Centre for Internet and Society

NGOs, individuals urge state CMs to curb Internet shutdown

praskrishna — 2017-04-07T02:43:39Z

Amid rising instances of Internet curbs, a group of individuals and organisations have urged the chief ministers of 12 states to only restrict specific online content rather than resort to complete shutdown.

The article was published in the Times of India on April 4, 2017.

SFLC.in, a Delhi-based not-for-profit organisation, along with various Internet-related firms have sent letters in this regard to the chief ministers of these states impacted by Internet shutdowns.

The letters have been written to the chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Maharashtra, J&K, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana.

"The Internet shutdowns are imposed using state power under Section 144 by these specific states and not by the Union Government. The central government is bound to follow the process under Section 69 IT act.

"These letters to the chief ministers of all 12 states, which have been affected by Internet shutdowns till date, are an effort by us to address the source of the problem," SFLC.in President and Legal Director Mishi Choudhary told .

As per Internet Shutdown tracker of SFLC, there have been 28 incidents of Internet closure in Jammu & Kashmir, 9 cases each in Gujarat and Haryana, 8 in Rajasthan, 3 Nagaland, 2 cases each in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Manipur and 1 incident each in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh since 2012.

As per the tracker, far India has experienced a record number of 66 such incidents since 2012, with the number increasing more than two-fold from 14 in 2015 to 31 in 2016.

The letters sent to the chief ministers urge them to "take requisite action that would prohibit the issuance of orders that make Internet services entirely inaccessible for a particular area, and rather recommend that Section 69A and the procedure established by the rules therein be applied to limit the restriction to certain specific online content."

The signatories of the letters include the Centre for Internet and Society, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Internet Democracy Project, IT for Change and Society for Knowledge Commons, individuals like Anivar Aravind (Executive Director, Indic Project), IIT Bombay professor Kannan Moudgalya and others.

"We are hopeful that our efforts will make the government take in account the enormous effects of Internet shutdowns on the social-economic condition of our citizens and understand their plight," Choudhary said. PRS MKJ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-april-4-2017-ngos-individuals-urge-state-cms-to-curb-internet-shutdown

From Virtual to Reliable: Exploring Freedom and Facts in the World of WWW (World Wide Web)

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T04:01:25Z

An interactive seminar on internet freedom was organized by the Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands and Adaan Foundation on March 21, 2017 at the India International Centre in New Delhi. Saikat Dutta and Amber Sinha were panelists.

The seminar was coincident with the inauguration of the World Press Photo Exhibition 2016. In total there were four panelists. Read the agenda here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/from-virtual-to-reliable-exploring-freedom-and-facts-in-the-world-of-www-world-wide-web

Other Than Women: Exploring Harassment and Difference Online

praskrishna — 2017-03-27T16:11:30Z

A satellite session at RightsCon in Brussels is being organized by the Tactical Technology Collective on March 28, 2017. Rohini Lakshané is a speaker at this event.

Tactical Tech is interested in the problem of online harassment as a barrier to political participation in quantified societies, and in terms of the harm it causes those targeted. We have been working to customise tactics of resistance and support to communities/individuals who are working online and are exposed to, or are at risk of, harassment.

This Satellite Session at Rightscon is fashioned as an intervention into ongoing advocacy, research, and practical support efforts, and seeks to interrogate a wide range of possible framings of (as well as responses to) online harassment.

For more info, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/other-than-women-exploring-harassment-and-difference-online

Fake News, Rumors & Online Content Regulation

praskrishna — 2017-02-28T02:46:13Z

Medianama and Mint organized #NAMApolicy open house on 'Fake News, Rumors & Online Content Regulation' on February 22, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre. Japreet Grewal and Amber Sinha attended the event.

The discussions broadly covered the impact of Fake News on democratic processes, Legal status of online content regulation in India & administrative challenges with Fake News, Responsibility and accountability of online platforms, while addressing challenges of identification of sources of Fake News, Potential legal and non-legal ways of addressing Fake News, etc.

Agenda

06:30 to 07:00 pm - Registration
07:00 to 07:10 pm - Introductory note
07:10 to 09:00 pm - Round-table discussion moderated by Nikhil Pahwa
09:00 pm onwards - Networking dinner

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

Rankathon on Digital Rights (Delhi, January 08)

amber — 2016-12-29T07:10:09Z

Please join us on Sunday, January 08, at the CIS office in Hauz Khas, Delhi, for a rankathon to visualise, and contribute to the findings of the Ranking Digital Rights study, and critique the underlying methodology. The event will begin at 10:00 in the morning and participants can focus on one or more of three kinds of tasks: 1) visualising the CIS and Ranking Digital Rights data, 2) evaluating additional companies using the RDR methodology, and 3) evaluating the RDR methodology and its suitability for independent use.

Download: Invitation (PDF)

The Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Responsibility Index is a project hosted by the Open Technology Institute at New America Foundation that aims to rank Information and Communications Technology (ICTs) companies with respect to their Governance, Freedom of Expression, and Privacy practices. The inaugural Corporate Accountability Index, released in November 2015, evaluated 16 companies based on the project’s methodology that included 31 indicators in total.

visualising the CIS and Ranking Digital Rights data,
evaluating additional companies using the RDR methodology, and
evaluating the RDR methodology and its suitability for independent use.

The event is open to all but the venue has limited space. The participants are requested to RSVP by sending an email to nisha@cis-india.org. The final date for registering for the event is January 04.

All visualisations and other outputs produced at the event will be published under open licenses. All participants are expected to bring their own laptop or any other items needed for their work. CIS will offer data, help with understanding how the Ranking Digital Rights methodology work, refreshments, and any other support as needed.

We are also organising a discussion event on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, Delhi, to present our findings on digital rights practices of 8 Indian ICT companies, followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology of the Ranking Digital Rights study. Please find more details about this here.

