Centre for Internet and Society

Webinar on the draft Intermediary Guidelines Amendment Rules

Admin — 2019-01-18T02:13:23Z

CCAOI and the ISOC Delhi Chapter organised a webinar on January 10 to discuss the draft "The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018". Gurshabad Grover was a discussant in the panel.

The agenda of the discussion was:

A brief introduction to the draft highlighting the key issues[Shashank Mishra]
Invited experts sharing their view on the paper and questions asked [Nehaa Chaudhari, Paul Brooks, Arjun Sinha, Gurshabad Grover]
Open Discussion Q&A
Summarizing the session

A recording of the session can be accessed here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/webinar-on-the-draft-intermediary-guidelines-amendment-rules

India should reconsider its proposed regulation of online content

gurshabad — 2019-01-24T16:59:07Z

The lack of technical considerations in the proposal is also apparent since implementing the proposal is infeasible for certain intermediaries. End-to-end encrypted messaging services cannot “identify” unlawful content since they cannot decrypt it. Presumably, the government’s intention is not to disallow end-to-end encryption so that intermediaries can monitor content.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on January 24, 2019. The author would like to thank Akriti Bopanna and Aayush Rathi for their feedback.

Flowing from the Information Technology (IT) Act, India’s current intermediary liability regime roughly adheres to the “safe harbour” principle, i.e. intermediaries (online platforms and service providers) are not liable for the content they host or transmit if they act as mere conduits in the network, don’t abet illegal activity, and comply with requests from authorised government bodies and the judiciary. This paradigm allows intermediaries that primarily transmit user-generated content to provide their services without constant paranoia, and can be partly credited for the proliferation of online content. The law and IT minister shared the intent to change the rules this July when discussing concerns of online platforms being used “to spread incorrect facts projected as news and designed to instigate people to commit crime”.

On December 24, the government published and invited comments to the draft intermediary liability rules. The draft rules significantly expand “due diligence” intermediaries must observe to qualify as safe harbours: they mandate enabling “tracing” of the originator of information, taking down content in response to government and court orders within 24 hours, and responding to information requests and assisting investigations within 72 hours. Most problematically, the draft rules go much further than the stated intentions: draft Rule 3(9) mandates intermediaries to deploy automated tools for “proactively identifying and removing [...] unlawful information or content”.

The first glaring problem is that “unlawful information or content” is not defined. A conservative reading of the draft rules will presume that the phrase means restrictions on free speech permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, including that relate to national integrity, “defamation” and “incitement to an offence”.

Ambiguity aside, is mandating intermediaries to monitor for “unlawful content” a valid requirement under “due diligence”? To qualify as a safe harbour, if an intermediary must monitor for all unlawful content, then is it substantively different from an intermediary that has active control over its content and not a safe harbour? Clearly, the requirement of monitoring for all “unlawful content” is so onerous that it is contrary to the philosophy of safe harbours envisioned by the law.

By mandating automated detection and removal of unlawful content, the proposed rules shift the burden of appraising legality of content from the state to private entities. The rule may run afoul of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Shreya Singhal v Union of India wherein it read down a similar provision because, among other reasons, it required an intermediary to “apply [...] its own mind to whether information should or should not be blocked”. “Actual knowledge” of illegal content, since then, has held to accrue to the intermediary only when it receives a court or government order.

Given the inconsistencies with legal precedence, the rules may not stand judicial scrutiny if notified in their current form.

The lack of technical considerations in the proposal is also apparent since implementing the proposal is infeasible for certain intermediaries. End-to-end encrypted messaging services cannot “identify” unlawful content since they cannot decrypt it. Internet service providers also qualify as safe harbours: how will they identify unlawful content when it passes encrypted through their network? Presumably, the government’s intention is not to disallow end-to-end encryption so that intermediaries can monitor content.

Intermediaries that can implement the rules, like social media platforms, will leave the task to algorithms that perform even specific tasks poorly. Just recently, Tumblr flagged its own examples of permitted nudity as pornography, and Youtube slapped a video of randomly-generated white noise with five copyright-infringement notices. Identifying more contextual expression, such as defamation or incitement to offences, is a much more complex problem. In the lack of accurate judgement, platforms will be happy to avoid liability by taking content down without verifying whether it violated law. Rule 3(9) also makes no distinction between large and small intermediaries, and has no requirement for an appeal system available to users whose content is taken down. Thus, the proposed rules set up an incentive structure entirely deleterious to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Given the wide amplitude and ambiguity of India’s restrictions on free speech, online platforms will end up removing swathes of content to avoid liability if the draft rules are notified.

The use of draconian laws to quell dissent plays a recurring role in the history of the Indian state. The draft rules follow India’s proclivity to join the ignominious company of authoritarian nations when it comes to disrespecting protections for freedom of expression. To add insult to injury, the draft rules are abstruse, ignore legal precedence, and betray a poor technological understanding. The government should reconsider the proposed regulation and the stance which inspired it, both of which are unsuited for a democratic republic.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-gurshabad-grover-january-24-2019-india-should-reconsider-its-proposed-regulation-of-online-content

Indian government orders ISPs to block 857 porn websites

pranesh — 2015-09-13T08:18:33Z

The Indian government has ordered a large number of porn websites to be blocked, creating an uproar among users and civil rights groups in the country.

The blog post by John Ribeiro was originally published by IDG News Service and mirrored on PC World website on August 2, 2015.

The Department of Telecommunications has issued orders for the blocking of 857 websites serving pornography, said two persons familiar with the matter, who declined to be named.

Section 69 (A) of India’s Information Technology Act allows the government to order blocking of public access to websites and other information through computer resources, though this section appears to be designed to be invoked when a threat is perceived to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.

“The government cannot on its own block private access to pornography under current statutes,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. “Parliament has not authorized the government to ban porn on its own.”

“However, courts have in the past ordered specific websites to be blocked for specific offences such as defamation, though as far as I know not for obscenity,” Prakash added.

Viewing pornography privately is not a crime in the country, though its sale and distribution is an offense.

Some porn websites were still accessible through certain Internet service providers on Monday, as some ISPs took some time to implement the order. “All the 857 websites will be blocked by all ISPs today,” said a source in the ISP industry, who requested anonymity. “As licensees we have to follow the orders.”

The government could not be immediately reached for comment.

Reports of the blocks created a furore among Internet users in the country, who criticized the move on Reddit, Twitter and other social media.

India’s Supreme Court struck down in March as unconstitutional an Internet law that provided for the arrest of people sending online messages considered offensive or menacing. But it upheld Section 69 (A) in that same ruling, which it described as a “narrowly drawn provision” limited to a few subjects.

In a public interest lawsuit on the blocking of pornography, the Supreme Court last month declined to issue an interim order that would block porn websites at the request of the private litigant, according to a report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites

Proxies and VPNs: Why govt can't ban porn websites?

pranesh — 2015-09-13T08:26:17Z

The government's move to block more than 800 pornographic websites has led experts to question whether this latest attempt to police the internet is even feasible.

The article by Siladitya Ray was published in the Hindustan Times on August 3, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Internet service providers (ISPs) have confirmed they received letters from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on Saturday that directed them to block certain websites. But can the government stop users from visiting porn sites?

The answer seems to be no.

"It is extremely easy to circumvent these blocks, using virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxies that anonymise your traffic," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru.

A cursory Google search on how to unblock porn websites throws up millions of how-tos and guides on using proxies and VPNs to get around restrictions set by authorities. All these services anonymise users’ web traffic by routing them through foreign servers.

According to data from Pornhub, one of the world's biggest porn sites, India ranks fifth for the most daily visitors to the website. Pornhub saw a total of 78.9 billion video views globally in 2014.

The government can try to keep up with proxies and block them too. But as proxies change on a daily basis and there are always dozens of functioning proxies to choose from across, blocking all of them will be a near impossible task.

Tor, an anonymity network, is also a popular way to surf blocked sites.

