The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
Historic day for freedom of speech and expression in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india
<b>In a petition that finds its origin in a simple status message on Facebook, Shreya Singhal vs Union of India marks a historic reinforcement of the freedom of speech and expression in India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vidushi Marda was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/views/Historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-India/articleshow/46681364.cms">Bangalore Mirror</a> on March 25, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">Hearing a batch of writ petitions, the bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman and J Chelameswar considered the constitutionality of three provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provisions under consideration were Section 66A, dealing with punishment of sending offensive messages through communication services, Section 69A which discusses website blocking and Section 79, dealing with intermediary liability.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The intent behind Section 66A was originally to regulate spam and cyber stalking, but in the last seven years not a single spammer has been imprisoned.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Instead, innocent academics have been arrested for circulating caricatures. The Court struck down the section in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">It held that the language of the section was "nebulous" and "imprecise" and did not satisfy reasonable restrictions under A. 19(2) of the Constitution of India.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Section 79 was meant to result in the blossoming of free speech since it stated that intermediaries will not be held liable for content created by their users unless they refused to act on take-down notices. Unfortunately, intermediaries were unable to decide whether content was legal or illegal, and when the Centre for Internet and Society in 2011 sent flawed take-down notices to seven prominent national and international intermediaries, they erred on the side of caution and over-complied, often deleting legitimate content. By insisting on a court order, the Supreme Court has eliminated the chilling effect of this Section.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Block orders issued by the Indian government to telecom operators and ISPs were shrouded in opacity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The process through which such orders were developed and implemented was not within public scrutiny. When a film is banned, it becomes part of public discourse, but website blocking does not enjoy the same level of transparency. The person whose speech has been censored is not notified or given an opportunity to be heard as part of the executive process. Unfortunately, in dealing with Section 69A, the Court chose to leave it intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">On balance, this is a truly a landmark judgment as it is the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court has struck down any law in its entirety for a violation of free speech.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:19:17ZBlog EntryInternet censorship will continue in opaque fashion
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion
<b>A division bench of the Supreme Court has ruled on three sections of the Information Technology Act 2000 - Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. The draconian Section 66A was originally meant to tackle spam and cyber-stalking but was used by the powerful elite to crack down on online dissent and criticism.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sunil Abraham was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion/articleshow/46681490.cms">Times of India</a> on March 25, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 79 was meant to give immunity to internet intermediaries for liability emerging from third-party speech, but it had a chilling effect on free speech because intermediaries erred on the side of caution when it came to deciding whether the content was legal or illegal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And Section 69A was the web blocking or internet censorship provision, but the procedure prescribed did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and transparency. For instance, when books are banned by courts, the public is informed of such bans but when websites are banned in India, there's no clear message from the Internet Service Provider.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court upheld 69A, so web blocking and internet censorship in India will continue to happen in an opaque fashion which is worrying. But on 66A and 79, the landmark judgment protects the right to free speech and expression. It struck down 66A in entirety, saying the vague and imprecise language made the provision unconstitutional and it interfered with "the right of the people to know - the market place of ideas - which the internet provides to persons of all kinds". However, it only read down Section 79 saying "unlawful acts beyond what is laid down" as reasonable restrictions to the right to free speech in the Constitution "obviously cannot form any part" of the section. In short, the court has eliminated any additional restrictions for speech online even though it admitted that the internet is "intelligibly different" from traditional media and might require additional laws to be passed by the Indian Parliament."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:07:28ZBlog EntryIndia’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to arrests over Facebook posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts
<b>Judge rules that section of the information technology law was unconstitutional, had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/24/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts.html">'The Star.com' </a>on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/02/06/google_india_facebook_remove_offensive_content.html">did not turn out that way</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and another artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely “liked” the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/02/16/dark_days_for_the_creative_class_in_india_siddiqui.html">banned or censored</a> out of consideration for religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/13/hindu_history_book_yanked_from_shelves_under_pressure_from_india_nationalists.html">withdraw a book</a> about Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/06/bbc-doc-examines-2012-fatal-gang-rape-of-student-in-new-delhi.html">documentary film</a> on a 2012 gang rape case, <i>India’s Daughter</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T01:49:54ZNews ItemIndia High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order
<b>Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Bloomberg.pdf" class="internal-link">Bloomberg BNA</a> on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;<br />(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or<br />(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated<br />officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable<br />to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Impact on Intermediary Liability</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B<br />to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-03T06:18:52ZNews ItemSupreme Court Strikes Down Section 66A Of IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act
<b>In a major boost to freedom of speech online in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, reading down a draconian law that was poorly conceived, tragically worded and caused ordinary citizens to be jailed for so much as a comment on Facebook that annoyed just about anyone. </b>
