Centre for Internet and Society

Noose tightens on freedom of speech on the Internet

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T01:01:18Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Manila Principles can be summarised in six key points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Civil Society Members in the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee

pranesh — 2013-01-09T17:56:57Z

The Government of India has taken our advice and reconstituted the Cyber Regulations Advisory Commitee. But there is no representation of Internet users, citizens, and consumers — only government and industry interests.

In multiple op-eds (Indian Express and Mint), I have pointed out the need for the government to reconstitute the "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" (CRAC) under section 88 of the Information Technology Act. That it be reconstituted along the model of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee was also part of the suggestions that CIS sent to the government after a meeting FICCI had convened along with the government on September 4, 2012.

Section 88 requires that people "representing the interests principally affected" by Internet policy or "having special knowledge of the subject matter" be present in this advisory body. The main function of the CRAC is to advise the the Central Government "either generally as regards any rules or for any other purpose connected with this Act".

Despite this important function, the CRAC had — till November 2012 — only ever met twice, both times in 2001. The response to an RTI informed us that the body had never provided any advice to the government.

Government Not Serious

The increasing pressure on the government for botching up Internet regulations has led it to reconstitute the CRAC. However, the list of members of the committee shows that the government is not serious about this committee representing "the interests primarily affected" by Internet policy.

Importantly, this goes against the express wish of the Shri Kapil Sibal, the Union Minister for Communications and IT, who has repeatedly stated that he believes that Internet-related policymaking should be an inclusive process. Most recently, at the 2012 Internet Governance Forum he stated that we need systems that are:

"collaborative, consultative, inclusive and consensual, for dealing with all public policies involving the Internet"

Interestingly, despite the Hon'ble Minster verbally inviting civil society organizations (on November 23, 2012) for a meeting of the CRAC that happened on November 25, 2012, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology refused to send us invitations for the meeting. This hints at a disconnect between the political and bureaucratic wings of the government, at least at some levels.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time this has been pointed out. Na. Vijayashankar was levelling similar criticisms against the CRAC way back in August 2000 when the original CRAC was constituted.

Breakdown by Stakeholder Groupings

While there is no one universal division of stakeholders in Internet governance, but four goups are widely recognized: governments (national and intergovernmental), industry, technical community, and civil society. Using that division, we get:

Government - 15 out of 22 members
Industry bodies - 6 out of 22 members
Technical community / Academia - 1 out of 22 members
Civil society - 0 out of 22 members.

List of Members of Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee

The official notification (G.S.R. 827(E)) is available on the DEIT website and came into force on November 16, 2012.

(Note: Names with ~~strikethroughs~~ have been removed from the CRAC since 2000, and those with emphasis have been added.)

Minister, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology - Chairman
Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technology - Member
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - Member
~~Finance Secretary - Member~~
Secretary, Legislative Department - Member
Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs - Member
~~Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, Presently Member Secretary, Law Commission - Member~~
Secretary, Ministry of Commerce - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Defence - Member
Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India - Member
Information Technology Secretary from the states by rotation - Member
Director, IIT by rotation from the IITs - Member
Director General of Police from the States by rotation - Member
President, NASSCOM - Member
President, Internet Service Provider Association - Member
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Member
Controller of Certifying Authority - Member
Representative of CII - Member
Representative of FICCI - Member
Representative of ASSOCHAM - Member
President, Computer Society of India - Member
Group Coordinator, Department of Electronic and Information Technology - Member Secretary

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cyber-regulations-advisory-committee-no-civil-society

NHA Data Sharing Guidelines – Yet Another Policy in the Absence of a Data Protection Act

Shweta Mohandas and Pallavi Bedi — 2022-09-29T15:17:24Z

In July this year, the National Health Authority (NHA) released the NHA Data Sharing Guidelines for the Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY) just two months after publishing the draft Health Data Management Policy.

Reviewed and edited by Anubha Sinha

Launched in 2018, PM-JAY is a public health insurance scheme set to cover 10 crore poor and vulnerable families across the country for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisation. Eligible candidates can use the scheme to avail of cashless benefits at any public/private hospital falling under this scheme. Considering the scale and sensitivity of the data, the creation of a well-thought-out data-sharing document is a much-needed step. However, the document – though only a draft – has certain portions that need to be reconsidered, including parts that are not aligned with other healthcare policy documents. In addition, the guidelines should be able to work in tandem with the Personal Data Protection Act whenever it comes into force. With no prior intimation of the publication of the guidelines, and the provision of a mere 10 days for consultation, there was very little scope for stakeholders to submit their comments and participate in the consultation. While the guidelines pertain to the PM-JAY scheme, it is an important document to understand the government’s concerns and stance on the sharing of health data, especially by insurance companies.

