Centre for Internet and Society

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the Right to "Privacy Bill"

natasha — 2012-02-15T04:27:28Z

On January 21, 2012 a public conference “Privacy Matters” was held at the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai. It was the sixth conference organised in the series of regional consultations held as “Privacy Matters”. The present conference analyzed the Draft Privacy Bill and the participants discussed the challenges and concerns of privacy in India.

The conference was organized by Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab and Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Participants included a wide range of stakeholders that included the civil society, NGO representatives, consumer activists, students, educators, local press, and advocates.

Comments to the Right to Privacy Bill

Welcome

Prashant Iyengar was the Lead Researcher with Privacy India, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the five “Privacy Matters” series previously organised across India in Kolkata on January 23, 2011, in Bangalore on February 5, 2011, in Ahmedabad on March 26, 2011, in Guwahati on June 23, 2011 and in Chennai on August 6, 2011.

Keynote Address

Na. Vijayashankar (popularly known as Naavi), a Bangalore based e-business consultant, delivered the key note address on the quest of a good privacy law in India.

He described the essential features of good privacy legislation. In analyzing the Draft Privacy Bill’s definition of the right to privacy, he suggested it should be defined through the “right to personal liberty” rather than through what constitutes “infringements”. Mr. Vijayashankar went on to explain that the “privacy right” should be taken beyond “information protection” and defined as a “personal privacy or a sense of personal liberty without constraints by the society”. He explained the various classifications and levels of protection associated with the availability and disclosure of data. He expressed concerns regarding monitoring of data processors and suggested that data controllers have contractual agreements between data processors, so as to ensure an obligation of data security practices. He also called for the simplification and division of offences and suggested numerous reasons as to why the Cyber Appellate Tribunal would not be an ideal monitoring mechanism or authority. See Naavi's presenation here

Session I: Privacy and the Legal System

Dr. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India

Dr. Krishnaswamy started off the presentation by questioning the normative assumptions the Draft Privacy Bill makes. He referred to the controversy of Newt Gingrich's second marriage, to question the range of moral interests that were involved. The Bill falls short in accounting for dignity in relation to privacy.

He described the Draft Privacy Bill as a reasonable advance, given where privacy laws were before. Although, he feels that it does fall short, in terms of a narrow position, on what privacy law should do. He also questioned if it satisfies constitutional standards. He stressed the importance of philosophical work around the Draft Privacy Bill considering that the nature of privacy is not neat and over-arching.

Privacy and the Constitutional Law

N S Nappinai, Advocate, High Court, Mumbai,

Nappinai spoke on the constitutional right to privacy. She explained the substantial development of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the ‘right to privacy’ with regards to its interpretation and application. She described the different shift of the application of the right to privacy in the West in comparison to India. The West has moved from the right to privacy pertaining to property to the right to privacy concerning personal rights, whereas India moved from personal rights to property rights. She outlined three aspects of privacy: dignity, liberty and property rights.

Ms. Nappinai dissected the Bill in its major components: interception, surveillance, method and manner of personal data, health information, collection, processing and use of personal data. Using these components, she questioned what precedence exists? What should be further protected or reversed? What lessons should legislators draw from?

Shortcomings of the Draft Right to Privacy Bill falls include:

The objects and reasons section in the Draft Privacy Bill declares the right to privacy to every citizen as well as delineates the collection and dissemination of data. Nappinai dismisses the need for this delineation on the grounds that data protection is an inherent part of the right to privacy, it is not exclusive.
Large focus on transmission of data. The provisions do not account for property rights pertaining to the right to privacy. Therefore, the ‘knock-and-enter’ rule, the ‘right to be left alone’ and the ‘right to happiness’ should be included.
Applicability of the Bill should extend to all persons as well as data residing within the territory. It would be self-defeating if it only includes citizens, considering that the Constitution extends to all persons within the territory.
The right to dignity is unaccounted for.

See Nappinai's presentation here

Session II: Privacy and Freedom of Expression

Apar Gupta, Advocate, Delhi

Apar Gupta is an advocate based in Delhi who specializes in IP and electronic commerce law, spoke predominantly on the interplay between privacy and freedom of expression. He used the example of an advocate tweeting about his criticism of a judges’ ruling, to illustrate how different realms of online anonymity enable freedom of speech. He went beyond the traditional realm of journalistic architecture such as television channels or newspapers and explained online community disclosure.

Mr. Gupta provided a practical example of Indian Kanoon, a popular online database of Indian court decisions. Because Indian Kanoon is linked to the Google search engine, many individuals involved in civil and criminal matters have requested Indian Kanoon to remove the court judgments, under privacy claims. This particularly occurs with individuals involved in matrimonial cases. However, as court judgment constitute public records India Kanoon only removes court judgments when requested by a court order.

He described the several ways legislators can define privacy and freedom of expression. Considering that the privacy of an individual may border upon freedom of speech and expression, he questioned whether or not privacy should override the right to freedom of speech and expression. In addition, Mr. Gupta discussed the debate on whether or not the Privacy Bill should override all existing provisions in other laws.

Additionally, he analyzed the provisions of the Draft Privacy Bill using three judgments. In these judgments, different entities sought of various forms of speech to be blocked under privacy claims. He spoke about the dangers of a statutory right for privacy that does not safeguard freedom of speech and expression. Considering that the privacy statute may allow for a form of civil action permitting private parties to approach courts to stop certain publications, he stressed the importance for legislators to ensure balanced privacy legislation inclusive of freedom of speech and expression.

Sexual Minorities and Privacy

Danish Sheikh, researcher at Alternative Law Forum

Danish examined the status of sexual minorities in the light of privacy framework in India. The tag of decriminalization has served to greatly alter the way institutions approach the question of privacy when it comes to sexual minorities. He used the Naz Foundation judgment as a chronological marker to map the developments in the right to privacy and sexual minorities over the years.

He outlined four key effects on the right to privacy due to the Naz Foundation judgment:

Prepared the understanding of privacy as a positive right and placed obligations on the state,
Discussed privacy as dealing with persons and not just places, it took into account decisional privacy as well as zonal privacy,
Connected privacy with dignity and the valuable worth of individuals, and
Included privacy on one’s autonomous identity.

He described various incidents that took place before the Naz Foundation judgment, pre-Naz, that altered the way we conceived of queer rights in general and privacy in particular, including the Lucknow incidents, transgender toilets, passport forms, the medical establishment and lesbian unions. Post-Naz, he described two incidents including the Allahabad Muslim University sting operation as well as the TV9 “Expose” that captured public imagination.