<p>The article by Indrani Basu and Betwa Sharma <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/03/24/section-66-a_n_6928864.html">published in the Huffington Post </a>on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p>In its <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf" target="_hplink">122-page judgment</a>, the court struck down the entire section, refusing to heed the government's plea that it will not be misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The apex courts in India have consistently protected the rights of its citizens. And the Supreme Court has once again upheld that great tradition with this decision. There are constitutional exceptions to free speech that exist.</p>
<blockquote class="pullquote">But this judgment will protect against the abuse of this vague and badly drafted law," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The section was passed without discussion in Parliament by the UPA government in 2008, adding an amendment to the original 2002 Act. While Narendra Modi supported the repealing of the Act during his prime ministerial campaign, after the BJP came to power, the government defended the provision, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sec-66A-draconian-but-is-needed-Govt/articleshow/46125733.cms" target="_hplink">even while admitting it was draconian</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government argued that the provision was necessary to prevent people from posting inflammatory content offending religious or political sentiments, leading to violence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I''m so happy with the decision. They have completely struck down the whole section. This is a victory for the country," said Shreya Singhal, the 24-year-old law student on whose petition the Supreme Court was hearing the case. "I don't have a political agenda — both the Congress government and the BJP have misused the section earlier. Section 66A was a blanket provision which was very vague. There are many IPC sections that could be used in its place."</p>
<p>"No one should fear putting anything up on the internet. It is very important for us to protect this right today," she said.</p>
<p>But there are sections in the Indian Penal Code that can deal with such situations.</p>
<p>And the broad and vague wording of 66A meant that it effectively became a tool that muzzled all speech online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, Shaheen Dada, a 21-year old Mumbai girl, posted on Facebook comments about Shivsena leader Bal Thackerey. Annoyed <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823" target="_hplink">party members went to the cops and Dada was arrested</a>. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan, who had 'liked' the comment on Facebook, was also arrested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The same year, <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx" target="_hplink">Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra</a> was arrested for sharing a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mumbai cartoonist <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/outrage-over-cartoonist-aseem-trivedis-arrest-on-sedition-charges-for-mocking-the-constitution-498901" target="_hplink">Aseem Trivedi was also arrested</a> under the provision for his cartoons during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption agitation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here is what the section said:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted">66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<br />Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—<br />(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or<br />(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,<br />(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,<br />shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T16:43:53ZNews ItemIndian Supreme Court Overturns Law Barring ‘Offensive Messages’ Online
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online
<b>India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down legislation barring “offensive messages” online, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free expression.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Niharika Mandhana <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online-1427174675">published by Wall Street Journal</a> on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A two-judge panel voided a part of India’s Information Technology Act that made it a crime to share information through computers or other communications devices that could cause “annoyance, inconvenience” and “enmity, hatred or ill will.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Announcing the ruling in a crowded courtroom in the Indian capital, Justice Rohinton Nariman said the law’s provisions were too vague and didn’t provide “clearly defined lines” for law-enforcement officials. “What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court also ruled that Internet companies, such as Facebook and Google, could be required to remove or block access to online content only if ordered to do so by a court or by a notification from the government. Previously, they were expected to act when they had “actual knowledge” of allegedly illegal materials.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free-speech activists had long argued against the broad language in the law, which was enacted in part as an effort to prevent the incitement of violence among different religious and ethnic groups in the world’s second-most-populous nation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Tuesday they applauded the decision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This provision was hugely problematic for anyone using the Internet in India and that is gone,” said Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society. “The court has removed the additional, unconstitutional limits to free speech.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Information Technology minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said in a televised interview after the ruling that the government “supports free social media.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If the security establishment needs a response in cases of terrorism, extremism, communal violence, the government will take a view after wider consultations,” Mr. Prasad said. “But only with adequate safeguards.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Enforcement of the law has sparked controversy for years. In 2012, a 21-year-old was detained after complaining on Facebook about the effective shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a right-wing Hindu leader. Another person was also detained for “liking” her comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That year, political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was also charged under this law for his work lampooning Parliament. Mr. Trivedi said Tuesday that the court’s decision would “put a stop to years of misuse of the law by the government and politicians.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It sends a strong message that Indian law is with free speech,” Mr. Trivedi said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to a recent report by Facebook, the U.S. social media company blocked 5,832 pieces of content in the second half of 2014 on requests from Indian law-enforcement agencies and the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That was up from 4,960 pieces blocked from January to June last year. Facebook said it restricted access in India to a lot of “anti-religious content” and “hate speech that Indian officials reported could cause unrest and disharmony.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">J. Sai Deepak, a New Delhi-based lawyer involved in the case, said Tuesday’s decision was a significant victory for Internet companies in India. He said the law’s implementation—which earlier was “subject to the vagaries of the political winds of the state,” he said—would now be guided only by the free-speech rules laid down in the Indian constitution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order, however, rejected an argument by free-speech advocates that information shared on the Internet must be treated the same way as other kinds of speech, such as a live address or printed material. The court said lawmakers could create a separate law to deal with online speech because such content, unlike others, “travels like lightning and can reach millions of persons all over the world.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the current law, the court said, was too vague and included terms which “take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech.” The law “is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the order said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">—Newley Purnell contributed to this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T16:18:29ZNews Item‘A safe Internet and a free Internet can co-exist’
