Centre for Internet and Society

Consumer Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-13T09:21:26Z

This chapter will examine the present legal state of consumer privacy in India and seek to understand the gap between policy and implementation of policy. In doing so, it will look at what are the existing avenues for protection of consumer privacy in India, how is the definition of consumer privacy evolving through case law and public opinion, and what are the current challenges to consumer privacy in India. Traditionally speaking, and according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in India, a consumer is a broad label for any person who buys goods or services with the intent of using them for non-commercial purposes. In the typical sense, when people think of themselves as being consumers, they think about transactions with a vendor through a physical exchange of money in a store or through an online exchange for a product or service. Certain services that consumers use put an extraordinary amount of sensitive personal information into the hands of vendors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/consumer-privacy.pdf

Women in the Future of Work

Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi — 2019-02-22T01:41:32Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/women-in-future-of-work.pdf

Divergence between the GDPR and PDP Bill 2019

pallavi — 2020-02-21T13:05:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/divergence-between-the-gdpr-and-pdp-bill-2019

Privacy & Media Law

Sonal Makhija — 2012-12-14T10:26:51Z

In her research, Sonal Makhija, a Bangalore-based lawyer, tries to delineate the emerging privacy concerns in India and the existing media norms and guidelines on the right to privacy. The research examines the existing media norms (governed by Press Council of India, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Code of Ethics drafted by the News Broadcasting Standard Authority), the constitutional protection guaranteed to an individual’s right to privacy upheld by the courts, and the reasons the State employs to justify the invasion of privacy. The paper further records, both domestic and international, inclusions and exceptions with respect to the infringement of privacy.

Introduction

Last year’s satirical release, Peepli [Live], accurately captured what takes place in media news rooms. The film revolves around a debt-ridden farmer whose announcement to commit suicide ensue a media circus. Ironically, in the case of the Radia tapes, the same journalists found themselves in the centre of the media’s frenzy-hungry, often intrusive and unverified style of reporting.[1] Exposés, such as, the Radia tapes and Wikileaks have thrown open the conflict between the right to information, or what has come to be called ‘informational activism’, and the right to privacy. Right to information and the right to communicate the information via media is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain,[2] the Supreme Court of India held that Article 19(1) (a), in addition, to guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, guarantees the right to receive information on matters concerning public interest. However, more recently concerns over balancing the right to information with the right to privacy have been raised, especially, by controversies like the Radia-tapes.

For instance, last year Ratan Tata filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India alleging that the unauthorised publication of his private conversations with Nira Radia was in violation of his right to privacy. The writ, filed by the industrialist, did not challenge the action of the Directorate-General of Income Tax to record the private conversations for the purpose of investigations. Instead, it was challenging the publication of the private conversations that took place between the industrialist and Nira Radia by the media. Whether the publication of those private conversations was in the interest of the public has been widely debated. What the Tata episode brought into focus was the need for a law protecting the right to privacy in India.

India, at present, does not have an independent statute protecting privacy; the right to privacy is a deemed right under the Constitution. The right to privacy has to be understood in the context of two fundamental rights: the right to freedom under Article 19 and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The higher judiciary of the country has recognised the right to privacy as a right “implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21”. The Indian law has made some exceptions to the rule of privacy in the interest of the public, especially, subsequent to the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The RTI Act, makes an exception under section 8 (1) (j), which exempts disclosure of any personal information which is not connected to any public activity or of public interest or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual. What constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy is not defined. However, courts have taken a positive stand on what constitutes privacy in different circumstances.

The purpose of this paper is to delineate the emerging privacy concerns in India and the existing media norms and guidelines on the right to privacy. At present, the media is governed by disparate norms outlined by self-governing media bodies, like the Press Council of India, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Code of Ethics drafted by the News Broadcasting Standard Authority (NBSA). The paper examines the existing media norms, constitutional protection guaranteed to an individual’s right to privacy and upheld by courts, and the reasons the State employs to justify the invasion of privacy. The paper records, both domestic and international, inclusions and exceptions with respect to the infringement of privacy.

The paper traces the implementation of media guidelines and the meanings accorded to commonly used exceptions in reporting by the media, like, ‘public interest’ and ‘public person’. This paper is not an exhaustive attempt to capture all privacy and media related debates. It does, however, capture debates within the media when incursion on the right to privacy is considered justifiable. The questions that the paper seeks to respond to are: When is the invasion on the right to privacy defensible? How the media balances the right to privacy with the right to information? How is ‘public interest’ construed in day-to-day reporting? The questions raised are seen in the light of case studies on the invasion of privacy in the media, the interviews conducted with print journalists, the definition of the right to privacy under the Constitution of India and media’s code of ethics.

Constitutional Framework of Privacy

The right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. It is guaranteed under the right to freedom (Article 19) and the right to life (Article 21) of the Constitution. Article 19(1) (a) guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is the right to freedom of speech and expression that gives the media the right to publish any information. Reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right can be imposed by the State in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the State, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Article 21 of the Constitution provides, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Courts have interpreted the right to privacy as implicit in the right to life. In R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N.[3]; and PUCL v. UOI[4], the courts observed that the right to privacy is an essential ingredient of the right to life.

For instance, in R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, Auto Shankar — who was sentenced to death for committing six murders — in his autobiography divulged his relations with a few police officials. The Supreme Court in dealing with the question on the right to privacy, observed, that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of the country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be left alone.’ "A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters.” The publication of any of the aforesaid personal information without the consent of the person, whether accurate or inaccurate and ‘whether laudatory or critical’ would be in violation of the right to privacy of the person and liable for damages. The exception being, when a person voluntarily invites controversy or such publication is based on public records, then there is no violation of privacy.

In PUCL v. UOI,[5]which is popularly known as the wire-tapping case, the question before the court was whether wire-tapping was an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy. The court held that an infringement on the right to privacy would depend on the facts and circumstances of a case. It observed that, "telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law." It further observed that the right to privacy also derives from Article 19 for "when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression."

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P,[6] where police surveillance was being challenged on account of violation of the right to privacy, the Supreme Court held that domiciliary night visits were violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the personal liberty of an individual.

The court, therefore, has interpreted the right to privacy not as an absolute right, but as a limited right to be considered on a case to case basis. It is the exceptions to the right to privacy, like ‘public interest’, that are of particular interest to this paper.

International Conventions

Internationally the right to privacy has been protected in a number of conventions. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) under Article 12 provides that:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

The UDHR protects any arbitrary interference from the State to a person’s right to privacy. Similarly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 (ICCPR) under Article 17 imposes the State to ensure that individuals are protected by law against “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. [7]

Thus, ensuring that States enact laws to protect individual’s right to privacy. India has ratified the above conventions. The ratification of the Conventions mandates the State to take steps to enact laws to protect its citizens. Although, human right activists have periodically demanded that the State take adequate measures to protect human rights of the vulnerable in society, the right to privacy has received little attention.

Similarly, Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides protection to a minor from any unlawful interference to his/her right to privacy and imposes a positive obligation on States who have ratified the convention to enact a law protecting the same. India does have safeguards in place to protect identity of minors, especially, juveniles and victims of abuse. However, there are exceptions when the law on privacy does not apply even in case of a minor.

The right to privacy, therefore, is not an absolute right and does not apply uniformly to all situations and all class of persons. For instance, privacy with respect to a certain class of persons, like a person in public authority, affords different protection as opposed to private individuals.

Public Person

In case of a representative of the public, such as a public person, the right to privacy afforded to them is not of the same degree as that to a private person. The Press Council of India (PCI) has laid down Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which address the issue of privacy. The PCI Norms of Journalistic Conduct, recognises privacy as an inviolable human right, but adds a caveat; that the degree of privacy depends on circumstances and the person concerned.

In the landmark judge’s asset case, CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal,[8] the court recognised the tension between the right to information and the right to privacy, especially, with respect to public persons. The case arose from an application filed by a citizen who was seeking information under the RTI Act on whether judges of high courts and Supreme Court were filing asset declarations in accordance with full resolution of the Supreme Court. The court held that information concerning private individuals held by public authority falls within the ambit of the RTI Act. It remarked that whereas public persons are entitled to privacy like private persons, the privacy afforded to private individuals is greater than that afforded to those in public authority, especially in certain circumstances.

The court commented:

"A private citizen's privacy right is undoubtedly of the same nature and character as that of a public servant. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the substantive rights of the two differ. Yet, inherent in the situation of the latter is the premise that he acts for the public good, in the discharge of his duties, and is accountable for them. The character of protection, therefore, afforded to the two classes — public servants and private individuals, is to be viewed from this perspective. The nature of restriction on the right to privacy is therefore, of a different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake."

In testing whether certain information falls within the purview of the RTI Act, the court said one should consider the following three tests:

whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public servant in any specific case;
whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private details, unrelated to his position in the organization, and,
whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability or transparency in the use of public resources.

Would this rule hold true for information on relatives/ friends of public persons? The rule is that, unless, private information on relatives/friends of public person’s impacts public interest and accountability, the information should not be revealed.

In 2010, the media reported that Sunanda Pushkar, a close friend of the Minister of State for External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor, holds a significant holding in the IPL Kochi team. The media exposure led to the exit of Shashi Tharoor from the government. While the media’s questioning of Pushkar’s holdings was legitimate, the media’s reporting on her past relationships and how she dressed had no bearing on public interest or accountability.[9] The media accused Pushkar of playing proxy for Tharoor in the Rs. 70 crore sweat equity deal. Much of the media attention focussed on her personal life, as opposed to, how she attained such a large stake in the IPL Kochi team. It minutely analysed her successes and failures, questioned her ability and accused her of having unbridled ambition and greed for money and power.[10]

If one was to consider the rules of privacy set by the court in the judges assets’ case much of the personal information published by the media on Tharoor and Pushkar, failed to shed light on the IPL holdings or the establishment of the nexus between the IPL holdings and the government involvement.

The tests delineated by the court in considering what personal information regarding a public authority may be shared under the RTI Act, can be adopted by the media when reporting on public officials. If personal information divulged by the media does not shed light on the performance of a public official, which would be of public interest, then the information revealed violates the standards of privacy. Personal details which have no bearing on public resources or interests should not be published.

The media coverage of the Bombay terror attacks displayed the same lack of restraint, where the minutest details of a person’s last communication with his/her family were repeatedly printed in the media. None of the information presented by the media revealed anything new about the terror attack or emphasised the gravity of the attack.

A senior journalist, who talked off the record and reported on the Mumbai terror attacks, agreed that the media overstepped their limits in the Mumbai terror attacks. As per her, violation of privacy takes place at two stages: the first time, when you overstep your boundaries and ask a question you should not have, and the second, when you publish that information. Reflecting on her ten years of reporting experience, she said, “Often when you are covering a tragedy, there is little time to reflect on your reporting. Besides, if you, on account of violating someone’s privacy, choose not to report a story, some competing paper would surely carry that story. You would have to defend your decision to not report the story to your boss.” The competitiveness of reporting and getting a story before your competitor, she agreed makes even the most seasoned journalists ruthless sometimes. Besides, although PCI norms exist, not many read the PCI norms or recall the journalistic ethics when they are reporting on the field.[11]

The PCI Norms reiterate that the media should not intrude "the privacy of an individual, unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest, not being a prurient or morbid curiosity."[12] The well accepted rule, however, is that once a matter or information comes in the public domain, it no longer falls within the sphere of the private. The media has failed to make the distinction between what is warranted invasion of privacy and what constitutes as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. For instance, identity of a rape or kidnap victim that would further cause discrimination is often revealed by the media.

Safeguarding Identity of Children

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act lays down that the media should not disclose the names, addresses or schools of juveniles in conflict with the law or that of a child in need of care and protection, which would lead to their identification. The exception, to identification of a juvenile or child in need of care and protection, is when it is in the interest of the child. The media is prohibited from disclosing the identity of the child in such situations.

Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) stipulates that:

Article 16

No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 40 of the Convention, states that the privacy of a child accused of infringing penal law should be protected at all stages of the proceedings.

Almost all media, print and broadcast, fail to observe these guidelines. Prashant Kulkarni[13] (name changed), who was a photographer with Reuters a few years ago, said that in Reuters photographs taken by photojournalists could not be altered or edited, to ensure authenticity.

As far as taking photographs of certain vulnerable persons is concerned, he admitted to photographing street children who are drug addicts on the streets of Mumbai. The photographs were published by Reuters. However, when he was on an assignment for an NGO working with children, the NGO cautioned him about photographing children who are drug addicts, to protect their identity. Similarly, identity of HIV and AIDS patients, including children, should be protected and not revealed. Children affected with HIV and AIDS should not be identified by name or photograph, even if consent has been granted by the minor’s parents/guardian.

As a rule, Kulkarni said, he does not seek consent of individuals when he is taking their photographs, if they are in a public place. If they do not object, the assumption is that they are comfortable with being photographed. The PCI norms do not expressly provide that consent of a person should be sought. But, journalists are expected to exercise restraint in certain situations. Likewise, identifying juveniles in conflict with law is restricted. This includes taking photographs of juveniles that would lead to their identification.

Kulkarni, who extensively covered the Bombay train blasts in 2006, explains, "At the time of the Bombay train explosions, I avoided taking pictures that were gory or where dead people could be identified. However, I did take photographs of those injured in the blast and were getting treated in government hospitals. I did not expressly seek their consent. They were aware of being photographed. That is the rule I have applied, even when I was on an assignment in West Africa. I have never been on an assignment in Europe, so am not sure whether I would have applied the same rule of thumb. Nonetheless, now as a seasoned photographer, I would refrain from taking pictures of children who are drug addicts."

Safeguarding Identity of Rape Victims

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a rape victim punishable. In the recent Aarushi Talwar murder case and the rape of an international student studying at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) the media frenzy compromised the privacy of the TISS victim and besmirched the character of the dead person.[14] In the TISS case, the media did not reveal the name of the girl, but revealed the name of the university and the course she was pursuing, which is in violation of the PCI norms. In addition to revealing names of individuals, the PCI norms expressly states that visual representation in moments of personal grief should be avoided. In the Aarushi murder case, the media repeatedly violated this norm.

The media in both cases spent enough newsprint speculating about the crimes. Abhinav Pandey[15] (name changed), a senior journalist reporting on crime, agrees that the media crossed its boundaries in the TISS case by reporting sordid details of how the rape took place. "Names of victims of sexual crime cannot be reported. In fact, in many instances the place of stay and any college affiliation should also be avoided, as they could be easily identified. Explicit details of the offence drawn from the statement given by the victim to the police are irrelevant to the investigation or to the public at large. Similarly, names of minors and pictures, including those of juveniles, have to be safeguarded."

"Crime reporters receive most of their stories from the police. Therefore, one has to be careful before publishing the story. At times in the rigour of competitive journalism, if you decide to publish an unverified story, as a good journalist you should present a counter-point. As a seasoned journalist it is easy to sense when a story is being planted by the police. If you still want to carry the story, one has to be careful not to taint the character of a person," he adds.

"For instance, in my reporting if I find that the information will not add to the investigation, I will not include it in my copy. Last year, we had anonymous letters being circulated among crime reporters which alleged corruption among senior IPS officers. Instead of publishing the information contained in those letters with the names of the IPS officers, we published a story on corruption and cronyism on IPS officers. In the Faheem Ansari matter, who was an accused in the 26/11 trial, I had received his email account password. Accessing his account also amounts to violation of privacy. But, we only published the communication between him and some handlers in Pakistan, which we knew would have an impact on the investigation. Our job requires us to share information in the public domain, sometimes we would violate privacy. Nonetheless, one has to be cautious."

