medium which serves our country and community instead of a select few companies.

Tathagata Satpathy, Dhenkanal MP: My concern was that why should TRAI get involved with private profit making companies and give them the facility to become a profiteering company. While saying this we must remember that Internet is not free anywhere in the world. That is accepted. My issue is with TRAI which has not even bothered to reply to my letter, I do not know why TRAI is getting involved and it has put itself in a situation where its interntions are suspect.

Nikhil Pahwa, Editor and publisher of Medianama: Startups may have to get license to provide services in India. Another outcome is communications firms will buy license. Third outcome is TRAI will allow ISP's to make some sites slow.

Pranesh Prakash, cyber security expert: So what the TRAI is proposing is something that should have every single Internet user very worried. There is some truth at least to what companies like Airtel etc. are saying which is that there is a difference in the regular trade standard for the Internet services and the telecom operators. But the correct solution for that is not to increase and sort a new license raj for Internet services but rather to decrease those over onerous burdens.

Riteish Deshmukh, actor: Net neutrality is as important as Freedom of Speech. Our Basic Right

Siddharth Malhotra, actor: Save The Internet push for net neutrality, Internet is a utility not a luxury.

Parineeti Chopra, actress: Save the Internet! Net neutrality is crucial! Proud of you boyses!

Shekhar Ravjiani, singer: Time to stand up and take a stand. Time to fight for what's right. Head to savetheinternet.in to make a difference.

Raghu Ram, Ex Roadies judge: PEOPLE!! Your internet and freedom are under attack in India! Listen to the AIB boys and join the fight.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury

Surveillance rises, privacy retreats

praskrishna — 2015-05-02T06:43:33Z

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have, at considerable personal cost, revealed how surveillance has eroded the private space in a world driven by digital technology.

The article was published in the Business Standard on April 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In India, the extent of surveillance became evident after Union human resource development minister Smriti Irani walked into the trial room of a FabIndia outlet in Goa last week, only to discover closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras pointed towards the trial room. The country woke up to the porous divide between privacy and surveillance.

Now, senior officials of FabIndia find themselves embroiled in a case of voyeurism and seven of them have taken interim anticipatory bail from a district court. They claim the CCTV cameras were in the retail area, not the trial room.

The FabIndia incident might have blown the lid on how flimsily our privacy is protected but there is no doubt that India is slowly but surely moving towards a surveillance regime, both in the private and the public spheres.

“After the Snowden episode, there are only two kinds of nations: Ones that know they are being watched, and others that don’t,” said Pavan Duggal, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India.

Despite the surge in surveillance, there are hardly any specific laws governing this.

A few laws
In 2000, India enacted the Information Technology Act, primarily to bring e-commerce under legal framework. After the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008, the Act was amended, to give the government sweeping powers for mass surveillance.

In the context of private surveillance, the 2008 amendment added two definitions: (a) communication device; (b) intermediary.

A communication device, according to the law, means cell phones, personal digital assistance, or a combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio, or image. An intermediary was defined as any person who, on behalf of another person, stores or transmits message or provides any service with respect to that message.

Rules regarding CCTV surveillance are governed by the IT Act, 2008, as CCTVs are considered to be communication devices, with computerised memory. However, the laws in relation to a communication device and intermediary deal mostly with third-party data sharing.

“Article 21 of the Constitution guards the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. We do not have an explicit Act in this regard, but Section 43A of the IT Act, 2000, along with the IT Rules, 2011, protects data privacy in India,” said Prashant Mali, a cyber law and cyber security lawyer.

There were no amendments of the laws governing CCTVs.

However, Section 66E of the IT Act, states: “Whoever, intentionally or knowingly, captures, publishes or transmits, the image of a private area of any person, without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with a fine not exceeding Rs 2 lakh, or both, with explanation.”

“The IT Act is not a privacy enabling law. Hence, the challenges to privacy in surveillance are not fully addressed in it,” said Duggal.

Internationally, there are more stringent laws governing CCTV cameras. For example, in the UK, there is a prescribed code. A person filmed by a surveillance camera can seek the footage. In the US, too, there are state-specific laws which prohibit the unauthorised installation or use of cameras in private places, like restrooms and trial rooms.

“Privacy laws must be compliant with international practices. Laws governing CCTVs should be more comprehensive. It should not be specific to voyeurism,” said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bengaluru-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

The government has been working on a Privacy (Protection) Bill, which provides safeguards on personal data of individuals and sets conditions under which surveillance is allowed. It is expected that the Bill will lead to the creation of the offices of privacy commissioner and data protection commissioner. However, it is mostly silent on laws governing CCTV usage.

“In India, the concern over enacting privacy laws, implementing them and our understanding of privacy are low, compared to the global context. The Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 is pending before Parliament. When this gets enacted, our laws would be at par with those in the West,” said Mali. “But doubts remain about their implementation.”

Government surveillance
Amendments to the IT Act in 2008 gave the government wide powers of interception, encryption and blocking. The amendment introduced Section 66A, which made sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device, such as a cell phone or a tablet, a punishable offense.

The Supreme Court recently struck down the provision as infringing the constitutional right of freedom of speech.

“Every nation is under the classical dilemma to balance national security with privacy and freedom of expression. Always, when there is a conflict between the two, national security wins hands down. However, apart from international consensus, we need customise national solutions,” said Duggal.

Today, some of the biggest government projects based on the powers vested to it under the IT Act. It has enabled the progression of surveillance procedures like the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), enabled through information on Aadhar card or unique identification number.

The CMS gives the government access to records of any mobile to landline calls, to read private emails, texts, and even browsing history through telecom operators. Natgrid could make the information available to nearly 11 central agencies.

“It is reported that the CMS can monitor close to 900 million people at one go. There is neither confirmation nor denial from the government,” said Duggal. However, compared to the US and China, that practice blanket surveillance, India is still considered a low-surveillance category nation.

“India is still low on surveillance. In India, we have targeted surveillance. At any given point in time, less than 200,000 phone calls are being intercepted. Not more than a couple of lakh of surveillance orders are given by both state and central governments,” said Abraham.

Surely, with so many surveillance devices around, it is a closely watched world like never before.