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-co-exist
<b>Striking down of 66A kicked off celebrations in the IT capital.</b>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-coexist/article7031117.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Social media was celebrating on Tuesday. “Such a party going on on Twitter today #66A!” said one exuberant user, while another put a rap on it: “Made an FB post and didn’t go to jail. I <i>gotta</i> say today was a good day.” Another group was quick to point though: “Enjoy the freedom “responsibly!"</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The day the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, those who had consistently termed it a “tyrannical” and “draconian” legal provision did a victory lap, calling it a “triumph for free speech in India”. Bengaluru, often called the information technology capital of the country, can stake claim for some of the legwork, with many from the city having either campaigned for the cause or took part in the PIL.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, one of the litigants, said, “A free and fair Internet is crucial for innovation, connection and economic growth. By repealing section 66A, India is now ready for a technological leap. A safe Internet and a free Internet can co-exist, and the government should now draft carefully worded amendments that enable this co-existence.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Stating that the Section was more your foe than a friend, cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said, “Section 66A symbolised the tyranny of ambiguous vague terms over the purity of legitimate free speech. It represented a tool for suppressing bonafide free speech, which was extensively misused. Freedom of speech and expression on the Internet is sacrosanct and only subject to reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.”</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediaries</h3>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said there were other positives in the landmark judgement.<br /><br />“For the first time since the 1960s, the SC has struck down a section of law deeming it unconstitutional. Section 79 gave an adjudicatory position to intermediaries (such as Facebook, Twitter or bloggers). They were liable if they took the wrong decision or if they did not act on ‘take down’ requests within 36 hours. Now they are immune either way,” he explained. He said small-time bloggers, newspapers, and open source encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, will now be protected.</p>
<h3 class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">‘Retain spirit of Section 66A(b)’</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>K.V. Aditya Bharadwaj</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Bengaluru:</b> While even cops handling cyber crimes have welcomed scrapping sub-sections (a) and (c) of Section 66A of IT Act, 2000, they make a case for retaining the spirit of sub-section (b) in an amended law expected to be brought in shortly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A(b) deals with a person sending out messages using electronic medium, which he knows to be false. It was under this provision that cops booked rumour-mongers who spread hatred messages through WhatsApp and other social media, which was scrapped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A classic case was the one were two men were arrested for sending out provocative WhatsApp messages in July 2012, leading to an exodus of North-East Indians from the city. “Similar baseless WhatsApp messages led to chaos after the December 2014 Church Street blast and D.K. Ravi’s death. Even twitter was abuzz with parody profiles and fake claims made by people after the bomb blast. Rumour mongering and sending provocative messages have turned out to be a major area of concern in urban centres,” said a senior official.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An official said that in the absence of Section 66A(b), such rumour-mongers could only be booked under the Karnataka Police Act, which carries a very light punishment.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-co-exist'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-co-exist</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T15:58:02ZNews ItemNetizens Rejoice Over SC Ruling to Keep the Net Free
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free
<b>The Supreme Court ruling to strike down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act has been welcomed by the city’s netizens.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Parina Dhilla was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Netizens-Rejoice-Over-SC-Ruling-to-Keep-the-Net-Free/2015/03/25/article2728971.ece">published in the New Indian Express</a> on March 25, 2015. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sharanya Gopinathan, a recent graduate, was overjoyed at the decision. The youngster, who is now pursuing her masters in London, recalls the time her post on Facebook about Prime Minister Narendra Modi was reported for being offensive.<br /><br />“It was just a sentence about how I felt about Mr Modi. Nothing obscene but it still got reported,” she says. She believes the Internet to be “the last guard of freedom”, where free speech has real meaning because there is no government and corporate control.<br /><br />Forums propagating freedom on the World Wide Web too have applauded the verdict.<br /><br />T Vishnu Vardhan, programme director of Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society, says the draconian aspect of the IT Act has finally been removed.<br /><br />The other laws coming under the IT Act’s ambit too need to be reviewed and changed, he said.<br /><br />Lawyers told Express that many times, they have advised clients to take down posts that could be construed as offensive under Section 66A.<br /><br />Lawrence Liang, a lawyer with the Alternative Law Forum, says, “Recently, we were approached by a woman saying she was being harassed by a mob after she tweeted about the beef ban in Maharashtra. We asked her to delete the tweet and lie low.”<br /><br />“But now, I won’t advise people to take down their posts from the internet. It is a good ruling and gives people their freedom of speech and expression on the Internet,” Lawrence says.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Change on the Horizon</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With bans raining down in the country, many believe the apex court’s decision will bring about change.<br /><br />Yogita Dakshina, a freelance content writer who regularly posts about the hardships faced by the LGBT community, says she has always posted fearlessly but some of her family members were always scared that she would court trouble due to the provisions of Section 66A.<br /><br />Prabahan Chakravorty, a PhD student, is of the view that this will be a big lift for those in the creative field. “The rights to freedom and expression need to be given to all citizens, especially writers and artists. Some people may consider a few posts offensive, but then, the world is offensive and people need to deal with that.”<br /><br />On the responsibility that falls upon netizens with this verdict, Ankura Nayak, a student of Mount Carmel College, says, “People are responsible and they know what to post. There were a few people who posted irresponsible content even before this ruling. But these are few in number compared to responsible netizens.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T15:16:03ZNews ItemNo more 66A!
