Centre for Internet and Society

Govt goes after porn, makes ISPs ban sites

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T10:11:29Z

The government has decided to put a blanket ban on several websites that allow users to share pornographic content.

The article by Javed Anwer was published in the Times of India on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In an order dated June 13, department of telecom (DoT) has directed internet service providers (ISPs) to block 39 websites. Most of them are web forums, where internet users share images and URLs to download pornographic files. But some of these websites are also image hosts and file hosts, mostly used to store and share files that are non-pornographic.

While watching or distributing child pornography is illegal in India, watching adult pornography is not banned. The blocked websites are hosted outside India and claim to operate under the 18 USC 2257 rule enforced by the US. The rule specifies that producers of pornographic material are required to retain records showing performers were over 18 years of age at the time of video or image shoot.

The DoT order doesn't specify any reason or law under which the websites have been blocked. It says, "It has been decided to immediately block the access to the following URLs... you are accordingly directed to immediately block the access to above URLs."

If a user visits the blocked website, he/she is either shown a blank page or a message telling "this website has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to court orders or on the directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications".

A senior DoT official, who pleaded anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, said the department was just following the orders issued by cyber security coordination committee and hence could not talk about the specific reasons behind the block.

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization, says blocking of pornographic website is overreach on the part of the government.

"In the case of file hosts and image hosts, which people use for various purposes including for storing personal files, the DoT order is a clear overreach," said Sunil Abraham, director of CIS. "Even in the case of pornography, there is nothing in the IT Act that can be used to block websites hosted outside in India."

He added, "There is a possibility that government is interpreting some sections of the IT Act to suit its purpose but I feel that is wrong and should be challenged in the court by ISPs if they care about the rights of their users."

Rajesh Chharia, president of Internet Service Providers Association of India, said that it was not possible for ISPs to pushback orders from DoT. "We are the licensee and we have to operate under the laws... we can't pushback," he said.

"But I feel ideally the government should ask the people who have produced objectionable content to remove it from the web if these people are in India... If they are outside, the websites should be blocked at the international cable landing stations. Involving 150-odd ISPs to implement an order is not the right way to do it," added Chharia.

Though IT Act doesn't criminalize watching porn, the new rules notified in 2011 have certain provisions that show the government wants to dictate what people watch or do not watch on the web. For example, the rules ask an intermediary like an ISP to "inform users of computer resources not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, and transmit any information that is obscene and pornographic".

The rules meant for cyber cafe owners specify that they "shall display a board, clearly visible to the users, prohibiting them from viewing pornographic sites as well as copying or downloading information which is prohibited under the law".

Abraham says that going after pornographic websites, and that too in a non-transparent manner, serves no purpose.

"I have travelled to China and Middle East and have seen that people access pornographic websites using various web tools. In fact, by banning websites the governments have made it more alluring for users to watch and access pornography," he said. None of the western democracies have explicit ban on pornography.

Abraham added that Indian government should also be more transparent about blocking websites because the current method was prone to abuse. "They should notify owner of the blocked website, clearly tell web users why a website is getting blocked and tell public how many websites they have blocked."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-26-2013-govt-goes-after-porn-makes-isps-ban-sites

Indian surveillance laws & practices far worse than US

pranesh — 2013-07-12T11:09:39Z

Explosive would be just the word to describe the revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Economic Times on June 13, 2013. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Now, with the American Civil Liberties Union suing the Obama administration over the NSA surveillance programme, more fireworks could be in store. Snowden's expose provides proof of what many working in the field of privacy have long known. The leaks show the NSA (through the FBI) has got a secret court order requiring telecom provider Verizon to hand over "metadata", i.e., non-content data like phone numbers and call durations, relating to millions of US customers (known as dragnet or mass surveillance); that the NSA has a tool called Prism through which it queries at least nine American companies (including Google and Facebook); and that it also has a tool called Boundless Informant (a screenshot of which revealed that, in February 2013, the NSA collected 12.61 billion pieces of metadata from India).

Nothing Quite Private

The outrage in the US has to do with the fact that much of the data the NSA has been granted access to by the court relates to communications between US citizens, something the NSA is not authorised to gain access to. What should be of concern to Indians is that the US government refuses to acknowledge non-Americans as people who also have a fundamental right to privacy, if not under US law, then at least under international laws like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.

US companies such as Facebook and Google have had a deleterious effect on privacy. In 2004, there was a public outcry when Gmail announced it was using an algorithm to read through your emails to serve you advertisements. Facebook and Google collect massive amounts of data about you and websites you visit, and by doing so, they make themselves targets for governments wishing to snoop on you, legally or not.

Worse, Indian-Style

That said, Google and Twitter have at least challenged a few of the secretive National Security Letters requiring them to hand over data to the FBI, and have won. Yahoo India has challenged the authority of the Controller of Certifying Authorities, a technical functionary under the IT Act, to ask for user data, and the case is still going on.

To the best of my knowledge, no Indian web company has ever challenged the government in court over a privacy-related matter. Actually, Indian law is far worse than American law on these matters. In the US, the NSA needed a court order to get the Verizon data. In India, the licences under which telecom companies operate require them to provide this. No need for messy court processes.

The law we currently have â€” sections 69 and 69B of the Information Technology Act â€” is far worse than the surveillance law the British imposed on us. Even that lax law has not been followed by our intelligence agencies.