He concluded by asking: “What do these stories tell us about privacy?” The issues faced by the transgender community tell us that privacy doesn’t necessarily encompass a one-size-fits-all approach, and can raise as many questions as it answers. The issues faced by the Lucknow NGOs display the institutionalized disrespect for privacy and that has marginally more devastating consequences for the homosexual community by the spectre of outing. The issues faced by lesbian women evidence yet another need for breaching the public/private divide, demonstrating how the protection of the law might be welcome in the family sphere. Alternate sexual orientation and gender identity might bring the community under a common rubric, but distilling the components of that rubric is essential for engaging in any kind of useful understanding of the community and the kind of privacy violations it suffers – or engage with situations when the lack of privacy is empowering.

Session III: Privacy and National Security

Menaka Guruswamy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Menaka explored national security and its relationship to privacy. In her presentation, she compared the similar manner in which the courts approach national security and privacy issues. The courts feel national security and privacy issues are too complex to define, therefore, they take a case-by-case approach.

Ms. Guruswamy described three incidents that urged her to question national security and privacy. First, she was interested in the lack of regulation surrounding intelligence agencies and was involved in the introduction of the Regulations of Intelligence Agencies Bill as a private members bill. Second, national security litigation between the Salwa Judum judgment and the State of Chhattisgarh is an example of how national security triumphs constitutional rights and values. Third, privacy in the context of the impending litigation of Naz Foundation in the Supreme Court. She described the larger conversation of national security focus on values of equality and privacy. She discussed the following questions that serve in advancing certain conception of rights:

How do we posit privacy which necessarily, philosophically as well as judicially, is carved out as the right of an individual to be left alone?
What are the consequences when national security, which is posited as the rights of the nation, is in conflict with the right of the individual to be left alone?
Considering that constitutional rights are posited as a public facet of citizenship how does a right to privacy play in that context?

Privacy and UID

R. Ramakumar, professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Prof. Ramakumar spoke on UID, its collection of information and the threat to individual privacy. First, he provided a historical trajectory of national security that has led to increased identity card schemes. He described the concrete connection between UID and national security.

He briefed the gathering on the objectives of the UID project. He described several false claims as proposed by the UIDAI. He explicitly disproved the UIDAI claim that Aadhaar is voluntary. He did this by comparing various legislations associated with the National Population Registrar that had provisions mandating the inclusion of the UID number.

He went on to explain that the misplaced emphasis of technology to handle large populations remains unproven. He described two specific violations of privacy inherent in the UID system: convergence of information and consent. The UID database makes it possible for the linking or convergence of information across silos. In addition, consent is unaccounted for in the UID system. The UID enrollment form requires consent from a person to share their information. However, the software of the enrollment form automatically checks ‘yes’, therefore you are not asked. Even if you disagree, it automatically checks ‘yes’. Default consent raises the important question, “to what extent are we the owners of our information?” and “what are the privacy implications?”

Mr. Ramakumar was once asked, by Yashwant Sinha in a Parliamentary Standing Committee meeting, “Is the Western concept of privacy important in developing country like India?”. Using this question posed to him, he stressed the importance of privacy to be understood as a globally valued right, entitlement and freedom. He also referred to Amartya Sen’s work on individual freedoms.

Conclusion

During the daylong consultation numerous questions and themes relating to privacy were discussed:

How is the right to privacy defined?
How can the Draft Privacy Bill redefine the right to privacy?
How can reasonable deterrence mechanisms be included?
Does duplication of the right to privacy exists in different statutes?
Is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal an ideal monitoring mechanism or authority?
What are the circumstances under which authorized persons can exercise the Right of privacy invasion?
How can the Draft Privacy Bill account for the right to dignity?
How much information should the State be allowed to collect?
How can citizens become more informed about the use of their information and the privacy implications involved?
What would be the appropriate balance or trade-off between security and civil liberties?
What are the dangers with permitting the needs of national security to trump competing values?
What are the consequences for the homosexual community, when faced with institutionalized disregard for privacy?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-matters-analyzing-the-right-to-privacy-bill

Google to change privacy policy to use personal info of users

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T05:03:55Z

It is a warning for users of Google and other Social Networking sites. Who are using these sites for searching anything they want to know and sharing their personal life with friends, colleagues and relatives. If you have ever used Google for searching any place, restaurant or shared information about your personal life with your friends on Google and other social networking sites, or you have watched adult stuff on YouTube, if your answer is yes, Google knows about it. And according to its new privacy policy Google is going to put this information to some use. Sheetal Ranga's article was published in Punjab Newsline on 27 January 2012.

It is claimed by the web enormous that according to new privacy policy, better service will be provided to its users, including more relevant search results. And other side the web experts have expressed their concerns over potential misuse of data and defy of privacy. Google's new privacy policy will come into effect from 1 March 2012, said by Google.

Google provide service which will be shorter and easier to read and something that will enable it to create spontaneous experience across Google. Google had allowed users to choose personalized services; “unlike” this time there is no option to pick for the users.

The new policy of Google has made some people anxious over their privacy issues. The new policy is being adopted by Google, SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government is not happy with it.

A security analyst, Jeff ( SafeGov) said, "Google should not be data-mining information in e-mails, text messages, searches and documents that workers are putting into Google services. It’s a matter of not making government workers unnecessarily exposed to hackers and to inadvertent disclosures of information."

The Vice President of Google ,Amit Singh claims that Google’s new privacy policy for consumer data is antiquated by data privacy provisions in contracts with government agencies and other organization that use the paid version of Google Apps. Google will maintain our endeavor customers’ data in conformity with the confidentiality and security obligations provided to their domain, he said.

The new policy of Google has made some people edgy over their privacy issues. SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government agencies are very unhappy with the new policy of Google. It is also said by Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society that the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.

Director of privacy Alma Whitten has given some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."

Other side after the cross-checked the contract between Google and the city of Los Angele by Gould, claimed that he didn’t think through the consequences for government users.

Punjab Newsline published this story. Sunil Abraham was quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy

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

pranesh — 2012-02-21T11:50:56Z

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

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

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

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

E-Book Bans Cannot Be Challenged

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

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

E-Book Censors Are Faceless

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

Challenging Invisible Censorship

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

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

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

This was reproduced in Outlook Magazine on 27 January 2012

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

Tangled Web

praskrishna — 2012-01-23T08:42:01Z

Government and social networking sites at loggerheads as debate rages over freedom of expression, writes Kumar Anshuman and Nikita Doval in this story published in the Week on Saturday, 21 January 2012.

Journalist-turned-activist Vinay Rai has succeeded where Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal failed—putting the fear of law in the minds of India's bloating community of bloggers, surfers, plain e-wayfarers and inter(net)lopers.

