Centre for Internet and Society

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical

pranesh — 2011-12-12T17:00:50Z

The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.

Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the IT Rules that have been in force since April 2011.

Background

The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the MCIT had been in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as 'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.

Concerns

One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the ICCPR and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.

Secrecy

It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.

Making intermediaries responsible

The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.) Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are. Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (Janhit Manch v. Union of India) and Madras (R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.

IT Rules, 2011

In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech. Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical

Intermediary liability law needs updating

sunil — 2019-02-13T00:05:30Z

The time has come for India to exert its foreign policy muscle. There is a less charitable name for intermediary liability regimes like Sec 79 of the IT Act — private censorship regimes.

The article was published in Business Standard on February 9, 2019.

Intermediaries get immunity from liability emerging from user-generated and third-party content because they have no “actual knowledge” until it is brought to their notice using “take down” requests or orders.

Since some of the harm caused is immediate, irreparable and irreversible, it is the preferred alternative to approaching courts for each case. When intermediary liability regimes were first enacted, most intermediaries were acting as common carriers — ie they did not curate the experience of users in a substantial fashion. While some intermediaries like Wikipedia continue this common carrier tradition, others driven by advertising revenue no longer treat all parties and all pieces of content neutrally. Facebook, Google and Twitter do everything they can to raise advertising revenues. They make you depressed. And if they like you, they get you to go out and vote. There is an urgent need to update intermediary liability law.

In response to being summoned by multiple governments, Facebook has announced the establishment of an independent oversight board. A global free speech court for the world’s biggest online country. The time has come for India to exert its foreign policy muscle. The amendments to our intermediary liability regime can have global repercussions, and shape the structure and functioning of this and other global courts.

While with one hand Facebook dealt the oversight board, with the other hand it took down APIs that would enable press and civil society to monitor political advertising in real time. How could they do that with no legal consequences? The answer is simple — those APIs were provided on a voluntary basis. There was no law requiring them to do so.

There are two approaches that could be followed. One, as scholar of regulatory theory Amba Kak puts it, is to “disincentivise the black box”. Most transparency reports produced by intermediaries today are on a voluntary basis; there is no requirement for this under law. Our new law could require a extensive transparency with appropriate privacy safeguards for the government, affected parties and the general public in terms of revenues, content production and consumption, policy development, contracts, service-level agreements, enforcement, adjudication and appeal. User empowerment measures in the user interface and algorithm explainability could be required. The key word in this approach is transparency.

The alternative is to incentivise the black box. Here faith is placed in technological solutions like artificial intelligence. To be fair, technological solutions may be desirable for battling child pornography, where pre-censorship (or deletion before content is published) is required. Fingerprinting technology is used to determine if the content exists in a global database maintained by organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation. A similar technology called Content ID is used pre-censor copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this is done by ignoring the flexibilities that exist in Indian copyright law to promote education, protect access knowledge by the disabled, etc. Even within such narrow application of technologies, there have been false positives. Recently, a video of a blogger testing his microphone was identified as a pre-existing copyrighted work.

The goal of a policy-maker working on this amendment should be to prevent repeats of the Shreya Singhal judgment where sections of the IT Act were read down or struck down. To avoid similar constitution challenges in the future, the rules should not specify any new categories of illegal content, because that would be outside the scope of the parent clause. The fifth ground in the list is sufficient — “violates any law for the time being in force”. Additional grounds, such as “harms minors in anyway”, is vague and cannot apply to all categories of intermediaries — for example, a dating site for sexual minorities. The rights of children need to be protected. But that is best done within the ongoing amendment to the POCSO Act.

As an engineer, I vote to eliminate redundancy. If there are specific offences that cannot fit in other parts of the law, those offences can be added as separate sections in the IT Act. For example, even though voyeurism is criminalised in the IT Act, the non-consensual distribution of intimate content could be criminalised, as it has been done in the Philippines.

Provisions that have to do with data retention and government access to that data for the purposes of national security, law enforcement and also anonymised datasets for the public interest should be in the upcoming Data Protection law. The rules for intermediary liability is not the correct place to deal with it, because data retention may also be required of those intermediaries that don’t handle any third-party information or user generated content. Finally, there have to be clear procedures in place for reinstatement of content that has been taken down.

Disclosure: The Centre for Internet and Society receives grants from Facebook, Google and Wikimedia Foundation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-february-9-2019-sunil-abraham-intermediary-liability-law-needs-updating

Webinar on counter-comments to the draft Intermediary Guidelines

Admin — 2019-02-22T01:51:19Z

CCAOI and the ISOC Delhi Chapter organised a webinar on February 11 to discuss the comments submitted to the Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018, and counter-comments that were due by February 14.

The agenda of the discussion was:

A brief introduction to the counter comment process [Shashank Mishra]
Invited stakeholders comment on key issues and perspectives on the submissions and the points to be countered.

The following people participated:

Amba Kak, Mozilla
Rajesh Chharia, ISPAI
Gurshabad Grover, CIS
Priyanka Chaudhari, SFLC
Divij Joshi, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/webinar-on-counter-comments-to-the-draft-intermediary-guidelines

Reading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:31:37Z

This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.

On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,[1] accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.[2] The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.

In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.

I have read and agree to the terms

In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",[3] however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.

Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?

Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change

A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.[4] Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.[5]

The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.

Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,[6] the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.

More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.[7] And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.

Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.

The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy[8], which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.

My right is bigger than yours

Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.

In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.[9] The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.[10] Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. [11]

Data and whose rights?

Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."[12] Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.[13] The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.

The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'[14]. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.

In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”[15] The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.

The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."

To blame or not to blame

Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.[16] The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.

Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.[17] He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.

The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.

Conclusion

Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.

In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).

The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

[1] 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills

[2] 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534

[3] 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701

[4] 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf

[5] 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/

[6] Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

[7] 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

[8] Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

[9] 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business

[10] Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/

[11] General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0

[12] Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf

[13] Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm

[14] European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties

[15] Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927

[16] 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550

[17] Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights

Minimising Legal Risks of Online Intermediaries while Protecting User Rights

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T07:50:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida on August 5, 2014, 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Jyoti Panday will be a panelist.

Thematic Area of Interest

Internet business in the Asia Pacific region

Consumer protection for users of global Internet services

Internet for socio-economic development

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Internet usage in the Asia Pacific region has been growing at a phenomenal rate and online service providers have benefited enormously from this growth. However, the region poses challenges for online service providers in terms of legal risks involved with respect to user generated content. Across the world from Europe to the US, it has been an accepted policy that service providers on the Internet cannot be held liable for user-generated content and this principle has found place in legislations enacted in this field in most countries. However, the Asian region has often seen blocking of services and websites due to user-generated content that is deemed to be illegal. There needs to be a debate on safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and the take-down provisions in legislations to ensure that the right to freedom of expression of citizens are protected while maintaining an environment that permits innovation in this space.

The workshop will also consider the different classes of intermediaries, how they differ functionally and if their differing roles should bear an impact on their responsibility with regards to protection of rights of users. Traditional models of consumer protection are based on distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of suppliers, facilitators and consumers. While developing consumer protection models for online intermediary platforms, their evolving roles and responsibilities as a supplier and a facilitator need to be considered. Intermediary platforms have also created and highlighted new consumer relations and issues that call for robust and fluid reddressal mechanisms.

The need to reflect on reddressal mechanisms for consumer issues pertaining to online intermediaries is also necessary, given the economic implications associated with intermediary liability. Failure to protect intermediaries stems innovation and restricts growth of start-ups and small to medium enterprises in the digital economy and has negative financial implications. Moreover, intermediaries are crucial in connecting developing countries to global markets and a failure to protect them, creates a barrier to information exchange and capacity building.

The panel will discuss the following issues:

Take-down procedures and Put-back provisions used in various countries in the region
Safe-harbour provisions for intermediaries
Need for classification of Intermediaries for the purpose of a take-down regime and user rights
Rights of users of services provided by online intermediaries
Recommendations for a balanced intermediary liability regime

Expected Format and Confirmed Panel Members

The workshop will be a ninety minute panel divided in two sessions of forty five minutes each. The proposed panel includes:

Mishi Choudhary (Moderator) SFLC.IN Civil Society India
Mishi Choudhary is the founding director of SFLC India. She started working with SFLC in New York following the completion of her fellowship during which she earned her LLM from Columbia Law School and was a Stone Scholar. In addition to her LLM, she has an LLB and a bachelors degree in political science from the University of Delhi, India.

Jyoti Panday, Center for Internet and Society, Civil Society, India
Jyoti Panday is Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society working on Internet governance and on issues related to the role and responsibility of intermediaries in protecting user rights and freedom of expression. She has experience in strategy, campaign management and research on issues and processes related to the development agenda, sustainability and democracy. She has completed her MSc in Public Policy from Queen Mary, University of London.

Shahzad Ahmed, Bytes for All Pakistan, Civil Society, Pakistan
Shahzad Ahmad is the Country Coordinator of Bytes for All, Pakistan and founder of the Digital Rights Institute (DRI). He is currently working on issues of ICT policy advocacy, internet rights and freedom of expression. He is a development communications expert and is at the forefront of the Internet Rights movement in Pakistan.

Mr. Ahmad is a Diplo Fellow, Executive Board Member of the Association for Progressive Communications, Advisory Board Member of .PK ccTLD and a member of the International Advisory Board of Privacy International, UK. He regularly contributes to various publications and research studies on ICTs for development, freedom of expression and gender related issues. Widely travelled, he regularly participates in various forums at local, regional and global level. Mr. Ahmad maintains a strong engagement with broader civil society networks and strongly believes in participation and openness.

Professor KS Park, Korea University Law School Professor
One of the founders of Open Net Korea, Professor Park has written and is active in internet, free speech, privacy, defamation, copyright, international business contracting, etc. He has given expert testimonies in high-profile free speech cases including the /Minerva /case, the internet real name verification case, the military’s subversive book blacklisting case, the newspaper consumers’ boycott case, and the Park Jung-Geun Retweet case. As a result, the “false news” crime and the internet real name verification laws were struck down as unconstitutional, Park Jung-Geun and Minerva acquitted, the soldiers challenging book blacklisting reinstated, the newspaper boycotters acquitted partially as to the “secondary boycotting” charge (2010-2013).

Since 2006, he serves as the Executive Director of the PSPD Law Center, a non-profit entity that has organized several impact litigations in the areas of free speech, privacy, and copyright. There, the Law Center won the world’s first damage lawsuit against a copyright holder for “bad faith” takedown (2009) and the first damage lawsuit against a portal for warrantless disclosure of the user identity data to the police (2012).

Arvind Gupta, National Head-Information and Technology, Government/ BJP Political party, India
National Head, BJP Information Technology Cell

Faisal Farooqui, CEO, MouthShut.com, Private Sector, India
Faisal Farooqui is a highly recognized entrepreneur who is among the trailblazers of his generation. Faisal has founded and managed two successful Internet and technology companies -MouthShut.com, India's largest consumer review and social media portal and Zarca Interactive, a Virginia based enterprise survey and feedback company.