Keeping it Safe

Recent reports reveal India's secretive National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) â€” created under an executive order and not accountable to Parliament â€” often goes beyond its mandate and, in 2006-07, tried to crack into Google and Skype servers, but failed. It succeeded in cracking Rediffmail and Sify servers, and more recently was accused by the Department of Electronics and IT in a report on unauthorised access to government officials' mails.

While the government argues systems like the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS), the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid) will introduce restrictions on misuse of surveillance data, it is a flawed claim. Mass surveillance only increases the size of the haystack, which doesn't help in finding the needle. Targeted surveillance, when necessary and proportional, is required. And no such systems should be introduced without public debate and a legal regime in place for public and parliamentary accountability.

The government should also encourage the usage of end-to-end encryption, ensuring Indian citizens' data remains safe even if stored on foreign servers. Merely requiring those servers to be located in India will not help, since that information is still accessible to American agencies if it is not encrypted. Also, the currently lax Indian laws will also apply, degrading users' privacy even more.

Indians need to be aware they have virtually no privacy when communicating online unless they take proactive measures. Free or open-source software and technologies like Open-PGP can make emails secure, Off-The-Record can secure instant messages, TextSecure for SMSes, and Tor can anonymise internet traffic.

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

Facebook, Google deny spying access

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T10:18:48Z

The CEOs of Facebook and Google on Saturday categorically denied that the US National Security Agency had "direct access" to their company servers for snooping on Gmail and Facebook users. But both acknowledged that the companies complied with the 'lawful' requests made by the US government and shared user data with sleuths.

The article by Javed Anwer was published in the Times of India on June 9, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In a post titled "What the ...?" Google's official blog, CEO Larry Page wrote, "We have not joined any program that would give the US governmentâ€”or any other governmentâ€”direct access to our servers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."

A few hours later, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers... We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday," he wrote on his page at the social media site.

According to a few PowerPoint slides allegedly leaked by an NSA official, nine technology companies - Google, AOL, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Facebook, YouTube and PalTalk - are providing the US government easy access to user data. While all companies have denied being part anything called PRISM, Facebook and Google have been most vocal about it.

A few hours after Facebook and Google statements, the New York Times said in a report that technology companies had "opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users".

"In some cases, they (companies) changed their computer systems to do so," noted the NYT report.

The statements by the CEOs have done little to allay privacy fears. "The denials from the companies look highly coordinated, including similar phrases in all their responses. I don't think they are lying outright, though the NYT report suggests that they are telling a half-truth. They may not provide the US government 'direct access' to all their servers, but may be providing indirect access, or may just be responding to very broad FISA orders," said Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with Centre for Internet and Society in India.

On Friday US president Barack Obama had tacitly acknowledged NSA surveillance programmes aimed at non-US citizens. "You can't have a hundred per cent security and also then have a hundred per cent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society," he told reporters in the US.

Page and Zuckerberg also called on the governments to be more open about surveillance programmes. "The level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish," wrote Page.

Added Zuckerberg, "We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-9-2013-facebook-google-deny-spying-access

Regulating Social Media: Unrealistic, Impossible, Necessary?

praskrishna — 2013-04-30T16:50:13Z

The Press Council of India Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju calls for regulating social media, saying it will prevent offensive material coming into the public domain. But is it really necessary to regulate the social media? If yes, is it possible to do it?

This was published by NDTV on April 11, 2013.

NDTV aired a discussion by Ashwin S Kumar, Co-editor, Columnist, The Unreal Times; Kunal Majumder, Assitant Editor, Tehelka.com and Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society on April 11, 2013 in response to Justice Katju's comments on bringing 'social media' under the Press Council of India.

Pranesh Prakash laid out four brief points:

'Social media' allows coffee house discussion and toilet wall scrawls to seem like print publications, but it's a mistake to treat it the same way we do print publications. The UK is now planning on using prosecutorial flexibility to refrain from prosecuting simple offensive speech on social media.
The same laws should apply online as they do offline (but how the apply, can differ), and that is currently the case. Most content-related offences in the IPC, etc., are offences online as well as offline.
Editors and journalists exist for most print publications and broadcast programmes, while that isn't true for most 'social media'. So guidelines applicable to the press mostly won't be applicable online.
Electronic publications (like Medianama, The Daily Dish, Huffington Post) which consider themselves engaged in a journalistic venture present a special problem that we do need to have a public conversation about.

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-april-11-2013-the-social-network-regulating-social-media-unrealistic-impossible-necessary

What if the Net shut down for a few days

praskrishna — 2013-04-03T11:01:38Z

When spammers attacked Spamhaus, a European spam-fighting group in what was billed as the "biggest cyber attack in history", they managed to temporarily slow down the internet. But what if dedicated attackers succeeded in shutting down the internet for a longer time, maybe a few days? What would be the potential impact of such a scenario in a world where crucial data is stored on emails, most financial transactions have shifted online and an entire generation has grown up not realising what life without the web could be like?

The article by Atul Sethi was published in the Times of India on March 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"The thought itself is frightening," says Vijay Mukhi, president of the Foundation of Information Security and Technology and co-founder of the Internet Users Community of India. "Most people use their email or cloud computing to store their data. What happens when you can't access your crucial information? Also, financial activity in the absence of the internet will come to a standstill since there would be no money flow happening between banks or transactions in the stock market. The implications are huge. And I'm not even thinking of the withdrawal symptoms that many youngsters are going to go through when they can't log on. "

However, contrary to the horror that this situation might elicit from those whose lives revolve around the web, the impact on India, at least, should not be much, says Sunil Abraham, director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. "An internet blackout in India can at most be compared to a bandh. Life becomes uncomfortable but it still goes on. This is because in India, the internet is used by just about 20% of the population. At the most, one can argue that since this 20% also constitutes the elite of the country - bureaucrats, politicians, businessmen, media, etc, any disruption in their work could also affect the remaining 80% of the country indirectly."

