Centre for Internet and Society

Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row

pranesh — 2011-12-08T11:31:30Z

We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.

Monday, December 5, 2011

India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)

Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)

Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google | (Press Trust of India)

Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory | (Press Trust of India)

Online uproar as India seeks social media screening | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)

Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship | (IANS)

India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering | John Ribeiro (IDG)

Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs | (Press Trust of India)

Websites must clean up content, says Sibal | (NewsX)

Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial | Press Trust of India

Censorship By Any Other Name... | Yamini Lohia (Mint)

Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people | Associated Press

Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening | Press Trust of India

Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor | (Hindustan Times, Agencies)

Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet | Shivam Vij (India Today)

'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Screening, not censorship, says Sibal | (Business Standard)

Chandni Chowk to China | Salil Tripathi (Mint)

Kapil Sibal vs the internet | Sandipan Deb (Mint)

No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts | (Times News Network)

Protest with flowers for Sibal | (The Hindu)

Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)

Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical | (Reuters)

Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)

BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites | (The Hindu)

Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP | (Press Trust of India)

Sibal under attack in cyberspace | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)

India wants Google, Facebook to screen content | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)

Should we be taming social media? | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)

Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control | (Daily News and Analysis)

'We don't need no limitation' | Asha Prakash (Times of India)

Five reasons why India can't censor the internet | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)

We Are the Web | (Indian Express)

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace, (Press Trust of India)

Speak Up for Freedom | Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)

Newswallah: Censorship | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)

No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot | (NDTV)

Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You | A.A.K. (The Economist)

Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt | (Times News Network)

India wanted 358 items removed | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)

Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views | (Bar & Bench News Network)

Can Government Muzzle Websites? | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)

US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal | (Rediff)

Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone? | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S. | (Press Trust of India)

US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan | Agence France-Presse

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act

pranesh — 2014-12-19T09:01:50Z

There are currently ten cases before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Information Technology Act, the rules made under that, and other laws, that are being heard jointly. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who's arguing Anoop M.K. v. Union of India has put together this chart that helps you track what's being challenged in each case.

PENDING MATTERS	CASE NUMBER	PROVISIONS CHALLENGED
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 167/2012	66A
Common Cause & Anr. v. Union of India	W.P.(C) NO. 21/2013	66A, 69A & 80
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 23/2013	66A & Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 3(7) of the Intermediaries Rules 2011
Dilip Kumar Tulsidas Shah v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 97/2013	66A
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 199/2013	66A, 69A, Intermediaries Rules 2011 (s.79(2) Rules) & Blocking of Access of Information by Public Rules 2009 (s.69A Rules)
Mouthshut.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(C) NO. 217/2013	66A & Intermediaries Rules 2011
Taslima Nasrin v. State of U.P & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 222/2013	66A
Manoj Oswal v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 225/2013	66A & 499/500 Indian Penal Code
Internet and Mobile Ass'n of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 758/2014	79(3) & Intermediaries Rules 2011
Anoop M.K. v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 196/2014	66A, 69A, 80 & S.118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact

National Consultation on Media Law

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T06:52:50Z

The Law Commission of India and the National University, Delhi have joined hands to organize the National Consultation on Media Law at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on September 27 and 28, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event.

Click to view the:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law

Finding Needles in Haystacks - Discussing the Role of Automated Filtering in the New Indian Intermediary Liability Rules

Shweta Mohandas and Torsha Sarkar — 2021-08-03T07:28:53Z

On the 25th of February this year The Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The new Rules broaden the scope of which entities can be considered as intermediaries to now include curated-content platforms (Netflix) as well as digital news publications. This blogpost analyzes the rule on automated filtering, in the context of the growing use of automated content moderation.

This article first appeared on the KU Leuven's Centre for IT and IP (CITIP) blog. Cross-posted with permission.

----

Mathew Sag in his 2018 paper on internet safe harbours discussed how the internet resulted in a shift from the traditional gatekeepers of knowledge (publishing houses) that used to decide what knowledge could be showcased, to a system where everybody who has access to the internet can showcase their work. A “content creator” today ranges from legacy media companies to any person who has access to a smartphone and an internet connection. In a similar trajectory, with the increase in websites and mobile apps and the functions that they serve, the scope of what is an internet intermediary has widened all over the world.

Who is an Intermediary?

In India the definition of “intermediary” is found under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000, which defines an Intermediary as “with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecoms service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-marketplaces and cyber cafes”. The all-encompassing nature of the definition has allowed the dynamic nature of intermediaries to be included under the definition of the Act, and the Guidelines that have been published periodically (2011, 2018 and 2021). With more websites and social media companies, and even more content creators online today, there is a need to look at ways in which intermediaries can remove illegal content or content that goes against their community guidelines.

