Centre for Internet and Society

Online gag:Existing rules give little freedom

praskrishna — 2011-12-12T05:42:05Z

Even as the controversy over Kapil Sibal's attempt to get internet giants such as Google and Facebook to prescreen user-generated content to weed out 'offensive' material rages, a yet-to-be-published study by Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society reveals that rules already in place can have "chilling effects on free expression on the internet".

The study set out to examine if the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, notified in April 2011, could create a gagging effect on websites that provide a platform for user-generated content in the form of opinion and comments. Websites such as Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube and Twitter fall under this category. The study was commissioned by the Centre for Internet and Society, which was invited to comment on the department of information technology when it framed the seminal Information Technology Act 2000.

The study author set out to test the process of 'takedown' (requesting an internet entity to remove material that can be interpreted as 'hateful', 'disparaging', 'defamatory', etc) by notifying seven separate internet entities of content linked to their websites or hosted by them that could, in very loose terms, be deemed offensive. The entities are not named in the study.

This first-of-a-kind experiment included actions such as sending search engines a takedown notice alerting it to results on searching the keywords 'online gambling' and alerting a news website about comments on a news story related to the Telangana dispute.

In six of the seven cases, the intermediaries and hosts - technical terms for websites that host content - acted promptly to not only remove the 'offensive' content without due processes of investigation but in some cases went beyond their brief to remove all content connected with the one mentioned in the takedown notice.

For instance, a news website that was sent a takedown notice about a well-argued and non-abusive comment to an article on the Telangana issue took down not just that comment, but all 15 comments published below the article In the case of the results of a search for 'online gambling', despite the fact that intermediaries are exempted from being implicated in such cases, one search engine notified took down not just the three links mentioned in the notice but another 25 sub-domains as well, "presumably to avoid legal risk and to err on the side of caution," the CIS report says.

"Our criticism is of the policy and not of the websites and Internet entities that are forced to err on the side of caution when faced by such notices," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society. "We are aware that they do not always have the legal and manpower resources necessary to monitor the enormous volumes of content they host." These companies often overstep their brief in order to avoid legal hassles resulting from what Abraham calls "unconstitutional limits on free speech".

The original story was published by the Times of India on 9 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in it. Read the story on Times of India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/online-gag

Online Censorship: How Government should Approach Regulation of Speech

sunil — 2012-12-05T07:06:52Z

Why is there a constant brouhaha in India about online censorship? What must be done to address this?

Sunil Abraham's article was published in the Economic Times on December 2, 2012.

Of course, we must get the basics right â€” bad law has to be amended, read down by courts or repealed, and bad implementation of law should be addressed via reform and capacity building for the police. But most importantly those in power must understand how to approach the regulation of speech.

To begin with, speech is regulated across the world. Even in the US â€” contrary to popular impression in India â€” speech is regulated both online and offline.

However, law is not the basis of most of this regulation. Speech is largely regulated by social norms. Different corners of our online and offline society have quite complex forms of self-regulation.

The harm caused by speech is often proportionate to the power of the person speaking â€” it maybe unacceptable for a politician or a filmstar to make an inflammatory remark but that very same utterance from an ordinary citizen may be totally fine.

To complicate matters, the very same speech by the very same person could be harmful or harmless based on context. A newspaper editor may share obscene jokes with friends in a bar, but may not take similar liberties in an editorial.

The legal scholar Alan Dershowitz tells us, "The best answer to bad speech is good speech." More recently the quote has been amended, with "more speech" replacing "good speech".

Censorship by the state has to be reserved for the rarest of rare circumstances. This is because censorship usually results in unintended consequences.

The "Streisand Effect", named after the singer-actor Barbra Streisand, is one of these consequences wherein attempts to hide or censor information only result in wider circulation and greater publicity.

The Maharashtra police's attempt to censor the voices of two women has resulted in their speech being broadcast across the nation on social and mainstream media. If the state had instead focused on producing good speech and more speech, nobody would have even heard of these women.

Circumventing Censorship

Peer-to-peer technologies on the internet mimic the topology of human networks and can also precipitate unintended consequences when subject to regulation. John Gilmore, a respected free software developer, puts it succinctly: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Most of the internet censorship in the US is due to IPR-enforcement activities. This is why Christopher Soghoian, a leading privacy activist, attributes the massive adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies such as proxies and VPNs (virtual private networks) by American consumers to the crackdown on online piracy.