Even though complete shutdown of the internet is believed to be virtually impossible - since it is made up of thousands of interconnections which ensure its infallibility - hackers haven't stopped trying as the latest cyber attack shows. Internet security consultant Ankit Fadia points out that the only way somebody can bring down the internet is if a few million hackers combine together as part of a sustained project. "Even then, it's a remote possibility that they can pull it off," he says.

If it does happen, though, remember to polish up your letter-writing skills and go over to your friend's house if you want to chat.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-atul-sethi-march-30-2013-what-if-the-net-shut-down-for-a-few-days

Parliament panel blasts govt over ambiguous internet laws

praskrishna — 2013-03-28T08:37:30Z

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation has come out with a report in which it has lambasted the government and asked it to make changes to IT rules that govern internet-related cases in India.

This article by Ishan Srivastava was published in the Times of India on March 28, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

It said in the report that multiple clauses in the laws had inherent ambiguity and that discrepancies exist in the government's stand on whether some rules are mandatory or only of advisory nature.

The committee said that inherent ambiguity of words like 'blasphemy' and `disparaging', among others, could lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act repeatedly in recent times. Incidents include the arrest of two girls over 'liking' a Facebook post and a defamation case against an individual for an 'offensive' tweet. It has also been used by multiple politicians to suppress voices of dissent by branding them as 'defamatory'.

These ambiguous terms are used in the Intermediary Guidelines rules, passed in April 2011, which the committtee said could lead to legitimate speech being removed. Also, the Standing Committee noted that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines rules were not prohibited by any statute, and hence could not be prohibited by the government through these rules. The Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure that "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these rules.

The committee also said that discrepancies exist in the nature of implementation of these laws. While the government's stand is that Intermediary Guidelines are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation" and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information", the wording of the laws suggest otherwise. In many of the laws, terms like "shall act" within 36 hours are used. The committee said that there was a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction" and "safeguards to protect against any abuse" since it could lead to censorship.

"The government has told the Committee that the rules are for "self-regulation", but they in fact aren't. The rules dictate what content cannot be hosted. And our research found that intermediaries react to fake takedown requests too, just to avoid being liable for their users' content. This is not self-regulation, but government-mandated private censorship," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). CIS is a Bangalore-based non-profit body looking at issues of public accountability, privacy, free expression, and openness, and has consistently argued that many parts of the IT Act are unconstitutional.

The committee also suggested that all evidence relating to foreign websites refusing to honour Indian laws should be made public and a public debate should be encouraged as the internet is a global phenomena. Recently there have been instances of issues between the Indian government and tech giants like Facebook and Google related to censorship and taking down of 'offensive' and 'defamatory' content.

While the government's stand is that Intermediary Guidelines are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation" and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information," the wording of the laws suggest otherwise.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-ishan-srivastava-march-28-2013-parliament-panel-blasts-govt-over-ambiguous-internet-laws

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules

Press controls ‘send wrong message to rest of world’

praskrishna — 2013-03-26T04:51:54Z

Britain could trigger an international media crackdown if the Government goes ahead with plans for a Royal Charter to introduce a new Press regulator, free speech campaigners warned yesterday.

Read the article written by Jerome Starkey from Johannesburg, Francis Elliott from Delhi and David Brown. It was published in the Times on March 21, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Oppressive regimes will use the example of the planned regulation in Britain to justify tighter controls on their own media, it was claimed. Campaigners from across the Commonwealth are preparing to urge the Queen not to approve the Royal Charter when it is presented by the Privy Council on May 8. Senior journalists and campaigners in Africa and Asia accused Britain of “chilling media freedom” by legitimising state interference in the media.

Phenyo Butale, the director of South Africa’s Freedom of Expression Institute, said: “African governments have shown they are uncomfortable with free press acting as a watchdog, holding them to account. A move to statutory regulation in the UK would really be a gift for them.”

In Somalia, one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist, reporters said that they were alarmed by the British plans. “It’s alarming that the British Government is regulating the freedom of its press,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, secretary-general of the Somali Union of Journalists.

Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based organisation that campaigns against the Indian Government’s often heavy-handed attempts to regulate online content, said that the UK had surrendered the moral high ground in an important international debate.

“The UK has traditionally made free speech an important component of their foreign policy and when their own internal actions contradict their external position . . . they no longer have any influence on the Indian situation,” he said.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times wrote that the proposed regulation would “do more harm than good”, adding: “It is worth keeping in mind that journalists at newspapers like The Guardianand The [New York] Times, not the police, first brought to light the scope and extent of hacking by British tabloids. It would be perverse if regulations . . . ended up stifling the kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism that brought it to light in the first place.”

Mumsnet, one of the most popular blogging sites, has sought a guarantee from the Government that it would not be caught by the regulations. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport told the website that it “will ultimately be for the court to decide on the definition of a ‘relevant publisher’ ” covered by the new regulations “but our view is that Mumsnet would not be covered by the new regime”.

Justine Roberts, the website’s founder, has asked to be specifically included in the list of exempted websites.