Ramanjit Singh Chima, Google, Private Sector, India
Raman Jit Singh Chima serves as Policy Counsel and Government Affairs Manager for Google, based in New Delhi. He currently helps lead Google'spublic policy and government affairs work in India. He is a graduate of the Bachelors in Arts and Law (Honours) programme of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. While at the National Law School, he was Chief Editor of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. He has studied Internet regulation as an independent research fellow with the Sarai programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and contributed to Freedom House's 2009 Freedom on the Internet report.

Apar Gupta, Legal, India
Apar Gupta is a practicing lawyer in Delhi working as a Partner at the law firm of Advani & Co. His practice areas include, commercial litigation and arbitration with a focus on technology and media. Apar as a retained counsel, represents an internet industry organisation in government affairs, including consultations on draft laws and policies which effect the sector. These issues include legal risks of intermediaries, media freedom and consumer rights. He has completed his masters in law from Columbia Law School, New York and has written columns for the Business Standard, Indian Express and the Pioneer on legal issues. Apar also is a visiting faculty at National Law University, Delhi.

Full Name, Affiliation and Contact Details of the Workshop Organizer

The workshop will be jointly organised by SFLC.IN and the Centre for Internet & Society, India. The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:

Name: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN I
E: mishi@softwarefreedom.org
Jyoti Panday—Centre for Internet & Society, India
E: jyoti@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights

Constitutional Analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules, 2011

ujwala — 2012-10-31T08:44:41Z

Ujwala Uppaluri provides a constitutional analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011, and examines its compatibility with Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary of Salient Provisions

The Information Technology (Intermediaries’ Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (‘the Intermediary Guidelines’) were notified in April, 2011 as rules enacted in exercise of powers conferred under section 87(2)(zg) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended) (‘the IT Act’).

Rule 2 of the Intermediary Guidelines imports definitions for key terms from the IT Act. Notably, this includes an importation of Section 2 (w) by Rule 2 (i), which defines “intermediary” broadly in the following terms:

“ “intermediary”, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;”

Rule 3 whose margin note indicates that it is limited to due diligence measures to be adhered to by intermediaries nevertheless also raises other liabilities by creating a regime to censor content, pre-publication as well as once content has been made publically available online.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 inventories the classes of content which are deemed actionable, with only clause (i), clause (c), clause (e) and, arguably clause (h), of that rule addressing the national interest, public order and security restrictions cognizable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The remainder of grounds includes private claims such as content which “belongs to another person”[1], or otherwise infringes proprietary rights[2], or is “defamatory”[3]. Still others are terminologically indeterminate and purely subjective, with the terms “grossly harmful”, “harassing” and “disparaging” being examples.

This sub-rule also includes a number of redundancies. While there is reference to libelous as well as defamatory content in clause (b), it is well established that Indian law does not admit of the former concept, instead dissolving the common law distinction between the two to treat them alike.[4] There is also clause (e), which prohibits content which is all ready illegal for violating the provisions of an existing statute and the residuary phrasing of the clause (b)’s reference to content which is “otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever”.

The sub-rules immediately following the list in Rule 3(2) address the consequences of users publishing content listed in that rule:

Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that intermediaries will not knowingly deal in any manner whatsoever, whether by hosting, publication, transmission or otherwise, with any content of the types that are listed in the previous clause.

Sub-rule (4) of rule 3 creates a complaints mechanism in respect of content incompatible with Rule 3 (2) by requiring intermediaries to disable access to offending content within 36 hours of obtaining knowledge themselves or on being brought to “actual knowledge” by an “affected person”. The Intermediaries Guidelines do nothing to clarify what would amount to “actual knowledge”, to indicate in unambiguous terms, which parties would have sufficient locus to bring complaints in order to be deemed an “affected person” for the purposes of these provisions or to suggest that there is a procedure or timeline for action by the intermediary, such that requirements such notice to the author of the content and time for the preparation of a defence by the author and/or the intermediary are accounted for. Rule 3 (4) also requires that all information which is taken down be preserved, along with “associated records” for a duration of atleast ninety days for investigative purposes.

Sub-rule (5) of rule 3 mandates that intermediaries inform users that non-compliance with the Intermediary Guidelines, inter alia, is a ground for the exercise of their right to terminate access or usage rights and remove non-compliant content.

Finally, sub-rule (11) of rule 3 requires intermediaries to name Grievance Officers to receive complaints on any matters relating to the computer resources made available by the intermediary, including for non-compliance or harm in terms of Rule 3 (2). This officer is bound to respond to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.

In the result, the Intermediary Guidelines create a two-track system by which private censorship is legitimized online. In the first place, intermediaries can take down content on their own motion where they are of the opinion that the content falls under any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3 (2) or, alternatively, do so in response to a complaint, in terms of Rule 3 (4).

In addition to the provisions relating to censorship, the Intermediary Guidelines also provide for information to be given over to government agencies making a request with lawful authority and in writing under sub-rule (7) of rule 3, for data protection measures in accordance with the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Information) Rules, 2011 notified under Section 43A of the IT Act to be adhered to (sub-rule (8) of rule 3) and for intermediaries to report and share information realting to cyber security with CERT-In (sub-rule (9) of rule 3).

Areas of Infirmity

It is doubtful whether the Intermediary Guidelines could pass constitutional muster, on several grounds:

Compatibility with Article 19 (1) (a) and (2)

(a) Applicability of Article 19 (2) to Rule 3 (2) Grounds

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[5] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom to propogate and disseminate ideas. It also held that very narrow and stringent limits govern the permissibility of legislative abridgment of the right of free speech. Ordinarily, any abridgement of free speech by means of censorship must be compatible with one or more of the grounds provided for under Article 19 (2), and the Supreme Court held in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India[6]that limitations on the exercise of the Article 19(1)(a) right which do not fall within Article 19(2) cannot be upheld.

Further, the right to free speech applies across all media, and the internet is no exception. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal[7], the Supreme Court reflected the understanding that where media are different, such that the treatment accorded to them must be different in accordance with that indicia of difference, it will treat them as such in order to uphold fundamental rights. More specifically, in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court opined (in obiter) that the internet, as a unique medium of expression, deserved a different standard of protection than other mediums that have preceded it.

Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines, which lists the grounds for censorship, is not complaint with Article 19 (2) for two reasons:

First, many of the grounds mentioned have no constitutional basis whatsoever. Rule 3 (2) prohibits, inter alia, content which “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”, in addition to content which is simply illegal, and should be actionable ex post rather than prohibited ex ante (content infringing intellectual property under Rule 3 (2) (d), for example). Most of the terms employed are not legal standards, but merely subjective indicators of personal sensitivities, while still others though legal do not figure in Article 19 (2). Since the whole scheme of the Intermediary Guidelines is premised on these extra-constitutional grounds, they are, as a whole, subject to being to being struck down.

Second, the restriction is unreasonable because instead of preserving rights online in accordance with Ajay Goswami, the Intermediary Guidelines unjustifiably abridge the right to speak and receive information on the internet. The Intermediary Guidelines overreach in their scope, by including as actionable content which is not itself punishable when communicated via any other medium. For example, disparaging speech, as long as it is not defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and cannot be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Similarly, content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.

(b) Nature of Censorship: Directness of Censorship and Legitimacy of Private and Prior Censorship

In judging whether a statute is constitutional, the effect that the statute will have on the fundamental rights of citizens must be examined. The Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[9] that the test was to examine whether the effect of an impugned action was to abridge a fundamental right, notwithstanding its object.

Further, while it is true in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India[10] that pre-censorship is permissible within the Indian constitutional scheme, this permissibility is qualified. Prior censorship may be undertaken only within closely regulated circumstances, such as under the grounds in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and even then, only by an appropriately empowered governmental entity.

The Intermediary Guidelines create mechanisms for the abridgement of the freedom of speech which amount to indirect and unjustifiable prior censorship, contrary to Article 19 (2):

Firstly, while the state does not itself censor under these rules, it has empowered private, commercial entities to do so vide the Intermediary Guidelines. These rules thus transfer the executive power of censorship to private intermediaries. This amounts to an indirect form of censorship for the purposes of the Bennett Coleman test and has the result of increased censorship on the Internet because the state granted legislative sanction to such a system, although it does not censor by itself or through a state agency. The Intermediary Guidelines, and specifically Rule 3 (4) read with Rule 3 (2), place a burden on intermediaries to decide on the lawfulness of content as a pre-condition for their statutory exemption from liability. An intermediary, on receiving a complaint, to ensure that it continues to receive the protection offered by Section 79 of the IT Act, will be forced to disable access to the content posted by a user. Thus, the direct effect of the rules will be strict censoring of content posted on-line by users. The rules will have a direct effect on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, that are imposed by a statute or executive orders are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Secondly, while prior censorship is permissible only in a strictly limited range of cases, the Intermediary Guidelines allow for an unrestrained and unlimited degree of prior and arguably invisible censorship. Rule 3 of the Intermediary Guidelines clearly envisages such a system of prior censorship. Whereas the consequences for passively displaying content incompatible with Rule 3(2) would be a complete waiver and dissolution of the Section 79 immunity that would ordinary accrue to neutral intermediaries, intermediaries or complainants have no obligation in respect of ensuring the tenability of complaints and the grounds cited in them. The Intermediary Guidelines do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request. Further, the inclusion of a residuary clause in Rule 3 (2) (b) allowing pre-censorship of content which is “unlawful in any manner whatever”, also indicates that the Intermediary Guidelines allow the use of the exceptional instrument of not only allows private censorship, but that they actively encourage it as the default rule rather than the exception without any justification whatsoever.

(c) Vagueness and Overbreadth: Possibility for Over-Censorship

Vagueness in the terms of a restriction to free speech is grounds for it to be struck down, even where the ground is apparently broadly constitutional. The Supreme Court held in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[11] that the Constitution must be interpreted in order to enable citizens to enjoy their rights to fullest measure, subject to limited permissible restrictions. In Romesh Thapar[12] the Supreme Court also held that a legislation authorizing the imposition of restrictions on free speech in language wide enough to cover restrictions which are permissible as well as extra-constitutional will be held to be wholly unconstitutional.

The grounds listed in Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines are highly subjective, private interest grounds which are not defined either in the Intermediary Guidelines or in the IT Act itself. These include terms such as “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. Consequently, the Intermediary Guidelines constitute unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, with Rule 3 (2) containing vague terms which, in addition to falling beyond the purview of Article 19(2), cover only private and subjective grounds, incapable of objective definition or application.

Further, the Intermediary Guidelines do no precisely define the term “affected person” employed in Rule 3 (4). Thus, complaints from any party, including those uninvolved or unaffected by content must all be complied with, without qualification.

