Centre for Internet and Society

Webinar on the draft Intermediary Guidelines Amendment Rules

Admin — 2019-01-18T02:13:23Z

CCAOI and the ISOC Delhi Chapter organised a webinar on January 10 to discuss the draft "The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018". Gurshabad Grover was a discussant in the panel.

The agenda of the discussion was:

A brief introduction to the draft highlighting the key issues[Shashank Mishra]
Invited experts sharing their view on the paper and questions asked [Nehaa Chaudhari, Paul Brooks, Arjun Sinha, Gurshabad Grover]
Open Discussion Q&A
Summarizing the session

A recording of the session can be accessed here

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

Internet Freedom at Crossroads - Common Paths towards Strengthening Human Rights Online

Admin — 2018-12-04T16:11:52Z

The 2018 Freedom Online Conference took place from 28 to 30 November 2018 in Berlin. Elonnai Hickok participated as a speaker.

Elonnai attended the Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network meeting and larger Freedom Online Coalition conference. The agenda can be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/internet-freedom-at-crossroads-common-paths-towards-strengthening-human-rights-online

Community Standards Roundtable Conversations

Admin — 2018-10-16T14:01:55Z

Ambika Tandon was a participant in a roundtable organized by Facebook, School of Media & Cultural Studies, and Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Bengaluru on October 7, 2018.

The agenda for the roundtable was to discuss their community standards, particularly hate speech and harassment, and receive feedback from a feminist and gendered lens. Click to read more.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/community-standards-roundtable-conversations

Net nanny meets muscular law

Admin — 2018-10-02T05:48:32Z

India’s new human-trafficking bill could criminalise sex workers and curtail free speech.

The article by Laxmi Murthy was published in Himal South Asian on September 26, 2018.

When conservative morality is armed with the law and prejudice is given legal validity, the state is transformed into a wet nurse cum security guard. The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2018, passed on 26 July in the lower house of the Indian Parliament, represents a growing trend of increased state surveillance and control, and a carceral approach to dealing with non-compliance with overbroad and vague laws laced with prudery.

Trafficking in persons, as defined by the United Nations, is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons” by coercion, deception or the abuse of power or position for the purpose of exploitation. Human trafficking is considered to be a form of modern-day slavery and is outlawed in most countries.

Following the ratification of the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others in 1949, India enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956. However, nowhere was trafficking clearly defined in the law. The acronym of this law, SITA, seemingly deliberately modelled after Sita, the chaste wife of Rama from the epic Ramayana, reinforced the moralism already codified into law. Moving from suppression to prevention of ‘immoral’ trafficking took three decades, but the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), as the act was renamed in 1986, continued to prioritise morality over human rights, focusing its attention on raiding brothels and “rescuing and rehabilitating” sex workers, whether or not they wanted such intervention. Though sex work is not illegal per se in India – with some notable exceptions with respect to soliciting in public places – the ITPA views consensual adult sex work as a misnomer and approaches all women in sex work as victims in need of rescue. This ultimately criminalises even consenting adult sex workers by treating solicitation, brothel ownership and procurement as criminal activity.

Unfortunately, the 2018 trafficking bill has been drafted with this very mindset, and goes on to widen the scope to cover “aggravated” forms of trafficking, including trafficking for the purpose of forced labour, begging, trafficking by administering chemical substance or hormones for early sexual maturity among other things. It also includes in its ambit trafficking for the purpose of surrogacy, at a time when questions around commercial surrogacy and consent of surrogates have yet to be settled in Indian law.

The bill also aims to unify existing criminal law provisions on trafficking. The definition of trafficking in the Indian law is drawn primarily from Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which includes ‘any act’ of physical exploitation, sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery and servitude. Trafficking under this bill also includes begging and domestic work. However, critics of the bill, including a collective of sex-worker-rights groups and organisations working with bonded labour, children and adolescents under the banner of the Coalition for an Inclusive Approach on the Trafficking Bill, say that the bill, with its criminalised approach, will further stigmatise sex workers, transgender persons and beggars. The supposed ‘victims’ of trafficking would, therefore, be forcibly rescued, rehabilitated and repatriated, and denied their chosen residence as well as their means of livelihood. The elaborate anti-trafficking bureaucracy to be set up at district, state and national levels seems unwieldy and without representation of the communities it purports to protect.

Cross-purposes

The anti-trafficking bill embodies a constitutional conundrum: in attempting to fulfil the mandate under Article 23 of the Constitution – to protect persons from exploitation inherent in human trafficking – it can potentially violate fundamental freedoms, in particular, the freedom of speech and expression, a core protection guaranteed by Article 19.

According to Section 39 (2) of the bill, “Whoever solicits or publicises electronically, taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials or soliciting or guiding tourists or using agents or any other form which may lead to the trafficking of a person shall be punished (emphasis added)”.

This provision, while intending to criminalise online soliciting, casts a wide net and prescribes penalties – rigorous imprisonment for a term of five to ten years and a fine between INR 50,000 (USD 700) and INR 100,000 (USD 1400) – for vaguely defined acts which may lead to trafficking. It is not necessary, as per this provision, to prove a direct causal link between these acts – such as distributing obscene photographs or providing materials – and the actual crime of trafficking. Such a broad brush is highly problematic and violates well-established tenets of criminal jurisprudence which require criminal intention (mens rea) along with the actual criminal act (actus reus). That is, a criminal act must be accompanied by a criminal intention. Without any burden to prove a causal link, anything deemed to potentially lead to trafficking can be proscribed – for example, any artistic work, academic publication or cinematic representation.

Sexually explicit content – text, audio and visual – has evoked deeply contentious opinions right from the time of the Kamasutra and the erotic sculptures of the Khajuraho temples. There is no one single position on pornography or obscenity among feminists, despite their shared concern about enhancing women’s rights and stopping exploitation. On the one hand, American feminist Robin Morgan’s famous pronouncement back in 1974, that pornography is the theory and rape is the practice, implying that pornography was directly responsible for violence and sexual abuse of women, influenced early feminists the world over, and continues to hold sway among sections of women’s rights advocates. However, while images undoubtedly impact on the human psyche, the causal links between pornography and rape are not established firmly enough to warrant censorship and bans. On the other hand, sex-positive feminists who celebrate varied expressions of sexual desire, especially female sexuality, advocates of feminist pornography (which is not seen as a contradiction in terms), adult entertainers and sex workers have practiced and theorised sexual desire and its many manifestations in ways that are undergirded by consent, respect, agency and autonomy, but not necessarily confined to contemporary social mores. Conversations around sexuality and desire have moved beyond criminalisation of what is considered deviant, but echoes of these conversations do not seem to have been heard in the corridors of the Parliament.

With the prevalent moral disapproval of pornography and adult entertainment, the phrase “taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials” can easily be misinterpreted as leading to trafficking. The word ‘obscene’ is itself too subjective and culturally loaded a term to withstand rigorous legal scrutiny. It is a no-brainer that deciding what is aesthetically pleasing erotica and what is unacceptable pornography is in the eye of the beholder and is, therefore, subjective. Where there is no requirement to prove intention, or mens rea, any image or video deemed to be obscene can be censored. This could bring into its ambit online material, articles, literature, magazines as well as artists and their work, and consenting adult sexual interactions in the digital space including adult dating apps like Tinder or OkCupid.

It was only as recently as 2014 that India’s Supreme Court jettisoned the archaic Hicklin Test, which was developed in an 1868 case in England to determine whether specific material could “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences”. This outdated standard was applied, for instance, in the landmark case of Udeshi v State of Maharashtra in 1964 to uphold the ban on the D H Lawrence classic Lady Chatterley’s Lover and to convict Ranjit Udeshi, a bookseller, under Section 292 of the IPC for distributing “obscene” material.