The House of Lords will vote on Monday on the definition of “relevant publisher” when peers consider new amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill. Some of Britain’s major newspaper and magazine publishers have indicated that they will not join the new regulator.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-uk-jerome-starkey-francis-elliott-david-brown-march-21-2013-press-controls-send-wrong-message-to-rest-of-world

India’s Civil Liberties Crisis: Of Bans, Blocks, Bullying and Biometrics

praskrishna — 2013-03-25T10:39:43Z

Malavika Jayaram will be a speaker at this event which is organized by the Center for Global Communication Studies and will be held at Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennslyvania, Philadelphia, on March 28, 2013, from 12 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.

Read about the event on the website of the Center for Global Communication Studies.

Unlike the US First Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution of India actually strengthened state regulation over freedom of speech. Irony aside, the amendment that is considered by many scholars as the first media crisis in post-colonial India has increasing relevance today. Its prioritization of sovereignty and national security over democratic rights and institutions has resulted in a zone of contestation between nation building and free speech. This is playing out through a series of battles involving website blocking, book banning, biometric databases and bullying of all kinds.

In the last few months, an all-girl rock band in Kashmir was silenced, a village in Bihar banned women and girls from using mobile phones, and we had yet another Salman Rushdie controversy. Movies were blocked. Facebook and Google were taken to court for hosting objectionable content. Paintings were removed from an art gallery at the “suggestion” of the police because they depicted Hindu deities as semi-nude. At the same time, there was a drive to digitize governance and to build biometric databases to enumerate and record every individual. The impacts on free speech, anonymity, and privacy were considered fair game in the drive towards progress, inclusion, and maintenance of public order.

The relationship between the citizen and the state is undergoing a radical transformation mediated by the marriage of welfare schemes and commercial interests. The privacy of one’s body and identity is challenged by initiatives to capture fingerprints, irises, faces, and transactions. The heckler’s vote is increasingly powerful in silencing free expression. Civil society is under siege for resisting the onslaught of draconian legislation, arbitrary restrictions, and the banning of various forms of cultural output. Narratives are being constructed that attribute all civic engagement with “western values” and with being mouthpieces of foreign interests.

In this talk, I will give an overview of the strands of discord that are forming the fabric of India’s latest crisis of democracy. I will unpack some of the rhetoric behind the government’s drive to grasp the individual, and make the citizen visible to the state in an unprecedented manner. I will also discuss my experiences working with civil society in India, and the tools and techniques used to engage with policy formation and to adapt to the future of advocacy.

A dual-qualified lawyer, Malavika Jayaram spent eight years in London - with global law firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and then with Citigroup. She relocated to India in 2006, and wears 3 hats as a practising lawyer, a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and a PhD scholar. As a partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore, she focuses on corporate/tech transactions and has a special interest in new media and the arts. At CIS, Malavika collaborates on projects that study legislative and policy changes in the internet governance and privacy domains. As a PhD scholar, she is looking at data protection and privacy in India, with a special focus on e-governance schemes and the new biometric ID project.

A graduate of the National Law School of India, she has an LL.M. from Northwestern University, Chicago. She is on the advisory board of the Indian Journal of Law & Technology and is the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Through series, launched this year. She is one of 10 Indian lawyers featured in “The International Who's Who of Internet e- Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers 2012” directory.

She is currently running a research project for Internews, studying internet policy in India. This will produce a landscape overview and interviews with various stakeholders in this domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/global-asc-upenn-events-indias-civil-liberties-crisis

Internet Censorship, Surveillance, and Corporate Transparency

praskrishna — 2013-03-25T10:29:50Z

Google’s Dorothy Chou will be in conversation with international experts Annenberg School of Communication, St., Philadelphia, on April 3, 2013, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Malavika Jayaram is participating in the event as a panelist. The event is organised by Center for Global Communication Studies and Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Read full details of the event was published on the website of Center for Global Communication Studies.

Since mid 2010 Google has been publishing data about the requests it receives from governments to remove content or hand over user data. This regularly updated Transparency Report reveals alarming trends: Government surveillance is on the rise, everywhere. Even worse, a large number of government censorship and surveillance requests are of dubious legality even according to the host countries’ own laws. In a world where citizens increasingly rely on digital products and services owned and operated by private corporations for their civic and political lives, the implications for human rights and democracy around the world are troubling.

Dorothy Chou, Senior Policy Analyst who leads Google's efforts to increase transparency about how it responds to government censorship and surveillance demands, will discuss Google's Transparency Report with Rebecca MacKinnon, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and an international panel of experts:

Ronald Lemos, the Director of the Center for Technology and Society at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Hu Yong, Associate Professor, Peking University School of Journalism and Communication

Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore and Annenberg CGCS;

Gregory Asmolov, PhD Candidate, London School of Economics; Global Voices "RuNet Echo" contributor and Russian social media expert.

This event is part of the cross-disciplinary, university-wide “New Technologies, Human Rights, and Transparency” project funded by the university’s Global Engagement Fund and hosted by Annenberg’s Center for Global Communications Studies in partnership with Wharton, PennLaw, Engineering, and the School of Arts and Sciences. The project aims to examine the relationship between government and corporate power in today’s digitally networked world, bringing together research partners from across the university and around the world to develop a methodology to evaluate and compare the policies and practices of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies as they affect Internet users’ freedom expression and privacy in a human rights context.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/global-asc-upenn-events-internet-censorship-surveillance-and-corporate-transparency

Reply to RTI Application on Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T07:58:12Z

The Department of Telecommunications sent its reply to an RTI application from the Centre for Internet and Society. The application was sent on December 27, 2012 with reference to blocking of websites and Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

To
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,
Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant: Centre for Internet & Society

2. Address of the Applicant

Mailing Address: Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2־C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore 560071

3. Details of the information required

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services ("Airtel") and Mahanagar Téléphoné Nigam Limited ("MTNL") have recently blocked access to a number of domain sites for all their users across the country. Airtel has blocked Fabulous Domains (http://www.fabulous.com/), BuyDomains (http://www.buvdomains.com/) and Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/). MTNL has blocked Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcQme/). Subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Télécommunications". In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel or MTNL to block any or all of the above mentioned websites? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel and MTNL for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain: 2012

5. Designation and address of the PIO from whom the information is required

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

To the best of my belief, the détails sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act ("RTI Act"), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above. This to certify that I, Smitha Krishna Prasad, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of "Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom" payable at New Delhi.

