Centre for Internet and Society

A Technological Solution to the Challenges of Online Defamation

Eduardo Bertoni — 2013-07-02T14:47:46Z

When people are insulted or humiliated on the Internet and decide to take legal action, their cases often follow a similar trajectory.

This blog post written by Eduardo Bertoni was published in GlobalVoices on May 28, 2013. CIS has cross-posted this under the Creative Commons Licence.

Consider this scenario:

A public figure, let’s call her Senator X, enters her name into a search engine. The results surprise her — some of them make her angry because they come from Internet sites that she finds offensive. She believes that her reputation has been damaged by certain content within the search results and, consequently, that someone should pay for the personal damages inflicted.

Her lawyer recommends appealing to the search engine – the lawyer believes that the search engine should be held liable for the personal injury caused by the offensive content, even though the search engine did not create the content. The Senator is somewhat doubtful about this approach, as the search engine will also likely serve as a useful tool for her own self-promotion. After all, not all sites that appear in the search results are bothersome or offensive. Her lawyer explains that while results including her name will likely be difficult to find, the author of the offensive content should also be held liable. At that point, one option is to request that the search engine block any offensive sites related to the individual’s name from its searches. Yet the lawyer knows that this cannot be done without an official petition, which will require a judge’s intervention.

“We must go against everyone – authors, search engines – everyone!” the Senator will likely say. “Come on!” says the lawyer, “let's move forward.” However, it does not occur to either the Senator or the lawyer that there may be an alternative approach to that of classic courtroom litigation. The proposal I make here suggests a change to the standard approach – a change that requires technology to play an active role in the solution.

Who is liable?

The “going against everyone” approach poses a critical question: Who is legally liable for content that is available online? Authors of offensive content are typically seen as primarily liable. But should intermediaries such as search engines also be held liable for content created by others?

This last question raises a very specific, procedural question: Which intermediaries will be the subjects of scrutiny and viewed as liable in these types of situations? To answer this question, we must distinguish between intermediaries that provide Internet access (e.g. Internet service providers) and intermediaries that host content or offer content search functions. But what exactly is an ‘intermediary’? And how do we evaluate where an intermediary’s responsibility lies? It is also important to distinguish those intermediaries which simply connect individuals to the Internet from those that offer different services.

What kind of liability might an intermediary carry?

This brings us to the second step in the legal analysis of these situations: How do we determine which model we use in defining the responsibility of an intermediary? Various models have been debated in the past. Leading concepts include:

strict liability, under which the intermediary must legally respond to all offensive content
subjective liability, under which the intermediary’s response depends on what it has done and what it was or is aware of
conditional liability – a variation on subjective liability – under which, if an intermediary was notified or advised that it was promoting or directing users to illegal content and did nothing in response, it is legally required to respond to the offensive content.

These three options for determining liability and responses to offensive online content have been included in certain legislation and have been used in judicial decisions by judges around the world. But not one of these three alternatives provides a perfect standard. As a result, experts continue to search for a definition of liability that will satisfy those who have a legitimate interest in preventing damages that result from offensive content online.

How are victims compensated?

Now let’s return to the example presented earlier. Consider the concept of Senator X’s “satisfaction.” In these types of situations, “satisfaction” is typically economic — the victim will sue for a certain amount of money in “damages”, and she can target anyone involved, including the intermediary.

Interestingly, in the offline world, alternatives have been found for victims of defamation: For example, the “right to reply” aims to aid anyone who feels that his or her reputation or honor has been damaged and allows individuals to explain their point of view.

We must also ask if the right to reply is or is not contradictory to freedom of expression. It is critical to recognize that freedom of expression is a human right recognized by international treaties; technology should be able to achieve a similar solution to issues of online defamation without putting freedom of expression at risk.

Solving the problem with technology

In an increasingly online world, we have unsuccessfully attempted to apply traditional judicial solutions to the problems faced by victims like Senator X. There have been many attempts to apply traditional standards because lawyers are accustomed to using in them in other situations. But why not change the approach and use technology to help “satisfy” the problem?

The idea of including technology as part of the solution, when it is also part of the problem, is not new. If we combine the possibilities that technology offers us today with the older idea of the right to reply, we could change the broader focus of the discussion.

My proposal is simple: some intermediaries (like search engines) should create a tool that allows anyone who feels that he or she is the victim of defamation and offensive online content to denounce and criticize the material on the sites where it appears. I believe that for victims, the ability to say something and to have their voices heard on the sites where others will come across the information in question will be much more satisfactory than a trial against the intermediaries, where the outcome is unknown.

This proposal would also help to limit regulations that impose liability on intermediaries such as search engines. This is important because many of the regulations that have been proposed are technologically impractical. Even when they can be implemented, they often result in censorship; requirements that force intermediaries to filter content regularly infringe on rights such as freedom of expression or access to information.

This proposal may not be easy to implement from a technical standpoint. But I hope it will encourage discussion about the issue, given that a tool like the one I have proposed, although with different characteristics, was once part of Google’s search engine (the tool, “Google Sidewiki” is now discontinued). It should be possible improve upon this tool, adapt it, or do something completely new with the technology it was based on in order to help victims of defamation clarify their opinions and speak their minds about these issues, instead of relying on courts to impose censorship requirements on search engines. This tool could provide much greater satisfaction for victims and could help prevent the violation of the rights of others online as well.

Critics may argue that people will not read the disclaimers or statements written by “defamed” individuals and that the impact and spread of the offensive content will continue unfettered. But this is a cultural problem that will not be fixed by placing liability on intermediaries. As I explained before, the consequences of doing so can be unpredictable.

If we continue to rely on traditional regulatory means to solve these problems, we’ll continue to struggle with the undesirable results they can produce, chiefly increased controls on information and expression online. We should instead look to a technological solution as a viable alternative that cannot and should not be ignored.

Eduardo Bertoni is the Director of the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information at Palermo University School of Law in Buenos Aires. He served as the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression to the Organization of American States from 2002-2005.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-may-28-2013-eduardo-bertoni-a-technological-solution-to-the-challenges-of-online-defamation

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

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

swaraj — 2018-08-18T09:21:55Z

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

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

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

Section 39: Buying or Selling of any person

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

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

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

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

Section 41: Offences related to media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Deep Dive into Content Takedown Timeframes

torsha — 2020-06-26T11:59:06Z

Since the 1990s, internet usage has seen a massive growth, facilitated in part, by growing importance of intermediaries, that act as gateways to the internet. Intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), web-hosting providers, social-media platforms and search engines provide key services which propel social, economic and political development. However, these developments are also offset by instances of users engaging with the platforms in an unlawful manner. The scale and openness of the internet makes regulating such behaviour challenging, and in turn pose several interrelated policy questions.

In this report, we will consider one such question by examining the appropriate time frame for an intermediary to respond to a government content removal request. The way legislations around the world choose to frame this answer has wider ramifications on issues of free speech and ease of carrying out operations for intermediaries. Through the course of our research, we found, for instance:

An one-size-fits-all model for illegal content may not be productive. The issue of regulating liability online contain several nuances, which must be considered for more holistic law-making. If regulation is made with only the tech incumbents in mind, then the ramifications of the same would become incredibly burdensome for the smaller companies in the market.
Determining an appropriate turnaround time for an intermediary must also consider the nature and impact of the content in question. For instance, the Impact Assessment on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online cites research that shows that one-third of all links to Daesh propaganda were disseminated within the first one-hour of its appearance, and three-fourths of these links were shared within four hours of their release. This was the basic rationale for the subsequent enactment of the EU Terrorism Regulation, which proposed an one-hour time-frame for intermediaries to remove terrorist content.
Understanding the impact of specific turnaround times on intermediaries requires the law to introduce in-built transparency reporting mechanisms. Such an exercise, performed periodically, generates useful feedback, which can be, in turn used to improve the system.

Corrigendum: Please note that in the section concerning 'Regulation on Preventing the Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online', the report mentions that the Regulation has been 'passed in 2019'. At the time of writing the report, the Regulation had only been passed in the European Parliament, and as of May 2020, is currently in the process of a trilogue.

Disclosure: CIS is a recipient of research grants from Facebook India.

Click to download the research paper by Torsha Sarkar (with research assistance from Keying Geng and Merrin Muhammed Ashraf; edited by Elonnai Hickok, Akriti Bopanna, and Gurshabad Grover; inputs from Tanaya Rajwade)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/torsha-sarkar-november-30-2019-a-deep-dive-into-content-takedown-timeframes

हेट स्पीच

Yash Mittal — 2018-09-07T06:25:37Z

रोहित शर्मा द्वारा संपादित

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) आर्टिफ़िश्यल इंटेलिजेंस का उपयोग:

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

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

निष्कर्ष:

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

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

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

‘Chilling’ Impact of India’s April Internet Rules

praskrishna — 2012-01-27T04:32:51Z

Kapil Sibal’s demand that Internet companies self-censor users’ content is just the latest move by the Indian government to restrict information on Facebook and other social media Web sites. This article by Heather Simmons was published in the New York Times on December 7, 2011.

The most stringent government push came in April, when the “Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011” were introduced.

The rules require “intermediaries,” companies like Facebook, Google and Yahoo that provide the platform for users to comment and create their own content, to respond quickly if individuals complain that content is “disparaging” or “harassing,” among other complaints. If the complainant’s claim is valid, these companies must take down the offensive information within 36 hours.

So, what impact have these rules had so far?

A yet-to-be-published study by the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore concludes that free speech on the Internet in India is already being curtailed in a “chilling” manner.

Rather than carefully studying take-down notices, intermediaries are erring “on the side of caution,” the report says, and over-complying after complaints are filed, perhaps because they don’t have the legal or administrative manpower to examine every complaint.

In the study, a researcher working for C.I.S. sent notices to intermediaries in seven different situations, saying he found specific user-generated material offensive. In six of the seven, these companies took down the “offensive” material, and often removed more than was asked for. (In the seventh case, the researcher asked a shopping portal to remove information on one brand of diapers, saying they caused diaper rash and were therefore harmful to minors. The shopping site rejected the request, calling it frivolous.)

The study does not name the specific intermediaries involved, but they are understood to be the big social media and Internet companies that dominate the industry.

Two examples:

The researcher objected to a comment below an article on a news Web site about the Telangana movement, which aims to create a separate state in Andhra Pradesh. The comment, which was well-written and not obscenity-laced, condemned the violence in the Telangana movement and called its leaders selfish, but supported the cause over all. The researcher wrote the intermediary that the comment was “racially and ethnically objectionable” and “defamatory.”

The researcher received no written response, but within 72 hours the intermediary had taken down not just the “offensive” comment, but all 15 comments that were published below the article.
The researcher sent a take-down notice to another intermediary, defined as a “host and information location tool,” asking that it remove three links provided on its search engine after entering the words “online gambling.” The links, the researcher complained, were “relating or encouraging money-laundering or gambling,” which is illegal under the April rules.

The intermediary wrote back to the complainant, saying that the intermediary’s search engine was a “mere conduit” with no control over the information passing through its platform.

But it subsequently removed the three links mentioned in the take-down notice, and all other URLs of the three Web sites, including their subdomains.

The rules seem to encourage “privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression,” C.I.S. says. A third party whose information has been removed is not informed about the take-down request or given a chance to defend itself.

The study’s results show the “rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice,” C.I.S. concludes.

The original was published in the New York Times

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules

‘A safe Internet and a free Internet can co-exist’

praskrishna — 2015-03-25T15:58:02Z

Striking down of 66A kicked off celebrations in the IT capital.

The article was published in the Hindu on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Social media was celebrating on Tuesday. “Such a party going on on Twitter today #66A!” said one exuberant user, while another put a rap on it: “Made an FB post and didn’t go to jail. I gotta say today was a good day.” Another group was quick to point though: “Enjoy the freedom “responsibly!"

The day the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, those who had consistently termed it a “tyrannical” and “draconian” legal provision did a victory lap, calling it a “triumph for free speech in India”. Bengaluru, often called the information technology capital of the country, can stake claim for some of the legwork, with many from the city having either campaigned for the cause or took part in the PIL.

MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, one of the litigants, said, “A free and fair Internet is crucial for innovation, connection and economic growth. By repealing section 66A, India is now ready for a technological leap. A safe Internet and a free Internet can co-exist, and the government should now draft carefully worded amendments that enable this co-existence.”

Stating that the Section was more your foe than a friend, cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said, “Section 66A symbolised the tyranny of ambiguous vague terms over the purity of legitimate free speech. It represented a tool for suppressing bonafide free speech, which was extensively misused. Freedom of speech and expression on the Internet is sacrosanct and only subject to reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.”

Intermediaries

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said there were other positives in the landmark judgement.

“For the first time since the 1960s, the SC has struck down a section of law deeming it unconstitutional. Section 79 gave an adjudicatory position to intermediaries (such as Facebook, Twitter or bloggers). They were liable if they took the wrong decision or if they did not act on ‘take down’ requests within 36 hours. Now they are immune either way,” he explained. He said small-time bloggers, newspapers, and open source encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, will now be protected.

‘Retain spirit of Section 66A(b)’

K.V. Aditya Bharadwaj

Bengaluru: While even cops handling cyber crimes have welcomed scrapping sub-sections (a) and (c) of Section 66A of IT Act, 2000, they make a case for retaining the spirit of sub-section (b) in an amended law expected to be brought in shortly.

Section 66A(b) deals with a person sending out messages using electronic medium, which he knows to be false. It was under this provision that cops booked rumour-mongers who spread hatred messages through WhatsApp and other social media, which was scrapped.

A classic case was the one were two men were arrested for sending out provocative WhatsApp messages in July 2012, leading to an exodus of North-East Indians from the city. “Similar baseless WhatsApp messages led to chaos after the December 2014 Church Street blast and D.K. Ravi’s death. Even twitter was abuzz with parody profiles and fake claims made by people after the bomb blast. Rumour mongering and sending provocative messages have turned out to be a major area of concern in urban centres,” said a senior official.

An official said that in the absence of Section 66A(b), such rumour-mongers could only be booked under the Karnataka Police Act, which carries a very light punishment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-co-exist

66A DEAD. LONG LIVE 66A!

praskrishna — 2015-04-01T02:11:27Z

Last Tuesday, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo walked into Prime Minister Narendra Modi's office. India's most compulsive and most-followed tweeter, Modi, as Gujarat chief minister, had protested when the Manmohan Singh government blocked the micro-blogging site of a few journalists. Modi had blacked out his own Twitter profile and tweeted: “May God give good sense to everyone.”

The article by Soni Mishra was published in the Week on March 28, 2015. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.

Today, with 11 million followers on Twitter, and 27.6 million likes on Facebook, Modi rules the virtual world and India. He received Costolo warmly and told him how Twitter could help his Clean India, girl child and yoga campaigns. Impressed, Costolo told Modi how Indian youth were innovating on Twitter.

But, the greatest and the most fundamental boost for all social media in India was being effected a few minutes drive away from the PMO. Ironically, in the Supreme Court of India, Modi's lawyers were defending a law made by the United Progressive Alliance government—section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which curbed free speech on social media.

Anything posted on the internet can go viral worldwide and reach millions in no time, argued Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. While the traditional media is ruled by licences and checks, social media has nothing, he said. Finally, Mehta made an impassioned plea that the government meant well. Section 66A will be administered reasonably and will not be misused, he assured the court.

It seemed he, and the government, had forgotten an old saying: if there is a bad law, someone will use it. Luckily for India, and its liberal democracy, the judges saw a bad law and struck it down. “If section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned additional solicitor general,” said the bench comprising Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice J. Chelameswar.

The fact is that 66A was knee-jerk legislation. Almost as thoughtless and compulsive as a netizen's derisive tweet. On December 22, 2008, the penultimate day of the winter session, the UPA government had got seven bills passed in seven minutes in the Lok Sabha; the opposition BJP had played along.

One of the bills was to amend the IT Act. It went to the Rajya Sabha the next day, when members were hurrying to catch their trains and flights home for the year-end vacation. They just okayed the bill and hurried home.

The argument then was that there was no need to discuss the bill as it had been examined by a standing committee of Parliament. Indeed, it had been. But, the committee, headed by Nikhil Kumar of the Congress, had met only for 23 hours and five minutes. Nine of its 31 members had not attended a single meeting. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the current Union minister for IT, was one among the 31.

Apparently, everyone wanted the bill, so did not bother to apply their minds. Only a CPI(M) member, A. Vijayaraghavan, had a few dissenting suggestions to the committee report. No one else bothered to mull over a law that was “unconstitutional, vague” and which would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

Once the law was made, it was constable raj across India. Shaheen Dhada from Palghar simply commented on Facebook about a Shiv Sena bandh on the death of Bal Thackeray. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan liked it. The two teenagers were bundled into a police station. Rinu still remembers with a chill how “a mob of about 200 people gathered outside the police station that day.” This was when the Congress was ruling Maharashtra.

Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was picked up by the police in Trinamool Congress-ruled West Bengal in April 2012, for posting a cartoon ridiculing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. “I was thrashed several times in police custody,” said the professor, who got relief from the West Bengal Human Rights Commission.

Vickey Khan, 22, was arrested in Rampur, UP, for a Facebook post on Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. Rampur is, of course, Khan's pocket borough. The Uttar Pradesh Police, controlled by the Samajwadi Party government, also arrested dalit writer Kanwal Bharti from Rampur for criticising the UP government's suspension of IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal in 2013.

At least 30 people in AIADMK-ruled Chennai have been booked under 66A; four of them this year. Ravi Srinivasan, general secretary of the Aam Aadmi Party in Puducherry, was picked up in October 2012 for his tweets on Karti Chidambaram, son of then Union home minister P. Chidambaram. “He was not even in India when I tweeted,” said Ravi. “He sent the complaint by fax from abroad and everything happened [fast] as Puducherry is a Union Territory and can be controlled by the home ministry.”

Whistleblower A. Shankar of Chennai was pulled up by the Madras High Court for the content on his blog, Savukku. The Orissa Police, controlled by the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government, took Facebook to court in 2011 asking who created a Facebook page in the name of Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik. It is another thing that the page had no content.

Indeed, there had been stray political voices opposing the law. In Parliament, the CPI(M)'s P. Rajeeve, the BJD's Jay Panda and independent MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar pushed several times for scrapping 66A. Panda moved a private members bill, and Rajeeve moved a resolution. “I only wish we in Parliament had heeded the people's voice and repealed it, instead of yet again letting the judiciary do our work for us,” Panda said after the law was scrapped.

Finally, it was left to a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to move the Supreme Court on behalf of the Palghar girls. Singhal pointed out that several provisions in 66A violated fundamental rights guaranteed by article 19(1)(a)—the right to freedom of speech and expression. Several more cases followed and, finally, the court heard them together.

Indeed, Justices Nariman and Chelameswar have been extremely restrained in their comments. But, the fact that Parliament had not applied its mind comes through in the judgment.

The court “had raised serious concerns with the manner in which section 66A of the IT Act has been drafted and implemented across the country,” pointed out Supreme Court lawyer Shivshankar Panicker. Added Kiran Shanmugam, a cyber forensic expert and CEO of ECD Global Bengaluru: “The law lacked foresight in estimating the magnitude of the way the electronic media would grow.”

Apparently the government, too, knew it was defending the indefensible, and tried to win the case highlighting the benign nature of the democratic state. But, the court was not impressed. “Governments may come and governments may go, but section 66A goes on forever,” the judges noted. “An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor government.”

Clearly, Mehta was defending the indefensible, a law that, the court found, would have a “chilling effect on free speech”. Moreover, as the judges found out, the new law did not provide even the safeguards that the older Criminal Procedure Code had provided. “Safeguards that are to be found in sections 95 and 96 of the CrPC are also absent when it comes to section 66A,” the judges said. For example, according to the CrPC, a book or document that contained objectionable matter could be seized by the police, but it also allowed the publisher to move court. The new law did not provide even such a cushion.

All the same, the court was careful and did not overturn the entire law. It scrapped section 66A, and section 118(D) of the Kerala Police Act, but upheld section 69A and section 79 of the IT Act, which too had been questioned by the litigants (see box on page 45).

The judgment has set the cyberworld rocking. “I am so happy now, I do not know how to express it,” said Rinu, now an audio-engineering student in Kerala. Shaheen is married and lives in Bengaluru. Vickey Khan is relieved. “Some people had told me that I could be jailed for three years,” he said. But, Azam Khan took it out on the media and said it “favours criminals”.

Karti, who claims to be a votary of free speech, however, wants “some protection” against defamation. “I filed a complaint in an existing provision of law,” he said. “If that provision is not available, then I will have to seek other provisions to safeguard my reputation.”

Mahapatra is still apprehensive. “The government will still try to harass me,” he said. “But I know that in the end I will win.” Shankar of Chennai called it “a huge relief for people like me, who are active on social media.” Ravi Srinivasan, who locked horns with Karti, said he felt “relieved and happy”.

The hard rap on the knuckles for their legislative laxity has sobered the political class. The Congress, the progenitor of 66A, admitted that the vagueness of the law was its undoing. “If in a particular area, the local constabulary took action to stifle dissent, it was never the purpose of the act,” said Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The Modi government officially welcomed the judgment, and its spokespersons are blaming the UPA for the law.

Apparently, the scrapped law was made after a series of grossly offensive posts appeared on the social media five years ago. “If such content is not blocked online, it would immediately lead to riots,” said a law ministry official, who said the posts had been shown to the court, too. He said the government would take some time to draft a new law.

But, is a new law required? Opinion is still divided. What if someone is defamed on the net? “There are defamation laws which can deal with these,” said T. Vishnuvardhan, programme director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. “Also, the IT Act has various provisions. If somebody misuses your picture on social media, you can report it to the website immediately. The website is liable to take action on it within 36 hours.”

Smarika Kumar of Bengaluru-based Alternative Law Forum said the scrapping of 66A does not mean one can post anything online. “The Supreme Court has said that speech can be censored when it falls under the restrictions provided under article 19(2) of the Constitution,” she said. “But, if you prevent speech on any other ground, it is going to be unconstitutional.”

But, even critics of 66A think a replacement law is needed. Said Rajeev Chandrasekhar: “The government needs to act quickly and create a much more contemporaneous Act, via multi-stakeholder consultations, general consensus and collaboration, so that there is less ambiguity and freedom of expression is preserved.”

Senior Supreme Court advocate Pravin H. Parekh said, “As the cyberworld is growing day by day and there is increase in the number of social media users, we do require a proper mechanism which can regulate the expression of views on the internet.”

The government is putting forth the argument of national security. “If the security establishment says the present act is not sufficient, we will look into it. The government will consider it, but only with adequate safeguards,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad.

That will call for a legislative process undertaken in a cool and calm house, and not hurried through when the members are ready to hurry home.

Sound judgment

Thumbs down
The Supreme Court set aside section 66A of the IT act, which says any person who sends offensive, menacing or false information to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, or uses email to trouble its recipient or deceive him/her about the origin of such messages, can be punished with a jail term up to three years and a fine.

The court also struck down section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, which says any person who makes indecent comments by calls, mails, messages or any such means causing grave violation of public order or danger can be punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine not exceeding Rs10,000, or both.

Thumbs up
The Supreme Court upheld section 69A of the IT act, which allows the government to block the public's access to information in national interest and penalise intermediaries [telecom or internet service providers and web hosting services] who fail to comply with the government's directives.

Section 79 of the IT Act, which deals with intermediaries' exemption from liability in certain cases, too, was upheld.

With R. Prasanan, Mini P. Thoma, Ajay Uprety, Lakshmi Subramanian, Rabi Banerjee and Sharmista Chaudhury

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-week-march-28-2015-soni-mishra-66a-dead-long-live-66a

9th International Asian Conference

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T18:20:22Z

ITechLaw is organizing the 9th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 14 and 15, 2013 in India's high technology capital - Bangalore, India. Sunil Abraham will be speaking at this event.

This info was published on ITechLaw website on January 22, 2013.

This conference will focus on the latest regulatory, commercial and technology law issues being faced by emerging and growth industries in India and Asia as well as the U.S. and Europe.

Conference Program

Day 1, Thursday, February 14, 2013

07:45 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:10	Plenary Welcome Presidential Welcome John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
09:10 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Intellectual Property Moderator: Calab Gabriel, K&S Partners, New Delhi TBD Pravin Anand, Anand & Anand, New Delhi ISP Liability for IP Infringements Paulo Brancher, BKBG Attorneys at Law, Sao Paulo, Brazil John Doe IP Enforcement in India Sundari Pisupati, Tempus Law & Associates, Hyderabad Counterfeiting in the context of the Semiconductor Industry Gaurav Jabulee, Senior Counsel - Asia, Texas Instruments, Bangalore
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	M & A in the Technology Sector Moderator: Manjula Chawla, Phoenix Legal, New Delhi Successor Liability Sadhana Kaul, GC, 3M, Bangalore Tax Planning for Software and Intellectual Property Transactions Roger Royse, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, California Post-M & A Integration of a Tech Company Sivaram Nair, General Counsel, Mphasis India, Bangalore
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Licensing and Contracting Moderator: Azmul Haque, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Singapore Software Licensing Stephane Lemarchand, DLA Piper, Paris, France Contract Termination Richard Marke, BWB, London, UK 21st Century Sourcing - Latest Negotiation Trends and Alternative Contracting Models Nick Pantlin, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London, UK Internet Gaming and Gambling Moderator: Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate, Madras High Court Social Gaming Jenna Karadbil, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York Indian Issues in Gaming and Gambling Regulations Talha Salaria, Lawyers at Work, Bangalore Amrut Joshi, Gamechanger Sports Ventures, Bangalore
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:30	Privacy Issues relating to Employee Data Moderator: Poorvi Chothani, LawQuest International, Mumbai Legal Barriers for BYOD Strategies - A Holistic Approach to Legal Compliance and Security Martin Wiechers, Deutsche Telekom, Germany EU Employee Data Protection Roland Falder, Bird & Bird, Munich, Germany TBD Frederique David, Co-founding partner, TLD Legal, Paris, France Miscellaneous Hot Topics Moderator: Vineet Subramani, Versus, Mumbai Creating an Open Source Policy Heather Meeker, Greenberg Traurig, Palo Alto, California Journalism using Social Media - Issues relating to Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Interpretation of India's Information Technology Act. Swati Sukumar, Advocate, New Delhi Estate Planning for Digital Properties Wendy Goffe, Stoel Rives, Seattle, WA, USA
18:00 - 19:00	I-WIN Tea
19:30 - 22:00	Gala Dinner (Ticketed Event)

Day 2, Friday, February 15, 2013

08:00 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Privacy: Data Protection Issues Across the Globe Moderator: Gabriela Kennedy, Hogan Lovells, Hong Kong Cross Border Transfers of Employee Data Dr. Wolfgang Büchner, Jones Day, Munich, Germany Data Protection Reform in the EU Kristian Foss, Gille advokater DA, Oslo, Norway Addressing the Criminal Aspects of Data Protection Violations Claire Bernier, Altanalaw, Paris, France
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	E-Commerce Moderator: Raji Nagarkar, Cisco, Bangalore Privacy Aspects of E-Commerce in Australia Philip Catania, Corrs Chambers Westgart, Melbourne, Australia Retail Trading and E-Commerce in India Samuel Mani, MCM, Bangalore Commerce in the Social Media TBD
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Outsourcing Moderator: Bradley Joslove, Franklin, Paris Current Issues - Customer Perspective Mark Rasdale, A&L Goodbody, Dublin, Ireland Current Issues - Service Provider Perspective Kalpana Muthireddi, CSC India, Bangalore 2nd Generation Outsourcing Transactions Ulrich Baeumer, Osborne Clarke, Cologne, Germany
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:00	Cloud 2.0 Issues Moderator: Rajesh Narang, VP legal & CS, Mindtree, Bangalore Virtual Offices and Cloud Computing - Legal Issues Genevieve Gill, GenLaw, Auckland, New Zealand Regulating the Cloud S.P. Purwar, J. Sagar Associates, Gurgaon Information Security in the Cloud Nagakumar Somasundaram, Amba Research, Bangalore
17:00 - 18:00	Censorship of Online Content Moderator: Stephen Mathias, Kochhar & Co., Bangalore Panel Discussion with the following Panelist Marc S Friedman, SNR Denton, New York, USA Priti Suri, PSA, New Delhi Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society
18:00 - 18-30	Closing Remarks Raffle Valedictory John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
18:30 - 20:00	Closing Reception

See the speakers list here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/itech-law-india-ninth-intl-asian-conference

'Free Speech and Media in South Asia: Human Rights Concerns in a Globalizing World'

praskrishna — 2013-11-08T05:33:22Z

A seminar organized by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, in collaboration with the Centre for Media and Governance, National Law University, Delhi. Chinmayi Arun is one of the speakers.

Click to read the original published by Oxford University Press here

Speakers:

Salil Tripathi, English PEN

Defending Freedom of Expression in India

Emrys Shoemaker, London School of Economics

Mobile Communication and Internet Regulation in Pakistan: Mapping Social Implications

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University, Delhi

Privacy and Surveillance

Kumaravadivel Guruparan, University College London

Digital Media as Part of the Sri Lankan State's 'Counter-insurgency' Programme

Chair: Nicole Stremlau, PCMLP

This panel discussion will explore contemporary issues that envelop both the digital and the traditional media in South Asia. It will look at the effects of surveillance, prior restraints on speech, intermediaries and other key factors on the public sphere. It will also consider, in this context, the relationship of the traditional media with the Internet. This discussion will take place in the backdrop of evolving democratic engagement in India, and the constitutional jurisprudence that attempts to keep pace with it and with developments in communication technology. It will offer comparative perspectives from other countries grappling with similar concerns.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/university-of-oxford-october-25-2013-free-speech-and-media-in-south-asia

'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T04:55:51Z

Global hacking movement Anonymous has called for protesters to take to the streets in 16 cities around India on Saturday over what it considers growing government censorship of the Internet, writes Pratap Chakravarty.

This was published in AFP on June 8, 2012

The call for demonstrations by the Indian arm of the group follows a March 29 court order issued in the southern city of Chennai demanding 15 Indian Internet providers block access to file-sharing websites such as Pirate Bay.

The order has resulted in access being denied to a host of websites that carry pirated films and music among other legal content, including www.isohunt.com and www.pastebin.com.

On Wednesday, the Anonymous forum fired an opening shot by attacking the website of state-run telecom provider MTNL, pasting the logo of the group -- the mask of 17th century revolutionary Guy Fawkes -- on www.mtnl.net.in.

In an open letter the same day, the group accused the government of trying to create a "Great Indian Firewall" to establish control on the web and issuing a "declaration of war from yourself... to us."

Internet users and supporters have been asked to join peaceful rallies in cities including the capital New Delhi and the tech hub of Bangalore, with detailed instructions issued online to participants.

Tech website www.pluggd.in reported the demonstrators have been asked to wear Guy Fawkes' masks, download a recorded message to play to police, and are to chant "United as one! Divided as zero! We are Anonymous! We are legion!"

Concerns about Internet freedom in India go beyond the court order in Chennai, however, and stem from an update to India's Information Technology Act that was given by the IT and communications ministry in April last year.

The new rules regulating Internet companies -- providers, websites and search engines -- instruct them that they must remove "disparaging" or "blasphemous" content within 36 hours if they receive a complaint by an "affected person".

Groups such as the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, have waged a year-long campaign for amendments to the rules, which were quietly released in April.

Industry groups have also objected, saying they are unclear on the changes which are in any case impossible to implement when it comes to acting on individual complaints about specific content.

"A lot of education is required in this field," secretary of the Internet Service Providers Association of India S.P. Jairath told AFP.

The government has also become embroiled in a row with social networks after Telecoms Minister Kapil Sibal held a series of meetings with IT giants Google, Yahoo! and Facebook last year to discuss the pre-screening of content.

The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of obscene images found online that risked offending Muslims or defamed politicians, including his boss, the head of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi.

Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their platforms.

Anonymous is a secretive "hacker-activist" network and is thought to be a loosely knit collective with no clearly defined leadership structure.

It has claimed dozens of online attacks on sites ranging from the Vatican to Los Angeles Police Canine Association, but is increasingly the target of law enforcement agencies who have arrested dozens of members.

The above was published in the following places as well:

NDTV, June 9, 2012
Jagran Post, June 9, 2012
The Times of India, June 9, 2012
LiveMint, June 9, 2012
Economic Times, June 9, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws

#NAMApolicy on Online Content Regulation

Admin — 2018-05-05T01:52:21Z

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

Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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