Half a century on, in 2014, Anand Bazaar Patrika, publishers of Sportsworld, a magazine which reprinted a nude photograph of tennis champion Boris Becker and his fiancée, won the case in the apex court which rejected the Hicklin Test. However, the court adopted a ‘community standards’ test derived from the 1957 Roth v United States case that determined what was obscene and was, therefore, unprotected by the First Amendment to the American Constitution that protects freedom of speech. The ‘community standards’ test has itself been challenged for its vagueness, since what is considered to have social importance is itself variable. In addition, the Supreme Court in the Sportsworld case allowed the nude photograph because, in the court’s view, it did not have “a tendency to arouse feeling or reveal an overt sexual desire”. The nude photograph of a white-skinned Becker with his dark-skinned fiancée was deemed to be in the public interest, as its intention was to cast a spotlight on racism and apartheid. However, the justification that the photo did not arouse sexual desire and was, therefore, acceptable, is both highly subjective and problematic in its criminalisation of sexual desire, in that it allows – without any evidence whatsoever – the dangerous possibility of nudity having a causal effect on violence.

Stormy seas and safe harbours

The Trafficking Bill 2018 in its “offences related to media” chapter, continues in its inexorable march towards criminalisation on the basis of vague definitions. According to Section 36, a person is said to be engaged in trafficking of person even if that person “advertises, publishes, prints, broadcasts or distributes, or causes the advertisement, publication, printing or broadcast or distribution by any means, including the use of information technology or any brochure, flyer or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking of person or exploitation of a trafficked person in any manner.”

However, since “promoting trafficking or exploitation” has not been clearly defined, it makes room for different interpretations of liability. There is little in this provision that attempts to impose a clear, rigorous standard of evidence that could demonstrate direct cause. The Bengaluru-based non-profit Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) cautions that, under this clause, the likelihood of authors of adult material, videographers, filmmakers and internet sites being charged with promoting trafficking or exploitation is quite high, since the clause might build a legal link between hosting or producing pornography and trafficking.

Clamping down on internet freedom on the basis of obscenity is not new. In July 2015, the government banned 857 websites that it considered pornographic. This followed the Kamlesh Vaswani case in the Supreme Court where the then chief justice of India expressed his inability to order a ban as it would go against the right to personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution. In their submission challenging the ban, and underlining the subjectivity in viewing and interpreting content, the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) said, “one man’s pornography is another man’s high art”, making it impossible for them to ban any sites. The ISPs were later told that they should ban only sites showing child pornography, but they submitted that they neither created content nor owned it and that it was not possible for them to view content before hosting it. And therein lies one of the most controversial features of the trafficking bill.

The most pernicious provision of the bill, Section 41 (2), displays a complete lack of understanding of the manner in which the digital space functions. The section penalises anyone who “distributes, or sells or stores, in any form in any electronic or printed form showing incidence of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, or rape for the purpose of exploitation or for coercion of the victim or his family members, or for unlawful gain.”

As the CIS critique of the bill points out, digital infrastructure requires third party intermediaries to handle information during transmission, storage or display. As it is not always desirable or even practically possible to verify the legality of every bit of data that gets transferred or stored by the intermediary, the CIS points out, the law provides ‘safe harbours’ to protect intermediaries from liability, ensuring that entities that act as architectural requirements and intermediary platforms are able to operate smoothly and without fear. It must be noted that users who upload and initiate transfer of information online, are not always the same parties who are directly involved in transmission of content.

In India, immunity from liability or a ‘safe harbour’ for intermediaries involved with transmission or temporary storage of content is currently provided by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), on condition that they: (i) act as a mere ‘conduit’ and do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission and (ii) exercise due diligence, which has been defined under the law. The provision for safe harbours has also been tested in court, notably in the case of the virtual market Baazee.com (later acquired by eBay), which had hosted an advertisement for an ‘obscene’ video for two days before it was taken down. The court held that the IT Act would prevail over the IPC, and the managers could not be held liable for the content of the advertisement.

With Section 59 of the proposed trafficking bill set to override existing legislation, the provision of safe harbours under the IT Act will be in jeopardy. Notably, this move to prosecute internet intermediaries is in keeping with a worldwide trend. In April 2018, the United States President Donald Trump signed into law two controversial pieces of legislation aimed to tackle human trafficking online, which have grave implications for free speech. The US Congress bill, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), and the Senate bill, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), have been welcomed by some as a victory for victims of sex trafficking. Alarmingly, however, the bills, better known by their acronyms FOSTA-SESTA, create an exception to the safe harbour rule, ie Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This provision, which is regarded as a landmark protection, says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” For over two decades, in the spirit of actualising the immense potential of the digital space to share information, ideas and opinions, this section has provided immunity for intermediaries, allowing users to freely generate content without making platforms and ISPs accountable for such content.

Under FOSTA-SESTA, however, websites are liable to be penalised for advertisements promoting consensual adult sex work, dating or escort services (such as Backpage.com or Craigslist) which could be deemed to promote trafficking. Sex-worker-rights activists in the US posit that such an unwarranted clampdown on these avenues through which adult sex workers could safely screen clients and avoid potentially dangerous situations, is putting them at risk.

Despite the protests against the impact of FOSTA-SESTA on the internet and free expression, parliamentarians in the United Kingdom seem set to follow a similar regulatory route. An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade in July 2018 called for a ban on “prostitution websites”, by which they mean virtual advertising sites such as Vivastreet and Adultwork which host adult advertisements. Anticipating the same fallout as in the US, Amnesty UK tweeted, “Taking down these platforms will push sex workers deeper underground exposing them to greater risks of violence, exploitation and trafficking.”

Beyond criminalisation

According to Interpol, trafficking in human beings is a multi-billion-dollar international criminal industry, which is usually carried out for forced labour, sexual exploitation or for harvesting of tissue, cells and organs. Despite this recognition of the different motives for trafficking, the crime has largely been linked – in the popular imagination, media and, unfortunately, even law enforcement – to sexual exploitation. The thrust of anti-trafficking efforts in India, post-Independence, set the stage for decades of human-rights violations in the name of anti-trafficking, using an ineffective law that penalised victims more than traffickers. The proposed bill, with its ill-conceived criminalised regime, is likely to do more harm than good, and give rise to a repressive regime that is not in the interests of marginalised populations most vulnerable to traffickers. Not only is the bill unlikely to make any dent in the organised trafficking networks, but the fallout of its provisions policing the internet is also likely to hamper freedom of expression and consensual, adult sexual activity mediated through the digital space.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/himal-south-asian-laxmi-murthy-net-nanny-meets-muscular-law

India’s post-truth society

swaraj — 2018-09-12T12:16:31Z

The proliferation of lies and manipulative content supplies an ever-willing state a pretext to step up surveillance.

The op-ed was published in Hindu Businessline on September 7, 2018.

After a set of rumours spread over WhatsApp triggered a series of lynchings across the country, the government recently took the interesting step of placing the responsibility for this violence on WhatsApp. This is especially noteworthy because the party in power, as well as many other political parties, have taken to campaigning over social media, including using WhatsApp groups in a major way to spread their agenda and propaganda.

After all, a simple tweet or message could be shared thousands of times and make its way across the country several times, before the next day’s newspaper is out. Nonetheless, while the use of social media has led to a lot of misinformation and deliberately polarising ‘news’, it has also helped contribute to remarkable acts of altruism and community, as seen during the recent Kerala floods.

While the government has taken a seemingly techno-determinist view by placing responsibility on WhatsApp, the duality of very visible uses of social media has led to others viewing WhatsApp and other internet platforms more as a tool, at the mercy of the user. However, as historian Melvin Kranzberg noted, “technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral”. And while the role of political and private parties in spreading polarising views should be rigorously investigated, it is also true that these internet platforms are creating new and sometimes damaging structural changes to how our society functions. A few prominent issues are listed below:

Fragmentation of public sphere

Jurgen Habermas, noted sociologist, conceptualised the Public Sphere as being “a network for communicating information and points of view, where the streams of communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesised in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions”.

To a large extent, the traditional gatekeepers of information flow, such as radio, TV and mainstream newspapers, performed functions enabling a public sphere. For example, if a truth-claim about an issue of national relevance was to be made, it would need to get an editor’s approval.

In case there was a counter claim, that too would have to pass an editorial check. Today however, nearly anybody can become a publisher of information online, and if it catches the right ‘influencer’s attention, it could spread far wider and far quicker than it would’ve in traditional media. While this does have the huge positive of giving space to more diverse viewpoints, it also comes with two significant downsides.