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a
<b>In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact">set of petitions</a> heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries <i>need not</i> act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHomepageIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedChilling EffectSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2015-03-26T02:01:31ZBlog EntryIndia tops list of content restrictions requests, says Facebook
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook
<b>India has again topped the list of content restriction requests in the second half of 2014 with over 5,800 requests recorded in Facebook's Government Requests Report released on Sunday.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Neha Alawadhi was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-17/news/60211797_1_data-requests-government-requests-chris-sonderby">Economic Times</a> on March 17, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Overall, we continue to see an increase in government requests for data and content restrictions. The amount of content restricted for violating local law increased by 11% over the previous half, to 9,707 pieces of content restricted, up from 8,774," said Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, and Chris Sonderby, deputy general counsel, in a statement on the social networking website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Facebook">Facebook</a> saw a rise in content restriction requests from countries like Turkey and Russia, while requests from countries like Pakistan came down. The number of content restriction requests from Pakistan came down to 54 in the second half of 2014 from 1,773 in the first half. The number of content restriction requests from India rose to 5,832 from 4,960 in the first half.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has been the top requestor for content restrictions in the past one and a half years, and the number of these requests and for user account data from the country have consistently been on the rise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook said that while the number of government requests for user account data remained relatively flat in the six-month period, there was an increase in data requests from "governments such as India, and decline in requests from countries such as the United States and Germany".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India made 5,473 requests for user account data in the six months ending December 2014, second only to the United States, which made 14,274 requests in the same period. About 45% of the requests made by India led to Facebook producing some data, according to the report, while 79% of the requests made by the US were complied with.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Of course, the figures are alarming... But it would have been better if Facebook had also given us more information on the kind of data that was being asked for. Now we only have consolidated figures. So what kind of data was asked for, that would have been more useful," said counsel for the Software Freedom Law Centre.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is the second largest market for Facebook, with 112 million users until last year, second only to the United States. According to Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, "the number of content restriction requests are not only high on an absolute number, but even on a per-user basis".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-04-03T17:01:53ZNews ItemPastebin, Dailymotion, Github blocked after DoT order: Report
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-anupam-saxena-december-31-2014-pastein-dailymotion-github-blocked-after-dot-order
<b>A number of Indian users are reporting they're not able to access websites such as Pastebin, DailyMotion and Github while accessing the internet through providers such as BSNL and Vodafone.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Anupam Saxena was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pastebin-Dailymotion-Github-blocked-after-DoT-order-Report/articleshow/45701713.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The block was first reported by Pastebin, a website where you can store text online for a set period of time, through its social media accounts on December 19. In a follow-up post on December 26, the site posted that it was still blocked in India on the directions of the Indian government.A number of users also posted about the blocks on Reddit threads confirming that the sites have been blocked by Vodafone, BSNL and Hathway, among others.It now appears that the blocks are being carried out on the instructions of DoT (Department of Telecom). The telecom body reportedly issued a notification regarding the same on December 17. A screenshot of the circular has been posted on Twitter by Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The notification mentions that 32 URLs including Pastebin, video sharing sites Vimeo and DailyMotion, Internet archive site archive.org and Github.com( a web-based software code repository), have been blocked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. DoT has also asked ISPs to submit compliance reports. However, we have not been able to verify the authenticity of the circular.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the time of writing this story, we could not access Pastebin, DailyMotion and Github on Vodafone 3G and our office network that has access via dedicated lines. Vodafone is not displaying any errors and is simply blocking access. However, a number of users report that they're getting an error that says 'the site is blocked as per the instructions of Competent Authority.' However, we were able to access all the websites on Airtel 3G.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float:left; "> </span><span style="float:left; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float:left; "> </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-anupam-saxena-december-31-2014-pastein-dailymotion-github-blocked-after-dot-order'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-anupam-saxena-december-31-2014-pastein-dailymotion-github-blocked-after-dot-order</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-01-03T04:17:48ZNews ItemGovt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites
<b>The Modi government is starting the New Year with the resolve to wipe out terror and it has cracked down on websites that have been carrying anti-India views and spreading the propaganda of the Islamic State (IS). </b>
<p>The article <a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/cyber-jehad-network-dot-vimeo-git-hub-daily-motion-source-forge-paste-bin--islamic-state-mehdi-masroor-biswas/1/410787.html">published in India Today</a> on January 1, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to an alert from the antiterror squad of a state police department, the Department of Telecom (DoT) has blocked access to 32 websites. The DoT order that was tweeted by Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Bangalore-based research organisation, said that 32 URLs have been blocked under section 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order was reportedly issued on December 16 and it was shared on Twitter on Wednesday. GitHub, Archive.org, Imgur, Vimeo, Daily Motion, Pastebin, sourceforge, justpaste, cryptbin were among the sites that were blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As reports emerged on the ban of these sites, there was outrage on Twitter on the issue of internet censorship. However, most of the websites mentioned in the list that were to be blocked were accessible. Pastebin and Internet Archive, two websites that have reportedly been blocked, tweeted their views.