Along with the definition of an intermediary, the IT Act, under Section 79, provides exemptions which grant safe harbours to internet intermediaries, from liability from third-party content, and further empowers the central government to make Rules that act as guidelines for the intermediaries to follow. The Intermediary Liability Rules hence seek to regulate content and lay down safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and internet service providers. To keep up with the changing nature of the internet and internet intermediaries, India relies on the Intermediary Liability Rules to regulate and provide a conducive environment for intermediaries. In view of this provision India has as of now published three versions of the Intermediary Liability (IL) Rules. The first Rules came out in 2011, followed by the introduction of draft amendments to the law in 2018 and finally the latest 2021 version, which would supersede the earlier Rules of 2011.

The Growing Use of Automated Content Moderation

With each version of the Rules there seemed to be changes that ensured that they were abreast with the changing face of the internet and the changing nature of both content and content creator. Hence the 2018 version of the Rules showcase a push towards automated content filtering. The text of Rule 3(9) reads as follows: “The Intermediary shall deploy technology based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content”.

Under Rule 3(9), intermediaries were required to deploy automated tools or appropriate mechanisms to proactively identify, remove or disable public access to unlawful content. However, neither the 2018 IL Rules, nor the parent Act (the IT Act) specified which content can be deemed unlawful. The 2018 Rules also failed to establish the specific responsibilities of the intermediaries, instead relying on vague terms like “appropriate mechanisms” and with “appropriate controls”. Hence it can be seen that though the Rules mandated the use of automated tools, neither them nor the IT Act provided clear guidelines on what could be removed.

The lack of clear guidelines and list of content that can be removed had left the decision up to the intermediaries to decide which content, if not actively removed, could cost them their immunity. It has been previously documented that the lack of clear guidelines in the 2011 version of the Rules, led to intermediaries over complying with take down notices, often taking down content that did not warrant it. The existing tendency to over-comply, combined with automated filtering could have resulted in a number of unwarranted take downs.

While the 2018 Rules mandated the deployment of automated tools, the year 2020, (possibly due to the pandemic induced work from home safety protocols and global lockdowns) saw major social media companies announcing the move towards a fully automated system of content moderation. Though the use of automated content removal seems like the right step considering the trauma that human moderators had to go through, the algorithms that are being used now to remove content are relying on the parameters, practices and data from earlier removals made by the human moderators. More recently, in India with the emergence of the second wave of the COVID19 wave, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has asked social media platforms to remove “unrelated, old and out of the context images or visuals, communally sensitive posts and misinformation about COVID19 protocols”.

The New IL Rules - A ray of hope?

The 2021 version of the IL Rules provides a more nuanced approach to the use of automated content filtering compared to the earlier version. Rule 4(4) now requires only “significant social media intermediaries” to use automated tools to identity and take down content pertaining to “child sexual abuse material”, or “depicting rape”, or any information which is identical to a content that has already been removed through a take-down notice. The Rules define a social media intermediary as “intermediary which primarily or solely enables interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services” .The Rules also go a step further to create another type of intermediary, the significant social media intermediary. A significant social media intermediary is defined as one “having a number of registered users in India above such threshold as notified by the Central Government''. Hence what can be considered as a social media intermediary that qualifies as a significant one could change at any time.

Along with adding a new threshold (qualifying as a significant social media intermediary) the Rules, in contrast to the 2018 version, also emphasises the need of such removal to be proportionate to the interests of freedom of speech and expression and privacy of users. The Rules also call for “appropriate human oversight” as well as a periodic review of the tools used for content moderation. The Rules by using the term “shall endeavor” aids in reducing the pressure on the intermediary to set up these mechanisms. This also means that the requirement is now on a best effort basis, as opposed to the word “shall” in the 2018 version of the Rules, which made it mandatory.

Although the Rules now narrow down the instances where automated content removal can take place, the concerns around over compliance and censorship still loom. One of the reasons for concern is that the Rules still fail to require the intermediaries to set up a mechanism for redress or for appeals to such removal. Additionally, the provision that states that automated systems could remove content that have been previously taken down, creates a cause for worry as the propensity of the intermediaries to over comply and take down content has already been documented. This then brings us back to the previous issue where the social media company’s automated systems were removing legitimate news sources. Though the 2021 Rules tries to clarify certain provisions related to automated filtering, like the addition of the safeguards, the Rules also suffer from vague provisions that could cause issues related to compliance. The use of terms such as “proportionate”, “having regard to free speech” etc. fail to lay down definitive directions for the intermediaries (in this case SSMI) to comply with. Additionally, as earlier stated, being qualified as a SSMI can change at any time, either based on the change in the number of users, or the change in the threshold of users, mandated by the government. The absence of human intervention during removal, vague guidelines and fear of losing out on safe harbour provisions, add to the already increasing trend of censorship in social media. With the use of automated means and the fast, and almost immediate removal of content would mean that certain content creators might not even be able to post their content online. With the use of proactive filtering through automated means the content can be removed almost immediately. With India’s current trend of new internet users, some of these creators would also be first time users of the internet.