Date. Monday November 26,2012
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

Below is the reply received from the Department of Telecommunications for the above RTI application

Government of India
Department of Télécommunications
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road. New Delhi -110 001
(DS-CelI)

No. DIR(DS-II)/RTI/2009																		Dated:ll/01/2013

To,
Centre for Internet and Society,
No. 194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore - 560 071

This has reference to RTI application dated 27/12/2012 with reference to Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

In this regard it is submitted that Internet Service licensees are to follow the provisions of Information Technology Act 2000 as amended from time to time. Under Information Technology Act 2000, "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" were notified on 27/10/2009.(Annexure) Aforesaid notified rules describes the "Designated Officer" for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under subsection (2) of Section 69(A) of the ACT. Wide Gazette Notification dated 20/01/2010 Group Coordinator , Cyber Law division, Department of Information Technology has been authorized and designated as "Designated Officer".

As per the directions of Group Coordinator, Cyber Law division, under Information Technology Act 2000, instructions for blocking/ unblocking of websites/URLs are issued to Internet Service Licensees.

As per the available information no instruction to Internet Service Providers has been issued for Blocking of http://www.fabulous.com/, http://www.buydomains.com/, http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ and http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ as mentioned in your RTI application.

Copies of Blocking order for which blocking instructions issued by DoT are not being provided are not provided as per Clause 16 of "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" which says "Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof."
With reference to information (Para 4 & 5 of RTI Aplication ) on Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rule, 1951 , the RTI is being forwarded to Dir (AS-III) & CPIO, DoT for providing the information.
The appeal, it any, may be made before Shri Nitin Jain, DDG(DS) & Appellate Authority, Department of Télécommunications, Room No. 1201, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, Nevy Delhi-110 001 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter.

Encl: As above
																							(Subodh Saxena) DIR (DS-II) 011-2303 6860 011-2335 9454

Copy to:

(I) Shri Rajiv Kumar, CPIO & Director (AS-III), DoT, New Delhi

NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2009

G.S.R. 781 (E). — In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (z) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

Short title and commencement — (1) These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access and Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Definitions. — In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires. —
(a) "Act" means the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000);
(b) "computer resource" means computer resource as defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(c) "Designated Officer" means an officer designated as Designated Officer under rule 3;
(d) "Form" means a form appended to these rules;
(e) "intermediary" means an intermediary as defined in clause (w) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(f) "nodal officer" means the nodal officer designated as such under rule 4;
(g) "organisation" means
(i) Ministries or Departments of the Government of India;
(ii) State Governments and Union Territories;
(iii) Any agency of the Central Government, as may be notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government
(h) "request" means the request for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource;
(i) "Review Committee" means the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Designated Officer — The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the "Designated Officer", for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted. received,, stored or hosted in any computer resource under sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act.
Nodal officer or organisation.— Every organisation for the purpose of these rules, shall designate one of its officer as the Nodal Officer and shall intimate the same to the Central Government in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technotogy, Government of India and also publish the name of the said Nodal Officer on their website.
Direction by Designated Officer. — The Designated Officer may, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer of an organisation or a competent court, by order direct any Agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource for any of the reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act.
Forwarding of requests by organisation. — (1) Any person may send their complaint to the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource:
Provided that any request other than the one from the Nodal Officer of the organisation shall be sent with the approval of the Chief Secretary of the concerned State or Union territory to the Designated Officer.
Provided further that in case a Union territory has no Chief Secretary, then, such request may be approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of that Union territory.
(2) The organisation shall examine the complaint received under sub-rule (1) to satisfy themselves about the need for taking of action in relation to the reasons enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and after being satisfied, it shall send the request through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer in the format specified in the Form appended to these rules.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not entertain any complaint or request for blocking of information directly from any person.
(4) The request shall be in writing on the letter head of the respective organisation, complete in all respects and may be sent either by mail or by fax or by e-mail signed with electronic signature of the Nodal Officer.
Provided that in case the request is sent by fax or by e-mail which is not signed with electronic signature, the Nodal Officer shall provide a signed copy of the request so as to reach the Designated Officer within a period of three days of receipt of the request by such fax or e-mail.
(5) On receipt, each request shall be assigned a number along with the date and time of its receipt by the Designated Officer and he shall acknowledge the receipt thereof to the Nodal Officer within a period of twenty four hours of its receipt.
Committee for examinatlon of request.— The request along with the printed sample content of the alleged offending information or part thereof shall be examined by a committee consisting of the Designated Officer as its chairperson and representatives, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs. Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team appointed under sub-section (1) of section 70B of the Act.
Examination of request.— (1) On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the informalion or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary.
(2) In case of non-appearance of such person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (I), before the committee on such specified date and time, the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(3) In case, such a person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), is a foreign entity or body corporate as identified by the Designated Officer, notice shall be sent by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such foreign entity or body corporate and any such foreign entity or body corporate shall respond to such a notice within the time specified therein, failing which the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(4) The committee referred to in rule 7 shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is covered within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and that it is justifiable to block such information or part thereof and shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer.
(5) The designated Officer shall submit the recommendation of the committee, in respect of the request for blocking of information along with the details sent by the Nodal Officer to the Secretary in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary, Department of Information Technology").
(6) The Designated Officer, on approval of the request by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall direct any agency of the Government or the intermediary to block the offending information generaled, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within time limit specified in the direction:
Provided that in case the request of the Nodal Officer is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, the Designated Officer shall convey the same to such Nodal Officer.
Blocking of Information in cases of emergency.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 7 and 8, the Designated Officer, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof and submit the request with specific recommendations in writing to Secretary, Department of Information Technology.
(2) In a case of emergency nature, tne Secretary. Department of Information Technology may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedent and justifiable for blocking for public access of any information or part thereof through any computer resource and after recording reasons in writing as an interim measure issue such directions as he may consider necessary to such identified or identifiable persons or intermediary in control of such computer resource hosting such information or part thereof without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(3) The Designated Officer, at ihe earliest but not later than forty-eight hours of issue of direction under sub-rule 2, shall bring the request before the committee referred to in rule 7 for its consideration and recommendation.
(4) On receipt of recommendations of committee, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall pass the final order as regard to approval of such request and in case the request for blocking is not approved by the Secretary. Department of Information Technology in his final order, the interim direction issued under sub-rule (2) shall be revoked and the person or intermediary in control of such information shall be accordingly directed to unblock the information for public access.
Process of order of court for blocking of Information — In case of an order from a competent court in India for blocking of any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource, the Designated Officer shall, immediately on receipt of certified copy of the court order, submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology and initiate action as directed by the court.
Expeditious disposal of request - The request received from the Nodal Officer shall be decided expeditiously which in no case shall be more than seven working days from the date of receipt of the request.
Action for non-compliance of direction by Intermediary — In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction issued to him under rule 9, the Designated Officer shall, with the prior approval of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, initiate appropriate action as may be required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69A of the Act.
Intermediary to designate one person to receive and handle directions — (1) Every intermediary shall designate at least one person to receive and handle the directions for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under these rules.
(2) The designated person of the intermediary shall acknowledge receipt of the directions to the Designated Officer within two hours on receipt of the direction through acknowledgement letter or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signature.
Meeting of Review Commlttee — The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules are in accordance with the provisions of sub-seclion (1) of section 69A of the Act and if is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred above, it may set aside the directions and issue order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.
Maintenance of records by Designated Officer — The Designated Officer shall maintain complete record of the request received and action taken thereof, in electronic database and also in register of the cases of blocking for public access of the information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource.
Requests and complaints to be confidential — Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.