Trial by Media & Media Victimisation

The PCI norms lay down the guidelines for reporting cases and avoiding trial by media. The PCI warns journalists not to give excessive publicity to victims, witnesses, suspects and accused as that amounts to invasion of privacy. Similarly, the identification of witnesses may endanger the lives of witnesses and force them to turn hostile. Zaheera Sheikh, who was a key witness in the Gujarat Best Bakery case, was a victim of excessive media coverage and sympathy. Her turning hostile invited equal amount of media speculation and wrath. Her excessive media exposure possibly endangered her life. Instead, of focussing on the lack of a witness protection program in the country, the media focussed on the twists and turns of the case and the 19 year old’s conflicting statements. The right of the suspect or the accused to privacy is recognised by the PCI to guard against the trial by media.

Swati Deshpande,[16] a Senior Assistant Editor (Law) at the Times of India, Mumbai, observes that, “As a good journalist one will always have more information than required, but whether you publish that information or exercise restraint is up to you.” In a span of 11 years of court reporting, as per her, there have been instances when she has exercised the option of not reporting certain information that could be defamatory and cannot be attributed. If an allegation is made in a court room, but is not supported by evidence or facts, then it is advisable that it be dropped from the report.

"In the Bar Dancers’ case which was before the Bombay High Court, the petition made allegations of all kinds against certain ministers. I did not report that, although I could have justified it by saying it is part of the petition, and I was just doing my job. The allegation was neither backed by facts nor was it of public interest. As a rule one should report on undisputed facts. Then again, with court reporting one is treading on safer grounds, as opposed to other beats."

"In cases of rape when facts are part of the judgement, you report facts that are relevant to the judgement or give you an insight on why the court took a certain view and add value to the copy. One should avoid a situation where facts revealed are offensive or reveal the identity of the victim. The past history of both the victim and the accused should not be reported."

She admitted, that "Media reporting often gives the impression that the accused has committed the crime or the media through its independent investigation wing has found a particular fact. When in fact, it has relied entirely on the information given by the police and failed to question or verify the facts by an independent source. The result is that most crime reporting is one-sided, because the information received from the police is rarely questioned."

As per her, to a certain degree the publication of Tata–Radia conversations did violate Tata’s privacy. "Media needs to question itself prior to printing on how the information is of public interest. Of course, as a journalist you do not want to lose out on a good story, but there needs to be gate keeping, which is mostly absent in most of the media today."

In the Bofors pay-off case[17] the High Court of Delhi, observed that, “The fairness of trial is of paramount importance as without such protection there would be trial by media which no civilised society can and should tolerate. The functions of the court in the civilised society cannot be usurped by any other authority.”[18] It further criticised the trend of police or the CBI holding a press conference for the media when investigation of a crime is still ongoing. The court agreed that media awareness creates awareness of the crime, but the right to fair trial is as valuable as the right to information and freedom of communication.

The 200th report of the Law Commission dealt with the issue of Trial by media: Free Speech vs Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure. The report, focussed on the pre-judicial coverage of a crime, accused and suspects, and how it impacts the administration of justice. The Contempt of Courts Act, under section 2 defines criminal contempt as:

"…the publication, (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise), of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) … … … …
(ii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course
of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any manner."

Section 3(1) of the Act exempts any publication and distribution of publication, "if the publisher had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending”. In the event, the person is unaware of the pendency, any publication (whether by words spoken or written or signs or visible representations) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs “the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at the time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending." The report emphasizes that publications during the pre-trial stage by the media could affect the rights of the accused. An evaluation of the accused’s character is likely to affect or prejudice a fair trial.

If the suspect’s pictures are shown in the media, identification parades of the accused conducted under Code of Civil Procedure would be prejudiced. Under Contempt of Court Act, publications that interfere with the administration of justice amount to contempt. Further, the principles of natural justice emphasise fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The rights of an accused are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair trial. This protects the accused from the over-zealous media glare which can prejudice the case. Although, in recent times the media has failed to observe restraint in covering high-profile murder cases, much of which has been hailed as media’s success in ensuring justice to the common man.

For instance, in the Jessica Lal murder case, the media took great pride in acting as a facilitator of justice. The media in the case whipped up public opinion against the accused and held him guilty even when the trial court had acquitted the accused. The media took on the responsibility of administering justice and ensuring the guilty are punished, candle light vigils and opinion polls on the case were organised by the media. Past history of the accused was raked up by the media, including photographs of the accused in affluent bars and pubs in the city were published after he was acquitted. The photographs of Manu Sharma in pubs insinuated how he was celebrating after his acquittal.

The Apex Court observed that the freedom of speech has to be carefully and cautiously used to avoid interference in the administration of justice. If trial by media hampers fair investigation and prejudices the right of defence of the accused it would amount to travesty of justice. The Court remarked that the media should not act as an agency of the court.[19]

The Court, commented, "Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending."[20]

Sting Operations

On 30 August, 2007 Live India, a news channel conducted a sting operation on a Delhi government school teacher forcing a girl student into prostitution. Subsequent to the media exposé, the teacher Uma Khurana[21] was attacked by a mob and was suspended by the Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi. Later investigation and reports by the media exposed that there was no truth to the sting operation. The girl student who was allegedly being forced into prostitution was a journalist. The sting operation was a stage managed operation. The police found no evidence against the teacher to support allegations made by the sting operation of child prostitution. In this case, the High Court of Delhi charged the journalist with impersonation, criminal conspiracy and creating false evidence. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sent a show cause notice to TV-Live India, alleging the telecast of the sting operation by channel was “defamatory, deliberate, containing false and suggestive innuendos and half truths."[22]

Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cable Television Network Rules (hereafter the Cable Television Networks Act), stipulates that no programme can be transmitted or retransmitted on any cable service which contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths. The Rules prescribes a programming code to be followed by channels responsible for transmission/re-transmission of any programme.

The programme code restricts airing of programmes that offend decency or good taste, incite violence, contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths, criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country and affects the integrity of India, the President and the judiciary. The programme code provided by the Rules is exhaustive. The Act empowers the government to restrict operation of any cable network it thinks is necessary or expedient to do so in public interest.

The court observed that false and fabricated sting operations violate a person’s right to privacy. It further, observed, "Giving inducement to a person to commit an offence, which he is otherwise not likely and inclined to commit, so as to make the same part of the sting operation is deplorable and must be deprecated by all concerned including the media.” It commented that while “…sting operations showing acts and facts as they are truly and actually happening may be necessary in public interest and as a tool for justice, but a hidden camera cannot be allowed to depict something which is not true, correct and is not happening but has happened because of inducement by entrapping a person."[23]

The court criticised the role of the media in creating situations of entrapment and using the ‘inducement test’. It remarked that such inducement tests infringe upon the individual's right to privacy. It directed news channels to take steps to prohibit “reporters from producing or airing any programme which are based on entrapment and which are fabricated, intrusive and sensitive.[24]

The court proposed a set of guidelines to be followed by news channels and electronic media in carrying out sting operations. The guidelines direct a channel proposing to telecast a sting operation to obtain a certificate from the person who recorded or produced the same certifying that the operation is genuine to his knowledge. The guidelines propose that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should set up a committee which would have the powers to grant permission for telecasting sting operations. The permission to telecast a sting operation should be granted by the committee only if it is satisfied about the overriding public interest to telecast the sting operation. The guidelines mandate that, in addition, to ensuring accuracy, the operation should not violate a person’s right to privacy, "unless there is an identifiable large public interest” for broadcasting or publishing the material. However, the court failed to define what constitutes 'larger public interest'.

The PCI norms also lay down similar guidelines which require a newspaper reporting a sting operation to obtain a certificate from the person involved in the sting to certify that the operation is genuine and record in writing the various stages of the sting. The decision to report the sting vests with the editor who merely needs to satisfy himself that the sting operation is of public interest.

In addition, to the Cable Television Networks Act and the PCI norms, the News Broadcasting Standard Authority (NBSA) was set up in 2008 as a self-regulatory body by News Broadcasters Association.[25] The primary objective of the NBSA is to receive complaints on broadcasts. The NBSA has drafted a Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards governing broadcasters and television journalists. The Code of Ethics provides guiding principles relating to privacy and sting operations that broadcasters should follow.

With respect to privacy, the Code directs channels not to intrude into the private lives of individuals unless there is a “clearly established larger and identifiable public interest for such a broadcast.” Any information on private lives of persons should be “warranted in public interest.” Similarly, for sting operations, the Code directs that they should be used as “a last resort” by news channels and should be guided by larger public interest. They should be used to gather conclusive evidence of criminality and should not edit/alter visuals to misrepresent truth.

In a recent judgement on a supposed sting operation conducted by M/s. Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Limited[26] on TV9 on ‘Gay culture rampant in Hyderabad’, the NBA took suo motu notice of the violation of privacy of individuals with alternate sexual orientation and misuse of the tool of sting operation. NBA in its judgement held that the Broadcaster had violated clauses on privacy, sting operations and sex and nudity of the Code of Ethics. It further, observed, that the Broadcaster and the story did not reveal any justifiable public interest in using the sting operation and violating the privacy of individuals. In this particular case, the Broadcaster had revealed the personal information and faces of supposedly gay men in Hyderabad to report on the ‘underbelly’ of gay culture and life. However, the news report, as NBSA observed, did not prove any criminality and was merely a sensational report of gay culture allegedly prevalent in Hyderabad.

The PCI norms provide that the press should not tape-record conversations without the person’s express consent or knowledge, except where it is necessary to protect a journalist in a legal action or for “other compelling reason.” What constitutes a compelling reason is left to the discretion of the journalist.

It was in the 1980s, that the first sting operation on how women were being trafficked was carried out by the Indian Express reporter Ashwin Sarin. As part of the sting, the Express purchased a tribal girl called Kamla. Subsequently, in 2001, the sting operation conducted by Tehelka exposed corruption in defence contracts using spy cams and journalists posing as arms dealers. The exposé on defence contracts led to the resignation of the then defence minister George Fernandes. Sting operations gained legitimacy in India, especially in the aftermath of the Tehelka operation, exposing corruption within the government. The original purpose of a sting operation or an undercover operation was to expose corruption. Stings were justifiable only when it served a public interest. Subsequent to the Tehelka exposé, stings have assumed the status of investigative journalism, much of which has been questioned in recent times, especially, with respect to ethics involved in conducting sting operations and the methods of entrapment used by the media. Further, stings by Tehelka, where the newspaper used sex workers to entrap politicians have brought to question the manner in which stings are operated. Although, the overriding concern surrounding sting operations has been its authenticity, as opposed to, the issue of personal privacy.

For instance, in March 2005 a television news channel carried out a sting operation involving Bollywood actor Shakti Kapoor to expose the casting couch phenomenon in the movie industry. The video showing Shakti Kapoor asking for sexual favours from an aspiring actress, who was an undercover reporter, was received with public outrage. Nonetheless, prominent members of the media questioned the manner in which the sting was conducted. The sting was set up as an entrapment. The court has taken a strong view against the use of entrapment in sting operations. In the case of the Shakti Kapoor sting, privacy of the actor was clearly violated. The manner in which the sting was conducted casts serious doubt on who was the victim.[27]

Additionally, the sting violated the PCI norms. It failed to provide a record of the various stages of how the sting operation was conducted. In United Kingdom, the media when violating privacy of a person has to demonstrate that it is in the interest of the public.

International Law on Media & Privacy Ethics

United Kingdom

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), UK is a self-regulatory body similar to NBA. The PCC has put down code of ethics to be followed by journalists. The PCC guidelines provide that everyone has the right to privacy and editors must provide reason for intrusions to a person’s privacy. This includes photographing individuals in private places without their consent. Interestingly, private places include public or private property "where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy." In India however, as Kulkarni pointed out, photographs are taken without the consent of an individual if he/she is in a public space.

Like the PCI norms, the PCC Code lays down guidelines to follow when reporting on minors (below 16 years of age) who have been victims of sexual assault. As per the guidelines, the identity of the children should be protected. Further, relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of a crime should not be identified without their consent, unless the information is relevant to the story. References to a person’s race, colour, sexual orientation and gender should be avoided. For instance, the media reportage of the TISS rape case, which revealed the nationality and colour of the victim, would be in violation of the PCC Code. In the TISS rape case, the information on the nationality and colour of the victim was not only irrelevant to the story, but as amply demonstrated by the media it reinforced prejudices against white women as ‘loose or amoral’.[28]

As far as sting operations are concerned, the PCC lays down that the press must not publish material acquired by hidden camera or clandestine devices by intercepting private messages, emails or telephone calls without consent. However, revealing private information in cases of public interest is an exception to the general rule to be followed with respect to individual privacy. The PCC defines public interest to include, but it is not restricted to:

"i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety
ii) Protecting public health and safety
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation"

It requires editors to amply demonstrate that a publication is of public interest. In case the material is already in public domain the same rules of privacy do not apply. However, in cases involving children below 16 years of age, editors must demonstrate exceptional public interest that overrides the interest of the child. Tellingly, the PCC recognises freedom of expression as public interest.

The PCC, to ensure that persons are not hounded by the media have started issuing desist orders. The PCC issues a desist notice to editors to prevent the media from contacting the person. Preventive pre-publication is when the PCC pre-empts a story that may be pursued or published and attempts to either influence the reporting of the story in a way that it is not in violation of a person’s privacy or persuades the media house not to publish the story. The PCC, however, does not have the powers to prevent publication.

Further, United Kingdom is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Convention: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

However, there is no independent law which recognises the right to privacy. The judiciary however has protected the right to privacy in several occasions, like in the famous J.K. Rowling case where the English Court held, that a minor’s photograph without the consent of the parent or guardian, though not offensive, violates the child’s right to privacy.[29]

France

The French legal system protects the right to privacy under: Article 9 of the Civil Code.

Article 9 of the Civil Code states:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private life. Without prejudice to compensation for injury suffered, the court may prescribe any measures, such as sequestration, seizure and others, appropriate to prevent or put an end to an invasion of personal privacy; in case of an emergency those measures may be provided for by an interim order. The right to privacy allows anyone to oppose dissemination of his or her picture without their express consent.

Article 9 covers both the public and private spheres, and includes not merely the publication of information but also the method of gathering information. Also, in France violation of one’s privacy is a criminal offence. This includes recording or transmitting private conversations or picture of a person in a private place without the person’s consent. This implies that privacy is not protected in a public place. Any picture taken of a person dead or alive, without their prior permission, is prohibited. Buying of such photographs where consent of a person also constitutes as an offence. Journalists, however, are not disqualified from the profession if they have committed such an offence.[30]

France has the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 which protects minors from being identified and violent and licentious publication which targets minors. It punishes slander, publication of any information that would reveal the identity of a victim of a sexual offence, information on witnesses and information on court proceedings which include a person’s private life.[31]

Sweden

Privacy is protected in Sweden under its Constitution. All the four fundamental laws of the country: the Instrument of Government, the Act of Succession, the Freedom of the Press Act, and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression protect privacy. The Instrument of Government Act of 1974 provides for the protection of individual privacy. It states that freedom of expression is limited under Article 13 of the Constitution:

"Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted having regard to the security of the Realm, the national supply, public safety and order, the integrity of the individual, the sanctity of private life, or the prevention and prosecution of crime. Freedom of expression may also be restricted in economic activities. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may otherwise be restricted only where particularly important reasons so warrant."

Sweden has a Press Council which was established in 1916. The Council consists of the Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association, the Magazine Publishers' Association, the Swedish Union of Journalists and the National Press Club. The Council consists of "a judge, one representative from each of the above-mentioned press organisations and three representatives of the general public who are not allowed to have any ties to the newspaper business or to the press organisations."

