The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age
<b>Pranesh Prakash spoke at this event organized by Global Network Initiative on November 6, 2014 in California. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash spoke on transparency reports and their use and abuse in India; the Intermediary Liability Rules in India (and its non-provision of any transparency mechanism); and the need for transparency in private speech regulation, not just governmental speech regulation.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><img alt="GNI logo" src="https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/21069154/gnilogo.jpg" title="GNI logo" width="600" /></p>
<p><img alt="Telecom Industry Dialogue" src="https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/21069154/screenshot20141002at11.11.24am.png" title="ID logos" width="600" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Global Network Initiative and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy present:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2014 Learning Forum - Silicon Valley </b><br /><b><span>Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Hosted by LinkedIn </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>Agenda</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>1:30PM - Registration</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>2:00PM - Opening Remarks</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Mark Stephens, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: center; ">Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: center; ">Pablo Chavez, Vice President, Global Public Policy and Government Affairs, LinkedIn</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>2:15PM - Why does transparency matter for protecting and respecting rights online?</span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Arvind Ganesan, Director of Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deirdre Mulligan, Associate Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Michael Samway, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>3:00PM - What is the state of transparency reporting by companies and governments, and what's missing?</span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Jason Pielemeier, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Moderated by Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>4:00PM - Break</span></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span><span>4:30PM - How do companies communicate with users in response to live events? </span></span></i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Ben Blink, Senior Policy Analyst, Free Expression and International Relations, Google</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Patrik Hiselius, Senior Advisor, Digital Rights, TeliaSonera</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights Project, New America Foundation</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Hemanshu Nigam, CEO, SSP Blue</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Moderated by Cynthia Wong, Senior Internet Researcher, Human Rights Watch</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>The program will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30pm.</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By invitation only, non-transferrable.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent">Have questions about Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age? <a class="contact_organizer_link js-d-modal" href="#lightbox_contact"> Contact Global Network Initiative </a></p>
<hr />
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent">The original was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age-tickets-13387240597">published here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-12-04T16:14:38ZNews ItemKilling the Internet Softly with Its Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped
<b>While regulation of the Internet is a necessity, the Department of IT, through recent Rules under the IT Act, is guilty of over-regulation. This over-regulation is not only a bad idea, but is unconstitutional, and gravely endangers freedom of speech and privacy online.</b>
<div class="visualClear"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">A slightly modified version of this blog entry was published as </span><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">an op-ed in the Indian Express on May 9, 2011</a><span class="Apple-style-span">.</span></div>
<h2>Over-regulation of the Internet<br /></h2>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<p>Regulation of the Internet, as with
regulation of any medium of speech and commerce, is a balancing act.
Too little regulation and you ensure that criminal activities are
carried on with impunity; too much regulation and you curb the
utility of the medium. This is especially so with the Internet, as
it has managed to be the impressively vibrant space it is due to a
careful choice in most countries of eschewing over-regulation.
India, however, seems to be taking a different turn with a three sets
of new rules under the Information Technology Act.</p>
<p>These rules deal with the liability of
intermediaries (i.e., a large, inclusive, group of entities and
individuals, that transmit and allow access to third-party content),
the safeguards that cybercafes need to follow if they are not to be
held liable for their users' activities, and the practices that
intermediaries need to follow to ensure security and privacy of
customer data.</p>
<h3>Effect of not following the rules</h3>
<p>By not observing any of the provisions
of these Rules, the intermediary opens itself up for liability for
actions of its users. Thus, if a third-party defames someone, then
the intermediary can be held liable if he/she/it does not follow the
stringent requirements of the Rules.</p>
<p>The problem, however is that, many of
the provisions of the Rules have no rational nexus with the due
diligence to be observed by the intermediary to absolve itself from
liability.</p>
<h3>What does the Act require?</h3>
<p>Section 79 of the IT Act states that
intermediaries are generally not liable for third party information,
data, or communication link made available or hosted. It qualifies
that by stating that they are not liable if they follow certain
precautions (basically, to show that they are <em>real</em>
intermediaries). They observe 'due diligence' and don't exercise an
editorial role; they don't help or induce commission of the unlawful
act; and upon receiving 'actual knowledge', or on being duly notified
by the appropriate authority, the intermediary takes steps towards
some kind of action.</p>
<p>So, rules were needed to clarify what
'due diligence' involves (i.e., to state that no active monitoring is
required of ISPs), what 'actual knowledge' means, and to clarify what
happens in happens in case of conflicts between this provision and
other parts of IT Act and other Acts.</p>
<h3>Impact on freedom of speech and privacy</h3>
<p>However, that is not what the rules do.