In India, and even when the government has had legitimate reasons to regulate speech, there have been unintended consequences.

During the exodus of people from the North-east, the five SMS per day restriction imposed by the government resulted in another exodus from SMS to alternative messaging platforms such as BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), WhatsApp and Twitter.

In both cases the circumvention of censorship by the users has resulted in a worsening situation for law-enforcement organisations â€” VPNs and applications like WhatsApp are much more difficult to monitor and regulate.

Mixed Memes

Regulation of speech also cannot be confused with cyber war or security. Speech can occasionally have security implications but that cannot be the basis for enlightened regulation.

A cyber war expert may be tempted to think of censored content as weapons, but unlike weapons that usually remain lethal, content that can cause harm today may become completely harmless tomorrow. This is unlike a computer virus or malware. For example, during the exodus, the online edition of ET featured the complete list of 309 URLs that were in the four block orders issued by the government to ISPs.

However, this did not result in fresh harm, demonstrating the fallacy of cyber war analogies. A cyber security expert, on the other hand, may be tempted to implement a 360Â° blanket surveillance to regulate speech, but as Gilmore again puts it, "If you're watching everybody, you're watching nobody."

In short, if your answer to bad speech is more censorship, more surveillance and more regulation, then as the internet meme goes, "You're Doing It Wrong".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship

Online Abuse of Teen Girls in Kashmir Leads to Arrests

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T03:51:20Z

Online abuse and a fatwa aimed at a rock band of Muslim teenage girls in Kashmir have led to arrests and a threat of a lawsuit.

This article by Betwa Sharma was published in the New York Times on February 8, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Three men were arrested this week for posting threatening messages on the Facebook page of Praagaash, an amateur rock band in Indian-occupied Kashmir made of up Muslim girls. “The investigation is ongoing,” said Manoj Pandita, spokesman for the Jammu and Kashmir police, indicating that more arrests may follow.

The three men were charged under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which applies to “offensive” messages being sent through communication services, and Section 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code, which applies to criminal intimidation. Mr. Pandita said that it had been easy to track the I.P. addresses of the Facebook users.

A prominent human rights lawyer, Parvez Imroz of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, is planning to sue the top religious leader in Kashmir, who called for the fatwa, for “demonizing Kashmir before the international community” and for “running a parallel judicial system in the valley.”

Mr. Imroz told India Ink that human rights organizations like his needed support from the international community to highlight their concerns, and such fatwas reflected badly on the Kashmiri society. “He is diverting attention away from real issues of human rights to nonissues like music and purdah,” Mr. Imroz said.

The fatwa against the band was issued by the Grand Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad.

In his fatwa, Mr. Ahmad advised women to only sing inside the house to other female members of the family, and wear a veil whenever they left the house. “They must stay within limits,” he said.

Following the band’s first live performance in December, Aneeqa Khalid, Noma Nazir and Farah Deeba, 10th-grade students who are 15 and 16 years old, became the target of abuse and threats on Facebook by people who accused them of being un-Islamic because they had performed in public, especially before men. Some commenters called them “sluts” and “prostitutes;” others suggested that they should be raped.

The band Praagaash, which means “darkness into light,” disbanded following a national controversy surrounding these threatening messages. The threats were condemned by many, including the state’s chief minister.

To many Kashmiris, both the fatwa and the arrests by the government are unnecessary. Some say that the controversy erupted after the state’s chief minister, Omar Abdullah, got involved by expressing his support for the band on Twitter and then calling for investigation against those writing the threatening messages.

“Nobody here had a problem with the rock band,” said Aala Fazili, a doctorate student at Kashmir University, pointing out that the band’s performance in December had not led to any protests or physical threats against them.

Mr. Fazili, 32, added that people shouldn’t be arrested for writing abusive posts on Facebook. “You cannot call an abuse a threat,” he said.

Mr. Pandita, the Kashmir police spokesman, said the investigators were making a distinction between a threat and abuse on the basis of “gravity.”

Pranesh Prakash, from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, asked whether people who hold protests calling for the death of the author Salman Rushdie should also be arrested for making threats.