Conclusion

The need for automated removal of content is understandable, based not only on the sheer volume of content but also the nightmare stories of the toll it takes on human content moderators, who otherwise have to go through hours of disturbing content. Though the Indian Intermediary Liability Guidelines have improved from the earlier versions in terms of moving away from mandating proactive filtering, there still needs to be consideration of how these technologies are used, and the laws should understand the shift in the definition of who a content creator is. There needs to be ways of recourse to unfair removal of content and a means to get an explanation of why the content was removed, via notices to the user. In the case of India, the notices should be in Indian languages as well, so that the people are able to understand them.

In the absence of further clear guidelines, the perils of over-censorship by the intermediaries in order to stay out of trouble could lead to further stifling of not just freedom of speech but also access to information. In addition, the fear of content being taken down or even potential prosecution could mean that people resort to self-censorship, preventing them from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. We hope that the next version of the Rules take a more nuanced approach to automated content removal and ensure adequate and specific safeguards to ensure a conducive environment for both intermediaries and content creators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/finding-needles-in-haystacks-discussing-the-role-of-automated-filtering-in-the-new-indian-intermediary-liability-rules

India ranks second globally in accessing private details of users

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T04:49:23Z

According to the latest transparency report released by Google, India ranks second in the world for accessing private details of its citizens, only after the U.S. The Google report lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access details of users of its various services.

Kul Bhushan's blog post was published in thinkdigit on November 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Google's data reveals India had made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users in the first six months. The U.S. made 7,969 requests, while Brazil, which ranks third, made 1,566 requests during the same period. Worldwide 20,938 requests were made during the January-June period. The report says the information shared included complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others.

The requests for accessing user data from India had grown two-fold from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011, the report points out.

According to the report, India has been consistently sending requests to remove content which it brands as defamatory and against national security. The court orders, however, to take down content has remained almost stagnant over the years; though requests from the executive and police have grown.

In the first six months this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. During the January-June 2010 period, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests, resulting in 125 items being taken down. Read about Google's previous transparency report here.

"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," Times of India quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society ( CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness, as saying.

"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," added Prakash.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users

Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T12:24:52Z

A standoff between the government and microblogging service Twitter, that has got India's online community up in arms, continues, as Twitter is still to act on India's requests to block some of the fake 'PMO India' accounts.

This article was published in the Economic Times on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

India's Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said, "Twitter has not responded to our requests in a satisfactory manner. The fake accounts are still there. The government of India is contemplating what action should be taken against Twitter and this will be announced as soon as we have finalised our response," he said.

Sibal further added that the government received a response from the US Department of Justice, which also agreed that the content on the sites India sought to ban was inappropriate.

Twitter's operating code allows for parody accounts to be allowed as long as such accounts clearly identify as parody. The accounts in question - including @Indian_pm, @PMOIndiaa, @dryumyumsingh, @PM0India- do so.

Unlike other popular parody accounts of world leaders, though, some of these accounts make no attempt to 'spoof' tweets from the Prime Minister. The user of the @PM0India handle, with over 11 thousand followers, has changed their handle to @thehinduexpress, and tweeted "When I've to parody PM, I'll use the other a/c and RT that. For countering media and Congress, this ID will be used. To hell with censorship."

An email by ET to Twitter Inc, received no response at the time of going to press. However, news agency PTI quoted sources saying that Twitter has communicated to the PMO that it would be locating the "unlawful content". "India is important to us and we would like to have clearer communication in these matters in future," PTI quoted Twitter as saying. Official spokesperson for Indian Prime Minister's Office Pankaj Pachauri confirmed that Twitter is looking into the matter.

Over the past few days, the government has blocked around 300 websites which it blames for spreading rumours that triggered the exodus of people from the North East from several cities. Google and Facebook on Tuesday told ET they were working with India in removing content which can incite violence.

"There is clear evidence that these social networks have caused harm and disruption. However, they need to be clearer about the way they go about blocking sites and other links. The block order contained around 20 accounts and over 80 Youtube videos.