Blogs haven't yet been blocked, but a Delhi High Court bench asked 21 internet firms, including Google, Facebook and YouTube, to look at China and have stringent checks on their content on January 19. It was enough to set the net on fire. Compulsive tweeter Shashi Tharoor, who lost his ministerial berth for over-tweeting, wondered whether phone companies could "be sued if someone sends a defamatory, obscene SMS". Said IT expert Niyam Bhushan: "If you fall on the ground and hurt your nose, you can't sue gravity. At a time when people in autocratic countries are using social media to bring in democracy, a democratic country like India is trying to restrict it!"

When the summons for the case was first sent to the companies in December, a number of respondents who were based outside India failed to answer. Said cyber crime expert Pavan Duggal: "Companies are observing the IT Act more in breach than in observance."

The debate was originally kick-started by Sibal last December when he summoned the chiefs of social networking sites and showed them offensive material from their sites. However, they pleaded helplessness. Sibal's subsequent press conference drew more flak, and he retreated saying, "The government does not believe in interfering in the freedom of the press, but we have to take care of the sensibilities of our people."

It was then that Rai petitioned a Delhi criminal court, accusing 21 social networking sites of hosting objectionable and inflammatory content which would create enmity and violence among religious communities. In a sealed envelope, he presented 62 items downloaded from different web sites and got three witnesses.

Though the companies were ordered to appear before court on January 13, they challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, saying that curbing the content is technically impossible. "Human interference is not possible, and it is not feasible to check such incidents given that billions of people across the globe are posting articles and other material on their web sites," argued Mukul Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general, representing Google India. "Certain keywords can be blocked or not allowed," said Yogesh Bansal, founder and CEO of ApnaCircle.com. "However, filtering or having 100 per cent control over the content posted is technically not possible."

According to the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, if the companies receive complaints about unlawful or objectionable online material, they have 36 hours to remove it, failing which the aggrieved party can approach court or the Cyber Law Appellate Tribunal. "The rules purportedly try to regulate and control the intermediaries like interactive web sites and social media sites, but, in effect, regulate content generated or posted by users," said Prasanth Sugathan, legal counsel, Software Freedom Law Center.

The 'intermediaries', as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, include a broad list of players ranging from internet service providers like Airtel and MTNL to blogging platforms like Blogspot and WordPress to auction sites like eBay and search engines like Google to cyber cafes. The new rules mandate the intermediaries to impose a set of rules and regulations on users.

The rules specify the terms of regulations, which include a broad list of unlawful content—information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, related to paedophilia, libellous, invasive of privacy, hateful, racially objectionable, disparaging, encourages money laundering or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever.

"These are very broad terms which have not been defined very well," said Duggal. "The service provider is not even required to come to a judgment. Only after they receive a complaint or are notified by the government can they act." According to Delhi-based cyber law consultant Karnika Seth, it will be helpful if illustrations are given to explain the nature of the crime, as in the Indian Penal Code. "This is missing in the IT Act which leaves terms like 'blasphemy' and 'obscenity' open to wide interpretations."

The companies claim they stick to the rules. "We have a review committee, which decides on complaints in case of any content posted on our sites," said a representative of one of the accused companies. In the current case, the official claimed that they were not shown the content presented before court. "The current accusation is baseless," he said.

There have been several instances in the past when social networking companies acted on complaints. In 2009, a young Keralite was booked for posting offensive remarks against Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and his party on a social networking site and the material was removed. In May 2010, the controversial 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' in Facebook was blocked in India, following protests from Muslims.

In August last year, the cyber wing of the Punjab Crime Branch charge-sheeted a Sunny Dhiman for allegedly uploading a pornographic video of a female student from Chandigarh on YouTube. Following complaints, the video was removed.

According to Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, the companies are over-compliant. "We did a policy sting operation wherein we sent fraudulent notices to big web sites," he said. "They never bothered to check the veracity of the complaints, but complied with everything we asked for. In one case where we asked for the removal of three comments, they removed all 13. So there is already a private censorship underway. The existing IT Act is draconian and has led to great dilution of privacy."

According to Google Transparency Report, Google received government requests for removing 358 items from its services between January and June last year. Fifty-one per cent of the requests were partially or fully complied with. "In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with it as the content did not violate our community standards or local law," said the report.

Both Duggal and Seth said the government's demand for pre-screening and monitoring content was not feasible. "In the IT Act there is not a single phrase which requires pre-screening or moderation under the law," said Duggal. The government has a right to stop a company from displaying content which it deems perverse to Indian standards. But, as Seth said, "How do you define Indian standards? They are ever changing."

Web sites can put certain filters in place, but even they have limitations. As the counsel for the companies argued in court, the word 'sex' even comes up in documents like ration cards and passports. So blocking them is not feasible.

Though freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) states that the state may make a law imposing "reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech on eight grounds mentioned in Clause (2)—security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence and sovereignty and integrity of India.

The evidence presented before court clearly points to violation of some of these rules. "Freedom of expression doesn't mean mutilating or morphing pictures of leaders of different religious beliefs,” said Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer. “This is a crime and the persons responsible should be accused under Section 153(A)."

Said BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain: "Anything hurting religious sentiments should not be allowed. But the government is trying to stop certain political viewpoints, which is wrong." Senior Congress leader Shakeel Ahmed said freedom of expression should be "in a proper, democratic way without demeaning anyone."

Team Anna member Kumar Vishwas blamed social networking sites for hosting his videos without consent. "The main part of my speech has been deliberately removed and hence it doesn't present the fact which I said." Though he has complained, the videos have not been removed. However, he said that social networking was the voice of young India and it shouldn't be curbed in any way.

According to columnist and social analyst Syed Mubin Zehra, "There should be a check or verification process to have an internet identity." However, she is against a total ban. "We are not China, and think about the good things which the internet has contributed to society."

The corporate sector is increasingly using social networking sites to build stronger ties with consumers. For brands like Airtel, having a Facebook page meant reaching out to Generation Y, who spend a large amount of time with computers. "With Facebook there is dialogue, it becomes a barometer of customer satisfaction level," said Marzin Shroff, CEO (direct sales) and senior vice-president (marketing), Eureka Forbes, which started using Facebook in 2010 and has more than 1.6 lakh 'likes' on its page.

Cleartrip.com, a major online travel company, heavily uses the social networking platform. "We have always been early adopters of social media tools with a blog, customer forum, Twitter presence and a Facebook page," said Hrush Bhatt, co-founder and director (product & strategy), Cleartrip. "There are multiple cases where extremely irate customers have been vocal on their blogs or Twitter and our team has successfully reached out to them, taken care of their problems and turned them from complainers to evangelists."