First, that it gives a sense of ‘personal space’ to public speech. An ordinary person would think a few times, do some research, and perhaps practice a speech before giving it before 10,000 people. An ordinary person would also think for perhaps five seconds before putting out a tweet on the very same topic, despite now having a potentially global audience.

Second, by having messages sent directly to your hand-held device, rather than open for anyone to fact-check and counter, there is less transparency and accountability for those who send polarising material and misinformation. How can a mistaken and polarising view be countered, if one doesn’t even know it is being made? And if it can’t be countered, how can its spread by contained?

The attention market

Not only is that earlier conception of public sphere being fragmented, these new networked public spheres are also owned by giant corporations. This means that these public spheres where critical discourse is being shaped and spread, are actually governed by advertisement-financed global conglomerates. In a world of information overflow, and privately owned, ad-financed public spheres, the new unit of currency is attention.

It is in the direct interest of the Facebooks and Googles of the world, to capture user attention as long as possible, regardless of what type of activity that encourages. It goes without saying that neither the ‘mundane and ordinary’, nor the ‘nuanced and detailed’ capture people’s attention nearly as well as the sensational and exciting.

Nearly as addicting, studies show, are the headlines and viewpoints which confirm people’s biases. Fed by algorithms that understand the human desire to ‘fit in’, people are lowered into echo chambers where like-minded people find each other and continually validate each other. When people with extremist views are guided to each other by these algorithms, they not only gather validation, but also now use these platforms to confidently air their views — thus normalising what was earlier considered extreme. Needless to say, internet platforms are becoming richer in the process.

Censorship by obfuscation

Censorship in the attention economy, no longer requires blocking of views or interrupting the transmission of information. Rather, it is sufficient to drown out relevant information in an ocean of other information. Fact checking news sites face this problem. Regardless of how often they fact-check speeches by politicians, only a minuscule percentage of the original audience comes to know about, much less care about the corrections.

Additionally, repeated attacks (when baseless) on credibility of news sources causes confusion about which sources are trustworthy. In her extremely insightful book “Twitter and Tear Gas”, Prof Zeynep Tufekci rightly points out that rather than traditional censorship, powerful entities today, (often States) focus on overwhelming people with information, producing distractions, and deliberately causing confusion, fear and doubt. Facts, often don’t matter since the goal is not to be right, but to cause enough confusion and doubt to displace narratives that are problematic to these powers.

Viewpoints from members of groups that have been historically oppressed, are especially harangued. And those who are oppressed tend to have less time, energy and emotional resources to continuously deal with online harassment, especially when their identities are known and this harassment can very easily spill over to the physical world.

Conclusion

Habermas saw the ideal public sphere as one that is free of lies, distortions, manipulations and misinformation. Needless to say, this is a far cry from our reality today, with all of the above available in unhealthy doses. It will take tremendous effort to fix these issues, and it is certainly no longer sufficient for internet platforms to claim they are neutral messengers. Further, whether the systemic changes are understood or not, if they are not addressed, they will continue to create and expand fissures in society, giving the state valid cause for intervening through backdoors, surveillance, and censorship, all actions that states have historically been happy to do!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindu-businessline-swaraj-paul-barooah-september-7-2018-indias-post-truth-society

हेट स्पीच

Yash Mittal — 2018-09-07T06:25:37Z

रोहित शर्मा द्वारा संपादित

समाजीकरण और मनोरंजन से गृह-कार्य तक, आज के युग में इंटरनेट युवाओं के लिए जीवन का एक अनिवार्य हिस्सा बन चुका है। यह लोगों को एक दूसरे से जोड़ने और उनसे सीखने के लिए बड़े अवसर प्रदान करता है। परंतु, इसकेबावजूद इंटरनेट में समाज में कई नकारात्मक प्रभाव बनाने की क्षमता है ।इंटरनेट घृणित व हिंसक प्रचार करने के लिए चरमपंथियों को शक्तिशाली उपकरण भी प्रदान करता है, जो वैश्विक स्तर पर कट्टरपंथी समुदायों के सृजन एवं कट्टरपंथीकरण को बढ़ावा देता है।

हेट स्पीच अभिव्यक्ति तथा व्यक्तिगत, समूह और अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों की आज़ादी के साथ एक जटिल गठबंधन में निहित है। इसके साथ साथ हेट स्पीच गरिमा, स्वतंत्रता और समानता की अवधारणाओं का भी समावेश है । इसकी परिभाषा अक्सर विवादास्पद रही है। राष्ट्रीय और अंतरराष्ट्रीय कानून में, घृणास्पद भाषण उन अभिव्यक्तियों को संदर्भित करता है जो उत्तेजना से नुकसान पहुंचाने के (विशेष रूप से, भेदभाव, शत्रुता या हिंसा) हिमायती रहे है। इस बदलाव का प्रयोजन एक निश्चित सामाजिक या जनसांख्यिकीय समूह के साथ पहचाना जा रहा है। वह भाषण इसमें शामिल हो सकते हैं, जो हिंसक कृत्यों की वकालत करते हैं, धमकाते हैं, या प्रोत्साहित करते हैं। कुछ समूहों के लिए, हालांकि, इसकी संकल्पना उन अभिव्यक्तियों तक भी फैली हुई है जो पक्षपात और असहिष्णुता के माहौल को बढ़ावा देती है और भेदभाव, शत्रुता और हिंसक हमलों को बढ़ावा दे सकता है।

आम तौर पर, हेट स्पीच की परिभाषा विस्तृत है, कभी-कभी उन शब्दों को शामिल करके इसकी परिभाषा का विस्तार किया जाता है, जो अधिकतर उच्च पदों पर बैठे व्यक्तियों के लिए अपमान-जनक सिद्ध होते हैं। , घृणास्पद भाषण की संकल्पना के साथ छेड़छाड़ की संभावना विशेष रूप से महत्वपूर्ण समय पर, जैसे कि चुनाव के दौरान होती है। यहाँ तक की आरोप यह भी लगता है कि हेट स्पीच का उपयोग राजनैतिक विरोधी व सत्ता में बैठे लोगों द्वारा एक दूसरे के प्रति असीमित अंसतोष व आलोचना को जन्म देने के लिए भी किया जाता है।

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच का प्रसार एक नूतन और तेज़ी से विकसित घटना है और इसकी महत्वता,

प्रभाव और परिणामों को समझने के लिए सामूहिक प्रयासों की आवश्यकता है।

हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया की भूमिका:

गौरतलब है पिछले कुछ समय में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार प्रसार में [WU1] सोशल मीडिया मुख्यतः एक नए औज़ार के रूप में उभरा हैI यह भयप्रद औजार प्रमुखता से धर्म के आधार पर नफरत फैलाने का काम कर रहा है। इसका उपयोग उपद्रवी तत्वों द्वारा प्रचार-प्रसार के घिनौनें तरकीबों से समाज की एकता और शांति में विघ्न उत्पन्न करने के लिए होता है।समाज की शांति को भंग कुछ इस प्रकार किया जाता है, जिससे इसके स्रोत व उपयोगकर्ता की जानकारी सुनिश्चित करना नामुमकिन सा साबित होता है।

इंटरनेट पर वार्तालाप, विशेषतःसोशल मीडिया पर, अक्सर उन बातचीत की प्रतिबिंब होती है जो बातें ऑफ़-लाइन होती है। हालांकि, ऑनलाइन बातचीत का एक लाभ यह होता है की यह आपके आस-पास मौजूद लोगों के एक छोटे समूह तक सीमित नहीं होती। भूगोल और समय की बाधाएं ऑनलाइन बातचीत में मौजूद नहीं हैं, क्योंकि कोई भी व्यक्ति, किसी भी समय ऑनलाइन बातचीत में शामिल हो सकता है और इस चर्चा में अपने विचारों का योगदान कर सकता है ।

वर्ल्ड बैंक रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार ,भारत में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया का बहुत ही अहम योगदान है, जिसका कारण भारत की दुनिया की इंटरनेट सेवा की उपयोगिता में 30% हिस्सेदारी है। ) द नेक्स्ट वेब रिपोर्ट 2017 के अनुसार विश्व की अग्रणी सोशल नेटवर्किंग वेबसाइट, फेसबुक का उपभोक्ता आधार भारत में 24 करोड़ के आंकड़े को पार कर चुका है। )।