It also had several mainstream media reports and a few Pakistani sites," Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said. Analysts do not rule out the possibility that Twitter itself will be blocked in India if it does not act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economictimes-indiatimes-com-govt-asks-twitter-to-block-fake-pmo-india-accounts-site-fails-to-respond

Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary

Rishabh Dara — 2016-04-24T11:54:22Z

This document provides a critique of “The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 and proposes an alternate set of Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf

Content takedown and users' rights

Torsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover — 2020-02-17T05:18:25Z

After Shreya Singhal v Union of India, commentators have continued to question the constitutionality of the content takedown regime under Section 69A of the IT Act (and the Blocking Rules issued under it). There has also been considerable debate around how the judgement has changed this regime: specifically about (i) whether originators of content are entitled to a hearing, (ii) whether Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative, and (iii) the effect of Rule 16 on the rights of the originator and the public to challenge executive action. In this opinion piece, we attempt to answer some of these questions.

This article was first published at the Leaflet. It has subsequently been republished by Scroll.in, Kashmir Observer and the CyberBRICS blog.

Introduction

Last year, several Jio users from different states reported that sites like Indian Kanoon, Reddit and Telegram were inaccessible through their connections. While attempting to access the website, the users were presented with a notice that the websites were blocked on orders from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). When contacted by the founder of Indian Kanoon, Reliance Jio stated that the website had been blocked on orders of the government, and that the order had been rescinded the same evening. However, in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request, the DoT said they had no information about orders relating to the blocking of Indian Kanoon.

Alternatively, consider that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed concern last year that the Indian government was forcing Twitter to suspend accounts or remove content relating to Kashmir. They reported that over the last two years, the Indian government suppressed a substantial amount of information coming from the area, and prevented Indians from accessing more than five thousand tweets.

These instances are symptomatic of a larger problem of opaque and arbitrary content takedown in India, enabled by the legal framework under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The Government derives its powers to order intermediaries (entities storing or transmitting information on behalf of others, a definition which includes internet service providers and social media platforms alike) to block online resources through section 69A of the IT Act and the rules [“the blocking rules”] notified thereunder. Apart from this, section 79 of the IT Act and its allied rules also prescribe a procedure for content removal. Conversations with one popular intermediary revealed that the government usually prefers to use its powers under section 69A, possibly because of the opaque nature of the procedure that we highlight below.

Under section 69A, a content removal request can be sent by authorised personnel in the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary. The grounds for issuance of blocking orders under section 69A are: “the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to the above.” Specifically, the blocking rules envisage the process of blocking to be largely executive-driven, and require strict confidentiality to be maintained around the issuance of blocking orders. This shrouds content takedown orders in a cloak of secrecy, and makes it impossible for users and content creators to ascertain the legitimacy or legality of the government action in any instance of blocking.

Issues

The Supreme Court had been called to determine the constitutional validity of section 69A and the allied rules in Shreya Singhal v Union of India. The petitioners had contended that as per the procedure laid down by these rules, there was no guarantee of pre-decisional hearing afforded to the originator of the information. Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that the safeguards built into section 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allow state governments to ban publications and persons to initiate legal challenges to those actions respectively, were absent from the blocking procedures. Lastly, the petitioners assailed rule 16 of the blocking rules, which mandated confidentiality of blocking procedures, on the grounds that it was affecting their fundamental rights.

The Court, however, found little merit in these arguments. Specifically, the Court found that section 69A was narrowly drawn and had sufficient procedural safeguards, which included the grounds of issuance of a blocking order being specifically drawn, and mandating that the reasons of the website blocking be in writing, thus making it amenable to judicial review. Further, the Court also found that the provision of setting up of a review committee saved the law from being constitutional infirmity. In the Court’s opinion, the mere absence of additional safeguards, as the ones built into the CrPC, did not mean that the law was unconstitutional.

But do the ground realities align with the Court’s envisaged implementation of these principles? Apar Gupta, a counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that there was no recorded instance of pre-decisional hearing being granted to show that this safeguard contained in the rules was actually being implemented. However, Gautam Bhatia read Shreya Singhal to make an important advance: that the right of hearing be mandatorily extended to the ‘originator’, i.e. the content creator.

Additionally, Bhatia also noted that the Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the procedure under section 69A, held that the “reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

There are two important takeaways from this. Firstly, he argued that the broad contours of the judgment invoke an established constitutional doctrine — that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) does not merely include the right of expression, but also the right of access to information. Accordingly, the right of challenging a blocking order was not only vested in the originator or the concerned intermediary, but may rest with the general public as well. And secondly, by the doctrine of necessary implication, it followed that for the general public to challenge any blocking order under Article 226, the blocking orders must be made public. While Bhatia concedes that public availability of blocking orders may be an over-optimistic reading of the judgment, recent events suggest that even the commonly-expected result, i.e. that the content creators having the right to a hearing, has not been implemented by the Government.