Definitions: Ambiguous and incompatible with similar policy documents

The draft guidelines add to the list of health data–related policies that have been published since the beginning of the pandemic. These include three draft health data management policies published within two years, which have already covered the sharing and management of health data. The draft guidelines repeat the pattern of earlier policies on health data, wherein there is no reference to the policies that predated it; in this case, the guidelines fail to refer to the draft National Digital Health Data Management Policy (published in April 2022). To add to this, the document – by placing the definitions at the end – is difficult to read and understand, especially when terms such as ‘beneficiary’, ‘data principal’, and ‘individual’ are used interchangeably. In the same vein, the document uses the terms ‘data principal’ and ‘data fiduciary’, and the definitions of health data and personal data, from the 2019 PDP Bill, while also referring to the IT Act SDPI Rules and its definition of ‘sensitive personal data’. While the guidelines state that the IT Act and Rules will be the legislation to refer to for these guidelines, it is to be noted that the IT Act under the SPDI Rules covers ‘body corporates’, which under Section 43A(1), is defined as “any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities;”. It is difficult to add responsibility and accountability to the organisations under the guidelines when they might not even be covered under this definition.

With each new policy, civil society organisations have been pointing out the need to have a data protection act before introducing policies and guidelines that deal with the processing and sharing of the data of individuals. Ideally, these policies – even in draft form – should have been published after the Personal Data Protection Bill was enacted, to ensure consistency with the provisions of the law. For example, the guidelines introduce a new category of governance mechanisms under the data-sharing committee headed by a data-sharing officer (DSO). The responsibilities and powers of the DSO are similar to that of the data protection officer under the draft PDP Bill as well as the National Data Health Management Policy (NHDMP). This, in turn, raises the question of whether the DSO and the DPOs under both the PDP Bill and the draft NDMP will have the same responsibilities. Clarity in terms of which of the policies are in force and how they intersect is needed to ensure a smooth implementation. Ideally, having multiple sources of definitions should be addressed at the drafting stage itself.

Guiding Principles: Need to look beyond privacy

The guidelines enumerate certain principles to govern the use, collection, processing, and transmission of the personal or sensitive personal data of beneficiaries. These principles are accountability, privacy by design, choice and consent, openness/transparency, etc. While these provisions are much needed, their explanation at times misses the mark of why these principles were added. For example, in the case of accountability, the guidelines state that the ‘data fiduciary’ shall be accountable for complying with measures based on the guiding principles However, it does not specify who the fiduciaries would be accountable to and what the steps are to ensure accountability. Similarly, in the case of openness and transparency, the guidelines state that the policies and practices relating to the management of personal data will be available to all stakeholders. However, openness and transparency need to go beyond policies and practices and should consider other aspects of openness, including open data and the use of open-source software and open standards. This again will add to transparency, in that it would specify the rights of the data principal, as the current draft looks at the rights of the data principal merely from a privacy perspective. In the case of purpose limitation as well, the guidelines are tied to the privacy notice, which again puts the burden on the individual (in this case, beneficiary) when the onus should actually be on the data fiduciary. Lastly, under the empowerment of beneficiaries, the guidelines state that the “data principal shall be able to seek correction, amendments, or deletion of such data where it is inaccurate;”. The right to deletion should not be conditional on inaccuracy, especially when entering the scheme is optional and consent-based.