In the result, the vagueness of the grounds in Rule 3 (2) and the diffuse terminology of “affected person” leaves Rule 3 (2) grounds serving as placeholders for whatever claim a complainant, having no locus whatsoever, chooses to bring, without regard for whether it is constitutional or even legal. Online content is thus treated as presumptively illegal and take down of content as the presumptive course of action. Additionally, there is a further consequence to the vagueness and overbreadth of the terms in Rule 3 (2): because of the indeterminacy in the grounds listed thereunder, intermediaries tasked with enforcing the law will tend to err on the side of caution and censor, rather than keep speech accessible online. There is empirical evidence to show that cautious intermediaries will over-censor and over comply with complaints in order to avoid liability under Section 79 of the IT Act.[13]

(d) Contravention of International Human Rights Norms & Horizontal Application

The censorship regime constructed by the Intermediary Guidelines is non-compliant not only with domestic requirements under the Constitution, but also with India’s obligations under international human rights law under Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), under the UN Human Rights Council’s Report of the Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (2011)[14](‘Special Rapporteur’s Report’) and the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet Freedom (2012)[15] (‘UN Internet Freedom Resolution’).

While the ICCPR as well as the UDHR guarantee a right to free speech “through any…media of…choice” in their respective Articles 19, the Special Rapporteur’s Report and the UN Internet Freedom Resolution recognize the need for special efforts to be undertaken by states to preserve free speech on the internet. The former document justifies censorship only in the most limited circumstances and makes specific mention of the commercial interests that may be implicated in delivering free speech.

Through the Intermediary Guidelines, the Indian state creates a system by which the right to free speech can be systematically violated by private and undisclosed entities and even empowers them to do so, without imposing any constitutional safeguards whatsoever. Thus, egregious violations of the right to free speech and expression are a direct and inevitable consequence of the Intermediary Guidelines. To the degree that the Indian Supreme Court has enagaged with free speech online, it appears from Ajay Goswami that it would apply standards consistent with international law obligations to rectify the Intermediary Guidelines to meet them.

Further, the Indian Supreme Court has held, where necessary for their true enjoyement, that fundamental rights may involve a degree of horizontality in their application. In other words, private action could be guided by fundamental rights, such as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[16] which evidences the Supreme Court’s willingness to hold that private entities could be held to constitutional and international human rights law standards where that is necessary for the real rather than illusory enjoyment of fundamental rights.

As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines are also liable to be struck down for their failure to recognize and account for the role of private interests while empowering them with the right to curtail fundamental rights.

Compatibility with Article 21

(a) Adverse Impact on Privacy (and consequently on Free Speech)

A constitutional right to privacy has been read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty in several instances by the Supreme Court. The State is consequently under an obligation to refrain from interfering, whether by itself or through any of its agencies, with private lives and spaces. By the same coin, laws which encourage unwarranted state or societal intrusions into private life will contravene the victim’s Article 21 right. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[17] the Supreme Court held that Article 21 privacy protected individuals against the interception and monitoring of private communications by the state in the absence of sufficient safeguards.

Also, an individual’s privacy interests in information relating to him are not dissolved merely because information is not confidential or because another entity has some property interest in that information. In District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank[18], the Supreme Court recognized that even where the search of private documents was concerned, Article 21 protected “persons not places”, i.e., that the privacy interest did not vest in property or communications but, rather, in the rightsholder himself.

The Intermediary Guidelines include no limits whatsoever on the scope of disclosures that government agencies can demand or expect to retain, in contravention of Article 21.

Specifically, Rule 3 (4), which requires data retention for a statutory minimum of ninety days of content taken down as well as “associated records”, violates users’ rights to privacy. In addition to the financial and technical burden (in storing and securing data) imposed by the Intermediary Guidelines in requiring potentially unlimited data retention by intermediaries, there is no clarity as to what or how much information precisely must be held in the form of “associated records”. Instead of subjecting data to limited and closely qualified retention by private intermediaries, and thus limiting the impairment of the fundamental right to privacy to the minimum possible degree necessary, Rule 3 (4) imposes blanket data retention requirements.

Further, Rule 3 (7), which makes any information held by an intermediary subject to being disclosed to the government upon request is also inconsistent with the requirement that the right to life and personal liberty be violated only in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedures. Notwithstanding that Rule 3 (7) is consistent with Section 67C of the IT Act and specific rules framed in regard to the surveillance of communications, it is also unconstitutional because it fails to include any safeguards whatsoever in the process of surveillance. These would include, as minimum obligatory conditions in light of PUCL, the requirement that the surveilled be informed of the surveillance and be allowed to challenge its propriety ex ante or its procedural regularity ex post, or atleast administrative or judicial review ex parte.

(b) Non-compliance with Due Process and Natural Justice Requirements

Article 21 explicitly includes a due process guarantee. This means that the right to life and personal liberty, and its constituent rights, can be interfered with only through constitutionally consistent procedures. A cornerstone of fair procedure, compliant with the rule of law, is the notion of natural justice. Consequently, Article 21 contemplates that the procedure by which fundamental rights are curtailed will satisfy natural justice principles.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[19] the Supreme Court held that natural justice was not a rigid or mechanical term, but one that referred to those practices and principles that would ensure “fair play in action”. In addition the Court held that all deviations from natural justice requirements must be supported by a sufficiently justificatory “compelling state interest”. Specifically, in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel[20], the Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram partem rule, which consisted of several requirements, including the requirement that a person against whose detriment an action is taken be informed of the case against him and be afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond. Finally, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[21] the Supreme Court held that the absence of due notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond would vitiate any holding to the rightsholder’s detriment.

The Intermediary Guidelines fail to satisfy the requirement of natural justice, and particularly the rights to prior notice as well as that of the affected party to a hearing:

By requiring that content be taken down swiftly (within 36 hours of complaint, under Rule 3 (4)) and by failing to require the author of the content to be informed of the complaint and its contents, the Intermediary Guidelines violate the author’s right to notice and consequently affect his/her right to prepare and present a defence at all. In practice, authors of content which is the subject of a complaint may never know of the complaint or even of the fact of the take down, given the absence of any mechanism under the rules by which they could have been informed. In a scheme for silent, invisible censorship, authors are never afforded an opportunity to challenge the take down, just as they have no opportunity to rebut the initial complaint. In addition, at any event, it is the intermediary, a biased private entity whose immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act could be called into question based on the outcome, who must make the determination as to the legality of the content.

While there is nothing to prohibit intermediaries from informing authors on the receipt of a complaint, the limited time within which action must be taken means that such intermediaries would risk liability for non-compliance with the compliant and a waiver of their Section 79 immunity, where the content is not taken down, whether because communication does not occur within the 36 hour timeframe or because an author elects to resist takedown. By creating a system in which takedowns necessarily occur in response to complaints, irrespective of their legitimacy, the Intermediary Guidelines presume and rule in favour of the complainants and in favour of (private) censorship instead of presuming in favour of the preservation of the fundamental right to free speech, or even maintaining neutrality between the two ends.

Compatibility with Article 14

The guarantee of “equal protection of laws” requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that that persons differently situated cannot be treated alike. In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[22] the Supreme Court held that arbitrary or unfair actions necessarily run counter to Article 14. The Supreme Court explained in M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[23] that arbitrary actions are actions which are unreasonable, non-rational done capriciously or without adequate determining principle, reason or in accordance with due judgment. In addition, Article 14 also requires that state action be reasonable. In Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation[24] it was held that discretion must be exercised objectively, and that what is not fair or just will be unreasonable, and subject to being struck down as unconstitutional.Additionally, Article 14 also requires that the basis upon which classifications are undertaken for the purposes of same or differential treatment be reasoned and fair. The Supreme Court held in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana[25] that the state’s failure to support a classification on the touchstone of reasonability, with the existence of intelligible differentia or the rational basis of achieving a stated object, will be ground for it to be held arbitrary and unreasonable. Finally, all state action having the potential to curtail Article 14 must be reasonable, justifiable, undertaken in exercise of constitutional powers and be informed and guided by public interest. The Supreme Court held to this effect in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[26].

The Intermediary Guidelines contravene Article 14 on the following grounds:

First, intermediaries who are not similarly situated are treated alike. Rule 2 (i) imports the IT Act’s omnibus definition of the term “intermediary”, such that all classes of intermediaries, ranging from intermediaries which control the architecture of the internet and the hardware which enables it to run (such as ISPs and DNS providers) to intermediaries that enable content creation, sharing and communications online (such as email clients, content aggregators, social networking services and content hosts), are empowered to censor and are required to comply with complaints regarding content. Intermediaries, for the purposes of the IT Act and the Intermediary Guidelines, thus refer to a large and disparate group of providers of services enabling access to as well as use of the Internet. Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14.

Second, the Intermediary Guidelines treat the same or similar content across media differently, without apparent justification. More specifically, users of the internet are unfairly discriminated against. All of the Rule 3 (2) grounds which are not explicitly mentioned in Article 19 (2) in particular reflect this discriminatory, unreasoned treatment. To illustrate, the prohibition under Rule 3 (2) on the display of any content online when it relates to gambling treats speakers using the internet differently from speakers communicating this content via any other medium of communication. Given that nothing in the nature of the medium itself attaches a new or different character to the content, criminality or liability must attach to such content in a medium-neutral fashion. So, while content qualifying as seditious under law remains so across media, whether it be print, audio or video broadcast or online, the same as not the case for communications on the internet. In other words, while gambling itself may be prohibited under law, speech or expression involving it is nowhere prohibited under law. While such content is legal and protected across print and broadcasting media, the same content is liable to take down online. This would amount to discriminatory treatment of equal content merely because speakers choose the internet, and the speech occurred online.

Third, the Intermediary Guidelines accord unrestrained discretion in the curtailment of fundamental rights to private functionaries, without any guidance whatsoever. This should have been the sole reserve of the state. In addition to the lack of guidance, the breadth of the grounds for censorship in Rule 3 (2), some of which are themselves incapable of precise and non-subjective application, means that private censorship can occur to an arguably unlimited degree. Expecting compliance with such terms, and attaching liability (for intermediaries) or a curtailment of fundamental rights (for generators of content), without the provision of a right to challenge or even, more fundamentally, be informed is both unreasonable and arbitrary.

Similarly, Rules 3 (4) and 3 (5) empower intermediaries to take down content without providing any realistic opportunity of hearing to its author. Intermediaries are accorded an adjudicatory role to the intermediary in deciding questions whether or not authors can access their fundamental right to free speech in the process. This role is ordinarily reserved for competent courts or administrative authorities, which are subject to constitutional checks and balances and a general obligation to preserve and promote fundamental rights. Assigning such functions to a self-interested private entity without any accountability whatsoever is both unreasonable as well as arbitrary.