The rules instead propose standard terms of service to be notified
by all intermediaries. This means everyone from Airtel to Hotmail to
Facebook to Rediff Blogs to Youtube to organizations and people that
allow others to post comments on their website. What kinds of terms
of service? It will require intermediaries to bar users from
engaging in speech that is disparaging', It doesn't cover only
intermediaries that are public-facing. So this means that your
forwarding a joke via e-mail, which "belongs to another person
and to which the user does not have any right" will be deemed to
be in violation of the new rules. While gambling (such as betting on
horses) isn’t banned in India and casino gambling is legal in Goa,
for example, under these Rules, all speech ‘promoting gambling’
is prohibited.</p>
<p>The rules are very onerous on
intermediaries, since they require them to act within 36 hours to
disable access to any information that they receive a complaint
about. Any 'affected person' can complain. Intermediaries will now
play the role that judges have traditionally played. Any affected
person can bring forth a complaint about issues as diverse as
defamation, blasphemy, trademark infringement, threatening of
integrity of India, 'disparaging speech', or the blanket 'in
violation of any law'. It is not made mandatory to give the actual
violator an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the cardinal
principle of natural justice of 'hearing the other party' before
denying them a fundamental right. Many parts of the Internet are in
fact public spaces and constitute an online public sphere. A law
requiring private parties to curb speech in such a public sphere is
unconstitutional insofar as it doesn't fall within Art.19(2) of the
Constitution.</p>
<p>Since intermediaries would lose
protection from the law if they don't take down content, they have no
incentives to uphold freedom of speech of their users. They instead
have been provided incentives to take down all content about which
they receive complaints without bothering to apply their minds and
coming to an actual conclusion that the content violates the rules.</p>
<h3>Cybercafe rules</h3>
<p>The cybercafe rules require all
cybercafe customers be identified with supporting documents, their
photographs taken, all their website visit history logged, and these
logs maintained for a year. Compare this to the usage of public
pay-phones. Anyone can use a pay-phone without their details being
logged. Indeed, such logging allows for cybercafe owners to
blackmail their users if they find some embarrassing websites in the
history logs—which could be anything from medical diseases to
sexual orientation to the fact that you're a whistleblower.</p>
<p>The cybercafe rules also require that
all of them install "commercially available safety or filtering
software" to prevent access to pornography. In two cases along
these lines in the Madras High Court (<em>Karthikeyan R.</em> v. <em>Union
of India</em>) and the Bombay High Court (<em>Janhit Manch </em>v.
<em>Union of India</em>), the High Courts refused to direct the
government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet
pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis
to be constitutionally valid under Art.19(1)(a) [Right to freedom of
speech and expression].</p>
<p>Such software tends to be very
ineffective—non-pornographic websites also get wrongly filtered,
and not all pornographic websites get filtered—and the High Courts
were right in being wary of any blanket ban. They preferred for
individual cases to be registered. If the worry is that our children
are getting corrupted, it is up to parents to provide supervision,
and not for the government to insist that software do the parenting
instead.</p>
<p>Given that all of these were pointed
out by both civil society organizations, news media, and industry
bodies, when the draft rules were released, it smacks of governmental
high-handedness that almost none of the changes suggested by the
public have been incorporated in the final rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/killing-the-internet-oped</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2011-08-20T12:51:42ZBlog EntryIT (Amendment) Act, 2008, 69 Rules: Draft and Final Version Comparison
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison
<b>Jadine Lannon has performed a clause-by-clause comparison of the Draft 69 Rules and official 69 Rules under Section 69B in order to better understand how the two are similar and how they differ. Very brief notes have been included on some changes we deemed to be important.
</b>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc1.png" alt="c1" class="image-inline" title="c1" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc2.png" alt="c2" class="image-inline" title="c2" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc3.png" alt="c3" class="image-inline" title="c3" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc4.png" alt="c4" class="image-inline" title="c4" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc5.png" alt="c5" class="image-inline" title="c5" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc6.png" alt="c6" class="image-inline" title="c6" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc7.png" alt="c7" class="image-inline" title="c7" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc8.png" alt="c8" class="image-inline" title="c8" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc9.png" alt="c9" class="image-inline" title="c9" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similar to the other comparisons that I have done on the 69A and 69B Draft and official Rules, the majority of the changes between these two sets of rules serves to restructure and clarify various clauses in the Draft 69 Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Three new definitions appear in the Clause (2) of the 69 Rules, including a definition for “communication”, which appears in the Draft Rules but has no associated definition under Clause (2) of the Draft Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clause (31) of the Draft Rules, which deals with the requirement of security agencies of the State and Union territories to share any information gathered through interception, monitoring and/or decryption with federal agencies, does not make an appearance in the official rules. Further, this necessity does not seem to be implied anywhere in the official 69 Rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison</a>
</p>
No publisherjdineInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityInformation Technology2013-04-30T09:56:07ZBlog EntryInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability Resources
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources
<b>We bring you a list of intermediary resources as part of research on internet governance. This blog post will be updated on an ongoing basis.</b>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation. </b>The Centre for Democracy and Technology. December 2012, available at: <a href="https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf">https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf</a>: This paper analyses the impact that intermediary liability regimes have on freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation. In doing so, the paper highlights different models of intermediary liability regimes, reviews different technological means of restricting access to content, and provides recommendations for intermediary liability regimes and provides alternative ways of addressing illegal content online.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability:</b> Article 19. 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf">http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf:</a>This Policy Document reviews different components of intermediary liability and highlights the challenges and risks that current models of liability have to online freedom of expression. Relying on international standards for freedom of expression and comparative law, the document includes recommendations and alternative models that provide stronger protection for freedom of expression. The key recommendation in the document include: web hosting providers or hosts should be immune from liability to third party content if they have not modified the content, privatised enforcement should not be a model and removal orders should come only from courts or adjudicatory bodies, the model of notice to notice should replace notice and takedown regimes, in cases of alleged serious criminality clear conditions should be in place and defined.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries:</b> Prepared by Daniel Seng for WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries.pdf:This Report reviews the intermediary liability regimes and associated laws in place across fifteen different contexts with a focus on civil copyright liability for internet intermediaries. The Report seeks to find similarities and differences across the regimes studied and highlight principles and components in different that can be used in international treaties and instruments, upcoming policies, and court decisions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom of Expression, Indirect Censorship, & Liability for Internet Intermediaries.