इसके अतिरिक्त यरल रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार, 13.6 करोड़ भारतीय सोशल मीडिया प्लैटफ़ार्म पर अपनी सक्रियता दर्ज करवा रहे हैI

अगर सोशल मीडिया प्लेटफार्म की बात की जाए, तो व्हाट्सअप के महत्व को कम आंकना मुनासिब नहीं होगा I इसका मतलब यह है की वर्त्तमान में युवाओं की कार्यशैली में व्हाट्सएप के उपयोगिता को अन-देखा नहीं कर सकते हैं, जो मैशबल संस्था, 2017 के अनुसार भारत में 20 करोड़ से अधिक उपयोगकर्ताओं तक पहुंच गया है। इसका मतलब है कि भारत में 20 करोड़ उपभोक्ता व्हाट्सएप में दैनिक आधार पर संदेशों का आदान-प्रदान कर रहे हैं। इस प्रकार, संचार के सबसे लोकप्रिय चैनलों के रूप में से एक, सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच से लड़ने के साथ साथ बढावा देने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभा रहा है। वास्तव में, यह एक शक्तिशाली उपकरण है जो टेलीविजन के रूप में अपने ऑडियो-विजुअल के फायदों के साथ निहित है।

वर्ष 2015 में पिउ रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार भारत सामाजिक शत्रुता सूचकांक में चौथे स्थान पर आता है(10 में से 8.7 सूचकांक मूल्य)I इस मूल्यांकन के अनुसार भारत से ख़राब मात्र 3 देश क्रमशः सीरिया, नाइजीरिया और इराक़ हैं । यह भारत में धर्म उन्मुख मुद्दों पर चिन्तनीय स्थिति को दर्शाता है । ।

हालांकि यह प्रवृत्ति भारत तक सीमित नहीं है। यह धार्मिक कट्टरपंथवाद विश्व के कई अन्य देशों में भी दिखाई देता है। पाकिस्तान और बांग्लादेश जैसे दक्षिण एशियाई देशों ने भी, न सिर्फ राज्य बल्कि कट्टरवादी समूहों द्वारा अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी को अन-देखा किया है, जो देश, धर्म या समुदायों की रक्षा करने का दावा करते हैं।

भारत में पत्रकारों को उनकी रिपोर्टिंग पर अक्सर मौत की धमकी मिलना व उनके खिलाफ एक नफरत भरा अभियान चला कर उन्हें प्रताड़ित करने की क्रियाएँ आम है, जिसका सीधा साधा प्रतिफल भारत को प्रेस स्वतंत्रता सूचकांक2018 में 180 देशों में 138 वा स्थान मिलना है । लोकतंत्र का चौथा स्तम्भ प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता की बात करता है, जो प्रदर्शित करता है कि प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता के साथ कोई समझौता नहीं होना चाहिए I अगर प्रेस पर सरकारों का नियंत्रण होगा तो वह जनता तक वही समाचार और ख़बरें पहुंचाएगी जो सरकार के हितों की वकालत करते हैं या सरकार को मसीहा के रूप में प्रदर्शित करते हैं। प्रेस से छेड़खानी अप्रत्‍यक्ष रूप से जनता के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन है क्यूंकि स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता का काम है जनता तक बिना किसी डर या दबाव के सही व सटीक समाचार पहुंचाना जो एक लोकतांत्रिक देश के मूल्यों को दर्शाता है।

हाल ही में हेट स्पीच का तुलनात्मक रूप से उदाहरण लिया जाए तो प्रसिद्ध फ्रीलैनसर पत्रकार राणा अय्युब को 2002 के गुजरात-दंगे पर लिखी किताब ‘गुजरात फाइल्स’ को प्रकाशित करने के बाद से हेट स्पीच का सामना करना पड़ा जिसमें उनके खिलाफ एक स्पष्ट रूप से संघटित सोशल मीडिया अभियान द्वारा उन्हें टारगेट किया गयाI इस अभियान के तहत उनके खिलाफ आरोप लगाया की वह चाइल्ड रेपिस्ट को समर्थन करती हैI

इस के अलावा उनके खिलाफ अस्वीकृत व्यव्हार एवं फूहड़ भाषा का प्रयोग करके उनके साथ बलात्कार करने तक की धमकी दी गयी। राणा अय्युब के अनुसार यह अभियान सीधे सीधे उनके विगतकाल में किये गए स्टिंग ऑपरेशन का प्रभाव है। उन्होंने गुप्त रूप से दर्ज साक्षात्कारों का इस्तेमाल किया था, जो 2002 के गुजरात दंगों को बढ़ाने में नौकरशाहों और राजनेताओं के मेल-जोल के बारे में बताते थेI

इस श्रृंखला में दूसरा उदाहरण एनडीटीवी के वरिष्ठ पत्रकार रवीश कुमार का है, जो अपने बेबाक विश्लेषण के लिए जाने जाते हैंI वह भी पिछले कुछ दिनों से ऑनलाइन ट्रोलिंग का शिकार हो रहे हैं जिसमें उन्हें एक वीडियो मैसेज द्वारा जान से मारने तक की धमकी तक दी गयी जिसे रवीश बताते है कि “यह सब अच्छी तरह से संगठित प्रयास है जिसे राजनीतिक मंजूरी प्रदान है”। हेट स्पीच का उल्लेख ख़ाली पत्रकारों के खिलाफ ही नहीं अपितु बॉलीवुड कलाकारों के खिलाफ भी है I हाल ही में कई दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण प्रदर्शनों मेंदीपिका पादुकोण, रणवीर सिंह और संजय लीला भंसाली को फिल्म पद्मावती पर अत्यधिक नफरत और धमकी भरे संदेश प्राप्त हुए हैं क्योंकि लोगों के एक समूह ने बिना फिल्म देखे यह आंकलन कर लिया कि यह फिल्म उनकी भावनाओं को चोट पहुंचाती है।

ये घटनाएँ पुष्टि करती हैं कि सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच बनाने और फैलाने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता हैI और इसका इस्तेमाल हिंसा को उकसानें के स्पष्ट एजेंडे के साथ- साथ सांप्रदायिक और धार्मिक हेट स्पीच को बढ़ावा देने के लिए किया गया है।

ऑनलाइन घृणास्पद भाषण की घटनाओं को वास्तव में रोकने के लिए, एक बड़े अभियान की आवश्यकता है जो लोगों को संवेदनशील बनाकर उनमें बोलने की आज़ादी और नफरत भरे भाषणों के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट करने में मददगार साबित हो सके। इस अभियान के प्रति भागीदारी आपकी और मेरी ही नहीं अपितु प्रत्येक व्यक्ति की ज़िम्मेदारी है कि इंटरनेट पर उपलब्ध सामग्री का उत्पादन व उपभोग आँखों पर पट्टी बाँधकर एक मंद-उपभोक्ता की तरह नहीं अपितु समझदारी एवं बुद्धिमत्ता के साथ करना चाहिए।

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच से निपटने के लिए प्रभावी कानून की आवश्यकता:

ऊपर दिए गए दृष्टांत एवं तर्क इस और इशारा करती हैं कि बोलने और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के लिए हेट स्पीच एक जटिल चुनौती है। भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी इस बात को तब महसूस किया जब उन्होंने विधि आयोग की राय-मशविरा मांगी कि किन क़ानूनों से चुनाव आयोग को हेट स्पीच से प्रभावी ढंग से निपटने के लिए सशक्त किया जाए।

ऑनलाइन "हेट स्पीच" के लिए एक अलग कानून तैयार करने की दिशा में गृह मंत्रालय ने विधि आयोग को एक कानूनी मसौदा तैयार करने के लिए लिखा है। इसमें निर्धारित प्रावधान, सोशल मीडिया और ऑनलाइन मैसेजिंग अनु-प्रयोगों के माध्यम से भेजे गए संवेदनशील व भड़काऊ संदेशों से निपटने में उपयोगी होंगे जो सामाजिक विकार को नियंत्रित करेगा।