Finally, the Intermediary Guidelines fail to account for the public interest because they directly restrict the public’s freedom of speech and expression, without any justifiable reason, and privilege the personal and not necessarily constitutional sensitivities of private complainants instead. Rule 3(3) in effect vests an extraordinary power of censorship in intermediaries, entities which operate on the basis of private interest and outside the limits of administrative or even the most basic human rights control. Safeguards must apply to power-bearers to the degree and in the manner required in relation to the nature of the power, rather than its holder, if fundamental rights are to be legislatively preserved. While the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[27] extended the applicability of natural justice principles from judicial bodies alone and quasi-judicial bodies to administrative bodies as well, the applicability of such principles still remains limited to state entities. In other words, there is an acknowledged difficulty in applying public law standards to private, commercial entities.

The Intermediary Guidelines thus vest the right to abridge core fundamental rights (under Articles 14, 19 and 21) in private delegates operating outside public law controls that constrain the scope in which the power can be exercised and ensure that citizen interest can be preserved. In the alternative, they also failed to provide for other safeguards to prevent abuse to the detriment of fundamental rights private delegates of governmental power, even as they granted such powers in unlimited terms. As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines evidence thoughtless, arbitrary, unreasoned and unjust state action.

Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

While it is permissible within the constitutional scheme for legislative functions of the Parliament to be delegated to a degree, they may be struck down on several grounds. In general, per Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,[28] subordinate legislation can be challenged not only on any of grounds on which the parent legislation is vulnerable to challenge, but also on the grounds that it does not conform to parent statute, that it is contrary to other statutes or that it is unreasonable, in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. Notably, the Court also held here that subordinate legislation is liable to being struck down where it fails to conform to constitutional requirements, or, specifically that “it offends Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution”.

It is a well-accepted proposition that delegated legislation which travels outside the scope of its enabling law will not stand as valid. It was held in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd [29] that a delegate cannot alter the scope of the act under which it has been it has been empowered to make rules, or even of a provision or principle included there under. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[30] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”. Similarly, in KSEB v. Indian Aluminium Company[31], it held that“subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule making power provided in the statute”.

The Intermediary Guidelines were enacted under Sections 79(2) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended). While the latter provision explicitly grants the Central Government rule-making powers by which it can lay out guidelines to be followed by intermediaries in order to comply with Section 79(2), it appears that the rules in their current form appear to have been drafted based on a misunderstanding of Section 79.

Section 79(2) itself merely clarifies the circumstances in which intermediaries can claim that intermediaries are not liable for content where they do not initiate the transmission of potentially actionable content or select its recipient, modify its contents and observe all necessary “due diligence” requirements under the IT Act and rules.

The extent to which the Intermediary Guidelines alter the intent and scope of section 79 (or other provisions of the IT Act, in some cases) clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent statute. The specific instances of deviation by the Intermediary Guidelines from the IT Act are listed below:

First, Rule 3 (3) is ultra vires section 79 of the IT Act. Where this rule expressly prohibits the hosting, publication or initiation of transmission of content described in Rule 3 (2), section 79 does not intend any prohibition. All that it does is to waive the immunity otherwise accorded to intermediaries where the conditions specified are not satisfied. In other words, the section is optional, rather than mandatory and punitive: whether or not an intermediary can claim immunity will depend on whether it chooses to comply with section 79 (2).

Second, Rule 3 (4) requires intermediaries to take steps to disable access to within 36 hours of receiving a complaint in relation thereto. This is inconsistent with section 69B of the IT Act, which lays down in detail, the procedure to be followed to disable access to information. Since section 69B is statutory law, Rule 3 (4), being mere delegated legislation, will have to yield in its favour.

Third, Rule 3 (7) is ultra vires sections 69 and 69B, and falls outside the scope of section 79 (2). Rule 3 (7) provides that intermediaries must comply with requests for information or assistance when required to do so by appropriate authorities. This provision has no relation to the contents of section 79, which regulates intermediaries’ liability for content, and under which these rules were notified. In addition, rules have already been issued under the properly relevant sections, namely sections 69 and 69B, to provide a procedure to be followed by the government for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of information held by intermediaries. Rule 3 (7) is not consistent with the rules under sections 69 and 69B, as it removes all safeguards that those rules included. Under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption) Rules 2009, for instance, permission must be obtained from the competent authority before an intermediary can be directed to provide access to its records and facilities while Rule 3 (7) makes intermediaries answerable to virtually any request from any government agency.

[1]. Rule 3 (2) (a).

[2]. Rule 3 (2) (d).

[3]. Rule 3 (2) (b)

[4]. Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Defamation” is defined to include both written and spoken words).

[5]. AIR 1950 SC 124.

[6]. AIR 1958 SC 578.

[7]. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

[8].(2007) 1 SCC 170.

[9]. AIR 1973 SC 106.

[10]. (2011) 8 SCC 372.

[11]. AIR 1962 SC 305, ¶31.

[12]. Supra, n.5.

[13]. Centre for Internet & Society, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 available at cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf.

[14]. UN Document no. A/HRC/17/27.

[15]. UN Document no. A/HRC/20/.13.

[16]. AIR 1997 SC 3011.

[17]. AIR 1997 SC 568.

[18]. (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[19]. 1978 SCR (2) 621.

[20]. AIR 1985 SC 1416.

[21]. AIR 1999 SC 2583.

[22]. AIR 1974 SC 555.

[23]. AIR 2002 SC 322.

[24]. AIR 1993 SC 935.

[25]. (2001) 7 SCC 545, 548, ¶10.

[26].1980 AIR 1992.

[27]. AIR 1970 SC 150.

[28]. AIR 1986 SC 515.

[29]. AIR 1997 SC 2502.

[30]. (1983) 2 SCC 40.

[31]. AIR 1976 SC 1031.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules

Summary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015

jyoti — 2015-11-30T10:47:13Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

I. The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy at the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015. The discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of intellectual property within and across borders were availability of local applications and content were addressed. The panel also discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies could make the most effective contribution. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of development and promotion of local content and applications. List of speakers included:

Lenni Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations
Helani Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia
Sergio Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson
Raúl L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics, Columbia Institute of Tele-information
Jimson Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)
Lydia Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO
H.E. Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology, Indonesia
Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of State
Deputy Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for the republic of South Africa
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
H.E. Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology Minister of Bangladesh
Jari Arkko, Chairman, IETF
Silvia Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association
Gary Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental Organizations, ITU

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /igf 2015-main -sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room

Video link Internet economy and Sustainable Development here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8

II. Public Knowledge organised a workshop on The Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data at Workshop Room 5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions including ways to address them. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The panel for the workshop included the following.

Vint Cerf, Google
Lawrence Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Richard Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol
Marietje Schaake, European Parliament
Nasser Kettani, Microsoft
Sunil Abraham, CIS India

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /workshops /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ

III. Article 19 and Privacy International organised a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015. The workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools. Pranesh Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The panel for this workshop included the following.

David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Juan Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia
Edison Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Ted Hardie, Google
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe
Professor Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute
Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /worksh o ps /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo

IV. Chalmers & Associates organised a session on A Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating and a full spectrum of diverse views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh Prakash provided a detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different approaches to zero-rating. The panellists for this session were the following.

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2

V. The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation at Workshop Room 4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Anne Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
Eileen Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
Byron Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
Christopher Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
Sunil Abraham Executive Director, CIS India
Alice Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Will Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google
Dunja Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE
Thomas Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German Federal Foreign Office
Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
Matt Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4

Video link Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0

VI. The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00 – 15:30 on 12 November, 2015. The coalition brought together panelists to highlight the challenges in developing an accountability framework for internet governance venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Robin Gross, IP Justice
Jeanette Hofmann, Director Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Farzaneh Badiei, Internet Governance Project
Erika Mann, Managing Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors ICANN
Paul Wilson, APNIC
Izumi Okutani, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Keith Drazek , Verisign
Jyoti Panday, CIS
Jorge Cancio, GAC representative

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w

VII. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at Workshop Room 3 from 11:00 – 12:00 on 10 November, 2015. The open forum discussed the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. It brought together panelists topresent ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers included

Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX, NL
Pranesh Prakash CIS, India
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)

Detailed description of the open forum is available here http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ

VIII. UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers include

1. Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo

2.Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

3. Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community

4. Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO

5. Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19

6. Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali

7. Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

8. Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS

9. Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra

10. Representative GNI

11. Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

12. Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link to the panel is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

IX. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize a workshop on the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The workshop elaborated on the Manila Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability for intermediaries for third party content. The workshop saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Kelly Kim Open Net Korea,
Jyoti Panday, CIS India,
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19,
Rebecca McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO
Giancarlo Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University
Will Hudson, Google

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs

ACCESSIBILITY

X. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs organised a workshop on Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility at Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The discussion focused on the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Sunil Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The panelists for this discussion were the following.

Francesca Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT
Cid Torquato, Government of Brazil
Carlos Lauria, Microsoft Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Derrick L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region
Fernando H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting
Gunela Astbrink, GSA InfoComm

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3

Video Link Empowering the next billion by improving accessibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs

OPENNESS

XI. A workshop on FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13 November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to openness of the internet and the ability of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred different perspectives about the future co-development of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards, open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated networks. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Satish Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India
Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa
Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York
Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation
Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant
Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil
Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil
Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015

How India Makes E-books Easier to Ban than Books (And How We Can Change That)

pranesh — 2012-02-21T11:50:56Z

Without getting into questions of what should and should not be unlawful speech, Pranesh Prakash chooses to take a look at how Indian law promotes arbitrary removal and blocking of websites, website content, and online services, and how it makes it much easier than getting offline printed speech removed.

E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books, And Safer

Contrary to what Mr. Sibal's recent hand-wringing at objectionable online material might suggest, under Indian laws currently in force it is far easier to remove material from the Web, by many degrees of magnitude, than it is to ever get them removed from a bookstore or an art gallery. To get something from a bookstore or an art gallery one needs to collect a mob, organize collective outrage and threats of violence, and finally convince either the government or a magistrate that the material is illegal, thereby allowing the police to seize the books or stop the painting from being displayed. The fact of removal of the material will be noted in various records, whether in government records, court records, police records or in newspapers of record. By contrast, to remove something from the Web, one needs to send an e-mail complaining about it to any of the string of 'intermediaries' that handle the content: the site itself, the web host for the site, the telecom companies that deliver the site to your computer/mobile, the web address (domain name) provider, the service used to share the link, etc. Under the 'Intermediary Guidelines Rules' that have been in operation since 11th April 2011, all such companies are required to 'disable access' to the complained-about content within thirty-six hours of the complaint. It is really that simple.