Consider the blocking of the satirical website DowryCalculator.com in September 2019 on orders from the government. The website displayed a calculator that suggests a ‘dowry’ depending on the salary and education of a prospective groom: even if someone misses the satire, the contents of the website are not immediately relatable to any grounds of removal listed under section 69A of the IT Act.

Tanul Thakur, the creator of the website, was not granted a hearing despite the fact that he had publicly claimed the ownership of the website at various times and that the website had been covered widely by the press. The information associated with the domain name also publicly lists Thakur’s name and contact information. Clearly, the government made no effort to contact Thakur when passing the order. Perhaps even more worryingly, when he tried to access a copy of the blocking order by filing a RTI, the MeitY cited the confidentiality rule to deny him the information.

This incident documents a fundamental problem plaguing the rules: the confidentiality clause is still being used to deny disclosure of key information on content takedown orders. The government has also used the provision to deny citizens a list of blocked websites , as responses to RTI requests have proven time and again.

Clearly, the Supreme Court’s rationale in considering Section 69A and the blocking rules as constitutional is not one that is implemented in reality. The confidentiality clause is preventing legal challenges to content blocking in totality: content creators are unable access the orders, and hence are unable to understand the executive’s reasoning in ordering their content to be blocked from public access.

As we noted earlier, the grounds of issuing a blocking order under section 69A pertain to certain reasonable restrictions on expression permitted by Article 19(2), which are couched in broad terms. The government’s implementation of section 69A and the rules make it impossible for any judicial review or accountability on the conformity of blocking orders with the mentioned grounds under the rules, or any reasonable restriction at all.

The Way Forward

From the opacity of proceedings under the law, to the lack of information regarding the same on public domain, the Indian content takedown regime leaves a lot to be desired from both the government and intermediaries at play.

First, we believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India casts an obligation on the government to attempt to contact the content creator if they are passing a content takedown order to an intermediary. Second, even if the content creator is unavailable for a hearing at that instance, the confidentiality clause should not be used to prevent future disclosure of information to the content creator, so that affected citizens can access and challenge these orders.

While we wait for legal reform, intermediaries can also step up to ensure the rights of users online are upheld. On receiving formal orders, intermediaries should assess the legality of the received request. This should involve ensuring that only authorised agencies and personnel have sent the content removal orders, that the order specifically mentions what provision the government is exercising the power under, and that the content removal requests relate to the grounds of removal that are permissible under section 69A. For instance, intermediaries should refuse to entertain content removal requests under section 69A of the IT Act if they relate to obscenity, a ground not covered by the provision.

The representatives of the intermediary should also push for the committee to grant a hearing to the content creator. Here, the intermediary can act as a liaison between the uploader and the governmental authorities.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India offers a glimmer of hope for user rights online. While the case primarily challenged the orders imposing section 144 of the CrPC and a communication blockade in Jammu and Kashmir, the final decision does affirm the fundamental principle that government-imposed restrictions on the freedom of expression and assembly must be made available to the public and affected parties to enable challenges in a court of law.

The judiciary has yet another opportunity to consider the provision and the rules: late last year, Tanul Thakur approached the Delhi High Court to challenge the orders passed by the government to ISPs to block his website. One hopes that the future holds robust reforms to the content takedown regime.

We live in an era where the ebb and flow of societal discourse is increasingly channeled through intermediaries on the internet. In the absence of a mature, balanced and robust framework that enshrines the rule of law, we risk arbitrary modulation of the marketplace of ideas by the executive.

Torsha Sakar and Gurshabad Grover are researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society.

Disclosure: The Centre for Internet and Society is a recipient of research grants from Facebook and Google.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-takedown-and-users-rights-1

Indian Intermediary Liability Regime: Compliance with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability

divij — 2018-05-20T15:14:21Z

This report assesses the compliance of the Indian intermediary liability framework with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, and recommends substantive legislative changes to bring the legal framework in line with the Manila Principles.

The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Swaraj Barooah

The report is an examination of Indian laws based upon the background paper to the Manila Principles as the explanatory text on which these recommendations have been based, and not an assessment of the principles themselves. To do this, the report considers the Indian regime in the context of each of the principles defined in the Manila Principles. As such, the explanatory text to the Manila Principles recognizes that diverse national and political scenario may require different intermediary liability legal regimes, however, this paper relies only on the best practices prescribed under the Manila Principles.

The report is divided into the following sections

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

Download the Full report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-intermediary-liability-regime

Inter Movements Open Forum: Trafficking Bill

Admin — 2018-08-18T09:21:02Z

On 18 May 2018 Gurshabad Grover on behalf of CIS presented comments on the Trafficking (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2018 at a meeting of the Inter Movements Open Forum jointly organised by Sangram, Naz Foundation, NNSW, Tarshi and VAMP. The meeting was held at India International Centre in New Delhi.