But is it legal to circumvent blocks put in place by authorities by using VPNs and proxies?

There is no law in India that prohibits viewing pornography, experts say. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act only deals with "publishing obscene information in electronic form".

This provision has been interpreted as a measure to criminalise the posting of pornographic content online. However, accessing "obscene" content privately – such as within the four walls of a person’s home – is not illegal, say experts.

In July, while hearing a petition seeking the blocking of pornographic websites, Supreme Court Chief Justice HL Dattu wondered whether the court could restrain an adult from watching pornography within his home and described such a ban as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which grants the right to personal liberty to its citizens.

But what about the legality of using VPNs and proxies? “There are no laws preventing the use of VPNs and proxies in India," said Prakash.

Are proxies and VPNs safe?

While the use of proxies and VPNs is very simple, they do come with their own set of problems. These services have access to all your browsing data and may push adware and other forms of malware.

Prakash advised that users should only choose services that are well known and have a good reputation.

"Sites like TorrentFreak put out annual lists of the top VPNs available," he said. These can be used as a guide to determine what services are safe.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-august-3-2015-siladitya-ray-proxies-and-vpns

Is free speech an Indian value?

praskrishna — 2013-04-30T07:18:10Z

Is freedom of speech and expression deeply accepted in Indian society? Or is it merely a European cultural import that made its way along with the English language and appeared in the Constitution because of the founding fathers' genius? Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya reviews Freedom Song, a film and connects the dots.

Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya's blog post was published in India Together on April 27, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh is quoted.

Debates on freedom of speech can be traced back to the earliest evolutions of human society, but if there is a time which could be considered most apposite for this debate to come to the fore and dominate public thought and discourse, this surely would be it for Indian society.

From the banishment of literary icons such as Salman Rushdie to repeated assaults on artists and cartoonists seeking to express their viewpoints through their art, and even the gag on the common man’s voice in traditional and new media, freedom of speech and expression has found itself under fire increasingly and in the most alarming of ways.

Is India as a nation becoming more intolerant of contrarian perspectives, or is it merely that voices seeking to stifle dissent are now amplified, thanks to a greater number, as well as newer forms, of media covering this debate?

Can India really achieve free speech in the way that its founding fathers conceived of and constitutionalized it?

These are the questions probed in Freedom Song – a 52-minute documentary from the Public Services Broadcasting Trust, co-directed by veteran journalist, author and academic Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Professor Subi Chaturvedi.

Freedom Song, the film

Interestingly, since the time Freedom Song was conceived of and filmed, the clamp-down or attacks on free speech in India have only become more frequent and flagrant. This was made much before the time that Salman Rushdie, in almost a repeat of the 2010 Jaipur Lit-fest incident, was stopped by the state from attending the screening of Midnight’s Children in Kolkata; or when two young girls from Palghar in Maharashtra were arrested by the police merely because one of them had questioned on Facebook the derailment of normal life in Mumbai following Balasaheb Thackeray’s death and the other had ‘liked’ it; or even before the long-awaited Kamal Hassan film Vishwaroopam was banned for purportedly offending the sensibilities of a religious community in a few scenes, which the director eventually had to agree to censor in order to ensure that his creation could reach the audience.

Freedom Song, the documentary, chronologically precedes all of these as well as the debate and outrage over sociologist Ashish Nandy’s remarks on corruption and backward castes; yet, when one sees it now, recalls the numerous incidents highlighted in the film, and hears the debates that rage on, the larger context and culture that has facilitated the perpetuation of suppression become clearer. It also drives home, disturbingly, the alarming regularity with which speech and expression have been muffled. It can thus be seen as a commentary on the gradual but consistent build-up to the current climate where there is an almost systematic and continuous crackdown on free speech whenever it inconveniences the powers-that-be.

Gags on expression - recent incidents

In July 2010, when T.J. Joseph, a professor of Malayalam at the Newman College in Thodupuzha (Ernakulam district) in Kerala was arrested by police following a controversial examination question set by him, allegedly containing disparaging remarks about the Prophet Mohammad. He was released on bail but suspended from his post following protests by Islamic organizations. But suspension wasn’t the last of Joseph’s tribulations: he was brutally attacked by a gang of men who chopped off his hand at the wrist with an axe. He was also stabbed in the arms and legs. While Joseph’s hand was stitched back in a 16-hour-long operation, even as he was recuperating, his college terminated his services on grounds that he had offended the religious sentiments of students. He was also stripped of all benefits and pension.

Curiously, Joseph himself distances the entire incident from the issue of freedom of expression. In his conversation with the film-makers he says that whatever happened could be interpreted as attempts to meddle with and dilute academic independence in the state. “The incident is not related to the issue of freedom of expression...external attempts to break down communication between students and their teacher was at the core of the entire episode,” says Joseph. Even Union Minister for Human Resource Development Shashi Tharoor, who hails from the state himself, attributes this incident to the act of some anti-social fringe elements who masquerade as representatives of a particular community. But these arguments from the victim himself, and an eminent authority, cannot resolve the question of his expulsion from service. Nor can they address the fact that the atmosphere of tolerance in the country is such that anti-socials can hijack as simple an academic exercise as question-setting to their advantage and perpetrate such atrocities.

A more recent incident highlighted in the documentary is the arrest and detention of Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor of Chemistry in Jadavpur University of West Bengal for forwarding a set of cartoons that allegedly defamed Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Shortly after the dismissal of Union Railway Minister, Trinamool’s Dinesh Trivedi, and his replacement by Mukul Roy, the widely-circulated cartoon showed Roy and the CM having a conversation along the lines of one in a very popular Satyajit-Ray film, conspiring to get rid of Trivedi.

Ambikesh was not the creator of this cartoon – as he himself says, he received it on a forwarded email. Amused by it, he wanted to share it with his friends. Thus he forwarded it again to over 60 members of his housing co-operative society, some of whom happened to have affiliations to the party in power. This action led to the professor being arrested and charged under IPC Sections 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), Section 500 (defamation) and Section 66 A of the IT Act (causing offence using a computer). He had to spend a night in jail before he was released on bail the following afternoon.

However, charges against the professor have since been dropped and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) ruled that the state police were indeed guilty of harassing the professor (and one of his colleagues, who had also been arrested).

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, co-director of Freedom Song

Muffling creativity

One thing that stands out pretty sharply in Freedom Song is the deep angst shared by the creative fraternity in the country over the assault on free speech. Perhaps, by dint of being that section of society which is most inclined to spontaneous and non-conformist expression, they also constitute one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to being restrained or gagged.

One of the darkest chapters of suppression of artistic expression in India relates to the forced exile of iconic painter M F Hussain during the last days of his life, after being targeted for his nudist depictions of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Sadly, as artist Arpana Caur points out, such waves of intolerance or fanaticism fail to factor in either subjective value judgments (how deeply Hussain must have loved Hindu culture and mythology to actually apply his creative instincts to bring it alive) or objective facts (that the nudist paintings were actually done in the ancient Khajuraho tradition of figurative depiction, it was not something Hussain had developed).

Often, the gag on works by artists and writers has transcended to direct discrimination against the person himself. The state of West Bengal banned exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen’s book “Dwikhandito” in 2003 on fears that it would stoke communal disharmony. When human rights activists challenged the decision in Court and managed to win rulings on her behalf, the writer herself was banished from public life in the state. She was unceremoniously asked to leave the state in 2007, after violent protests against her by fundamentalists. Much later in 2012, even after the political reins in the state had changed hands, the launch of her book at the Kolkata Book Fair was cancelled upon threats of protest.

One of the most heart-rending is the story of Pakistani singer Ali Haidar, who confesses to being almost brainwashed, in one of his weakest moments, by radical elements into believing that the loss of his child was in fact a retribution for him having taken up music as a profession.