Corporate honchos are worried over the ongoing controversy. "Banning social networking sites will hurt business as social media is now becoming a source of business for many," said Mohandas Pai, former director (HR) at Infosys Ltd. The worry is equally troubling a real estate company like Prestige Group. "As we have a very strong NRI customer base, such sites also make it possible for us to address their every need and give them an opportunity to clarify their queries with us,” said Uzma Irfan, executive director, corporate communications, Prestige Group. “Hence, ban of any free media such as Facebook shall only create a void in the marketing efforts of companies."

Some experts, however, are of the opinion that a ban or restriction on social networking sites will only have a short-term impact on some companies as many of them will change their online advertising strategy to deal with the situation. "Companies are smart enough to design new innovative advertising strategies," said Sridhar Ramanujam, CEO of brand-comm, a Bangalore-based brand communications consultancy. "Take, for instance, the liquor companies. Though liquor advertisements are banned in different places, such companies are doing more and more of surrogate advertising in the form of mineral water."

The only kind of censorship that can work on the net is self-imposed and, perhaps, a few guidelines in netiquette might not be out of line, said Seth. "Netiquette culture needs to be developed. The common man has to be explained what is legal and illegal. Otherwise there will be rampant cyber crime without people even realising that they are indulging in it."
with Abhinav Singh and Sharmista Chaudhury

Sunil Abraham was quoted in this story.

Read the original published in the Week

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web

The Quixotic Fight to Clean up the Web

sunil — 2012-01-26T20:53:02Z

The ongoing attempt to pre-screen online content won’t change anything. It will only drive netizens into the arms of criminals, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 04, Dated 28 Jan 2012.

GOOGLE AND Facebook’s ongoing case in the Delhi High Court over offensive online content is curious in three ways. First, the complaint does not mention the IT Act, 2000. Prior to the 2008 amendment, intermediaries (in this case, Google, Facebook, etc) had no immunity. But after the amendment, intermediaries have significant immunity and are not considered liable unless takedown notices are ignored.

Second, it is curious that the complaint does not mention specific individuals or groups directly responsible for authoring the allegedly offensive material. Only intermediaries have been explicitly named. If specific content items have been submitted in court then it is curious that specific accounts and users have not been charged with the same offences.

Three, Delhi-based journalist Vinay Rai claims that takedown notices and requests for user information were ignored by the intermediaries. As yet, unpublished research at the Centre for Internet and Society has reached the exact opposite conclusion. We sent fraudulent takedown notices to seven of the largest intermediaries in India as part of a policy sting operation. Six of them over-complied and demonstrated no interest in protecting freedom of expression. Our takedown notices were complied with even though they were largely nonsensical. It is therefore curious that Rai’s takedown notices were ignored.

Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the intermediary must not “initiate the transmission”, “select the receiver of the transmission” and “select or modify the information contained in the transmission”. In other words, they must not possess “actual knowledge” of the content. This would be absolutely true if intermediaries acted as “dumb pipes” or “mere conduits”. But today, they have reactive “human filters” ensuring conformance to community guidelines that often go beyond constitutional limits on freedom of expression.

For example, Facebook deletes breastfeeding photographs if a certain proportion of the breast is visible, despite numerous protests. Intermediaries also use proactive “machine filters” to purge their networks of pornography and copyright infringing content. In order to retain immunity under the IT Act, intermediaries would have to demonstrate that they have no “actual knowledge”. This would also imply that they cannot proactively filter or pre-screen content without becoming liable for illegal content.

More sophisticated “machine filters” will continue to be built for social media platforms as computing speeds increase and costs decrease dramatically. But there will be significant collateral damage — the vibrancy of online Indian communities will be diminished as legitimate content will be removed and this in turn will retard Internet adoption rates. Free media, democratic governance, research and development, culture and the arts will all be fundamentally undermined. So whether pre-censorship is technically feasible is an irrelevant question. The real question is what limits on freedom of expression are reasonable in the Internet age.

The legal tussle is yet another chance for reflecting on the shortcomings of the IT Act

Censorship is like prohibition, illegal content will persist, the mafia will profit and ordinary citizens will be implicated in criminal networks. Use of anonymising proxies, circumvention tools and encryption technologies will proliferate, frustrating network optimisation efforts and law enforcement activities.

This is yet another opportunity for reflecting on the shortcomings of the ITAct. A lot of the confusion and anxiety today emerges from vague language, unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, multi-tiered blanket surveillance provisions, blunt security policy measures contained in the statute and its associated rules. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for MPs to ask for the rules for intermediaries, cyber cafes and reasonable security practices to be revisited. The MP who musters the courage to speak will be dubbed a superhero.

As told to Shonali Ghosal. Sunil Abraham is Executive director, centre for internet and society and can be contacted at sunil@cis-india.org. The original article was published in Tehelka.

Illustration by Sudeep Chaudhuri

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web

Indian Internet Lawsuit Puts Spotlight on Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2012-01-19T08:59:15Z

In India, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are fighting a lawsuit after the government authorized their prosecution for online content on their sites deemed to be offensive. The case has put the spotlight on free speech in the world’s largest democracy.

The criminal lawsuit filed by the editor of New Delhi-based Urdu weekly Akbari accuses 21 Internet companies of violating Indian law. Vinay Rai alleged that online material on their websites has the potential to incite religious conflict.

Rai said his colleagues brought to his attention images of Prophet Muhammad which could offend Muslims. He cited other images and text which could hurt sentiments of Hindus and Christians. Rai wants Internet companies to screen content before it is posted.

Google and Facebook have asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the case against them. In an appeal, they said it is impossible to filter all content or stop individuals from posting material online.

Editor Rai filed the case after the government indicated its approval for the prosecution. The official go-ahead came weeks after the government also raised a similar demand.

Voluntary framework

Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal told Internet company representatives to come up with a voluntary framework to keep offensive material off the net. After confronting them with photos and material derogatory of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi, he said the companies had not cooperated.

Both the court case and the government’s demands have stoked fears of net censorship in the world’s largest democracy.

Advocacy groups say the dispute between authorities and websites began simmering last year when India tightened laws to block content which could be deemed offensive. Citizens and officials can ask sites to block objectionable material and failure to comply within 36 hours can attract penalties or imprisonment of up to seven years.

Sunil Abraham, with the Center for Internet and Society in India, said these rules have the potential to curtail debate and discussion on the net.

“These limits are vague. They allow for all sorts of subjective tests by private parties and we predicted they would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online," Abraham said. "Policy in India has been headed in a very worrisome direction."

Abraham pointed out that one of his organization’s recent studies indicates that, faced with the threat of stiff penalties, most service providers removed content when asked to do so, even when it was not offensive or controversial.

Free media?

The government insists its objective is not to encroach on the fundamental right of free speech guaranteed by India’s democratic constitution. The clarification came from Minister Kapil Sibal after his meetings with Internet companies last month.