"That's ridiculous," you think, "surely he must be exaggerating." Think again. A researcher working with us at the Centre for Internet and Society tried it out, several times, with many different intermediaries and always with frivolous and flawed complaints, and was successful six out of seven times . Thus it is easier to prevent Flipkart or Amazon from selling Rushdie's Midnight's Children than it is to prevent a physical bookstore from doing so: today Indira Gandhi wouldn't need to win a lawsuit in London against the publishers to remove a single line as she did then; she would merely have to send a complaint to online booksellers and get the book removed. It is easier to block Vinay Rai's Akbari.in (just as CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com was recently blocked) than it is to prevent its print publication. Best of all for complainants: there is no penalty for frivolous complaints such as those sent by us, nor are any records kept of who's removed what. Such great powers of censorship without any penalties for their abuse are a sure-fire way of ensuring a race towards greater intolerance, with the Internet — that republic of opinions and expressions — being a casualty.

E-Book Bans Cannot Be Challenged

In response to some of the objections raised, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology, ever the dutiful guardian of free speech, noted that if you have a problem with access to your content being 'disabled', you could always approach a court and get that ban reversed. Unfortunately, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology forgot to take into account that you can't contest a ban/block/removal if you don't know about it. While they require all intermediaries to disable access to the content within thirty-six hours, they forgot to mandate the intermediary to tell you that the content is being removed. Whoops. They forgot to require the intermediary to give public notice that content has been removed following a complaint from person ABC or corporation XYZ on such-and-such grounds. Whoops, again.

So while records are kept, along with reasons, of book bans, there are no such records required to be kept of e-book bans.

E-Book Censors Are Faceless

Vinay Rai is a brave man. He is being attacked by fellow journalists who believe he's disgracing the professional upholders of free-speech, and being courted by television channels who believe that he should be encouraged to discuss matters that are sub judice. He is viewed by some as a man who's playing politics in courts on behalf of unnamed politicians and bureaucrats, while others view him as being bereft of common-sense for believing that companies should be legally liable for not having been clairvoyant and removing material he found objectionable, though he has never complained to them about it, and has only provided that material to the court in a sealed envelope. I choose, instead, to view him as a scrupulous and brave man. He has a face, and a name, and is willing to openly fight for what he believes in. However, there are possibly thousands of unscrupulous Vinay Rais out there, who know the law better than he does, and who make use not of the court system but of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, firmly assured by those Rules that their censorship activities will never be known, will never be challenged by Facebook and Google lawyers, and will never be traced back to them.

Challenging Invisible Censorship

Dear reader, you may have noticed that this is a bit like a trial involving Free Speech in which Free Speech is presumed guilty upon complaint, is not even told what the charges against it are, has not been given a chance to prove its innocence, and has no right to meet its accusers nor to question them. Yet, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology continues to issue press releases defending these Rules as fair and just, instead of being simultaneously Orwellian and Kafkaesque. These Rules are delegated legislation passed by the Department of Information Technology under s.79 of the Information Technology Act. The Rules were laid before Parliament during the 2011 Monsoon session. We at CIS believe that these Rules are *ultra vires* the IT Act as well as the Constitution of India, not only with respect to what is now (newly) proscribed online (which in itself is enough to make it unconstitutional), but how that which is purportedly unlawful is to be removed. We have prepared an alternative that we believe is far more just and in accordance with our constitutional principles, taking on best practices from Canada, the EU, Chile, and Brazil, while still allowing for expeditious removal of unlawful material. We hope that the DIT will consider adopting some of the ideas embodied in our draft proposal.

As Parliament passed the IT Act in the midst of din, without any debate, it is easy to be skeptical and wonder whether Rules made under the IT Act will be debated. However, I remain hopeful that Parliament will not only exercise its power wisely, but will perform its solemn duty — borne out of each MP's oath to uphold our Constitution — by rejecting these Rules.

Photo credit: Lynn Gardner, under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence*

This was reproduced in Outlook Magazine on 27 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-ebooks-easier-to-ban-than-books

A Deep Dive into Content Takedown Timeframes

torsha — 2020-06-26T11:59:06Z

Since the 1990s, internet usage has seen a massive growth, facilitated in part, by growing importance of intermediaries, that act as gateways to the internet. Intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), web-hosting providers, social-media platforms and search engines provide key services which propel social, economic and political development. However, these developments are also offset by instances of users engaging with the platforms in an unlawful manner. The scale and openness of the internet makes regulating such behaviour challenging, and in turn pose several interrelated policy questions.

In this report, we will consider one such question by examining the appropriate time frame for an intermediary to respond to a government content removal request. The way legislations around the world choose to frame this answer has wider ramifications on issues of free speech and ease of carrying out operations for intermediaries. Through the course of our research, we found, for instance:

An one-size-fits-all model for illegal content may not be productive. The issue of regulating liability online contain several nuances, which must be considered for more holistic law-making. If regulation is made with only the tech incumbents in mind, then the ramifications of the same would become incredibly burdensome for the smaller companies in the market.
Determining an appropriate turnaround time for an intermediary must also consider the nature and impact of the content in question. For instance, the Impact Assessment on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online cites research that shows that one-third of all links to Daesh propaganda were disseminated within the first one-hour of its appearance, and three-fourths of these links were shared within four hours of their release. This was the basic rationale for the subsequent enactment of the EU Terrorism Regulation, which proposed an one-hour time-frame for intermediaries to remove terrorist content.
Understanding the impact of specific turnaround times on intermediaries requires the law to introduce in-built transparency reporting mechanisms. Such an exercise, performed periodically, generates useful feedback, which can be, in turn used to improve the system.

Corrigendum: Please note that in the section concerning 'Regulation on Preventing the Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online', the report mentions that the Regulation has been 'passed in 2019'. At the time of writing the report, the Regulation had only been passed in the European Parliament, and as of May 2020, is currently in the process of a trilogue.

Disclosure: CIS is a recipient of research grants from Facebook India.

Click to download the research paper by Torsha Sarkar (with research assistance from Keying Geng and Merrin Muhammed Ashraf; edited by Elonnai Hickok, Akriti Bopanna, and Gurshabad Grover; inputs from Tanaya Rajwade)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/torsha-sarkar-november-30-2019-a-deep-dive-into-content-takedown-timeframes

To regulate Net intermediaries or not is the question

sunil — 2012-08-26T06:12:48Z

Given the disruption to public order caused by the mass exodus of North-Eastern Indians from several cities, the government has had for the first time in many years, a legitimate case to crackdown on Internet intermediaries and their users.

Sunil's column was published in the Deccan Herald on August 26, 2012.

There was, of course, much room for improvement in the manner in which the government conducted the censorship. But the policy question that becomes most pertinent now is: do we need to regulate Internet intermediaries further? The answer is yes and no.

There are areas where these intermediaries need to be regulated in order to protect citizen and consumer interest. But to deal with rumour-mongering and hate speech, there is sufficient provisions in Indian law to deal with the current disruption in public order and any similar disruptions in the future.

It is a common misunderstanding to assume that all civil society organisations that advocate civil liberties on networked technologies are regulatory doves that wish to dismantle regulation of the private sector and allow them complete free hand for innovation and, perhaps, causing harm to public interest.

The opposite is also not necessarily true. We are not hawks, those that believe in maximal regulation of the private sector. The state should regulate the private sector in areas where the citizens are unable to protect their own interest and self-regulation is inadequate. But there are many other areas where regulation needs to be dismantled in the interests of citizen and public interest.

Dr Rohan Samarajiva, founder of a Colombo-based regional policy think tank LIRNEasia, explains this best using the ‘law of soft toys’. When his daughter was young he told her that in Sri Lanka there was a law which mandated that every time she got a new soft toy, she would have to necessarily give away another one.

The regulatory lesson here is: the mandate for regulation cannot keep endlessly expanding. As the government moves into new areas of regulation, it should also exit other older areas where regulatory rupee is providing limited returns. These decisions should be based on evidence of harm caused to citizens and consumers. The following are a list of areas where regulation is required for Internet intermediaries:

Privacy: India needs the office of the privacy commissioner established and an articulation of national privacy principles through the enactment of the long awaited Privacy Act. This privacy commissioner should be able to investigate complaints against intermediaries, proactively investigate companies, order remedial action and fine companies that violate the principles and other policies in force. Remedial action could require change in policies, features, data retention policies and services etc.

Competition: Many of these intermediaries have been taken to court on anti-trust complaints, fined and subjected to remedial action by regulators in America and Europe.

Earlier this year, BharatMatrimony.com has filed a complaint against Google at the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging anti-competitive practices in its Adwords program. In addition, based on a report submitted by Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), a civil society organisation, CCI has initiated an investigation into Google's search engine for anti-competitive practices. If they are found guilty of breaking competition law they could be fined up to 10 per cent of their turnover.

Speech: Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits Parliament to enact laws that place eight categories of reasonable restrictions on speech. Unfortunately, the Information Technology Act and its associated rules attempts to expand these restrictions and in addition does not comply with the principles of natural justice. Ideally, all those impacted by the censorship should be informed and should be able to seek redress and reinstatement for the censured speech.

The policy sting operation conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) last year demonstrated that intermediaries are risk-averse and tend to over-comply with takedown notices. There is a clear chilling effect on speech online and it is important that the Act and rules be amended at the earliest.

Intellectual Property: Policies that fall under this inappropriate umbrella term for many differently configured laws make the yet unproven fundamental assumption that granting limited monopolies to rights holders, usually corporations, will result in greater innovation. However, citizen and consumer interest is protected through provisions for exceptions and limitations in laws such as copyright, patent, trademarks etc. Some examples of these safeguards that guarantee access to knowledge in Indian law include compulsory licences, patent opposition, fair-dealing etc.

There are many other areas where special treatment may be required for intermediaries. For example tax law needs to handle evasion techniques like the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich. Given my lengthy wish-list of regulation of Internet intermediaries, why then has CIS become an NGO member of the Global Network Initiative?

This is because I believe that technological development happen too quickly for us to purely depend on government regulation. Self-regulation has an important role to play in keeping up with these rapid changes. As self-regulatory norms mature they could be formalised into policy by the government.

Therefore, I consider it a privilege that CIS has been accepted as a member of this self-regulatory initiative and we influence GNI norms using our Indian perspective. However, when self-regulation fails to protect public interest, then the government must step in to regulate Internet intermediaries.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-herald-aug-26-2012-to-regulate-net-intermediaries-or-not-is-the-question

Rethinking the intermediary liability regime in India

torsha — 2019-08-16T01:49:47Z

The article consolidates some of our broad thematic concerns with the draft amendments to the intermediary liability rules, published by MeitY last December.

The blog post by Torsha Sarkar was published by CyberBRICS on August 12, 2019.

Introduction

In December 2018, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) released the Intermediary Liability Guidelines (Amendment) Rules (“the Guidelines”), which would be significantly altering the intermediary liability regime in the country. While the Guidelines has drawn a considerable amount of attention and criticism, from the perspective of the government, the change has been overdue.