Additionally, there is an office of the Press Ombudsman which was established in 1969. Earlier the Swedish Press Council used to deal with complaints on violations of good journalistic practice. After the setting up of the Press Ombudsman, the complaints are first handled by the Press Ombudsman, who is empowered to take up matters suo motu. "Any interested members of the public can lodge a complaint with the PO against newspaper items that violate good journalistic practice. But, the person to whom the article relates to must provide a written consent, if the complaint is to result in a formal criticism of the newspaper."[33]

The Swedish Press Council reports that in the recent years, 350-400 complaints have been registered annually, of which most concern coverage of criminal matters and invasion of privacy.

Sweden, additionally, has a Code of Ethics which applies to press, radio and television. The Code of Ethics was adopted by the Swedish Co-operation Council of the Press in September 1995. The Code of Ethics for Press, Radio and Television in Sweden has been drawn up by the Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association, the Magazine Publishers' Association, the Swedish Union of Journalists and the National Press Club.

The Code of Ethics lay down norms to be followed in respect of privacy. It states that caution should be exercised when publishing information that:

Infringes on a persons’ privacy, unless it is obviously in public interest,
Information on suicides or attempted suicides
Information on victims of crime and accidents. This includes publication of pictures or photographs[34]

Race, sex, nationality, occupation, political affiliation or religious persuasion in certain cases, especially when such information is of no importance, should not be published.

One should exercise care in use of pictures, especially, retouching a picture by an electronic method or formulating a caption to deceive the reader. In case a picture has been retouched, it should be indicated below the photograph.

Further, the Code asks journalists to consider “the harmful consequences that might follow for persons if their names are published” and names should be published only if it is in the public interest. Similarly, if a person’s name is not be revealed, the media should refrain from publishing a picture or any particulars with respect to occupation, title, age, nationality, sex of the person, which would enable identification of the person.

In case of court reporting or crime reporting, the Code states that the final judgement of the Court should be reported and given emphasis, as opposed to conducting a media trial. In addition, Sweden has incorporated the ECHR in 1994.

Japan

The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association or Nihon Shinbun Kyokai (NSK),[35] was established in 1946 as an independent and voluntary organisation to establish the standard of reporting, and protect and promote interests of the media. The organisation as part of its mandate has developed the Canon of Journalism, which provides for ethics and codes members of the body should follow. The Canon recognises that with the easy availability of information, the media constantly has to grapple with what information should be published and what should be held back. The Code provides that journalists have a sense of responsibility and should not hinder public interests. In addition, to ensuring accuracy and fairness, the Code states that respect of human rights, includes respect for human dignity, individual honour and right to privacy. Right to privacy is acknowledged as a human right.

Japan does not have an information ministry or organs like the PCC in the U.K. or the Press Ombudsman in Sweden. Apart from the Canon, the NSK has a code for marketing of newspapers, an advertising code and the Kisha club guidelines.[36]

Japan in 2003 formulated the Personal Information Protection Act, which regulates public and private sector. The Act, which came into effect in 2005, aims to ensure that all personal data collected by the public and private sector are handled with care. The Act requires that the purpose of collecting personal information and its use should be specified, information should be acquired by fair means, any information should not be supplied to third parties without prior consent of the individual concerned.

Netherlands

The right to privacy is protected under Article 10 of the Netherlands Constitution. Further, the Article also provides for the enactment of Rules for dissemination of personal data and the right of persons to be informed when personal data is being recorded.

Netherlands also has the Netherlands Press Council which keeps the media in check. The Code of the International Federation of Journalists and the Code of Conduct for Dutch Journalists was drafted by the Dutch Society of Editors-in-Chief to establish media reporting standards. These guidelines can be disregarded by the media only in cases involving social interest.

The Code recognises:

That a person’s privacy should not be violated when there is no overriding social interest;
In cases concerning public persons violation of privacy would take place, but they have the right to be protected, especially, if that information is not of public interest;
The media should refrain from publishing pictures and images of persons without prior permission of persons. Similarly, the media should not publish personal letters and notes without the prior permission of those involved;
The media should refrain from publishing pictures and information of suspects and accused; and
Details of criminal offence should be left out if they would add to the suffering of the victim or his/her immediate family and if they are not needed to demonstrate the nature and gravity of the offence or the consequences thereof.

Conclusion

The right to privacy in India has failed to acquire the status of an absolute right. The right in comparison to other competing rights, like, the right to freedom of speech & expression, the right of the State to impose restrictions on account of safety and security of the State, and the right to information, is easily relinquished. The exceptions to the right to privacy, such as, overriding public interest, safety and security of the State, apply in most countries. Nonetheless, as the paper demonstrates, unwarranted invasion of privacy by the media is widespread. For instance, in the UK, Sweden, France and Netherlands, the right to photograph a person or retouching of any picture is prohibited unlike, in India where press photographers do not expressly seek consent of the person being photographed, if he/she is in a public space. In France, not only is the publication of information is prohibited on account of the right to privacy, but the method in which the information is procured also falls within the purview of the right to privacy and could be violative. This includes information or photograph taken in both public and private spaces. Privacy within public spaces is recognised, especially, “where there is reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Indian norms or code of ethics in journalism fail to make such a distinction between public and private space. Nor do the guidelines impose any restrictions on photographing an individual without seeking express consent of the individual.

The Indian media violates privacy in day-to-day reporting, like overlooking the issue of privacy to satisfy morbid curiosity. The PCI norms prohibit such reporting, unless it is outweighed by ‘genuine overriding public interest’. Almost all the above countries prohibit publication of details that would hurt the feelings of the victim or his/her family. Unlike the UK, where the PCC can pass desist orders, in India the family and/or relatives of the victims are hounded by the media.

In India, the right to privacy is not a positive right. It comes into effect only in the event of a violation. The law on privacy in India has primarily evolved through judicial intervention. It has failed to keep pace with the technological advancement and the burgeoning of the 24/7 media news channels. The prevalent right to privacy is easily compromised for other competing rights of ‘public good’, ‘public interest’ and ‘State security’, much of what constitutes public interest or what is private is left to the discretion of the media.

Notes

[1]The Radia Tapes’ controversy concerns recording of conversations between the lobbyist Nira Radia and politicians, industrialists, bureaucrats and journalists with respect to the 2G spectrum scam. The tapes were recorded by the Income Tax Department. The role played by the media, especially some prominent journalists, in scam has been questioned. A handful of magazines and newspapers have questioned the media ethics employed by these journalists, whose recorded conversations are in the public domain or have been published by a few political magazines. The publication of the recorded conversations by a few media publications has received a sharp reaction from the said journalists. They have accused those media journals of unverified reporting and conducting a smear campaign against them.

[2]1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333.

[3](1994) 6 S.C.C. 632.

[4]AIR 1997 SC 568.

[5]AIR 1997 SC 568.

[6]AIR 1997 SC 568.

[7]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part III Art. 17. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm [Last accessed 20//04/2011].

[8]W.P. (C) 288/2009

[9]PTI, Media just turned me into a 'slut' in IPL row: Sunanda Pushkar, 23/04/2010 Available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-04-23/india/28149154_1_sunanda-pushkar-shashi-tharoor-ipl-kochi [Last accessed 20/04/2011].

[10]Vrinda Gopinath, "Got A Girl, Named Sue", 26/04/2010 Available at http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265098 [Last accessed 20/04/2011]

[11]Interview with Senior Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times, on 18.04.11.

[12]Guideline 6 (i) Right to Privacy, Norm if Journalistic Conduct, PCI.

[13]Interview with a freelance photographer and a former Reuters photographer on 16.04.11.

[14]Kumar, Vinod, “Raped American student’s drink not spiked in our bar,” 16.04.09 Available at http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/apr/160409-Mumbai-News-Raped-American-student-date-drug-CafeXO-Tata-Institute-of-Social-Sciences.htm, Anon, “Party pics boomerangon TISS rape victim” , 04 .05.09, Available at http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=15&contentid=2009050420090504031227495d8b4e80f [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[15]Interview with Abhinav Pandey, crime reporter with a leading newspaper, on 21.04.11.

[16]Interview with Swati Deshpande, Senior Assistant Editor (Law), Times of India, on 15.04.11.

[17]Crl.Misc.(Main) 3938/2003

[18]Ibid.

[19]Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi), Available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1515299/.

[20]Ibid

[21]WP(Crl.) No.1175/2007

[22]Ibid

[23]Ibid

[24]Ibid

[25]NBA is a community formed by private television & current affairs broadcasters. As per the NBA website, it currently has 20 leading news channels and current affairs broadcaster as its members. Complaints can be filed against any of the broadcasters that are members of NBA on whom the Code of Ethics is binding.

[26]For additional details, please refer to the website: http://www.nbanewdelhi.com/authority-members.asp [Last Accessed April 20,2011]

[27]TNN, “'Full video will further embarrass Shakti', 15.03.2005 Available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-15/mumbai/27849089_1_sting-operation-shakti-kapoor-film-industry.

[28]For more details please refer to the PCC website: http://www.pcc.org.uk/ [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[29]Singh, A., May 2008, “JK Rowling wins privacy case over son's photos”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1936471/JK-Rowling-wins-privacy-case-over-sons-photos.html [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[30]For more details, please refer to: http://www.kbkcl.co.uk/2008/03/privacy-law-the-french-experience/ and http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article640 [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[31]For more details, please refer to:http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Freedom-of-speech-in-the-French.html [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[32]http://www.po.se/english/how-self-regulation-works [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[33]Ibid.

[34]Please refer to this website for additional details: http://ethicnet.uta.fi/sweden/code_of_ethics_for_the_press_radio_and_television and http://www.po.se/english/code-of-ethics/85-code-of-ethics-for [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[35]http://www.pressnet.or.jp/english/index.htm [Last Accessed April 20,2011].

[36]Kisha Clubs, are clubs where only a few media houses/newspapers have access to public institution information. They have been criticised for its lack of openness and encouraging monopoly on reporting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-media-law

The Last Cultural Mile

praskrishna — 2011-09-28T05:40:51Z

Ashish’s research inquiry is informed by the ‘last mile’ which has emerged as a central area of discussion in the domains of technology and governance from the 1940s in India. Starting from mapping technology onto developmentalist–democratic priorities which propelled communication technologies beginning with the invention of radio in India, the monograph conceives of the ‘last mile’ as a mode of techno-democracy, where connectivity has been directly translated into democratic citizenship.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf

ออกแบบระบบข้อมูลประชาชนดิจิทัล: คุยกับผู้เชี่ยวชาญหาแนวทางเหมาะสม

Admin — 2019-07-21T14:32:25Z

Talk with Sunil Abraham, an expert on the Internet and good governance in the issue of creating a digital identification system.

What should you think before doing a national database? Transparency should be inversely proportional to the power of the person. The state must provide information as well. Not the only store Database technology and public surveillance are not the same. Otherwise the entire system will crash How important is democracy in making good information systems? Read the interview published by Prachatai on July 18, 2019 below

คุยกับสุนิล อับราฮัม ผู้เชี่ยวชาญเรื่องอินเทอร์เน็ตและธรรมาภิบาลในประเด็นการจัดทำระบบข้อมูลประจำตัวประชาชนแบบดิจิทัล ควรคิดอะไรก่อนทำฐานข้อมูลประชาชนระดับชาติ ความโปร่งใสควรแปรผกผันกับอำนาจของบุคคล รัฐต้องให้ข้อมูลด้วย ไม่ใช่เก็บอย่างเดียว เทคโนโลยีฐานข้อมูลกับการสอดส่องประชาชนไม่ใช่เรื่องเดียวกัน ไม่เช่นนั้นพังทั้งระบบ ประชาธิปไตยสำคัญอย่างไรกับการทำระบบข้อมูลที่ดี

หนึ่งในบทสนทนาที่มีในปัจจุบันคือการนำข้อมูลประชาชนขึ้นสู่ระบบดิจิทัล เทคโนโลยีการบริหารจัดการข้อมูลอย่างระบบฐานข้อมูลดิจิทัลไปจนถึงโครงข่ายออนไลน์แบบบลอกเชนทำให้จินตนาการดังกล่าวเป็นรูปเป็นร่างขึ้น

แต่เมื่อถอยกลับไปมองภาพใหญ่จะพบว่าเรื่องทางเทคนิคเป็นเพียงหนึ่งเม็ดทรายบนชายหาด ยังมีข้อควรคำนึงถึงเยอะแยะหยุมหยิมไปหมดทั้งในเรื่องกฎหมาย ความพร้อมของผู้บังคับใช้กฎหมาย ภาคธุรกิจและประชาชนที่ต้องคำนึงถึงเรื่องพฤติกรรม บรรทัดฐานของสังคม และคำถามสำคัญที่ว่าระบบดังกล่าวจะถูกใช้ในการเฝ้าระวัง สอดแนมประชาชนหรือไม่ เพราะประเทศเผด็จการที่คนไทยหลายคนยกย่องอย่างจีน ก็ใช้ข้อมูลอัตลักษณ์ประชาชนถึงขั้นคุมความประพฤติกันด้วยระบบคะแนนได้แล้ว

แม้ยังไม่เกิดในไทยแต่ก็ไม่ได้แปลว่าเป็นไปไม่ได้ ความกังวลของชาว 14 อำเภอและสามจังหวัดชายแดนใต้เมื่อมีข้อความ SMS จากกองอำนวยการรักษาความมั่นคงภายใน (กอ.รมน.) ให้ไปสแกนใบหน้าเพื่อลงทะเบียนซิมการ์ดตามประกาศของ กสทช. เป็นหนึ่งในภาพสะท้อนจากพื้นที่ที่ความมั่นคงหลอมรวมอยู่ในการใช้ชีวิตประจำวันที่ชัดเจน ปัญหาของการทำระบบนั้นยืนอยู่บนคำถามใหญ่ว่า “ทำอย่างไร” และ “เพื่ออะไร” หากกิจวัตรประจำวันของคนทั้งประความมั่นคงจะกลายเป็นองค์ประกอบในเทศ

สุนิล อับบราฮัม ผู้อำนวย (ผอ.) การบริหารจากศูนย์เพื่ออินเทอร์เน็ตและสังคมจากประเทศอินเดีย ให้สัมภาษณ์ประชาไทในเรื่องรูปร่างหน้าตาของระบบพิสูจน์อัตลักษณ์บุคคลดิจิทัลว่าควรเป็นแบบไหน อะไรที่ต้องคำนึงถึงและถามกันบ่อยๆ เมื่อจะออกแบบระบบ การเฝ้าระวังอาชญากรรมและปัญหาความมั่นคงทำได้แค่ไหน และการเป็นประชาธิปไตยเกี่ยวอะไรกับการมีระบบข้อมูลประชาชนดิจิทัลที่ดี

ประชาไท: ระบบข้อมูลประชาชนดิจิทัลคืออะไร

สุนิล: เดิมทีบัตรประชาชนเป็นวัตถุทางกายภาพ ส่วนมากก็เป็นกระดาษและมันก็มีข้อน่าห่วงมากๆ ในเรื่องความปลอดภัย เพราะว่ารัฐและบริษัทเอกชนต่างใช้บัตรประชาชนเพื่อไปถ่ายสำเนา อันนี้ผมได้ยินว่าในบริบทของไทยก็ถือเป็นเรื่องปกติเช่นกัน สิ่งที่คุณต้องการจริงๆ คือวิธีที่จะทำให้ภาครัฐและเอกชนยืนยันตัวตนโดยไม่ต้องเก็บข้อมูลจากคุณมากจนเกินไป

ในทางอุดมคตินั้นระบบเอกสารประจำตัวที่ดี ควรที่จะทำให้การยืนยันรายละเอียดของคุณอย่างพวกที่อยู่ อายุ สถานะจน-รวย โดยไม่ต้องเก็บข้อมูล (อื่นๆ) ที่ไม่จำเป็นรวมถึงเลขบัตรประชาชนด้วย แม้แต่เลขประจำตัวประชาชนของคุณก็ไม่ควรจะถูกเก็บไปโดยองค์กรอื่นๆ โดยไม่มีความจำเป็น