"This government does not believe in censorship," noted Sibal. "This government does not believe in either directly or indirectly interfering in the freedom of the press, and we have demonstrated that time and again."

India does have a vibrant free media and Internet access is largely free, unlike in China. But in a country with a history of religious violence, authorities have long tussled with the dilemma of balancing free speech with the need to not inflame sentiments among religious groups. India was one of the first countries to ban Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”

Other books and articles have also faced bans. Many are challenged in courts and several have been overturned. Now the focus is on the Internet and questions are being raised about whether the web should or can be policed.

Online freedom

In a remark widely quoted in the domestic media, a judge hearing the case had warned websites that like China, India might be compelled to block some of them if they did not create means to curb material seen as offensive.

However, Abraham from the Center of Internet and Society hopes that, as the latest case navigates its way through Indian courts, online freedom will come up the winner.

"I think the executive in India has always been very conservative in freedom of expression. It is usually the courts in India that protect freedom of expression, the precedent," Abraham said. "So we are every hopeful that the current case is in the appropriate venue, and we are confident that, as in the past, the judiciary in India will stand on the side of freedom of expression."

With 100 million people surfing the web, India has the world’s third largest number of Internet users after China and the United States.

Published in the Voice of America on 19 January 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indian-internet-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-freedom-of-expression

Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India

praskrishna — 2012-01-18T11:57:04Z

The petition sought a blanket ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually explicit content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

PIL NO. 155 OF 2009

Janhit Manch and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India ... Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Jalan for Petitioner in person.
Mr. A.M. Sethna for R. No. 1.

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 03, 2010

P.C.

Petitioner by the present petition has approached this court, seeking relief to direct the respondents to make coordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to Petitioners are displaying material pertaining to sex and which in their opinion is harmful to the youth of this country in their formative years.

Mr. Jalan, Petitioner No. 2 appearing in person draws our attention to amongst others to Section 67 and 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 67 if any person publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regarding to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to five lakh rupees. Section 67A pertains to publishing or transmitting or causing to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct can be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

The Act therefore, makes provision for punishment of a person against whom a complaint is filed, if such person commits the offence which falls within the purview of section 67 or 67A as the case may be. Such person can be tried and convicted. For that prosecution will have to establish that an offence has been committed.

By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.

In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a a complaint.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of.

(J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/janhit-manch-ors.-v-union-of-india

Karthikeyan R v Union of India

praskrishna — 2012-01-18T11:51:59Z

The court refused to direct the government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis to be constitutionally valid under Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :01-04-2010
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
WRIT PETITION NO.20344 OF 2009 and M.P.No.l of 2009

Karthikeyan. R.
Advocate .. Petitioner
Vs.

Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan,
20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,No.6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Central Bureau of Investigation,
Rep. by its Director,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
Internet Service Provider's Association of India,
612-A, Chiranjiv Tower,
43, Nehru Place,
New Delhi 110 019.
Google India Private Limited,
No.3, RM2 Infinity Tower-E,
Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 016.
Yahoo Web Services India Private Limited,
801, Nicholas Piramal Towers,
Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Prel, Mumbai 400 013.
Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd.,
Tower-A, DLF Cyber Greens,
DLF Cyber Citi, Sector 25A,
Gurgaon 122 002.
Rediff.com India Limited,
Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate,
L.J. Road No.1, Mahim (West),
Mumbai 400 016. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.T. Perumal

For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr.J. Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor General of India

For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Desingu, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 8: Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 10: Mr. G. Balasubramanian for M/s. Poovayya & Co.

Respondents 9,11 to l3: No Appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed in public interest for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.
Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5, the learned Assistant Solicitor General by placing reliance upon a recent unreported decision of the Mumbai High Court in Janhit Manch and Others v. Union of India IPI1 No. 155 of 2009), disposed of on 3.3.2010, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition before the Mumbai High Court is very much similar to the present writ petition and, as has been observed in the said decision, the present writ petition may also be disposed of.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the said decision, the prayer made by the petitioners therein was to direct the respondents therein to make co-ordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to them are displaying material pertaining to sex and harmful to the youth of the country. The Division Bench, after hearing the contentions made on either side, observed as follows :

"By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament, in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.

In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a complaint.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
From the facts of the Janhit Manch case and the observations made therein, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said decision squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioner is to strictly enforce the rules monitoring online publications in internet and punish the persons violating such rules, which is indirectly made in the Janhit Manch case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of. Moreover, we make it clear that if any complaint is made against the publishing or transmitting any obscene or pornographic publications, necessary steps should be taken by the respondents in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar

The Secretary,
Union of India,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,
No.6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of Indie,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Director
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

1 cc To M/s.P.T.Perumal i E.Bdwing, Advocates, SR.22010

1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor, SR.22034

1 cc To M/s.Poovayya & Co., Advocates, SR.22221

1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.21929

W.P.No.20344/2009
GR(CO)

srs 15/04/2010

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india

India: obscene pics of gods require massive human censorship of Google, Facebook

praskrishna — 2012-01-17T09:46:25Z

It's hardly the sort of Internet policy statement one hopes to hear from judges in major democracies. "Like China, we can block all such websites [who don't comply]," Justice Suresh Cait told Facebook and Google lawyers in India yesterday. "But let us not go to that situation."

No, let's not. But it's what the government wants if Internet companies won't start screening and censoring all user-generated material on social network and user-generated content sites. And they'd better do their screening by hand, not with machines.

The New York Times reported last December that India's Telecommunications and Human Resources Development Minister, Kapil Sibal, has been battling hard with Internet companies on pre-emptive screening and censorship.

About six weeks ago, Mr. Sibal called legal representatives from the top Internet service providers and Facebook into his New Delhi office, said one of the executives who was briefed on the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Sibal showed attendees a Facebook page that maligned the Congress Party’s president, Sonia Gandhi. “This is unacceptable,” he told attendees, the executive said, and he asked them to find a way to monitor what is posted on their sites.

In the second meeting with the same executives in late November, Mr. Sibal told them that he expected them to use human beings to screen content, not technology, the executive said.

The Internet companies insist that they can't possibly pre-screen everything that goes up. If something truly is illegal under local laws, they are generally willing to take it down when a court rules.

The main concern is obscenity (though criticism of government officials appears to touch a sore spot, too); in the current case against Facebook, Google, and others, the obscenity involves pictures of gods, goddesses, and Mohammed.

"At present it's obscene images of Gods and Goddesses, tomorrow it can be an image of someone in your family posted online. There has to be some control," Justice Cait said at yesterday's hearing. He allowed the case against the Internet companies to proceed.

Who's pressing for the court case? A journalist. NDTV has a new interview with him, in which the man presses for quick action. (Note: the actual interview portion is not in English.)