The feeling of anger, frustration and even a sense of bewilderment among the artists, writers and performers interviewed in the documentary is almost palpable. As Rajiv Lochan, Director of the National Gallery of Modern Art, says, “Freedom of expression, creative freedom…in simple words, that is the only freedom you are born with...” The unuttered question of how anyone can take that away from you hangs heavy in the silence.

If artists are the most vulnerable, they are also perhaps the most resilient. In the context of the various cartoon controversies that this nation has seen and the proscriptions of cartoonists from Shankar to Aseem Trivedi, eminent political cartoonist Sudhir Tailang says, “We cartoonists know only one way of protest, which is the most peaceful, Gandhian way…you do what you want, we’ll draw a cartoon…and more cartoons… we’ll flood you with cartoons.”

The defiance and rejection of censorship is also strongly voiced by noted danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, who talks of the various forms of attack and insult that she has been subjected to for her unconventional presentations and activism, but asserts that despite all of it, she feels it is her “dharma to go on.”

The language barrier

Perhaps unwittingly, Freedom Song tends to favour the premise that freedom of speech as a principle in India is largely a preoccupation among the English-educated, intellectual and creative segments of the populace. Even the musical score that has played such a dominant part in invoking the spirit of freedom throughout the film seems to underline that - from the refrains of Bob Marley’s ‘Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom,’ to the remixed pop version of ‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’ that one hears in parties and joints in India’s westernized urban landscape.

How attuned to the issue of free speech is the wide majority of India, the section that still follows vernacular media and are relatively distanced from the constructs of Anglo-Saxon influence? The verdict on the linguistic divide does not emerge with clear certainty when we talk to intellectuals or thought leaders from various parts of the country.

In the words of academic Subhoranjan Dasgupta, a professor at the Kolkata-based Institute of Development Studies, mainstream Bengali media has played a big role in highlighting transgressions of freedom of speech and expression every time it has occurred, irrespective of the political regime in power at the time.

"Whether in the case of the ban on Taslima Nasreen or the arrest of Professor Mahapatra, local media - and especially two widely-followed dailies, the Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Shomoy - have been audibly vocal and consistent in their coverage of these incidents," says Dasgupta. "Irrespective of political ideologies, the common man in Bengal knows that Taslima Nasreen got a raw deal or that what happened to the professor was not acceptable," he adds. Ostensibly, the role of local media in such public consciousness cannot be written off. In a way, it might not be an exaggeration to say that the voices of these publications have been instrumental, to a large extent, in ensuring that these issues grab the eyeballs of the largest number possible, and hence gain traction.

And yet, a completely different picture emerges as one reaches out to another part of the country. Badri Seshadri, Publisher, New Horizon Media - a Chennai-based company that publishes books in Tamil, and an active blogger, feels that notions of freedom, or free speech, are essentially offshoots of the modern era which have found a voice in our country primarily through English media.

Seshadri goes back to the freedom struggle in India when many among the noted thought leaders and freedom exponents wrote both in English and the local language. In those days, the discourse on freedom of thought and expression were perhaps more at par across spheres. But with the dying trend of bilingual writing, intellectual writing increasingly gravitated towards English. Today, the gulf between English writers and regional writers has become so huge in his state that even the most fundamental of issues are discussed in vocabularies that cannot bridge the schism. Issues pertaining to secularism and democracy are viewed with a completely different lens in vernacular media, and those pertaining to liberalism, not at all.

"Take the case of the most recent ban on Kamal Hassan's Vishwaroopam," points out Seshadri; "this was not a film made in Hindi or English that you could assume to be emotively disconnected from the Tamil mindspace. It was a film that had been made by one of the cult film personalities of the region, and yet even as the national English media followed this issue and consistently questioned the violation of an individual's right to creative freedom, deliberations in local channels and publications were strangely muted and focused only on whether or not the disputed scenes in the film could be considered to be offensive to the Islamic community. The larger debate on whether one has the right to offend, in an impersonal way, was completely missing." Those who want to toe the line of liberalism either through their writing or new media are dismissed as harbouring "fancy" ideals or pandering to Western sensibilities.

Guhathakurta, himself, disagrees with the claim that free expression is essentially a Western construct or that debates around it are restricted to the chattering classes in plush drawing rooms. “It is something that concerns every common man,” he says, referring to the case of Laxmi Oraon, the teenaged tribal girl who was stripped, beaten and molested in the streets of Guwahati, where she had been part of a peaceful protest rally, seeking the inclusion of 80 lakh Adivasis living in Assam in the ST category. Traumatised and deeply angered by the brutal injustice meted out to her and the lack of legal redress, Laxmi eventually even contested the Lok Sabha elections, points out the director in order to elucidate the struggle that even the most marginalized take part in to press for their fundamental rights.


A still from the documentary Freedom Song. Pic: PSBT India via Youtube

"Reasonable” restrictions

Despite the continuous infringements on artistic and even individual expression, what emerges from the film is not a blanket wave of intolerance that is engulfing society but rather certain powerful groups with vested interests who are driven either by fanaticism for their ideologies or by the lure of political mileage to raise voices against freedom. In the age of 24x7 channels, their voices gain in both volume and pitch and new media enables greater visibility and debate around it.

As Tharoor says, “The government has the lowest level of tolerance possible because it cannot be seen as offending anybody who is held precious by any segments of Indian society.”

Veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi points out, “You have a whole link between the politician, the vote bank and the proprietor. Therefore, the freedom of the press, while this trio exists, is under threat.”

But having said all of the above, it is also clear that defining freedom, especially in an absolute sense, is in itself a huge challenge that most of society acknowledges. More so, in the context of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution which itself allows the state to impose “reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right...in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, 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.”

Senior journalists such as Rajdeep Sardesai are quoted in the documentary, expressing their support for such ‘reasonable restrictions’ to combat the spread of expression or opinion that fuels divisiveness or hatred in society. But the fact remains that such restrictions not only add a qualifier to freedom as enshrined in the founding principles, but also create the larger question of ‘who decides?’

Young India however would prefer to see Article 19 (2) as an enabler rather than as a veto. As Apar Gupta, an advocate of the Supreme Court says in the film, he would like to believe that the incorporation of “reasonable restrictions” was done with a view to ensuring that the Constitution does not remain a static document and does not apply only to fixed definitions of facts and circumstances. Certainly not with the objective of curbing any form of dissent or deviation from convention.

Fali S. Nariman, senior advocate to the Supreme Court and a constitutional jurist, also points out very pertinently that the range of restrictions in 19(2) does not include public interest.

Reality does not bear that out though; especially when one looks at the many recent instances of arbitrary impositions of Sec 66A of the IT Act in booking individuals for expression of their opinion and stances through channels offered by new media and Internet. The documentary in itself does not delve deep into the challenges and threats to freedom of expression that have emerged in the FB/Twitter era, perhaps because many of the most volatile and controversial cases surrounding freedom of speech on the Internet occurred after the film was made. But a new debate is brewing in India, especially after the Palghar incident or the arrest of a Puducherry businessman for allegedly posting 'offensive' text on the micro-blogging site Twitter about the son of an Union Minister.

Snehashish Ghosh, a lawyer and Policy Associate at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, says, “Essentially, there are eight restrictions on freedom of speech and expression as enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in many cases has held that these reasonable restrictions should be construed narrowly and with due regards to the value of freedom of speech in a democratic society. Section 66A in its current form goes well beyond the restrictions laid down under Article 19(2). Therefore, it is liable to be struck down for being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

Snehashish also feels that technologically, in the present time, it would be near-impossible to 'monitor' the Internet. As far as regulations are concerned, there are laws already in place which ensure the implementation of reasonable restrictions. For example, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 already covers offenses such as incitement of violence, obscenity, criminal intimidation and outraging religious sentiments. The laws which are being applied offline are well equipped to deal with offenses committed online. There is no need to have extraordinary laws where ordinary laws suffice.

But in a country that appears to grow increasingly thin-skinned with time, the import of such logic could well be lost.