“I would hold that no expression of violent thoughts, online or offline, should be made criminal, even if it is repugnantly misogynistic, unless it takes the form of a credible threat that causes harm, or is harassment that constitutes harm,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ny-times-feb-8-2013-betwa-sharma-online-abuse-of-teen-girls-in-kashmir-leads-to-arrests

On the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Torsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover, Raghav Ahooja, Pallavi Bedi and Divyank Katira — 2021-06-21T11:52:39Z

This note examines the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The analysis is consistent with previous work carried out by CIS on issues of intermediary liability and freedom of expression.

On 25 February 2021, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter, ‘the rules’). In this note, we examine whether the rules meet the tests of constitutionality under Indian jurisprudence, whether they are consistent with the parent Act, and discuss potential benefits and harms that may arise from the rules as they are currently framed. Further, we make some recommendations to amend the rules so that they stay in constitutional bounds, and are consistent with a human rights based approach to content regulation. Please note that we cover some of the issues that CIS has already highlighted in comments on previous versions of the rules.

The note can be downloaded here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/on-the-legality-and-constitutionality-of-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021

On social media, Modi goes soft

praskrishna — 2012-11-02T06:20:13Z

“Truth stands on its own; it doesn’t need a prop.” Is this Mahatma Gandhi? No, it’s Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on Twitter. Gujarat’s elections are near, but in the arena of social media, Modi has already won. From over a million subscribers on Twitter to a Facebook page flooded with “likes”, Modi’s net is cast wide.

Zia Haq's article was published in the Hindustan Times on October 26, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In political rallies, Modi roars with demagogic speeches. On Twitter, he displays a softer, brooding side: “Powers of the mind are like rays of light.” Only occasionally is a political challenge thrown in: “Delhi Sultanate treats Gujarat like enemy nation but Gujarat will never bow.”

A polarising figure still, Modi is often accused of avoiding action to stop a carnage that killed nearly 2,000 people in 2002, mostly Muslims. Yet, he has pulled off a stunning PR strategy on social media to showcase Gujarat as India’s Guandong, a Chinese province with top GDP rankings. Gujarat has posted robust growth rates, although its human-development indicators remain skewed.

Modi became the third politician globally, after Obama and the Australian PM, to host a political conference on Google+ hangout, a video chat platform. In the past quarter, he added nearly 24,000 Twitter subscribers every 12 days, according to twittercounter.com.

Modi has leveraged social media in a way the Congress hasn’t been able to. Unlike him, none among the Congress’s leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, has a personal Twitter account. “Our leaders believe more in transparent dialogues with the public, rather than spreading Internet canards,” said Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari.

Shashi Tharoor, a Congress MP with the highest Twitter subscriber base among Indian politicians, attracts mostly the elite, not the masses.

He jibes at his own government with irreverent tweets often making his party frown.

Yet, research shows that social media is more persuasive than television ads. Nearly 100 million Indians, more than Germany’s population, use the Internet.

Of this, the 40 million who have broadband are the ones active on the social media. “Unlike Obama, who used it directly for votes, Indian politicians tend to use social media more to mould public discourse,” says Sunil Abraham, the CEO of The Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-specials-coverage-gujarat-assembly-elections-2012-zia-haq-oct-26-2012-on-social-media-modi-goes-soft

Officials Raise Questions over Indian Government’s Efforts

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T12:36:48Z

As per a recent report, it has been revealed that the Indian government despite making several efforts to resolve the issue of hate speech seems failing in the same.

This post by Bruce Totolos was published in the French Tribune on August 22, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

It is being said that no doubt the government has taken strict actions since the rumours came into picture from the last week. 245 Web pages have been blocked with effect from Friday along with limitations over text messages to five a day for 15 days. But, many websites are still containing some morphed images of violence.

As per some officials in New Delhi, it is a matter of huge concern still not being taken seriously by online companies like Google and Facebook. It is known to everyone that previous such images and SMSs led some northeastern India’s people to leave Chennai, Bangalore and Pune, they say.

However, the internet firms claim that they are making all possible endeavours. It was told that only reason for not answering certain request was it hampered users’ rights.

“The Internet intermediaries are responding slowly because now they have to trawl through their networks and identify hate speech. The government acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication”, said executive director Sunil Abraham from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/frenchtribune-com-bruce-totolos-aug-22-2012-officials-raise-questions-over-indian-governments-efforts

Northeast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content?