The Indian government has been determined to overhaul the pre-existing safe harbour regime since last year. The draftversion of the e-commerce policy, which were leaked last year, also hinted at similar plans. As effects of mass dissemination of disinformation, propaganda and hate speech around the world spill over to offline harms, governments have been increasingly looking to enact interventionist laws that leverage more responsibility on the intermediaries. India has not been an exception.

A major source of these harmful and illegal content in India come through the popular communications app WhatsApp, despite the company’s enactment of several anti-spam measures over the past few years. Last year, rumours circulated on WhatsApp prompted a series of lynchings. In May, Reuters reported that clones and software tools were available at minimal cost in the market, for politicians and other interested parties to bypass these measures, and continue the trend of bulk messaging.

These series of incidents have made it clear that disinformation is a very real problem, and the current regulatory framework is not enough to address it. The government’s response to this has been accordingly, to introduce the Guidelines. This rationale also finds a place in its preliminarystatement of reasons.

While enactment of such interventionist laws has triggered fresh rounds of debate on free speech and censorship, it would be wrong to say that such laws were completely one-sided, or uncalled for.

On one hand, automated amplification and online mass circulation of purposeful disinformation, propaganda, of terrorist attack videos, or of plain graphic content, are all problems that the government would concern itself with. On the other hand, several online companies (including Google) also seem to be in an uneasy agreement that simple self-regulation of content would not cut it. For better oversight, more engagement with both government and civil society members is needed.

In March this year, Mark Zuckerberg wrote anop-ed for the Washington Post, calling for more government involvement in the process of content regulation on its platform. While it would be interesting to consider how Zuckerberg’s view aligns with those similarly placed, it would nevertheless be correct to say that online intermediaries are under more pressure than ever to keep their platforms clean of content that is ‘illegal, harmful, obscene’. And this list only grows.

That being said, the criticism from several stakeholders is sharp and clear in instances of such law being enacted – be it the ambitious NetzDG aimed at combating Nazi propaganda, hate speech and fake news, or the controversial new European Copyright Directive which has been welcomed by journalists but has been severely critiqued by online content creators and platforms as detrimental against user-generated content.

In the backdrop of such conflicting interests on online content moderation, it would be useful to examine the Guidelines released by MeitY. In the first portion we would be looking at certain specific concerns existing within the rules, while in the second portion, we would be pushing the narrative further to see what an alternative regulatory framework may look like.

Before we jump to the crux of this discussion, one important disclosure must be made about the underlying ideology of this piece. It would be unrealistic to claim that the internet should be absolutely free from regulation. Swathes of content on child sexual abuse, or terrorist propaganda, or even the hordes of death and rape threats faced by women online are and should be concerns of a civil society. While that is certainly a strong driving force for regulation, this concern should not override the basic considerations for human rights (including freedom of expression). These ideas would be expanded a bit more in the upcoming sections.

Broad, thematic concerns with the Rules

A uniform mechanism of compliance

Timelines

Rule 3(8) of the Guidelines mandates intermediaries, prompted by a court order or a government notification, to take down content relating to unlawful acts within 24 hours of such notification. In case they fail to do so, the safe harbour applicable to them under section 79 of the Information Technology Act (“the Act”) would cease to apply, and they would be liable. Prior to the amendment, this timeframe was 36 hours.

There is a visible lack of research which could rationalize that a 24-hour timeline for compliance is the optimal framework, for all intermediaries, irrespective of the kind of services they provide, or the sizes or resources available to them. As Mozilla Foundation has commented, regulation of illegal content online simply cannot be done in an one-size-fits-all approach, nor can regulation be made with only the tech incumbents in mind. While platforms like YouTube can comfortably remove criminal prohibited content within a span of 24 hours, this still can place a large burden on smaller companies, who may not have the necessary resources to comply within this timeframe. There are a few unintended consequences that would arise out of this situation.

One, sanctions under the Act, which would include both organisational ramifications like website blocking (under section 69A of the Act) as well as individual liability, would affect the smaller intermediaries more than it would affect the bigger ones. A bigger intermediary like Facebook may be able to withstand a large fine in lieu of its failure to control, say, hate speech on its platform. That may not be true for a smaller online marketplace, or even a smaller online social media site, targeted towards a very specific community. This compliance mechanism, accordingly, may just go on to strengthen the larger companies, and eliminating the competition from the smaller companies.

Two, intermediaries, in fear of heavy criminal sanctions would err on the side of law. This would mean that the decisions involved in determining whether a piece of content is illegal or not would be shorter, less nuanced. This would also mean that legitimate speech would also be under risk from censorship, and intermediaries would pay less heed to the technical requirements or the correct legal procedures required for content takedown.

Utilization of ‘automated technology’

Another place where the Guidelines assume that all intermediaries operating in India are on the same footing is Rule 3(9). This mandates these entities to proactively monitor for ‘unlawful content’ on their platforms. Aside the unconstitutionality of this provision, this also assumes that all intermediaries would have the requisite resource to actually set up this tool and operate it successfully. YouTube’s ContentID, which began in 2007, has already seen a whopping 100 million dollars investment by 2018.

Funnily enough, ContentID is a tool exclusively dedicated to finding copyright violation of rights-holder, and even then, it has been proven to be not infallible. The Guidelines’ sweeping net of ‘unlawful’ content include far many more categories than mere violations of IP rights, and the framework assumes that intermediaries would be able to set up and run an automated tool that would filter through all these categories of ‘unlawful content’ at one go.

The problems of AI

Aside the implementation-related concerns, there are also technical challenges related with Rule 3(9). Supervised learning systems (like the one envisaged under the Guidelines) use training data sets for pro-active filtering. This means if the system is taught that for ten instances of A being the input, the output would be B, then for the eleventh time, it sees A, it would give the output B. In the lingo of content filtering, the system would be taught, for example, that nudity is bad. The next time the system encounters nudity in a picture, it would automatically flag it as ‘bad’ and violating the community standards.

Except, that is not how it should work. For every post that is under the scrutiny of the platform operators, numerous nuances and contextual cues act as mitigating factors, none of which, at this point, would beunderstandable by a machine.

Additionally, the training data used to feed the system can be biased. A self-driving car who is fed training data from only one region of the country would learn the customs and driving norms of that particular region, and not the patterns that apply across the intended purpose of driving throughout the country.

Lastly, it is not disputed that bias would be completely eliminated in case the content moderation was undertaken by a human. However, the difference between a human moderator and an automated one, would be that there would be a measure of accountability in the first one. The decision of the human moderator can be disputed, and the moderator would have a chance to explain his reasons for the removal. Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is identified by the algorithmic ‘black box’ that processes inputs, and generates usable outputs. Implementing workable accountability standards for this system, including figuring out appeal and grievance redressal mechanisms in cases of dispute, are all problems that the regulator must concern itself with.

In the absence of any clarity or revision, it seems unlikely that the provision would actually ever see full implementation. Neither would the intermediaries know what kind of ‘automated technology’ they are supposed to use for filtering ‘unlawful content’, nor would there be any incentives for them to actually deploy this system effectively for their platforms.

What can be done?

First, more research is needed to understand the effect of compliance timeframes on the accuracy of content takedown. Several jurisdictions are operating now on different timeframes of compliance, and it would be a far more holistic regulation should the government consider the dialogue around each of them and see what it means for India.

Second, it might be useful to consider the concept of an independent regulator as an alternative and as a compromise between pure governmental regulation (which is more or less what the system is) or self-regulation (which the Guidelines, albeit problematically, also espouse through Rule 3(9)).

The UK White Paper on Harms, a piece of important document in the system of liability overhaul, proposes an arms-length regulator who would be responsible for drafting codes of conduct for online companies and responsible for their enforcement. While the exact merits of the system is still up for debate, the concept of having a separate body to oversee, formulate and also possiblyarbitrate disputes regarding content removal, is finding traction in several parallel developments.

One of the Transatlantic Working Group Sessions seem to discuss this idea in terms of having an ‘internet court’ for illegal content regulation. This would have the noted advantage of a) formulating norms of online content in a transparent, public fashion, something previously done behind closed doors of either the government or the tech incumbents and b) having specially trained professionals who would be able to dispose of matters in an expeditious manner.

India is not unfamiliar to the idea of specialized tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies for dealing with specific challenges. In 2015, for example, the Government of India passed the Commercial Courts Act, by which specific courts were tasked to deal with matters of very large value. This is neither an isolated instance of the government choosing to create new bodies for dealing with a specific problem, nor would it be inimitable in the future.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to moderation of content on the web. However, in light of these parallel convergence of ideas, the appeal of an independent regulatory system as a sane compromise between complete government control and laissez-faireautonomy, is worth considering.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cyber-brics-august-12-2019-torsha-sarkar-rethinking-the-intermediary-liability-regime-in-india

The Take Down of Free Speech Online

praskrishna — 2014-04-06T05:19:50Z

As part of a study to access rate of compliance, in 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore sent frivolous “take down” requests to seven prominent intermediaries. The study showed exactly how easy it is to take down online content.

This was published in Newslaundry on April 1, 2014. CIS research on Intermediary Liabilities is quoted.

CIS found that six out of the seven intermediaries “over complied” with the notices. Facts such as these about intermediary liability were discussed in a panel discussion “Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression in India” in Delhi on March 27, 2014 organised by Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University in collaboration with the Global Network Initiative.

The panel also included Professor Ranbir Singh, Vice Chancellor of NLU, Jermyn Brooks (Independent Chair – Global Network Initiative, Washington DC), Shyam Divan (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India) and SiddharthVaradarajan (Journalist). They discussed proxy censorship by government through private players and how e-business’ lose out on opportunities because of the current legal framework in the country within which intermediaries have to function.

According to Section 2(1)(w) of The Information Technology Act, 2000, “intermediary”- with respect to any particular electronic message -signifies any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message.According to Rishab Dara, recipient of the Google policy Fellowship 2011, in an article titled, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, “intermediaries are widely recognised as essential cogs in the wheel of exercising the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. Most major jurisdictions around the world have introduced legislations for limiting intermediary liability in order to ensure that this wheel does not stop spinning”.

The “safe harbor”or what is also known asIntermediary Liability Laws according to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act are given below:

Intermediaries not to be Liable in Certain Cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if—

(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or

(b) the intermediary does not—

(i) initiate the transmission,

(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and

(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if—

(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or othorise in the commission of the unlawful act;

(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

Under the Act, the intermediary needs to act on a complaint within 36 hours of a take down notice -failing which they will be liable to legal action if the case is taken to the court.

Shyam Divan spoke about the absurdity of the 36-hour turnaround time that an intermediary has between receiving a complaint and taking down the content. According to him, without any kind of legal option to fall back on, intermediaries decide to comply with such take down notices fearing “serious penalties and possibility of prosecution” which results in “indirect censorship”. He also said, “Domestic constitution in itself is not going to be sufficient”. “Meta-constitutions” which are transnational and have uniform laws across countries could be a possible solution to the current confusion as the internet is a global phenomenon and it would ensure that “the extent of our online rights would not be limited to the constitution of the country”.