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If you are from India and unable to visit Pastebin, please email us," Pastebin tweeted on December 19. Internet Archive tweeted on December 31 that they too received complaints from users in India who can't access its website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to the outrage, Arvind Gupta, national head of the BJP IT Cell took to Twitter and said that these sites have been blocked after an alert from an anti-terrorism squad that most of them were carrying anti-India content from the Islamic State (IS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We should congratulate the government for taking a preventive and precautionary step in a proactive manner based on an advisory," Gupta told Mail Today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He added that he does not have any details of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) order and only reacted to the Twitter debate on the subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intelligence agencies have been struggling to monitor terror activities on cyber space. There have been reports of terror groups using social media to attract young minds to jehadi ideology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent arrest of Bangalore-based executive Mehdi Masroor Biswas, who was operating a Twitter handle under the the name @ShamiWitness and promoting the views of the Islamic State, has come as a wake-up call for security agencies. Biswas, an engineer working as a "manufacturing executive" with ITC Foods, was nabbed from his rented oneroom apartment after a news report stated that his was the most popular IS Twitter account with close to 17,000 followers, and his tweets were getting viewed over two lakh times a month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sources said there are close to 30,000 such Twitter handles and other social media forums along with websites that are spewing venom, and little can be done to monitor all of them and act on time. With cyber threat becoming a clear and present danger, the Centre has decided to set up a highlevel committee to only monitor social media and cyber space. Counter-terror officials believe that the jehadi nexus has a huge bearing on India as youth active on social media are vulnerable to the propaganda being carried out online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other than @ShamiWitness, there are Twitter handles such as @MagnetGas with radical views and pro-IS tone that are now under the lens. What is disturbing is that many such sites are India-specific and some are believed to be handled by Indians.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If there is misuse of Internet and social media, it needs to be dealt with legally. The Internet is like a public place, so if there are extreme views, the state needs to exercise its powers," says D.C. Pathak, former chief of the Intelligence Bureau.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not the first time that the DoT has clamped down on websites for promoting "objectionable" content. In June 2013, 39 websites that allowed users to share pornographic content were reportedly blocked.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-01-03T03:29:21ZNews ItemIndia 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger
<b>A government block on more than 30 high-profile websites has caused anger across India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The story was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30656298">published in BBC</a> on January 2, 2015. It was also <a class="external-link" href="http://thepuffington.com/anger-at-india-website-blocking/">mirrored in the Puffington Post</a> the same day. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's Department of Telecoms ordered the blocking of the sites in order to prevent the publicising of "jihadi activities".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After considerable pressure, four of the sites - Weebly, Vimeo, Daily Motion and Github - were unblocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Officials said the other sites would have their blocks lifted if they complied with the "law of the land".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Ministry for Communication and Information Technology said in a statement: "It was stated that Anti National group are using social media for mentoring Indian youths to join the Jihadi activities."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It went on to say that the primary concern was that users posting material on the sites did not require any authentication, and that identities could be hidden.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The four websites that have been unblocked were said to have worked with the Indian government to address concerns - although it is unclear what changes, if any, have been made.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some users were reporting that they were still unable to reach the apparently unblocked sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, from the India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said: "Any intelligent person can see these sites don't incite terrorism."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="cross-head">'Many complaints'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ahead of the ban lifting, a Vimeo spokeswoman said: "It is Vimeo's longstanding policy not to allow videos that promote terrorism, and we remove such videos whenever we become aware of them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/blocked.png" alt="blocked" class="image-inline" title="blocked" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We have not received notice from the Indian government concerning such videos and have contacted them requesting the blocking order to identify, and evaluate the video in question."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many internet users in the country are angry that other sites remain blocked, in particular Pastebin - a site used for "dumping" text online anonymously - and The Internet Archive, a US organisation that offers a database of old websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/550202081349353472">The Internet Archive said on Twitter</a> that it had received "many complaints" from users who were unable to access the service.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has a history of sporadically blocking websites, or issuing warnings about online content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In August 2012, <a href="http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19343887">245 sites were blocked by the government</a> in an attempt, it said, to quell violence.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectPress Freedoms2015-01-03T02:48:48ZNews ItemGovernment blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-jan-1-2015-kim-arora-government-blocks-32-websites-to-check-isis-propaganda