Access and freedom

Interestingly, Freedom Song begins with a series of frames capturing the widely different and divergent faces of Indian society, fast moving scenes juxtaposing the educated, affluent sections of urban India against the child who performs on sidewalks to earn his bread or the old emaciated man getting his night’s sleep on the pavement. The clear correlation between access – to basic needs, education and media – and the very consciousness of freedom is hard to ignore.

“Freedom to me is the ability to do what I want, where no one tells me to do anything” says one child on screen, evidently from an English-speaking, relatively privileged background; but one cannot help feeling that his coherence and articulation on freedom would be hard to come across in the children on the streets who are filmed in some of the previous shots.

The point that access to the very basic necessities of life is a necessary condition for freedom of expression is driven home by social activist Ram Bhat in the documentary, who says that despite the technologies aiding free expression, and the profusion of players in this debate, talk of freedom of speech will be pointless unless the problem of access is solved. In its absence, such freedom will remain the privilege of a few.

On balance, in all the voices that emerge from our conversations, and the many more episodes that Freedom Song, the documentary narrates, the only thing that can be concluded without doubt is the challenge of establishing freedom as a perennial or permanent concept in a country as complex and diverse as India. A truly effective and desirable state of free speech and expression can only evolve out of a continuous, fearless, rational dialogue between society and its stakeholders, in which all voices are expressed and heard.

Whether India, as a whole, can facilitate such a dialogue is going to be the moot question in the times to come.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-together-april-27-2013-satarupa-sen-bhattacharya-is-free-speech-an-indian-value

The freedom of expression debate: The State must mend fences with The Web

praskrishna — 2013-01-07T10:30:21Z

A fortnight after her arrest, Renu Srinivasan spends her free time singing Ashley Tisdale's number Suddenly. The lyrics - Suddenly people know my name, suddenly, everything has changed - resonate with the story of her life ever since she 'liked' and 'shared' her friend, Shaheen Dhada's, 21, controversial post regarding Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's funeral on Facebook on November 18 and got arrested for it.

The article by Rahul Jayaram was published in India Today on December 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

She's now flooded with "hundreds" of messages on FB; some congratulatory, others abusive and gets at least a dozen friend requests on the social networking site. When Renu went to the doctor last week, two constables accompanied her.

"All of a sudden, there's too much attention on me," says the Botany graduate from Dandekar College and a budding singer who is making new friends in the virtual world. There's, however, a word from caution from her father P.A. Srinivasan: "Don't comment on controversial issues you don't understand."

Bloggers are careful. Krish Ashok, a well-known blogger is disappointed with the government's lack of engagement with India's surging online community. In a blog post in August 2010, he made fun of the Ramayana and the fact that women couldn't enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A group called Hindu Janajagruti Samiti threatened to take him to court. Ashok spoke to his lawyer.

"I was amazed. She said no individual could take action against me. But a group or organisation could," he says. Since then, he has become more aware of his Internet rights.

Gursimran Khamba, who has over 30,000 followers on Twitter, kept his cool during Thackeray's death and funeral. When all the media went gaga over him, televising his family photo albums, Khamba, re-tweeted reports and accounts of the Shiv Sena's role during the Mumbai riots of 1992-93. "In my head, I am not courageous to say anything about it myself," he says. He didn't want to incite. He'd rather help his followers get a more nuanced picture of a venerated leader.

Palghar and after, has made Ashok think. "I would reduce the number of provocative posts I might make," he says. Khamba says he will stick to comedy and doesn't believe in offence for the sake of offending although "taking offence is our national sport."

It is a shame, for the Internet is growing in India like nobody's business. It's the medium of the age.

According to comScore, a company that measures Internet trends, India is the fastest growing online market in the last 12 months among BRIC nations. There were 44.5 million unique visitors in July 2011 and in July 2012 there were 62.6 million unique visitors. That is, a growth of 44 per cent in one year. The total Internet usage of 124.7 million users in July 2012, that is, a 41 per cent growth from last year (July 2011).

With 124 million users as of July 2012, India has an Internet penetration of 10 per cent. 75 per cent of India's online users are below the age of 35 making it one of the youngest Net-connected populations. 39.3 per cent of India's Internet population consists of females. It has the highest growth seen among 15 to 24 male and female segments. India has 56.2 million Facebook users and 4.1 million Twitter users. Facebook had 35.3 million users in July 2011 and it jumped to 52.1 million in July 2012. That's a growth of 47% in just one year!

Growth of the Internet is one thing. Freedom of the Internet is another. Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks political and civil liberties worldwide, is blunt in its assessment. India is third in terms of Internet penetration, after the United States and China. Before November 2008, government control over the Internet was limited. All that changed after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Since then it says, "The need, desire, and ability of the Indian government to monitor, censor, and control the communication sector have grown. Given the range of security threats facing the country, many Indians feel that the government should be allowed to monitor personal communications such as telephone calls, email messages, and financial transactions. It is in this context that Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) in 2008, expanding censorship and monitoring capabilities. This trend continued in 2011 with the adoption of regulations increasing surveillance in cyber cafes. Meanwhile, the government and non-state actors have intensified pressure on intermediaries, including social media applications, to remove upon request a wide range of content vaguely defined as "offensive" and potentially pre-screen user-generated content. Despite new comprehensive data protection regulations adopted in 2011, the legal framework and oversight surrounding surveillance and interception remains weak, and several instances of abuse have emerged in recent years."

Over this year we have had the cases of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi being put in jail and later released in September. In April, Ambikesh Mahaptra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata was arrested for a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamta Banerjee and Railway Minister Mukul Roy. In October, Ravi, owner of plastic packaging material factory was arrested and let off on bail for joking about Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's son, Karti. The list gets longer. The Web and the State are at loggerheads. Why?

Lawyers and bloggers haul up Internet laws. And for such a community, we have laws like Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act of 2000. The law states that "any person who sends by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character," can be booked for online crime.

Legal experts think Section 66 (A) and the whole of the IT Act of 2000, needs revisiting. According to cyber lawyer Pavan Duggal, Section 66 (A) "is a vanilla provision that can be used for anything online."

Section 66(A) seeks to empower the police and the complainant. "The words 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' of Section 66 (A) have no definition given. Normal, legitimate bona fide conversation between boyfriend and girlfriend at noble times online is fine. Once relationship sours, and they are gone."

"It's not clear what the purpose of Section 66A is. It's like having a single provision covering murder, assault, intimidation, and nuisance, and prescribing the same penalty for all of them," says Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore. Terminology and the law's purpose are massive concerns.

"The extent of the ambiguity of Section 66A is worrying. Laws need to be very clear about what they want to achieve. If it is murder, then it must say murder. If its attempted murder, it must be clear it is attempted murder. Section 66 A is trying to do too many things at the same time. Its canvas is too vast," says Rajeev Chandrasekar.

As a country, we look to imitate the West, and often copy it badly. Some wonder if we need to mime the West. Pranesh Prakash thinks the Indian Constitution is stronger on free speech grounds than the (unwritten) UK Constitution, and the judiciary has wide powers of judicial review of statutes (i.e., the ability of a court to strike down a law passed by Parliament as 'unconstitutional').

Judicial review of statutes does not exist in the UK (with review under its EU obligations being the exception) as they believe that Parliament is supreme, unlike India. Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the UK might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall within the eight octagonal walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2).

Rajeev Chandrasekar thinks the Brits got it right. During the London riots of June 2011, "the UK government kept a tab on social media networking sites so as to check incitement, he says. It was a good example of clear legislation and effective execution, in an extreme scenario." To defuse online paranoia he wants the government to have a multi-stakeholder arrangement in fixing IT laws. This must involve users, IT companies, cyber cafe owners and the government. The State must mend fences with the Web.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-today-rahul-jayaram-december-18-2012-the-freedom-of-expression-debate

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

India blocks more than 250 Web sites for inciting hate, panic

praskrishna — 2012-08-22T04:38:26Z

Nearly 80 people have been killed and 400,000 displaced in fighting between Muslims and India’s Hindu Bodo tribespeople in Assam, a northeastern state of India, in recent weeks. The violence has prompted many northeasterners living in major cities to flee, fearing reprisals.