We look forward to your participation and contribution to the discussion. Please support us by sharing this invitation with your colleagues and networks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/rankathon-on-digital-rights-delhi-jan-08-2017

Discussion on Ranking Digital Rights in India (Delhi, January 07)

amber — 2016-12-29T07:07:34Z

Towards developing an understanding of how Indian ICT companies are recognising and upholding digital rights of their users, and to raise public awareness about the same, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS), with the support of Privacy International, has studied 8 Indian ICT companies, using the same methodology as the 2015 Corporate Accountability Index, to gain greater insight into company practices and initiate public dialogues. Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the study.

Download: Invitation and agenda (PDF)

Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the Ranking Digital Rights study. We will begin at 10:30 am with a round of tea and coffee.

The event is open to all but the venue has limited space. The participants are requested to RSVP by sending an email to nisha@cis-india.org.

To further encourage programmers, researchers, journalists, students, and users in general to use and contribute to the findings of the Ranking Digital Rights study, and critique the underlying methodology, we are also organising a “rankathon” on Sunday, January 08, at the CIS office in Delhi. More details can be found here.

We look forward to your participation and contribution to the discussion. Please support us by sharing this invitation with your colleagues and networks.

Agenda

10:30-11:00	Coffee and Tea
11:00-11:15	Introduction
11:15-13:00	Presentation of the Findings and Discussion Divij Joshi and Aditya Singh Chawla
13:00-14:00	Lunch
14:00-15:00	Open Discussion #1: Parameters of Evaluation The RDR methodology was based upon evaluating commitments to uphold human rights through their services – in particular towards their commitment to users’ freedom of expression and privacy. Are there other parameters that may be considered in the Indian context?
15:00-16:00	Open Discussion #2: Towards Protecting Digital Rights What steps can be taken by the government, civil society, and industry in India to create an environment that recognizes and protects users digital rights? What are the relevant legal, political, and economic factors to take into consideration towards this? What are steps that other, multinational ICT companies have taken? Would these be realistic for Indian companies to implement?
16:00-16:30	Conclusion
16:30-17:00	Coffee and Tea

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/discussion-on-ranking-digital-rights-in-india-delhi-jan-07-2017

ICANN 57

praskrishna — 2016-11-08T01:14:37Z

ICANN 57 is being hosted by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India from November 3 to 9, 2016 in Hyderabad at Hyderabad International Convention Centre. Vidushi Marda participated in the event as a speaker.

As part of her work for the Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights, Vidushi presented her work on the Human Rights Impact of new gTLD Subsequent Procedures in Hyderabad.

India’s Minister of Law & Justice and Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad reiterated India’s commitment to the multistakeholder model during the Opening Ceremony of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN’s) 57th Public Meeting. The meeting, also known as ICANN57, is taking place in Hyderabad, India, from November 3 – 9, 2016 and has convened thousands of the global Internet community members (both on-site and remotely) to discuss and develop policies related to the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). It is hosted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), with support from the Government of Telangana.

ICANN57 is the first post-IANA stewardship transition public meeting and also the first Annual General Meeting under the new Meetings Strategy. ICANN meetings are held three times a year in different regions to enable attendees from around the world to participate in person. These meetings offer a variety of sessions such as workshops, open forums and working meetings on the development and implementation of Internet policies. ICANN meetings offer the best opportunity for face-to-face discussions and exchange of opinions among attendees dedicated to the continued stable and secure operation of the Domain Name System.

For more info about the event, visit the ICANN website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-57-hyderabad

Internet Rights and Wrongs

pranesh — 2016-09-22T23:36:14Z

With a rise in PIL's for unwarranted censorship, do we need to step back and inspect if it's about time unreasonable trends are checked?

The article was published in India Today on September 1, 2016. The original piece can be read here.

Over the last few weeks, there have been a number of cases of egregious censorship of websites in India. Many people started seeing notices that (incorrectly) gave an impression that they may end up in jail if they visited certain websites. However, these notices weren't an isolated phenomenon, nor one that is new. Worryingly, the higher judiciary has been drawn into these questionable moves to block websites as well.

Since 2011, numerous torrent search engines and communities have been blocked by Indian internet service providers (ISPs). Torrent search engines provide the same functionality for torrents that Google provides for websites. Are copyright infringing materials indexed and made searchable by Google? Yes. Do we shut down Google for this reason? No. However, that is precisely what private entertainment companies have done over the past five years in India. Companies hired by the producers of Tamil movies Singham and 3 managed to get video-sharing websites like Vimeo, Dailymotion and numerous torrent search engines blocked even before the movies released, without showing even a single case of copyright infringement existed on any of them. During the FIFA World Cup, Sony even managed to get Google Docs blocked. In some cases, these entertainment companies have abused 'John Doe' orders (generic orders that allow copyright enforcement against unnamed persons) and have asked ISPs to block websites. The ISPs, instead of ignoring such requests as instances of private censorship, have also complied. In other cases (like Sony's FIFA World Cup case), courts have ordered ISPs to block hundreds of websites without any copyright infringement proven against them. High court judges haven't even developed a coherent theory on whether or how Indian law allows them to block websites for alleged copyright infringement. Still they have gone ahead and blocked.