SALIENT FEATURES ON PRIVACY IN THE IT ACT, 2008

Communication Device: Cell phones, personal digital assistance, or combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio, or image
Intermediary: Any person, who on behalf of another person, stores or transmits messages or provides any service
Sections 66A to 66F: Added to Section 66, prescribing punishment for offences such as sending obscene messages, identity theft, cheating by impersonation using computer resources, violation of privacy and cyber terrorism
Section 69: Amended to give power to the state to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource
Sections 69A and B: These grant power to the state to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource and to authorise to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for cyber security.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-namrata-acharya-april-12-2015-surveillance-rises-privacy-retreats

Shreya Singhal and 66A

sunil — 2015-04-19T08:09:42Z

Most software code has dependencies. Simple and reproducible methods exist for mapping and understanding the impact of these dependencies. Legal code also has dependencies --across court orders and within a single court order. And since court orders are not produced using a structured mark-up language, experts are required to understand the precedential value of a court order.

The article was published in the Economic and Political Weekly Vol-L No.15. Vidushi Marda, programme officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, was responsible for all the research that went into this article. PDF version here.

As a non–lawyer and engineer, I cannot authoritatively comment on the Supreme Court’s order in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) on sections of the Information Technology Act of 2000, so I have tried to summarise a variety of views of experts in this article. The Shreya Singhal order is said to be unprecedented at least for the last four decades and also precedent setting as its lucidity, some believe, will cause a ripple effect in opposition to a restrictive understanding of freedom of speech and expression, and an expansiveness around reasonable restrictions. Let us examine each of the three sections that the bench dealt with.

The Section in Question

Section 66A of the IT Act was introduced in a hastily-passed amendment. Unfortunately, the language used in this section was a pastiche of outdated foreign laws such as the UK Communications Act of 2003, Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and the US Telecommunications Act, 1996.¹ Since the amendment, this section has been misused to make public examples out of innocent, yet uncomfortable speech, in order to socially engineer all Indian netizens into self-censorship.²

Summary: The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act in its entirety holding that it was not saved by Article 19(2) of the Constitution on account of the expressions used in the section, such as "annoying," "grossly offensive," "menacing,", "causing annoyance." The Court justified this by going through the reasonable restrictions that it considered relevant to the arguments and testing them against S66A. Apart from not falling within any of the categories for which speech may be restricted, S66A was struck down on the grounds of vagueness, over-breadth and chilling effect. The Court considered whether some parts of the section could be saved, and then concluded that no part of S66A was severable and declared the entire section unconstitutional. When it comes to regulating speech in the interest of public order, the Court distinguished between discussion, advocacy and incitement. It considered the first two to fall under the freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1)(a), and held that it was only incitement that attracted Article 19(2).

Between Speech and Harm

Gautam Bhatia, a constitutional law expert, has an optimistic reading of the judgment that will have value for precipitating the ripple effect. According to him, there were two incompatible strands of jurisprudence which have been harmonised by collapsing tendency into imminence.³ The first strand, exemplified by Ramjilal Modi vs State of UP⁴ and Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar,⁵ imported an older and weaker American standard, that is, the tendency test, between the speech and public order consequences. The second strand exemplified byRam Manohar Lohia vs State of UP,⁶ S Rangarajan vs P Jagjivan Ram,⁷ andArup Bhuyan vs Union of India,⁸ all require greater proximity between the speech and the disorder anticipated. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court held that at the stage of incitement, the reasonable restrictions will step in to curb speech that has a tendency to cause disorder. Other experts are of the opinion that Justice Nariman was doing no such thing, and was only sequentially applying all the tests for free speech that have been developed within both these strands of precedent. In legal activist Lawrence Liang's analysis, "Ramjilal Modi was decided by a seven judge bench and Kedarnath by a constitutional bench. As is often the case in India, when subsequent benches of a lower strength want to distinguish themselves from older precedent but are unable to overrule them, they overcome this constraint through a doctrinal development by stealth. This is achieved by creative interpretations that chip away at archaic doctrinal standards without explicitly discarding them."⁹

Compatibility with US Jurisprudence

United States (US) jurisprudence has been imported by the Indian Supreme Court in an inconsistent manner. Some judgments hold that the American first amendment harbours no exception and hence is incompatible with Indian jurisprudence, while other judgments have used American precedent when convenient. Indian courts have on occasion imported an additional restriction beyond the eight available in 19(2)-the ground of public interest, best exemplified by the cases of K A Abbas¹⁰ and Ranjit Udeshi.¹¹ The bench in its judgment-which has been characterised by Pranesh Prakash as a masterclass in free speech jurisprudence¹²-clarifies that while the American first amendment jurisprudence is applicable in India, the only area where a difference is made is in the "sub serving of general public interest" made under the US law. This eloquent judgment will hopefully instruct judges in the future on how they should import precedent from American free speech jurisprudence.

Article 14 Challenge

The Article 14 challenge brought forward by the petitioners contended that Section 66A violated their fundamental right to equality because it differentiated between offline and online speech in terms of the length of maximum sentence, and was hence unconstitutional. The Court held that an intelligible differentia, indeed, did exist. It found so on two grounds. First, the internet offered people a medium through which they can express views at negligible or no cost. Second, the Court likened the rate of dissemination of information on the internet to the speed of lightning and could potentially reach millions of people all over the world. Before Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court had already accepted medium-specific regulation. For example in K A Abbas, the Court made a distinction between films and other media, stating that the impact of films on an average illiterate Indian viewer was more profound than other forms of communication. The pessimistic reading of Shreya Singhal is that Parliament can enact medium-specific law as long as there is an intelligible differentia which could even be a technical difference-speed of transmission. However, the optimistic interpretation is that medium-specific law can only be enacted if there are medium-specific harms, e g, phishing, which has no offline equivalent. If the executive adopts the pessimistic reading, then draconian sections like 66A will find their way back into the IT Act. Instead, if they choose the optimistic reading, they will introduce bills that fill the regulatory vacuum that has been created by the striking down of S66A, that is, spam and cyberbullying.