ปัจจุบันเรามีทางเลือกสองแบบ มีตัวอย่างในแคนาดา สหราชอาณาจักร หรือแม้แต่ในไทยที่กำลังทำ โครงการระบบพิสูจน์ตัวตนอิเลกทรอนิคส์แห่งชาติ หรือ National Digital ID (NDID) คุณคิดถึงวิธีแก้ปัญหาเรื่องระบบเอกสารประจำตัวในฐานะระบบนิเวศที่จะให้ตัวแสดงในระบบนิเวศยืนยันข้อมูลประจำตัวและเก็บข้อมูลของปัจเจกผ่านระบบการจัดการการยินยอมที่ดี (consent management)

(แต่) ก็มีหลายประเทศที่มีหน่วยงานจัดทำระบบฐานข้อมูลประชาชนแห่งชาติแบบรวมศูนย์ แล้วก็กลายเป็นจุดล้มเหลวจุดเดียว (Single Point of Failure - SPOF) ของระบบในประเทศ นี่จึงเป็นตัวเลือกใหญ่ๆ ที่แต่ละประเทศมี คือจะใช้วิธีจัดการแบบระบบนิเวศที่คิดถึงทุกอย่างแบบเป็นองค์รวม หรือมองว่าประเทศหนึ่งประเทศก็เหมือนกับบริษัทหรือมหาวิทยาลัย อะไรที่ใช้ได้กับบริษัทหรือมหาวิทยาลัยก็ใช้แบบนั้นกับประเทศทั้งประเทศ

แต่ละวิธีมีข้อเสียต่างกันอย่างไร

ในทางวิทยาศาสตร์คอมพิวเตอร์และวิศวกรรมคอมพิวเตอร์ ผู้เชี่ยวชาญทุกคนจะบอกว่าไม่มีระบบไหนที่ถูกแฮ็กไม่ได้ แต่ระหว่างสองตัวเลือกนี้มีความแตกต่างอย่างมาก ในโมเดลระบบนิเวศจะไม่มีจุดล้มเหลวจุดเดียวและการเจาะระบบนี้ก็มีต้นทุนสูงกว่าระบบแบบรวมศูนย์ แม้แต่การฟื้นฟูและรักษาข้อมูลที่หายไปก็ทำได้ถูกกว่าด้วย แต่ในระบบแบบรวมศูนย์นั้น ทุกคนจะได้รับผลกระทบเมื่อมีการเจาะเข้าไปได้ และส่วนมากการโจมตีจุดที่ล้มเหลวจุดเดียวก็มีต้นทุนน้อยกว่า

กระแสโลกที่มีต่อการทำข้อมูลประชาชนดิจิทัลคืออะไร

แนวโน้มใหญ่ๆ ของโลกคือมีบางบริษัทที่ขายเทคโนโลยีไบโอเมทริกซ์ (การใช้ข้อมูลทางชีวภาพ เช่น ลักษณะทางกายภาพอย่างม่านตา ลายนิ้วมือ ดีเอ็นเอ ใบหน้าเพื่อตรวจสิทธิหรือแสดงตน) ที่โดยพื้นฐานแล้วเป็นเทคโนโลยีแบบควบคุมจากระยะไกลและไม่ต้องใช้ความยินยอมของเจ้าของข้อมูล เพราะเวลาที่มีการสแกนใบหน้าหรือม่านตาเพื่อยืนยันตัวตนนั้น เจ้าของข้อมูลอาจจะไม่รู้ ผู้ใช้งานอาจจะสแกนจากระยะไกลด้วยกล้องความคมชัดสูง และการเก็บข้อมูลอัตลักษณ์ก็เก็บได้ขณะที่เจ้าของนอนหลับหรือหมดสติ

เทคโนโลยีไบโอเมทริกซ์เป็นเทคโนโลยีการเฝ้าระวังที่ดีมากเมื่อรัฐบาลต้องการต่อกรกับอาชญากรรมหรือบังคับใช้กฎหมาย อย่างไรก็ตาม เทคโนโลยีการเฝ้าระวังไม่ใช่เทคโนโลยีข้อมูลประจำตัวที่ดี โชคร้ายที่บริษัทใหญ่ๆ ที่ขายระบบเฝ้าระวังได้เดินทางไปทั่วโลกและบอกกับรัฐบาลต่างๆ ว่าพวกคุณสามารถแก้ปัญหาเรื่องเอกสารข้อมู,และความมั่นคงได้พร้อมกันด้วยเทคโนโลยีเฝ้าระวังซึ่งมันไม่จริง

ถ้าคุณใช้เทคโนโลยีการเฝ้าระวังมาสร้างระบบข้อมูลประชาชน นั่นหมายความว่าคุณยิ่งไปสร้างความเสี่ยงด้านความมั่นคงเข้าไปอีก เพราะคุณสร้างสิ่งที่เรียกว่า ‘ไหน้ำผึ้ง’ หมายถึงว่ามีจุดๆ หนึ่งที่เก็บข้อมูลลายนิ้วมือ ใบหน้าหรือม่านตาของทุกๆ คน แล้วถ้าระบบนั้นมีจุดที่ล้มเหลวขึ้นมาเพียงจุดเดียว ลองนึกถึงระบบอินเทอร์เน็ตที่เก็บพาสเวิร์ดของทุกคนเอาไว้ในเซิฟเวอร์เดียวกัน มันก็เป็นความเสี่ยงนั้น

เทคโนโลยีไบโอเมทริกซ์นั้นควรใช้ในระบบแบบไม่รวมศูนย์ คุณสามารถเก็บข้อมูลทางชีวภาพจากประชาชนได้ แต่ควรเก็บมันเอาไว้ในชิปสมาร์ทการ์ดของแต่ละคน อย่างระบบสแกนใบหน้าของไอโฟนที่ไม่มีเซิฟเวอร์เก็บข้อมูลใบหน้า แต่อาศัยพื้นที่บนโทรศัพท์มือถือของผู้ใช้งานให้เก็บข้อมูลเหล่านั้นเอง

บางประเทศมีสมาร์ทการ์ดที่มีแม้กระทั่งเครื่องอ่านลายนิ้วมือบนบัตร ที่คุณต้องทำก็คือใส่สมาร์ทการ์ดเข้าไปในเครื่องอ่าน จากนั้นคุณก็วางนิ้วมือลงบนสมาร์ทการ์ดโดยไม่ต้องเอานิ้วไปแปะที่อุปกรณ์อื่นของรัฐหรือเอกชน นั่นเป็นวิธีการใช้งานไบโอเมทริกซ์ที่ถูกต้องเพราะคุณใช้โบโอเมทริกซ์แบบที่ไม่อิงอยู่กับการเฝ้าระวัง

แปลว่าแนวโน้มระบบข้อมูลประชาชนของรัฐส่วนใหญ่อยู่กับฐานคิดการเฝ้าระวังใช่ไหม

ใช่แล้ว ความมั่นคงแห่งชาติและการเฝ้าระวังถูกจัดเป็นความสำคัญอันดับต้นๆ ซึ่งนั่นไม่ใช่แนวทางในการออกแบบระบบฐานข้อมูลประจำตัวประชาชนแบบ e-governance (ธรรมาภิบาลอิเล็คโทรนิกส์) การเฝ้าระวังนั้นสำคัญมากสำหรับสังคม แต่มันก็เหมือนเกลือในอาหาร คุณไม่สามารถกินอาหารได้โดยไม่มีเกลืออยู่ในนั้นนิดหน่อย คุณไม่สามารถมีประเทศที่ปลอดภัยหากไม่มีการเฝ้าระวัง แต่ถ้าคุณตัดสินใจตักเกลือห้าช้อนชาใส่ลงไปในอาหารเมื่อไหร่ อาหารก็เป็นพิษ เรื่องการเฝ้าระวังก็เช่นกัน มันจำเป็นในปริมาณน้อย แต่จะมีผลย้อนกลับหากมีมากเกินไป

แล้วแนวทางที่ดีที่สุดควรเป็นแบบไหน

ควรใช้ระบบและมาตรฐานแบบเปิด (open source and open standard) เพราะคุณจะสามารถพิสูจน์และตรวจสอบระบบได้ ถ้าคุณตรวจสอบหรือพิสูจน์ไม่ได้ นั่นหมายความว่าคุณจะไม่รู้ว่ามันทำงานอย่างไร ส่วนต่อไปคือข้อมูลที่ถูกขอและส่งต่อในระบบนิเวศเมื่อทำธุรกรรมจะต้องมีจำนวนน้อยที่สุด

อีกสิ่งที่จำเป็นคือ คุณต้องมี Human in the Loop (ความสัมพันธ์หรือปฏิสัมพันธ์ของมนุษย์ในระบบนั้น) หมายความว่า คุณควรรู้ว่าในขั้นตอนนั้นๆ มีเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐหรือพนักงานเอกชนคนไหนเป็นคนรับผิดชอบ และถ้ามีอะไรผิดพลาดคุณควรจะหาคนรับผิดรับชอบได้

ความรับผิดรับชอบนั้นแยกได้ว่า หนึ่ง เห็นตัวคนที่รับผิดชอบ สื่อมวลชนสามารถชี้นิ้วไปได้และบอกว่าคนนี้รับผิดชอบกับความผิดพลาดนั้น สอง การเป็นผู้จ่ายค่าปรับ ส่วนนี้สำคัญกับภาคเอกชน และสุดท้ายคือคนที่ต้องติดคุกหากมีเรื่องร้ายแรงเกิดขึ้น เช่นสิทธิมนุษยชนของบางคนได้รับผลกระทบ ดังนั้น เมื่อคุณจะออกแบบระบบฐานข้อมูลประจำตัว คุณต้องถามว่า ‘ใครเป็น Human in the loop’ นั่นเป็นกุญแจหลักของการออกแบบ

หลักการต่อไปของระบบข้อมูลประชาชนที่ดีคือต้องกระจายจากศูนย์กลาง ไม่ควรมีจุดล้มเหลวจุดใหญ่จุดเดียว การจัดการข้อมูลแบบระบบนิเวศนั้นดีกว่าการรวมศูนย์ นอกจากนั้นระบบควรจะรับมือและฟื้นตัวจากเหตุร้ายแรงที่สุดได้ ในระหว่างที่คุณออกแบบระบบก็ควรตั้งคำถามไปพลางว่า ถ้าระบบโดนแฮ็กจะทำอย่างไร หรือถ้าอาชญากรเอาระบบนี้ไปใช้ล่ะ คุณจำเป็นต้องคำนึงถึงความเป็นไปได้ที่ร้ายแรงที่สุดและต้องออกแบบระบบมารับมือมัน

แล้วมองในแง่สังคม คนทั่วไป คุณกังวลเรื่องอะไรบ้าง

ปัญหาหลักตอนนี้คือ แนวคิดที่รายล้อมระบบข้อมูลประชาชนดิจิทัลคือการย้ำให้พลเมืองต้องโปร่งใสกับรัฐ พวกเขา (รัฐ) ต้องการให้พลเมืองส่งข้อมูลทุกอย่างให้กับรัฐ แต่ว่ารัฐไม่ให้ข้อมูลใดๆ กับพลเมือง ในระบบข้อมูลประชาชนที่ดี รัฐควรจะมีความโปร่งใสกับพลเมือง

ผมจะยกตัวอย่างให้ฟัง สมมติว่าผมเป็นพนักงานรัฐที่ทุจริต ผมจะเขียนลงไปในบันทึกว่าคุณมาหาผมที่ออฟฟิศในวันนี้ นี่คือเลขประจำตัวประชาชนของคุณที่ขอกู้เงิน หรือไม่ก็ได้รับเงินอุดหนุนจำนวน 2,000 บาท ผมก็สามารถเอาเงิน 2,000 บาทเข้ากระเป๋าผมแบบไม่มีใครพิสูจน์ได้ และคุณก็ปฏิเสธไม่ได้ด้วย เพราะว่าเลขประจำตัวของคุณอยู่ในบันทึกของรัฐ แต่ถ้าคุณใช้มันให้ดี เราจะมีเครื่องอ่านสมาร์ทการ์ดที่พลเมืองจะใส่บัตรและกดรหัส หลังจากคุณดึงบัตรออกเจ้าหน้าที่ก็จะใส่สมาร์ทการ์ดของเขาเข้าไปและกดรหัส นั่นจะทำให้มีบันทึกในระบบอิเล็กโทรนิกส์และถูกเซ็นโดยเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐและพลเมือง จะไม่มีใครปฏิเสธได้แล้วว่ามีการพบกันจริงๆ ในระบบข้อมูลประจำตัวที่ดีนั้น ทั้งคู่จะต้องแสดงตัวตน แต่ในระบบที่ไม่ดีจะมีแต่เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐที่ถามหาหลักฐานประจำตัวและคุณจะไม่มีการบันทึกว่าเกิดอะไรขึ้นบ้าง

ความเป็นส่วนตัวและการคุ้มครองนั้นควรมีสัดส่วนแปรผันกับอำนาจ ความโปร่งใสและการกำกับควบคุมควรมีสัดส่วนโดยตรงกับอำนาจ คนที่มีอำนาจหรือคนรวยต้องมีความโปร่งใสมากกว่าคนอื่นและมีความเป็นส่วนตัวน้อยกว่าคนอื่น คนที่ไม่มีอำนาจหรือคนเปราะบางควรจะมีความเป็นส่วนตัวมากขึ้น

ถ้าคุณดูนโยบายด้านฐานข้อมูลแบบเปิด (โอเพ่นดาต้า) หรือกฎหมายเสรีภาพด้านข้อมูลข่าวสารจะพบว่าข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลเป็นข้อยกเว้นในกฎหมายเหล่านั้น ข้อมูลรัฐที่ไม่เป็นส่วนตัวเท่านั้นที่สามารถถูกแบ่งปันกันได้ในโอเพ่นดาต้า แต่ถ้าคุณไปดูกฎหมายความเป็นส่วนตัวก็จะพบว่ามีข้อยกเว้นในเรื่องประโยชน์ต่อสาธารณะ นั่นหมายความว่า ถ้าคุณเป็นเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐหรือนักการเมืองคนสำคัญ สิ่งที่คุณคุยในห้องนอนก็อาจสำคัญกับประเทศทั้งประเทศ นั่นหมายความว่าคุณไม่มีความเป็นส่วนตัวในการพูดคุยเรื่องลับ

ความเป็นส่วนตัวนั้นเป็นข้อยกเว้น แต่ผลประโยชน์สาธารณะมันเป็นข้อยกเว้นของข้อยกเว้นอีกที สมมติว่านายกฯ มีปัญหาสุขภาพร้ายแรงที่ทำให้เขาหรือเธอไม่เหมาะที่จะดำรงตำแหน่งอีกต่อไป ข้อมูลส่วนตัวนั้นก็เป็นข้อยกเว้นของข้อยกเว้น ถ้าการได้รู้ว่านายกฯ ป่วยหนักเป็นประโยชน์ต่อสาธารณะมันก็ควรถูกเปิดเผย การลองทำบททดสอบด้านผลประโยชน์สาธารณะน่าจะช่วยเรื่องการจัดการแกนสมมาตรเชิงอำนาจระหว่างกฎหมายสองชุด

ในการช่วยเหลือคนจน คุณควรมีกฎหมายความโปร่งใสและนโยบายโอเพ่นดาต้าที่ดี เพื่อคุ้มครองคนจนและคนเปราะบาง คุณต้องมีกฎหมายความเป็นส่วนตัว และถ้าคุณมีการทดสอบเรื่องผลประโยชน์สาธารณะในกฎหมายทั้งสองชุด กฎหมายเหล่านั้นก็จะไม่ถูกใช้ขูดรีดคนจน