</b> The Electronic Frontier Foundation. February 2011, available at: <a href="http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf">http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf</a>:This presentation was created for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum in Chile and highlights that for freedom of expression to be protected, clear legal protections for internet intermediaries are needed and advocates for a regime that provides blanket immunity to intermediaries or is based on judicial takedown notices.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Contracted by the European Commission.</b> 2007, available at: <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf</a>. This Report provides insight on the application of the intermediary liability sections of the EU e-commerce directive and studies the impact of the regulations under the Directive on the functioning of intermediary information society services. To achieve this objective, the study identifies relavant case law across member states, calls out and evaluates developing trends across Member States, and draws conclusions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediary Liability: Identifying Best Practices for Africa.</b> Nicolo Zingales for the Association for Progressive Communications, available at: <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf">https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf</a>: This background paper seeks to identify challenges and opportunities in addressing intermediary liability for countries in the African Union and recommend safeguards that can be included in emerging intermediary liability regimes in the context of human rights. The paper also reviews different models of intermediary liability and discusses the limitations, scope, and modes of operation of each model. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda</b>: An uncertain terrain. Association for Progressive Communications. October 2012, available at: <a href="http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain">http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain</a>:This Report reviews intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda – providing background to the political context, relevant legislation, and present challenges . In doing so, the Report provides insight into how intermediary liability has changed in recent years in these contexts and explores past and present debates on intermediary liability. The Report concludes with recommendations for stakeholders affected by intermediary liability. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Fragmentation of intermediary liability in the UK</b>. Daithi Mac Sithigh. 2013, available at: <a href="http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT">http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT</a>. This article looks at the application of the Electronic Commerce Directive across Europe and argues that it is being intermixed and subsequently replaced with provisions from national legislation and provisions of law from area specific legislation. Thus, the article argues that systems for intermediary liability are diving into multiple systems – for example for content related to copyright intermediaries are being placed with new responsibilities while for content related to defamation, there is a reducing in the liability that intermediaries are held to. </li>
<li><b>Regimes of Legal Liability for Online Intermediaries: an Overview</b>. OECD, available at: <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf</a>. This article provides an overview of different intermediary liability regimes including EU and US. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b> Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose</b>. GNI. 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf</a>. This Report argues that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 are not adequate to deal with ICT innovations , and argues that the current liability regime in India is hurting the Indian internet economy. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary Liability in India</b>. Centre for Internet and Society. 2011, available at: <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf</a>. This report reviews and ‘tests’ the effect of the Indian intermediary liability on freedom of expression. The report concludes that the present regime in India has a chilling effect on free expression and offers recommendations on how the Indian regime can be amended to protect this right. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Liability of Internet Service providers and the exercise of the freedom of expression in Latin America have been explored in detail through the course of this research paper by Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and J. Carlos Lara Galvez. The paper explores the efficacy and the implementation of proposals to put digital communication channels under the oversight of certain State sponsored institutions in varying degrees. The potential consequence of legal intervention in media and digital platforms, on the development of individual rights and freedoms has been addressed through the course of this study. The paper tries to arrive at relevant conclusions with respect to the enforcement of penalties that seek to redress the liability of communication intermediaries and the mechanism that may be used to oversee the balance between the interests at stake as well as take comparative experiences into account. The paper also analyses the liability of technical facilitators of communications while at the same time attempting to define a threshold beyond which the interference into the working of these intermediaries may constitute an offence of the infringement of the privacy of users. Ultimately, it aims to derive a balance between the necessity for intervention, the right of the users who communicate via the internet and interests of the economic actors who may be responsible for the service: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf">http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf</a></li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://crm.apc.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=191">Click to read the newsletter</a> from the Association of Progressive Communications. The summaries for the reports can be found below:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Intermediaries: The Dilemma of Liability in Africa. APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/</a>. This report summarizes the challenges facing internet content regulators in Africa, and the effects of these regulations on the state of the internet in Africa. Many African countries do not protect intermediaries from potential liability, so some intermediaries are too afraid to transmit or host content on the internet in those countries. The report calls for a universal rights protection for internet intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">APC’s Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Intermediary Liability: APC, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/</a>. This report addresses common questions pertaining to internet intermediaries, which are entities which provide services that enable people to use the internet, from network providers to search engines to comments sections on blogs. Specifically, the report outlines different models of intermediary liability, defining two main models. The “Generalist” model intermediary liability is judged according to the general rules of civil and criminal law, while the “Safe Harbour” model protects intermediaries with a legal safe zone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Developments in South Africa: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri</a>. This interview with researchers Alex Comninos and Andrew Rens goes into detail about the challenges of intermediary in South Africa. The researchers discuss the balance that needs to be struck between insulating intermediaries from a fear of liability and protecting women’s rights in an environment that is having trouble dealing with violence against women. They also discuss South Africa’s three strikes policy for those who pirate material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Preventing Hate Speech Online In Kenya: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli</a>. This interview with Grace Githaiga investigates the uncertain fate of internet intermediaries under Kenya’s new regime. The new government has mandated everyone to register their SIM cards, and indicated that it was monitoring text messages and flagging those that were deemed risky. This has led to a reduction in the amount of hate speech via text messages. Many intermediaries, such as newspaper comments sections, have established rules on how readers should post on their platforms. Githaiga goes on to discuss the issue of surveillance and the lack of a data protection law in Kenya, which she sees as the most pressing internet issue in Kenya.