Section 79

Section 79 was partially read down. This section, again introduced during the 2008 amendment, was supposed to give legal immunity to intermediaries for third party content by giving a quick redressal for those affected by providing a mechanism for takedown notices in the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules notified in April 2011. But the section and rules had enabled unchecked invisible censorship¹³ in India and has had a demonstrated chilling effect on speech¹⁴ because of the following reasons:

One, there are additional unconstitutional restrictions on speech and expression. Rule 3(2) required a standard "rules and regulation, terms and condition or user agreement" that would have to be incorporated by all intermediaries. Under these rules, users are prohibited from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that falls into different content categories, a majority of which are restrictions on speech which are completely out of the scope of Article 19(2). For example, there is an overly broad category which contains information that harms minors in any way. Information that "belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to" could be personal information or could be intellectual property. A much better intermediary liability provision was introduced into the Copyright Act with the 2013 amendment. Under the Copyright Act, content could be reinstated if the takedown notice was not followed up with a court order within 21 days.¹⁵ A counter-proposal drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society for "Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal," has a further requirement for reinstatement that is not seen in the Copyright Act.¹⁶

Two, a state-mandated private censorship regime is created. You could ban speech online without approaching the court or the government. Risk-aversive private intermediaries who do not have the legal resources to subjectively determine the legitimacy of a legal claim err on the side of caution and takedown content.

Three, the principles of natural justice are not observed by the rules of the new censorship regime. The creator of information is not required to be notified nor given a chance to be heard by the intermediary. There is no requirement for the intermediary to give a reasoned decision.

Four, different classes of intermediaries are all treated alike. Since the internet is not an uniform assemblage of homogeneous components, but rather a complex ecosystem of diverse entities, the different classes of intermediaries perform different functions and therefore contribute differently to the causal chain of harm to the affected person. If upstream intermediaries like registrars for domain names are treated exactly like a web-hosting service or social media service then there will be over-blocking of content.

Five, there are no safeguards to prevent abuse of takedown notices. Frivolous complaints could be used to suppress legitimate expressions without any fear of repercussions and given that it is not possible to expedite reinstatement of content, the harm to the creator of information may be irreversible if the information is perishable. Transparency requirements with sufficient amounts of detail are also necessary given that a human right was being circumscribed. There is no procedure to have the removed information reinstated by filing a counter notice or by appealing to a higher authority.

The judgment has solved half the problem by only making intermediaries lose immunity if they ignore government orders or court orders. Private takedown notices sent directly to the intermediary without accompanying government orders or courts order no longer have basis in law. The bench made note of the Additional Solicitor General's argument that user agreement requirements as in Rule 3(2) were common practice across the globe and then went ahead to read down Rule 3(4) from the perspective of private takedown notices. One way of reading this would be to say that the requirement for standardised "rules and regulation, terms and condition or user agreement" remains. The other more consistent way of reading this part of the order in conjunction with the striking down of 66A would be to say those parts of the user agreement that are in violation of Article 19(2) have also been read down.

This would have also been an excellent opportunity to raise the transparency requirements both for the State and for intermediaries: for (i) the person whose speech is being censored, (ii) the persons interested in consuming that speech, and (iii) the general public. It is completely unclear whether transparency in the case of India has reduced the state appetite for censorship. Transparency reports from Facebook, Google and Twitter claim that takedown notices from the Indian government are on the rise.¹⁷ However, on the other hand, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY) claims that government statistics for takedowns do not match the numbers in these transparency reports.¹⁸ The best way to address this uncertainty would be to require each takedown notice and court order to be made available by the State, intermediary and also third-party monitors of free speech like the Chilling Effects Project.

Section 69A

The Court upheld S69A which deals with website blocking, and found that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards, and, hence, not constitutionally infirm. In reality, unfortunately, website blocking usually by internet service providers (ISPs) is an opaque process in India. Blocking under S69A has been growing steadily over the years. In its latest response to an RTI (right to information)¹⁹ query from the Software Freedom Law Centre, DEITY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014. On 30 December 2014 alone, the centre blocked 32 websites to curb Islamic State of Iraq and Syria propaganda, among which were "pastebin" websites, code repository (Github) and generic video hosting sites (Vimeo and Daily Motion).²⁰ Analysis of leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests have revealed that the block orders are full of errors (some items do not exist, some items are not technically valid web addresses), in some cases counter speech which hopes to reverse the harm of illegal speech has also been included, web pages from mainstream media houses have also been blocked and some URLs are base URLs which would result in thousands of pages getting blocked when only a few pages might contain allegedly illegal content.²¹

Pre-decisional Hearing

The central problem with the law as it stands today is that it allows for the originator of information to be isolated from the process of censorship. The Website Blocking Rules provide that all "reasonable efforts" must be made to identify the originator or the intermediary who hosted the content. However, Gautam Bhatia offers an optimistic reading of the judgment, he claims that the Court has read into this "or" and made it an "and"-thus requiring that the originator must also be notified of blocks when he or she can be identified.²²

Transparency

Usually, the reasons for blocking a website are unknown both to the originator of material as well as those trying to access the blocked URL. The general public also get no information about the nature and scale of censorship unlike offline censorship where the court orders banning books and movies are usually part of public discourse. In spite of the Court choosing to leave Section 69A intact, it stressed the importance of a written order for blocking, so that a writ may be filed before a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While citing this as an existing safeguard, the Court seems to have been under the impression that either the intermediary or the originator is normally informed, but according to Apar Gupta, a lawyer for the People's Union for Civil Liberties, "While the rules indicate that a hearing is given to the originator of the content, this safeguard is not evidenced in practice. Not even a single instance exists on record for such a hearing."²³ Even worse, block orders have been unevenly implemented by ISPs with variations across telecom circles, connectivity technologies, making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.

Rule 16 under S69A requires confidentiality with respect to blocking requests and complaints, and actions taken in that regard. The Court notes that this was argued to be unconstitutional, but does not state their opinion on this question. Gautam Bhatia holds the opinion that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. Chinmayi Arun, from the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi, one of the academics supporting the petitioners, holds the opinion that it is optimism carried too far to claim that the Court noted the challenge to Rule 16 but just forgot about it in a lack of attention to detail that is belied by the rest of the judgment.

Free speech researchers and advocates have thus far used the RTI Act to understand the censorship under S69A. The Centre for Internet and Society has filed a number of RTI queries about websites blocked under S69A and has never been denied information on grounds of Rule 16.²⁴ However, there has been an uneven treatment of RTI queries by DEITY in this respect, with the Software Freedom Law Centre²⁵ being denied blocking orders on the basis of Rule 16. The Court could have protected free speech and expression by reading down Rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions wherein only aggregate information would be made available to affected parties and members of the public.