FORM
(See rule 6(2))

A. Complaint

Name of the complainant: --_________________________________________________________________
(Person who has sent the complaint to the Ministry/Department/State Govt./Nodal Officer)
Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ Pin Code: __________________
Telephone: ________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any): _______________________
Mobile (if any): ______________________
Email (if any): __________________________________

B. Details of website/computer resource/intermediary/offending information hosted on the website
(Please give details wherever known)
URL / web address: ____________________________________
IP Address: _______________________________________
Hyperlink: ________________________________________
Server/Proxy Server address: ________________________________________
Name of the Intermediary: _________________________________________
URL of the Intermediary: __________________________________________
(Please attach screenshot/printout of the offending information)
Address or location of intermediary in case the intermediary is telecom service provider, network service provider, internet service provider, web-hosting service provider and cyber cafe or other form of intermediary for which information under points (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) are not available.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
C. Details of Request for blocking
Recommendations/Comments of the Ministry/State Govt: ________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
The level at which the comments/recommendation have been approved
(Please specify designation) ________________________________________________
Have the complaint been examined in Ministry / State Government: Y/N
If yes, under which of the following reasons it falls (please tick):
(i) Interest of sovereignty or integrity of India
(ii) Defence of India
(iii) Security of the State
(iv) Friendly relations with foreign states
(v) Public order
(vi) For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above
D. Details of the Nodal Officer, forwarding the complaint along with recommendation of the Ministry/State Govt. and related enclosures
Name of the Nodal Officer: ___________________________________________
Designation: ______________________________________________________
Organisation: _____________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________ _________

__________________________________________________________

City: __________________________ Pin Code: _________________
Telephone: ___________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any) _____________________
Mobile (if any) ______________________
Email (if any): ___________________________
E: Any other information:
F: Enclosures:

1.

2.

3.

Date Place Signature

[No. 9(16)J2004-EC]
N. RAVI SHANKER, Jt. Secy

3855GI/09-5

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/reply-to-rti-application-on-blocking-of-website-and-rule-419a-of-indian-telegraph-rules-1951

Iceland’s proposed porn ban ‘like repression in Iran, N. Korea’ – activists

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T03:56:30Z

A group of 40 human rights activists from around the world fear that Iceland could become “a role model for Internet censorship” if it introduces Internet filters blocking online content deemed pornographic.

This blog post was published in RT on March 1, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

“The act of censoring pornography in Iceland differs in no way from repression of speech in Iran, China or North Korea,” human rights advocates wrote in an open letter to Icelandic Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson.

Activists from nearly 20 countries, including the UK, America, Austria and Finland, said that Iceland’s moral reasons for the push to censor Internet pornography is “justifying rather than condemning the actions of totalitarian regimes.”