Can we censor dissent while we're at it?

Between January and June 2011, India requested that Google remove 358 bits of content by filing 68 different complaints. One was from Google Maps (for "national security"); almost every other was from YouTube, social network Orkut, and Google's Blogger platform. Almost none came with a court order.

"We received requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders," Google explained.

"We declined the majority of these requests and only locally restricted videos that appeared to violate local laws prohibiting speech that could incite enmity between communities. In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with this request."

This is hardly an inspiring track record. While in public the companies are criticized for obscenity, Google's most recent records show only 3 requests to remove pornographic material. Government criticism and defamation were actually the two largest categories of requested material.

As the Financial Times "beyondbrics" blog notes, the Internet companies are coming under increasing attack for content they host, despite the vagueness of the demands for censorship. For instance, "Last month, a lower court had ordered the sites to remove all 'anti-social' or 'anti-religious' content by February 6. As Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics last month, it’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews."

Photograph by Diganta Talukdar

The blog post by Nate Anderson was published in ars technica on 14 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/obsecene-pics-of-gods-require-massive-human-censorship

Is India Ignoring its own Internet Protections?

praskrishna — 2012-01-17T05:33:40Z

India’s information technology law of 2008 limits the liability of Internet companies for material posted on their Web sites by users, including anything government regulators deem objectionable. The firms are supposed to be notified of offensive content — by users or the authorities — and then remove it when legally warranted.

If that’s how the system is supposed to work, then why did the Indian government just sanction a criminal lawsuit against Google, Facebook and 19 other companies that all but ignores those protections in the information technology law?

That is one of the most puzzling elements of the legal drama over free speech on the Web that is unfolding in New Delhi.

The case against the companies, brought by Urdu weekly journalist Vinay Rai, accuses them of violating various provisions of India’s criminal code by allowing material that is mocking or offensive to religious and political figures to stay on their social networking sites. There are charges of inciting communal passions and disturbing public order – catchall stuff normally meant to give police tools to rein in hooligans.

The punishments for these criminal offenses can include several years of jail time and stiff fines. That these elements of the criminal code are now being used to target Internet companies is somewhat bizarre, especially when one considers the apparently careful lawyering that went into drafting protections for Internet companies a few years ago.

As Google and others fight the charges – today they are continuing an appeal in Delhi High Court to quash the case – they will likely make the case that the courts cannot ignore India’s I.T. law. “It isn’t a trivial defense – the court cannot dismiss it,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a civil liberties advocacy group. “The I.T. act provides immunity to (Internet companies) and that should be the default starting position.”

A spokesman for India’s telecom ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. We’ve described Mr. Rai’s rationale for filing the lawsuit in a separate post.

The crackdown on Web companies couldn’t come at a worse time for the emerging Internet sector in India, which many analysts believe has a potential to grow from about 100 million users to more than 300 million within a few years if nurtured. Facebook and Google representatives declined to comment on the case.

The protections for Internet firms are fairly clear in Section 79 of the 2008 law, known as India’s I.T. Act Amendments. An “intermediary,” or Internet firm, “shall not be liable for any third party information, data or communication link.” There are several caveats, of course – the company can’t initiate or solicit the harmful post and can’t coordinate with the offender. Under the rules that India put into place last April to implement the act, companies must remove material that is “grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory” as well as anything “ethnically objectionable, disparaging” or “otherwise unlawful in any manner.”

Internet companies and civil society advocates weren’t happy with those guidelines, finding them far too draconian and subjective. But at least the law required that the companies be notified of such content and be given a chance to remove it within 36 hours. (The punishments for not removing offensive content within 36 hours would depend on the underlying laws governing that content in India; in general, prison time and fines would both be possible.)

In the case of the Vinay Rai lawsuit, such procedures don’t appear to have been followed. Google has told the court it hasn’t seen the allegedly offensive material or been notified about it. Mr. Rai says he didn’t flag the content to Google or others, because he believed his duty as a citizen was to notify the government.

What was the point of passing the I.T. law if it’s being swept to the side?

The article by Amol Sharma was published in the Wall Street Journal on 16 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections

India internet: clean-up or censorship?

praskrishna — 2012-01-16T11:17:11Z

Is India going the way of China? Not when it comes to development indicators. Or enhanced infrastructure. Or economic power. But in another category at which Beijing excels: web censorship.

That was the implication of a ruling on Thursday from Justice Suresh Kait, of the Delhi High Court, who told lawyers for Facebook India and Google India that unless they develop mechanisms to regulate “offensive and objectionable” material on their web sites, India is prepared to take drastic measures, according to the Hindustan Times. “Like China, we will block all such websites,” Kalit declared.

According to the IBN news channel, the government seems to be moving to make good on those threats:

Government sources said on Friday that the Delhi High Court was likely to issue sanctions to prosecute social networking sites Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo India in the ongoing spat between the companies and the Government of India over content regulation.

“Prosecution for some of the non-bailable offences requires prior sanction of the government, which has been sought and it is likely to be granted,” the sources said.

[…]

Summons are to be sent to the companies through the Ministry of External Affairs directing their heads to appear before court on March 13, which is when the next hearing will take place. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology will file its affidavit by this evening.

Clearly there’s trouble in “the world’s largest democracy”.

Kalit’s pronouncement is the latest turn in a story that broke last month, when the New York Times reported that telecoms minister Kapil Sibal had met with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to discuss the pre-emptive removal of “offensive material” – including, it seems, web pages that had criticized the leader of his party, Sonia Gandhi.

As beyondbrics reported, Sibal then gave a combative press conference where he said: “I believe that no reasonable person aware of the sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain,” referring to “offensive material” he had shown some reporters prior to the conference.

He added, repeatedly, that the government did not believe in censorship.

Apparently, Kalit didn’t get the memo.

Lawyers for the internet giants appeared before the judge to request the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by a private citizen in a lower court under sections of the Indian law that cover “sale of obscene books etc”, “sale of obscene objects to young person etc” and “criminal conspiracy”. The judge declined.

“The magistrate of the trial court had observed that the material submitted by the complainant contained obscene pictures and derogatory articles pertaining to various Hindu gods, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ”, IBN reported.

According to the Hindustan Times:

On behalf of Google India, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said it was humanly not possible to filter or monitor the postings of obscene, objectionable and defamatory material. “Billions of people across the globe, post their articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be checked,” he said.

A Google spokesperson issued a statement last night, saying, “We did file a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Court has now issued a notice to the petitioner. We can’t comment at this stage.”

Today, the company issued a clarification:

Today the Court has merely directed the petitioner to serve the Court order to the overseas entities at their respective addresses and has adjourned the matter to March 13th.