Conclusions

In Shreya Singhal, the Court gave us great news: S66A has been struck down; good news: S79(3) and its rules have been read down; and bad news: S69A has been upheld. When it comes to each section, the impact of this judgment can either be read optimistically or pessimistically, and therefore we must wait for constitutional experts to weigh in on the ripple effect that this order will produce in other areas of free speech jurisprudence in India. But even as free speech activists celebrate Shreya Singhal, some are bemoaning the judgment as throwing the baby away with the bathwater, and wish to reintroduce another variant of S66A. Thus, we must remain vigilant.

Notes

1 G S Mudur (2012): "66A 'Cut and Paste Job,'" The Telegraph, 3 December, visited on 3 April, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121 203/jsp/frontpage/story_16268138.jsp

2 Sunil Abraham (2012): "The Five Monkeys and Ice Cold Water," Centre for Internet and Society, 26 September, visited on 3 April 2015, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-chronicle-sep-16-201...

3 Gautam Bhatia (2015): "The Striking Down of 66A: How Free Speech Jurisprudence in India Found Its Soul Again," Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 26 March, visited on 4 April 2015, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/the-striking-down-of-sect...

4 Ramjilal Modi vs State of UP, 1957, SCR 860.

5 Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, 1962, AIR 955.

6 Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of UP, AIR, 1968 All 100.

7 S Rangarajan vs P Jagjivan Ram, 1989, SCC(2), 574.

8 Arup Bhuyan vs Union of India, (2011), 3 SCC 377.

9 Lawrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, personal communication to author, 6 April 2015.

10 K A Abbas vs Union of India, 1971 SCR (2), 446.

11 Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra,1965 SCR (1) 65.

12 Pranesh Prakash (2015): "Three Reasons Why 66A Verdict Is Momentous"/ Times of India/(29 March). Visited on 6 April 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matters/Th...

13 Pranesh Prakash (2011): "Invisble Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen," The Centre for Internet and Society, 14 December, visited on 6 April 2015, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/invisible-censorship

14 Rishabh Dara (2012): "Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet," The Centre for Internet and Society, 27 April, visited on 6 April 2015, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expres... .

15 Rule 75, Copyright Rules, 2013.

16 The Draft Counter Proposal is available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-i...

17 According to Facebook's transparency report, there were 4,599 requests in the first half of 2014, followed by 5,473 requests in the latter half. Available at https://govtrequests.facebook. com/country/India/2014-H2/ also see Google's transparency report available at http: //www.google. com/transparencyreport/removals/government/IN/?hl=en and Twitter's report, available at https:// transparency.twitter.com/country/in

18 Surabhi Agarwal (2015): "Transparency Reports of Internet Companies are Skewed: Gulashan Rai," Business Standard, 31 March, viewed on 5 April 2015, http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/transparency-re... .

19 http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reve...

20 "32 Websites Go Blank," The Hindu, 1 January 2015, viewed on 6 April 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/now-modi-govt-blocks-32-websites/a...

21 Pranesh Prakash (2012): "Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition)," 22 August, viewed on 6 April 2015, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-ri... . Also, see Part II of the same series at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-bl... and analysis of blocking in February 2013, at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analyzing-latest-list-of-b...

22 Gautam Bhatia (2015): "The Supreme Court's IT Act Judgment, and Secret Blocking," Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 25 March, viewed on 6 April 2015, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act...

23 Apar Gupta (2015): "But What about Section 69A?," Indian Express, 27 March, viewed on 5 April 2015, http://indianexpress. com/article/opinion/ columns/but-what-about-section-69a/

24 Pranesh Prakash (2011): DIT's Response to RTI on Website Blocking, The Centre for Internet and Society, 7 April, viewed on 6 April 2015, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking ). Also see http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-dit-response-2nd-... and http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/reply-to-rti-applicat...

25 http://sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RTI-blocking-final-reply-from-...

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a

The Supreme Court Judgment in Shreya Singhal and What It Does for Intermediary Liability in India?

jyoti — 2015-04-17T23:59:34Z

Even as free speech advocates and users celebrate the Supreme Court of India's landmark judgment striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, news that the Central government has begun work on drafting a new provision to replace the said section of the Act has been trickling in.

The SC judgement in upholding the constitutionality of Section 69A (procedure for blocking websites) and in reading down Section 79 (exemption from liability of intermediaries) of the IT Act, raises crucial questions regarding transparency, accountability and under what circumstances may reasonable restrictions be placed on free speech on the Internet. While discussions and analysis of S. 66A continue, in this post I will focus on the aspect of the judgment related to intermediary liability that could benefit from further clarification from the apex court and in doing so, will briefly touch upon S. 69A and secret blocking.

Conditions qualifying intermediary for exemption and obligations not related to exemption

The intermediary liability regime in India is defined under S. 79 and assosciated rules that were introduced to protect intermediaries for liability from user generated content and ensure the Internet continues to evolve as a “marketplace of ideas”. But as intermediaries may not have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression, they may end up erring on the side of caution and takedown lawful expression. As a study by Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in 2012 revealed, the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression.

S. 69A grants powers to the Central Government to “issue directions for blocking of public access to any information through any computer resource”. The 2009 rules allow the blocking of websites by a court order, and sets in place a review committee to review the decision to block websites as also establishes penalties for the intermediary that fails to extend cooperation in this respect.

There are two key aspects of both these provisions that must be noted:

a) S. 79 is an exemption provision that qualifies the intermediary for conditional immunity, as long as they fulfil the conditions of the section. The judgement notes this distinction, adding that “being an exemption provision, it is closely related to provisions which provide for offences including S. 69A.”

b) S. 69A does not contribute to immunity for the intermediary rather places additional obligations on the intermediary and as the judgement notes “intermediary who finally fails to comply with the directions issued who is punishable under sub-section (3) of 69A.” The provision though outside of the conditional immunity liability regime enacted through S. 79 contributes to the restriction of access to, or removing content online by placing liability on intermediaries to block unlawful third party content or information that is being generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted by them. Therefore restriction requests must fall within the contours outlined in Article 19(2) and include principles of natural justice and elements of due process.