Gurshabad's presentation was based on Swaraj's blogpost and subsequent research by Kumarjeet that highlights certain problematic sections (36, 39, 41, 59) in the Bill which may have an adverse impact on freedom of expression, and may additionally change the landscape of intermediary liability rules in India.

Read the agenda here

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inter-movements-open-forum-trafficking-bill

Comments to the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Anamika Kundu, Digvijay Chaudhary, Divyansha Sehgal, Isha Suri and Torsha Sarkar — 2022-07-07T02:39:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) presented its comments on the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘the rules’), which were released on 6 June, 2022 for public comments.

These comments examine whether the proposed amendments are in adherence to established principles of constitutional law, intermediary liability and other relevant legal doctrines. We thank the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) for allowing us this opportunity. Our comments are divided into two parts. In the first part, we reiterate some of our comments to the existing version of the rules, which we believe holds relevance for the proposed amendments as well. And in the second part, we provide issue-wise comments that we believe need to be addressed prior to finalising the amendments to the rules.

To access the full text of the Comments to the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-to-draft-amendments-to-the-it-rules-2021

DeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures

jyoti — 2015-04-30T07:37:40Z

Across India on 30 December 2014, following an order issued by the Department of Telecom (DOT), Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked 32 websites including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.

In February 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. We have received a response from DeitY which may be seen here.

In this post, I shall elaborate on this response from DeitY and highlight some of the accountability and transparency measures that the procedure needs. To stress the urgency of reform, I shall also touch upon two recent developments—the response from Ministry of Communication to questions raised in Parliament on the blocking procedures and the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Section 69A and the Blocking Rules

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (S69A hereinafter) grants powers to the central government to issue directions for blocking of access to any information through any computer resource. In other words, it allows the government to block any websites under certain grounds. The Government has notified rules laying down the procedure for blocking access online under the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009 (Rules, 2009 hereinafter). CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (download PDF, 2.037MB).

There are three key aspects of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:

Officers and committees handling requests

Designated Officer (DO) – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.
Nodal Officer (NO) – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government.
Intermediary contact–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.
Committee for Examination of Request (CER) – The request along with printed sample of alleged offending information is examined by the CER—committee with the DO serving as the Chairperson and representatives from Ministry of Law and Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and representative from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). The CER is responsible for examining each blocking request and makes recommendations including revoking blocking orders to the DO, which are taken into consideration for final approval of request for blocking by the Secretary, DOT.
Review Committee (RC) – Constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951, the RC includes the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom). The RC is mandated to meet at least once in 2 months and record its findings and has to validate that directions issued are in compliance with S69A(1).

Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking

Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.

a) Rule 6 lays out the first procedure, under which any person may approach the NO and request blocking, alternatively, the NO may also raise a blocking request. After the NO of the approached Ministry or Department of the State governments and Union Territories and/or any agency of the Central Government, is satisfied of the validity of the request they forward it to the DO. Requests when not sent through the NO of any organization, must be approved by Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory or the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, before being sent to the DO.

The DO upon receiving the request places, must acknowledge receipt within 24 four hours and places the request along with printed copy of alleged information for validation by the CER. The DO also, must make reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary hosting the information, and having identified them issue a notice asking them to appear and submit their reply and clarifications before the committee at a specified date and time, within forty eight hours of the receipt of notice.

Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed and the CER gives it recommendations after hearing from the intermediary or the person has clarified their position and even if there is no representation by the same and after examining if the request falls within the scope outlined under S69A(1). The blocking directions are issued by the Secretary (DeitY), after the DO forwards the request and the CER recommendations. If approval is granted the DO directs the relevant intermediary or person to block the alleged information.

b) Rule 9 outlines a procedure wherein, under emergency circumstances, and after the DO has established the necessity and expediency to block alleged information submits recommendations in writing to the Secretary, DeitY. The Secretary, upon being satisfied by the justification for, and necessity of, and expediency to block information may issue an blocking directions as an interim measure and must record the reasons for doing so in writing.

Under such circumstances, the intermediary and person hosting information is not given the opportunity of a hearing. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the request before the CER within forty eight hours of issuing of directions for interim blocking. Only upon receiving the final recommendations from the committee can the Secretary pass a final order approving the request. If the request for blocking is not approved then the interim order passed earlier is revoked, and the intermediary or identified person should be directed to unblock the information for public access.

c) Rule 10 outlines the process when an order is issued by the courts in India. The DO upon receipt of the court order for blocking of information submits it to the Secretary, DeitY and initiates action as directed by the courts.