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T04:06:46Z

The government has passed the blame buck on social media and blocked hundreds of websites, which it claims, hosted hate speech and inflammatory content, enough to incite violence. But is it feasible to pre-screen objectionable or provocative content, and reject it before posting so that there is no chance of such rumours?

The article by Wahid Bukhari was published in merinews on August 23, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The government took the action after Home Minister RK Singh alleged that the exodus of northeastern people from southern states such as Bangalore, Mumbai and Pune was a result of the panic and rumours created because of the content uploaded on these websites, many according to him were created by elements across the border in Pakistan. Though many suspected that Mr Singh's claim was an excuse to save the government from its inefficiency in controlling the riots, and the exodus of the northeastern people who were seen boarding the trains to their home states with their belongings amid fears of reprisal attacks.

Was the action meant to pass on the inefficiency buck or not - the government has, at least, managed to shift the focus of the media from exodus to the debate - as to whether social networking sites or websites promoting hatred should be blocked or not - given the democratic rights of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression.

Around a hundred more websites have been reported promoting hate speech and Google, Facebook and other social networking sites like Twitter have been asked to remove such content as soon as possible but in this whole debate one question remains unanswered: How does removing a post from Twitter or Facebook make a difference, several hours after it was published? One might argue even an hour is enough for an inflammatory picture or comment to incite violence or hatred. As a consequence, one might demand that a comment is screened before it is posted on a website, otherwise it doesn't serve any purpose.

Whether pre-screening is technically possible, Pranesh Prakash maintains: "Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't."

Perhaps, a mid way is to intervene prior to registration on social media websites. All those who register should be made aware of the content that's not permissible, and make them aware of relevant laws and repercussions of breaking them if their complicity is proved. Similarly, these sites can be asked by the Indian government to continuously remind registered users as well as general public, through mass media advertizing, about what kind of content is not permissible. The government, from its side, can strengthen cyber laws to empower sites such as Facebook and Twitter to curb posting of provocative content due to presence of these stringent laws.

Terming the government action unfortunate, Mr Prakash who is a programme manager with the Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, The Centre for Internet and Society believes that government botched up at so many levels. “I don't think the government should be going after Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter. It should be going to them, to work with them on removing content,” Mr Prakash suggests. "The larger social networks have dedicated complaints mechanisms, which the government could have asked them to run 24x7 for a few days, and to expedite that process, and both complained itself and asked the public to use the complaints process,” he adds.

Though Pakistan has rubbished the claims that it has any role in fomenting trouble, but it has also asked the Indian government to provide it with evidence so that it could nab the accused. Whether or not there is any evidence is a secondary question, the primary blame will always rest with both the state and central governments who failed to stop the exodus of fear-stricken people from the northeast.

Experts like Mr Prakash are wondering why the government didn't pay back in the same coin by using the social media to dispel the rumours. “It is a pity that they notified a new policy to encourage governmental use of social media only today; they sorely needed it this last week,” Mr Prakash rues.

The government has blocked content related to thirty Twitter accounts but another surprising thing is that only accounts using the web interface have been blocked, and such accounts can still be accessed on BlackBerrys or other smartphones.

The only visible thing government did on ground when the exodus started taking place in Bangalore was the setting up of helplines but did they help in preventing the exodus - there are enough reasons to believe against it. "There were some complaints that the people attending some of these helplines could only speak in Kannada, and not the English or Hindi that people calling for help were expecting. Even such positive steps were executed badly." Mr Prakash informs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus

Noose tightens on freedom of speech on the Internet

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T01:01:18Z

A worrying trend has emerged in the last few years, where intermediaries around the world are being used as chokepoints to restrict freedom of expression online, and to hold users accountable for content.

The blog post by Gabey Goh was originally published by Digital News Asia and mirrored in Malaymail Online on March 26, 2015. Jyoti Panday gave her inputs.

“All communication across the Internet is facilitated by intermediaries: Service providers, social networks, search engines, and more,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) senior global policy analyst Jeremy Malcolm.

“These services are all routinely asked to take down content, and their policies for responding are often muddled, heavy-handed, or inconsistent.

“That results in censorship and the limiting of people’s rights,” he told Digital News Asia (DNA) on the sidelines of RightsCon, an Internet and human rights conference hosted in Manila from March 24-25.

This year, the government of France is moving to implement regulation that makes Internet operators “accomplices” of hate-speech offences if they host extremist messages.