<b>The Centre has blocked 32 websites, including vimeo.com, dailymotion.com, pastebin.com and github.com, in an effort to curb ISIS propaganda, prompting a wave of online protests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Kim Arora was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Government-blocks-32-websites-to-check-ISIS-propaganda/articleshow/45712815.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An Indian "hacktivist" group, Anonymous India, has threatened reprisal. By Wednesday evening, however, websites that had complied with the government order to remove objectionable content had been unblocked, sources said.<br /><br />A confidential department of telecom order, dated December 17, instructing all internet service licensees to block the websites appeared online on Wednesday. When contacted to verify the news, Dr Gulshan Rai, director of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), told TOI the directions had been issued to internet service providers following a Mumbai additional chief metropolitan magistrate's November order directing the government's Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) to implement the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He added that Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had approached the judiciary after interrogating Arif Majeed, a 23-year-old ISIS recruit from Kalyan. More recently, Bengaluru professional Mehdi Biswas was arrested for allegedly spreading ISIS propaganda on Twitter. "These websites were being used to invite youths to join ISIS. We had contacted the websites sometime back and asked for the removal of the objectionable content. At that time, our communications were ignored. Some of them have now agreed to work with the government. The websites that have complied are being unblocked," Rai told TOI.<br /><br />The move met with opposition from the online community. While the tech community opposed the Github ban, others were upset about video-sharing websites like dailymotion.com and vimeo.com being taken down. "By blocking vimeo and dailymotion along with other websites, India is walking in the footsteps of Pakistan," tweeted @baawraman.<br /><br />The list of websites in the DoT document was heavy on large text-sharing and collaboration websites, like Github and Pastebin, popular with coders and software developers. Many objected to the blocking of entire websites instead of specific URLs hosting problematic content. However, Rai explained that individual URLs could not be blocked because of the "high mobility of content" on the websites. "It can just be removed and pasted elsewhere. There are no checks and balances," he said.<br /><br />Hacktivist group Anonymous India tweeted, "One fine morning, Indian government decided to block sites like Github. Now now, it is time to wake-up. Government of India, Expect Us," a tweet from their handle @opindia_revenge said.<br /><br />As questions began to be raised on social networks, BJP IT cell head Arvind Gupta tweeted, "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked."<br /><br />The sustainability of counter-measures like blanket blocking to contain threats is being questioned. Prasanth Sugathan, counsel at Software Freedom and Law Center, said such a move is short-sighted. "If you block one website, terrorists can always use another one. Or they will move to using encrypted channels, peer-to-peer communication or even telephones. One can't block everything. In my opinion, such a move only inconveniences the daily users and doesn't solve the long-term purpose," said Sugathan. The sentiment was echoed by common Twitter users as well.<br /><br />Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tweet from August 2012 condemning blanket blocking of websites was pulled out for recirculation. "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech! Have changed my DP. 'Sabko Sanmati De Bhagwan.' #GOIBlocks," Modi had tweeted on August 24, 2012.<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Bengaluru-based Center for Internet and Society, questioned the lack of transparency around the practice of blocking websites under the Indian law. "Qn for govt: Why does the law require secrecy of web blocking orders when it doesn't allow such secrecy for books, films? #GoIBlocks," he tweeted, adding, "The 69A Rules don't allow for transparency, accountability, time-limits on blocks, etc. So easily misused by govt. + courts + individuals." The websites were blocked under section 69 A of the IT Act, 2000 and the IT (Procedure and sdafeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) rules, 2009.<br /><br />Currently, the Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing a clutch of petitions challenging several IT Act provisions, including blocking and takedown of websites.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-jan-1-2015-kim-arora-government-blocks-32-websites-to-check-isis-propaganda'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-jan-1-2015-kim-arora-government-blocks-32-websites-to-check-isis-propaganda</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-01-02T13:37:39ZNews ItemGood Intentions, Recalcitrant Text - I: Why India’s Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms
<b>The UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hosting its Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-14) this year in South Korea. At PP-14, India introduced a new draft resolution on ITU's Role in Realising Secure Information Society. The Draft Resolution has grave implications for human rights and Internet governance. Geetha Hariharan explores.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference (‘PP-14’ or ‘Plenipot’) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), India has tabled <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-draft-resolution-itus-role-in-securing-information-security/at_download/file">a draft proposal</a> on “ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society” [Document 98, dated 20 October 2014] (“<strong>Draft Resolution</strong>”). India’s proposal has incited a great deal of concern and discussion among Plenipot attendees, governments and civil society alike. Before offering my concerns and comments on the Draft Resolution, let us understand the proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our Draft Resolution identifies 3 security concerns with exchange of information and resource allocation on the Internet:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><i>First</i>, it is troubling for India that present network architecture has “<i>security weaknesses</i>” such as “<i>camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication</i>”;<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> random IP address distribution also makes “<i>tracing of communication difficult</i>”;<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></li>
<li><i>Second</i>, India is concerned that under the present allocation system of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, it is impossible or at the very least, cumbersome to identify the countries to which IP address are allocated;<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> </li>
<li><i>Third</i>, India finds it insecure from the point of view of national security that traffic originating and terminating in the same country (domestic traffic) often routes through networks overseas;<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> similarly, local address resolution also routes through IP addresses outside the country or region, which India finds troubling.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In an effort to address these concerns, the Draft Resolution seeks to instruct the ITU Secretary General:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><i>First</i>,<i> </i>to develop and recommend a ‘traffic routing plan’ that can “<i>effectively ensure the traceability of communication</i>”;<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a></li>
<li><i>Second</i>, to collaborate with relevant international and intergovernmental organisations to develop an<i> </i>“<i>IP address plan</i>”<i> </i>which facilitates identification of locations/countries to which IP addresses are allocated and coordinates allocation accordingly;<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a></li>