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws in Uganda Make Internet Providers More Vulnerable to Liability and State Intervention: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne</a>. In an interview, Lilian Nalwoga discusses Uganda’s recent anti-pornography law that can send intermediaries to prison. The Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 criminalizes any sort of association with any form of pornography, and targets ISPs, content providers, and developers, making them liable for content that goes through their systems. This makes being an intermediary extremely risky in Uganda. The other issue with the law is a vague definition of pornography. Nalwoga also explains the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 bans any promotion or recognition of homosexual relations, and the monitoring technology the government is using to enforce these laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws Affecting Intermediary Liability in Nigeria: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria</a>. Gbenga Sesan, executive director of Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, expounds on the latest trends in Nigerian intermediary liability. The Nigerian Communications Commission has a new law that mandates ISPs store users data for at least here years, and wants to make content hosts responsible for what users do on their networks. Additionally, in Nigeria, internet users register with their real name and prove that you are the person who is registration. Sesan goes on to discuss the lack of safe harbor provisions for intermediaries and the remaining freedom of anonymity on social networks in Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Policies That Affect Africans: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af</a>. The Associsation for Progressive Communcations interviews researcher Nicolo Zingales about the trend among African governments establishing further regulations to control the flow of information on the internet and hold intermediaries liable for content they circulate. Zingales criticizes intermediary liability for “creating a system of adverse incentives for free speech.” He goes on to offer examples of intermediaries and explain the concept of “safe harbor” legislative frameworks. Asked to identify best and worst practices in Africa, he highlights South Africa’s safe harbor as a good practice, and mentions the registration of users via ID cards as a worst practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Towards Internet Intermediary Responsibility: Carly Nyst, November 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility">http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility</a>. Nyst argues for a middle ground between competing goals in internet regulation in Africa. Achieving one goal, of protecting free speech through internet intermediaries seems at odds with the goal of protecting women’s rights and limiting hate speech, because one demands intermediaries be protected in a legal safe harbor and the other requires intermediaries be vigilant and police their content. Nyst’s solution is not intermediary liability but <i>responsibility</i>, a role defined by empowerment, and establishing an intermediary responsibility to promote positive gender attitudes.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherelonnaiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2014-07-03T06:45:48ZBlog EntryIntermediary liability law needs updating
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-february-9-2019-sunil-abraham-intermediary-liability-law-needs-updating
<b>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. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/intermediary-liability-law-needs-updating-119020900705_1.html">Business Standard</a> on February 9, 2019.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Disclosure: The Centre for Internet and Society receives grants from Facebook, Google and Wikimedia Foundation</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-february-9-2019-sunil-abraham-intermediary-liability-law-needs-updating'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-february-9-2019-sunil-abraham-intermediary-liability-law-needs-updating</a>
</p>
No publishersunilInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2019-02-13T00:05:30ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society in partnership with Google India conducted the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. This was offered for the first time in Asia Pacific as well as in India. Rishabh Dara was selected as a Fellow and researched upon issues relating to freedom of expression. The results of the paper demonstrate that the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ notified by the Government of India on April 11, 2011 have a chilling effect on free expression.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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. With the 2008 amendment of the Information Technology Act 2000, India joined the bandwagon and established a ‘notice and takedown’ regime for limiting intermediary liability.<br /><br />On the 11th of April 2011, the Government of India notified the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ that prescribe, amongst other things, guidelines for administration of takedowns by intermediaries. The Rules have been criticised extensively by both the national and the international media. The media has projected that the Rules, contrary to the objective of promoting free expression, seem to encourage privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression. On the other hand, the Government has responded through press releases and assured that the Rules in their current form do not violate the principle of freedom of expression or allow the government to regulate content.<br /><br />This study has been conducted with the objective of determining whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression. In the course of the study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 prominent intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled.<br /><br />The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.<br /><br />Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritize the allocation of its legal resources according to the commercial importance of impugned expressions. Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgement) complies with the takedown notice.<br /><br />The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is also no recourse to have the removed information put-back or restored. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice.</p>
<p>The Rules in their current form clearly tilt the takedown mechanism in favour of the complainant and adversely against the creator of expression.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>The research highlights the need to:<br />
<ul>
<li> increase the safeguards against misuse of the privately administered takedown regime</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>reduce the uncertainty in the criteria for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> reduce the uncertainty in the procedure for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> include various elements of natural justice in the procedure for administering the takedown</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>replace the requirement for subjective legal determination by intermediaries with an objective test</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Intermediary Liability in India">Click</a> to download the report [PDF, 406 Kb]</p>
<hr />
<h3>Appendix 2</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf" class="internal-link">Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary</a> (PDF, 263 Kb)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.odt" class="internal-link">Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012</a> (Open Office Document, 231 Kb)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.pdf" class="internal-link">Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012</a> (PDF, 422 Kb)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>The above documents have been sent to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Human Resource Development and Minister of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Shri Milind Murli Deora, Minister of State of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Anita Bhatnagar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology</li>
<li>Dr. Gulshan Rai, Scientist G & Group Coordinator, Director General, ICERT, Controller Of Certifying, Authorities and Head of Division, Cyber Appellate Tribunal </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherRishabh DaraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceResearchFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-12-14T10:22:24ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india
<b>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. With the 2008 amendment of the Information Technology Act 2000, India joined the bandwagon and established a ‘notice and takedown’ regime for limiting intermediary liability.</b>