In February, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) urged ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to ensure that domain name registries and registrars “investigate copyright abuse complaints and respond appropriately.”

Closer to home, the Malaysian Government passed a controversial amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 – Section 114A – back in 2012.

Under Section 114A, an Internet user is deemed the publisher of any online content unless proven otherwise. The new legislation also makes individuals and those who administer, operate or provide spaces for online community forums, blogging and hosting services, liable for content published through their services.

Due to the potential negative impact on freedom of expression, a roadmap called the Manila Principles on Internet Liability was launched during RightsCon.

The EFF, Centre for Internet Society India, Article 19, and other global partners unveiled the principles, whose framework outlines clear, fair requirements for content removal requests and details how to minimise the damage a takedown can do.

For example, if content is restricted because it’s unlawful in one country or region, then the scope of the restriction should be geographically limited as well.

The principles also urge adoption of laws shielding intermediaries from liability for third-party content, which encourages the creation of platforms that allow for online discussion and debate about controversial issues.

“Our goal is to protect everyone’s freedom of expression with a framework of safeguards and best practices for responding to requests for content removal,” said Malcolm.

Jyoti Panday from the Centre for Internet and Society India noted that people ask for expression to be removed from the Internet for various reasons, good and bad, claiming the authority of myriad local and national laws.

“It’s easy for important, lawful content to get caught in the crossfire. We hope these principles empower everyone – from governments and intermediaries, to the public – to fight back when online expression is censored,” she said.

The Manila Principles can be summarised in six key points:

Intermediaries should be shielded by law from liability for third-party content
Content must not be required to be restricted without an order by a judicial authority
Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process
Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality
Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process
Transparency and accountability must be built in to laws and content restriction policies and practices

“Right now, different countries have differing levels of protection when it comes to intermediary liability, and we’re saying that there should be expansive protection across all content,” said Malcolm.

“In addition, there is no logic in distinguishing between intellectual property (IP) and other forms of content as in the case in the United States for example, where under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, intermediaries are not liable for third party content but that doesn’t apply to IP,” he added.

The Manila Principles have two main targets: Governments and intermediaries themselves. The coalition, led by EFF, will be approaching governments to present the document and discuss the recommendations on how best to establish an intermediary liability regime.

This includes immunising intermediaries from liability and requiring a court order before any content can be taken down.

With intermediaries, the list includes companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, to discuss establishing transparency, responsibility and accountability in any actions taken.

“We recognise that a lot of the time, intermediaries are not waiting for a court order before taking down content, and we’re telling them to avoid removing content unless there is a sufficiently good reason and users have been notified and presented that reason,” said Malcolm.

The overall aim with the Manila Principles is to influence policy changes for the better.

Malcolm pointed out that by coincidence, some encouraging developments have taken place in India. On the same day the principles were released, the Indian Supreme Court struck down the notorious Section 66A of the country’s Information Technology Act.

Since 2009, the law had allowed both criminal charges against users and the removal of content by intermediaries based on vague allegations that the content was “grossly offensive or has menacing character,” or that false information was posted “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.”

Calling it a “landmark decision,” Malcolm noted that the case shows why the establishment and promotion of the Manila Principles are important.

“Not only is the potential overreach of this provision obvious on its face, but it was, in practice, misused to quell legitimate discussion online, including in the case of the plaintiffs in that case – two young women, one of whom made an innocuous Facebook post mildly critical of government officials, and the other who ‘liked’ it,” he said.

The court however, upheld section 69A of the Act, which allows the Government to block online content; and Section 79(3), which makes intermediaries such as YouTube or Facebook liable for not complying with government orders for censorship of content. — Digital News Asia

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/malaymail-online-gabey-goh-march-26-2015-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet

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

No more 66A!

geetha — 2015-03-26T02:01:31Z

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.

Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.

Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a set of petitions heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.

Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries need not act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.

Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a

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

New rules leave social media users vulnerable: Experts

Krupa Joseph — 2021-06-14T11:27:53Z

They analyse the implications of the government vs Twitter controversy on individual privacy

The article by Krupa Joseph was published in the Deccan Herald on 10 June 2021. Torsha Sarkar has been quoted.

The government had notified the changes on February 25, and allowed social media companies three months to comply. Twitter and WhatsApp had then separately approached the Delhi High Court against the new regulations, fearing they could compromise user privacy.

On Monday, the court gave Twitter three weeks to file a response to the government’s charge that it had not appointed a grievance officer as claimed.

Vague rules

Karthik Srinivasan, communications consultant, who uses his blog Beast of Traal to comment on social media, says the new rules are “vague and open-ended”.

“Coupled with the fact that we still do not have a data protection law, the rules could be severely misused both by government and private entities,” he says.

Users are particularly vulnerable in a country where anything and everything offends a lot of people, he says.

Law overreach

Torsha Sarkar, researcher with the Centre for Internet and Society, says the rules introduce additional obligations for social media platforms and classify intermediaries.

“Intermediaries with over five million users would have obligations to introduce traceability, instal automated filtering, provide detailed grievance redressal mechanisms, and publish compliance reports detailing action taken on takedown orders,” she says.

While some of these obligations are similar to those laid down internationally, some alterations are causing concern. The traceability requirement, for example, is highly contentious as it would erode user privacy.

“It is also concerning that the user threshold, for a country like India, with such vast Internet usage, is set at a very low level. This means that even smaller social media platforms might becompelled to carry out economically crippling obligations,” she explains.

The legislative overreach is seen in how the initial draft , which only covered entities like Twitter and Facebook, now seeks to cover digital news media and content curators like Netfl ixand Hulu, she says.

Stretching the scope of the legislation this way is undemocratic since it was not subject to any public consultation, she notes.

Case in High Court

Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and founder of SFLC.in, a legal services organisation specialising in law, technology and policy, says the IT rules notified by the government are unconstitutional. “In the garb of addressing misinformation and regulating technology companies, the government has been exceeding the powers granted through subordinate legislation and using it for political purposes,” she says. It is on these grounds that the Free and Open Source Software community has challenged the new rules in the Kerala High Court. “Technology companies need regulation but not at the expense of user rights,” she says.

Congress ‘toolkit’ row

A few weeks after social media platforms were asked to take down posts critical of thegovernment’s management of India’s Covid-19 crisis, Twitter once again found itself at thereceiving end. Last week, Twitter labelled a tweet by BJP leader Sambit Patra, accusing theCongress of working with a ‘toolkit, as ‘manipulated media’. Twitter says it gives the label totweets that include media (videos, audio, and images) that are “deceptively altered orfabricated”. The Delhi police then sent a notice to Twitter in connection and asked the micro-blogging site to explain the reasons for assigning the tag. The police also conducted raids onTwitter offices in India. Things escalated when Twitter said the government was intimidating it. The government hit back saying law-making was its privileges, and Twitter, being a social media platform, should not dictate legal policy framework.

New rules

Under the new IT rules, social media companies like Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter will be responsible for identifying the originator of a flagged message within 36 hours. They also have to appoint a chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person and a resident grievance officer. Failing to comply with these rules would cause the platforms to lose their status as intermediaries, and make them liable for whatever is posted on their platforms.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-krupa-joseph-june-10-2021-new-rules-leave-social-media-users-vulnerable

New Delhi Expands Curbs on Web Content

praskrishna — 2012-08-24T13:16:22Z

India on Thursday broadened recent efforts to regulate the Internet with moves to block Twitter accounts of some prominent journalists and content from mainstream news organizations, sparking a backlash across social media in the country.

This article by R Jai Krishna and Rumman Ahmed was published in the Wall Street Journal on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Since last week, the government has blocked content that it claims has fueled continuing communal violence in the northeast of the country. That fighting, between Muslim settlers and members of an indigenous group in the state of Assam, has left more than 80 people dead and sent ripples of tension across India.

The government confirms it has blocked around 250 Web pages it says were inciting Muslims to attack northeasterners, including sites carrying doctored photos purporting to show Muslim victims of fighting in Assam. Officials say these images on the sites, coupled with mass SMS phone messages threatening reprisals, have caused panicked northeasterners to flee their homes in a number of large Indian cities.

In recent days, though, the government has quietly widened its offensive, drawing up lists of journalists' Twitter accounts and news stories by local and foreign media organizations to be blocked. The lists, some of which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by two telecom operators, include Twitter handles of journalists who have been critical of the government and some who have parodied Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The government didn't respond to requests for comment.

The government's actions caused an uproar on Twitter, where hashtags such as #GOIBlocks and #Emergency2012 were trending Thursday. "The Emergency" refers to a period in the 1970s when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi cracked down on media freedoms and civil liberties.

"The government's move to block several Twitter handles is a clear case of administrative overreach," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. "This action means citizens are less likely to believe that the government can use its powers responsibly."

Government officials said Internet curbs are necessary to maintain harmony in a multicultural nation of 1.2 billion people.

Pankaj Pachauri, a spokesman for Mr. Singh, acknowledged the government had asked for Twitter's help to block six accounts that impersonate the prime minister. One of those accounts appeared on the government's lists. Twitter, based in San Francisco, has agreed to review the requests, he said. A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Pachauri said earlier this week that Indian cyber authorities unilaterally blocked those six accounts.

Those six Twitter accounts faced government scrutiny because they made remarks that could have increased tensions, not because they poked fun at the prime minister, Mr. Pachauri said. "We're all for media freedom and encourage criticism by the media," he added. "But when it comes to inciting trouble between communities then we have to take firm action."

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Tuesday that "we are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet." She added that "we also always urge the government to maintain its own commitment to human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law."

India's Constitution allows restrictions on free speech for a number of reasons, including defense of "the sovereignty and integrity" of the country and in order to maintain "public order, decency or morality." Critics say the government has used the vague framing of the Constitution to clamp down on a widening array of Internet material, threatening India's democratic traditions.

Last year, the government framed new rules that require Internet companies to remove within 36 hours material that falls into a range of subjective categories—for instance, anything "ethnically objectionable," "grossly harmful," "defamatory" or "blasphemous."

India's telecoms minister, Kapil Sibal, in December urged Google Inc., and other Internet companies to screen derogatory material from their sites. The requests came amid anger over content that parodied Mr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, as well as other leading politicians.

"One always wonders if the government is using the garb of hate speech and communalism to…limit political criticism online," said Apar Gupta, a cyberlaw expert at Advani & Co., a Delhi-based law firm.

Google and Facebook executives are facing criminal charges in a New Delhi court for allegedly hosting objectionable material on their sites. If found guilty, the executives could face jail time or fines. The companies have petitioned to have the charges dropped, arguing that they shouldn't be held liable for material posted by users. Both firms have said they will remove material that contravenes their own standards or local laws.

Google, Facebook and Twitter again came under fire from India this week amid violence in Assam. Google and Facebook said Tuesday that they were complying with Indian government requests to remove content. Twitter hasn't commented.

Kanchan Gupta, a columnist who has been a fierce critic of the Congress party-led government, said his Twitter account had been temporarily blocked Wednesday night and Thursday. His name was on the government lists. "They thought they could do this slyly," he said. "They didn't anticipate the backlash on Twitter."

Raghavan Jagannathan, editor in chief of FirstPost.com, an Indian news portal that was on the lists, said some of its stories had been blocked.

"We understand that the government wants to stop the circulation of incendiary material that may inflame passions, but should it be blocking news and opinions on the subject?" he said. "I am not sure the decisions are well-thought-out."

Doha, Qatar-based Al Jazeera, an international cable-news organization, was also on the list. An Al Jazeera spokesman said the company was seeking a response from the government on reports of media restrictions affecting it and other outlets.

The government appeared unmoved. "Every company whether it's a construction company or an entertainment company or a social media company, it has to operate within the laws of the given country," Junior Minister for Communications Sachin Pilot told reporters on Wednesday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wsj-com-jai-krishna-and-rumman-ahmed-aug-23-2012-new-delhi-expands-curbs-on-web-content

Network Neutrality Regulation across South Asia: A Roundtable on Aspects of Differential Pricing

praskrishna — 2016-01-17T02:41:13Z

The Centre of Internet and Society (CIS) in association with Observer Research Foundation, and IT For Change in collaboration with the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania is pleased to announce a roundtable on ‘Network Neutrality Regulation Across South Asia: Aspects of Differential Pricing” that will take place on January 22, 2016 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. at TERI in Bangalore.

Download the Invite

The objective of this roundtable will be to look into the issue of differential pricing in light of TRAI’s recent consultation process, with the specific intention of research building. The network neutrality debate has gained significant momentum in India during the past year, with competing interests of internet service providers, OTTs and the public giving rise to important questions of ICT regulation and policy.

With Facebook looking to expand its zero rated walled garden, Free Basics, into nascent markets, differential pricing is an important point of regulatory policy not just in India, but in jurisdictions across South Asia. These countries have limited connectivity, large consumer potential and low internet penetration which bring to the fore questions of access, diversity, competition and innovation. To this end, the roundtable will seek to address the regulatory and market aspects of differential pricing as well as the impact on rights. Broadly, the roundtable will be forward looking and seek to build future research agendas.

Draft Agenda

11:00 – 11:30	Tea and Registration
11:30 – 12:30	Roundtable 1: Framing the issue: The practice of differential pricing Examples of differential pricing Stakeholder perspectives Competition and market effect of differential pricing Larger social consequences of differential pricing
12:30 – 1:00	Lunch
1:00 – 2:30	Roundtable 2: Regulatory response: Discerning governmental actions Locating public interest Moving from research to action
2:30 – 3:00	Tea
3:00 – 4:30	Roundtable 3: Impact on rights: Access Freedom of expression Privacy Equity and Social Justice
4:30 – 5:00	Discussion and research agenda building

Roundtable Questions:

Roundtable 1: FRAMING THE ISSUE:

What is differential pricing and how does it work? What are the technical components and policy components of differential pricing? What are examples of differential pricing?
What has been the response from different stakeholders to differential pricing schemes? What are the arguments for/against differential pricing?
What could be the market effect of differential pricing?
What are possible larger social impacts of differential pricing?

Roundtable 2: REGULATORY RESPONSE:

How have governments responded to differential pricing? What can these responses tell us about the position of governments?
What are the different components for consideration with developing a regulatory response? What are different forms of regulation for differential pricing?
What type of policy research around differential pricing can drive meaningful action?

Roundtable 3: IMPACT ON RIGHTS:

How does differential pricing impact the right to access, freedom of expression, privacy, and equity and social justice?
Are there ways to mitigate this impact through regulation? Market incentives? Company policy?
What are forms of redress that individuals could seek in the context of differential pricing?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/network-neutrality-regulation-across-south-asia-a-roundtable-on-aspects-of-differential-pricing

Netizens Rejoice Over SC Ruling to Keep the Net Free

praskrishna — 2015-03-25T15:16:03Z

The Supreme Court ruling to strike down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act has been welcomed by the city’s netizens.

The article by Parina Dhilla was published in the New Indian Express on March 25, 2015. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.

Sharanya Gopinathan, a recent graduate, was overjoyed at the decision. The youngster, who is now pursuing her masters in London, recalls the time her post on Facebook about Prime Minister Narendra Modi was reported for being offensive.

“It was just a sentence about how I felt about Mr Modi. Nothing obscene but it still got reported,” she says. She believes the Internet to be “the last guard of freedom”, where free speech has real meaning because there is no government and corporate control.

Forums propagating freedom on the World Wide Web too have applauded the verdict.

T Vishnu Vardhan, programme director of Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society, says the draconian aspect of the IT Act has finally been removed.

The other laws coming under the IT Act’s ambit too need to be reviewed and changed, he said.

Lawyers told Express that many times, they have advised clients to take down posts that could be construed as offensive under Section 66A.

Lawrence Liang, a lawyer with the Alternative Law Forum, says, “Recently, we were approached by a woman saying she was being harassed by a mob after she tweeted about the beef ban in Maharashtra. We asked her to delete the tweet and lie low.”

“But now, I won’t advise people to take down their posts from the internet. It is a good ruling and gives people their freedom of speech and expression on the Internet,” Lawrence says.

Change on the Horizon

With bans raining down in the country, many believe the apex court’s decision will bring about change.

Yogita Dakshina, a freelance content writer who regularly posts about the hardships faced by the LGBT community, says she has always posted fearlessly but some of her family members were always scared that she would court trouble due to the provisions of Section 66A.

Prabahan Chakravorty, a PhD student, is of the view that this will be a big lift for those in the creative field. “The rights to freedom and expression need to be given to all citizens, especially writers and artists. Some people may consider a few posts offensive, but then, the world is offensive and people need to deal with that.”

On the responsibility that falls upon netizens with this verdict, Ankura Nayak, a student of Mount Carmel College, says, “People are responsible and they know what to post. There were a few people who posted irresponsible content even before this ruling. But these are few in number compared to responsible netizens.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free