ความมั่นคงจะอยู่ร่วมกับเสรีภาพและความเป็นส่วนตัวได้อย่างไร

กฎหมายข้อมูลประจำตัวดิจิทัลจะต้องมีสอดรับกับกฎหมายความเป็นส่วนตัวและนโยบายโอเพ่นดาต้า แต่ปัญหาก็คือกฎหมายความเป็นส่วนตัวยังเป็นเรื่องใหม่มากๆ ในภูมิภาคนี้ ไทยเพิ่งผ่าน พ.ร.บ. คุ้มครองข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล ที่อินเดียยังไม่มีในระดับชาติ ก็ยังคงมีงานที่ต้องทำอยู่ ศาลต้องทำหน้าที่หาคำนิยาม หน่วยงานกำกับดูแลต้องมีแนวทางกำกับที่จำเพาะมากๆ ภาคอุตสาหกรรมต้องมีแนวทางกำกับตัวเองและแนวปฏิบัติที่ดีที่สุด ภาคประชาสังคมเองก็ต้องช่วยภาคส่วนอื่นๆ ด้วยการถามคำถามหนักๆ

มันต้องใช้เวลา อย่างยุโรปก็มีเส้นทางการมีกฎหมายคุ้มครองข้อมูลยาวนานถึง 35 ปี นั่นเป็นเหตุผลที่ยุโรปมีการคุ้มครองที่ดีกว่า ในภูมิภาคของพวกเราก็จะใช้เวลาต่อสู้ถึง 35 ปีเช่นกัน ดังนั้น ประชาสังคมจะต้องเตรียมตัวในการต่อสู้เป็นเวลา 35 ปี และหลังจากนั้น ลูกหรือลูกของลูกเราจะเห็นระบบนิเวศข้อมูลประชาชนที่ปลอดภัยกว่านี้

รัฐบาลควรทำอะไรบ้าง

การผ่านกฎหมายอย่างเดียวนั้นไม่เพียงพอ ที่ (รัฐบาล) ทำในไทยคือแค่ผ่านกฎหมาย ตอนนี้คุณต้องสร้างคณะกรรมการที่เป็นอิสระ มีงบประมาณมากพอที่จะจ้างวิศวกรและนักกฎมายที่ดีที่สุด คณะกรรมการควรเริ่มบังคับใช้ข้อบังคับอย่างช้าๆ ศาลเองก็ควรพัฒนาองค์ความรู้ ผู้พิพากษาจะต้องเรียนรู้ว่าเกิดอะไรขึ้นบ้างในประเทศอื่นๆ ระบบกฎหมายต้องเตรียมพร้อมกับข้อกังวลใหม่ๆ

เทคโนโลยีช่วยได้แค่ไหน

เทคโนโลยีเป็นแค่ส่วนหนึ่งของการแก้ปัญหา คุณยังต้องกังวลเรื่องกฎหมายและบรรทัดฐานทางสังคม อะไรที่คนธรรมดาเขาทำกัน ถ้าทุกคนยังคงยินดีกับการส่งสำเนาบัตรประชาชน คุณก็ต้องไปเปลี่ยนมัน รัฐบาลมีประสบการณ์มากกับการยกระดับบรรทัดฐานทางสังคม

รัฐบาลต้องใช้อำนาจที่มีในการเปลี่ยนแนวปฏิบัติ เรื่องแนวทางการคุ้มครองความเป็นส่วนตัวก็เหมือนการสูบบุหรี่ พวกนักสูบส่วนมากก็รู้อยู่แล้วว่าการสูบบุหรี่นั้นทำให้เกิดมะเร็งและปัญหาอื่นๆ แต่ก็จะยังสูบต่อไปจนกว่าหมอจะบอกว่าเป็นมะเร็ง รัฐบาลก็ต้องทำให้พลเมืองเกิดความกลัวในสิ่งที่จะเกิดขึ้นเพื่อให้ประชาชนเลิกไม่เอาใจใส่เรื่องข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล

ส่วนสุดท้ายคือตลาด บรรษัทก็ต้องเริ่มสร้างนวัตกรรม เช่น ธนาคารควรออกมาพูดได้ว่าระบบของเราดีกว่าที่อื่น เราไม่ใช้ไบโอเมทริกซ์ เป็นต้น กฎหมายต้องทำให้เกิดการแข่งขันระหว่างบรรษัทในเรื่องความปลอดภัย ความเป็นส่วนตัว เมื่อเราเห็นบรรทัดฐาน กฎหมาย เทคโนโลยี และการแข่งขันทางเทคโนโลยี วันนั้นเราจะเริ่มเห็นทางออก ผมถึงบอกว่ามันจะใช้เวลา 30-40 ปี ไม่ก็นานกว่านั้น

ระบบข้อมูลประจำตัวดิจิทัลที่ดีเกี่ยวอะไรกับประเทศเป็นประชาธิปไตยไหม

ผู้คนถามคำถามยากๆ หลายคำถามในระบอบประชาธิปไตย และนั่นเป็นประโยชน์ แต่สิ่งที่เราต้องการจริงๆ คือประชาธิปไตยที่ปกครองโดยรัฐธรรมนูญ (Constitutional democracy) เพราะคุณไม่สามารถเดินไปถามคนทุกคนเพื่อหามติต่อคำถามทางเทคนิค

คุณต้องมีการอภิปรายสาธารณะที่โปร่งใสเยอะๆ แต่คุณไม่สามารถตัดสินใจกันด้วยการโหวต การไปถามว่า ‘มีกี่คนอยากใช้สแกนลายนิ้วมือ มีกี่คนอยากใช้สแกนใบหน้า’ ไม่ใช่วิธีออกแบบระบบข้อมูลประจำตัวดิจิทัล มันจะต้องวางอยู่บนหลักของรัฐธรรมนูญบางประการเช่นความถูกต้องตามกฎหมาย ความจำเป็น ความได้สัดส่วน หลังจากนั้นคุณจะต้องมีแนวทางที่เสนอโดยวิศวกรและนักกฎหมาย จากนั้นจึงให้มีการถกเถียงและอภิปราย

คุณตัดสินโดยอิงเสียงข้างมากไม่ได้เพียงเพราะคนส่วนมากบอกว่าพวกเขารู้สึกว่าการสแกนใบหน้ามันง่ายมาก คุณก็ไม่สามารถบอกว่าจะนำการสแกนใบหน้าไปใช้กับทุกอย่างเพียงเพราะมันปลดล็อกไอโฟนง่ายดี เพราะในวันพรุ่งนี้เทคโนโลยีเดียวกันอาจถูกนำไปใช้เพื่อสลายการชุมนุมก็ได้ แม้ทุกคนจะรักหลงการสแกนใบหน้าในประชาธิปไตยของคุณ แต่รัฐธรรมนูญยังคงต้องปฏิเสธมันและบอกว่ามันไม่จำเป็น ไม่ได้สัดส่วน มันควรถูกแบน หรือไม่ก็ใช้ในวัตถุประสงค์ที่จำเพาะ

ช่วยอธิบายว่าทำไมการเฝ้าระวังอาจเป็นการทำให้คนหลบเข้าไปอยู่ในมุมมืดมากขึ้น

มันเป็นผลที่เกิดขึ้นโดยไม่ตั้งใจ อย่างถ้าคุณไปบล็อกเนื้อหาที่คนชอบมากๆ คนก็อาจจะหันไปใช้ TOR หรือ VPN (วิธีการเข้าถึงเนื้อหาที่ถูกบล็อก) ซึ่งนั่นไม่ใช่ความตั้งใจของคุณ ถ้าคุณไม่พัฒนาระบบข้อมูลประชาชนที่ดี ประชาชนก็จะเริ่มทำตัวเหมือนอาชญากร แต่พวกเขาไม่ใช่อาชญากร เพียงแค่เขาไม่ชอบการออกแบบระบบเท่านั้น คุณไม่สามารถบังคับให้คนทำพฤติกรรมแบบนั้นหรือแบบนี้ได้ ดังนั้นการเป็นประชาธิปไตยจึงสำคัญ ในระหว่างที่คุณพัฒนาเทคโนโลยีคุณก็ควรถามพวกเขา (ผู้ใช้) ไปด้วยว่ามันใช้ได้หรือไม่ ทำให้เกิดการอภิปรายขึ้น

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/e2de2de01e41e1ae1ae23e30e1ae1ae02e49e2de21e39e25e1be23e30e0ae32e0ae19e14e34e08e34e17e31e25-e04e38e22e01e31e1ae1ce39e49e40e0ae35e48e22e27e0ae32e0de2be32e41e19e27e17e32e07e40e2be21e32e30e2ae21

IFAT and ITF - Locking Down the Impact of Covid-19 - Report

sumandro — 2020-09-17T17:38:59Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-report

Annotated version of Comments to The Personal Data Protection Bill 2019

akash — 2020-02-12T11:18:33Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/annotated-version-of-comments-to-the-personal-data-protection-bill-2019

Annotated ver PDP Bill 2019

pallavi — 2020-02-21T10:08:41Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/annotated-ver-pdp-bill-2019

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age

Geetha Hariharan and Jyoti Panday — 2015-07-15T14:42:23Z

The Centre for Internet & Society, the Observer Research Foundation, the Internet Policy Observatory, the Centre for Global Communication Studies and the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania organized this conference on April 21, 2015 in New Delhi.

This report was edited by Elonnai Hickok

Effective research, policy formulation, and the development of regulatory frameworks in South Asia

Inside this Report

BACKGROUND TO THE CONFERENCE

THE ORGANIZERS

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

WELCOME ADDRESS

SESSION 1: LEARNINGS FROM THE PAST

Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance (CCMG), Jamia Millia Islamia University

Smarika Kumar, Alternative Law Forum

Bhairav Acharya, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court & Consultant, CIS

Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University

Questions & Comments

SESSION 2: CURRENT REALITIES

Cherian George, Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University

Zakir Khan, Article 19, Bangladesh

Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University (Delhi)

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Consultant, Access Now

Questions & Comments

SESSION 3: LOOKING AHEAD

Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times

Karuna Nundy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Geeta Seshu, The Hoot

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society

Questions & Comments

Conclusion

Background to the Conference

As the Internet expands and provides greater access and enables critical rights such as freedom of expression and privacy, it also places censorship and surveillance capabilities in the hands of states and corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections for the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as extremist/hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women, and the use of the Internet to spread rumours of violence, the regulation of cont ent is a question that is far from being settled and needs urgent attention. These are compounded by contextual challenges. What role can and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social networks and Internet Service Providers (ISPs)? And what can users do to protect the right to free speech - their own and that of others?

Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated by the challenges of fast paced and changing technologies and the need for adaptable and evolving regulatory frameworks. By highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening the right to freedom of expression across South Asia.

The Organizers

Centre for Internet & Society

Established in 2008, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and intellectual property rights, and openness (including open standards and open government data). CIS also engages in scholarly research on the budding disciplines of digital natives and digital humanities. CIS has offices in Bangalore and New Delhi.

Observer Research Foundation

ORF, established in 1990, is India's premier independent public policy think tank and is engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. It hosts India's largest annual cyber conference - CyFy: the India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance

The Annenberg School for Communication, The Centre for Global Communication Studies & the Internet Policy Observatory (U. Penn.)

The Annenberg School of Communication (ASC) at the University of Pennsylvania produces research that advances the understanding of public and private communications. The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) is a focused academic center at ASC and a leader in international education and training in comparative media law and policy. It affords students, academics, lawyers, regulators, civil society representatives and others the opportunity to evaluate and discuss international communications issues. The Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) was started by CGCS to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which Internet governance debates take place. The IPO serves as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, displaying collected data and analysis.

Conference Programme

'Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age' Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia
April 21^st, 2015 - 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The Observer Research Foundation

20, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area

New Delhi - 110 002, INDIA

About the Conference

The conference will be a discussion highlighting the challenges in promoting and strengthening online freedom of expression and evaluating the application of existing regulatory frameworks in South Asia

Agenda

Learnings from the past		Current Realities		Looking ahead
11:00 - 1:00	1:00 - 2:00	2:00 - 4:00	4:00- 4:15	4:15 - 6:00
Overview of online FoEx policy and regulatory models across South Asia		Enabling FOEX in South Asia		Challenges associated with formulating regulation for online FoEx
Definitions of FoEx across South Asia		Ways in which FoEx is, or may be, curtailed online		Ways forward to bridge existing gaps between policy formation and policy implementation with respect to FOEX online
Impact of technology and markets on FoEx across South Asia		Balancing FoEx and other digital rights		Exploring emerging regulatory questions for FoEx online
Challenges to FoEx online across South Asia		The impact of jurisdiction, multi-national platforms, and domestic regulation on FoEx online		Impacting and influencing the development and implementation of Internet regulation through research
Effective research techniques and online FoEx		Role and responsibility of intermediaries in regulating online speech across South Asia		Exploration of the future role and interplay of technology and policy in enabling FOEX online

Ms. Mahima Kaul, Head (Cyber & Media Initiative), Observer Research Foundation (ORF), introduced the conference and its context and format, as well as the organisers. In three sessions, the Conference aimed to explore historical lessons, current realities and future strategies with regard to freedom of expression on the Internet in India and South Asia.

Mr. Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow, ORF, provided the welcome address. Mr. Joshi highlighted the complexities and distinctions between print and electronic media, drawing on examples from history. He stated that freedom of expression is most often conceived as a positive right in the context of print media, as restrictions to the right are strictly within the bounds of the Constitution. For instance, during the riots in Punjab in the 1980s, when hate speech was prevalent, constitutionally protected restrictions were placed on the print media. When efforts were made to crack down on journalists with the introduction of the Defamation Bill in the 1980s, journalists were lucky that the Bill also included proprietors as those liable for defamation. This created solidarity between journalists and proprietors of newspapers to fight the Bill, and it was shelved.

Freedom of expression is necessary in a democratic society, Mr. Joshi stated, but it is necessary that this freedom be balanced with other rights such as privacy of individuals and the protection against hate speech. In the absence of such balance, speech becomes one-sided, leaving no recourse to those affected by violative speech.

In the digital age, however, things become complex, Mr. Joshi said. The freedom available to speech is enhanced, but so is the misuse of that freedom. The digital space has been used to foment riots, commit cybercrime, etc. Online, in India the restrictions placed on freedom of speech have become draconian. Section 66A and the incidents of arrests under it are an example of this. It is, therefore, important to consider the kind of restrictions that should be placed on free speech online. There is also the question of self-regulation by online content-creators, but this is rendered complex by the fact that no one owns the Internet. This conference, Mr. Joshi said, will help develop an understanding of what works and what frameworks we will need going forward.

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), introduced the speakers for the first session. Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia University, would first share his views and experience regarding the various ways of curtailing freedom of expression by the State, markets and civil society. Ms. Smarika Kumar of theAlternative Law Forum (ALF) would then expand on structural violations of freedom of expression. Mr. Bhairav Acharya, Advocate with the Delhi Bar and Consultant for CIS, would throw light on the development of free speech jurisprudence and policy in India from the colonial era, while Prof. Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University, was to speak about his arrest and charges under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008), providing insight into the way Section 66A was misused by police and the West Bengal government.

Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance (CCMG), Jamia Millia Islamia University

Mr. Parthasarathi began his talk with an anecdote, narrating an incident when he received a call from a print journalist, who said "TV people can get away with anything, but we can't, and we need to do something about it." The notion of news institutions getting away with non-kosher actions is not new - and has been a perception since the 19^th century. He stressed that there have always been tensions between Freedom of Expression, access, and other rights. Curtailment happens not just by the state, but by private parties as well - market and civil society. Indeed, a large number of non-state actors are involved in curtailing FoE. Subsequently a tension between individual FoE and commercial speech freedom is emerging. This is not a new phenomenon. Jurisprudence relating to free speech makes a distinction between the persons in whom the right inheres: individuals on the one hand (including journalists and bloggers), and proprietors and commercial entities on the other.