यह निर्णय तब लिया गया जब पूर्व लोकसभा महासचिव टी के विश्वनाथन की अध्यक्षता में घटित समिति ने ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को नियंत्रण में रखने के लिए कड़े कानूनों की सिफ़ारिश की। यह पैनल सूचना प्रोद्योगिकी अधिनियम, 2000 की धारा 66ए के सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा वर्ष 2015 में निरस्त होने के बाद गठन किया गया था ।

मार्च 2017, में विधि आयोग द्वारा सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जस्टिस बी एस चौहान की अध्यक्षता में दो नए प्रावधानों को आईपीसी में सम्मालित होने की सिफ़ारिश की गयी जो की प्रवासी भलाई संगठन बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया 2014 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा दिए गए आदेश पर कार्य कर रहा था। इसमे कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा की हेट स्पीच को समानता के अधिकार के शीशे से देखा जाना चाइए, और बताया की हेट स्पीच को केवल एक व्यक्ति के खिलाफ अपमानजनक स्पीच के रूप में नहीं देखा जाना चाहिए बल्कि यह कुछ समूहों के भीतर शामिल व्यक्तियों को भी भेदभाव या हिंसा के लिए उत्तेजित करता है जो उस समूह की प्रतिष्ठा पर सवालिया निशान खड़ा करता है।

आयोग द्वारा सुझाए गए आपराधिक कानून (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2017 के अनुसार आईपीसी में धारा 153 सी और धारा 505 ए को सम्मलित करने और आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता में आवश्यक परिवर्तन करने का प्रस्ताव है।

प्रस्तावित धारा 153 सी (बी) आईपीसी- नफरत को प्रोत्साहित करने पर 'सिफ़ारिश करती है कि अपराध करने पर दो साल की कारावास और ₹ 5,000 जुर्माना या दोनों ही दंडनीय होंगे।

प्रस्तावित कानून कहता है, "जो भी धर्म, जाति, या समुदाय, लिंग, लिंग पहचान, यौन अभिविन्यास, जन्म स्थान, निवास, भाषा, विकलांगता या जनजाति के आधार पर संचार के किसी भी साधन का उपयोग करता है - (ए) गंभीर चोट या चेतावनी का डर पैदा करने के इरादे से किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह को धमकाने के लिए; या (बी) वकालत करता है किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह की ओर घृणा पैदा करने की या जो अपराध करने के लिए उत्तेजना का कारण बनता है।"

दूसरा जोड़ा जाने वाला प्रस्तावित प्रावधान धारा 505 आईपीसी कहता है, "जो कोई भी जानबूझकर सार्वजनिक रूप से उन शब्दों का उपयोग करता है, या किसी भी लेखन, चिन्ह, या अन्य दृश्य-मान को प्रदर्शित करता है जो गंभीर रूप से खतरनाक, या अपमान-जनक है; (i) किसी व्यक्ति की सुनवाई या दृष्टि के भीतर, भय या चेतावनी, या; (ii) गैर-कानूनी हिंसा के उपयोग को उत्तेजित करने के इरादे से, उस व्यक्ति या किसी अन्य के खिलाफ, उसके लिए एक वर्ष की कारावास या रु 5000 जुर्माना और दोनों लगाया जा सकता है।“

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को रोकने के लिए अन्य कुछ कदम:

1) जर्मनी का कानून एक विनियनमक मॉडल के रूप में स्वीकार किया जा सकता है:

वर्ष 2017 में जर्मनी में नया कानून पारित किया गया जिसके अंतर्गत कंपनियों को 24 घंटो के भीतर हेट स्पीच से संबंधित सभी सामग्री हटाने का दायित्व है। इस कानून के जवाब में इसके मात्र सोशल नेटवर्किंग साइट फ़ेसबुक ने ही 1,200 लोगों की भर्तियाँ की ताकि जर्मन नागरिकों द्वारा इसके दुरुपयोग का प्रभावी ढंग से पता लगाया जा सके और इसे हटाया जा सके। अगर कंपनी अपने कार्य में असफल होती है, तो नियामक संस्था उस कंपनी पर $79 मिलियन(करीब 545 अरब) का जुर्माना लगा सकता है।

2) आर्टिफ़िश्यल इंटेलिजेंस का उपयोग:

एन्टीसेमिटिजम साइबर निगरानी प्रणाली एक ऐसा उपकरण है जो सोशल मीडिया पर एन्टीसेमिटिजम (यहूदी विरोधी भावना) की जांच करता है, यह इजरायली डायस्पोरा अफेयर्स मिनिस्टरी द्वारा निर्मित है और यह मार्च 2018 में सम्पन्न हुई ग्लोबल फोरम फॉर कोम्बाटिंग एन्टीसेमिटिजम की बैठक में प्रमोचित किया जा चुका है।

यह उपकरण मूल-पाठ के विश्लेषण के लिए उपयोग किया जाता है जो शब्दों, वाक्यांशों और प्रतीकों के लिए सोशल मीडिया साइटों को खोज कर काम करता है जिन्हें संभावित एंटीसेमेटिक सामग्री के संकेत के रूप में पहचाना गया है। उपकरण फिर सामग्री की समीक्षा करता है और इंटरेक्टिव ग्राफ़ उत्पन्न करता है।

निष्कर्ष:

ऑनलाइन दुष्प्रचार समाज की शांति व एकता को खंडित करने के लिए एक नए शत्रु के रूप में जन्मा है, पिछले 10 वर्षो में भारतीयों की इंटरनेट पर सक्रियता व सोशल मीडिया नेटवर्किंग साइट से जुड़ाव इस बात का संकेत है कि भविष्य में संपूर्ण विश्व में इंटरनेट क्रांति भारत से ही प्रज्ज्वलित होगी। यूं तो समाज में दुष्प्रचार व घृणा फैलाने के लिए तमाम तरकीब है, पर ऑनलाइन तकनीक का सहारा लेकर कुछ असामाजिक तत्व अपने कट्टरपंथी सिद्धांतों को न छोड़कर समाज को बांटने का काम करते हैंIयह आम तौर पर चुनावों के दौरान एक धर्म को दूसरे धर्म से लड़वाने का काम करते हैं जिससे चुनावों में वोटों का ध्रुवीकरण हो सके और इनकी मनचाही राजनैतिक पार्टी को इसका फायदा मिल सके। सबसे बड़े खेद की बात ये है कि इस हेट स्पीच में सभी राजनैतिक दल कहीं न कहीं लिप्त है। और अंत में इस पूरे प्रकरण में सबसे बड़ा नुकसान भारत की जनता वहन करती है।

दुनियाभर में एक दूसरे को संयोजित रखने में इंटरनेट अपनी बड़ी भूमिका अदा कर रहा है, पर समाज में शांति, स्थिरता व एकता को संजोये रखने में यह एक चुनौती भी खड़ी कर रहा है। इसका मुख्य कारण यह है इंटरनेट वह माध्यम है जो चंद पलों में अफ़वाहों के बाज़ार को गर्म कर सकता हैI और यही गर्मी आग का भयावह रूप लेकर समाज को भड़काने के लिए काफी होती है जिसके उपरांत समाज कई गुटों में टूटकर खोखला हो जाता है। यह भयावह स्थिति अधिकांश घटनाओं में मनुष्य के नियंत्रण के बाहर होती है। इसलिए हमे इंटरनेट का उपयोग समाज के उत्थान के लिए करना चाहिए ना कि उसके वित्थान के लिए।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/93994791f-93894d92a94091a

World Library and Information Congress 2018

Admin — 2018-08-31T02:23:29Z

Swaraj Paul Barooah was a speaker at two panels during the World Library and Information Congress 2018 (WLIC2018), organised by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in Kuala Lumpur on August 26 and 27, 2018.

Swaraj's first panel, titled "Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World" was selected as one of 9 sessions to be live-streamed and recorded, out of 249 sessions in total. The recording can be accessed on YouTube.

Session 123 Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World - Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee (SI)

Chair: Martyn Wade, United Kingdom

In many national contexts, citizens are seen to be either “with the government or against it,” leaving little opportunity to freely and safely express more nuanced views of current social, political or economic issues. While notable authoritarian regimes quite transparently monitor and limit societal discussion, others, ostensibly democratic, may work in practice to blunt potentially unfavourable social commentary on the pretence of defending political stability or public morality. IFLA’s Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee explores this phenomenon--and the potential role of civil society and information professionals in advancing freedom of expression--through the experience and insights of an NGO leader, an academic public intellectual, and an officer of UNESCO.