Subjective Determination of Knowledge

The provisions for exemption laid down in S. 79 do not apply when they receive “actual knowledge” of illegal content under section 79(3)(b). Prior to the court's verdict actual knowledge could have been interpreted to mean the intermediary is called upon its own judgement under sub-rule (4) to restrict impugned content in order to seek exemption from liability. Removing the need for intermediaries to take on an adjudicatory role and deciding on which content to restrict or takedown, the SC has read down “actual knowledge” to mean that there has to be a court order directing the intermediary to expeditiously remove or disable access to content online. The court also read down “upon obtaining knowledge by itself” and “brought to actual knowledge” under Rule 3(4) in the same manner as 79(3)(b).

Under S.79(3)(b) the intermediary must comply with the orders from the executive in order to qualify for immunity. Further, S. 79 (3)(b) goes beyond the specific categories of restriction identified in Article 19(2) by including the term “unlawful acts” and places the executive in an adjudicatory role of determining the illegality of content. The government cannot emulate private regulation as it is bound by the Constitution and the court addresses this issue by applying the limitation of 19(2) on unlawful acts, “the court order and/or the notification by the appropriate government or its agency must strictly conform to the subject matters aid down in Article 19(2).”

By reading down of S. 79 (3) (b) the court has addressed the issue of intermediaries complying with takedown requests from non-government entities and has made government notifications and court orders to be consistent with reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). This is an important clarification from the court, because this places limits on the private censorship of intermediaries and the invisible censorship of opaque government takedown requests as they must and should adhere, to the boundaries set by Article 19(2).

Procedural Safeguards

The SC does not touch upon other parts of the rules and in not doing so, has left significant procedural issues open for debate. It is relevant to bear in mind and as established above, S. 69A blocking and restriction requirements for the intermediary are part of their additional obligations and do not qualify them for immunity. The court ruled in favour of upholding S. 69A as constitutional on the basis that blocking orders are issued when the executive has sufficiently established that it is absolutely necessary to do so, and that the necessity is relatable to only some subjects set out in Article 19(2). Further the court notes that reasons for the blocking orders must be recorded in writing so that they may be challenged through writ petitions. The court also goes on to specify that under S. 69A the intermediary and the 'originator' if identified, have the right to be heard before the committee decides to issue the blocking order.

Under S. 79 the intermediary must also comply with government restriction orders and the procedure for notice and takedown is not sufficiently transparent and lacks procedural safeguards that have been included in the notice and takedown procedures under S. 69. For example, there is no requirement for committee to evaluate the necessity of issuing the restriction order, though the ruling does clarify that these restriction notices must be within the confines of Article 19(2). The judgement could have gone further to directing the government to state their entire cause of action and provide reasonable level of proof (prima facie). It should have also addressed issues such as the government using extra-judicial measures to restrict content including collateral pressures to force changes in terms of service, to promote or enforce so-called "voluntary" practices.

Accountability

The judgement could also have delved deeper into issues of accountability such as the need to consider 'udi alteram partem' by providing the owner of the information or the intermediary a hearing prior to issuing the restriction or blocking order nor is an post-facto review or appeal mechanism made available except for the recourse of writ petition. Procedural uncertainty around wrongly restricted content remains, including what limitations should be placed on the length, duration and geographical scope of the restriction. The court also does not address the issue of providing a recourse for the third party provider of information to have the removed information restored or put-back remains unclear. Relatedly, the court also does not clarify the concerns related to frivolous requests by establishing penalties nor is there a codified recourse under the rules presently, for the intermediary to claim damages even if it can be established that the takedown process is being abused.

Transparency

The bench in para 113 in addressing S. 79 notes that the intermediary in addition to publishing rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access or usage of their service has to also inform users of the due diligence requirements including content restriction policy under rule 3(2). However, the court ought to have noted the differentiation between different categories of intermediaries which may require different terms of use. Rather than stressing a standard terms of use as a procedural safeguard, the court should have insisted on establishing terms of use and content restriction obligations that is proportional to the role of the intermediary and based on the liability accrued in providing the service, including the impact of the restriction by the intermediary both on access and free speech. By placing requirement of disclosure or transparency on the intermediary including what has been restricted under the intermediary's own terms of service, the judgment could have gone a step further than merely informing users of their rights in using the service as it stands presently, to ensuring that users can review and have knowledge of what information has been restricted and why. The judgment also does not touch upon broader issues of intermediary liability such as proactive filtering sought by government and private parties, an important consideration given the recent developments around the right to be forgotten in Europe and around issues of defamation and pornography in India.

The judgment, while a welcome one in the direction of ensuring the Internet remains a democratic space where free speech thrives, could benefit from the application of the recently launched Manila principles developed by CIS and others. The Manila Principles is a framework of baseline safeguards and best practices that should be considered by policymakers and intermediaries when developing, adopting, and reviewing legislation, policies and practices that govern the liability of intermediaries for third-party content.

The court's ruling is truly worth celebrating, in terms of the tone it sets on how we think of free speech and the contours of censorship that exist in the digital space. But the real impact of this judgment lies in the debates and discussions which it will throw open about content removal practices that involve intermediaries making determinations on requests received, or those which only respond to the interests of the party requesting removal. As the Manila Principles highlight a balance between public and private interests can be obtained through a mechanism where power is distributed between the parties involved, and where an impartial, independent, and accountable oversight mechanism exists.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sc-judgment-in-shreya-singhal-what-it-means-for-intermediary-liability

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age: Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia

jyoti — 2015-04-12T03:53:04Z

The Centre for Internet & Society cordially invites you to a panel discussion on Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age. The event organized by Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Observer Research Foundation and the Centre for Internet and Society will be held at Observer Research Foundation on April 21, 2015 from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

The discussion will highlight the challenges in promoting and strengthening online freedom of expression and evaluating the application of existing regulatory frameworks in South Asia. Click to view the invite.

International Frameworks and Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression-an important fundamental right in itself, is also critical for defending and upholding other freedoms and rights. We exercise this right in our day-to-day lives, through the exchange of ideas, opinions and information. Understanding the means and structures of communication, and the regulation of environments that facilitate such exchange therefore become crucial for those seeking to realize freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of both theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UDHR holds that " everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" . The ICCPR holds that, " everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Freedom of expression has also been enshrined in regional conventions and charters, for example the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights4, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights ("Banjul Charter") .