Data sharing with third parties without adequate safeguards

The guidelines outline certain cases where personal data can be collected, used, or disclosed without the consent of the individual. One of these cases is when the data is anonymised. However, the guidelines do not detail how this anonymisation would be achieved and ensured through the life cycle of the data, especially when the clause states that the data will also be collected without consent. The guidelines also state that the anonymised data could be used for public health management, clinical research, or academic research. The guidelines should have limited the scope of academic research or added certain criteria to gain access to the data; the use of vague terminology could lead to this data (sometimes collected without consent) being de-anonymised or used for studies that could cause harm to the data principal or even a particular community. The guidelines state that the data can be shared as ‘protected health information’ with a government agency for oversight activities authorised by law, epidemic control, or in response to court orders. With the sharing of data, care should be taken to ensure data minimisation and purpose limitations that go beyond the explanations added in the body of the guidelines. In addition, the guidelines also introduce the concept of a ‘clean room’, which is defined as “a secure sandboxed area with access controls, where aggregated and anonymised or de-identified data may be shared for the purposes of developing inference or training models”. The definition does not state who will be developing these training models; it could be a cause of worry if AI companies or even insurance companies have the potential to use this data to train models that could eventually make decisions based on the results. The term ‘sandbox’ is explained under the now revoked DP Bill 2021 as “such live testing of new products or services in a controlled or test regulatory environment for which the Authority may or may not permit certain regulatory relaxations for a
specified period for the limited purpose of the testing”. Neither the 2019 Bill nor the IT Act/Rules defines ‘sandbox’; the guidelines should have ideally spent more time explaining how the sandbox system in the ‘Clean Room’ works.

Conclusion

The draft Data Sharing Guidelines are a welcome step in ensuring that the entities sharing and processing data have guidelines to adhere to, especially since the Data Protection Bill has not been passed yet. The mention of the best practices for data sharing in annexures, including practices for people who have access to the data, is a step in the right direction, which could be made better with regular training and sensitisation. While the guidelines are a good starting point, they still suffer from the issues that have been highlighted in similar health data policies, including not referring to older policies, adding new entities, and the reliance on digital and mobile technology. The guidelines could have added more nuance to the consent and privacy by design sections to ensure other forms of notice, e.g., notice in audio form in different Indian languages. While PM-JAY aims to reach 10 crore poor and vulnerable families, there is a need to look at how to ensure that consent is given according to the guidelines that are “free, informed, clear, and specific”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nha-data-sharing-guidelines

New intermediary guidelines: The good and the bad

TorShark — 2021-03-15T13:52:46Z

In pursuance of the government releasing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, this blogpost offers a quick rundown of some of the changes brought about the Rules, and how they line up with existing principles of best practices in content moderation, among others.

This article originally appeared in the Down to Earth magazine. Reposted with permission.

-------

The Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The operation of these rules would be in supersession of the existing intermediary liability rules under the Information Technology (IT) Act, made back in 2011.

These IL rules would have a significant impact on our relationships with internet ‘intermediaries’, i.e. gatekeepers and getaways to the internet, including social media platforms, communication and messaging channels.

The rules also make a bid to include entities that have not traditionally been considered ‘intermediaries’ within the law, including curated-content platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime as well as digital news publications.

These rules are a significant step-up from the draft version of the amendments floated by the Union government two years ago; in this period, the relationship between the government around the world and major intermediaries changed significantly.

The insistence of these entities in the past, that they are not ‘arbiters of truth’, for instance, has not always held water in their own decision-makings.

Both Twitter and Facebook, for instance, have locked the former United States president Donald Trump out of their platforms. Twitter has also resisted to fully comply with government censorship requests in India, spilling into an interesting policy tussle between the two entities. It is in the context of these changes, therefore, that we must we consider the new rules.

What changed for the good?

One of the immediate standouts of these rules is in the more granular way in which it aims to approach the problem of intermediary regulation. The previous draft — and in general the entirety of the law — had continued to treat ‘intermediaries’ as a monolithic entity, entirely definable by section 2(w) of the IT Act, which in turn derived much of its legal language from the EU E-commerce Directive of 2000.

Intermediaries in the directive were treated more like ‘simple conduits’ or dumb, passive carriers who did not play any active role in the content. While that might have been the truth of the internet when these laws and rules were first enacted, the internet today looks much different.

Not only is there a diversification of services offered by these intermediaries, there’s also a significant issue of scale, wielded by a few select players, either by centralisation or by the sheer number of user bases. A broad, general mandate would, therefore, miss out on many of these nuances, leading to imperfect regulatory outcomes.

The new rules, therefore, envisage three types of entities:

There are the ‘intermediaries’ within the traditional, section 2(w) meaning of the IT Act. This would be the broad umbrella term for all entities that would fall within the ambit of the rules.
There are the ‘social media intermediaries’ (SMI), as entities, which enable online interaction between two or more users.
The rules identify ‘significant social media intermediaries’ (SSMI), which would mean entities with user-thresholds as notified by the Central Government.