In 2012, hackers got into Reliance Communications servers and released a list of websites blocked by them. The list contained multiple links that sought to connect Satish Seth-a group MD in Reliance ADA Group-to the 2G scam: a clear case of secretive private censorship by RCom. Further, visiting some of the YouTube links which pertained to Satish Seth showed that they had been removed by YouTube due to dubious copyright infringement complaints filed by Reliance BIG Entertainment. Did the department of telecom, whose licences forbid ISPs from engaging in private censorship, take any action against RCom? No. Earlier this year, Tata Sky filed a complaint against YouTube in the Delhi High Court, noting that there were videos on it that taught people how to tweak their set-top boxes to get around the technological locks that Tata Sky had placed. The Delhi HC ordered YouTube "not to host content that violates any law for the time being in force", presuming that the videos in question did in fact violate Indian law. They cite two sections: Section 65A of the Copyright Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The first explicitly allows a user to break technological locks of the kind that Tata Sky has placed for dozens of reasons (and allows a person to teach others how to engage in such breaking), whereas the second requires finding of "dishonesty" or "fraud" along with "damage to a computer system, etc", and an intention to violate the law-none of which were found. The court effectively blocked videos on YouTube without any finding of illegality, thus once again siding with censorial corporations.

In 2013, Indore-based lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani filed a PIL in the Supreme Court calling for the government to undertake proactive blocking of all online pornography. Normally, a PIL is only admittable under Article 32 of the Constitution, on the basis of a violation of a fundamental right (which are listed in Part III of our Constitution). Vaswani's petition-which I have had the misfortune of having read carefully-does not at any point complain that the state is violating a fundamental right by not blocking pornography. Yet the petition wants to curb the fundamental right to freedom of expression, since the government is by no means in a position to determine what constitutes illegal pornography and what doesn't.

The larger problem extends to the now-discredited censor board (headed by the notorious Pahlaj Nihalani), as also the self-censorship practised on TV by the private Indian Broadcasters Federation (which even bleeps out words and phrases like 'Jesus', 'period', 'breast cancer' and 'beef'). 'Swachh Bharat' should not mean sanitising all media to be unobjectionable to the person with the lowest outrage threshold. So who will file a PIL against excessive censorship?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-today-september-1-2016-pranesh-prakash-internet-rights-and-wrongs

Roundtable: Identifying and Limiting Hate Speech and Harassment Online

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T13:31:58Z

Japreet Grewal attended this event organized by Software Freedom Law Centre at Constitution Club Of India, Rafi Marg, New Delhi on July 28, 2016.

See the original report published by SFLC here.

SFLC.in organized a roundtable discussion on 28^th July, 2016 in New Delhi to initiate a focused and collaborative dialogue around the increasingly important issues of online harassment and hate speech. This roundtable was intended as the first in a series of discussions around said issues, and was attended by representatives from various stakeholder groups including intermediary platforms, civil society groups, and media houses, along with individuals who had personally experienced such online abuse & harassment. The core objective of this discussion was to recognize and understand the vast range of concerns that exist in this sphere, in an effort to develop a framework for the regulation of such activities, without stepping on the right to freedom of expression. The discussion was conducted under Chatham House rules so as to facilitate an uninhibited exchange of views.

Over the course of the event, the complex and multifaceted nature of its overarching theme unraveled, as the discussion moved from underlying social constructs, to responsibilities of intermediary platforms, adequacy of existing laws, sensitization of everyday users and effective handling of grievances by law enforcement agencies. At the very outset, it was highlighted that social media platforms, with their increasing popularity, are being considered centralized hubs for businesses and others. However, individuals, communities & institutions often find themselves at the receiving end of sustained abuse and threats either on grounds of their actual or perceived characteristics, or over their online expression. The dynamic discussion that ensued brought to light significant concerns that would require a collaborative effort across stakeholder groups to address. For the sake of clarity, we are categorizing these learnings under the following heads:

Conceptual understanding of online harassment and hate speech: It was discussed at length that hate speech and speech that culminates in harassment on the online sphere, are reflective of the social outlook of the country at large. Women were seen as more frequent targets of harassment in the form of rape threats, sexual remarks, and name calling, whereas men are mostly called out for their beliefs and opinions. When discussing hate speech relations, it was considered important to take note of the power dynamics at play amongst the stronger groups, and the vulnerable ones. Limiting such content gets specially complicated considering the apprehension that in an effort to monitor hate speech and harassment, free speech may get stifled. The paradox of anonymity being an enabler of free speech, as well the reason for unabashed harassment adds yet another layer of complexity to the issue. Moreover, it was felt that a nuanced distinction needed to be made regarding the systematic attacks by online mobs against a particular person, as opposed to hateful and/or harassing speech that engages on a one to one level. This all culminated in a realization that this issue goes beyond the online domain, into the societal mindset that is amplified on the Internet, and that the faint line between free speech, and hateful & harassing speech is very difficult to pin-point.
Role of intermediaries: It was the opinion of the representatives of intermediary platforms at the roundtable that the current legal frameworks in the country are sufficient to tackle this issue and they should operate in compliance with such laws. While the specific terms of service may differ in terms of permissible content depending on the type of service being provided by the intermediary, these platforms do invariably keep a check on the content being generated and evaluate them for compliance with the applicable terms of service. Additionally, platforms that have the option of users creating & generating their own content, give the user various tools such as block, filter, un-follow, and other customized options to moderate the content they receive. though the intermediaries, in their own words ‘ are not a delete squad, but a compliance team’, it was said that they ran the perpetual risk of either censoring content that should not have been censored, or not censoring enough of the content that should have been censored. This incentivizes them to exercise zero-tolerance policies in certain areas such as child sexual abuse or terrorism, and resort to immediate take down of content related to such themes. However, in spite of the sheer volume of material that is generated and reported, it was felt that a completely automated approach cannot be followed for filtering hateful and harassing content that violates terms of service Taking down content and expression requires processing various factors that determine the context of that material, and this calls for a subjective approach that requires a set of human eyes. Therefore, the intermediaries do have tools for users that protect them from hate and harassing speech, and they work with certain safety experts to ensure that the users feel safe while using their services.
Adequacy of legal frameworks: A distinction was drawn over the course of the discussion between hate speech as a social as opposed to a legal concept. For legal purposes, speech would not attract penalties until it incites a real threat of violence and civic disorder. However, the law is not sufficiently equipped to deal with speech that does not incite violence, but causes psychological damage. It was undisputed that the concerns in this area cannot be solved by creating more statutes. Going down this road could lead to the creation of a Section 66A equivalent that would lead to censorship through law and cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It was emphasized that the existing laws have adequate provisions, but a strict implementation is required.
Response from law enforcement agencies: An evaluation of this point led to the conclusion that people who are harassed online, or are the targets of hate speech, are hesitant to approach the police and law enforcement agencies for their help. There have been instances where the police is unable to help due to the limited application of laws in such cases, as mentioned above.
Possible remedies: As a part of this roundtable, SFLC.in had proposed a set of best practices aimed at limiting hateful and harassing content online. These were intended as self-regulatory measures that could be followed by intermediaries functioning as speech platforms, where users could create and publish content without pre-filtrations. Amongst the measures that was discussed extensively was the practice of promoting ‘counter speech’ on the platforms that are most frequently used to spread hateful propaganda and harassment. This was generally seen as an effective counter-measure deserving further exploration, and one of the intermediaries mentioned a project they were formulating on ‘counter radicalization’. However, concerns were raised with respect to the identification of areas that would benefit from counter speech, and its effectiveness with respect to mob attacks. Another unique approach suggested by the participants was to ‘vaccinate’ first time users by educating them about the enormity and complexity of the Internet, including intiation of such users to the idea that freedom of expression online often crosses over to hate speech and harassment. This would act as an initiation process to understand the working of the Internet and the prevalence of hateful and harassing content on its numerous speech platforms, so that first-time users are not discouraged from using the Internet merely due to the presence of negative content. An interesting suggestion for the platforms was to work towards a mechanism that is more offender centric, and facilitates the tracking of repeat offenders along with providing tools of blocking for users.