Presentations

Internet and the freedom of expression in Indonesia: opportunity and challenges - Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum, University of New South Wales; former Executive Director of the ELSAM human rights organization (Indonesia), Australia
Freedom of Expression in Malaysia - Azmi Bin Sharom, Faculty of Law, University of Malaysia, Malaysia
What's up with WhatsApp - polarisation and lynchings in India - Swaraj Paul Barooah, The Centre for Internet and Society, India
How to align national laws with international standards on freedom of expression? - Ming-Kuok Lim, Programme Specialist for Communication and Information, UNESCO, Indonesia

Session 140 To Have and not to Hold: The End of Ownership - CLM and FAIFE

The shift from buying physical library media to licensing digital content has profound impacts on the way libraries acquire and give access to content. From e-books that can disappear at the whim (or the mistake) of the owners of a server far away, to the limits on sharing and archiving imposed by some contracts. From the potential monitoring of reader behaviour, to the criminalisation of those who simply want to improve user experience. The dominance of digital media in information provision has both broadened the field of information to which we have access, but potentially made it shallower in terms of the use that libraries, and their users, can make of it. The joint CLM-FAIFE session will look at the question of the end of ownership from a legal and an ethical point of view, drawing on the experience and knowledge of the two communities.

Tomas A. Lipinski, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA – The Limits of Licensing.
Ann Okerson, Centre for Research Libraries, Chicago, USA – The Possibilities of Licensing.
Swaraj Paul Barooah, Centre for Internet and Society – The Balance among Licenses and Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright.
Brent Roe - Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada – Privacy Concerns and Other Side Effects of Licensing.
Jonathan Hernandez-Perez, Researcher, Instituto de Investigaciones Bibilotecologicas, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico (Invited) – Special Issues in the Developing World; Open Access as a Recapturing of Ownership.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/world-library-and-information-congress-2018

India's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates

Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti Bopanna — 2018-08-16T15:38:02Z

India's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates", an article by Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti Bopanna, was recently published in the NLUD Student Law Journal, an annual peer-reviewed journal published by the National Law University, Delhi.

Abstract

India is the leader that championed ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’. However, India holds seemingly conflicting views on the future of the Internet, and how it will be governed. India’s stance is evolving and is distinct from that of authoritarian states who do not care for equal footing and multi-stakeholderism.

Introduction

Despite John Perry Barlow’s defiant and idealistic Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace1 in 1996, debates about governing the Internet have been alive since the late 1990s. The tug-of-war over its governance continues to bubble among states, businesses, techies, civil society and users. These stakeholders have wondered who should govern the Internet or parts of it: Should it be the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)? The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)? The offspring of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) - the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or Enhanced Cooperation (EC) under the UN? Underlying this debate has been the role and power of each stakeholder at the decision-making table.States in both the global North and South have taken various positions on this issue.

Whether all stakeholders ought to have an equal say in governing the unique structure of the Internet or do states have sovereign public policy authority? India has, in the past, subscribed to the latter view. For instance, at WSIS in 2003, through Arun Shourie, then India’s Minister for Information Technology, India supported the move ‘requesting the Secretary General to set up a Working Group to think through issues concerning Internet Governance,’ offering him ‘considerable experience in this regard... [and] contribute in whatever way the Secretary General deems appropriate’. The United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand have expressed their support for ‘equal footing multi-stakeholderism’ and Australia subscribes to the status quo.

India’s position has been much followed, discussed and criticised. In this article, we trace and summarise India’s participation in the IGF, UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’), ITU and the NETmundial conference (April 2014) as a representative sample of Internet governance fora. In these fora, India has been represented by one of three arms of its government: the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The DeitY was converted to a full-fledged ministry in 2016 known as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). DeitY and DoT were part of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) until 2016 when it was bifurcated into the Ministry of Communications and MeitY.

DeitY used to be and DoT still is, within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) in India. Though India has been acknowledged globally for championing ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’ at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO), global civil society and other stakeholders have criticised India’s behaviour in Internet governance for reasons such as lack of continuity and coherence and for holding policy positions overlapping with those of authoritarian states.

We argue that even though confusion about the Indian position arises from a multiplicity of views held within the Indian government, India’s position, in totality, is distinct from those of authoritarian states. Since criticism of the Indian government became more strident in 2011, after India introduced a proposal at the UNGA for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP) comprising states as members, we will begin to trace India's position chronologically from that point onwards.

Download the paper published in NLUD Student Law Journal here
For a timeline of the events described in the article click here
Read the paper published by NLUD Student Law Journal on their website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-student-law-journal-sunil-abraham-mukta-batra-geetha-hariharan-swaraj-barooah-and-akriti-bopanna-indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates

Anti-trafficking Bill may lead to censorship

Swaraj Barooah and Gurshabad Grover — 2018-08-02T13:59:16Z

There are a few problematic provisions in the proposed legislation—it may severely impact freedom of expression.

The article was published in Livemint on July 24, 2018.

The legislative business of the monsoon session of Parliament kicked off on 18 July with the introduction of the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, in the Lok Sabha. The intention of the Union government is to “make India a leader among South Asian countries to combat trafficking” through the passage of this Bill. Good intentions aside, there are a few problematic provisions in the proposed legislation, which may severely impact freedom of expression.

For instance, Section 36 of the Bill, which aims to prescribe punishment for the promotion or facilitation of trafficking, proposes a minimum three-year sentence for producing, publishing, broadcasting or distributing any type of material that promotes trafficking or exploitation. An attentive reading of the provision, however, reveals that it has been worded loosely enough to risk criminalizing many unrelated activities as well.

The phrase “any propaganda material that promotes trafficking of person or exploitation of a trafficked person in any manner” has wide amplitude, and many unconnected or even well-intentioned actions can be construed to come within its ambit as the Bill does not define what constitutes “promotion”. For example, in moralistic eyes, any sexual content online could be seen as promoting prurient interests, and thus also promoting trafficking.

Rather than imposing a rigorous standard of actual and direct nexus with the act of trafficking or exploitation, a vaguer standard which includes potentially unprovable causality, including by actors who may be completely unaware of such activity, is imposed. This opens the doors to using this provision for censorship and imposes a chilling effect on any literary or artistic work which may engage with sensitive topics, such as trafficking of women.

In the past, governments have been keen to restrict access to online escort services and pornography. In June 2016, the Union government banned 240 escort sites for obscenity even though it cannot do that under Section 69A or Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, or Section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. In July 2015, the government asked internet service providers (ISPs) to block 857 pornography websites sites on grounds of outraging “morality” and “decency”, but later rescinded the order after widespread criticism. If historical record is any indication, Section 36 in this present Bill will legitimize such acts of censorship.

Section 39 proposes an even weaker standard for criminal acts by proposing that any act of publishing or advertising “which may lead to the trafficking of a person shall be punished” (emphasis added) with imprisonment for 5-10 years. In effect, the provision mandates punishment for vaguely defined actions that may not actually be connected to the trafficking of a person at all. This is in stark contrast to most provisions in criminal law, which require mens rea (intention) along with actus reus (guilty act). The excessive scope of this provision is prone to severe abuse, since without any burden of showing a causal connect, it could be argued that anything “may lead” to the trafficking of a person.

Another by-product of passing the proposed legislation would be a dramatic shift in India’s landscape of intermediary liability laws, i.e., rules which determine the liability of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and messaging services like Whatsapp and Signal for hosting or distributing unlawful content.

Provisions in the Bill that criminalize the “publication” and “distribution” of content, ignore that unlike the physical world, modern electronic communication requires third-party intermediaries to store and distribute content. This wording can implicate neutral communication pipeways, such as ISPs, online platforms, mobile messengers, which currently cannot even know of the presence of such material unless they surveil all their users. Under the proposed legislation, the fact that human traffickers used Whatsapp to communicate about their activities could be used to hold the messaging service criminally liable.