Giving the example of hate speech, Siddharth Varadarajan, mentioned the Indian executive’s different approaches towards different mediums. Referring to hate speeches made during the 1993 Bombay riots by Shiv Sena leaders and those made during the 2002 Gujarat riots, he said, “Hate speech never gets prosecuted when made amid a physical crowd in a volatile situation.I can understand why politicians won’t be prosecuted but why so much sensitivity on online content. This paradox is worth reflecting on.Despite its limited reach, the executive reacts in such a hyper-sensitive manner”.He adds that as the editor of a news website one faces daily problems in taking decisions on online content especially on comment moderation and whether the website would be responsible for a certain comment made by a reader. Echoing Shyam Divan’s views,he said that in India more than the punishment, when a case is filed, the legal process itself becomes a punishment, which forces Internet Service Providers to comply with requests of blocking online content.

The Global Network Initiative is a Washington-based organisation that provides a framework for companies to deal with governments requesting censorship or surveillance of online content, “rooted in international standards legal framework also interesting people”. According to a report released by it, “provided that the existing safe harbour regime is improved, intermediaries can become a significant part of the economy and their GDP contribution may increase to more than 1.3 per cent by 2015. The potential corresponds to $41 billion by 2015”.Jermyn Brooks,Independent Chair of GNI,argued that instead of focusing all efforts on ensuring that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 gets struck down by Courts for its unconstitutionality, there should also be a movement to effect policy changes through the amendment of the law. According to him, such a proposition would be more lucrative for a government looking for “re-invigoration of economic growth in India”.

The discussion was significant in the light that a number of cases related to the IT Act and freedom of online speech will be heard in the Supreme Court in the coming months. A petition by Mouthshut.com challenges the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 “which effectively creates a notice and takedown regime for content hosted by intermediaries”. Another important case up for hearing is a petition by Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrashekhar,“which also challenges these rules on grounds that they are ambiguous, require private parties to subjectively assess objectionable content, and that they undermine the safe harbour exemptions from liability granted to intermediaries by section 79 of the IT Act”. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has challenged the Intermediaries Guidelines rules as well as the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by the Public Rules 2009. “This petition has pointed to the lack of transparency in the blocking procedure, which does not currently offer the public any notice or reasons for the blocking.”

“The cases pending before the Supreme Court will have a significant impact on the freedom of expression. We should never take our rights for granted – the interpretation of these rights needs to be consistent with their spirit”, said Professor Ranbir Singh.

Citing the recent example of the Wendy Doniger episode, Varadarajan says, “If Penguin chooses to pack up at the District court level, you know how Internet Service Providers would react to take down notices…Specific targeting of online speech would ultimately have a negative impact on the traditional media”. And that is the crux of the matter. In the absence of intermediate liability not being limited, online censorship and the curtailment of the freedom of speech will become far easier and will only worsen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/newslaundry-april-1-2014-somi-das-the-take-down-of-free-speech-online

A trust deficit between advertisers and publishers is leading to fake news

sunil — 2018-10-02T06:44:55Z

Transparency regulations is need of the hour. And urgently for election and political advertising. What do the ads look like? Who paid for them? Who was the target? How many people saw these advertisements? How many times? Transparency around viral content is also required.

The article was published in Hindustan Times on September 24, 2018.

Traditionally, we have depended on the private censorship that intermediaries conduct on their platforms. They enforce, with some degree of success, their own community guidelines and terms of services (TOS). Traditionally, these guidelines and TOS have been drafted keeping in mind US laws since historically most intermediaries, including non-profits like Wikimedia Foundation were founded in the US.

Across the world, this private censorship regime was accepted by governments when they enacted intermediary liability laws (in India we have Section 79A of the IT Act). These laws gave intermediaries immunity from liability emerging from third party content about which they have no “actual knowledge” unless they were informed using takedown notices. Intermediaries set up offices in countries like India, complied with some lawful interception requests, and also conducted geo-blocking to comply with local speech regulation.

For years, the Indian government has been frustrated since policy reforms that it has pursued with the US have yielded little fruit. American policy makers keep citing shortcomings in the Indian justice systems to avoid expediting the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) process and the signing of an executive agreement under the US Clout Act. This agreement would compel intermediaries to comply with lawful interception and data requests from Indian law enforcement agencies no matter where the data was located.

The data localisation requirement in the draft national data protection law is a result of that frustration. As with the US, a quickly enacted data localisation policy is absolutely non-negotiable when it comes to Indian military, intelligence, law enforcement and e-governance data. For India, it also makes sense in the cases of health and financial data with exceptions under certain circumstances. However, it does not make sense for social media platforms since they, by definition, host international networks of people. Recently an inter ministerial committee recommended that “criminal proceedings against Indian heads of social media giants” also be considered. However, raiding Google’s local servers when a lawful interception request is turned down or arresting Facebook executives will result in retaliatory trade actions from the US.

While the consequences of online recruitment, disinformation in elections and fake news to undermine public order are indeed serious, are there alternatives to such extreme measures for Indian policy makers? Updating intermediary liability law is one place to begin. These social media companies increasingly exercise editorial control, albeit indirectly, via algorithms to claim that they have no “actual knowledge”.

But they are no longer mere conduits or dumb pipes as they are now publishers who collect payments to promote content. Germany passed a law called NetzDG in 2017 which requires expedited compliance with government takedown orders. Unfortunately, this law does not have sufficient safeguards to prevent overzealous private censorship. India should not repeat this mistake, especially given what the Supreme Court said in the Shreya Singhal judgment.

Transparency regulations are imperative. And they are needed urgently for election and political advertising. What do the ads look like? Who paid for them? Who was the target? How many people saw these advertisements? How many times? Transparency around viral content is also required. Anyone should be able to see all public content that has been shared with more than a certain percentage of the population over a historical timeline for any geographic area. This will prevent algorithmic filter bubbles and echo chambers, and also help public and civil society monitor unconstitutional and hate speech that violates terms of service of these platforms. So far the intermediaries have benefitted from surveillance — watching from above. It is time to subject them to sousveillance — watched by the citizens from below.

Data portability mandates and interoperability mandates will allow competition to enter these monopoly markets. Artificial intelligence regulations for algorithms that significantly impact the global networked public sphere could require – one, a right to an explanation and two, a right to influence automated decision making that influences the consumers experience on the platform.

The real solution lies elsewhere. Google and Facebook are primarily advertising networks. They have successfully managed to destroy the business model for real news and replace it with a business model for fake news by taking away most of the advertising revenues from traditional and new news media companies. They were able to do this because there was a trust deficit between advertisers and publishers. Perhaps this trust deficit could be solved by a commons-based solutions based on free software, open standards and collective action by all Indian new media companies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-sunil-abraham-september-24-2018-a-trust-deficit-between-advertisers-and-publishers-is-leading-to-fake-news

India- EU FTA: A Note on the Copyright Issues

nehaa — 2013-07-03T06:47:08Z

In this blog post, Nehaa Chaudhari gives us an overview of some of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the copyright issues identified therein.

Click to download the India-EU FTA: A Note on Copyright Issues (PDF, 205 Kb)

Against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations dating back to 2007, and, more recently, with parties being unable to make substantial progress on the Indo-EU FTA[1] this note presents an overview on some of the provisions of the FTA and the copyright issues identified therein. This note deals with the issues on two levels- first to examine the impact of intellectual property right provisions in FTAs in general and second to apply these generic principles to the Indo- EU FTA specifically.

Introduction

Investment agreements, of which bilateral investment treaties are a part, and investment chapters in various FTAs often result in an increase in the effective levels of intellectual property protection in one of the countries that is a part to the agreement. This can be done either explicitly, where ‘investment’ may be defined to include IP, or implicitly, for instance, through an expropriation provision.[2] This has concurrently witnessed the growing realization that the promotion of these increased IP standards is not suited to the need of developing countries. Therefore, it has been observed[3]that there is now an attempt by the developed countries to use FTAs as a forum to push for higher standards of IP protection in developing countries, and to restrict the scope of the flexibilities offered by TRIPS, most notably in the sectors of protection of plant varieties, patents and access to medicine, farmers rights and access to information.[4]This approach is inherently problematic, because it then infringes on the developing countries’ ability to achieve their developmental objectives.

Dismantling the Arguments In Favour of Increased IP Protection

A prevalent view of thought is that in order to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), developing countries would have to increase their IP protection. This section of the paper seeks to argue that this might not necessarily be the case.

An illustration of the aforesaid proposition may be Heald’s criticism[5] levied on Mansfield’s paper[6] arguing that there was a direct correlation between the level of intellectual property protection in a country and the foreign direct investment into that country. Further, a study[7] conducted under the aegis of the United Nations has suggested that there was a ‘considerable incentive’ for countries to use the flexibilities provided under TRIPS to maximise net benefits for their development; stating that while in countries with a capacity to innovate stronger IPR protection can reap some benefits in terms of greater innovation at home and a greater diffusion of technology, the same cannot be said about nations without such a capacity, and may in fact impose additional costs.[8]

Specifically in the area of copyright, it has been observed that increased copyright protection can hamper the growth and development of knowledge based industries. Sanya Smith argues that those who control copyright have a ‘significant advantage’ in the knowledge based economy, and says that in the current scenario where ownership of copyright is largely in the hands of industrialized nations, this places developing nations, and smaller economies at a significant disadvantage.[9] She also goes on to argue that increasing copyright protection alone does not seem to be sufficient to stimulate industries, and there may other factors involved. Additionally, copyright could also significantly increase the cost of creative industries.[10] More fundamentally however, access to information and knowledge are amongst the most affected areas as a result of tightening of copyright laws, leaving students, academicians, researchers, scientists and persons with print disability significantly disadvantaged.

Implications of the Copyright Provisions in the Proposed Indo- EU FTA

Based on the general discussion earlier, this section of the paper seeks to examine the proposed and long debated Indo- EU FTA for the concerns enumerated earlier. As things currently stand, both parties have failed to reach a consensus on various substantial differences, and a ministerial meet originally scheduled for June seems unlikely to take place.[11]

It has been observed[12] that the Indo- EU FTA[13] includes various provisions that preserve the flexibilities offered under the TRIPS framework. This is extremely critical from the perspective of developing countries, given that access to knowledge is an extremely important ideal to be preserved. For instance, as noted by Knowledge Ecology International[14]the proposed FTA includes Articles 7 (Objectives) and 8 (Principles) of the TRIPS[15] by reference. Further, the language of Article 13 under the proposed FTA explicitly recognizes the importance of the Doha Declaration, which is a positive step.[16] It has been said however, that stronger language where the parties ‘affirmed’ their obligations under the Declaration could have been used.[17] However, this does not take away from the fact that many of the provisions of the proposed FTA are extremely problematic, as will be discussed in the forthcoming parts of this paper.