The levels of obligations vary based on these hierarchies of classification. For instance, an SSMI would be obligated with a much higher standard of transparency and accountability towards their users. They would have to fulfill by publishing six-monthly transparency reports, where they have to outline how they dealt with requests for content removal, how they deployed automated tools to filter content, and so on.

I have previously argued how transparency reports, when done well, are an excellent way of understanding the breadth of government and social media censorships. Legally mandating this is then perhaps a step in the right direction.

Some other requirements under this transparency principle include giving notice to users whose content has been disabled, allowing them to contest such removal, etc.

One of the other rules from the older draft that had raised a significant amount of concern was the proactive filtering mandate, where intermediaries were liable to basically filter for all unlawful content. This was problematic on two counts:

Developments in machine learning technologies are simply not up there to make this a possibility, which would mean that there would always be a chance that legitimate and legal content would get censored, leading to general chilling effect on digital expression
The technical and financial burden this would impose on intermediaries would have impacted the competition in the market.

The new rules seemed to have lessened this burden, by first, reducing it from being mandatory to being best endeavour-basis; and second, by reducing the ambit of ‘unlawful content’ to only include content depicting sexual abuse, child sexual abuse imagery (CSAM) and duplicating to already disabled / removed content.

This specificity would be useful for better deployment of such technologies, since previous research has shown that it’s considerably easier to train a machine learning tool on corpus of CSAM or abuse, rather than on more contextual, subjective matters such as hate speech.

What should go?

That being said, it is concerning that the new rules choose to bring online curated content platforms (OCCPs) within the ambit of the law by proposals of a three-tiered self-regulatory body and schedules outlining guidelines about the rating system these entities should deploy.

In the last two years, several attempts have been made by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), an industry body consisting of representatives of these OCCPs, to bring about a self-regulatory code that fills in the supposed regulatory gap in the Indian law.

It is not known if these stakeholders were consulted before the enactment of these provisions. Some of this framework would also apply to publishers of digital news portals.

Noticeably, this entire chapter was also missing from the old draft, and introducing it in the final form of the law without due public consultations is problematic.

Part III and onwards of the rules, which broadly deal with the regulation of these entities, therefore, should be put on hold and opened up for a period of public and stakeholder consultations to adhere to the true spirit of democratic participation.

The author would like to thank Gurshabad Grover for his editorial suggestions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-intermediary-guidelines-the-good-and-the-bad

Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)

pranesh — 2012-02-20T18:02:44Z

This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.

Suit No 505/11

Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi
vs.
Facebook etc.

20.12.11

Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.

Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.

I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.

In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.

Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.

Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.

Sd/-
(Mukesh Kumar)
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W
Rohini Courts, Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors

MPs to be taught ‘draconian’ IT Act Rules as India.net support galvanises for annul motion

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T10:39:48Z

The blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on April 23, 2012.

Rajya Sabha’s member of parliament (MP) from Kerala, P Rajeeve, whose statutory motion to annul the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 is slated for discussion in Parliament tomorrow, aims to convene a meeting of MPs, internet societies, and bloggers in the first week of May to create awareness against the draconian effect of the rules.

“Most of the MPs need to know about this,” Rajeeve told Legally India, explaining that statutory motions are generally not easy to pass. “Actually we are trying to create awareness by organizing a session. The issue will be the IT Rules 2011 and how it is against the constitution, how it is against natural justice, how it is against due process of law.”

“The motion has been accepted. The committee has allotted time for discussion on the twenty fourth. Thereafter it will come to the house. In this part of the session I am trying to coordinate other MPs to get support”, he said.

Rajeeve’s motion of 23 March 2012, as first reported by CIS-India, was not his first attempt at bringing the IT rules into the spotlight. When the rules were in draft stage, he had made a zero hour mention against them for being in violation of freedom of speech and expression, by over-scrutinising bloggers, over-authorising intermediaries, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.

Rajeeve was one of the nine panelists in the open discussion on “Resisting Internet Censorship”, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Foundation for Media Professionals, in Bangalore on Saturday, 21 April. The discussion, addressing an audience of 40, was moderated by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

Other panelists included Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing website Pinstorm, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, founding member of Centre for Law and Policy Research, Na Vijayashankar, director of Cyber Law College, and Siddharth Narain from the Alternative Law Forum.

Also on the panel were Rishabh Dara, Google policy fellow who conducted a study last year on intermediary liability in India and its chilling effects on free expression, BG Mahesh, founder of Oneindia.com, Ram Bhat, co-founder of community media collective Maraa, and Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at CIS.