This roundtable served in exploring the many layers of hateful and harassing speech that runs across roles and responsibilities of various stakeholder groups and concerns that are deeply entrenched in our societal outlook. The increasing frequency and amount of such content on the Internet is an indication of the urgent need to collaborate and develop a framework for limiting such speech, while balancing the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We thank all the participants and appreciate their valuable contributions that facilitated a better understanding of the overall theme.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-identifying-and-limiting-hate-speech-and-harassment-online

Perumal Murugan and the Law on Obscenity

Japreet Grewal — 2016-08-09T13:01:03Z

On July 5, 2016, the Madras High Court saved Perumal Murugan’s novel, Mathorubhagan from oblivion when it dismissed the claims against Murugan on the grounds of obscenity, spreading disharmony between communities, blasphemy, and defamation and upheld his freedom of expression in S. Tamilselvan & Perumal Murugan versus Government of Tamil Nadu. This judgment has received wide appreciation for its support for freedom of expression. What made it applause-worthy? Do we have reservations with the view of the High Court?

Murugan’s book is about a married couple, Kali and Ponna, who fail to have a child despite decades of their marriage. They succumb to social and familial pressures to allow Ponna (the wife) to participate in a sexual orgy (unrestrained sexual encounter involving many people) at a religious festival (the Vaikasi Car Festival) that takes place in Arthanareeswarar Temple, for begetting a child. The local community claimed that in the book, Murugan denigrated the Arthanareeswarar Temple, the deity, Lord Arthanareeswarar, festivities relating to Vaikasi Car Festival and the women of the Kongu Vellala Gounder community. Some sections of the community believed that the facts in the story were not true and found that the sexual mores associated with the community in the book were offensive.

The Court was required to evaluate, whether the novel was obscene (Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)), offensive to the community (Section 153A of IPC) and the religion (Section 295 of IPC); and whether the State had the responsibility to protect the writer from mob violence on account of his controversial book. The Court held that the book was neither offensive nor did it hurt community or religious sentiments. The Court also held that the State had a positive obligation to protect Murugan against the mob. It would be useful to look at the analysis of the Court in drawing these conclusions and see if we completely agree with it.

The Court relied on the standard for determining obscenity in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal wherein, it was held that what is lascivious/appealing to the prurient interest/depraved or corrupt has to be tested using the contemporary ‘community standards. The Court was of the view that the novel was not offensive by the current mores (para 150 and 151). The Court further relied on MF Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey, (also decided by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul) wherein it was held, that while evaluating obscenity in a work, “the judge has to place himself in the position of the author in order to appreciate what the author really wishes to convey and thereafter, placing himself in the position of the reader in every age group in whose hand the book is likely to fall, arrive at a dispassionate conclusion.”It is necessary to mention here that the community standards test has been criticised by scholars, worldwide, as it is difficult to divorce subjective morality of an individual and ascertain what those standards are. This indeterminacy interferes with the ability of judges to apply these standards. There is established scholarship that says that judges cannot divorce themselves from their subjectivities while evaluating obscenity in work of art or literature and may often reinforce the moral norms of the majority in the society thus crushing the moral standards of the minority. In India, we have a mixed bag of judgments that address the issue of obscenity. Seeing the difficulty in application of the community standards test, it is noteworthy that the ultimate fate of a book, painting or a film is dependent on the morality of an individual judge. In fact, the Court had asked a pertinent question in the judgment, “Would it be desirable for the Courts to intervene or should it be left to the readers to learn for themselves what they think and feel of the issue in question?” (para 136) However, it eventually reinforced these standards by applying the existing precedents on obscenity. The Court added thatunder Section 292, it was required to first prove whether the novel was obscene at all and only if it was found to be obscene it should be tested within the parameters of exceptionsit would fall under. The Court found that the novel was not obscene. There was no need to evaluate its social character to save it from a ban. While drawing this conclusion, the Court stated that, “sex, per se, was not treated as undesirable, but was an integral part right from the existence of civilization” (para 149) and that “in our society, we seem to be more bogged down by conservative Victorian philosophy rather than draw inspiration from our own literature and scriptures.”The Court also said, “there are different kinds of books available on the shelves of book stores to be read by different age groups from different strata. If you do not like a book, simply close it.”(para 148) While this reflects a progressive view of the judges on sexual morality, we have reservations on court’s reliance on ancient literature to justify why sex and its depiction in art or literature is not obscene.
We appreciate the observations that the Court has made while determining whether the novel hurt community or religious sentiments. The Court has acknowledged the declining tolerance level of the society (para 154) and stated that “any contra view or social thinking is met at times with threats or violent behaviour” (para 142).
The Court addressed the issue of harassment of writers and artists at the hands of a mob and held that there should “be a presumption in favour of free speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India” and emphasized the need for the State to protect those who suffer from hostility of several sections of a society as a consequence of holding a different view (para 175).Citing MF Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey, the Court said “freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom after speech.”The Court has identified the problematic sphere of mob violence and how it affects freedom of expression. However, we do not agree with what the Court held subsequently.