Confidentiality clause

Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding all requests and actions taken thereof, which renders any requests received by the NO and the DO, recommendations made by the DO or the CER and any written reasons for blocking or revoking blocking requests outside the purview of public scrutiny. More detail on the officers and committees that enforce the blocking rules and procedure can be found here.

Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology

The response to our RTI from E-Security and Cyber Law Group is timely, given the recent clarification from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to a number of questions, raised by parliamentarian Shri Avinash Pande in the Rajya Sabha. The questions had been raised in reference to the Emergency blocking order under IT Act, the current status of the Central Monitoring System, Data Privacy law and Net Neutrality. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University New Delhi have extracted a set of 6 questions and you can read the full article here.

The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date and that a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015) under S69A through the Committee constituted under the rules therein. Further, a total of 2091 URLs and 143 URLs were blocked in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts of India in 2014 and 2015 (till 31 March 2015) respectively. The government also clarified that the CER, had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1^stJanuary 2014 upto till date and so far, two orders have been issued to revoke 251 blocked URLs from 1st January 2014 till date. Besides, CERT-In received requests for blocking of objectionable content from individuals and organisations, and these were forwarded to the concerned websites for appropriate action, however the response did not specify the number of requests.

We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.

Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules	Number of websites
	2014	2015	Total
Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others	255	None	255
Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances	-	-	216
Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court	2091	143	2234
Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In	-	-	-
Recommendations to not block by CER	-	-	19
Number of blocking requests revoked	-	-	251

In a response to an RTI filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, DeitY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

In its recent judgment, the SC of India upheld the constitutionality of 69A, stating that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards. The constitutional challenge on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) considered the manner in which the blocking is done and the arguments focused on the secrecy present in blocking.

The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert has pointed out, there is no evidence of this in practice. The court has stressed the importance of a written order so that writ petitions may be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In doing so, the court seems to have assumed that the originator or intermediary is informed, and therefore held the view that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions. However, this recourse is rendered ineffective not only due to procedural constraints, but also because of the confidentiality clause. The opaqueness through rule 16 severely reigns in the recourse that may be given to the originator and the intermediary. While the court notes that rule 16 requiring confidentality was argued to be unconstitutional, it does not state its opinion on this question in the judgment. One expert, holds the view that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.

Further, Sunil Abraham has pointed out, “block orders are unevenly implemented by ISPs making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.” As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders through which they are blocked exists, the public has to rely on media reports and filing RTI requests to understand the censorship regime in India. CIS has previously analysed the leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests which have revealed that the block orders are full of errors and blocking of entire platforms and not just specific links has taken place.

While the state has the power of blocking content, doing so in secrecy and without judical scrutiny, mark deficiencies that remain in the procedure outlined under the provisions of the blocking rules . The Court could read down rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions, and in not doing so, perhaps has overlooked the opportunities for reform in the existing system. The blocking of 32 websites, is an example of the opaqueness of the system of blocking orders, and where the safeguards assumed by the SC are often not observed such as there being no access to the recommendations that were made by the CER, or towards the revocation of the blocking orders subsequently. CIS filed the RTI to try and understand the grounds for blocking and related procedures and the response has thrown up some issues that must need urgent attention.

Response to RTI filed by CIS

Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30^thDecember 2014 and the response received from DeitY, E-Security and Cyber Law Group reveals that the websites had been blocked as “they were being used to post information related to ISIS using the resources provided by these websites”. The response also clarifies that the directions to block were issued on 18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.

It is not clear if ATS, Mumbai had been intercepting communication or if someone reported these websites. If the ATS was indeed intercepting communication, then as per the rules, the RC should be informed and their recommendations sought. It is unclear, if this was the case and the response evokes the confidentiality clause under rule 16 for not divulging further details. Based on our reading of the rules, court orders should be accessible to the public and without copies of requests and complaints received and knowledge of which organization raised them, there can be no appeal or recourse available to the intermediary or even the general public.

We also asked for a list of all requests for blocking of information that had been received by the DO between January 2013 and January 2015, including the copies of all files that had accepted or rejected. We also specifically, asked for a list of requests under rule 9. The response from DeitY stated that since January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 directions to block 143 URLs had been issued based on court orders. The response completely overlooks our request for information, covering the 2 year time period. It also does not cover all types of blocking orders under rule 6 and rule 9, nor the requests that are forwarded to CERT-In, as we have gauged from the ministry's response to the Parliament. Contrary to the SC's assumption of contacting the orginator of information, it is also clear from DeitY's response that only the websites had been contacted and the letter states that the “websites replied only after blocking of objectionable content”.