<p>On the 11th of April 2011, the Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 that prescribe, amongst other things, guidelines for administration of takedowns by intermediaries. The Rules have been criticised extensively by both national and international media. The media has projected that the Rules, contrary to the objective of promoting free expression, seem to encourage privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression. On the other hand, the Government has responded through press releases and assured that the Rules in their current form do not violate the principle of freedom of expression or allow the government to regulate content.</p>
<p>This study has been conducted with the objective of determining whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression. In the course of the study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 prominent intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled.</p>
<p>The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.</p>
<p>Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritise the allocation of its legal resources according to the commercial importance of impugned expressions. Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgement) complies with the takedown notice.</p>
<p>The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is also no recourse to have the removed information put-back or restored. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice. The Rules in their current form clearly tilt the takedown mechanism in favour of the complainant and adversely against the creator of expression.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>The research highlights the need to:<br />
<ul><li>increase the safeguards against misuse of the privately administered takedown regime;</li></ul>
<ul><li>reduce the uncertainty in the criteria for administering the takedown;</li></ul>
<ul><li>reduce the uncertainty in the procedure for administering the takedown;</li></ul>
<ul><li>include various elements of natural justice in the procedure for administering the takedown; and</li></ul>
<ul><li>replace the requirement for subjective legal determination by intermediaries with an objective test.</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
This executive summary is a research output of the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. The Centre for Internet & Society was the host organization. For the entire paper along with references, please write to <a class="external-link" href="mailto:rishabhdara@gmail.com">rishabhdara@gmail.com</a> or<a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org"> sunil@cis-india.org</a>
<p>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherRishabh DaraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-21T18:05:58ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf
<b>This document provides a critique of “The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 and proposes an alternate set of Rules.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherRishabh DaraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2016-04-24T11:54:22ZFileInter Movements Open Forum: Trafficking Bill
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inter-movements-open-forum-trafficking-bill
<b>On 18 May 2018 Gurshabad Grover on behalf of CIS presented comments on the Trafficking (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2018 at a meeting of the Inter Movements Open Forum jointly organised by Sangram, Naz Foundation, NNSW, Tarshi and VAMP. The meeting was held at India International Centre in New Delhi.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Gurshabad's presentation was based on Swaraj's <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-look-at-two-problematic-provisions-of-the-draft-anti-trafficking-bill">blogpost</a> and subsequent research by Kumarjeet that highlights certain problematic sections (36, 39, 41, 59) in the Bill which may have an adverse impact on freedom of expression, and may additionally change the landscape of intermediary liability rules in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Read the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/the-trafficking-bill">agenda here</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Clarification (18th August, 2018): A letter sent to the Ministry of Women and Child Development mentioned the Centre for Internet & Society as instituionally endorsing a critique of the The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018. We seek to clarify that the Centre for Internet & Society did not endorse the letter to the Ministry.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inter-movements-open-forum-trafficking-bill'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inter-movements-open-forum-trafficking-bill</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2018-08-18T09:21:02ZNews ItemIndian Intermediary Liability Regime: Compliance with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-intermediary-liability-regime
<b>This report assesses the compliance of the Indian intermediary liability framework with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, and recommends substantive legislative changes to bring the legal framework in line with the Manila Principles. </b>
<p><span style="text-align: justify; ">The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Swaraj Barooah</span></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report is an examination of Indian laws based upon the background paper to the Manila Principles as the explanatory text on which these recommendations have been based, and not an assessment of the principles themselves. To do this, the report considers the Indian regime in the context of each of the principles defined in the Manila Principles. As such, the explanatory text to the Manila Principles recognizes that diverse national and political scenario may require different intermediary liability legal regimes, however, this paper relies only on the best practices prescribed under the Manila Principles.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report is divided into the following sections</p>
<ul>
<li>Principle I: Intermediaries should be shielded by law from liability for third-party content</li>
<li>Principle II: Content must not be required to be restricted without an order by a judicial authority</li>
<li>Principle III: Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process</li>
<li>Principle IV: Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality</li>
<li>
<div id="_mcePaste">Principle V: Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process</div>
</li>
<li>
<div id="_mcePaste">Principle VI: Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices</div>
</li>
<li>
<div id="_mcePaste">Conclusion</div>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/indian-intermediary-liability-regime">Download the Full report here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-intermediary-liability-regime'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-intermediary-liability-regime</a>
</p>
No publisherdivijInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2018-05-20T15:14:21ZBlog EntryIndian government at second position after U.S.A for demanding user data from Google
https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google
<b>The Indian government has secured 2nd position in the list of the governments demanding for Web user information. It is behind only from the United States government.</b>
<hr />
<p>This blog entry was <a class="external-link" href="http://whdi-reviews.com/2012/11/indian-government-at-second-position-after-u-s-a-for-demanding-user-data-from-google/">published in WHDI Reviews</a> on November 22, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p>This fact came to light in the ‘Transparency Report’ published by web services major. The report covers the time period from January to June in the present year. During this time period, the Govt. of India has asked Google for user information 2,319 times over 3,647 user accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This has been done by the way of court orders and requests made by police. Google has allowed the disclosure of the information sometimes partially and sometimes completely. The U.S.A government on the other hand requested for more information 7,969 requests over 16,281 accounts. The compliance rate by Google to Indian and U.S requests was 64% and 90% respectively. The report gives details about two categories of interactions: firstly to divulge data and secondly to pull down content. India now ranks 7th in the list of countries which had made requests to pull down data. India could have achieved even a better rank but owing to the lack of any constitutional power which backs its action, it has to be satisfied with the seventh position. According to Pranesh, (policy director with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society) these requests for pulling down data are an attempt made by the government so that its criticism is not able to reach a wide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google (which is banned in China) supports the cause of disclosure of the information related to governments. The other net service providers which put out similar transparency reports are twitter, Linkedin and Cloud storage service Dropbox. These content pull down request made by the government is not healthy for a democratic country like India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google'>https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2012-11-30T05:05:01ZNews ItemIndia: The New Front Line in the Global Struggle for Internet Freedom