Reproducing an extract of the judgment here, “There is bound to be a presumption in favour of free speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India unless a court of law finds it otherwise as falling within the domain of a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.” (para 184) The words, “unless a court of law finds it otherwise as falling within the domain of a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.” indicate that the judiciary has the power to determine whether a certain type of speech could be restricted under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. This understanding is incorrect. The language of Article 19 (2) makes it clear that speech could only be restricted by ‘law’ and judiciary cannot assume the authority to restrict speech. It has the authority to decide the applicability and the constitutionality of the law that restricts speech. The relevant part of Article 19 (2) is reproduced below for reference. “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right….” The Court further acknowledged that “the State and the police authorities would not be the best ones to judge such literary and cultural issues, which are best left to the wisdom of the specialists in the field and thereafter, if need be, the Courts” (para 181). The Court thus issued directions to the Government to constitute an expert body to deal with situations arising from such conflicts of views so that an independent opinion is forthcoming, keeping in mind the law evolved by the judiciary(para 181). There are concerns with this mandate of the Court; firstly, constituting an expert body to resolve conflict of views will not serve any purpose unless there are guidelines to evaluate work. It is difficult to dissociate subjectivity and ascertain objective standards for evaluating offensiveness of literary or artistic work. Secondly, reliance on expert opinion and then courts completely disregards existing law. Under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the Government has the power to declare forfeiture of works which, it considers in violation of section 153A or section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The power to evaluate a piece of writing or other work has already been given to the government. The Court has created a parallel mechanism for evaluation by giving directions to constitute an expert panel. In the event this mechanism fails to resolve the conflict, it is suggested that courts would then be approached to address the matter. This is in complete disregard of the powers of the Government under Section 95.

In the Murugan judgment, the Court has attempted to provide a narrow interpretation of what is considered obscene, emphasized the need for the society to be more tolerant and for State to protect those members of the society who, on account of their views, suffer at the hands of an intolerant society. It is for these reasons, the judgment is, undoubtedly a sound precedent for protection of speech in India. However, it is concerning to see that in drawing these conclusions, the Court has reinforced vague legal standards of obscenity and in that regard, it remains yet another addition to the mixed bag of judgments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/perumal-murugan-and-the-law-on-obscenity

No, India did NOT oppose the United Nations move to “make internet access a human right”

Pranesh Prakash and Japreet Grewal — 2016-07-13T16:09:31Z

Last Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution titled “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet.”

The article by Pranesh Prakash and Japreet Grewal was published in Factordaily on July 13, 2016.

Several media outlets, including T he Verge, India Today, and BuzzFeed, reported that the resolution was ‘opposed’ by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and India. The Verge, for instance, reported that these countries “specifically opposed” a clause of the resolution that “condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online and calls for all countries to refrain from such measures”. This is pure bunkum. Some media organisations have also been reporting that the UNHRC resolution “declares that access to the Internet is a human right”. This too is fiction.

What’s the truth? The UNHRC resolution covers wide ground, including the reaffirmations of two previous resolutions, which stated that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online as well. As ARTICLE19, an international free speech NGO, notes: “The draft resolution goes further than its predecessors, including by stressing the importance of an accessible and open Internet to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as in calling for accountability for extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and other violations against people for expressing themselves online.” Importantly, the resolution “unequivocally condemns” internet shutdowns, such as the one that happened in Kashmir just last week after security forces killed guerrilla Burhan Wani.

This resolution was, in fact, adopted without any opposition. So why the brouhaha over countries like India?

Here are the facts

There were four separate amendments, two of which were proposed by Belarus, China and Russia (referred as L85, L86 in this article) and the other two were proposed by Belarus, China, Russia and Iran (referred as L87 and L88). None of these amendments comment on the paragraph in the resolution that condemns intentional disruption of access or dissemination of internet services. So the headlines in most of the reports are just plain wrong. Let’s examine each of these four amendments one by one

In L85, an amendment was suggested to a paragraph that refers to past resolutions by the UNHRC and the UN General Assembly relating to freedom of expression and the right to privacy online. The amendment, which proposed including a reference to a previous UNHRC resolution on the rights of children online, was later withdrawn.

In L86 the proposed amendments both added and removed some text, and was hotly opposed by organisations like ARTICLE19. The proposed amendment said that the same rights people have offline must also be protected online, in particular, freedom of expression and the right to privacy, in accordance with articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multilateral treaty adopted by the United National General Assembly to respect civil and political rights of individuals. Major additions: Some text on right to privacy and a reference to Article 17 of the ICCPR, which is about privacy. Major deletions: a reference to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and language stating that that freedom of expression is “applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice”, which is present in article 19 of the ICCPR. However, article 19 of the ICCPR is incorporated by reference even in the proposed amendment! So is there a real loss in purely legal terms? Not really.