Critics – including Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director for India’s Internet and Society Center, and Ot van Daalen, head of the Dutch Bits of Freedom Center – have described the controversial measure as “an affront to basic principles of the society.”

They also argued that those advocating the Web porn ban have offered “no definition, no evidence, and suggested no technology.”

The authors of the letter warned that the prohibition of pornographic content could create demand for an underground porn industry, unregulated and most certainly affiliated with other illegal activities, “as we have seen in the case of drugs or alcohol prohibition. Hiding the problem is not a solution and may in fact make things worse.”

The solution, according to the activists, could be better sex education at home and schools: “Sex education that deals not only with conception, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, but also relationships, communication and respect.”

Iceland, known for its feminist policies, could become the first Western country to censor online pornography, despite concerns over who will be given the authority to choose what is banned.

“It is tempting to regard filtering the Internet as a quick and easy way to restrict unwanted speech, opinions, or media, which the government regards as harmful for either them or the people,” the letter said. “The right to see the world as it is, is critical to the very tenets and functions of a democracy and must be protected at all costs.”

The activists claimed that it is technically impossible to censor the Internet without monitoring all telecommunications with automated machines: “This level of government surveillance directly conflicts with the idea of a free society.”

Iceland is not the only European country that has tried to implement such a ban. In December, the UK proposed blocking access to all pornographic websites, but UK ministers rejected the idea over a lack of public support.

According to supporters of the Icelandic ban, pornography has unquestionably damaging effects on both children and women.

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," Interior Minister Jonasson, the author of the proposed ban, was quoted as saying.

While Iceland has already passed a law banning the distribution and printing of pornography, the proposed ban would eventually restrict access to pornographic websites in the country, and make it impossible to use Icelandic credit cards on X-rated sites.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rt-march-1-2013-icelands-proposed-porn-ban

Don’t SLAPP free speech

sunil — 2013-02-28T11:22:09Z

IIPM is proving adept at the tactical use of lawsuits to stifle criticism, despite safeguards. THE DEPARTMENT of Telecommunications, on 14 February, issued orders to block certain web pages critical of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM).

Sunil Abraham's column with inputs from Snehashish Ghosh was published in Tehelka on February 3, 2013 (Issue 9 Volume 10)

Despite our best efforts, we have not managed to get a copy of the court order. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of speculation among Internet policy experts on Twitter. What is the title of the case? Which judge issued the order? Who is the affected party? Why have mainstream media houses like Outlook not been served notice by the court? Is the infamous Section 66A of the IT Act to be blamed? That is highly unlikely. News reports suggest that a lower court in Gwalior has issued an ad interim injunction in a defamation suit. Most experts agree that this is a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, where a company uses the cost of mounting a legal defence to silence critics.

Bullies with deep pockets use the law in very creative ways, such as forum shopping, forum shifting and the use of proxies. Forum shopping can be best understood through the example of mining giant Fomento suing Goan blogger Sebastian Rodrigues for $1 billion at the Kolkata High Court, even though Goa would have been a more logical location. Though IIPM lost an earlier case against Careers360 before the Uttaranchal High Court, the offending URLs from that case are included in the latest block order, exemplifying successful forum shifting. The doctrine of ‘res subjudice’ does not permit courts to proceed in a matter which is “directly and substantially” similar to a previous suit between the same parties. Proxies are usually employed to circumvent this procedural doctrine.

Article 19(2) of our Constitution empowers the State to create laws that place eight types (depending on how you count) of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. One of these reasonable restrictions is defamation. Tort law on defamation in India has been mostly borrowed from common law principles developed in the UK, which include a series of exceptions where the law cannot be used. In the present context, the exceptions important for the IIPM case include: fair and bona fide comment and matter of public interest. In addition, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code provides for 10 exceptions to defamation. The exceptions relevant to this case are: “first: imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published”, “ninth: imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests” and “tenth: caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good”. The criminal law on defamation in India is based on robust legal principles, but for the sake of public interest it’d be best to do away with such a law as it has far-reaching, chilling effects on free speech.

On interim injunctions in defamation suits, the Delhi High Court set an important precedent protecting free speech in 2011. While applying the English principle — the Bonnard Rule — the court in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd versus Greenpeace International held that a higher standard should be adhered to while granting an interim injunction in a defamation suit, because such an injunction might impinge upon freedom of expression and thus potentially be in violation of the Indian Constitution. This century-old rule states that “until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue… the importance of leaving free speech unfetter – ed is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions…”

In the same case, the Court rejected the argument that since it was published online and thus had wider reach and greater permanence, an injunction should be granted. It observed that “publication is a comprehensive term, embracing all forms and mediums — including the Internet”, thus ruling out special treatment for the Inter net in cases of defamation. That is good news for free speech online in India. Now let’s stick to it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tehelka-sunil-abraham-feb-3-2013-dont-slap-free-speech

Stop Press Carousel

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:27:15Z

The silent blocking of URLs by the DoT assaults freedom of expression.

Arindam Mukherjee's article was published in the Outlook on February 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Five Questions

On what grounds did the DoT ask for a ban on the 55 Facebook URLs pertaining to Afzal Guru?
Why did the Gwalior court rush into blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM even though the content was very old and clearly some of it was even prima facie non-defamatory?
Why is the Gwalior court order not being made public?
Why doesn’t DoT keep the whole process transparent by putting up all its block orders on its website, giving reasons in each case?
How many URLs in all has the DoT asked for a ban on so far?