Last month, a lower court had ordered the sites to remove all “anti-social” or “anti-relgious” content by February 6.

As Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics last month, it’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.

A lower court had directed the central government to take “immediate appropriate steps” and file a report by January 13.

It has not been released yet, but later on Friday you can Google it. Take the opportunity – if India goes the way of China, it might prove more difficult in future.

This blog post by Neil Munshi was published in beyondbrics on 13 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/clean-up-or-censorship

Facebook, Google face censorship in India

praskrishna — 2012-01-09T05:10:37Z

Religious leaders in India are on a collision course with social media websites including Google, Facebook and Yahoo. Two Indian courts recently asked these American companies as well as 19 other websites to take down “anti-religious” material. They are now required to report their compliance by February. Betwa Sharma's blog post was published in SmartPlanet on 5 January 2012. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in it extensively.

Information technology minister Kapil Sibal also met with a delegation of different faith groups who are worried that certain internet content could lead to communal discord. India’s 1.2 billion people are made up of majority Hindus but it also has the third largest population of Muslims as well as large number of Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other faiths.

India has an estimated 100 million internet users–the third largest in the world after U.S and China. The proposed restrictions are not at all comparable to China’s but is the internet free enough for the world’s largest democracy?

Some observers are suspicious that promoting religious or social harmony is a front for censoring the internet. Sunil Abraham, head of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said that "traditional intellectual property rights holders like movie studios, music companies and software vendors are trying to protect their obsolete business models by pushing for the adoption of blanket surveillance and filtering technologies."

"They have found common cause with both totalitarian and so-called democratic regimes across the world interested in protecting the political status-quo after upheavals like the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous and the Pirate Party," he said.

The Indian government has tried to reassure the public that it is not trying to censor. Google’s Transparency Report, however, recorded that out of the 358 items requested to be removed by the Indian government from Jan-June 2011, 255 had to do with government criticism and only a handful with hate speech.

Sibal has also been speaking to executives from Facebook, Yahoo and Google in India. But no agreement has been reached on taking down hate speech. New rules, issued in April, require internet intermediaries like Facebook and Yahoo to check for “unlawful” material and take it down.

CIS will soon be releasing a report called “Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011." For the report, CIS conducted a sting operation by sending flawed takedown notices to seven intermediaries. The results showed that six intermediaries over-complied with the notices. "From the responses from the intermediaries don’t have sufficient legal competence or unwilling to dictate resources to determine legality of an online expression," Abraham said.

"Various pretexts like national security, protection of children, crackdown on online crime and terrorism, defense against cyber war etc are used to compromise civil liberties and clamp down on freedom of expression," he added.

(Photo-facebook24h.com/Google images)

Read the original published by SmartPlanet

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/facebook-google-face-censorship-in-india

US Clampdown Worse than the Great Firewall

sunil — 2012-01-26T20:42:14Z

If you thought China’s Internet censorship was evil, think again. American moves to clean up the Web could hurt global surfers, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka, Volume 8, Issue 50, 17 December 2011.

TWO PARTICULARLY terrible pieces of legislation — the PROTECT-IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) — have been introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives. If passed, the US administration will be empowered to shut down specific websites using the same four measures it employed in its failed attempt to shut down WikiLeaks — domain name system (DNS) filtering, blocking financial transfers via financial intermediaries, revoking hosting and sanitising search engine results. SOPA represents the perfect policy interest overlap between a State clamping down on freedom of expression and IPR-holders protecting their obsolete business models. After all it was Bono who publicly articulated the unspoken desire of many right-holders: “We know from China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent that it’s perfectly possible to track content.”

China fortunately only censors the Internet for its own citizens, the Great Firewall does not, for example, prevent access to knowledge by Indian netizens. SOPA will enable the US to censor the global Internet unilaterally. The Great Firewall can be circumvented using tools like Tor, but SOPA will in many ways make its targets disappear for the average user. DNS filtering, even when implemented in a single country, has global consequences. DNS, one of the foundational mechanisms of the Internet, is an address look-up service that allows users to translate domain names (e.g. cisindia.org — easier for humans to remember) into IP addresses (e.g. 202.190.125.69 — easier for machines). The most critical servers in the global DNS hierarchy are the root servers, or today’s server clusters. Mandated DNS filtering would result in some DNS servers returning different IP addresses than other DNS servers for certain domain names. With PROTECT-IP and SOPA, these global consequences would be at unprecedented levels given that seven of the 13 server clusters that constitute the DNS root fall within US jurisdiction. We already have some indication where this is headed. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency announced recently that it has seized 150 domain names for alleged IPR infringement.

We must remember that IPR policy in some countries has been configured in public interest to take advantage of the exceptions and limitations afforded by the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of IPR) agreement. In others, even though the letter of the law goes beyond TRIPS requirements, access by ordinary citizens is protected because of poor enforcement of these maximalist policies. E-commerce platforms that sell Micromax, Karbonn, Spice and Lava mobile phones that are manufactured in China may be taken offline because an American court is convinced of patent infringement. An online publisher of George Orwell’s books, which are public domain in Russia, India and South Africa but still under copyright in the US and Europe, may have its Paypal account blocked.

After the witch-hunt against WikiLeaks, policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy

In the recent past, activists in authoritarian regimes and democracies with draconian Internet laws have leveraged US Internet freedom rhetoric. This was first deployed by Hillary Clinton in early 2010 after Google’s melodramatic withdrawal from China. Even then, many observers were convinced that this was just selective tokenism and the real agenda was domination of global markets by US-based MNCs. Today, after the witch-hunts against WikiLeaks and Anonymous, global policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy.

Fortunately, opposition for SOPA has cut across traditional political and ideological divides — libertarians, liberal human rights organisations and political conservatives who believe in small government and also modern- day capitalists like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Let us pray that Kapil Sibal registers his protest with the Obama administration to protect the online aspirations of millions of Indian citizens and entrepreneurs.

Read the original published in Tehelka here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown

Spy in the Web

nishant — 2012-03-26T06:38:51Z

The government’s proposed pre-censorship rules undermine the intelligence of an online user and endanger democracy.

Kapil Sibal’s recent remarks demanding that private social media companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook remove "objectionable" content from their social networks has created a lot of furore. It should not come as a surprise to us that just like any other platform of publication and content creation, several rules and regulations already regulate online content while still respecting our constitutional right for freedom of speech and expression in India.

From terms of services of the different web 2.0 products that seek to moderate "offensive" or "harmful" material to strictly defined punishable offences as defined in the Information Technologies Act, framed by the Government of India, there are various ways by which material that might incite violence, hatred or pain is systemically removed from the digital space.