The amendments in L87 sought to replace the term “human rights based approach” that stressed on the need to provide and expand access to the internet, and to replace it with the term “comprehensive and integrated approach.” The problem is that there is no clarity about what a “human rights based approach” to providing and expanding access to the internet is. What does it even mean? Is there a “human rights based approach” to spectrum auctions and spectrum sharing? Or the laying of fibre optic cables? Or anything else associated with internet access? If there is, indeed, a human rights based approach to providing and expanding access to the internet, it should be spelt out, rather than simply calling it that. Similarly, the term “comprehensive and integrated approach” is equally vague.

Even if one harbours reservations about these amendments, none of these amendments could be reasonably be characterised as “opposing” the condemnation of Internet shutdowns or “opposing” online freedoms.

Finally, in L88, the amendments proposed that the UN resolution should acknowledge concerns about using the internet and information technology for spreading ideas about “racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” In the light of this, it is difficult to understand how adding concerns relating to hate speech to the resolution is seen as “being opposed” to online freedoms, especially when there is no direct action contemplated in the proposed amendment.

Indeed, in Paragraph 9, gender violence is mentioned, and in Paragraph 11, incitement to hatred is mentioned. Adding an additional, more specific reference can hardly be construed as being opposed to online freedoms. After all, states have a positive obligation to enact laws to prohibit hate speech under Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR, which is a centrepiece of international human rights law.

Even if one harbours reservations about these amendments, none of these amendments could be reasonably be characterised as “opposing” the condemnation of Internet shutdowns or “opposing” online freedoms. And factually, no states (including India, China, South Africa, Russia, and more) voted against the resolution.

A game of Chinese whispers

So why did so many prominent news organisations around the world get it so wrong? My theory is that it happened because organisation like ARTICLE19 put out press releases on what they perceived as the ‘weakening’ of the resolutions by the amendments examined above, and their regret that even democratic states like India and South Africa voted for these amendments. This was wrongly portrayed in much of the media as opposition by these countries to the resolution itself, to online freedoms, and particularly as opposition to the idea of condemning internet shutdowns. Thanks to the Chinese whispers nature of news reporting, this mistaken idea spread far and wide without any of the reporters bothering to check the original UN documents.

It is shameful if India condemns internet shutdowns at the UNHRC while deploying them for purposes such as preventing cheating during an examinations, during Ganesha visarjan, during Eid, during wrestling matches, and during protests.

However, regardless of the faulty reportage, there is a real crisis in India, with organisations like Medianama and the Software Freedom Law Centre having counted at least nine internet shutdowns this year alone, and at least 30 since 2013. It is shameful if India condemns internet shutdowns at the UNHRC while deploying them for purposes such as preventing cheating during an examinations, during Ganesha visarjan, during Eid, during wrestling matches, and during protests.

We at the Centre for Internet and Society have previously explained why a Gujarat High Court order allowing for an internet shutdown during riots was wrong in law, and violated our Constitution as well as our international human rights obligations. That is something the India media ought to be focussing far more on, but aren’t.

Lastly, it would also be welcome for the individual civil society organisations that signed an open letter to UNHRC members to explain why they too believed that these amendments would have significantly harmed our freedoms online. We see it instead as a case of ‘human rights politics’ being played out, when none of the proposed amendments would have had much of a negative legal impact, but only a political impact.

Should civil society organisations really get worked up about these?

Edited by: Pranav Dixit

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/factordaily-pranesh-prakash-and-japreet-grewal-july-13-2016-no-india-did-not-oppose-un-move-to-make-internet-access-a-human-right

India may not be guilty of opposing UN move to save internet rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:58:53Z

India is a democratic country, but the standards for freedom of expression promised to us—online and offline—are highly questionable, especially with online content being censured and comedians being threatened to be arrested for sedition.

This was published by Ciol on July 7, 2016.

So the media criticism came as no surprise when India supported the amendments proposed by countries like China and Russia last week when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”.

According to some media reports, countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India, called for the UN to delete a passage in the resolution that ‘condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to our dissemination of information online’.”

India has also been struggling to draft a comprehensive privacy bill, and most recently came out with a geospatial information regulation bill that would establish ownership over all forms of location data.

However, the fact that the resolution was adopted without a vote (with oral revision)—as noted by the UNHRC—puts these news reports on a faulty ground. So technically, India did not ‘vote against’ the resolution. Moreover, none of the four amendments supported by India called for the deletion of a passage that condemned the prevention or disruption of Internet access and online information dissemination, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society. Although, India flouts the said clause in spirit, back at home.

Out of the four amendments—L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution–the first amendment (L85) sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online. This was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states. L86 can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online. L88 includes reference to hate speech, asks to introduce a new paragraph that states “Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.” This amendment was proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation.

Considering that the Internet and other online media technologies are increasingly used for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia in India and other Asian countries, the resolution does touch on an important issue. But it doesn’t seek to limit internet freedom particularly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ciol-july-7-2016-india-may-not-be-guilty-of-opposing-un-move-to-save-internet-rights

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:57:35Z

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature.

The article was published in Indian Express on June 13, 2016

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature. The government officials cited “national security” as a reason for not granting permission to Google. It is expected that the Google’s Street View permission would be relooked at, once the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, is enforced as law. Many however feel that this draft bill is draconian and will have serious repercussions on the startup ecosystem.

The Geospatial Bill seeks to make creating, accessing and distribution or sharing of map related information, illegal and that every company will have to take prior permission and license from the government for the same. Wayback in 2011, Google had announced the introduction of Street View for Bangalore, on Google Maps. But the project ran into trouble with Bangalore Police stopping Street View cars from plying in the city, citing security reasons.