***

It’s the perfect recipe for a potboiler—a sudden, mysterious and arbitrary blocking of web pages, sparked off by an irate ‘educationist’; several upset publications (Outlook included); a government department with a blocked web page; a ministry trying to figure out how to react to a court order that is at the root of all the action, but which no one has been able to see.

As the cliche goes, truth is often stranger than fiction—as the affected parties discovered on February 15. That’s when it became known that the government had sought to block 78 web pages, reportedly following an order from a court in Gwalior. Around 73 of these articles sought to be blocked are on the controversial Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), promoted by self-styled management guru Arindam Chaudhuri.

What has taken everyone by surprise is how the blocks were executed—in a clandestine manner, without informing the affected parties, without serving them a notice or a copy of the order, or giving them a chance to react or defend themselves. The enormity of the ban is evident from the list of websites targeted, which include The Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Wall Street Journal, FirstPost, Careers360, Rediff.com and Caravan. When it came to Outlook, there was a clear case of overreach, as not just the web pages, but the entire blogs area was blocked for more than eight hours (see Jump Cut).

What is even more surprising is the smokescreen that is being maintained over the Gwalior court order that has caused this consternation on the Internet. At the time of going to print, no one—the affected websites, authors, lawyers or activists—had access to the order or had seen it, and the government was evading media queries on details of the order and the case. Despite repeated requests, the head of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), Gulshan Rai, did not speak to Outlook.

So, in the absence of the order, no one even knows who the complainant is. Significantly, IIPM’s Chaudhuri has said that one of his ‘channel partners’ approached the court, though he clearly is the chief beneficiary of the episode. What this entire episode serves up is a blatant use of the law to muzzle press criticism while the government and official machinery have been willy-nilly forced to become mute players.

This surreal, Kafkaesque scenario continues apace at Outlook’s website, where on protesting the block on its blogs, the ISP said, “As only some of the URLs are mentioned in the DoT letter, we have reactivated the website and requested you to delete the mentioned contents,” adding that they had “attached the DoT instructions alongwith”. What they had attached was not one but two DoT orders, both dated February 14. One was, of course, the order about the 78 URLs. The other order came as news: an order on 55 Facebook URLs on Afzal Guru that the DoT wanted blocked.

As expected, internet activists and advocates of freedom of speech are livid. Shivam Vij, founder of kafila.org, one of the blogs that was blocked in the IIPM matter, says, “We were never given a chance to defend or explain. If only the DoT had put up the notice on their website, there would have been a healthier debate on regulation or censorship. But this was done in an opaque and arbitrary manner. If a book is banned, everyone gets to know. Why was there so much secrecy here?”

The arbitrariness of the twin government action also stems from the new IT Act which authorises the government or a competent authority to block or take down content considered “harmful”. And, according to the law, there is no obligation on the authorities’ part to inform the defendants. Cyber law expert Apar Gupta says, “Under the blocking rules, there is nothing that says that a copy of the court order has to be given to the affected parties. The rules also do not talk about the authors being given a chance to explain. It permits ad interim injunction to block content.”

Says Nikhil Pahwa, internet activist and editor of Medianama, which first reported about the IIPM blocks, “It is not clear why the DoT has taken this cloak-and-dagger approach. These are legitimate issues being raised by people regarding IIPM and its students. This is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression. The DoT should have executed the blocks in a transparent manner by sending the affected parties a copy of the court order and making it public.”

That’s important, because legal experts feel that full facts may not have been considered in the IIPM case. “For this kind of a blocking order, the content should have come to the notice of the plaintiff recently. In this case, most of the content was much older. But sometimes plaintiffs also do not provide full details in a case,” says Gupta. Lawyers also feel that the Gwalior court may not be equipped to deal with litigation on new technologies.

There are other issues. In the IIPM case, the issue is primarily of defamation. But it is not clear whether defamation was established in all the articles that were sought to be taken down, especially a University Grants Commission (UGC) notice. Thus, the evidence that was presented to the court is important. Once again, till the court order becomes public, no one will know who the complainant was or what evidence was presented. The temporary ban on UGC’s web page is particularly surprising—and this has been noted by Shashi Tharoor—considering it is an independent regulator. “The regulatory body’s job is to regulate and nobody considers its notice as defamatory,” says Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change, an organisation dealing with internet issues.

The real purpose of such exercises, say experts, is to create a scare and embroil people in the legal process so that the process itself becomes a punishment and acts as a deterrent to others to engage in such writing. And that is why such cases are filed in remote and unusual destinations like Gwalior, Silchar, Dehradun and Guwahati. “There is a concept of forum shopping and forum shifting where cases are filed at remote destinations and by asking for huge damages, an attempt is made to scare people away from free speech. There are also many bullies who use defamation to create a scare effect. IIPM seems to have pioneered forum shopping in India,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

The problem, everyone agrees, stems from the faulty nature of the Information Technology Act, which is open to interpretation and misuse. Says Singh, “The law tries to cover everything under a single head. It does not look specifically at the nuances of new media and give an appropriate response. So it is misused.” It is time that DoT became transparent and stopped its arbitrary, covert war against freedom of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/outlook-feb-22-2013-arindam-mukherjee-stop-press-counsel

Why was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?

praskrishna — 2013-02-19T11:51:43Z

Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.

In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.

Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.

Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.

The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.

The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri in an exclusive interview with Firstpost, said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.

Three of the affected parties (Careers 360, Caravan and Kafila), however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, reported Mint.

After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, Kafila, told Firstpost, “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.

While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.

In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, notes that according to the Bonnard Rule, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.

Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”

Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”

The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”

In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”

Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls