Centre for Internet and Society

Seminar on "Hate Speech and Social Media"

praskrishna — 2014-02-13T06:22:41Z

NALSAR University of Law, in collaboration with the British Deputy High Commission organized a seminar on Hate Speech and Social Media in Hyderabad on January 4 and 5, 2014. Chinmayi Arun was one of the speakers at the seminar.

Richa Kaul Padte was a keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Marginalised Communities and the Experience of Social Media’, while Anja Kovacs was the keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Internet - A Democratic Space?’.

This seminar focused on emerging debates on free speech, marginalisation and radicalisation in the context of the internet. Long hailed as a great democratiser, the internet has been instrumental in granting a voice to millions of people, and yet, in permitting anonymity it raises important questions of liability and responsibility. Over the course of two days, the seminar explored issues through conversations between people who have worked on various aspects of this issue, including leading jurists, lawyers, bloggers and activists who have embraced new technologies. Some of the prominent speakers at the seminar included Hon’ble Justice Madan B Lokur, Hon’ble Dr. Justice S Muralidhar, Teesta Setalvad, Geeta Seshu, Chinmayi Arun, Anja Kovacs and Apar Gupta.

Click to read the details posted on Internet Democracy Project website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/nalsar-seminar-hate-speech-social-media

SECTION 66A: DELETE

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T01:32:18Z

The Supreme Court has killed a law that allowed the Government to control social media. What’s the Net worth of freedom hereafter?

The article by Kumar Anshuman was published in the Open Magazine on March 27, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

It was in 2009 that Section 66A was added as an amendment to India’s IT Act by the then UPA Government, but it took three years before it came to the notice of Shreya Singhal, a student of Law at Delhi University. By then, the Section had already earned itself a fair amount of notoriety for how much leeway it provided for the police and politicians to abuse the law.

The first time was in September 2011 when Musafir Baitha, a famous poet and government employee in Bihar, was suspended from his job because he criticised the state government on Facebook. An uproar followed, as people realised that freedom of speech in social media could now be construed as a criminal activity. Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor at Jadavpur Unversity, became a target of the Mamata Banerjee government in April 2012 when he made cartoons of her. In September 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested in Mumbai for a caricature of corruption under the UPA. But the case that caught Shreya Singhal’s attention was perhaps the most shocking of all. In November 2012, after Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray’s death, Shaheen Dhada, a Thane resident, posted a comment on her Facebook page criticising the near-total shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral. She wrote that Mumbai was shut not in respect, but fear, and that a leader should earn respect instead of forcing it out of people. Her friend Renu Srinivasan ‘liked’ this post. Hours later, both were arrested and booked under Section 66A. "I was shocked when I heard of this news," Singhal says, "I went and checked the post and there was nothing which could have provoked such an outrage." Her mother, Manali Singhal, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, advised her to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Section.

The case continued for two years in the Supreme Court, while arbitrary arrests continued to be made. The UPA Government first defended 66A in court, taking the position that the current NDA Government took as well. It argued that the law would be used only in extreme cases where a person overreaches his or her online freedom to curtail the rights of others. Unconvinced, on 24 March, the apex court struck 66A down, saying that it could not allow such a law to exist on mere government assurances. The Court found several terms in the Act, such as ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘insult’, that were not clearly defined and could be interpreted arbitrarily to suit one’s convenience. ‘It is clear that Section 66A is unconstitutionally vague and it takes away a guaranteed freedom,’ observed the bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Nariman.

"We can celebrate the scrapping of Section 66A, but with caution," says Sunil Abraham, executive director at The Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore. "[As for] those who are booked under Section 66A, the police also imposes different sections of the Indian Penal Code to justify their arrest." There are examples to support his statement, a recent one being the arrest of a Bareilly-based student, Gulrez Khan, who had posted a picture on Facebook of UP minister Azam Khan along with some derogatory comments about Hindus that he allegedly made. Gulrez Khan denied the comments, saying that his image was being maligned. The boy was arrested and booked. "People are making it out as a moment of triumph against the UP government. The fact is this boy had been arrested under Section 153A and 504 of the IPC along with Section 66A of the IT Act. We have said this even in the Supreme Court," says Gaurav Bhatia, a spokesperson of the Samajwadi Party and also a senior advocate.

But the import of scrapping Section 66A is that there is now one less law that can be misused, one that specifically stifles online freedom. "It’s an excellent judgment," says Lawrence Liang of Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. “It couldn’t have been better than this. The fact that the apex court termed it ‘vague and overreaching’ signifies how important it was to scrap this."

Once the 122-page judgment arrived, there was a rush to welcome it—even by those who were responsible for Section 66A to begin with. Former Congress minister Kapil Sibal was one of them. "The Supreme Court has scrapped Section 66A to allow freedom of speech in cyberspace and we should welcome it,” he said. His former cabinet colleague P Chidambaram went to the extent of saying that it was poorly drafted. But the Congress as a party also warned of the possible misuse of this freedom, saying that it had woven various safeguards into Section 66A, including the condition that an arrest could only be made after an officer of the level of Inspector General or Superintendent of Police had okayed it. "The Supreme Court, it appears, has not found the safeguards sufficient," says Congress spokesperson and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi. “It is now up to the current Government [to decide] how to strike the right balance between freedom of speech on one hand and [prevention of] abuse and hounding of groups or individuals through obscene or incorrigibly false information [on the other] to deter unbridled defamation in cyberspace." The Left parties, which were supporting the UPA Government back when Section 66A was imposed, have expressed happiness over the verdict. “The draconian provision of 66A was used to arrest people who express dissenting views against the Government and the State and to suppress criticism of those in power,” says senior CPM leader Sitaram Yechury.

The NDA Government has also welcomed the verdict. "The Government absolutely respects the right to freedom of speech and expression on social media and has no intention of curbing it," says Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister for Information Technology.

But the scrapping of the Section leaves the Government with very little power to act against real abuse of online freedoms. Like Congress leader Milind Deora says, "An unregulated internet can be more dangerous than a regulated one." This argument is easily countered: there are enough provisions in existing laws that prevent a person from misusing freedom of speech. Says Apar Gupta, a senior lawyer, “Section 66A was a bailable section and arrests were made only with further imposition of IPC acts." While Article 19 (1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, at the same time Article 19 (2) provides a list of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. This is enough, experts believe, to curtail misuse of the internet. The court judgment also grants the Centre the freedom to enact any other law specific to the internet, provided it does not violate the provisions of freedom of speech as laid down by the Constitution of India.

This does, however, put a question mark on the necessity of Section 66A to begin with, if existing laws were quite enough to address freedom-of- speech abuses. "Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, was enacted to prevent online abuse and hounding of groups and individuals, check the propagation of obscene or incorrigibly false information with the intent to create social divides and unrest, and deter unbridled defamation in cyberspace. This Act came into effect in 2008 when social media was yet evolving," says Singhvi. But experts disagree with this argument. "It is a perfect case of confusion and mixing up of facts,” says Sunil Abraham. “The purpose of this law was to curb unsolicited messages, spamming and harassing someone through fake identities in the internet space." He says that the Government claimed to borrow law provisions from the US, Canada and other countries, but the legislation was so poorly drafted that it didn’t have any teeth for action against spammers. "Even words like ‘unsolicited commercial mails’ were not included in the Act and that is the reason not a single person has been arrested in India for spam mails even after this Act came into being."

A section of the Indian legal fraternity believes that the country’s apex court should also have made a statement about the problem of spamming and harassment on the internet.

But there is bad news too. The same judgment that struck down Section 66A has upheld Section 69A of the IT Act as constitutionally valid. This allows the Government to block any website which it deems a direct threat to public order and security that might spread propaganda.

"In this case, the Government [can decide] to block a website without notifying [it with any] reason for it. If I am an internet user who wants to visit this site, I am also not notified why that website has been taken down. It is just the whims and fancies of a few officials in the Government, what to block and what not," says Apar Gupta. Using the section, the Union Government had blocked 32 websites just this January, saying that anti- national groups were using these websites for ‘jihadi propaganda’.

All major democracies have some form of legal net regulation. "Laws in foreign jurisdictions vary widely as per the guarantees of civil rights afforded to citizens in any legal system," adds Gupta. "The legislations of the United States, which borrowed certain phrases in Section 66A, have already been declared unconstitutional. In the United Kingdom, similar phrases have come under fierce critique and have been limited by guidelines issued by the office of prosecutions. In these jurisdictions, as in India, existing criminal law applies equally to online speech as much as to offline."

Also, while social media enthusiasts rejoice over their first big victory against restrictions on online freedom of speech, the internet is still a matter of great concern for any government, thanks to its reach and influence. The Union Government walks a thin line while dealing with instances of abuse on social media, and many believe India needs an IT Act drafted in proper consultation with all stakeholders.

For now, a young law student has found a place in the legal history of India. "It will always be remembered as Shreya Singhal vs Union of India," says Singhal.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

‘66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device:

Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;
Any electronic mail or message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages...

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine’

SUPREME COURT ORDER

‘In conclusion, we may summarise what has been held by us: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2)’

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-magazine-march-27-2015-kumar-anshuman-section-66a-delete

Section 66A not for curbing freedom of speech, govt says

praskrishna — 2015-02-05T13:59:12Z

Section designed to fight cybercrime and protect the right to life, central government tells Supreme Court.

The article by Akansha Seth and Apoorva was published in Livemint on February 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The central government on Tuesday clarified to the Supreme Court that penal provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, were not intended to curb freedom of speech.

Instead, the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, challenged in the apex court, is designed to fight cybercrime and has nothing to do with any citizen’s freedom of speech and expression, the government said, adding that these provisions seek to protect the right to life of Indian citizens.

The government’s clarification, made in a written submission to the Supreme Court, is significant because the argument made so far in the court by opponents of the controversial section is that they are misused to curb freedom of expression.

The penal provisions deal with online criminal offences like phishing, vishing (voice phishing), spoofing, spamming, and spreading viruses that have a serious potential to not only damage and destroy the computer system of an individual citizen but also bring the functioning of vital organizations and, in extreme cases, even the country to a standstill.

The stand of the government is interesting because it comes on a petition filed when police arrested a 21-year-old girl for questioning on Facebook Mumbai’s shutdown after Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s funeral in 2012. Another girl who “liked” the comment was also arrested. Last May, five students were detained by police for spreading an anti-Narendra Modi photo on WhatsApp.

“If 66A, as the government argues does not set any additional limits on freedom of speech and expression, then it is wholly unnecessary, serves no purpose and should be struck down by the honourable court. After all it has never been used to tackle the problem of spam which was the original intent,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank.

The central government has clarified that the phrases annoyance, inconvenience, danger, or obstruction as used in Section 66A have no correlation or connection with any citizen’s freedom of speech and expression. Consequently, if as a result of a citizen exercising his or her freedom of speech and expression, annoyance, inconvenience, danger or obstruction is caused while sending anything by way of a computer resource or a communication device, it will not be a penal offence under section 66A.

The government has also argued that if an individual chooses to misuse the provision for a purpose for which it is not intended or resorts to the expressions inconvenience or annoyance in a casual manner, it would be a case of abuse of the process of law. However, it would not be a ground for declaring the provisions unconstitutional if they are otherwise found to be constitutional.

Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, argued that no one can file a criminal complaint on grounds that they received an information that caused annoyance, inconvenience, etc.—grounds mentioned under section 66A.

Mehta also suggested that the court could come up with guidelines on how to interpret the section, or such regulations could be framed under section 89 of the IT Act which empowers the controller to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act, in consistency with it, after consultation with the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee and with the previous approval of the central government.

Mehta argued that authoritative discretion was required because a precise and concise definition of grossly offensive or menacing character—terms used in section 66A—was not possible. “Nobody can allege that they are annoyed by the exercise of someone’s freedom of speech,” he added.

Gaurav Mishra contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-akansha-seth-apoorva-livemint-feb-3-2015-section-66a-not-for-curbing-freedom-of-speech-govt-says

SC has set a high threshold for tolerance: Lawrence Liang

praskrishna — 2015-03-28T16:18:18Z

Lawyer-activist Lawrence Liang on why SC upheld section 69A and the implications of striking down section 66A.

The article by Dhamini Ratnam was published in Livemint on March 28, 2015. Lawrence Liang gave his inputs.

Tuesday marked a landmark in the fight for free speech in our country, as the Supreme Court struck down the contentious section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. The section, which was introduced through an amendment in 2009, penalized those who wrote messages online that could be deemed as being false or grossly offensive. However, the apex court turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A (procedure for blocking websites) and 79 (exemption from liability of intermediaries) of the same law. Lawrence Liang, a lawyer who co-founded the Alternative Law Forum in Bengaluru, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, and author of The Public is Watching: Sex, Laws and Videotape and A Guide to Open Content Licenses, spoke in an interview on the wide-ranging implications of the judgement. Edited excerpts:

What was the impetus to fight section 66A?

Over the past few years, there have been numerous cases in which section 66A has been used in bad faith against individuals online. One of the cases that became well-known by virtue of just how ridiculous it was involved the arrest of Shaheen Dhada and her friend Renu Srinivasan (which led petitioner Shreya Singhal to file a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court that eventually led to this judgement), but there have been more, so it was inevitable that a law as draconian as section 66A would be challenged for its constitutional validity.

The judgement begins by noting a distinction between three forms of speech—discussion, advocacy and incitement—and says discussion and advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression). Only when they reach the level of incitement can they be legitimately prohibited. While the judgement does not provide a new definition of incitement, it affirms what was laid down in the Rangarajan test (1989), in which the courts had established that for censorship to be justified, the “expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest”. There should be an immediate and direct relation between speech and effect.

The court said that section 66A is “cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net”. The courts have also historically held that Article 19(1)(a) is as much about the right to receive information as it is to disseminate, and when there is a chilling effect on speech, it also violates the right to receive information. However, I would say that the court missed an opportunity to consider the blocking of websites under section 69A.

Why did the court uphold section 69A, and which other parts of the IT Act did it examine?

If section 66A was found to be arbitrary, then the procedure for blocking websites, as laid out in section 69A, is also beset with similar problems. The court, however, upheld this section and the rules under the IT Act on the grounds that there are internal safeguards and reasonable procedures. This section allows the government to block any site or information that violates Article 19(2) of the Constitution (which enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech).

The problem is that often there is no hearing or notice given to the owner of information, there is no transparency since blocks can happen on a confidential basis and these can have serious implications for the right to receive information.

The court read down section 79, which used to provide an intermediary exemption from liability with the exception that if it received “actual knowledge” of any illegal content, it was obliged to act within 36 hours. A study by the Centre for Internet and Society showed that even on sending frivolous takedown notices, intermediaries tended to comply to be on the safe side. The court’s decision has read down section 79 now to mean that “actual knowledge” means either an order of a court or the government. It moves it away from a subjective determination by intermediaries.

The court could have, like it did with section 79, retained section 66A while clarifying a procedure that would maintain a balance between the need sometimes to block and public interest, and transparency.

What does the judgement open up for the free speech debate?

The judgement speaks of chilling effects, because if one is not careful, one runs the risk of endangering political discourse through self-censorship. This is terrible for a democratic culture, which is premised on the ability to debate and dissent. Much of the use of section 66A has been politically motivated to silence criticism, and the judgement goes a long way towards promoting a culture of critique.

As the first major Supreme Court case on free speech in the 21st century, it sets the tone on how we think of free speech in a context where every individual with a smartphone is potentially a writer, a publisher and a distributor. By setting a high threshold for what is tolerated in online speech, it ensures that the online space is not doomed to be infantilized.

What position must the law take to protect rights and minority identities?

I think it is important to distinguish between different effects of speech. The court has merely reaffirmed a position that has been held in India for a long time (such as through the Ram Manohar Lohia judgement of 1960, which interpreted what “restriction made in the interests of public order” in Article 19(2) means). In other words, if someone is inciting violence, especially if they have the power to effect such violence (such as a politician), then their speech can be regulated, but the court also held that the idea of threat to public order is often imaginary.

For instance, in what way would Shaheen Dhada’s post on Facebook have incited violence? (In November 2012, Dhada, then a student and based in Palghar, Maharashtra, had written a post on Facebook commenting on the state of shutdown that followed politician Bal Thackeray’s death. Her comment was liked by her friend Srinivasan, and both of them were charged under section 66A.) So, the court is distinguishing between speech that is critical and speech that is dangerous. There are laws that deal with the latter, such as 153A and 295A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).

It must be noted, however, that provisions also suffer from the same vice of vagueness. What we need is a more nuanced understanding of hate speech that addresses speech that incites violence or hatred against a community, but one in which the test is not of subjective hurt sentiment. The problem with hate speech laws is that they collapse questions of law and order with questions of subjective hurt, and we run the risk of becoming a republic of hurt sentiments where anyone can claim that their sentiments are hurt, especially their religious sentiments.

What happens to existing cases that are being tried under section 66A, such as the one against the organizers and participants of the All India Bakchod Roast?

Court judgements do not necessarily have retrospective effect, so cases that have been filed will continue. We must also remember that the cases filed under section 66A were also accompanied by other provisions. Of course, a judgement as significant as this, which completely delegitimizes section 66A, will have a profound impact on the ongoing cases insofar as they relate to the offence under the section, but the other charges remain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-dhamini-ratnam-march-28-2015-sc-has-set-a-high-threshold-for-tolerance

Save Your Voice — A movement against Web censorship

praskrishna — 2012-03-13T11:44:27Z

‘Save Your Voice (SYV)’ is a movement against Web censorship and its main demand is the repealing of the Information Technology Act, said SYV founders, Aseem Trividi, a cartoonist, and Alok Dixit, a journalist, on Monday.

DNA Correspondent covered a press conference held on March 12, 2012 in Bangalore. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the story.

Trivedi’s website — www.cartoonistagainstcorruption.com — was banned during Anna Hazare’s movement. Trivedi said: “Mumbai police banned the website without any prior notice and cases of ‘treason’ were also filed. The website was banned without a judicial order and I haven’t received an explanation about the crime committed.”

Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, said the private sector does not protect the freedom of expression.

Read the original published by Daily News & Analysis on March 13, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship

Ruling in India shields Web posts

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T00:38:34Z

The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal for anyone to spread ‘‘offensive messages’’ on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.

This is the modified version of the article originally published by Washington Post and mirrored in Boston Globe. Sunil Abraham is quoted. Picture by Manjunath Kiran, AFP.

Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘‘chilling’’ effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.

‘‘Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,’’ the judge wrote. ‘‘If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.’’

India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it did not turn out that way.

‘‘Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,’’ he said.

In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.

The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued that the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely ‘‘liked’’ the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.

The case of the ‘‘Palghar Girls’’ inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.

‘‘It’s a big victory,’’ Singhal said after the ruling. ‘‘The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.’’

Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.

Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for religious and minority groups.

In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a documentary film on a 2012 gang rape case, ‘‘India’s Daughter.’’

Along with India, other nations have sharply increased monitoring and crackdowns on perceived insulting Web posts in recent years.

Across the Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the country’s rulers or tarnishing the national image.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/boston-globe-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-ruling-in-india-shields-web-posts

RTI on Complaints under Section 79 of IT Act

praskrishna — 2013-06-12T09:50:40Z

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, gave its reply to an RTI application filed by Saket Bisani. We are reproducing the text below:

No. 14(146)/2012-ESD
M/o Communications & Information Technololgy
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan,6, CGO Complex
New Delhi-110003

																					Dated: 15.1.13

Subject: RTI application received from Shri Saket Biswani

With reference to your RTI application requesting for the following information.

In an article titled "We believe in the freedom of speech and expression" published in Mint of February 1, 2012, Dr. Gulshan Rai has been quoted saying:

"if the police say something has to be disabled, we tell then (Google and others) that a complaint has come under section 79 of the IT Act. We feel them: "we're bringing it to your notice. Please look at it and do whatever best you can do under the law."

With respect the above quote I request you to provide me the following information under Right to Information Act, 2005:

Please provide me a copy of every complaint that has been received by the Department of Information Technology (now the Department of Electronics and Information Technology) under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide me a copy of every notice and complaint that your office has sent pursuant to complaints received under section79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The information as received from the custodian of the information is placed below:

Department of Electronics and Information Technology has not received any complaint quoting specifically under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000.
Not applicable.

																		(A.K. Kaushik) Additional Director & CPIO (E-Security & Cyber Laws)

Shri Saket Bisani
No. 194, 2nd ׳C Cross
Domlur 2nd Stage *
Bangalore-560 071

Read a scanned version of the reply that we got from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rti-on-complaints-under-it-act-section-79

RTI Applications on Blocking of Websites

pranesh — 2012-12-21T06:34:27Z

In recent weeks, an increasing number of incidents have come to light on government-ordered blocking of websites. In one case involving Zone-H.org, it is clear who has ordered the block (a Delhi district court judge, as an interim order), even though the block itself is open to constitutional challenge. In all others cases, including the TypePad case, it is unclear who has ordered the block and why. We at CIS have sent in two right to information requests to find out.

While under the law (i.e., s.69A of the Information Technology Act), the Department of Information Technology (DIT) has the power to order blocks (via the 'Designated Officer'), in some cases it has been noted that the ISPs have noted that the order to block access to the websites have come from the Department of Telecom (DoT). Due to this, we have sent in RTI applications to both the DIT and the DoT.

RTI Application to Department of Information Technology

Shri B.B.Bahl,
Joint Director and PIO (RTI)
Office of PIO (RTI)
Room No 1016, Electronics Niketan
Department of Information Technology (DIT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
6, CGO Complex, New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under s.69A of the Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Rules”) or any other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in contravention of s.69A of the IT Act?
Has the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?
How many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, and copies of their recommendations.
Please provide us the present composition of the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of all orders issued by the Review Committee.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2008-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:

To the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Information Technology” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

RTI Application to Department of Telecom

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. Airtel subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting “This site has been blocked as per request by Department of Telecom”. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad or any blog hosted by TypePad? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2005-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking

Roundtable: Identifying and Limiting Hate Speech and Harassment Online

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T13:31:58Z

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

See the original report published by SFLC here.

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

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

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

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

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

Roundtable Discussion on Intermediary Liability

Admin — 2019-10-20T07:08:11Z

Tanaya Rajwade participated in a roundtable discussion on intermediary liability organised by SFLC and the Dialogue in New Delhi on October 17, 2019.

Click to view the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-discussion-on-intermediary-liability

Right to Exclusion, Government Spaces, and Speech

TorShark — 2021-07-02T12:05:13Z

The conclusion of the litigation surrounding Trump blocking its critiques on Twitter brings to forefront two less-discussed aspects of intermediary liability: a) if social media platforms could be compelled to ‘carry’ speech under any established legal principles, thereby limiting their right to exclude users or speech, and b) whether users have a constitutional right to access social media spaces of elected officials. This essay analyzes these issues under the American law, as well as draws parallel for India, in light of the ongoing litigation around the suspension of advocate Sanjay Hegde’s Twitter account.

This article first appeared on the Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) blog, and can be accessed here. Cross-posted with permission.

---

Introduction

On April 8, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), vacated the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for Second Circuit’s in Knight First Amendment Institute v Trump. In that case, the Court of Appeals had precluded Donald Trump, then-POTUS, from blocking his critics from his Twitter account on the ground that such action amounted to the erosion of constitutional rights of his critics. The Court of Appeals had held that his use of @realDonaldTrump in his official capacity had transformed the nature of the account from private to public, and therefore, blocking users he disagreed with amounted to viewpoint discrimination, something that was incompatible with the First Amendment.

The SCOTUS ordered the case to be dismissed as moot, on account of Trump no longer being in office. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a ten-page concurrence that went into additional depth regarding the nature of social media platforms and user rights. It must be noted that the concurrence does not hold any direct precedential weightage, since Justice Thomas was not joined by any of his colleagues at the bench for the opinion. However, given that similar questions of public import, are currently being deliberated in the ongoing Sanjay Hegde litigation in the Delhi High Court, Justice Thomas’ concurrence might hold some persuasive weightage in India. While the facts of these litigations might be starkly different, both of them are nevertheless characterized by important questions of applying constitutional doctrines to private parties like Twitter and the supposedly ‘public’ nature of social media platforms.

In this essay, we consider the legal questions raised in the opinion as possible learnings for India. In the first part, we analyze the key points raised by Justice Thomas, vis-a-vis the American legal position on intermediary liability and freedom of speech. In the second part, we apply these deliberations to the Sanjay Hegde litigation, as a case-study and a roadmap for future legal jurisprudence to be developed.

A flawed analogy

At the outset, let us briefly refresh the timeline of Trump’s tryst with Twitter, and the history of this litigation: the Court of Appeals decision was issued in 2019, when Trump was still in office. Post-November 2020 Presidential Election, where he was voted out, his supporters broke into Capitol Hill. Much of the blame for the attack was pinned on Trump’s use of social media channels (including Twitter) to instigate the violence and following this, Twitter suspended his account permanently.

It is this final fact that seized Justice Thomas’ reasoning. He noted that a private party like Twitter’s power to do away with Trump’s account altogether was at odds with the Court of Appeals’ earlier finding about the public nature of the account. He deployed a hotel analogy to justify this: government officials renting a hotel room for a public hearing on regulation could not kick out a dissenter, but if the same officials gather informally in the hotel lounge, then they would be within their rights to ask the hotel to kick out a heckler. The difference in the two situations would be that, “the government controls the space in the first scenario, the hotel, in the latter.” He noted that Twitter’s conduct was similar to the second situation, where it “control(s) the avenues for speech”. Accordingly, he dismissed the idea that the original respondents (the users whose accounts were blocked) had any First Amendment claims against Trump’s initial blocking action, since the ultimate control of the ‘avenue’ was with Twitter, and not Trump.

In the facts of the case however, this analogy was not justified. The Court of Appeals had not concerned itself with the question of private ‘control’ of entire social media spaces, and given the timeline of the litigation, it was impossible for them to pre-empt such considerations within the judgment. In fact, the only takeaway from the original decision had been that an elected representative’s utilization of his social media account for official purposes transformed only that particular space into a public forum where constitutional rights would find applicability. In delving into questions of ‘control’ and ‘avenues of speech’, issues that had been previously unexplored, Justice Thomas conflates a rather specific point into a much bigger, general conundrum. Further deliberations in the concurrence are accordingly put forward upon this flawed premise.

Right to exclusion (and must carry claims)

From here, Justice Thomas identified the problem to be “private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public”, and brought forth two alternate regulatory systems — common carrier and public accommodation — to argue for ‘equal access’ over social media space. He posited that successful application of either of the two analogies would effectively restrict a social media platform’s right to exclude its users, and “an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked”. Essentially, this would mean that platforms would be obligated to carry all forms of (presumably) legal speech, and users would be entitled to sue platforms in case they feel their content has been unfairly taken down, a phenomenon Daphne Keller describes as ‘must carry claims’.

Again, this is a strange place to find the argument to proceed, since the original facts of the case were not about ‘dissatisfied platform users’, but an elected representative’s account being used in dissemination of official information. Beyond the initial ‘private’ control deliberation, Justice Thomas did not seem interested in exploring this original legal position, and instead emphasized on analogizing social media platforms in order to enforce ‘equal access’, finally arriving at a position that would be legally untenable in the USA.

The American law on intermediary liability, as embodied in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), has two key components: first, intermediaries are protected against the contents posted by its users, under a legal model termed as ‘broad immunity’, and second, an intermediary does not stand to lose its immunity if it chooses to moderate and remove speech it finds objectionable, popularly known as the Good Samaritan protection. It is the effect of these two components, combined, that allows platforms to take calls on what to remove and what to keep, translating into a ‘right to exclusion’. Legally compelling them to carry speech, under the garb of ‘access’ would therefore, strike at the heart of the protection granted by the CDA.

Learnings for India

In his petition to the Delhi High Court, Senior Supreme Court Advocate, Sanjay Hegde had contested that the suspension of his Twitter account, on the grounds of him sharing anti-authoritarian imagery, was arbitrary and that:

Twitter was carrying out a public function and would be therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution; and
The suspension of his account had amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and his rights to assembly and association under Article 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c); and
The government has a positive obligation to ensure that any censorship on social media platforms is done in accordance with Article 19(2).

The first two prongs of the original petition are perhaps easily disputed: as previous commentary has pointed out, existing Indian constitutional jurisprudence on ‘public function’ does not implicate Twitter, and accordingly, it would be a difficult to make out a case that account suspensions, no matter how arbitrary, would amount to a violation of the user’s fundamental rights. It is the third contention that requires some additional insight in the context of our previous discussion.

Does the Indian legal system support a right to exclusion?

Suing Twitter to reinstate a suspended account, on the ground that such suspension was arbitrary and illegal, is in its essence a request to limit Twitter’s right to exclude its users. The petition serves as an example of a must-carry claim in the Indian context and vindicates Justice Thomas’ (misplaced) defence of ‘dissatisfied platform users’. Legally, such claims perhaps have a better chance of succeeding here, since the expansive protection granted to intermediaries via Section 230 of the CDA, is noticeably absent in India. Instead, intermediaries are bound by conditional immunity, where availment of a ‘safe harbour’, i.e., exemption from liability, is contingent on fulfilment of statutory conditions, made under section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the rules made thereunder. Interestingly, in his opinion, Justice Thomas had briefly visited a situation where the immunity under Section 230 was made conditional: to gain Good Samaritan protection, platforms might be induced to ensure specific conditions, including ‘nondiscrimination’. This is controversial (and as commentators have noted, wrong), since it had the potential to whittle down the US' ‘broad immunity’ model of intermediary liability to a system that would resemble the Indian one.

It is worth noting that in the newly issued Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) allows for “the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link [...] under clause (b) on a voluntary basis, or on the basis of grievances received under sub-rule (2) [...]” without dilution of statutory immunity. This does provide intermediaries a right to exclude, albeit limited, since its scope is restricted to content removed under the operation of specific sub-clauses within the rules, as opposed to Section 230, which is couched in more general terms. Of course, none of this precludes the government from further prescribing obligations similar to those prayed in the petition.

On the other hand, it is a difficult proposition to support that Twitter’s right to exclusion should be circumscribed by the Constitution, as prayed. In the petition, this argument is built over the judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, where it was held that takedowns under section 79 are to be done only on receipt of a court order or a government notification, and that the scope of the order would be restricted to Article 19(2). This, in his opinion, meant that “any suo-motu takedown of material by intermediaries must conform to Article 19(2)”.

To understand why this argument does not work, it is important to consider the context in which the Shreya Singhal judgment was issued. Previously, intermediary liability was governed by the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under section 79 of the IT Act. Rule 3(4) made provisions for sending takedown orders to the intermediary, and the prerogative to send such orders was on ‘an affected person’. On receipt of these orders, the intermediary was bound to remove content and neither the intermediary nor the user whose content was being censored, had the opportunity to dispute the takedown.

As a result, the potential for misuse was wide-open. Rishabh Dara’s research provided empirical evidence for this; intermediaries were found to act on flawed takedown orders, on the apprehension of being sanctioned under the law, essentially chilling free expression online. The Shreya Singhal judgment, in essence, reined in this misuse by stating that an intermediary is legally obliged to act only when a takedown order is sent by the government or the court. The intent of this was, in the court’s words: “it would be very difficult for intermediaries [...] to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not.”

In light of this, if Hegde’s petition succeeds, it would mean that intermediaries would now be obligated to subsume the entirety of Article 19(2) jurisprudence in their decision-making, interpret and apply it perfectly, and be open to petitions from users when they fail to do so. This might be a startling undoing of the court’s original intent in Shreya Singhal. Such a reading also means limiting an intermediary’s prerogative to remove speech that may not necessarily fall within the scope of Article 19(2), but is still systematically problematic, including unsolicited commercial communications. Further, most platforms today are dealing with an unprecedented spread and consumption of harmful, misleading information. Limiting their right to exclude speech in this manner, we might be exacerbating this problem.

Government-controlled spaces on social media platforms

On the other hand, the original finding of the Court of Appeals, regarding the public nature of an elected representative’s social media account and First Amendment rights of the people to access such an account, might yet still prove instructive for India. While the primary SCOTUS order erases the precedential weight of the original case, there have been similar judgments issued by other courts in the USA, including by the Fourth Circuit court and as a result of a lawsuit against a Texas Attorney General.

A similar situation can be envisaged in India as well. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses not just the right to disseminate information, but also the right to receive information, including receiving information on matters of public concern. Additionally, in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association of Bengal, the Court had held that the right of dissemination included the right of communication through any media: print, electronic or audio-visual. Then, if we assume that government-controlled spaces on social media platforms, used in dissemination of official functions, are ‘public spaces’, then the government’s denial of public access to such spaces can be construed to be a violation of Article 19(1)(a).

Conclusion

As indicated earlier, despite the facts of the two litigations being different, the legal questions embodied within converge startlingly, inasmuch that are both examples of the growing discontent around the power wielded by social media platforms, and the flawed attempts at fixing it.

While the above discussion might throw some light on the relationship between an individual, the state and social media platforms, many questions still continue to remain unanswered. For instance, once we establish that users have a fundamental right to access certain spaces within the social media platform, then does the platform have a right to remove that space altogether? If it does so, can a constitutional remedy be made against the platform? Initial commentary on the Court of Appeals’ decision had contested that the takeaway from that judgment had been that constitutional norms had a primacy over the platform’s own norms of governance. In such light, would the platform be constitutionally obligated to not suspend a government account, even if the content on such an account continues to be harmful, in violation of its own moderation standards?

This is an incredibly tricky dimension of the law, made trickier still by the dynamic nature of the platforms, the intense political interests permeating the need for governance, and the impacts on users in the instance of a flawed solution. Continuous engagement, scholarship and emphasis on having a human rights-respecting framework underpinning the regulatory system, are the only ways forward.

---

The author would like to thank Gurshabad Grover and Arindrajit Basu for reviewing this piece.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/right-to-exclusion-government-spaces-and-speech

Right to be forgotten poses a legal dilemma in India

praskrishna — 2014-06-09T10:02:25Z

The “right to be forgotten” judgment has raised a controversy, while some argue that it upholds an individual’s privacy, others say it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

The article by Leslie D' Monte was published in Livemint on June 5, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Medianama.com has become perhaps the first Indian website to be asked by an individual to remove a link, failing which the user would approach Google Inc. to delete the link under the “right to be forgotten” provision granted by a European court. There’s one hitch: India doesn’t have any legal provision to entertain or process such request.

In his request to the media website, the individual cited a landmark 13 May judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), which said users could ask search engines like Google or Bing to remove links to web pages that contain information about them.

According to the judgement, the user is also free to approach “the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results” if the search engines do not comply.

“...this individual told us of a plan to appeal to Google on the basis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice, and asked us to either convert the public post into a non-indexable post, such that it may not be surfaced by search engines, or to modify the individual’s name, place and any references to his/her employer in the post that we’ve written, so that it cannot be linked directly to the individual,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of medianama.com.

Pahwa did not reveal the identity of the individual, who made the request on 31 May. Medianama, according to Pahwa, had written about the individual “a few years ago, protesting against attacks on his/her freedom of speech.” It did not give details. The media website reported about the request on 2 June.

Under legal pressure, the individual eventually relented and retracted the request.

The individual, Pahwa said, requested medianama.com to retain only his last name on the web page, cautioning that if the website does not do so, he would submit the URL (uniform resource locator or address of that link) of that web page to Google in a “right to be forgotten” request.

This, Pahwa said, “might hurt our search ranking, or lead to a blanket removal of our website from Google’s search index.”

“This is a tricky one, and we’ve declined this request,” said Pahwa. He added that “the implications for media are immense, since digital data, which is a recording of online history, will be affected.”

The EU ruling came after a Spanish national complained in 2010 that searching his name in Google threw up links to two newspaper webpages which reported a property auction to recover social security debt he once owed, even though the information had become irrelevant since the proceedings had since been resolved.

Following the ruling, Google put up an online form (mintne.ws/1oYVP5Y), inviting users in Europe to submit their requests.

“...we will assess each individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information,” the form reads.

“When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information—for example, information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials...”

A Google spokesman said on Tuesday that the company had received over 41,000 requests to be forgotten so far.

On the first day itself, Google had received 12,000 requests.

“Almost a third of the requests were in relation to accusations of fraud, 20% were in relation to violent/serious crimes, and around 12% regarded child pornography arrests. More than 1,500 of these requests are believed to have come from people in the UK. An ex-politician seeking re-election, a paedophile and a GP (general practitioner) were among the British applicants”, according to a 2 June report inThe Telegraph of London.

The “right to be forgotten” judgment has raised a controversy. While some argue that it upholds an individual’s privacy, others say it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

In an interview to Mint on 26 May, Anupam Chander, director of the California International Law Center, reasoned that if a person could simply scrub all the bad information about him from being searchable on the Internet, she/he could do so by claiming that such information was “no longer relevant”.

“Do we want search engines to then judge whether information remains “relevant” or is somehow “inadequate” under the threat of liability for leaving information accessible? An Internet sanitized of accessible negative information will only tell half the truth,” he argued.

The ruling is not binding on India and applies only to EU countries.

According to legal experts, the country has no provision for a right to be forgotten, either in the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 (amended in 2008) or the IT Rules, 2011. India, for that matter, does not even have a privacy act as yet.

“In India, we do not have a concept of the right to be Forgotten. It’s a very Western concept,” said Pavan Duggal, a cyberlaw expert and Supreme Court advocate.

Still, intermediaries like search engines and Internet services providers, under the country’s IT Act and IT Rules, have the obligation to exercise due diligence if an aggrieved party sends them a written notice, he said.

According to Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an Internet rights lobby group, “right to be forgotten” cases should pass the “public interest” test.

“Privacy protection should not have a chilling effect on transparency. The question is: Does the content (which a user wants to be removed) serve a public interest that outweighs the harm that it is doing to the individual concerned? If no public interest is being served, there is no point in knowing what the content is all about. The complication with the EU ruling is that it wants intermediaries and over-the-top providers to play the role of judges,” said Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-leslie-d-monte-june-5-2014-right-to-be-forgotten-poses-legal-dilemma-in-india

Resurrecting the marketplace of ideas

basu — 2019-02-22T02:18:53Z

There is no ‘silver bullet’ for regulating content on the web. It requires a mix of legal and empirical analysis.

The article by Arindrajit Basu was published in Hindu Businessline on February 19, 2019.

A century after the ‘marketplace of ideas’ first found its way into a US Supreme Court judgment through the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (Abrams v United States, 1919), the oft-cited rationale for free speech is arguably under siege.

The increasing quantity and range of online speech hosted by internet platforms coupled with the shock waves sent by revelations of rampant abuse through the spread of misinformation has lead to a growing inclination among governments across the globe to demand more aggressive intervention by internet platforms in filtering the content they host.

Rule 3(9) of the Draft of the Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTy) last December follows the interventionist regulatory footsteps of countries like Germany and France by mandating that platforms use “automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.”

Like its global counterparts, this rule, which serves as a pre-condition for granting immunity to the intermediary from legal claims arising out of user-generated communications, might not only have an undue ‘chilling effect’ on free speech but is also a thoroughly uncooked policy intervention.

Censorship by proxy

Rule 3(9) and its global counterparts might not be in line with the guarantees enmeshed in the right to freedom of speech and expression for three reasons. First, the vague wording of the law and the abstruse guidelines for implementation do not provide clarity, accessibility and predictability — which are key requirements for any law restricting free speech .The NetzDG-the German law, aimed at combating agitation and fake news, has attracted immense criticism from civil society activists and the UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye on similar grounds.

Second, as proved by multiple empirical studies across the globe, including one conducted by CIS on the Indian context, it is likely that legal requirements mandating that private sector actors make determinations on content restrictions can lead to over-compliance as the intermediary would be incentivised to err on the side of removal to avoid expensive litigation.

Finally, by shifting the burden of determining and removing ‘unlawful’ content onto a private actor, the state is effectively engaging in ‘censorship by proxy’. As per Article 12 of the Constitution, whenever a government body performs a ‘public function’, it must comply with all the enshrined fundamental rights.

Any individual has the right to file a writ petition against the state for violation of a fundamental right, including the right to free speech.

However, judicial precedent on the horizontal application of fundamental rights, which might enable an individual to enforce a similar claim against a private actor has not yet been cemented in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

This means that any individual whose content has been wrongfully removed by the platform may have no recourse in law — either against the state or against the platform.

Algorithmic governmentality

Using automated technologies comes with its own set of technical challenges even though they enable the monitoring of greater swathes of content. The main challenge to automated filtering is the incomplete or inaccurate training data as labelled data sets are expensive to curate and difficult to acquire, particularly for smaller players.

Further, an algorithmically driven solution is an amorphous process.

Through it is hidden layers and without clear oversight and accountability mechanisms, the machine generates an output, which corresponds to assessing the risk value of certain forms of speech, thereby reducing it to quantifiable values — sacrificing inherent facets of dignity such as the speaker’s unique singularities, personal psychological motivations and intentions.

Possible policy prescriptions

The first step towards framing an adequate policy response would be to segregate the content needing moderation based on the reason for them being problematic.

Detecting and removing information that is false might require the crafting of mechanisms that are different from those intended to tackle content that is true but unlawful, such as child pornography.

Any policy prescription needs to be adequately piloted and tested before implementation. It is also likely that the best placed prescription might be a hybrid amalgamation of the methods outlined below.

Second, it is imperative that the nature of intermediaries to which a policy applies are clearly delineated. For example, Whatsapp, which offers end-to-end encrypted services would not be able to filter content in the same way internet platforms like Twitter can.

The first option going forward is user-filtering, which as per a recent paper written by Ivar Hartmann, is a decentralised process, through which the users of an online platform collectively endeavour to regulate the flow of information.

Users collectively agree on a set of standards and general guidelines for filtering. This method combined with an oversight and grievance redressal mechanism to address any potential violation may be a plausible one.

The second model is enhancing the present model of self-regulation. Ghonim and Rashbass recommend that the platform must publish all data related to public posts and the processes followed in a certain post attaining ‘viral’ or ‘trending’ status or conversely, being removed.

This, combined with Application Programme Interfaces (APIs) or ‘Public Interest Algorithms’, which enables the user to keep track of the data-driven process that results in them being exposed to a certain post, might be workable if effective pilots for scaling are devised.

The final model that operates outside the confines of technology are community driven social mechanisms. An example of this is Telengana Police Officer Remi Rajeswari’s efforts to combat fake news in rural areas by using Janapedam — an ancient form of story-telling — to raise awareness about these issues.

Given the complex nature of the legal, social and political questions involved here, the quest for a ‘silver-bullet’ might be counter-productive.

Instead, it is essential for us to take a step back, frame the right questions to understand the intricacies in the problems involved and then, through a mix of empirical and legal analysis, calibrate a set of policy interventions that may work for India today.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindu-businessline-february-19-2019-arindrajit-basu-resurrecting-the-marketplace-of-ideas

Response to the Draft of The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018

Gurshabad Grover, Elonnai Hickok, Arindrajit Basu, Akriti — 2019-02-07T08:06:41Z

In this response, we aim to examine whether the draft rules meet tests of constitutionality and whether they are consistent with the parent Act. We also examine potential harms that may arise from the Rules as they are currently framed and make recommendations to the draft rules that we hope will help the Government meet its objectives while remaining situated within the constitutional ambit.

This document presents the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) response to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s invitation to comment and suggest changes to the draft of The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “draft rules”) published on December 24, 2018. CIS is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views and comments. This response was sent on the January 31, 2019.

In this response, we aim to examine whether the draft rules meet tests of constitutionality and whether they are consistent with the parent Act. We also examine potential harms that may arise from the Rules as they are currently framed and make recommendations to the draft rules that we hope will help the Government meet its objectives while remaining situated within the constitutional ambit.

The response can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-to-the-draft-of-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-amendment-rules-2018

Response to Mozilla DNS over HTTPS (DoH) and Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR) Comment Period

Gurshabad Grover, Divyank Katira — 2021-01-19T07:35:24Z

CIS has submitted a response to Mozilla's DNS over HTTPS (DoH) and Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR) Comment Period

This submission presents a response by the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) to Mozilla’s DNS over HTTPS (DoH) and Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR) Comment Period (hereinafter, the “Consultation”) released on November 18, 2020. CIS appreciates Mozilla’s consultations, and is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views and comments.

Read the response here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-to-mozilla-dns-over-https-doh-and-trusted-recursive-resolver-trr-comment-period