In India, freedom of speech cases - from 1947 - relate primarily to the rights of proprietors. These cases form the legal and constitutional basis for issues of access, transmission and distribution, but are not necessarily favourable to the rights of individual journalists or newsreaders. At the individual level, the freedom to receive information is equally important, and needs to be explored further. For entities, it is crucial to consider the impact of curtailment of speech (or threats of curtailment) on entities of different sizes and kinds.

Mr. Parthasarathi further explained that online, freedom of expression depends on similar structural conditions and stressed that scholarship must study these as well. For example, intermediaries in the TV industry and online intermediaries will soon come together to provide services, but scholarship does not link them yet. The law is similarly disjointed. For instance, 'broadcasting' falls in the Union List under Schedule VII of the Constitution, and is centrally regulated. However, distribution is geographically bounded, and States regulate distribution. In order to have a cohesive broadcast regulation, he raised the point that the placement of 'broadcasting' in the Union List may need to be re-thought.

According to Mr. Parthasarathi, the underlying conceptual basis - for the interlinked scholarship and regulation of intermediaries (online and broadcast), of commercial speech and individual access to information, and censorship (State and private, direct and structural) - lies in Article 19(1)(a). He noted that there is a need to rethink the nature of this freedom. For whom do we protect freedom of speech? For individuals alone, or also for all private entities? From what are we protecting this freedom? For Mr. Parthasarathi, freedom of speech needs to be protected from the State, the market, civil society and those with entrenched political interests. Additionally, Mr. Parthasarathi raised the question of whether or not in the online context freedom of the enterprise becomes antithetical to universal access

Mr. Parthasarathi also highlighted that it is important to remember that freedom of expression is not an end in itself; it is a facilitator - the 'road'- to achieve crucial goals such as diversity of speech. But if diversity is what freedom of expression should enable, it is important to ask whether institutional exercise of freedom has led to enhanced diversity of speech. Do media freedom and media diversity go together? For Mr. Parthasarathi, media freedom and media diversity do not always go together. The most vivid example of this is the broadcast environment in India, following the deregulation of broadcast media beginning from the mid 1990s - much of which was done through executive orders on an ad hoc basis.

This led to infrastructural censorship, in addition to the ex-post curtailment of content. Increasingly the conditions on which content is produced are mediated i.e. which entities are eligible to obtain licenses, what type of capital is encouraged or discouraged, how is market dominance measured, accumulation of interests across content and carriage, or various carriage platforms? Mediating the conditions of producing speech, or infra censorship, is primarily operationalised through regulatory silences, as illustrated in the absence of any coherent or systematic anti-competitive measures.

Indian courts are champions in protecting the freedom of expression of 'outlets' - of proprietors and entities. But this has not led to diversity of speech and media. Perhaps there is a need to rethink and reformulate ideas of freedom. He pointed out that it is not enough merely to look at ex post curtailment of speech (i.e., the traditional idea of censorship). Instead the conditions in which speech is made and censored need to be explored; only then can our understanding expand. Mr Parthasarathi ended his talk by stressing that a proactive understanding of freedom of expression can highlight architectural curtailment of speech through the grant of licenses, competition and antitrust laws, media ownership and concentration across carriage and content, etc. This is essential in a digital age, where intermediaries play a crucial, growing role in facilitating freedom of speech.

Smarika Kumar, Alternative Law Forum
Beginning where Mr. Parthasarathi left off, the focus of Ms. Kumar's presentation was the curtailment of speech and the conditions under which speech is produced. At the outset, she sought from the audience a sense of the persons for whom freedom of speech is protected: for government-controlled media, the markets and commercial entities, or for civil society and citizens? Ms. Kumar aimed to derive ideas and conceptual bases to understand freedom of speech in the digital space by studying judicial interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) and its limitations. Towards this end, she highlighted some Indian cases that clarify the above issues.

Ms. Kumar began with Sakal Papers v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 305]. In Sakal Papers, the issue concerned the State's regulation of speech by regulation of the number of permitted pages in a newspaper. This regulation was challenged as being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The rationale for such regulation, the State argued, was that newsprint, being imported, was a scarce commodity, and therefore needed to be equitably distributed amongst different newspapers - big or small. Further, the State defended the regulation citing its necessity for ensuring equal diversity and freedom of expression amongst all newspapers. The petitioners in the case argued that such a regulation would negatively impact the newspapers' right to circulation by reducing the space for advertisements, and thus forcing the newspaper to increase selling prices. Readers of the newspaper additionally argued that such increase in prices would affect their right to access newspapers by making them less affordable, and hence such regulation was against the readers' interests. Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck down the regulation. The Constitution Bench noted that if the number of pages of a newspaper were to be limited and regulated, the space available for advertisements would reduce. Were advertisements to reduce, the cost of newspapers would increase, affecting affordability and access to information for the citizens. Ultimately, newspaper circulation would suffer; i.e., the State's regulation affected the newspapers' right of circulation which would amount to a violation of freedom of expression as the right extends to the matter of speech as well as the ability to circulate such speech.

Apart from the number of pages, the Indian government has sought to regulate newsprint in the past. In Bennett Coleman and Co. & Ors. v. Union of India [AIR 1973 SC 106], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether regulation of the number of pages permitted in a newspaper constituted an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. Towards this, the Government of India set forth a Newsprint Policy in 1972, under the terms of which the number of pages of all papers were to be limited to ten; where there were small newspapers that did not achieve the ten-page limit, a 20% increase was permitted; and finally, new newspapers could not be started by common ownership units. The Newsprint Order aimed to regulate a scarce resource (newsprint), while the Newsprint Policy sought to promote small newspapers, encourage equal diversity among newspapers and prevent monopolies. The Supreme Court upheld the Newsprint Order, stating that newsprint was indeed a scarce resource, and that the matter of import and distribution of newsprint was a matter of government policy. The Court would not interfere unless there was evidence of mala fides. However, the Court struck down the Newsprint Policy for reasons similar to Sakal Papers ; that the rights afforded to newspapers under Article 19(1)(a) - including circulation - could not be abridged for reasons of protecting against monopolies.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Mathew stated that in conceiving freedom of expression, it is important to also consider the hearer (the reader). For Justice Mathew, Meiklejohn's view the "what is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said" cannot be affected if, because of concentration of media ownership, media are not available for most speakers. In such a situation, " the hearers [cannot] be reached effectively". However, the imperative is to maximise diversity of speech. For this, we need to balance the rights of citizens against those of the press; i.e., the rights of the reader against those of the speaker.

Ms. Kumar pointed out that this was the first case to consider the right of readers to access a diversity of speech. Justice Mathew distinguished curtailment of speech by the state, and by the market - and that this is crucial in the digital age, where information is predominantly accessible through and because of intermediaries. Ms. Kumar further stressed that especially in an age where 'walled gardens' are a real possibility (in the absence of net neutrality regulation, for instance), Justice Mathew's insistence on the rights of readers and listeners to a diversity of speech is extremely important.

Ms. Kumar went on to explain that though judges in the Supreme Court recognised the rights of readers/listeners (us, the citizens) for the purposes of news and print media, a similar right is denied to us in the case of TV. In Secretary, Ministry of Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal [AIR 1995 SC 1236], the issue surrounded private operators' right to use airwaves to broadcast. The Supreme Court considered whether government agencies and Doordarshan, the government broadcaster, " have a monopoly of creating terrestrial signals and of telecasting them or refusing to telecast them", and whether Doordarshan could claim to be the single host broadcaster for all events, including those produced or organised by the company or by anybody else in the country or abroad. The Supreme Court held that the TV viewer has a right to a diversity of views and information under Article 19(1)(a), and also that the viewer must be protected against the market. The Court reasoned that " airwaves being public property, it is the duty of the state to see that airwaves are so utilised as to advance the free speech right of the citizens, which is served by ensuring plurality and diversity of views, opinions and ideas ".

If every citizen were afforded the right to use airwaves at his own choosing, "powerful economic, commercial and political interests" would dominate the media. Therefore, instead of affirming a distinct right of listeners, the Court conflated the interests of government-controlled media with those of the listeners, on the ground that government media fall under public and parliamentary scrutiny. According to Ms. Kumar this is a regressive position that formulates State interest as citizen interest. Ms. Kumar argued that in order to ensure freedom of speech there is a need to frame citizens' interests as distinct from those of the market and the government.

Bhairav Acharya, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court & Consultant, CIS
Mr. Acharya's presentation focused on the divergence between the jurisprudence and policy surrounding freedom of expression in India. According to him, the policies of successive governments in India - from the colonial period and thereafter - have developed at odds with case-law relating to freedom of expression. Indeed, it is possible to discern from the government's actions over the last two centuries a relatively consistent narrative of governance which seeks to bend the individual's right to speech to its will. The defining characteristics of this narrative - the government's free speech policy - emerge from a study of executive and legislative decisions chiefly in relation to the press, that continue to shape policy regarding the freedom of expression on the Internet. Thus, there has been consistent tension between the individual and the community, as well as the role of the government in enforcing the expectations of the community when thwarted by law.

Today, free speech scholarship (including digital speech) fails to take into account this consistent divergence between jurisprudence and policy. Mr. Acharya pointed out that we think of digital speech issues as new, whereas there is an immense amount of insight to gain by studying the history of free speech and policy in India.

Towards this, Mr. Acharya highlighted that to understand dichotomy between modern and native law and free speech policy, it is useful to go back to the early colonial period in India, when Governor-General Warren Hastings established a system of courts in Bengal's hinterland to begin the long process of displacing traditional law to create a modern legal system. J. Duncan M. Derrett notes that the colonial expropriation of Indian law was marked by a significant tension caused by the repeatedly-stated objective of preserving some fields of native law to create a dichotomous legal structure. These efforts were assisted by orientalist jurists such as Henry Thomas Colebrook whose interpretation of the dharmasastras heralded a new stage in the evolution of Hindu law. By the mid-nineteenth century, this dual system came under strain in the face of increasing colonial pressure to rationalise the legal system to ensure more effective governance, and native protest at the perceived insensitivity of the colonial government to local customs.

Mr. Acharya explained that this myopia in Indian policy research is similar social censorship (i.e., social custom as creating limits to free speech). Law and society scholars have long studied the social censorship phenomenon, but policy research rejects this as a purely academic pursuit. But the truth is that free speech has been regulated by a dual policy of law and social custom in India since colonial times. The then-Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court Elijah Impey required officers to respect local customs, and this extended to free speech as well. But as colonial courts did not interpret Hindu law correctly; interpretations of freedom of speech suffered as well. Mr. Acharya noted that the restrictions on freedom of speech introduced by the British continue to affect individuals in India today. Prior to British amendments, India had drawn laws from multiple sources - indeed customs and laws were tailored for communities and contexts, and not all were blessed with the consistency and precedent so familiar to common law. Since the British were unable to make sense of India's law and customs, they codified the principles of English customary law.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) saw the codification of English criminal law (the public offences of riots, affray, unlawful assembly, etc., and private offences such as criminal intimidation). In Macaulay's initial drafts, the IPC did not contain sedition and offences of hurting religious sentiments, etc. Sections 124A ("Sedition") and 295A (" Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs") were added to the IPC in 1860, and changes were made to the Code of Criminal Procedure as well. Today, these sections are used to restrict and criminalise digital speech.

The Right to Offend :

Mr. Acharya then considered the history of the "right to offend", in light of the controversies surrounding Section 66A, IT Act. Before the insertion and strengthening of Section 295A, citizens in India had a right to offend others within the bounds of free speech. He clarified that in 1925 a pamphlet " Rangila Rasool" was published by Lahore-based Mahashe Rajpal (the name(s) of the author(s) were never revealed). The pamphlet concerned the marriages and sex life of the Prophet Mohammed, and created a public outcry. Though the publisher was acquitted of all charges and the pamphlet was upheld, the publisher was ambushed and stabbed when he walked out of jail. Under pressure from the Muslim community, the British enacted Section 295A, IPC. The government was seeking to placate and be sensitive to public feeling, entrenching the idea that the government may sacrifice free speech in the face of riots, etc. The death of India's "right to offend" begins here, said Mr. Acharya.

A prior restraint regime was created and strengthened in 1835, then in 1838, etc. At this time, the press in India was largely British. Following the growth of Indian press after the 1860s, the British made their first statutory attempt at censorship in 1867: a prior sanction was required for publication, and contravention attracted heavy penalties such as deportation and exile. Forfeiture of property, search and seizures and press-inspections were also permitted by the government under these draconian laws. Mr. Acharya noted that it is interesting that many leaders of India's national movement were jailed under the press laws.

Independence and After :

Mr. Acharya further explained that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted "freedom of the press" from the text of Article 19(1)(a) and that Jawaharlal Nehru did not think the press ought to be afforded such a right. This is despite a report of the Law Commission of India, which recommended that corporations be provided an Article 19 right. But why distrust the press, though citizens are granted the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)? In Mr. Acharya's opinion, this is evidence of the government's divergent approach towards free speech policy; and today, we experience this as a mistrust of the press, publications, and of online speech.

Mr. Acharya also explained that statutory restrictions on free speech grew at odds with judicial interpretation in the 1950s. Taking the examples ofRomesh Thapar v. the State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124] and Brij Bhushan v. the State of Delhi [(1950) Supp. SCR 245], Mr. Acharya showed how the judiciary interpreted Article 19 favourably. Despite the government's arguments about a public order danger, the Supreme Court refused to strike down left wing or right wing speech ( Romesh Thapar concerned a left wing publication; Brij Bhushan concerned right wing views), as "public order" was not a ground for restricting speech in the Constitution. The government reacted to the Supreme Court's judgement by enacting the First Amendment to the Constitution: Article 19(2) was amended to insert "public order" as a ground to restrict free speech. Thus, it is possible to see the divergence between free speech jurisprudence and policy in India from the time of Independence. Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had supported the amendment, while B.R. Ambedkar supported Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan. On the other hand, then-President Rajendra Prasad sought Constitutional protection for the press.

Why Study Free Speech History?

Mr. Acharya noted how the changes in free speech policy continue to affect us, including in the case of content restrictions online. In the 1950s, then-Prime Minister Nehru appointed the First Press Commission, and the newspaper National Herald was established to promote certain (left wing) developmental and social goals. Chalapati Rao was the editor of the National Herald, and a member of the First Press Commission.

At that time, the Commission rejected vertical monopolies of the press. However, today, horizontal monopolies characterize India's press. The First Press Commission also opposed 'yellow journalism' (i.e., sensational journalism and the tabloid press), but this continues today. Decades later, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called for a "committed bureaucracy, judiciary and press", taking decisive steps to ensure the first two. For instance, Justice Mathew (one of the judges in the Bennett Coleman case) was an admirer of Indira Gandhi. As Kerala's Advocate General, he wanted the Press Registrar to have investigative powers similar to those given in colonial times; he also wanted the attacks on government personalities to be criminalized. The latter move was also supported by M.V. Gadgil, who introduced a Bill in Parliament that sought to criminalise attacks on public figures on the grounds of privacy. Mr. Acharya noted that though Indira Gandhi's moves and motives with regard to a "committed press" are unclear, the fact remains that India's regional and vernacular press was more active in criticizing the Emergency than national press.

Demonstrating the importance of understanding a contexts history - both social and legislative, following the striking down of 66A in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India (Supreme Court, March 24, 2015), elements in the government have stated their wish to introduce and enact a new Section 66A. Mr. Acharya explained that such moves from elements in the government shows that despite the striking down of 66A, it is still possible for the repressive and mistrustful history of press policy to carry forward in India. This possibility is supported by colonial and post-Independence press history and policy that has been developed by the government. When looking at how research can impact policy, greater awareness of history and context may allow for civil society, academia, and the public at large to predict and prepare for press policy changes.

Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University

Prof. Mahapatra introduced himself as a victim of the West Bengal administration and ruling party. He stated that though India's citizens have been granted the protection of fundamental rights after Independence, these rights are not fully protected; his experience with the West Bengal ruling party and its abuse of powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008) ("IT Act") highlights this.

On March 23, 2012, Prof. Mahapatra had forwarded a cartoon to his friends by email. The cartoon poked fun at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her ruling party. On the night of April 12, 2012, individuals not residing in the Professor's housing colony confronted him, dragging him to the colony building and assaulting him. These individuals forced Prof. Mahapatra to write a confession about his forwarding of the cartoon and his political affiliations. Though the police arrived at the scene, they did not interfere with the hooligans. Moreover, when the leader of the hooligans brought the Professor to the police and asked that he be arrested, they did so even though they did not have an arrest warrant. At the police station, the hooligans filed a complaint against him. The Professor was asked to sign a memo mentioning the charges against him (Sections 114 and 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 66A, IT Act). Prof. Mahapatra noted that the police complaint had been filed by an individual who was neither the receiver nor the sender of the email, but was a local committee member with the Trinamool Congress (the West Bengal ruling party).

The arrest sparked a series of indignant responses across the country. The West Bengal Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of the arrest, and recommended action against the high-handedness of the police. Fifty six intellectuals appealed to the Prime Minister of India to withdraw the arrest; the former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju was among those who appealed. Thirty cartoonists' organisations from across the world also appealed to the President and the Prime Minister to withdraw the case.

The West Bengal government paid no heed to the protests, and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee publicly supported the actions of the police - making public statements against Justice Katju and A.K. Ganguly, former judge of the Supreme Court and head of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission respectively. A charge sheet was framed against Prof. Mahapatra and others, with Section 66A as one of the charges.

The case has been going on for over two years. Recently, on March 10, 2015, the Calcutta High Court upheld the recommendations of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission, and directed the government to implement them. The West Bengal government has preferred an appeal before a division bench, and the case will continue. This is despite the fact that Section 66A has been struck down (by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India).

Though noting that he was not an expert, Prof. Mahapatra put forward that it seemed that the freedom of expression of the common man depends on the whims of the ruling parties and the State/Central governments. It is of utmost importance, according to him, to protect the common man's freedom of speech, for his recourse against the government and powerful entities is pitifully limited.

Questions & Comments

Q. A participant stated that the core trouble appears to lie in the power struggle of political parties. Political parties wish to retain power and gather support for their views. Despite progressive laws, it is the Executive that implements the laws. So perhaps what is truly required is police and procedural reforms rather than legislative changes.

A. Members of the panel agreed that there is a need for more sensitivity and awareness amongst the law enforcement agencies and this might be long overdue and much needed step in protecting the rights of citizens.

Q. A participant was interested in understanding how it might be possible to correct the dichotomy between FoE policy and doctrine? The participant also wanted the panel to comment on progressive policy making if any.

A. Members of the panel stated that there is no easy way of correcting this dichotomy between custom and law. Scholars have also argued that the relationship between custom and pernicious social censorship is ambiguous. Towards this, more studies are required to come to a conclusion.

Q. A participant requested clarity on what rights can be created to ensure and support a robust right to freedom of expression, and how this might affect the debates surrounding net neutrality?

A. Members of the panel noted that the Internet allows citizens and corporations to regulate speech on their own (private censorship), and this is problematic. Members of the panel also responded that the existing free speech right does not enable diversity of speech. Social and local customs permit social censorship, and this network effect is clearly visible online; individuals experience a chilling effect. Finally, in the context of net neutrality, the interests of content-producers (OTTs, for instance) are different from those of users. They may benefit economically from walled gardens or from non-interference with traffic-routing, but users may not. Therefore, there is a need for greater clarity before coming to a conclusion about potential net neutrality regulation.

Session 2: Current Realities

Dr. Cherian George, Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University
Dr. George began his talk by highlighting how there is no issue as contentious as offensive speech and how it should be dealt with. The debate around free speech is often framed as a battle between those who support democracy and those who oppose it. Yet, this is also a tension within democracy. Citizens should not be unjustly excluded from participating in democracy (companion rights in Article 19 and 20, ICCPR). Relevant UN institutions and Article 19 have come up with reports and ideals that should be universally adopted - norms that apply to many areas including speech. These norms are different from traditional approaches. For example:

Human Rights Norms	Traditional Approach
Regulate incitement of violence (discrimination, hate, etc.)	Law protects people's feelings from speech that offends
Protect minorities as they are more vulnerable to exploitation and uprooting of their values	Law sides with the majority, to protect mainstream values over minority values
Allow robust criticism of ideas, religions, and beliefs	Law protects religion, beliefs, and ideas from criticism
Strive for balance between liberty and equality	Aims for order and maintenance of status quo
Promote harmony through the media	Enforces harmony by the state

Commenting on the traditional approach, Dr. George noted that if the state protects feelings of offence against speech, it allows groups to use such protection as a political weapon: "hate spin", which is the giving or taking of offence as a political strategy. Hate spin is normally framed as a "visceral, spontaneous reaction" to a video, writing, or speech, etc. Yet, the spontaneous reaction of indignation to speech or content can consistently be revealed to result from conscious manipulation by middlemen for political purposes.

South Asia is similar to West Asia - as the legal frameworks provide immunity for dangerous speech. In practice, this allows for the incitement of discrimination, hostility, and violence. At the same time, the legal frameworks allow for excessive sympathy for wounded feelings, and often the taking of offence turns into a political strategy. Power enters the equation here. The law allows the powerful to take offence and use hate speech against those not in powerful positions.

Dr. George highlighted a number of legal quandaries surrounding freedom of expression including:

Enforcement gaps: There is a lack of enforcement of existing laws against incitement.
Non-regulated zones: Socio-political research demonstrates that many problems cannot be regulated, and yet the law can only deal with what can be regulated. Hate speech is one of these as hate speech is not in the speech itself, but in the meaning that is produced in the mind of those saying/listening.
Verdict-proof opportunities: Political entrepreneurs can use legislative and judicial processes to mainstream hateful views, regardless of how legislature and courts ultimately act. The religious right, for instance, can always pit themselves morally against "secular" decisions of apex authorities (SC, etc.). For example, in the context of the US and Islamophobia - the State legislature in Alabama introduced an anti-Shariah law. Yet, the law is against a non-existent threat and appears to be a ploy to normalize anti-Muslim sentiments, including in political rhetoric. While focusing on winning battles in courts or legislature, the intolerant groups do not need to win a legal court case to introduce and entrench language of intolerance in public discourse and discussion. This demonstrates that there is a need to begin moving away from a purely legal analysis (interpretation or development) of the laws, and a need to begin studying these issues through a sociological lens.

Zakir Khan, Article 19, Bangladesh
Mr. Khan introduced Article 19 and its work in Bangladesh and the rest of South Asia. He noted that Article 19 is involved in documenting and analysing laws and regulations affecting freedom of expression, including in Bangladesh. Article 19 also campaigns for changes in law and policy, and responds from a policy perspective to particular instances of government overreach.

Mr. Khan explained that India has the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008) ("IT Act"), and in Bangladesh, the equivalent legislation is the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 ("ICT Act"). The ICT Act was enacted to bring Bangladeshi law in conformity with international law; i.e. in accordance with the UNCITRAL model law on e-commerce and online transactions. The ICT Act deals with hacking, crimes committed with the use of a computer system, breach of data, breach of computer system, and hardware.

Like the IT Act in India, Bangladesh's ICT Act also criminalizes speech and expression online. For instance, Section 57, ICT Act, criminalizes the publication of "fake, obscene or defaming information in electronic form". Similarly, bringing damage to "the state's image" online is criminalized. In 2013, the Bangladesh Ministry of Law amended the ICT Act to increase penalties for online offences, and allow for the detention of suspected offenders, warrantless arrests and indefinite detention without bail. Bloggers and activists have been protesting these changes, and have been targeted for the same.

Mr. Khan noted that Article 19 has developed a tool to report violations online. Individuals who have experienced violations of their rights online can post this information onto a forum, wherein Article 19 tracks and reports on them, as well as creating awareness about the violation. Any blogger or online activist can come and voice concerns and report their stories. Mr. Khan also highlighted that given the ICT Act and the current environment, online activists and bloggers are particularly threatened. Article 19 seeks to create a safe space for online bloggers and activists by creating anonymity tools, and by creating awareness about the distinctions between political agenda and personal ideology.

Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University (Delhi)
Ms. Arun began by noting that usually conversations around freedom of expression look at the overlap between FoE and content i.e. the focus is on the speaker and the content. Yet, when one targets the mediator - it shifts the focus as it would be approaching the issue from the intermediary's perspective. When structural violation of free speech happens, it either places the middleman in the position of carrying through the violation, or creates a structure through which speech violations are incentivized.

An example of this is the Bazee.com case. At the time of the case the law was structured in such a way that not only perpetrators of unlawful content were punished, but so were the bodies/persons that circulated illegal content. In regulatory terms this is known as "gatekeeper liability". In the Bazee.com case, a private party put obscene content up for sale and Bazee.com could and did not verify all of the content that was for sale. In the case, the Delhi HC held Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, liable on the precedent of strict liability for circulation of obscene content. The standard of strict liability was established under Ranjit Udeshi case. The standard of strict liability is still the norm for non-online content, but after Bazee.com, a Parliament Standing Committee created a safe harbour for online intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act. As per the provision, if content has been published online, but an intermediary has not edited or directly created the content, it is possible for them to seek immunity from liability for the content. The Parliament Standing Committee then stated that intermediaries ought to exercise due diligence. Thus, the Indian legal regime provides online intermediaries with immunity only if content has not been published or edited by an intermediary and due diligence has been exercised as defined by Rules under the Act. While developing India's legal regime for intermediary liability the Parliamentary Standing Committee did not focus on the impact of such regulation on online speech.

To a large extent, present research and analysis of Freedom of Expression is focused on the autonomy of the speaker/individual. An alternative formulation and way of understanding the right, and one that has been offered by Robert Post through his theory of democratic self governance, is that Freedom of Expression is more about the value of the speech rather than the autonomy of the speaker. In such a theory the object of Freedom of Expression is to ensure diversity of speech in the public sphere. The question to ask then is: "Is curtailment affecting democratic dialogue?" The Supreme Court of India has recognized that people have a right to know/listen/receive information in a variety of cases. Ms. Arun explained that if one accepts this theory of speech, the liability of online intermediaries will be seen differently.

Ms. Arun further explained that in Shreya Singhal, the notice-and-takedown regime under section 79 of the IT Act has been amended, but the blocking regime under section 69A has not. Thus, the government can still use intermediaries as proxies to take down legitimate content, and not provide individuals with the opportunity to to challenge blocking orders. This is because as per the Act, blocking orders must be confidential. Though the blocking regime has not been amended, the Supreme Court has created an additional safeguard by including the requirement that the generator of content has to be contacted (to the extent possible) before the government can pass and act upon a blocking order. Mr. Arun noted that hopefully, when implemented, this will provide a means of recourse for individuals and counter, to some extent, the mandated secrecy of content blocking orders.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Consultant, Access Now
Mr. Chima began his presentation by noting that the Internet is plagued by a few founding myths. Tim Goldsmith and Jack Wu (in Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World) name one: that no laws apply to the Internet; that, because of the borderless nature of the Internet - data flows through cables without regard for State borders - and thus countries' laws do not affect the Internet. These cyber-anarchists, amongst whom John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is inspiring, also argue that regulation has no role for the Internet.

Mr. Chima countered these 'myths', arguing that the law affects the Internet in many ways. The US military and Science departments funded the invention of the Internet. So the government was instrumental in the founding of the Internet, and the US Department of Commerce has agreements with ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to govern the Domain Names System. So the law, contracts and regulation already apply to the Internet.

Mr. Chima further explained that today organisations like EFF and civil society in India argue for, and seek to influence, the creation of regulation for the protection of journalists against unfair and wrongful targeting by the government. This includes moves to protect whistleblowers, to ensure the openness of the Internet and its protection from illegitimate and violative acts against freedom of expression, access and other rights. Some governments, like India, also place conditions in the licenses granted to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to ensure that they bring access to the rural, unconnected areas. Such law and regulation are not only common, but they are also good; they help the population against virtual wrongdoing.

Mr. Chima pointed out that when States contemplate policy-making for the Internet, they look to a variety of sources. Governments draw upon existing laws and standards (like India with the virtual obscenity offence provision Section, 67 and 67A, IT Act, which is drawn from the real-world penal provision Section 292, IPC) and executive action (regulation, by-laws, changes to procedural law) to create law for the Internet. Additionally, if a government repeats a set of government actions consistently over time, such actions may take on the force of law. Mr. Chima also spoke of web-developers and standards-developers (the technical community), who operate by rules that have the force of law, such as the 'rough consensus and running code' of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Governments also prescribe conditions ("terms of use") that companies must maintain, permitting or proscribing certain kinds of content on websites and platforms.

Finally, Mr. Chima highlighted international legal and policy standards that play a role in determining the Internet's law and regulation. ICANN, the administrator of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and governing body for the Domain Names System, functions by a set of rules that operate as law, and in the creation of which, the international legal community (governments, companies, civil society and non-commercial users, and the technical community) play a role. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) and organisations like INTERPOL also play a role.

Mr. Chima explained that when one wants to focus on issues concerning freedom of expression, multiple laws also apply. Different States set different standards. For instance, in the US, the main standards for the Internet came from issues relating to access to certain types of online content. In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the US Supreme Court considered what standards should be created to access obscene and indecent content on the Internet. The judges held that the Internet, as a medium of unprecedented dynamism, deserved the higher protection from governmental overreach.

In Asia, the main legal standards for the Internet came from Internet commerce: the UNCITRAL model law, which prescribed provisions best suited to the smoother commercial utilization of a fast and growing medium, became the foundation for Internet-related law in Asian states. Predictably, this did not offer the strongest rights protections, but rather, focused on putting in place the most effective penalties. But when Asian states drew from the European UNCITRAL law, many forgot that European states are already bound by the European Convention for Human Rights, the interpretation of which has granted robust protections to Internet-related rights.

Mr. Chima provided the example of Pakistan's new Cybercrime Bill. The Bill has troubling provisions for freedom of expression, and minimal to no due process protections. While drafting the law, Pakistan has drawn largely from model cybercrime laws from the Council of Europe, which are based on the Budapest Convention. In Europe and the US, States have strong parallel protections for rights, but States in Asia and Africa do not.

Mr. Chima concluded that when one talks of freedom of expression online, it is important to also remember the roles of intermediaries and companies. The ISPs can be made liable for content that flows through their wires, through legal mechanisms such as license provisions. ISPs can also be made to take further control over the networks, or to make some websites harder to access (like the Internet Watch Foundation's blacklist). When policy organisations consider this, it is critical that they ask whether industry bodies should be permitted to do this without public discussion, on the basis of government pressure.

Questions & Comments

Q. Participants asked for panel members to talk about the context in which bloggers find themselves in danger in Bangladesh.

A. Panel members stated that the courts are not fair to bloggers as often they side with government. It was added that courts have labelled bloggers as atheist, and subsequently all bloggers are being associated with the label. Further, it was added that most people who are outraged, do not even know what blogging is, and people associate blogging with blasphemy and as opposing religious beliefs. It was also noted that in Bangladesh, while you see violations of FoE from the State, you see more violations of blogger rights from non-state actors.

Q. Participants asked if there is anything specific about the Internet that alters how we should consider hate speech online and their affective/visceral impact.

A. Pa nel members noted that they are still grappling with the question of what difference the Internet makes, but noted that it has indeed complicated an already complex issue as there is always the question about political entrepreneurs using convenient content to foment fires.