Google Street View, launched in 2007, is popular in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, New York and Miami, which allows users to navigate virtual streets from photographs gathered from directional cameras on special vehicles. While the service has been hugely successful it has caused problems of privacy in some countries.

In 2010 almost 250,000 Germans told Google to blur pictures of their homes on the Street View service, while Czech government also banned Google from taking any new photos for the service. In Switzerland, the matter went to the court and it was accepted that Google would be obliged to pixelate 99% of images to blur faces, vehicle registrations and that it would not be filming certain sensitive places such as schools, prisons and shelter homes.

This adds to the list of recent controversies on Google Earth, and the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, on adoption of mapping technology in India. Commenting on the development, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society said, the key country where the Google Street View faced legal challenge, and was fined too, is Germany. This legal challenge, however, was not based on the concern for national security but on that for the privacy of the citizens. However, it was eventually allowed to roll out Street View in Germany provided that it asks for consent from the house owners before images of any house.”

“One of the crucial concerns with the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill remains its vast scope of application. Not only initiatives like Google Street View may be regulated under it (for capturing geo-referenced imagery from the street level) but absolutely any mobile application that requires the user’s geo-location (either automatically detected, or manually entered by the user) would be within the purview of this Bill. This evidently creates a great pressure upon the entire ICT-enable product and service sector in India,” Chattapadhyay added.

This would mean that, any company, particularly the new age startups, those in the food tech, fintech and e-commerce space, which uses geo-location to identify the customer location to either deliver goods, food products, or the likes of Ola and Uber which uses maps to pickup and drop customers, will have to obtain license from the government.

Raman Shukla, director—strategy and product, Medikoe, said, “At Medikoe we are helping users to locate the nearest healthcare service provider with the available technologies. Google Maps is one of key feature our company banks on. Though we understand the country’s security concerns, the draft bill, if implemented, would be a violation of independent internet. We believe that a much better solution can be identified to solve security concerns.”

Venu Kondur, founder of LOBB, the online truck booking platform said, “Geostatial data is a very important data for our business. Customers booking truck through LOBB platform get real-time track & trace facility. Our customers rely heavily on this data for their day-day activity. Startups like us depend largely on maps data for real-time tracking of consignment. Lot of our business intelligence data is drawn out of it.”

In case, if the draft gets implemented, many startups will be forced to change the business model and while it will also increase the product delivery time. A group of 15 volunteers created a SaveTheMap.in portal to educate the readers about the draft bill and also give complete information on how the bill have an impact on the citizen and users of certain application. Sajjad Anwar one of the volunteer, said, through the portal about 1700 mails have been sent to the ministry of home affairs airing their view on why they do not support the draft Bill.

Comparing with other countries, Chattapadhyay further said, “At first, other countries deal with the question of display of security establishments in publicly available maps through direct interactions with large mapping companies, and does not turn this into a financial and political burden for the entire economy. Secondly, it is the concern about privacy of the citizens that should frame the Indian government’s response to products and services like Google Street View, and not concerns regarding national security.”

What the draft bill says

No person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the security vetting authority under the Central government.

Penalty

Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention to the rules, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rs 1 crore to Rs 100 crore and /or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.

Application for license

Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application along with requisite fees to the security vetting authority.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups

Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:51:30Z

Another day and another opaque order asking Indian service providers to block websites that allegedly offer or advertise escort services in India. In total, the government has ordered ban on 237 websites. But as it happens whenever the Indian government bans website, there has been no public communication about the same.

The article was published in India Today on June 16, 2016

Also, it has not been explained what, if any, process was followed before these websites were banned and what norms were applied for the order that the internet service providers have received.

However, now Centre for Internet and Society has caught hold of the list of the websites that have been banned. Here is what the organisation says, "Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites."

As for the websites and URLs here they are:

www.sterlingbioscience.com
rawpoint.biz
www.onemillionbabes.com
www.mumbaihotcollection.in
simranoberoi.in
rubinakapoor.biz
talita.biz
www.mumbaiescortsagency.net
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.alishajain.co.in
www.ankitatalwar.co.in
https://www.jennyarora.ind.in
www.riya-kapoor.com
shneha.in
missinimi.in
www.mumbaiglamour.in
kalyn.in
www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/
bookerotic.com
www.divyamalik.in
www.suhanisharma.co.in
www.ruhi.biz
umbaiqueens.in
www.aliyaghosh.com
priyasen.in
www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in
charmingmumbai.com
www.poojamehata.in
kiiran.in/
mansikher.in
www.newmumbaiescorts.in
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.punarbas.in
www.discreetbabes.in
www.alisharoy.in
www.arpitarai.in
www.nidhipatel.in
navimumbailescort.com
www.zoyaescorts.com
www.juhioberoi.in
shoniya.in
panchibora.in
rehu.in
www.nehaanand.com
www.aditiray.co.in
www.rakhibajaj.in
www.alianoidaescorts.in
www.sobiya.in
www.alishaparul.in
mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com
ankita-ahuja.in
www.yamika.in
mumbailescort.co
www.ranjika.in
www.aditiray.com
www.alinamumbailescort.in
www.sonikaa.com/services/
riyamodel.in
soonam.in
www.sejalthakkar.com
www.yomika-tandon.in
www.asika.in
www.siyasharma.org/
www.rubikamathur.in
www.mumbaiescortslady.com
www.sexyshe.in
www.indepandentescorts.com
www.saanvichopra.co.in
www.goswamipatel.in
ojaloberoi.in
www.naincy.in
www.sonyamehra.com
www.pinkgrapes.in
anjalitomar.in/
www.nishakohli.com/
sagentia.co.in
mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai
www.deseescortgirls.in
guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299
jasmineescorts.com
www.shalinisethi.com
www.highclassmumbailescort.com
www.vipescortsinmumbai.com
www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in
monikabas.co.in
www.riyasehgal.com
onlycelebrity.in
www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.aishamumbailescort.com
www.jennydsouzaescort.com
www.desifun.in
www.siyaescort.co.in
masti-escort.in
www.sofya.in
www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php
www.mumbaiwali.in
www.calldaina.com
www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in
www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com
www.passionmumbai.escorts.com
www.nehakapoor.in
meerakapoor.com
www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in
www.allmumbailescort.in
www.rakhiarora.in
www.ritikasingh.com
www.rekhapatil.com
www.mumbaidolls.com
www.piapandey.com
www.mumbaicuteescorts.in
www.mumbaiescortssevice.com
www.onlycelebrity.com
www.meetescortservice.com
onlyoneescorts.com
simirai.org
www.riyamumbaiescorts.in
www.neharana.in
www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in
www.sexyescortsmumbai.in
www.sexymumbai.escorts.com
www.four-seasons-escort.in
www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com
www.vdreamescorts.com
www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in
www.payalmalhotra.in
www.shrutisinha.com
www.juliemumbaiescorts.com
www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html
www.mumbai-escorts.co.in
www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in
shivaniarora.co.in/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.pinkisingh.com
soyam.in
www.arpitaray.com
www.localescorts.in
www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com
www.yanaroy.com
escorts18.in/mumbai-escorts.html
www.tinamumbaiescorts.com
www.mumbaijannatescorts.com
www.deepikaroy.com
www.nancy.co.in
www.pearlpatel.in
30minsmumbaiescorts.in
www.datinghopes.com
https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html
www.sonalikajain.com
www.zainakapoor.co.in
kavyajain.in
www.kinnu.co.in
exmumbai.in/
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
exmumbai.in
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
www.devikabatra.in
katlin.in
riyaverma.in
escortsinindia.co/
www.snehamumbaiescorts.in
shimi.in
www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about
www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html
www.escortspoint.in
www.rupalikakkar.in
www.hemangisinha.co.in
1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.mumbaibella.in
mohitescortservicesmumbai.com
www.anchu.in
www.aliyaroy.co.in
jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html
www.andyverma.com
dreams-come-true.biz
feel-better.biz
jellyroll.biz
dreamgirlmumbai.com
role-play.biz
mansi-mathur.com
www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com
mymumbai.escortss.com
www.goldentouchescorts.com
www.mumbaipassion.biz
ishitamalhotra.com
happy-ending.biz
juicylips.biz
www.escortsmumbai.name
www.kirstygbasai.net
www.hiremumbaiescorts.com
www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php
3-5-7star.biz
www.pranjaltiwari.com
www.richagupta.biz
way2heaven.biz
piya.co/
pinkflowers.info
www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com
www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html
www.mumbaiescorts.me
www.tanikatondon.com
www.escortsinmumbai.biz
www.escortgirlmumbai.com
www.mumbaicallgrils.com
www.quickescort4u.com
www.mayamalhotra.com
www.legal-escort.com
escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html
rupa.biz
www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html
www.escortscelebrity.com
www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..
garimachopra.com
kajalgupta.biz
lipkiss.site
aanu.in
bombayescort.in
hotkiran.co.in
khushikapoor.in
joyapatel.in
rici.in
aaditi.in
andheriescorts.org.in
www.jiyapatel.in
spicymumbai.in
rimpyarora.in
lovemaking.co.in
riyadubey.co.in
escortservicesmumbai.in
mumbaiescorts.co.in
midnightprincess.in/
vashiescorts.co.in/
angee.in/
www.rozakhan.in/
www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/
kylie.co.in/
escortservicemumbai.co.in

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-june-16-2016-here-is-the-entire-list-of-escorts-service-websites-that-govt-has-banned

ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:17:25Z

DoT on Monday ordered blocking of 240 URLs; blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and Information Technology Rules.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in the Business Standard on June 14, 2016.

The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have started blocking websites allegedly offering escort services after an order from the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).

The DoT on Monday asked ISPs to immediately block around 240 such URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) offering escort services, to filter out obscene content on the internet. Speaking to Business Standard, Internet Service Providers Association of India’s (ISPAI) President Rajesh Chharia said the ISPs were in process of shutting down these websites. ISPAI represents 60 ISPs including Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices, Reliance Communication, Vodafone and Idea Cellular.

“We received the order yesterday, and it entails a list of about 240 websites that the government wants us to block,” said Chharia. “CERT-In, which works under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deity), advised the department on certain websites that it feels could be a national or social threat. Deity then reached out to DoT, which is our licensor. We are the licensee, and as per the licensing agreement, we have to comply with the order.”

While declining to comment on whether this is the first such order the association had received this year, Chharia said, “Since last few years, we have been receiving orders to block websites which hosts content that may be a threat to social order or national security.” Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and a 2009 secondary legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).

The rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient so to do” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above. Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms up to seven years.”

In December 2014, around six months after the Modi-led BJP government came into power, the DoT ordered ISPs to block 32 websites, including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.

According to an RTI filed by no-for-profit organisation Software Freedom Law Centre in March last year, Deity said 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014, adding that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court”.

Another RTI filed by Bangalore based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found that 143 URLs were blocked in first three months of 2015 in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts. Later that year, the government attempted to block about 857 porn websites, but it had to revoke the order following the backlash online and offline.

The recent notice named a number of websites that need to be banned, including pinkysingh.com, jasmineescorts.com, onlyoneescorts.com, payalmalhotra.in, localescorts.in, pearlpatel.in, kavyajain.in, xmumbai.in, shimi.in and anchu.in.

According to Freedom on the Net 2015 report by Freedom House, which termed India as a “partly free” country on the internet, there were 129 operational ISPs in India as of May 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order