By proposing such, the Bill is in direct conflict with the internationally recognized Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, and in dissonance with existing principles of Indian law, flowing from the Information Technology Act, 2000, that identify online platforms as “safe harbours” as long as they act as mere conduits. From the perspective of intermediaries, monitoring content is unfeasible, and sometimes technologically impossible as in the case of Whatsapp, which facilitates end-to-end encrypted messaging. And as a 2011 study by the Centre for Internet & Society showed, platforms are happy to over-comply in favour of censorship to escape liability rather than verify actual violations. The proposed changes will invariably lead to a chilling effect on speech on online platforms.

Considering these problematic provisions, it will be a wise move to send the Bill to a select committee in Parliament wherein the relevant stakeholders can engage with the lawmakers to arrive at a revised Bill, hopefully one which prevents human trafficking without threatening the Constitutional right of free speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/livemint-july-24-2018-swaraj-barooah-and-gurshabad-grover-anti-trafficking-bill-may-lead-to-censorship

DIDP #31 Diversity of employees at ICANN

Akash Sriram — 2018-08-21T09:26:48Z

We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on race and citizenship.

This data is being requested to verify ICANN’s claim of being an equal opportunities employer. ICANN’s employee handbook states that they “...provide equal opportunities and are committed to the principle of equality regardless of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, political opinion or affiliation, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability.” The data on the diversity of employees based on race and nationality of their employees will depict how much they have stuck to their commitment to delivering equal opportunities to personnel in ICANN and potential employees.

The request filed by CIS can be accessed here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann

#NAMApolicy on Online Content Regulation

Admin — 2018-05-05T01:52:21Z

Swaraj Barooah attended the #NAMApolicy on Online Content Regulation organized by Media Nama at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on May 3, 2018.

Agenda

01:30 p.m. - 03:00 p.m.: Panel #1 & Open House - News

03:00 p.m. - 03:15 p.m.: Tea break

03:15 p.m. - 04:45 p.m.: Panel #2 & Open House - Entertainment

04:45 p.m. - 05:15 p.m.: Remaining issues

05:15 p.m. - 06:00 p.m.: High-tea

01:30 p.m. - 03:00 p.m.: Panel #1 & Open House - News03:00 p.m. - 03:15 p.m.: Tea break03:15 p.m. - 04:45 p.m.: Panel #2 & Open House - Entertainment
04:45 p.m. - 05:15 p.m.: Remaining issues
05:15 p.m. - 06:00 p.m.: High-tea

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/namapolicy-on-online-content-regulation

A look at two problematic provisions of the draft Anti-trafficking bill

swaraj — 2018-08-18T09:21:55Z

This post examines two badly drafted provisions of the new Anti-Trafficking bill that have the potential to severely impinge upon the Freedom of Expression, including through a misunderstanding of intermediary liability.

On 28 Feb 2018, the Union Cabinet approved ‘The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018’ (‘the bill’) for introduction to the Parliament. This comes after a series of consultations on an earlier 2016 draft bill, that had faced its fair share of criticism. As per the Press Information Bureau announcement, the Ministry of Women and Child Development met with various stakeholders including 60 NGOs and have incorporated many of the suggestions put forth. They’ve also stated that ‘the new law will make India a leader among South Asian countries to combat trafficking.’

However, at first glance, there appear to be several issues with overbroad or vague language used in the drafting of the bill, that stretch it into potentially problematic areas. This current post will focus on two such provisions that could lead to a deleterious effect on the Freedom of Expression. As the bill is currently not publicly available, a stakeholder’s copy of the draft is being used to source these provisions. The relevant sections have been reproduced below for convenience. (Emphasis in bold is as provided by the author).

Section 39: Buying or Selling of any person

39. (l) Whoever buys or sells any person for a consideration, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever solicits or publicises electronically, taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials or soliciting or guiding tourists or using agents or any other form which may lead to the trafficking of a person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.

The grammatical acrobatics of section 39(2) aside, this anti-solicitation provision is severely problematic in that it mandates punishment even for a vaguely defined action or actions that may not actually be connected to the trafficking of a person. In other words, the provision doesn’t require any of the actions to be connected to trafficking in their intent or even outcome, but only in potential connection to the outcome. At the same time, it says these ‘shall’ be punished!

This vagary that ignores actual or even probabilistic causation flies in the face of standard criminal law which requires mens rea along with actus rea. The excessively wide scope of this badly drafted provision leaves it prone to abuse. For example, currently the provision allows the following interpretation to be included: ‘Whoever publicizes electronically, by providing materials in any form, which may lead to trafficking of a person shall be punished…’. Even the electronic publicizing of an academic study on trafficking could fall under the provision as it currently reads, if it is argued that publishing studies that show the prevalence of trafficking ‘may lead to the trafficking of a person’! It is not hard to imagine that an academic study that shows trafficking numbers at embarrassingly high rates could be threatened with this provision. Similarly, any of our vast number of self-appointed moral guardians could also pull within this provision any artistic work that they may personally find offensive or ‘obscene’. Simply put, without any burden of showing a causal connect, it could be argued that anything ‘may lead’ to the trafficking of a person. Needless to say, this paves the way for a severe chilling effect on free speech, especially on critical speech around trafficking issues.

Section 41: Offences related to media

41. (l) Whoever commits trafficking of a person with the aid of media, including, but not limited to print, internet, digital or electronic media, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever distributes, or sells or stores, in any form in any electronic or printed form showing incidence of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, or rape for the purpose of exploitation or for coercion of the victim or his family members, or for unlawful gain shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

The drafters of this bill have perhaps overlooked the fact that unlike the physical world, the infrastructure of the electronic / digital world requires 3rd party intermediaries to handle information during most forms of electronic activities, whether it is transmission, storage or display. As it is not feasible, desirable or even practically possible for intermediaries to verify the legality of every bit of data that gets transferred or stored by the intermediary, ‘safe harbours’ are provided in law for intermediaries, protecting them from liability of the information being transmitted through them. These ensure that entities that act as architectural requirements and intermediary platforms are able to operate smoothly and without fear. If intermediaries are not granted this protection, it puts them in the unenviable position of having to monitor un-monitorable amounts of data, and face legal action for the slip-ups that are bound to happen regularly. Furthermore, there are several levels of free speech and privacy issues associated with having multiple gatekeepers on the expression of speech online. A charitable reading of the intent of a provision which does not recognise safe harbours for 3rd party intermediaries, would be that the drafters of the bill have simply not realised that users who upload and initiate transfer of information online, are not the same parties who do the actual transmission of the information.

Distribution, selling or storing of information online would require the transmission of information over intermediaries, as well as the temporary storage of such information on intermediary platforms. In India, intermediaries engaging with transmission or temporary storage of information are provided safe harbour[1] by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), so long as they:

(i) act as a mere ‘conduit’ and do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

(ii) exercise due diligence while discharging duties under this Act, and observes other guidelines that the Central Government may prescribe.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, list out the nature of the due diligence to be followed by intermediaries to claim exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Intermediaries will not be granted safe harbour if they have conspired, abetted, aided or induced commission of the unlawful act, or if they do not remove or disable access to information upon receiving actual knowledge, or notice from the Government, of the information that is transmitted or stored by the intermediary being used for unlawful purposes.

Thus it can be seen that the IT Act already provides an in-depth regime for intermediary liability, and given its non-obstante clause which states that Section 79 of the IT Act would apply “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force” , as well as the reiteration of the IT Act’s overriding effect via Section 81, which states that the provisions of the Act ‘shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force’ (barring the exercise of copyright or patent rights), it is generally considered the appropriate legal framework for this issue. However, it appears that the drafters of the 2018 Anti-trafficking bill have not considered this aspect at all, since they have not referenced the IT Act in this context in the bill, and have additionally added their own non-obstante clause in Section 59 of the bill:

59. The provisions of this Act, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency.

So the regime as prescribed by the IT Act allows for safe harbours, whereas the regime as prescribed by the Anti-Trafficking bill does not allow for safe harbours, and both say that they would an overriding effect for any conflicting law. This legislative bumble could potentially be solved by using the settled principle that a special Act prevails over a general legislation. This is still a little tricky as they are technically both special Acts. It could be argued that given the context of the Anti-trafficking bill as focusing on trafficking, and the context of the IT Act focusing on the interface of law and technology, that for the purposes of Section 41(2) of the Anti-trafficking bill, the IT Act is the special legislation. And thus Section 79 of the IT Act should make redundant the relevant portion of Section 41(2) of the Anti-trafficking bill. This reading would require the bill to be modified so as to remove the redundancy and the conflicting portion of Section 41(2).