Q. Participants questioned panel members about how the right to offend is protected in jurisdictions across Asia where there is still tension between classical liberalism and communitarian ideologies, and where the individuated nature of rights is not clearly established or entrenched.

A. Panel members responded by stating that when one compares the US, Indonesia and India, the US seems to be able to strike a balance between free speech and other competing interests as they are committed to free speech and committed to religious tolerance and plurality of competing interests. Panel members also added that the fabric of civil society also has an impact. For example, Indonesian civil society is simultaneously religious and secular and pro-democracy. In India, there seems to be a tension between secular and religious groups. In Indonesia, people are moving to religion for comfort, while still seeking a world that is religious and secular.

Q. Participants asked for clarification on ways to approach regulation of hate speech given that hate speech is not just about a particular kind of threatening speech, but encompasses rumours and innuendos.

A . Panel members acknowledged that more research needs to be done in this area and added that applying the socio-cultural lens on such issues would be beneficial.

Q. Participants asked if panel members had a framework for a regulating the content practices of private actors, who are sometimes more powerful than the state and also enforcing censorship.

A. Panel members responded that private censorship is an important issue that needs to be reflected upon in some depth, though a framework is far from being developed even as research is ongoing in the space.

Session 3: Looking Ahead

The third and final session of the conference aimed to find principles and methods to achieve beneficial and effective regulation of the Internet. One of the core aims was the search for the right balance between the dangers of the Internet (and its unprecedented powers of dissemination) and the citizens' interest in a robust right to freedom of expression. Mr. Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor with the Hindustan Times (Sri Lanka desk, previously China correspondent), shared his experience with governmental regulation of online free speech in China and Sri Lanka. Ms. Karuna Nandy,Advocate, Supreme Court of India, analysed the Indian Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (March 24, 2015), and sought to draw lessons for the current debate on net neutrality in India. Ms. Geeta Seshu, founder and editor of the online magazine The Hoot, offered an expanded definition of freedom of speech, focusing on universal access as the imperative. Finally, Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, offered his views on net neutrality and the issue of zero-rating, as well as arguing for an increased, cooperative role of civil society in creating awareness on issues relating to the Internet.

Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times
During his career, Mr. Patranobis was the China correspondent for the Hindustan Times. Mr. Patranobis began his presentation by sharing his experiences in China. In China, multiple online platforms have become sources of news for citizens. Chinese citizens, especially the urban young, spend increasing amounts of time on their mobile phones and the Internet, as these are the major sources of news and entertainment in the country.

The Chinese government's attitude towards freedom of expression has been characterized by increasing control over these online platforms. The includes control over global companies like Google and Facebook, which have negotiated with the Chinese government to find mutually acceptable operating rules (acceptable to the government and the company, but in most cases unfavourable to the citizens) or have faced being blocked or filtered from the country. Mr. Patranobis noted that free speech regulation in China has evolved into a sophisticated mechanism for control and oppression, and the suppression of dissent. Not only China, but Sri Lanka has also adopted similar approaches to dealing with freedom of expression.

In China, free speech regulations have evolved with an aim to curtail collective action and dissent. China's censorship programmes work towards silencing expression that can represent, reinforce or spur social mobilisation. Mr. Patranobis explained that these programmes aim to put an end to all collective activities (current or future) that may be at odds with government policies. Therefore, any online activity that exposes government action as repressive, corrupted or draconian is meted out harsh treatment. Indeed it is possible to see that there are sharp increases in online censorship and crackdowns when the government implements controversial policies offline.

Mr. Patranobis went on to discuss the nature of objectionable content, and the manner in which different jurisdictions deal with the same. Social and cultural context, governmental ideologies, and political choices dictate the nature of objectionable content in States such as China and Sri Lanka. On the flipside, media literacy, which plays a big role in ensuring an informed and aware public, is extremely low in Sri Lanka, as well as in many other States in South Asia.

Mr. Patranobis raised the question of how the Internet can be regulated while retaining freedom of expression - noting that the way forward is uncertain. In Sri Lanka, for instance, research by UNESCO shows that the conflicting policy objectives are unresolved; these first need to be balanced before robust freedom of expression can be sustained. The Internet is a tool, after all; a tool that can connect people, that can facilitate the spread of knowledge and information, to lift people from the darkness of poverty. The Internet can also be a tool to spread hate and to divide societies and peoples. Finding the right balance, contextualised according to the needs of the citizens and the State, is key to good regulation.

Karuna Nundy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Ms. Nandy focused her presentation on two issues currently raging in India's free speech debates: the Supreme Court's reasoning on Sections 66A and 69A, IT Act, in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India (Supreme Court, March 24, 2015), and issues of access and innovation in the call for a net neutrality regulation. She stated that the doctrine of the "marketplace of ideas" endorsed by Justices Nariman and Chelameswar in Shreya Singhal speaks to the net neutrality debate.

Ms. Nandy held that a law can be challenged as unconstitutional if it prohibits acts that are legitimate and constitutional. Such an argument refers to the impugned law's "overbroad impact". For instance, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, IT Act, on the ground (among others) that the impugned section leads to the prohibition and criminalisation of legitimate and protected speech. Cases such asChintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1950) SCR 759] and Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar [1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369] speak to this principle. They expand the principle of overbreadth to include the notion of "chilling effect" - i.e., situations where overbroad blocking leads to the prohibition of legitimate constitutional speech. In such situations, citizens are unsure what constitutes protected speech and what does not, leading to a chilling effect and self-censorship for fear of reprisals.

In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court also considered the "reasonable person" doctrine that has been developed under the law of obscenity. India had initially adopted the Hicklin test, under which the test to determine what is obscene depended on whether prurient minds (minds that have a tendency to be corrupted) would find the impugned material lascivious and corrupting. This test, laid down in Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 881] and altered/refined by decades of jurisprudence, was put to rest in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal [AIR 2014 SC 1495]. In Aveek Sarkar, the Supreme Court adopted the "community standards" test to determine obscene content. According to Ms. Nandy, the "community standards" test rests on the doctrine of reasonable persons. Ms. Nandy noted that in effect there is a need for more police officers to protect those who produce legitimate content from hecklers.

Quoting from the U.S. decision of Whitney v. California [71 L. Ed. 1095], Ms. Nandy submitted that:

" It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. "

On the issue of website blocking and the Supreme Court's reasoning on Section 69A, IT Act, in Shreya Singhal, Ms. Nandy explained that the Additional Solicitor General had conceded a number of points during the oral arguments. She further explained that website blocking can be applied when the Central Government is satisfied that there is a necessity for it. However, reasons must be recorded in writing. Also, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (" Blocking Rules"), both the intermediary and the originator of the communication (the content-creator) have to be given a chance to be heard.

Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which mandates confidentiality of all blocking requests and orders, was also discussed in Shreya Singhal. Though some confusion has arisen about the Rule's interpretation, Ms. Nandy submitted that Rule 16 has been read down. There is no longer a strict, all-encompassing requirement of confidentiality. While the identity of the complainant and the exact nature of the complaint must be kept confidential, the blocking order and the reasoning behind the order are no longer bound by Rule 16. This is because in §109 of the judgment, the Supreme Court accepts that writ petitions can lie on the basis of blocking orders. In order for writs to lie, affected parties must first be aware of the existence and content of the blocking order. Therefore, Ms. Nandy explained, the effect of the Supreme Court's reasoning is that the confidentiality requirement in Rule 16 has been read down.

On net neutrality, Ms. Nandy argued that zero-rating is an efficient solution to providing universal access to the Internet. Services like Internet.org are not strictly market-driven. This is because there is not a large demand for Facebook or specific over-the-top (OTT) service providers. In speaking about the marketplace for ideas in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court did not indirectly outlaw services seeking to balance access with diversity of speech. Ms. Nandy held that price discrimination in the provision of telecom, broadband and mobile Internet services already exists. In light of this, the focus should the provision of these services on the basis of consumer choice.

Geeta Seshu, The Hoot
Ms. Seshu began her presentation by noting that one's perspective on online censorship cannot be the same as that on traditional censorship. Traditional censorship cuts off an individual's access to the censored material, but on the Internet, material that is censored in traditional media finds free and wide distribution. One's conceptualisation of freedom of expression and curtailment of this right must include access to the medium as a crucial part. To this end, it is important to not forget that access to the Internet is controlled by a limited number of Internet service and content providers. Thus, a large section of the population in India cannot exercise their right to free speech because they do not have access to the Internet.

In this context, it is important to understand the way in which the digital rollout is happening in India. Ms. Seshu explained that the rollout process lacks transparency, and noted the example of the 4G/LTE rollout plan in India. There is, of course, a diversity of content: those that have access to the Internet have the ability to exercise their right to free speech in diverse ways. However, introducing access into the free speech universe highlights many inequalities that exist in the right; for instance, Dalit groups in India have limited access to the Internet, and some kinds of content receive limited airtime.

Importantly, Ms. Seshu argued that the government and other entities use technology to regulate content availability. Policymakers exploit the technology and architecture of the networks to monitor, surveil and censor content. For instance, one may see the UID scheme as an adaptation of technology to facilitate not only service-provision, but also as a move towards a Big Brother state. Civil society and citizens need to study and respond to the ways in which technology has been used against them. Unfortunately, the debates surrounding regulation do not afford space for Internet users to be part of the discussion. In order to turn this around, it is important that citizens' and users' rights are developed and introduced into the regulatory equation.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society
Taking up where Ms. Seshu left off, Mr. Prakash wished to explore whether the Internet was merely an enabler of discussion - allowing, for instance, a ruckus to be raised around the consultation paper of the Telecom Regulatory Authority in India (TRAI) on Over-The-Top (OTT) services and net neutrality - or whether the Internet positively adds value. The Internet is, of course, a great enabler. The discussions surrounding OTTs and net neutrality are an example: in response to the TRAI consultation, a campaign titled "Save the Internet" resulted in over 9.5 lakh comments being submitted to the TRAI. It is inconceivable that such a widespread public discussion on so complex a topic (net neutrality) could take place without the Internet's facilitation.

But, Mr. Prakash held, it is important to remember that the Internet is the tool, the platform, for such mobilisation. Campaigns and conversations such as those on net neutrality could not take place without the organisations and people involved in it. Civil society organisations have played prominent roles in this regard, creating awareness and well-informed discussions. For Mr. Prakash, civil society organisations play their role best when they create such public awareness, and it is important, to play to a stakeholders strengths. Some organisations are effective campaigners, while others (such as CIS) are competent at research, analysis and dissemination.

According to Mr. Prakash, it is equally important to remember that successful discussions, campaigns or debates (such as the ongoing one on net neutrality) do not occur solely because of one organisation's strengths, or indeed because of civil society alone. Networks are especially critical in successful campaigns and policy changes. As researchers, we may not always know where our work is read, but sometimes they reach unexpected venues. For instance, one of Mr. Prakash's papers was used by the hacker collective Anonymous for a local campaign, and he was made aware of it only accidentally. Mr. Prakash noted that civil society has to also accept its failures, pointing to the controversy surrounding the Goondas Act in Karnataka. Where there are strong counter-stakeholders (such as the film lobby in south Indian states), civil society's efforts alone may not lead to success.

On net neutrality, Mr. Prakash noted the example of a strategy employed by the Times of India newspaper, when it undercut its competitors by slashing its own prices. Such moves are not unknown in the market, and they have their benefits. Consumers benefit from the lowered prices. For instance, were a Whatsapp or Facebook pack to be introduced by a telecom operator, the consumers may choose to buy this cheap, limited data pack. This is beneficial for consumers, and also works to expand access to the Internet. At the same time, diversity of speech and consumer choice is severely restricted, as these companies and telecom operators can create 'walled gardens' of information and services. Mr. Prakash put forth that if we can facilitate competitive zero-rating, and ensure that anti-competitive cross-subsidization does not occur, then perhaps zero-rated products can achieve access without forcing a trade off between diversity and choice.

Finally, on the issue of website blocking and takedowns under Sections 69A and 79, IT Act, Mr. Prakash noted that the Shreya Singhal judgment does nothing to restrict the judiciary's powers to block websites. According to Mr. Prakash, at the moment, the Shreya Singhal judgment relieves intermediaries of the responsibility to take down content if they receive private complaints about content. After the judgment, intermediaries will lose their immunity under Section 79, IT Act, only if they refuse to comply with takedown requests from government agencies or judicial orders.

But, as Mr. Prakash explained, the judiciary is itself a rogue website-blocker. In the past few years, the judiciary has periodically ordered the blocking of hundreds of websites. Such orders have resulted in the blocking of a large number of legitimate websites (including, at one point, Google Drive and Github). To ensure that our freedom of expression online is effectively protected, Mr. Prakash argued that ways to stop the judiciary from going on such a rampage must be devised.

Questions & Comments

A. Participants and panel members commented that researchers and commentators err by making analogies between the Internet and other media like newspapers, couriers, TV, satellite, cable, etc. The architecture of the Internet is very different even from cable. On the Internet, traffic flows both ways, whereas cable is not bi-directional. Moreover, pricing models for newspapers have nothing in common with those on the Internet. The comparisons in net neutrality debates stand the danger of incorrectness, and we must guard against that. Zero-rating and net neutrality issues in high-access countries are very different from the issues in low-access countries like India.

B. Participants and panel members commented that access and availability must play a predominant role in thinking about freedom of expression. In India, we are technologically far behind other states, though we have potential. The real end-goal of this is the convergence of services and information, with the user at the centre of the ecosystem. Our technological capabilities include satellite and spectrum; the best spectrum bands are lying vacant and can be re-framed. For this, the government must be educated.

C. Participants and panel members commented that in high-access states, the net neutrality issues surround competition and innovation (since there is no or very little ISP competition and switching costs are not low), while in India and France, where there is already competition amongst providers, access plays a crucial role. On the Internet, the networking or engineering aspects can disrupt the content carried over the network, so that is also a concern.

D. Participants and panel members commented that zero-rating is both a blessing and a curse. Zero-rating would not be detrimental in a market with perfect information and competition. But the reality is information asymmetry and imperfect competition. If today, we were to allow zero-rating, diversity would suffer and we would be left with 'walled gardens'.

Conclusion

The conference addressed a range of issues characteristic of debates surrounding freedom of expression in India and South Asia. Beginning with the conceptual understanding of freedom of expression, panellists advocated an expanded definition, where the right to free speech is teleological. The panellists considered freedom of speech as a tool to ensure diversity of speech, both horizontally and vertically. Towards this end, panellists gave several suggestions:

First , policymakers and scholars must understand freedom of speech as a right of both the speaker and the listener/reader, and carve out a separate listeners' right. Panellists expanded upon this to show the implications for the debate on net neutrality, cross-media ownership and website-blocking, for instance.

Second , there is a need for scholars to examine the historical dichotomy between the policy and jurisprudence of free speech in India and other contexts across South Asia. Such an approach to scholarship and policy research would help predict future government policy (such as in the case of the Indian government's stance towards Section 66A following the Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India) and strategize for the same.

Third , particularly with regard to the Internet, there is a need for policy advocates and policy makers to "bust" the founding myths of the Internet, and look to various domestic and international sources of law and regulation. Studies of regulation of freedom of speech on the Internet in different jurisdictions (Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka) indicate differing government approaches, and provide examples to learn from. The interpretation and consequences of Shreya Singhal on website-blocking and intermediary liability in India provide another learning platform.

Fourth , panellists discussed the possibilities of cooperation and strategies among civil society and policy organisations in India. Taking the example of the Save the Internet campaign surrounding net neutrality in India, panellists speculated on the feasibility of using the Internet itself as a tool to campaign for governance and policy reform. Together with the audience, the panellists identified several areas that are ripe for research and advocacy, such as net neutrality and zero-rating, and citizens' free speech right as being separate from governmental and corporate interests.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/freedom-of-expression-in-a-digital-age