Further, seeking clarification on the functioning of the CER, we asked for the recent composition of members and the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings including copies of the recommendations made by them. The response merely quotes rule 7 as the reference for the composition and does not provide any names or other details. We ascertain that as per the DeitY website Shri B.J. Srinath, Scientist-G/GC is the appointed Designated Officer, however this needs confirmation. While we are already aware of the structure of the CER which representatives and appointed public officers are guiding the examination of requests remains unclear. Presently, there are 3 Joint Secretaries appointed under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Home Ministry has appointed 19, while 3 are appointed under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, it is not clear which grade of scientist would be appointed to this committee from CERT-In as the rules do not specify this. While the government has clarified in their answer to Parliament that the committee had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1st January 2014 to till date, it is remains unclear who is taking these decisions to block and revoke blocked URLs. The response from DeitY specifies that the CER has met six times between 2014 and March 2015, however stops short on sharing any further information or copies of files on complaints and recommendations of the CER, citing rule 16.

Finally, answering our question on the composition of the RC the letter merely highlights the provision providing for the composition under 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The response clarifies that so far, the RC has met once on 7th December, 2013 under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, Department of Legal Affaits and Secretary, DOT. Our request for minutes of meetings and copies of orders and findings of the RC is denied by simply stating that “minutes are not available”. Under 419A, any directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 issued by the competent authority shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned RC within a period of seven working days. Given that the RC has met just once since 2013, it is unclear if the RC is not functioning or if the interception of messages is being guided through other procedures. Further, we do not yet know details or have any records of revocation orders or notices sent to intermediary contacts. This restricts the citizens’ right to receive information and DeitY should work to make these available for the public.

Given the response to our RTI, the Ministry's response to Parliament and the SC judgment we recommend the following steps be taken by the DeitY to ensure that we create a procedure that is just, accountable and follows the rule of law.

The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:

Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.
In upholding the constitutionality of S69A the SC cites the requirement of reasons behind blocking orders to be recorded in writing, so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under A rticle 226 of the Constitution of India.

If the blocking orders or the meetings of the CER and RC that consider the reasons in the orders are to remain shrouded in secrecy and unavailable through RTI requests, filing writ petitions challenging these decisions will not be possible, rendering this very important safeguard for the protection of online free speech and expression infructuous. In summation, the need for comprehensive legislative reform remains in the blocking procedures and the government should act to address the pressing need for transparency and accountability. Not only does opacity curtial the strengths of democracy it also impedes good governance. We have filed an RTI seeking a comprehensive account of the blocking procedure, functioning of committees from 2009-2015 and we shall publish any information that we may receive.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015

The Ministry And The Trace: Subverting End-To-End Encryption

Gurshabad Grover, Tanaya Rajwade and Divyank Katira — 2021-07-12T08:18:18Z

A legal and technical analysis of the 'traceability' rule and its impact on messaging privacy.

The paper was published in the NUJS Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 (2021).

Abstract

End-to-end encrypted messaging allows individuals to hold confidential conversations free from the interference of states and private corporations. To aid surveillance and prosecution of crimes, the Indian Government has mandated online messaging providers to enable identification of originators of messages that traverse their platforms. This paper establishes how the different ways in which this ‘traceability’ mandate can be implemented (dropping end-to-end encryption, hashing messages, and attaching originator information to messages) come with serious costs to usability, security and privacy. Through a legal and constitutional analysis, we contend that traceability exceeds the scope of delegated legislation under the Information Technology Act, and is at odds with the fundamental right to privacy.

Click here to read the full paper.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-ministry-and-the-trace-subverting-end-to-end-encryption

Panel Discussion on Internet Intermediaries, Law and Innovation

jyoti — 2015-06-14T16:37:56Z

CII, Google and Centre For Communications Governance, NLU Delhi hosted a panel discussion on June 2 in New Delhi. Jyoti Panday attended.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) participated in the panel discussion on 'Internet Intermediaries, Law and Innovation' hosted by CII, Google and Centre For Communications Governance, NLU Delhi. The panel discussed the impact of the existing provisions on intermediary liability and innovation and sought suggestions and the way forward.

The panel was moderated by Dr Subho Ray, President, IAMAI

Other panelists included:

Mr Anupam Chander, Eminent Global Lawyer & Academician
Mr Apar Gupta, Advocate
Ms Mishi Choudhary, Founding Director , Software Freedom Law Centre
Mr J Sai Deepak, Associate Partner, Litigation Team, Saikrishna & Associates

Mr Indranil Choudhury, Founder and CEO, Lexplosion

Click to download the presentation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/panel-discussion-on-internet-intermediaries-law-and-innovation

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