https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom
<b>The government tussles with Internet freedom activists in the world's largest democracy.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom/258237/">This article was published in the Atlantic on June 7, 2012</a></p>
<p>This Saturday, Indian Internet freedom advocates are planning to stage a nation-wide protest against what they see as their government's increasingly restrictive regulation of the Internet. An amorphous alliance of concerned citizens and activist hackers intend to use the streets and the Internet itself to make their opposition felt. </p>
<p>Over the last year, as Americans were focused on the domestic debates surrounding the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml">Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)</a>, or on the more brazen displays of online censorship by mainstays of Internet restriction like China, Iran and Pakistan, India was rapidly emerging as a key battleground in the worldwide struggle for Internet freedom.</p>
<p>The confrontation escalated in April 2011, when the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology introduced sweeping new rules regulating the nature of material that Internet companies could host online. In response, civil liberties groups, Internet freedom supporters, and a growing assembly of online activist hackers have been fighting back, initiating street protests, organizing online petitions, and launching -- under the banner of the "Anonymous" hacker group -- a torrent of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against Indian government and industry web sites. </p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">April 2011 rules</a>, an update to India's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf">Information Technology Act</a> (IT Act) of 2000 (amended in 2008), popularly known as the "intermediary guidelines," instruct online "intermediaries" -- companies that provide Internet access, host online content, websites, or search services -- to remove, within 36 hours, any material deemed to be "grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous," "ethnically objectionable," or "disparaging" by any Internet user who submits a formal objection letter to that intermediary. Under the guidelines, any resident of India can compel Google, at the risk of criminal and/or civil liability, to remove content from its site that the resident finds politically, religiously, or otherwise "objectionable." </p>
<p>Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal -- the intermediary guidelines' most important government evangelist, and the head of the agency responsible for administering the guidelines -- even <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/">instructed Internet companies</a> to go one step further and start pre-screening content for removal before it was flagged by concerned users. This requires companies like Facebook, in effect, to determine what material might offend its users and thus violate Indian law, and then remove it from the website. With <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-15/news/30520358_1_e-commerce-indian-internet-space-internet-and-mobile-association">over 100 million Internet users</a> in India, no company could possibly monitor all its content through human intervention alone; web companies would have to set up filters and other mechanisms to take down potentially objectionable content more or less automatically.</p>
<p>India's constitution, in large part crafted in response to the modern country's harrowing history of religious and communal violence, allows for "reasonable restrictions" on free speech. Indian officials have at times banned certain books, movies, or other materials touching on such sensitive subjects as religion and caste. </p>
<p>Left with little choice but to comply or risk legal action, Google, Yahoo!, and other Internet companies acquiesced and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/india-internet-idUSL4E8D66SM20120206">began pulling down </a>webpages after receiving requests to do so. Yet many companies refused to remove all the content requested, prompting Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasm, an Islamic scholar, and journalist Vinay Rai, respectively, to file civil and criminal suits against 22 of the largest Internet companies operating in India. The targets, including Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and Microsoft, were accused of failing to remove material deemed to be offensive to the Prophet Mohammed, Jesus, several Hindu gods and goddesses, and various political leaders. </p>
<p>The companies have had some success in the litigation: Google India, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have all <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304356604577341101544076864.html">been dropped</a> from the civil case after the court heard preliminary arguments; the Delhi High Court recently dismissed Microsoft from the criminal case. Otherwise, both cases are still ongoing.</p>
<p>India has taken its Internet regulation internationally, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thinkdigit.com/Internet/India-asks-US-to-remove-objectionable-content_9366.html">asking</a> the United States government to ensure that India-specific objectionable content is removed from sites such as Facebook, Google, and YouTube, and suggesting that these companies should be asked to relocate their servers to India in to order better to regulate the content locally.</p>
<p>The Indian government's state-centric view of Internet regulation and governance is also clear in their approach to international governance. Citing the need for more governmental input in the Internet's development and what happens online, India formally <a class="external-link" href="http://content.ibnlive.in.com/article/21-May-2012documents/full-text-indias-un-proposal-to-control-the-internet-259971-53.html">proposed the creation</a> of the Committee for Internet Related Policies (CIRP) at the 2011 United Nations General Assembly. The CIRP would be an entirely new multilateral UN body responsible for coordinating virtually all Internet governance functions, including multilateral treaties. </p>
<p>To be fair, some Indians see these as efforts not to impose censorship but to allow a greater degree of Indian and international control over a system considered by many in India and elsewhere to be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece">under the thumb of the U.S. government</a>. </p>
<p>Yet some Internet experts in both India and the West are criticizing the CIRP proposal as part of "<a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-21/internet/31800574_1_governance-cyber-security-internet">thinly masked efforts to control or shape the Internet</a>," as one Indian official put it. They<a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-waz/internet-governance-at-a-_b_1203125.html"> warn</a> that a state-centric system of Internet governance could lead to serious restrictions on the type of information available online, and damage the Internet's potential for innovation.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/IndiaAnonymous.jpg/image_preview" alt="India Anonymous" class="image-inline image-inline" title="India Anonymous" /></p>
<p>India's Internet freedom advocates are straining to keep up with the rapid pace of the last year. But, now, they're gathering some steam. Online petitions against the intermediary guidelines, the IT Act, and censorship in India in general have appeared on <a class="external-link" href="https://www.change.org/petitions/mps-of-india-support-the-annulment-motion-to-protect-internet-freedom-stopitrules">Change.org</a> and <a class="external-link" href="https://www.facebook.com/saveyourvoice">Facebook</a>; <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtA194jig3s">protest videos</a> are popping up on Youtube. The Centre for Internet and Society, a web-focused think tank, released an <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" class="external-link">extensive report highlighting</a> the intermediary guidelines' effects on freedom online. The Internet Democracy Project <a class="external-link" href="http://lighthouseinsights.in/bloggers-against-internet-censorship.html">organized a day-long training program</a> on freedom of expression and censorship for bloggers entitled "Make Blog not War." FreeSoftware Movement Karnataka organized a protest of hundreds of students in Bangalore, India's IT hub. And Save Your Voice activists <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/04/22/freedom-in-the-cage-photos-from-a-protest-against-internet-censorship-in-delhi/">held a sit in</a> outside Delhi's Jantar Mantar monument to pressure lawmakers.</p>
<p>Yet, not all the opposition has been so civil. Hackers, operating under the umbrella of the techno-libertarian hacker community, "Anonymous," are waging their own, less lawful fight against the government as well as the Internet companies that have, in their view, too readily complied with the government's censorship demands. </p>