The article by Rama Lakshmi was published in the Washington Post on August 20, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in it.

India blocked about 250 Web sites and social networking sites Monday, accusing them of spreading inflammatory content that triggered panic among thousands of workers and students from the country’s eight northeastern states last week.

The government’s blame list ranged from Facebook to fundamentalist Pakistani sites, Twitter to text messages, and Google to YouTube videos. Authorities also barred the sending of text messages to more than five people at a time for two weeks.

Thousands of people from northeastern India fled several cities in the south and west of the country last week after text messages circulated warning that they faced reprisal attacks from Muslims over recent ethnic clashes in the northeastern state of Assam.

The government said a number of Web sites had deliberately tried to inflame passions, hosting morphed videos of violence against Muslims in Burma and asserting that they were filmed in Assam. The images went viral and provoked riots by Muslim residents of Mumbai just over a week ago.

"We have blocked a number of sites. We have also identified a number of sites which were uploaded from Pakistan," Home Secretary R. K. Singh told reporters in New Delhi on Monday.

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik has asked India for evidence about the alleged Pakistani Web sites, which Singh said he would share.

Although some analysts said the curbs were justified because the sites posed a threat to public order, others said the actions were a knee-jerk response from a weak government unable to effectively assuage the concerns of its frightened citizens.

"This is a government that is trying to hide its incompetence by blaming everybody but unwilling to look at itself for failure to protect its citizens," said a government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

Others said that by cracking down on Web sites and social media, the government was dodging the deeper issue of the racism and alienation felt by many people from the northeastern states, who are routinely denigrated by their fellow Indians for supposedly being more Chinese or Southeast Asian in appearance.

But India’s relationship with Internet freedom has become increasingly troubled.

In the past year, the government has locked horns with Google, Yahoo and Facebook, as well as with local activists and bloggers, over censorship and content screening. Analysts then accused the government of trying to silence middle-class critics at the height of a national anti-corruption movement.

The government has been holding public meetings on proposed rules to prohibit Web sites and service providers from hosting information that could be regarded as “harmful,” “blasphemous” or “insulting.”

Last year, India topped the list of countries that routinely ask Internet companies to remove content, according to the Google Transparency Report.

Although Internet penetration is still low in India, the country has the third-largest number of Web users in the world, with more than 100 million people accessing the Internet. A new report says that Indians spend one in every four minutes online visiting social networking sites.

Some free-speech activists fear the events of last week may have provided the government the justification it was seeking to increase Web censorship.

“I have fears that the present situation should not cause a disproportionate response which affects freedom of speech online,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer and advocate for free speech online. “Historically, a national security argument is very tough to dislodge the competing interests of freedom of speech.”

Other advocates of Internet freedom say the government is justified in the crackdown but could have opted for a more nuanced approach.

“A blanket ban does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the circulation of rumors because people become more vulnerable in a communication vacuum,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, an advocacy group based in the southern city of Bangalore, which experienced a mass exodus of frightened northeasterners last week.

Abraham said the government sent out broad instructions to Web sites to block all hate speech, without giving specific definitions or examples. “The government could have done this in a more sophisticated manner, like putting up banner notices on Facebook and Twitter; blocking text messages that had certain key words; or warning the sites to proactively dismantle some content.”

The Indian Department of Electronics and Information Technology said in a statement Monday that it had been working with international social networking sites on the issue but that “a lot more and quicker action is expected from them to address such a sensitive issue.”

A Google India official said that “content intended to incite violence is prohibited on YouTube, and we act quickly to remove such material flagged by our users.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-washington-post-rama-lakshmi-august-20-2012-india-blocks-more-than-250-web-sites-for-inciting-hate-panic

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)

pranesh — 2012-09-06T11:52:47Z

Pranesh Prakash does preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government.

Note: This post will be updated as more analysis is done. Last update: 23:59 on August 22, 2012. This is being shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence.

How many items have been blocked?

There are a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that have been blocked. This number is meaningless at one level, given that it doesn't differentiate between the blocking of an entire website (with dozens or hundreds of web pages) from the blocking of a single webpage. However, given that very few websites have been blocked at the domain-level, that number is still reasonably useful.

Please also note, we currently only have information related to what telecom companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were asked to block till August 21, 2012. We do not have information on what individual web services have been asked to remove. That might take the total count much higher.

Why have these been blocked?

As far as I could determine, all of the blocked items have content (mostly videos and images have been targeted, but also some writings) that are related to communal issues and rioting. (Please note: I am not calling the content itself "communal" or "incitement to rioting", just that the content relates to communal issues and rioting.) This has been done in the context of the recent riots in Assam, Mumbai, UP, and the mass movement of people from Bangalore.

There were reports of parody Twitter accounts having been blocked. Preliminary analysis on the basis of available data show that parody Twitter accounts and satire sites have not been targetted solely for being satirical. For instance, very popular parody Twitter accounts, such as @DrYumYumSingh are not on any of the four orders circulated by the Department of Telecom. (I have no information on whether such parody accounts are being taken up directly with Twitter or not: just that they aren't being blocked at the ISP-level. Media reports indicate six accounts have been taken up with Twitter for being similar to the Prime Minister's Office's account.)

Are the blocks legitimate?

The goodness of the government's intentions seem, quite clearly in my estimation, to be unquestionable. Yet, even with the best intentions, there might be procedural illegalities and over-censorship.

There are circumstances in which freedom of speech and expression may legitimately be limited. The circumstances that existed in Bangalore could justifiably result in legitimate limitations on freedom of speech. For instance, I believe that temporary curbs — such as temporarily limiting SMSes & MMSes to a maximum of five each fifteen minutes for a period of two days — would have been helpful.

However it is unclear whether the government has exercised its powers responsibly in this circumstance. The blocking of many of the items on that list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a some of the items ought, in my estimation, to be removed.

If the government has blocked these sites under s.69A of the Information Technology Act ("Power to Issue Directions for Blocking for Public Access of Any Information through any Computer Resource"), the persons and intermediaries hosting the content should have been notified provided 48 hours to respond (under Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009). Even if the emergency provision (Rule 9) was used, the block issued on August 18, 2012, should have been introduced before the "Committee for Examination of Request" by August 20, 2012 (i.e., within 48 hours), and that committee should have notified the persons and intermediaries hosting the content.

Importantly, even though many of the items on that list are repugnant and do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed, ordering ISPs to block them is largely ineffectual. The people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering Internet service providers (ISPs) to block them. All larger sites have clear content removal policies, and encouraging communal tensions and hate speech generally wouldn't be tolerated. That this can be done without resort to the dreadful Intermediary Guidelines Rules (which were passed last year) shows that those Rules are unnecessary. It is our belief that those Rules are also unconstitutional.

Are there any egregious mistakes?

Yes, there are numerous such examples of egregious mistakes.

Most importantly, some even people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked.
Some of the Twitter accounts are of prominent people who write for the mainstream media, and who have written similar content offline. If their online content is being complained about, their offline content should be complained about too.
Quite a number of the links include articles published and reports broadcast in the mainstream media (including a Times Now report, a Telegraph picture gallery, etc.), and in print, making the blocks suspect. Only the online content seems to have been targeted for censorship.

There are numerous mistakes and inconsistencies that make blocking pointless and ineffectual.

Some of the items are not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included).
Some of the items they have tried to block do not even exist (e.g., one of the Wikipedia URLs).
An entire domain was blocked on Sunday, and a single post on that domain was blocked on Monday.
For some Facebook pages, the secure version (https://facebook.com/...) is listed, for others the non-secure version (http://facebook.com/...) is listed.
For some YouTube videos, the 'base' URL of YouTube videos is blocked, but for other the URL with various parameters (like the "&related=" parameter) is blocked. That means that even nominally 'blocked' videos will be freely accessible.