<li><i>Third</i>, to develop and recommend “<i>a public telecom network architecture</i>” that localizes both routing<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> as well as address resolution<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> for local/domestic traffic to “<i>within the country</i>”.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Admittedly, our Draft Resolution is intended to pave a way for “<i>systematic, fair and equitable allocation</i>” of, <i>inter alia</i>, naming, numbering and addressing resources,<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> keeping in mind security and human rights concerns.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> In an informal conversation, members of the Indian delegation echoed these sentiments. Our resolution does not, I was told, raise issues about the “<i>concentration of control over Internet resources</i>”, though “<i>certain governments</i>” have historically exercised more control. It also does not, he clarified, wish to make privacy or human rights a matter for discussion at the ITU. All that the Draft Resolution seeks to do is to equip the ITU with the mandate to prepare and recommend a “<i>roadmap for the systematization</i>” of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources, and for local routing of domestic traffic and address resolution. The framework for such mandate is that of security, given the ITU’s role in ‘building confidence and security in the use of ICTs’ under Action Line C5 of the <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html">Geneva Plan of Action</a>, 2003.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unfortunately, the text of our Draft Resolution, by dint of imprecision or lack of clarity, undermines India’s intentions. On three issues of utmost importance to the Internet, the Draft Resolution has unintended or unanticipated impacts. <strong><i>First</i></strong>, its text on tracing communication and identity of originators, and systematic allocation of identifiable IP address blocks to particular countries, has impacts on privacy and freedom of expression. Given Edward Snowden’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded">NSA files</a> and the absence of adequate protections against government incursions or excesses into privacy,<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> either in international human rights law or domestic law, such text is troublesome. <strong><i>Second</i></strong>, it has the potential to undermine multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance by proposing text that refers almost exclusively to sovereign monopolies over Internet resource allocation, and <strong><i>finally</i></strong>, displays a certain disregard for network architecture and efficiency, and to principles of a free, open and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop global architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this post, I will address the first concern of human rights implications of our Draft Resolution.<span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Unintended Implications for Privacy and Freedom of Expression:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Draft Resolution has implications for individual privacy. At two different parts of the preamble, India expresses concerns with the impossibility of locating the user at the end of an IP address:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Pream. §(e): “<i>recognizing</i>… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, <i>inter alia</i>, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”;</li>
<li>Pream. §(h): “<i>recognizing</i>… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The concerns here surround difficulties in tracking IP addresses due to the widespread use of NATs, as also the existence of IP anonymisers like Tor. Anonymisers like Tor permit individuals to cover their online tracks; they conceal user location and Internet activity from persons or governments conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis. For this reason, Tor has caused much discomfort to governments. <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/10/laura-poitras-crypto-tools-made-snowden-film-possible/">Snowden used Tor</a> while communicating with Laura Poitras. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning of Wikileaks fame is<i> </i><a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/maurer-dp-2011-10-wikileaks-final.pdf">reported</a> to have used Tor (page 24). Crypto is increasingly the safest – perhaps the only safe – avenue for political dissidents across the world; even Internet companies were <a href="http://gizmodo.com/the-nsa-was-going-to-fine-yahoo-250k-a-day-if-it-didnt-1633677548">coerced</a> into governmental compliance. No wonder, then, that governments are doing all they can to dismantle IP anonymisers: the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/nsa-repeatedly-tries-to-unpeel-tor-anonymity-and-spy-on-users-memos-show/">NSA</a> and <a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2013/10/04/nsa-and-gchq-repeatedly-tried-infiltrate-tor-documents-reveal/">GCHQ</a> have tried to break Tor; the Russian government has <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/putin-sets-110-000-bounty-for-cracking-tor-as-anonymous-internet-usage-in-russia-surges.html">offered a reward</a> to anyone who can.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Far be it from me to defend Tor blindly. There are reports <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption">suggesting</a> that Tor is being <a href="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Tor-Attracts-More-and-More-Cybercriminals-Experts-Warn-430659.shtml">used by offenders</a>, and not merely those of the Snowden variety. But governments must recognize the very obvious trust deficit they face, especially after <a href="http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/may/ep-LIBE-Inquiry-NSA-Surveillance.pdf">Snowden’s revelations</a>, and consider the implications of seeking traceability and identity/geolocation for every IP address, in a systematic manner. The implications are for privacy, a right guaranteed by Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Privacy has been <a href="http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/UNGA_upload_0.pdf">recognized</a> by the UN General Assembly as applicable in cases of surveillance, interception and data collection, in Pream. §4 of its resolution <i>The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age</i>. But many states do not have robust privacy protections for individuals and data. And while governments may state the necessity to create international policy to further effective criminal investigations, such an aim cannot be used to nullify or destroy the rights of privacy and free speech guaranteed to individuals. Article 5(1), ICCPR, codifies this principle, when it states that States, groups or persons may not “<i>engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein…</i>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Erosion of privacy has a chilling effect on free speech [</span><i><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254">New York Times v. Sullivan</a></i><span>, 376 U.S. 254], so free speech suffers too. Particularly with regard to Tor and identification of IP address location and users, anonymity in Internet communications is at issue. At the moment, most states already have anonymity-restrictions, in the form of identification and registration for cybercafés, SIM cards and broadband connections. For instance, Rule 4 of India’s </span><a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511(1).pdf">Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011</a><span>, mandates that we cannot not use computers in a cybercafé without establishing our identities. But our ITU Draft Resolution seeks to </span><i>dismantle</i><span> the ability of Internet users to operate anonymously, be they political dissidents, criminals or those merely acting on their expectations of privacy. Such dismantling would be both violative of international human rights law, as well as dangerous for freedom of expression and privacy in principle. Anonymity is integral to democratic discourse, held the US Supreme Court in </span><i><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html">McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission</a></i><span> [514 U.S. 334 (1995)].</span><a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a><span> Restrictions on Internet anonymity facilitate communications surveillance and have a chilling effect on the free expression of opinions and ideas, </span><a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf">wrote Mr. Frank La Rue</a><span>, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (¶¶ 48-49).