<p>On May 17, Anonymous hackers attacked a number of Indian <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/supreme-court-website-hacked-in-response-to-tpb-vimeo-block/307532">government websites</a>, including the Indian Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India, the ruling Congress Party and its <a class="external-link" href="http://windowsera.com/anonymous-india-hacks-aitmc-mizoram-government-website-redirects-to-twitter">coalition partners</a>, as well as the opposition Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), making them all inaccessible for several hours. </p>
<p>Moreover, just this past week, Anonymous broke into the websites and servers of a number of Internet Service Providers, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/anonymous-strikes-rcom-to-protest-india-net-censorship-322241.html">Reliance Communications</a>, seemingly to punish them for complying with government orders to block file-sharing hosts such as Pirate Bay and Vimeo. Once in the ISPs' servers, the hackers accessed their lists of <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/general/anonymous-india-releases-blocked-sites-list-plans-peaceful-protest/310682">blocked sites</a> -- which they then distributed to media outlets. They also redirected people who tried to reach Reliance's site to an Anonymous <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cio.in/sites/default/files/topstory/2012/05/reliance_network_hacked.JPG">protest page</a>. </p>
<p>Building on the momentum of these attacks, and on the anti-censorship outrage growing across India, Anonymous <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-31/internet/31920036_1_occupy-protests-government-sites-website">has called for a national day of protest</a> in 11 Indian cities this Saturday, and an additional series online attacks against government and industry websites. The occupy-style protests -- which Anonymous insists will be non-violent -- are to include awareness campaigns on Facebook and other social networking sites. Protesters are being asked to don the <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anonymous_at_Scientology_in_Los_Angeles.jpg">Guy Fawkes mask</a>, a symbol now associated with Anonymous, among other protest movements, both in the streets and on their Facebook profiles. </p>
<p>It's unclear how much support the June 9 protest will receive, or how serious the planned Anonymous attacks with be, but given the attention that the announcement has attracted in the Indian media, it seems likely that people will at least be paying attention. And even if this weekend the protest fails to attract the type of large and vocal response protest organizers are hoping it will, that it's come so far is an indication that neither side looks ready to back down.</p>
<p>Still, the government has given some small signs recently that it is reconsidering its position on the "intermediary guidelines," if not on Internet regulation more generally. Information Technology Minister Sibal, under pressure from the political opposition and after Parliament Member P. Rajeeve tabled a motion to seek rescission of the new rules,<a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-promises-to-rethink-on-internet-censorship/1/189265.html"> indicated</a> that he would reconsider his previous positions, and the government has agreed to <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-18/news/31765682_1_internet-rules-arun-jaitley-information-technology-rules">reexamine the rules</a>. </p>
<p>This is an encouraging sign, although it's unlikely that any government action will come in time to forestall this weekend's protests. But even if the intermediary guidelines are ultimately rescinded, India will likely continue its soul-searching on how it deals with the Internet.</p>
<p>As the world's largest democracy and a model for much of the developing world, and with an Internet population anticipated to surpass that of the United States in the next few years, India is an important, maybe the most important, test case for the future of Internet freedom globally. Should India continue down a course of restriction, other nations eager to restrict online speech could see precedent to impose their own technical and political barriers to free expression online. It would be a tragic irony if India, as one of the developing world's greatest beneficiaries of the information revolution, ended up curbing those same free flows of information and ideas.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-06-18T07:10:21ZNews ItemIndia- EU FTA: A Note on the Copyright Issues
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues
<b>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. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues.pdf" class="internal-link">Click to download the India-EU FTA: A Note on Copyright Issues</a> (PDF, 205 Kb)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> 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.</p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> 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<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a>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.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a>This approach is inherently problematic, because it then infringes on the developing countries’ ability to achieve their developmental objectives.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Dismantling the Arguments In Favour of Increased IP Protection</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An illustration of the aforesaid proposition may be <i>Heald’s </i>criticism<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a> levied on <i>Mansfield’s </i>paper<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6]</a> 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<a href="#fn7" name="fr7">[7]</a> 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.<a href="#fn8" name="fr8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specifically in the area of copyright, it has been observed that increased copyright protection can hamper the growth and development of knowledge based industries. <i>Sanya Smith </i>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.<a href="#fn9" name="fr9">[9]</a> 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.<a href="#fn10" name="fr10">[10]</a> 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.</p>
<h2>Implications of the Copyright Provisions in the Proposed Indo- EU FTA</h2>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn11" name="fr11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It has been observed<a href="#fn12" name="fr12">[12]</a> that the Indo- EU FTA<a href="#fn13" name="fr13">[13]</a> 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<a href="#fn14" name="fr14">[14]</a>the proposed FTA includes Articles 7 (Objectives) and 8 (Principles) of the TRIPS<a href="#fn15" name="fr15">[15]</a> 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.<a href="#fn16" name="fr16">[16]</a> It has been said however, that stronger language where the parties ‘affirmed’ their obligations under the Declaration could have been used.<a href="#fn17" name="fr17">[17]</a> 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.</p>
<h3>Problematic Provisions</h3>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn18" name="fr18">[18]</a> An overview of some of the problematic provisions has been presented hereafter:</p>
<h4>International Obligations</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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<a href="#fn19" name="fr19">[19]</a> 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<a href="#fn20" name="fr20">[20]</a>, and that India is not a party to either the WCT<a href="#fn21" name="fr21">[21]</a> or the WPPT<a href="#fn22" name="fr22">[22]</a>, and therefore, this provision would have the effect of substantially surpassing all obligations that India has at the moment under multilateral international agreements.</p>
<h4>Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) and Digital Rights Management (DRM)</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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”.<a href="#fn23" name="fr23">[23]</a></p>
<h4>Copyright Expansion</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn24" name="fr24">[24]</a> 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<a href="#fn25" name="fr25">[25]</a>. 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.<a href="#fn26" name="fr26">[26]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 7.6 (proposed by the EU), limits the resale rights of a downstream purchaser. It has been noted by Knowledge Ecology International<a href="#fn27" name="fr27">[27]</a> 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.<a href="#fn28" name="fr28">[28]</a> 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).<a href="#fn29" name="fr29">[29]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn30" name="fr30">[30]</a> It has been observed that this test is more restrictive than TRIPS, Berne Convention, Rome Convention or the WCT.<a href="#fn31" name="fr31">[31]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<h4>Persons with Disabilities</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is nothing that deals with the import/export or cross border exchange of files/documents/books etc. for persons with disabilities.</p>