All in all, it is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care.

Despite a clear warning by the DIT that "above URLs only" should be blocked, and not "the main websites like www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, www.twitter.com, etc.", it has been seen that some ISPs (like Airtel) have gone overboard in their blocking.

Why haven't you put up the whole list?

Given the sensitivity of the issue, we felt it would be premature to share the whole list. However, we strongly believe that transparency should be an integral part of all censorship. Hence, this analysis is an attempt to provide some much-needed transparency. We intend to make the entire list public soon, though. (Given how porous such information is, it is likely that someone else will procure the list, and release it sooner than us.)

Why can I still access many items that are supposed to be blocked?

One must keep in mind that fresh orders have been issued on a day-by-day basis, that there are numerous mistakes in the list making it difficult to apply (some of these mistakes have been mentioned above), and the fact that that this order has to be implemented by hundreds of ISPs.

Your ISP probably has not have got around to enforcing the blocks yet. At the time of this writing, most ISPs don't seem to be blocking yet. This analysis is based on the orders sent around to ISPs, and not on the basis of actual testing of how many of these have actually been blocked by Airtel, BSNL, Tata, etc.

Additionally, if you are using Twitter through a client (on your desktop, mobile, etc.) instead of the web interface, you will not notice any of the Twitter-related blocks.

So you are fine with censorship?

No. I believe that in some cases, the government has the legal authority to censor. Yet, exercising that legal authority is usually not productive, and in fact there are other, better ways of limiting the harms caused by speech and information than censorship. Limiting speech might even prove harmful in situations like these, if it ends up restricting people's ability to debunk false rumours. In a separate blog post (to be put up soon), I am examining how all of the government's responses have been flawed both legally and from the perspective of achieving the desired end.

So what should the government have done?

Given that the majority of the information it is targeting is on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, the government could have chosen to fight alongside those services to get content removed expeditiously, rather than fight against them. (There are some indications that the government might be working with these services, but it certainly isn't doing enough.)

For instance, it could have asked all of them to expedite their complaints mechanism for a few days, by ensuring that the complaints mechanism is run 24x7 and that they respond quickly to any complaint submitted about communal incitement, spreading of panic, etc. This does not need the passing of an order under any law, but requires good public relations skills and a desire not to treat internet services as enemies. The government could have encouraged regular users to flag false rumours and hate speech on these sites. On such occasions, social networking sites should step up and provide all lawful assistance that the government may require. They should also be more communicative in terms of the help they are providing to the government to curtail panic-inducing rumours and hate speech. (Such measures should largely be reactive, not proactive, to ensure legitimate speech doesn't get curtailed.)

The best antidote for the rumours that spread far and wide and caused a mass movement of people from Bangalore to the North-Eastern states would have been clear debunking of those rumours. Mass outreach to people in the North-East (very often the worried parents) and in Bangalore using SMSes and social media, debunking the very specific allegations and rumours that were floating around, would have been welcome. However, almost no government officials actually used social media platforms to reach out to people to debunk false information and reassure them. Even a Canadian interning in our organization got a reassuring SMS from the Canadian government.

It is indeed a pity that the government notified a social media engagement policy today, when the need for it was so very apparent all of the past week.

And what of all this talk of cybersecurity failure and cyber-wars?

Cybersecurity is indeed a cause of concern for India, but only charlatans and the ignorant would make any connection between India's cybersecurity and recent events. The role of Pakistan deserves a few words. Not many Pakistani websites / webpages have been blocked by the Indian government. Two of the Pakistani webpages that have been blocked are actually pages that debunk the fake images that have been doing the rounds in Pakistan for at least the past month. Even Indian websites like Kafila have noted these fake images long ago, and Ayesha Siddiqa wrote about this on August 5, 2012, and Yousuf Saeed wrote about it on August 13, 2012. Even while material that may have been uploaded from Pakistan, it seems highly unlikely they were targeted at an Indian audience, rather than a Pakistani or global one.

Domain	Total Number of Entries	Tuesday, August 21, 2012	Monday, August 20, 2012	Sunday, August 19, 2012	Saturday, August 18, 2012
ABC.net.au	1				1
AlJazeera.com	4		4
AllVoices.com	1				1
WN.com	1				1
AtjehCyber.net	1				1
BDCBurma.org	1	1
Bhaskar.com	1			1
Blogspot.com	4			3	1
Blogspot.in	7	1	3		3
Catholic.org	1			1
CentreRight.in	2	2
ColumnPK.com	1			1
Defence.pk	4		2	1	1
EthioMuslimsMedia.com	1				1
Facebook.com (HTTP)	75	36	7	18	14
Facebook.com (HTTPS)	27		3	23	1
Farazahmed.com	5	1			4
Firstpost.com	2		1	1
HaindavaKerelam.com	1			1
HiddenHarmonies.org	1		1
HinduJagruti.org	2		1	1
Hotklix.com	1			1
HumanRights-Iran.ir	2				2
Intichat.com	1	1
Irrawady.org	1			1
IslamabadTimesOnline.com	1				1
Issuu.com	1				1
JafriaNews.com	1				1
JihadWatch.org	2		2
KavkazCenter	1			1
MwmJawan.com	1				1
My.Opera.com	1	1
Njuice.com	1		1
OnIslam.net	1				1
PakAlertPress.com	1	1
Plus.Google.com	4				4
Reddit.com	1		1
Rina.in	1				1
SandeepWeb.com	1		1
SEAYouthSaySo.com	1				1
Sheikyermami.com	1				1
StormFront.org	1				1
Telegraph.co.uk	1				1
TheDailyNewsEgypt.com	1				1
TheFaultLines.com	1				1
ThePetitionSite.com	1	1
TheUnity.org	1				1
TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com	1		1
TimesOfUmmah.com	1				1
Tribune.com.pk	1	1
Twitter.com (HTTP)	1			1
Twitter.com (HTTPS)	11			1	10
Twitter account	18		16	2
TwoCircles.net	2			2
Typepad.com	1		1
Vidiov.info	1		1
Wikipedia.org	3			3
Wordpress.com	8	1	3	2	2
YouTube.com	85	18	39	14	14
YouTu.be	1			1
Totals	309	65	88	80	75

The analysis has been cross-posted/quoted in the following places:

LiveMint (September 4, 2012)
The Hindu (August 26, 2012)
Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012)
tech 2 (August 25, 2012)
China Post (August 25, 2012)
The Hindu (August 24, 2012)
LiveMint (August 24, 2012)
Global Voices (August 24, 2012)
Reuters (August 24, 2012)
Outlook (August 23, 2012)
FirstPost.India (August 23, 2012)
IBN Live (August 23, 2012)
News Click (August 23, 2012)
Medianama (August 23, 2012)
KAFILA (August 23, 2012)
CIOL (August 23, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism

Examining the Constitutionality of the Ban on Broadcast of News by Private FM and Community Radio Stations

Gurshabad Grover, Torsha Sarkar, Rajashri Seal and Neil Trivedi — 2019-09-27T16:36:46Z

Gurshabad Grover and Torsha Sarkar along with Rajashri Seal and Neil Trivedi co-authored a paper that examined the constitutionality of the government prohibition on the broadcast of news against private and community FM channels.

In the article, the authors also mapped chronologically the history of the development of community and private radio channels in India. As part of the legal analysis, the authors examined the prohibition on the touchstones of existing Indian jurisprudence on media freedom and speech rights. Finally, they also utilized some key points made by the Additional Solicitor General in the Shreya Singhal case, to propose an alternative regulatory framework that would address both the interests of the radio channels and the government.