Prakash said that the discussion brought together different perspectives, even those of the entrepreneur, like BG Mahesh and Mahesh Murthy. “Transparency in the terms of censorship is good. We are not saying all censorship is bad, but that it should be transparent.”

Prakash told Legally India about the various experiences shared by panelists, of the lack of transparency in the present system of censorship. While one faced harassment by the police over trivial procedural compliances, there was complaint for defamation against an article syndicated by another from a different publication’s press release. “And we read the article over and over and over again but couldn’t find anything which was remotely defamatory.”

Legal experts on the panel, Kirshnaswamy and Vijayashankar, spoke about the constitutionalism behind free speech provisions. Narain shed light on the fact that while excessive energy has been expended on highlighting which content should not be banned, little has been spent on examining the operative procedures behind censorship.

Dara spoke about his research and how it not only revealed that content was being frivolously removed on complaints to intermediaries, but also that the people whose content was being removed were not being informed of the same. There was no public notice of the removal.

Bhat’s discourse drew attention to the history of censorship in India and elicited the fact that the Indian press has in fact been censored in an upsetting manner even since the revolt of 1857.

Murthy made the observation that statistically speaking, in India the number of internet users exceeds television watchers, which has made social media unfathomably important while the internet is no longer elitist.

A number of related Indian initiatives have been gathering momentum in recent months, such as signature campaigns for internet freedom, and offline protests such as the Free Software Movement in Karnataka and the Save your Voice in Delhi, are the order of the day. Other actions include writing to MPs, asking them to vote in favor of Rajeeve’s statutory motion for annulment of the IT rules.

Kerala-based advocate Shojan Jacob filed the first ever writ challenging the rules in the Kerala High Court last month.

The rules enable any individual or public or private institution to get content removed from websites, in most cases simply by notifying the website owners or intermediaries such as Google, Yahoo and others.

Takedown requests can be based on any of 15 vaguely drafted parameters, without stating any reasons or requiring any judicial or quasi-judicial order in support.

Click to read the original.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/draconian-it-rules

Mixed signals? Supreme Court notices to states on Facebook arrests

praskrishna — 2013-08-28T08:42:56Z

In wake of the recent arrests of UP-based scholar Kanwal Bharti and Andhra-based PUCL activist Jaya Vindhyala over their Facebook posts, NDTV aired a discussion on the grey areas of the IT Act. Pranesh Prakash, Shreya Singhal and Faizal Farooqui

The video was published by NDTV on August 16, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The NDTV anchor asked Pranesh that this notice — the indicator coming from the government is that nobody seems to really know what section 66A is all about...and at the end of the day we are going to make a case by case decision.

Pranesh said that:

"This not just about 66A. This is actually about rule of law. We see that the arrest of Kanwal Bharti is actually a legal arrest. It goes against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court saying that routine arrests shouldn't be made in cases where the imprisonment term is less than 7 years. He actually hasn't been charged under 66A, he was charged under the IPC. It is not just about Internet censorship. It also very much about the rule of law and that completely breaking down in India and ... people's persectives and government's perspectives many times are withering away when it comes offensive content or what they deem offensive or communal content being posted online...and if something like what Kanwal Bharti posted is actually deemed to be illegal under those provisions then lots of statements that the Prime Minister of India has said should also be deemed to be equally illegal."

Watch the full video below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-the-social-network-mixed-signals-supreme-court-notices-to-states-on-facebook-arrests

Live Chat: Win for Free Speech

praskrishna — 2015-03-26T16:07:06Z

Join us for a live chat at 5.30 pm on SC striking down the Section 66A of the IT Act which had permitted the arrest of people for posting "offensive content" on the internet.

The live chat transcript was published in the Hindu on March 24, 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the live chat.

In a victory for proponents of free speech, the Supreme Court today struck down Section 66 A of the IT Act, which had permitted the arrest of people for posting “offensive content” on the internet. However, the Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.

What are your views on this ruling? Join us for a live chat today at 5.30 pm with:

Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.

Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.

Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.

and G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu

The Hindu: Hi all, welcome to the live chat on the Supreme Court's much-celebrated decision to strike down Section 66 A of the IT Act. There are caveats of course: For instance, the Court has upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.

5:30

The Hindu: Welcome to Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.

5:31

The Hindu: Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.