<h4>Cross Border Measures</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn32" name="fr32">[32]</a> 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.<a href="#fn33" name="fr33">[33]</a></p>
<h4>Intermediary Liability</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn34" name="fr34">[34]</a> 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. <a href="#fn35" name="fr35">[35]</a> 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.<a href="#fn36" name="fr36">[36]</a> 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.<a href="#fn37" name="fr37">[37]</a> 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.</p>
<h4>IP Enforcement</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn38" name="fr38">[38]</a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn39" name="fr39">[39]</a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<h2>Concluding Observations</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#fn40" name="fr40">[40]</a> 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.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].Hereafter referred to as the FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <span>Sanya Reid Smith, Intellectual Property in Free Trade Agreements, for the UNDP Regional Trade Workshop (17-18 December, Penang, Malaysia), available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/11W8dqy">http://bit.ly/11W8dqy</a> <span>(last accessed 04 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. Id at 5.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. Supra note 2, citing PJ Heald, Information Economics and Policy 16 (2004) 57-65</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. <span>Edwin Mansfield, Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, International Finance Corporation: Discussion Paper No. 19, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/18V4D5v">http://bit.ly/18V4D5v</a><span><a href="http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1994/02/01/000009265_3970311123634/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf"></a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr7" name="fn7">7</a>]. 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 <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/11JBR4o">http://bit.ly/11JBR4o</a> <span>(last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr9" name="fn9">9</a>]. Supra note 2 at 23.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr10" name="fn10">10</a>]. Supra note 2 at 23.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr11" name="fn11">11</a>]. <span>PTI, India – EU FTA Talks Fail to Bridge Gaps, available at </span>http://bit.ly/19LJaeP <span>(last accessed 05 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr12" name="fn12">12</a>]. <span>Krista Cox, Quick Reaction to the EU/India (BTIA) Negotiating Text, available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1693">http://keionline.org/node/1693</a> (last accessed 04 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr13" name="fn13">13</a>]. Hereafter referred to as the FTA</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr14" name="fn14">14</a>]. <span>KEI Staff, More Notes on the India EU FTA (BTIA), available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1692">http://keionline.org/node/1692</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr15" name="fn15">15</a>]. <span>See </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ">http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ</a> <span> for more details, and for the bare text of the Articles. (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr16" name="fn16">16</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr17" name="fn17">17</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr18" name="fn18">18</a>]. <span>Patralekha Chatterjee, Leaked IP Chapter of India- EU FTA Shows TRIPS-PLUS Pitfalls for India, Expert Says, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/Y7w70e">http://bit.ly/Y7w70e</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr19" name="fn19">19</a>]. <span>Snehashish Ghosh, Analysis of Copyright Expansion in the India-EU FTA (July 2010), available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/ysitEC">http://bit.ly/ysitEC</a><span><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/blog/analysis-copyright-expansion-india-eu-fta"></a> (last accessed 03 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr20" name="fn20">20</a>]. <span>For the status of Contracting Parties, see </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/UITpsX">http://bit.ly/UITpsX</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr21" name="fn21">21</a>]. <span>For the status of Contracting Parties, see </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/f92xL2">http://bit.ly/f92xL2</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr22" name="fn22">22</a>]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/fEsUAF">http://bit.ly/fEsUAF</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr23" name="fn23">23</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr24" name="fn24">24</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr25" name="fn25">25</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr26" name="fn26">26</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr27" name="fn27">27</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr28" name="fn28">28</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr29" name="fn29">29</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr30" name="fn30">30</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr31" name="fn31">31</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr32" name="fn32">32</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr33" name="fn33">33</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr34" name="fn34">34</a>]. See Article 35 of the Proposed FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr35" name="fn35">35</a>]. <span>Glover Wright, A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/16Dfuga">http://bit.ly/16Dfuga</a><span><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf/view"></a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013) at 12- 14.</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr36" name="fn36">36</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr37" name="fn37">37</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr38" name="fn38">38</a>]. <span>Thiru, EU-India FTA: EU Pushes for IP Enforcement- IP Chapter Draft Text Under Negotiation (2013), available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1681">http://keionline.org/node/1681</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr39" name="fn39">39</a>]. See Article 22.3 of the proposed FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr40" name="fn40">40</a>]. Supra note 35.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightAccessibilityIntermediary LiabilityTechnological Protection Measures2013-07-03T06:47:08ZBlog EntryIndia's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism
<b>Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.</b>
<p>(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/941491/">"Practise what you preach"</a> on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)</p>
<p>The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/www.mit.gov.in/content/cyber-laws-security">Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group</a> in the <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in">Department of Electronics and Information Technology</a> (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/s65.htm">"computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act</a> is a great example of that.)</p>
<p>The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx??relid=74990">clarification through a press release</a>, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/940682/">"arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev</a>, who has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules">introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules</a> ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.</p>
<p>Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1740460/">s.5 of the Telegraph Act</a> only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.</p>
<p>Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in">Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)</a> has been granted <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in/">very broad functions</a> under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.</p>
<p>All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body. </p>
<p>The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an <a href="httphttp://www.cgi.br/english/">"Internet Steering Committee"</a> which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/content/internet-governance">Internet Governance Division</a>, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionIntermediary LiabilityFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-26T13:45:25ZBlog Entry