The former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, highlighted in his 2013 report report that these frameworks are applicable to actions that take place online.6 While there may be no disagreements on freedom of expression as a legal right, it is important to bear in mind that it is not a non-derogable right, and may therefore be limited subject to safeguards indicated, for example, in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

While there may be limitations are placed on the exercise of freedom of expression, there is limited clarity on when and how freedom of expression can be legitimately circumscribed. There have been attempts by civil society groups to articulate more clearly the specific conditions when freedom of expression may be derogated, most notably the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Siracusa Principles" ), and the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information ("Johannesburg Principles").

Freedom of Expression and Communications

Over the years, the norms and standards required for freedom of expression in the traditional media world have received much attention. When regulating communication, some restrictions upon freedom of expression have been regarded necessary and are enforceable by national or international courts. Such restrictions have been defined in international human rights laws and cover issues such as defamation, incitement to violence and hate speech. While these restrictions are not affected by the introduction of new means of communication, the proliferation of digital communications does warrant the recognition that there are new forms of censorship, unsettled questions of jurisdiction, and the need to develop new norms and standards that can keep pace with the myriad forms of expression and information sharing.

Communication in the digital age has led to the evolution of the Internet as a medium that has revolutionised largely local capacity for communication into a worldwide phenomenon that encompasses everything from personal one-to-one emails, social networks and reaching out to large audiences globally. The proliferation of digital technologies has not only fostered unprecedented access to information; the very environment stands transformed by the introduction of new kinds of information from voice, sound, image, text and code, that are accessible on a range of devices and across several types of technologies.

These networks and services democratized communication by lowering barriers to access and creating new space for publishing and peer-to-peer collaboration. Bypassing traditional gatekeepers of other forms of media, users can take on the role of writers, broadcasters or publishers on the Internet thus creating limitless possibilities for producing, sharing and exchanging all kinds of content. From this view, the Internet has sprung up as a globally accessible means of communication that is free from traditional restraints on free speech and expression. However, there are other unintended consequences that the Internet has had on both forms of power and control in the regulation of content, as online content has become increasingly contested, enclosed in a nationalized sphere challenging the free flow of information and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression in South Asia

As a network of networks, the internet has no overarching jurisdiction and with no single entity governing the totality of the internet, there exists a jurisdictional vacuum over content on the web. Further, there are no means of regulating content internationally or even a broad consensus on the norms that should be applied for restricting freedom of expression either on traditional or modern media. This has led to adverse consequences such as states adopting arbitrary actions and standards or companies exercising private censorship with content online.

South Asia has an important role in global development, with its share of the world's largest working-age population, a quarter of the world's middle-class consumers, the largest number of poor and undernourished in the world, and several fragile states of global geopolitical importance. With inclusive growth, South Asia has the potential to change the global order and communications and technology continue to play a critical role in realising the region's potential. Unfortunately, the history of colonial rule, authoritarian governments and a turbulent geo-political landscape have resulted in a tendency to over-regulate speech. Governments have construed the advent of the Internet as a challenge to their authority and their anxiousness to restrict use of the medium by citizens has resulted in often regressive and sometimes draconian laws such as Myanmar's Electronic Transactions Law, India's IT Act and Pakistan's Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

As the Internet expands and provides greater access, it also places censorship and surveillance capacities in the hands of states and corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections of the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women and the use of the Internet to spread rumours of violence, the regulation of content is a question that is far from being settled and needs our urgent attention. What role can and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social networks and ISPs? And what can users do to protect the right to free speech - their own and that of others?

Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated by the challenges of fast paced and changing regulatory environment. By highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening the right to freedom of expression, in India and beyond.

Introduction to panel and conference:

This is the context in which the Centre for Internet and Society, the Observer Research Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania's Internet Policy Observatory, and the Programme for Comparative Media Law and Policy at Oxford University are coming together to organise an event under the title 'Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age'. The event is a discussion and deliberation on 'Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia', aimed at bringing together policymakers, researchers, experts and civil society in discussing some of the most crucial issues in this space. The event would seek to look at past experiences, look at current realities and look ahead to how things could be made better in the South Asian context. The program agenda includes

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age' Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia
Program Agenda and Article Submission Tracks
Learnings from the past		Current Realities		Looking ahead
11:00 - 1:00	1:00 - 2:00	2:00 - 4:00	4:00- 4:15	4:15-6:00
Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions
Overview of existing policies and regulatory models and their impact on FoEx online including the implementation of these models across South Asia	Lunch	How FoEx is being enabled online in different jurisdications and sectors of society across South Asia	Coffee break	Challenges associated with formulating a standard, harmonized, and adaptable regulation that is applicable to multiple digital platforms, both at the national and international level and possible solutions
FoEx as defined in jurisdictions across South Asia and as compared to international standards		Ways in which FoEx is, or may be, curtailed online		Ways forward to bridge existing gaps between policy formation and policy implementation with respect to FOEX online
Emerging technologies, markets, services and platforms and how they have shaped FoEx across South Asia		Online FoEx and the present need to balance it against other digital rights in jurisdictions across South Asia		Exploration of emerging regulatory questions such as whether online speech should be regulated in the same manner as offline speech or, if there are there are particular forms of online speech that are difficult to regulate such as defamation, hate speech, if there are effective models of remedy for violation of FOEX online
Impact of challenges on FoEx online such as barriers of entry, access, accessibility, cost, liability, policies and enforcement mechanisms differing across platforms across South Asia		The impact of jurisdiction, multi-national platforms, and domestic regulation on FOEX online		Ways in which civil society can impact and influence the development and implementation of Internet regulation
Research techniques that have been applied to the issue and have been effective in different political contexts across South Asia		Role and responsibility of intermediaries in regulating online speech as per governmental standards via content policies, terms of service, and other practices across South Asia		Exploration of the future role and interplay of technology and policy in enabling FOEX online
Q&A		Q&A		Q&A

About the Organisers

The Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania-has created the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which these Internet governance debates take place. The IPO serves as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, and for displaying collected data and analysis. The Observatory encourages and sponsors research and studies ongoing events, key decisions and proposals, on Internet policy. The IPO seeks to deepen understanding of the evolution of mechanisms and processes that affect domestic Internet policies in key jurisdictions and the legal, political, economic, international and social factors that influence the implementation, or non-implementation, of such policies.The IPO also seeks to understand the relationship between national efforts and international policy formations and the role of civil society in domestic Internet policy processes and control.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)-is a non-profit research organization working to explore, understand and affect the shape and form of the Internet and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times. CIS' multidisciplinary research, intervention and collaboration engages with policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, openness (including open government data, free/open source software, open standards, open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, and open video). CIS also engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

The Observer Research Foundation (ORF)- is India's premier independent public policy think tank and is engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. It hosts India's largest annual cyber conference - CyFy: the India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-of-expression-in-digital-age

Smriti Irani brings back focus on voyeurism prevailing in our country

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T00:59:30Z

The case of Union minister Smriti Irani finding a CCTV camera at Goa's Fab India has again brought back the focus on digital voyeurism and how a critical issue like surveillance can be exploited. Irani's case comes days after a woman found a mobile phone strapped to a changing room door of a Van Heusen store in Lajpat Nagar's Central market, a popular shopping hub.