In 1995, the Supreme Court declared airwaves to be public property in the seminal case of The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association of Bengal, and created the stepping stones for liberalization of broadcasting media from government monopoly. Despite this, community radio and private FM channels, in their nearly two decades of existence, have been unable to broadcast their own news content because of the Government’s persisting prohibition on the same.In this paper, we document the historical developments surrounding the issue, and analyse the constitutional validity of this prohibition on the touchstone of the existing jurisprudence on free speech and media freedom. Additionally, we also propose an alternative regulatory framework which would assuage the government’s apprehensions regarding radicalisation through radio spaces, as well as ensure that the autonomy of these stations is not curtailed.

Click to download the full paper by NLUD Journal of Legal Studies here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-journal-of-legal-studies-september-27-2019-gurshabad-grover-torsha-sarkar-rajashri-seal-neil-trivedi-examining-the-constitutionality-of-ban-on-broadcast-of-news-by-private-fm-and-community-radio-stations

Roundtable Discussion on Intermediary Liability

Admin — 2019-10-20T07:08:11Z

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

Click to view the agenda.

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

Trending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit?

Puja Bhattacharjee — 2019-10-23T00:54:41Z

Twitter claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the Hashtag while it had not.

The blog post by Puja Bhattacharjee was published in News Central on October 21, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

In 2009, Twitter took down a trending hashtag. The hashtag in question started in South Africa and had the word “darkie” in it. That word is not a slur in South Africa, but it was used as a slur against the African Americans community in the USA. On receiving complaints, Twitter immediately removed that from trending topics though it was a clash of meanings between two different places.

On Sunday evening, a hashtag of more insidious nature was trending in India. The hashtag #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार, translated literally means “Total boycott of Muslims”. The incident is ominous given rising apprehension across the world that India is now in the grip of a violent form of Hindu Nationalism. The tweets in support of the hashtags were mostly from right-wing accounts, some of which not only called for the boycott of Muslims but also celebrated the persecution of Uighurs in China.

Speaking to NewsCentral24x7.com, a Twitter spokesperson claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the hashtag from trending: “There are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules”. (Full statement at the end of the story)

However this was patently false since many users pointed out that the hashtag continued to trend even after Twitter’s statement. In Delhi, the hashtag continues to trend at number one. More disturbingly, as reported by The Wire some of the accounts tweeting in support of the hashtags are followed by the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers.

Also Read: Need To Change Name To Save Myself From Sword Of Hate: Muslim Bureaucrat From M.P. On The Atmosphere Of Hate In Modi II

Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of Centre for Internet and Society, says that Twitter usually does not ban a hashtag. “They can remove it from trending and if people use it offensively, then they can ban that person or that tweet…. Twitter should put out a statement apologizing for and condemning this given they condemn white nationalists in the US.” he says.

The hashtag was started ostensibly in retaliation of the murder Kamlesh Tiwari, 45, the president of the Hindu Samaj Party. Over the weekend, the police arrested five people in connection to the murder.

However, Kamlesh Tiwari in his last Facebook Live video before his murder protested the removal of his security by the Yogi Adityanath government and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. His mother echoed his sentiments and has come out to say that there is no communal angle to his murder.

The matter once again raises questions about the responsibility Big-Tech platforms like Twitter need to discharge in monitoring and combating hate speech. Many organizations in the USA, UK and Australia such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Women, Action and the Media (WAM!), Online Hate Prevention Institute and Sentinel Groups for Genocide Prevention have become increasingly invested in combating hate speech online by targeting Internet intermediaries and asking them to take greater responsibility in moderating content, in addition to raising awareness among users.

An interactive map showing the trends of the hashtag from October 20 evening till October 21 morning in the sub-continent.

However, in India, the government’s proposed changes to Section 79 of the IT Act for restricting hate speech has led to fears of widespread censorship. The Internet Freedom Foundation published a comprehensive blog on why such an amendment is undesirable.

In a report released in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended broadening the existing provisions of hate speech to include other criteria that are based on their gender and sexuality.

“It does not look at underlying reforms. Like understanding the link to violence and whether it should only be a provision which should apply to members of a minority community -linguistic, caste, religion,” says Apar Gupta, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation

He says if lawmakers are unwilling to substantively tinker with definitions in a very real and substantial way, they should come up with procedural safeguards instead.

Twitter or any social media company has two levels of obligation – its own obligations towards its users which is under the terms of service contract under which it can proactively take down a speech if there is a violation of those standards. “They have a degree of discretion to do it as well. This is where most of the content takedowns happen which also results in a certain amount of criticism because they lack the consistency desired by people,” says Gupta.

The second level of compliance is when a legal notice is sent by a judicial or executive authority. If they do not comply, their online immunity from liability for the content posted by the user can be removed and they can be prosecuted as an accessory or abettor to the content published on their platform. “Twitter can block the hashtag but what we are looking for is a much more credible law enforcement response based on the content of each tweet,” Gupta adds.

In her book, HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen, the author argues that that censorial measures are ineffective and do not promote equality. Instead, Strossen, recommends forceful counter-speech and activism.

“In 2016, a report was issued about counterspeech on Twitter, coauthored by a group of scholars from the United States and Canada. The report, which included the first review of the “small body” of existing research about online counterspeech, concluded that hateful and other “extremist” speech was most effectively “undermined” by counterspeech rather than by removing it,” she writes.

Editors Note: The hashtag discussed above is absolutely horrifying and historically widespread calls for ‘boycott’ have preceded genocide. While on one hand we cannot allow hate speech to become an excuse for governments to curb non-harmful, legal speech, the censor or counter debate cannot be allowed to become a veil for big-tech to wash its hands off the matter. There is now significant reportage which shows that hate speech essentially benefits social media platforms and therefore they are unwilling to curb it. In this specific case the double standards twitter has displayed in being prompt in one country while unresponsive in other is also a very disturbing aspect.

Full statement by Twitter:

“At Twitter our singular goal is to improve the health of the public conversation, including ensuring the safety of people who use our service. As outlined in our Hateful Conduct Policy, we do not tolerate the abuse or harassment of people on the basis of religion. As per our Help Center, there are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules. If people on Twitter see something that violates the Twitter Rules, the most important thing they can do is report it, by clicking the drop down arrow at the top of the Tweet and selecting “Report Tweet.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims

Department of Labour Interaction Program: Online Business Platforms

Bharath Gururagavendran — 2019-10-29T06:05:56Z

The Department of Labour convened an interaction program of sorts at Vikas Soudha in Bangalore on 21st October, 2019 to hear the issues plaguing the emergent gig economy.

The blog post was edited by Ambika Tandon.

The meeting was called to hear and address the grievances of gig workers, (employed by online business platforms) in the presence of their employers. The meeting was presided by the esteemed Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, and the Secretary to the Labour Department, Shri Manivannan. The Minister began by disclosing that union members and delivery partners employed by online delivery companies (Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, Flipkart, etc.) had approached his office, with several complaints pertaining to the legal treatment or lack thereof, of gig workers across the nation. They also further identified the day-to-day concerns that they had to face (i.e. health & pay-related issues) as a consequence of their non-recognition under the labour law frameworks in the country.

"The majority of the delivery boys that aggregators (e.g. Swiggy, Ola, Uber, etc.) employ are full-time workers who depend solely on these companies for their income." That was the refrain of most of the spokespeople supporting the cause of gig workers. These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the gig workers employed by online aggregators:

Mr. G. S. Kumar (Food Delivery Partners Association)
Mr. Tanveer Pasha (Ola driver)
Mr. M. Manjunath (Auto Chalaka Okkuta)
Mr. Amit Gupta (Brand Strategist)
Ms. Kaveri (Researcher)
Mr. Basavaraj (Food Delivery Association)

"The delivery partners employed by online aggregators should be treated as full-time employees"

Mr. G.S Kumar, an office-bearer at the Food Delivery Partners Samithi set the context for the conversation, by identifying at the very outset that the term "delivery partners" is a misnomer and that they are largely full-time employees. They are further straddled with family commitments, health concerns, and dwindling pay structures. As such, he proclaimed that they are deserving of the protections statutorily available to employees (in the traditional sense of the term) under the extant labour legislations. It was also specifically highlighted by Mr. K.S. Kumar, that in status quo, delivery boys cannot avail of ESI, or PF benefits.