[1] In 2016, a division bench of the Delhi High Court held in the case of Myspace Inc vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd that a safe harbour immunity for intermediaries was necessary as it was not technically feasible to pre-screen content from third parties, and that tasking intermediaries with this responsibility could have a chilling effect on free speech, It held that their responsibility was limited to the extent of acting upon receiving ‘actual knowledge’. Earlier, in determining what ‘actual knowledge’ refers to, in 2015 the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, required this to be in the form of a notice via a court or government order. Thus under our current law, intermediaries are granted a safe harbour from liability so long as they act upon court or government orders which notify them of content that is required to be taken down.

Clarification (18th August, 2018): A letter sent to the Ministry of Women and Child Development mentioned the Centre for Internet & Society as instituionally endorsing a critique of the The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018. We seek to clarify that the Centre for Internet & Society did not endorse the letter to the Ministry.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-look-at-two-problematic-provisions-of-the-draft-anti-trafficking-bill

Freedom of Expression on the Internet : Possibilities and Challenges

praskrishna — 2017-07-09T02:30:32Z

Sharat Chandra Ram was a speaker at an international seminar organized by Bolivar Technological University, Cartagena in Colombia on June 29, 2017. The theme of the seminar was ‘Freedom of Expression on the Internet : Possibilities and Challenges”.

For more info on the event, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/freedom-of-expression-on-the-internet-possibilities-and-challenges

Stockholm Internet Forum 2017

praskrishna — 2017-06-06T13:43:25Z

Elonnai Hickok participated in the Stockholm Internet Forum 2017 held in Stockholm from May 15 to 18, 2017. She spoke on the panel "Private sector and civil society collaboration to advance freedom online". The event was organized by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Pre-SIF 15 May at Sida HQ

Welcoming and informal lunch at Sida 12.00 – 14.00 (Location: Oasen)

Pre-SIF regional sessions: 14.00 – 17.00 (breaks included)

MENA: Access, power and gender (Location: Hörsalen)

AFRICA: Inequality and the digital revolution in Africa (Location: Oasen)

LATIN AMERICA: Human rights and technology in Latin America: Where to from here? (Location: Room 19, Asante)

EURASIA: Media freedom and fact checking practices (Location: Room 18, Djenné)

SOUTH EAST ASIA: Regional internet freedom unconference (Location: Room 23, Quirigua)

STUDY VISIT: Kista Science City

Mingle: 17.00 – 18.00

Dinner: 18.00 – 20.00

Pre-SIF 16 May at Sida HQ

Welcome and framing access and power 09.00 – 11.30 (break included, location: Oasen)

Pre-SIF Parallel sessions: 11.30 – 13.00

1A From divides to dividends – DDP and SDG17 (Location: Oasen)

1B Online threats: Operational response and kick-ass solutions (Location: Hörsalen)

Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 15.00 (Location: Oasen)

Pre-SIF Parallel sessions: 15.00 – 17.00

2A Financial services in a digital era: Development, livelihoods and privacy (Location: Oasen)

2B Responsible data forum: Open source investigation for human rights (Location: Hörsalen)

Mingle: 17.00 – 18.00

Dinner: 18.00 – 20.00

SIF 17 May at Münchenbryggeriet

Opening and main session 1: 9.00 – 11.00 (Location: Mässhallen)

Welcoming remarks by Sida Director General Lennart Båge

Speech by Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy Alice Bah Kuhnke

Main session 1: Equal access – Distributed power

The theme of SIF 2017 is “Access and Power” – a duality that can be analysed in many different ways. It is not enough to have access to the Internet, ICT’s and digital tools to achieve social justice and development outcomes. The question of what people have access to and what possibilities access gives also needs to be addressed. Access to the Internet is more than technical aspects and solutions – there are also dimensions related to rights, policy and power that need to be addressed.

At SIF we are keen on framing the current struggles and challenges in order to formulate possible ways ahead. One way to approach this is to discuss the co-relation between access and power. The first main session on the various aspects of access and power, is designed to get the conversation started.

Speech by State Secretary Annika Söder 11.00 – 11.15 (Location: Mässhallen)

Coffee break 11.15 – 11.45

Parallel sessions: 11.45 – 13.00

#SIF1A Digital Identity (Location: Mässhallen)

#SIF1B Community access – Helping the last 4 billion get connected (Location: Fogelström)

#SIF1C Gender based violence online: levelling the discussion (Location: Riddarsalen)

Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 14.00

Parallel sessions: 14.00 – 15.30

#SIF2A OPEN SIF (Location: Mässhallen)

#SIF2B The promises and risks of the platform economy (Location: Fogelström)

#SIF2C The global shut down epidemic – From rights, tech and economic perspective (Location: Riddarsalen)

Coffee break 15.30 – 16.00

Breakout sessions: 16.00 – 17.30

#SIFB1 The (alternative) truth is out there (Location: Mässhallen)

#SIFB2 Private sector and civil society collaboration to advance freedom online (Location: Galleriet)

#SIFB3 Access and human rights in the smart city (Location: Riddarsalen)

#SIFB4 Empowering technologies in hostile environments (Location: Milles)

#SIFB5 Freedom Online Coalition: Open forum (Location: Fogelström)

Reflections and highlights from the day: 17.45 – 18.45

(Location: Mässhallen)

Mingle and Dinner: 19.00 – 21.00

SIF 18 May at Münchenbryggeriet

Welcome and keynote: 09.00 – 09.30 (Location: Mässhallen)

Parallel sessions: 09.30 – 11.00

#SIF3A OPEN SIF (Location: Mässhallen)

#SIF3B Digital rights 2.0: challenges and opportunities to empowerment (Location: Fogelström)

#SIF3C Safe media in conflict and chaos (Location: Riddarsalen)

Coffee break: 11.00 – 11.30

Main session 2: 11.30 – 13.00 (Location: Mässhallen)

A positive outlook: Leave no one offline

Half of the world’s population — specifically women, the poor and marginalised populations in developing countries — are still being left offline. What is needed to reach those still offline?

Beyond access, there are still many obstacles to achieving a digital inclusive society. Access to the Internet, ICT’s and digital tools is not only a catalyst for economic growth but increasingly a means for people to participate in today’s society. Too often access is measured by number of subscribers. This session will address access and power from a multidimensional approach – including infrastructure, affordability and contextual factors such as regulation and social and power structures.

Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 14.00

Closing session: 14.00 – 15.00 (Location: Mässhallen)

This session will focus on summarizing knowledge and experiences shared at SIF17 and mapping the road ahead – identifying constraints but also opportunities for equal access and Internet freedom in the strive for global development and a digital inclusive society. The closing session will be interactive with the participants being the centre of the discussion.

Side happenings

During breaks you will have the opportunity to develop your digital skills, participate in discussions and expand your knowledge at this year’s side happenings.

16 May at Sida HQ

11.00 – 17.30

New media documentation clinic with Witness

(Location: Room 19 Asante)

11.00 – 17.00

Developing Internet universality indicators with UNESCO and the APC Internet indicators consortium

(Location: Room 21 Tsodilo)

14.30 – 17.30

Local access and community based networks with APC and ISOC

(Location: Djenné)

17 – 18 May at Münchenbryggeriet

All day

Digital security clinic with Access Now

(Location: Mässtorget)

Healing justice pod with Astraea Foundation

(Location: Bergrummet)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2017

World Press Freedom Day 2017

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T02:52:39Z

Udbhav Tiwari represented the Centre for Internet & Society at the World Press Day event organised by UNESCO and the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) at UNESCO House, New Delhi on May 3, 2017.

The event had the release of two reports, one on Violence against Journalists in South Asia and one of Internet Shutdowns in India, with a panel accompanying the last one. The panel was quite interesting, with perspectives from Osama Manzar and a Editor from The Hoot standing out in particular about how social media websites are being used for rapid response governance and how these bans negatively affect those attempts. The agenda for the event is attached to this email.

Click to read about the Internet Shutdown report from the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/world-press-freedom-day-2017