The article by Amrita Madhukalya was published in DNA on April 6, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

Bangalore girl Sumitra (name changed) remembers the day in 2009 she saw a camera when trying on a skirt at Palika Bazaar. "I looked around the tiny changing room and saw a camera with a dipping red light. I quickly rushed out and accused the shopkeeper. But, Palika is not a place of great repute, and my friend who was accompanying me asked me to forget the matter," she says, and that's what she did. She was a degree student at Delhi University, and being relatively unaware of the city, decided to keep mum. "But look at what has happened: if they can film a Union minister at a Fab India store, they will film anyone. We need stringent action."

One of the first cases of digital voyeurism was reported in Pune in 2003 when a peon in an establishment at Sahakar Nagar installed a web camera in a changing room. In 2005, landowner Mohan Kulkarni from Navi Peth was arrested for filming women tenants. In 2007, two MMS clips from the changing rooms of a renowned departmental store in Kolkata started making the rounds. In one, a girl was shown changing clothes while in the other a couple was shown having sex. Then a year later, shop assistant Sunil Kumar Jha was found filming women in a clothes store from below the trial room door in Kolkata.

Debarati Halder, advocate and founder of the Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling, feels that had it not been a politician like Irani, the case would not have been highlighted at all. "People would have brushed off the incident had it been another woman. It is hard to escape the amount of negative publicity a case like this garners," she says. This is reflected in the case of a woman who was filmed in a leading store in Mumbai and was scared to approach the police, as she and her father did not want to go through the "legal hassles" of the case. The woman spoke of her story to a journalist of a leading daily and the ensuing report eventually led to the arrest of the shop assistant.

Cyber security expert Pranesh Prakash says that digital voyeurism is a huge problem in India and elsewhere. "There is a mismatch between privacy protection provided in the IT Act against non-consensual sharing of certain forms of sexual images, and the utter disregard for privacy in other parts of the law. Given that cybercafes have often been places where users are secretly filmed, the law should seek to crack down on such invasions of privacy. Instead, the law doesn't prohibit that, and in fact the Cybercafe Rules, encourage cybercafe owners to photograph all users, including minors. The rules say that untrustworthy cybercafe owners keep these records for a minimum period of one year, but there is no maximum period," says Prakash.

Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, amended in 2008, deals with digital voyeurism. And section 354 (C) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voyeurism in general.

But, there are many loopholes. "When the footage is shot by a government-run establishment, then the clause of surveillance is a cover, like in an MMS of Delhi Metro (where a couple was shown making out)."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-april-6-2015-amrita-madhukalya-smriti-irani-brings-back-focus-on-voyeurism-prevailing-in-the-country

GSMA Research Outputs

elonnai — 2015-04-06T14:18:18Z

This is a collection of research under our GSMA project that we have undertaken in collaboration with Privacy International. The research has sought to understand different legal and regulatory aspects of security and surveillance in India and consists of blog entries and reports. Any feedback or comment is welcome.

Indian Law and the Necessary Proportionate Principles

The presentation shows that there are no comprehensive provisions for the principles of legitimate aim, competent judicial authority, proportionality, transparency, etc. whereas these are partially present for the principles of legality, necessity, adequacy, public oversight, safeguards for international cooperation, etc. The presentation also looks at the Indian intelligence agencies and shows us that there are nine agencies authorized to intercept communications along with at least eleven additional agencies. It further dwelves into the establishment and structure of Indian intelligence agencies and whom they report to, the sharing of information internationally as well as nationally. It shows us that India has MLAT agreements with 36 countries and request to CBI can be initiated informally or formally through court order. It then lists out the various regulatory and important bodies responsible for national security. Some cases of unlawful interception / leaks have been discussed along with examples of arrests based on digital evidence. The various government schemes, the telecommunication companies in India, telecom licenses requirements, government developed security and surveillance solutions, private security companies, security expos, export, import and selling of security and surveillance equipment, and the way forward are also discussed.

Click to download the PDF

Security, Surveillance and Data Sharing Schemes and Bodies in India

Following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India had implemented a wide range of data sharing and surveillance schemes. Though developed under different governments the purpose of these schemes has been to increase public safety and security by tackling crime and terrorism. As such, two data sharing schemes have been proposed - the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), as well as several surveillance systems, such as the Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) system, the Network Traffic Analysis system (NETRA), state Internet Monitoring Systems and the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This chapter details the various schemes and provides policy recommendations for their improvement, with regards to the protection of the right to privacy and other human rights.

Click to download the PDF

Export and Import of Security Technologies in India: QA

The write-up examines in question-answer format the standards regulating the export of technologies that can be used for surveillance purposes, the department and legislation that governs exports and imports of security technologies in India, the procedure for obtaining an export licence for the export of SCOMET items, what is ITC (HS) and why is it important, and examples of ITC codes for technologies that can facilitate security or surveillance. The research finds answers to all these queries.

Click to download the PDF

Regulation of CCTV’s in India

In light of the increasing use and installation of CCTV’s in cities across India, and the role that CCTVs play in the Home Ministry's plans for implementing "Mega Policing Cities", this blog seeks to review various attempts to regulate the use of CCTV's in India, review international best practices, and provide preliminary recommendations for the regulation of CCTV's in India.

Click to download the PDF

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Cross Border Sharing of Information in India

It is unclear the exact process that intelligence agencies in India share information with other agencies internationally. India is a member of Interpol and the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is a Federal/Central investigating agency functioning under the Central Government, Department of Personnel & Training is designated as the National Central Bureau of India.