Furthermore, the protections the companies make available are also quite abysmal, for instance a Rs. 2 lakh accidental cover that's rarely ever paid. The practical exigencies of their itinerant lifestyles inhibit them from maintaining strict compliance with the protocols that are unfortunately condition precedents to obtaining the benefits they so desperately require. The language of these policies in the fine print often contains conditions that are quite hard to satisfy, and as such, the benefits remain inaccessible to the vast majority of drivers employed by these online business platforms. Adding value to this criticism of Mr. K.S. Kumar, Mr. Basavaraj later clarified that conditions such as requiring 24 hours of admittance for the processing of insurance claims, makes it nigh impossible for drivers plying the roads to ever materially avail of health or accidental insurance.

"Ola/Uber drivers face serious health risks, as they ply the roads of Bangalore, and require functional insurance"

Tanveer Pasha, a member of the Ola/Uber Drivers Association, discussed the lived experiences of these delivery boys who ply the road, travelling nearly fifteen to twenty kilometres for each trip in peak Bangalore traffic. He narrated stories of trauma and violence faced by drivers, such as instances of heart attacks and accidents, which made the conversation a little heated. The minister then deftly interjected, by requesting them to be solution-centric, while discussing their grievances, as this aids the government's ability to balance the competing interests of both the aggregators and the gig workers.

"A Government ombudsman is required to address the grievances of gig workers"

To that effect, M. Manjunath from the Auto and Taxi Association asserted that insurance is a basic right that should be provided to the employees. Amit Gupta, Brand Strategist, spoke on behalf of his sister, previously employed at Swiggy, and stated that an ombudsman empowered to take complaints, even from gig workers, should be created. He believed this was imperative given that aggregators are de facto free to violate the terms and conditions prescribed in the employment order, as they have the resources to see the case through in court, whereas employees don't have much recourse, outside of trade unions. He concluded that for these delivery partners devoid of the right to collectivize, it becomes crucially important to maintain at the very least, a Government ombudsman.

"Aggregators should not profit off of the positive network effects gained through delivery partners, and simultaneously deny their right to protest unfair business practices"

Ms. Kaveri, a researcher on the conditions of gig workers, brought to light some of the more egregious problems that are faced by these workers. For instance, they are removed from employment, at a moment's notice if they attempt to protest, and to that effect, she stated that Zomato had fired an employee that very day because he was supposed to participate in the meeting and make his case. She further specified that it was patently unfair to allow these aggregators to profit off of the positive network effects gained solely because of the delivery partners, and subsequently engage in cost-cutting practices like reducing the incentives that they receive.

In response to these claims, the Labour Minister invited representatives of online platforms to shed some clarity on the concerns raised by the gig workers they employ.

These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the online aggregators:

Mr. Manjunath (Flipkart)
Mr. Panduranga (Legal Team, Swiggy)
Mr. Ashok Kumar (Zomato)

"Flipkart does provide significant benefits to its fixed-term contractors"

Mr. Manjunath clarified his position on these issues, with regards to Flipkart, by stating that there is a tripartite classification amongst people who work there:

a) Full-time employees

b) Fixed Term Contractors (e.g. 8 or 10-month contract)

c) Interns

He further affirmed that even for fixed term contractors, Flipkart offers ESI, and PF benefits. He also specified that they don't hire more employees or fixed-term contractors during peak season, but rather hire only interns to meet demand, as it offers the inexperienced interns a chance to gain industry exposure as well.

"Swiggy empowers the agency of its delivery partners, and provides necessary benefits"

Mr. Panduranga, from the legal department at Swiggy, in direct response to the concerns about Swiggy, stated that the gig economy is emergent and that Swiggy and other such aggregators are merely technology platforms, facilitating end-to-end services (between different stakeholders, e.g. customer-driver-restaurant). In that sense, he clarified that the delivery partners they employ have the right to accept or deny deliveries and that there is no compulsion to commit to the work. Moreover, he specified that merely logging off the app frees up a delivery partner of his or her time. He opined that they have the freedom to work for multiple companies, and the process of joining and leaving is highly flexible. In that sense, he stated that a large number of students and after-office hours employees are the ones employing these apps as a means to generating quick cash flows (and as such, should not be treated as full-time employees). He also mentioned that there is up to 1 lakh for medical expenses, (which are currently being disbursed), and Rs. 5 lakhs for accidental death coverage as well. Mr. Ashok Kumar from Zomato also reaffirmed the statements of Mr. Panduranga.

"Incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel gig workers to work hours akin to full-time employees"

Mr. Basavaraj from the Food delivery Association/Samithi, along with all the other representatives clarified that it is extremely unlikely that the majority of gig workers are part-time and only in it for generating quick money. Instead, the majority of gig workers work 9-12-hour workdays, and in that sense, are really no different from traditional employees. Basavaraj stated that an examination of the travel logs of delivery partners will make it clear whether the majority of workers are part-time or full time. He also pointed out that incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel drivers to work long hours with poor working conditions. For example, drivers who don't operate during peak hours do not receive the incentives they are promised. Further, the manner of advertisement of these jobs is itself insidious, as the salary offering is inclusive of the money one would receive if they also met their incentive-targets. Basavaraj specified that the deceptive advertising of these companies is what leads to massive hordes of gig workers working, in essence, full-time jobs, and as such, they must require the protection of their rights enshrined under labour legislations.

There was also collective agreement from the spokespeople making a case on behalf of the gig workers, that the benefits provided on paper (health insurance for accident cases) are rarely ever provided, and that the process of acquiring the same is rife with hassles. However, this was met with fervent opposition from the spokespeople representing the online aggregators, who contended that these insurance payments were being sanctioned freely without inconvenience.

Concluding Observations of the Labour Minister

The Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, identified that this is an emergent issue; one that requires serious consideration, as the gig economy is here to stay. He reaffirmed the social responsibility of the Government to inspect this matter and set up a legal framework, as it concerns the deprivation of agency for lakhs of people working as gig workers in the state, and across the country. He also affirmed that he is cognizant of the business interests at play. To that effect, he declared that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Shri. Balakrishnan would examine the relevant data at hand, hold necessary meetings with both parties, and submit a report on the creation of a prospective framework to regulate gig economies within one month. He stated that the Government will set up a framework with governing rules and regulations, based on the report submitted. He concluded by emphasizing the necessity for both parties to be trusting of one another and not render the working dynamic adversarial, however oppositional their competing interests maybe, as trust is a constitutive component of conflict resolution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/department-of-labour-interaction-program-online-business-platforms

CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call

Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil — 2019-11-04T14:13:13Z

In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call to Action in May 2018 to “bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to bring to an end the ability to use social media to organise and promote terrorism and violent extremism.”

Fifty one supporters, including India, and eight tech companies have jointly agreed to a set of non-binding commitments and ongoing collaboration to eliminate violent and extremist content online. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, and Amazon are all among the online service provider signatories that released a joint statement welcoming the call and committing to a nine-point action plan.

The Call has been hailed by many as a step in the right direction, as it represents the first collaboration between governments and the private sector companies to combat the problem of extremist content online at this scale. However, the vagueness of the commitments outlined in the Call and some of the proposed mechanisms have raised concerns about the potential abuse of human rights by both governments and tech companies.

This response is divided into two parts - Part One examines the call through the lens of human rights, and Part Two thinks through the ways in which India can adhere to the commitments in the Call, and compares the current legal framework in India with the commitments outlined in the Call.

Click to read the comments here. The comments were prepared by Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil and edited by Gurshabad Grover and Amber Sinha.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tanaya-rajwade-elonnai-hickok-and-raouf-kundil-peedikayil-october-31-2019-comments-to-christchurch-call

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

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

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

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

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

The response can be accessed here.

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