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So a law or international policy for blanket identification and traceability of IP addresses has grave consequences for and <i>prima facie </i>violates privacy, anonymity and freedom of speech. But these rights are not absolute, and can be validly restricted. And because these human rights are implicated, the ITU with its lack of expertise in the area may not be the adequate forum for discussion or study.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>To be valid and justified interference, any law, policy or order interfering with privacy and free speech must meet the standards of reasonableness and proportionality, even if national security were the government’s legitimate aim, laid down in Articles 19(3) and 17 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) [</span><i><a href="http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/vws488.htm">Toonen v. Australia</a></i><span>, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994), ¶6.4]. And as the European Court of Human Rights found in </span><i><a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-76586">Weber & Saravia v. Germany</a></i><span> [Application no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006 (ECHR), ¶95], law or executive procedure that </span><i>enables</i><span> surveillance without sufficient safeguards is </span><i>prima facie</i><span> unreasonable and disproportionate. Re: anonymity, in </span><i><a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-126635">Delfi AS v. Estonia</a></i><span> [Application no. 64569/09, 17 February 2014, ¶83], while considering the liability of an Internet portal for offensive anonymous comments, the ECHR has emphasized the importance of balancing freedom of expression and privacy. It relied on certain principles such as “</span><i>contribution to a debate of general interest, subject of the report, the content, form and consequences of the publication</i><span>” to test the validity of government’s restrictions.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The implications of the suggested text of India’s Draft Resolution should then be carefully thought out. And this is a good thing. For one must wonder why governments need perfect traceability, geolocation and user identification for <i>all</i> IP addresses. Is such a demand really different from mass or blanket surveillance, in scale and government tracking ability? Would this not tilt the balance of power strongly in favour of governments against individuals (citizens or non-citizens)? This fear must especially arise in the absence of domestic legal protections, both in human rights, and criminal law and procedure. For instance, India’s Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) has Section 66A, which criminalizes offensive speech, as well as speech that causes annoyance or inconvenience. Arguably, arrests under Section 66A have been <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Man-arrested-for-allegedly-sending-offensive-MMS-against-Modi-confirmed-innocent-by-police-released/articleshow/35624351.cms">arbitrary</a>, and traceability may give rise to a host of new worries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In any event, IP addresses and users can be discerned under existing domestic law frameworks. Regional Internet Registries (RIR) such as APNIC allocate blocks of IP addresses to either National Internet Registries (NIR – such as IRINN for India) or to ISPs directly. The ISPs then allocate IP addresses dynamically to users like you and me. Identifying information for these ISPs is maintained in the form of </span><a href="http://www.irinn.in/whoisSearchform.action">WHOIS records</a><span> and </span><a href="file://localhost/pub/stats/apnic">registries</a><span> with RIRs or NIRs, and this information is public. ISPs of most countries require identifying information from users before Internet connection is given, i.e., IP addresses allocated (mostly by dynamic allocation, for that is more efficient). ISPs of some states are also regulated; in India, for instance, ISPs require a </span><a href="http://www.dot.gov.in/licensing/data-services">licence</a><span> to operate and offer services.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If any government wished, on the basis of some reasonable cause, to identify a particular IP address or its user, then the government could first utilize WHOIS to obtain information about the ISP. Then ISPs may be ordered to release specific IP address locations and user information under executive or judicial order. There are also technical solutions, such as <a href="http://traceroute.monitis.com/">traceroute</a> or <a href="http://ip-lookup.net/">IP look-up</a> that assist in tracing or identifying IP addresses. Coders, governments and law enforcement must surely be aware of better technology than I.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If we take into account this possibility of geolocation of IP addresses, then the Draft Resolution’s motivation to ‘systematize’ IP address allocations on the basis of states is unclear. I will discuss the implication of this proposal, and that of traffic and address localization, in my next post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Pream. §(e), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, inter alia, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Pream. §(h), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Op. §1, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Pream. §(g), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that communication traffic originating and terminating in a country also many times flows outside the boundary of a country making such communication costly and to some extent insecure from national security point of view”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Pream. §(f), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that even for local address resolution at times, system has to use resources outside the country which makes such address resolution costly and to some extent insecure from national security perspective”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Op. §6, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Op. §1, Draft Resolution; <i>see</i> note 3.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Op. §5, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Op. §4, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶3: “Planning and distribution of numbering and naming resources in a systematic, equitable, fair and just manner amongst the Member States…”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶2: “…there are certain areas that require critical attention to move in the direction of building the necessary “Trust Framework” for the safe “Information Society”, where privacy, safety are ensured”.</p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> <i>See, for instance</i>, Report of the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (“OHCHR”), <i>Right to Privacy in the Digital Age</i>, A/HRC/27/37 (30 June 2014), ¶34-35, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf</a>. <i>See esp. </i>note 30 of the Report, ¶35.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Many thorny political differences exist between the US and many states (including India and Kenya, who I am told has expressed preliminary support for the Draft Resolution) with regard to Internet governance. Irrespective of this, the US Constitution’s First Amendment and judicial protections to freedom of expression remain a yardstick for many states, including India. India, for instance, has positively referred to the US Supreme Court’s free speech protections in many of its decisions; <i>ex. see</i> Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 Cri. L.J. 329; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaCryptographyPrivacyCybersecurityInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionChilling EffectMulti-stakeholderAnonymityITU2014-11-02T15:13:45ZBlog Entry