Click to download the PDF

Composition of Service Providers in India

Telecom, at present, is one of the fastest-growing industries in India. As of January 2014, according to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) there are 922 million wireless and over the wire subscribers in India, and 56.90 million broadband subscribers including wired, wireless and wimax subscribers. India’s overall wireless teledensity was quoted as having 893.31million subscribers, with a 0.79% (7.02 million) monthly addition.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance and Security Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos

The ‘Spy Files’, a series of documents released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks over the last few years, exposed the tremendous growth of the private surveillance industry across the world – a multi-billion dollar industry thriving on increasing governmental and private capabilities for mass surveillance of individuals. These documents showed how mass surveillance is increasingly made possible through new technologies developed by private players, often exploiting the framework of nascent but burgeoning information and communication technologies like the internet and communication satellites.

Click to download the PDF

An Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India

In a technologically advanced era, with preponderance of electronic communications in both professional and social interactions and the ability to store such information in digital form, digital evidence has gained significance in civil as well as criminal litigation in India. In order to match the pace with the progressive technology, the Indian Courts have embarked on placing more and more reliance on the digital evidence and a portion of such digital evidence is obtained through electronic surveillance.

Click to download the PDF

Policy Recommendations for Surveillance Law in India and an Analysis of Legal Provisions on Surveillance in India and the Necessary & Proportionate Principles

The Government of India has created a legal framework which supports the carrying out of surveillance by authorities through its various laws and license agreements for service providers. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) acknowledges that lawful, warranted, targeted surveillance can potentially be a useful tool in aiding law enforcement agencies in tackling crime and terrorism. However, current Indian laws and license agreements appear to overextend the Government's surveillance capabilities in certain cases, while inadequately safeguarding individuals' right to privacy and data protection.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance Industry in India

India has the world's second largest population, an expanding middle class and undoubtedly a huge market which attracts international investors. Some of the world's largest corporations have offices in India, such as Google Incorporated and BlackBerry Limited. In the Information Age, the market revolves around data and companies which produce technologies capable of mining such data are on the rise. Simultaneously, companies selling surveillance technologies appear to be on the peak too, especially since the global War on Terror requires law enforcement agencies around the world to be equipped with the latest surveillance gear.

Click to download the PDF

State of Cyber Security and Surveillance in India: A Review of the Legal Landscape

The issue of cyber security and surveillance, especially unauthorised surveillance, though traditionally unprioritised, has recently gained much traction due to the increasing number of news reports regarding various instances of unauthorised surveillance and cyber crimes. In the case of unauthorised surveillance, more than the frequency of the instances, it is their sheer magnitude that has shocked civil society and especially civil rights groups. In the background of this ever increasing concern regarding surveillance as well as increasing concerns regarding cyber security due to the increased pervasiveness of technology in our society, this paper tries to discuss the legal and regulatory landscape regarding surveillance as well as cyber security.

Click to download the PDF

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gsma-research-outputs

The block heads

praskrishna — 2015-05-07T11:51:48Z

An entire government department is on the job, but can it really take down ‘offending’ online content?

The article by Sibi Arasu was published in the Hindu Businessline on April 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology’s (Deity) offices are as layered as its official website. From inside ‘Electronics Niketan’ at the Central Government Offices (CGO) complex in south Delhi, Deity’s army of director-generals, joint secretaries, department heads, scientists, clerks and staff of various grades and ranks keep an eye on how the country engages with the world wide web.

One set of cubicles is dedicated to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), the nodal agency meant to combat hacking, phishing and generally fortify the internet in India. This includes the task of blocking and unblocking websites. A rather complicated job in a country where, according to one senior government official, “it’s technically infeasible to completely block content. If it’s at the gateway level, then we can filter it out. But for videos and other similar content, it is just not possible to completely block them.”

No bandwidth

Be it the AIB roasts that were taken down from YouTube or the controversial documentary India’s Daughter, which was blocked within eight hours of going online, the CERT and other allied departments have been kept busy over the past few months.

In a classic example of how blocking can go wrong, more than 36 websites were taken down in December last year to “prevent the spread of ISIS propaganda” only to be unblocked within weeks. Like elsewhere in the world, the attempt to “protect” citizens had unwittingly ended up hurting legitimate websites, including video sharing sites vimeo.com, dailymotion.com and the reference site archive.org. It was embarrassingly similar to the Chinese government’s actions in 2010 when it blocked all images of empty chairs, stools and tables as it attempted to staunch discussions about Liu Xiabo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner that year, who was missing from the awards ceremony as he was incarcerated in China.

Terming such government actions as dangerous and Orwellian, Apar Gupta, a cyber law specialist in Delhi who appeared for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the PIL against Section 66A of the IT Act, says, “Any piece of content is contained within several file formats and obscured through technical devices like encryption, making its complete removal and eradication impossible.”

Internet freedom campaigners have maintained that Section 66A, which prescribed “punishment for sending offensive messages through a communication service”, was created solely to muzzle dissent and differences of opinion.

Although Section 66A was recently struck down, the law authorising blocking of content — namely, Section 69A — remains intact. The Central Government can block content it believes threatens the security of the State; the sovereignty, integrity or defence of India; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; or incites committing a cognisable offence related to any of the above. The government must, however, adhere to a set of procedures and safeguards, known as Blocking Rules.

“Larger, overbroad technical blocks can impede the functioning of the internet,” says internet policy analyst Raman Chima. “When a large website ‘blacklist’ and internet filter was proposed for Australia in 2009-10, research established that it would likely result in double-digit reductions in the internet’s speed and efficiency in that country.”

The ‘Streisand effect’, named after the Hollywood actress, is another common consequence of blocking. As Chima says, “Specific bans tend to be counterproductive and, more often than not, result in more awareness and interest in the banned content.”

Political manoeuvres

‘Ethical hacktivist’ and Hackers Hat founder Satish Ashwin sees banning and blocking as purely vote bank politics.

“Technically anything can be blocked or banned and it’s not a big deal, but the sheer volume of data uploaded makes it next to impossible to monitor and censor,” he says.

To those heralding the striking down of 66A as a victory for free speech, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, points to the larger picture. “Nobody is really aware of the scale of censorship in India. Thousands of websites are blocked under Section 69A, mostly due to the maximalist enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While 66A is gone, there are many other provisions within the IT Act that still regulate speech online. It is important to have quality laws drafted through an open, participatory process, where all stakeholders are consulted and responded to before bills are introduced in Parliament."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-businessline-april-3-2015-sibi-arasu-the-block-heads