Largely, this happens silently. Unless you are particularly keen on certain spurious websites, you wouldn’t even realise that there is a list of blacklisted websites that remain inaccessible to us in India. Once in a while, we realise the regulatory nature of state censorship when certain actions come to light. In 2006, the Indian government blocked Blogspot, the popular blogging platform, because they had detected "anti-national" activities by certain groups using the blog.

More recently, India’s first home-grown erotic comic series Savita Bhabhi was banned and taken off its Indian servers, without realising that in the era of cloud-computing, the comic still remains available through different containers and spaces. In both these cases, while one might be able to provide a critique of the Indian government’s attempts at censoring and regulating information, there is reasonable sympathy to the idea that some control on information is possibly a good thing.

It is in the very nature of information to be filtered. I am sure everybody will agree that censoring, controlling and regulating information of certain kinds — involving child pornography, calls for violence and vandalism aimed at insulting and offending vulnerable sections of the society — is probably in the interest of a healthier information society. And hence, one nods one’s head, rather grudgingly at some of the censorship laws (print, TV, internet, et al) and accepts that we need them, at least in principle, if not in execution.

However, what Sibal is asking for is not in the same vein. Censorship laws have always been very cautious of what constitutes "offensive" content and have relied both on the larger opinions of the community as well as the informed expertise of legal bodies to censor information. More often than not, an act of censorship is implemented when certain sections of the society, in their interaction with certain information, find it offensive or insulting and ask for a block. Pre-emptive censorship, the kinds performed by the Central Board of Film Certification, is in service of existing legal infrastructure around production and distribution of information.

Protective guidelines for censoring information, as was recently seen in the Broadcast Editors’ Association’s mandate around not intruding into the privacy of the Bachchan baby and the mother, during the birth of the child, are demonstrably for the protection of a person’s private life.

Sibal’s new calls for censorship against material “that would offend any human being” is separate from all these instances in three ways. First, while Sibal is an important political figure in this country, he is not the lord of information production. Using the power of his office to call for taking down of content that he found offensive (fortunately it did not incite him to violence and moral decrepitude) is undemocratic and possibly extra-legal (as in not within the boundaries of law, but who will bell the cat?).

To ask private companies and use his influence to bully them into curtailing the constitutionally provided freedom of speech and expression is in bad taste. There is enough regulation that could be invoked to seek arbitration between Sibal’s opinion and somebody else’s about how Sonia Gandhi should be represented online.

Second, Sibal might pretend that he is only asking for censorship of online content the way in which we have for other media, but that is a fallacy. What he is advocating is an ethos of pre-censorship, where, even before the material becomes public, it is screened through human agents who, through some divine right would know the right from wrong — read as what the powers to be want and don’t. To override existing regulation and ask for this extra layer of human scrutiny of all information being produced online is the equivalent of certain unnamed people in Mumbai, who, when Mani Ratnam was about to release his film Bombay, asked for a private screening of the film and then recommended some friendly cuts in it.

Third, is perhaps, and I write this with regret, Sibal has undermined the critical intelligence and engagement of the social media’s ardent users. He has fallen into the trap of suggesting that impressionable minds will be easily corrupted if they are introduced to "undesirable" information online, the same information that will apparently not drive human pre-screeners to prurient activities because they will be protected by the mantle of government sanction. Instead of drawing upon the wisdom of crowds, which invites communities and people to flag information that they find offensive and asks for independent arbitration, he has asked for an undemocratic and unconstitutional call for censorship which threatens the very structures of political protest, resistance and dialogue in the country.

If such draconian measures are going to be carried through, we might soon regress to a dystopia where all information is censored, filtered and reshaped only to suit the interests of those in power.

Nishant Shah, Director-Research wrote this article for the Indian Express. It was published on December 18, 2011. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web

India's Techies Angered Over Internet Censorship Plan

praskrishna — 2011-12-22T05:30:09Z

India has the world's largest democracy, and one of the most rambunctious. Millions of its young people are cutting edge when it comes to high-tech. Yet the country is still very conservative by Western standards, and a government minister recently said that offensive material on the web should be removed.

The way it was reported in India, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal started the whole row by assembling the heads of social networking sites at a meeting in his office in New Delhi.

At the time, he was reported to have asked companies, like Google and Facebook, to devise a system to filter through and edit out objectionable material before it could make its way online.

In an interview with the Indian cable channel CNN-IBN, Sibal pointed to offensive religious content that could cause ethnic or inter-communal conflict.

"We will defend any citizens' right to freedom of speech until our last breath. But we don't want this kind of content to be on the social media," Sibal said in the interview.

India's civil society, and more particularly its very active blogosphere, was outraged.

Pranesh Prakash from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore says even the suggestion of censorship is a dangerous idea. Particularly if it's done before the content is posted online.

Indian Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal has said that Internet giants such as Facebook and Google have ignored his demands screen derogatory material from their sites, so the government would have to take action on its own.

"Pre-censorship is a very dangerous idea and is also something that actually doesn't happen in countries that are known for censoring the internet," Prakash says. "It will be charting a new path in Internet censorship."

Prakash says the proposal would be impractical, as well as undemocratic. Even with an army of censors, it would impossible to filter through content before it's uploaded, he says.

Stung by the criticism, Kapil Sibal now says he was misunderstood and that it "would be madness" to ask for pre-screening of content on electronic media and social media.

But in that fateful meeting, the Communications Minister also reportedly objected to unflattering portrayals of India's political leaders on the Internet and in Twitter messages. And that idea reinforced concerns that the government was overreaching and muffling dissent.

Censoring hate speech is one thing, but leaving it to the likes of Google to monitor political speech is problematic, says Apar Gupta, an Internet lawyer in New Delhi.

"It may offend you today, it may not cater to your taste, but at the end of the day: is it legal?" says Gupta. "The new proposals are quite a dramatic change, not only in terms of enforcement, but also in terms of what kind of speech it will prohibit."

Up till now, there has been some legal room for the government to censor inflammatory speech. For example, movies in India are subjected to a government censor board that monitors their content before they can be released to the general public. This year, a controversial movie about India's social caste system, was banned in some parts of the country.

But the Internet is less restrictive, says Apar Gupta.

"You can voice your opinion without any social sanctions for your opinions," he says. "So it's been a pressure valve which has allowed a lot of people to let off steam."

But even so, when debate online boils over in India it's the website or search engine that's held responsible. So critics of the proposed restrictions don't see the need for further action.

All this has left Communications Minister Kapil Sibal as something of a hate figure among Internet-savvy Indians. Although he says he's going to be pressing for tighter controls, he has agreed to meet with the Internet companies again.

This article by Elliot Hannon was published in NPR on 20 December 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/techies-angered-over-censorship