Problematic Provisions

The main concern that has emerged from this FTA is the fact that some of its provisions dealing with IPR go beyond the mandate as under the TRIPS Agreement. For instance, as pointed out by Shamnaad Basheer to Intellectual Property Watch, various provisions now provide for intermediary liability, which isn’t present in TRIPS. He also adds however, that if the initial stand of the government that India would not go TRIPS plus continues to hold, the government should indeed adopt a strong stance and not cave in to the said provisions.[18] An overview of some of the problematic provisions has been presented hereafter:

International Obligations

As per the proposed treaty, protection granted by the parties should be in accordance with the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention and the WIPO Copyright and Performance and Phonograms Treaties. Snehashish Ghosh in his blog post[19] writes that the EU stipulates compliance with Articles 1 through 22 of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (1961), Articles 1 through 14 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty – WCT (Geneva, 1996), Articles 1 through 23 of the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty – WPPT (Geneva, 1996). It is critical to note that the Rome Convention is not in force in India[20], and that India is not a party to either the WCT[21] or the WPPT[22], and therefore, this provision would have the effect of substantially surpassing all obligations that India has at the moment under multilateral international agreements.

Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) and Digital Rights Management (DRM)

A TPM, understood simply, is a lock in a digital format, placed on digital material to prevent access to or copying of the material in question. The problem with such measures is that they can prevent even those forms of copying which are legal (for instance, the copying of a movie on which copyright has expired could be prevented), creating a potentially infinite monopoly over the product in question. India, in its negotiations with the EU, has agreed to sweeping language under this provision, where TPMs and DRM measures are broadly defined. The Agreement further provides for limitations on TPM protections only to persons who have “legal access to the protected work or subject matter”.[23]

Copyright Expansion

There are various provisions under the proposed FTA that have the effect of copyright expansion. To begin with, the duration of protection for photographic works is not expressly mentioned in the proposed agreement.[24] Snehashish Ghosh concludes that the term of photographic works is unclear in the proposed FTA. He writes that the proposed FTA makes it mandatory for the parties to comply with the Berne Convention, and all literary and artistic work under the proposed FTA is to be construed as the same as the Berne Convention[25]. Photographic works are included under literary and artistic works under the Berne Convention, and the rights of an author in case of photographic works are protected for a minimum period of 25 years. However, the proposed FTA extends the period of protection to beyond that prescribed by the Berne Convention and states that protection is given to literary and artistic works (as defined in the Berne Convention) for a period of the duration of the life of the author plus fifty years after this death. It further states that works for which the period of protection is not calculated from the death of the author, and which have not been lawfully made available to the public within at least 50 years from their creation, the protection shall terminate.[26]

Article 7.6 (proposed by the EU), limits the resale rights of a downstream purchaser. It has been noted by Knowledge Ecology International[27] that this seems to give the author of an original work of art a right in perpetuity, to receive a royalty for the resale of the piece of art, where such right cannot be waived or transferred by the author of the work. Therefore, a situation would arise where each time a person who has purchased the work wants to resell the same, he would have to pay royalties to the original author.[28] The observations further go on to note that royalties are not limited, and the amount has to be determined by national legislation. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the provision does not cease to apply after a given number of re-sales, and continues to the death of the author (but might not into the 50 year protection post the death of the author).[29]

Exceptions and limitations for copyright have been covered under Article 7.9(1) of the proposed FTA, and they may be created “only” in accordance with the three step test, which is essentially that (a) the exceptions and limitations must apply in certain special cases; (b) must not be in conflict with the normal course of exploitation of the subject matter in question and (c) must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holders.[30] It has been observed that this test is more restrictive than TRIPS, Berne Convention, Rome Convention or the WCT.[31]

On the plus side, temporary copies have been excluded from copyright protection, as per Article 7.9(2) of the proposed FTA, which would ensure the proper functioning of technology.

Persons with Disabilities

There is nothing that deals with the import/export or cross border exchange of files/documents/books etc. for persons with disabilities.

Cross Border Measures

Cross Border Measures have been dealt with under Article 30 of the proposed FTA. It is interesting to note that under this Article the EU has proposed the application of border measures to exports as well. This is contrary to the position laid down in the TRIPS Agreement, which has this requirement only for importing infringing goods.[32] Further, the EU also seeks to expand the applicability of such measures to include those goods which also infringe designs or geographical indications. Additionally, Article 30 also leaves out certain TRIPS safeguards, for instance, one that requires the right holder to provide adequate evidence for a prima facie case of infringement.[33]

Intermediary Liability

It has been suggested that the EU, under the garb of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by users, is purporting to place a greater burden on the providers in question, of policing user activity.[34] For instance under Article 35.1.1 of the proposed FTA, while service providers are not under any general obligation to seek facts or circumstances that could indicate illegal activity, they may be obligated to promptly inform competent authorities of these alleged illegal activities undertaken/information provided by recipients of their service. [35] Otherwise, the providers may also be required to communicate to the authorities, on their request, information that would enable the identification of their service with whom they have storage agreements, as per Article 35.1.2.[36] It has been rightly identified by Glover Wright, that such provisions would only serve to increase tensions between the users and their service providers, with relations dictated by concerns about liability, and barriers in the sending, receiving and storing of information freely. It would be a tricky question for intermediate service providers to check what would constitute ‘knowledge’ and how they were to best safeguard themselves from liability.[37] Therefore, the author is inclined to agree with Wright’s submission that India needs to reject all provisions of liability of intermediate service providers as discussed above.

IP Enforcement

There exist, as regards the enforcement of rights, many problematic provisions in the proposed FTA. For starters, the EU has proposed that interlocutory injunctions may also be issued under the same conditions against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe intellectual property rights.[38] This may be found under Article 22.1 of the proposed FTA, and is inherently problematic for being a provision far beyond the mandate as laid down by TRIPS.

The EU is also pushing for the use of very explicit language as regards seizing movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer as a precautionary measure. This also extends to the blocking of the bank accounts and other assets of the said infringer, and to this end, competent authorities may even order the communication of bank, financial or commercial documents, or access to the said information.[39] It is critical to note that such a provision is greatly problematic as being rather vague in its approach, and very readily compromising privacy for ‘alleged’ acts of infringement.

It is further critical to note that while Article 20 states that courts should have the power to grant ex parte order to collect evidence that is allegedly infringing, there are no safeguards provided for protection of a bona fide defendant whose premises might have been raided wrongly. It is submitted that provisions that safeguard the interests of defendants are of prime importance, especially in the Indian set up, where courts are as it is rather generous in their granting of ex parte orders.

Concluding Observations

While India may stand to benefit from the proposed FTA with the EU, there remain significant IP related issues that need to be ironed out before India comes to any consensus about the agreement and ratifies the same. On the basis of the discussion over the course of this paper, it may be seen that the provisions on intellectual property rights are problematic on various levels, particularly in the areas of expansion of copyright, the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions, cross border measures, TPMs, liability of service providers and enforcement mechanisms.

Discussions in the first half of this paper have demonstrated that increased IP protections do not necessarily translate into increased FDI and may in fact stifle innovation. Further, the warning to developing countries against adopting IPR standards fixed by developed nations has been sounded many times over, and is one that needs to be heeded to very closely for developing nations to achieve their developmental objectives.

India has over a period of time established an IP regime that is consumer friendly. In adopting the proposed FTA in its current form, she risks endangering this regime that has thus far been instrumental in proliferating emerging technologies in the county.[40] Given that India has already acceded to international standards for IPRs as a result of being a member of the WTO and being TRIPS compliant, there is no cogent reason to be made out that warrants the accession to an FTA with TRIPS plus provisions. India ought to continue to push back strongly on these fronts, bearing in mind that its stance could very well set the tone for other such agreements in South Asia. From the way things stand at the moment, it is indeed a matter of some relief that the ratification of this proposed FTA still appears to be at a considerable distance.

[1].Hereafter referred to as the FTA.

[2]. Sanya Reid Smith, Intellectual Property in Free Trade Agreements, for the UNDP Regional Trade Workshop (17-18 December, Penang, Malaysia), available at http://bit.ly/11W8dqy (last accessed 04 June, 2013).

[3]. Id.

[4]. Id at 5.

[5]. Supra note 2, citing PJ Heald, Information Economics and Policy 16 (2004) 57-65

[6]. Edwin Mansfield, Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, International Finance Corporation: Discussion Paper No. 19, available at http://bit.ly/18V4D5v (last accessed 05 June, 2013)

[7]. See generally- Rod Falvey et. al., The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence, United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Discussion Paper (2006), available at http://bit.ly/11JBR4o (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[8]. Id.

[9]. Supra note 2 at 23.

[10]. Supra note 2 at 23.

[11]. PTI, India – EU FTA Talks Fail to Bridge Gaps, available at http://bit.ly/19LJaeP (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[12]. Krista Cox, Quick Reaction to the EU/India (BTIA) Negotiating Text, available at http://keionline.org/node/1693 (last accessed 04 June, 2013).

[13]. Hereafter referred to as the FTA

[14]. KEI Staff, More Notes on the India EU FTA (BTIA), available at http://keionline.org/node/1692 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[15]. See http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ for more details, and for the bare text of the Articles. (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[16]. Supra note 14.

[17]. Supra note 12.

[18]. Patralekha Chatterjee, Leaked IP Chapter of India- EU FTA Shows TRIPS-PLUS Pitfalls for India, Expert Says, available at http://bit.ly/Y7w70e (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[19]. Snehashish Ghosh, Analysis of Copyright Expansion in the India-EU FTA (July 2010), available at http://bit.ly/ysitEC (last accessed 03 June, 2013).

[20]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/UITpsX (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[21]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/f92xL2 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[22]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/fEsUAF (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[23]. Supra note 14.

[24]. Supra note 19.

[25]. Supra note 19.

[26]. Supra note 19.

[27]. Supra note 12.

[28]. Supra note 12.

[29]. Supra note 12.

[30]. Supra note 12.

[31]. Supra note 14.

[32]. Supra note 12.

[33]. Supra note 12.

[34]. See Article 35 of the Proposed FTA.

[35]. Glover Wright, A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, available at http://bit.ly/16Dfuga (last accessed 05 June, 2013) at 12- 14.

[36]. Id.

[37]. Id.

[38]. Thiru, EU-India FTA: EU Pushes for IP Enforcement- IP Chapter Draft Text Under Negotiation (2013), available at http://keionline.org/node/1681 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[39]. See Article 22.3 of the proposed FTA.

[40]. Supra note 35.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen

pranesh — 2012-01-04T08:59:14Z

The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.

Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression

The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.

Intermediary Guidelines Rules

In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies

We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.

Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors

Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.

'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship

Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.

Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act

Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.

The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship