Centre for Internet and Society

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

Internet Speech: Perspectives on Regulation and Policy

akriti — 2019-04-01T16:38:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and the University of Munich (LMU), Germany are jointly organizing an international symposium at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on April 5, 2019

Click to download the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/internet-speech-perspectives-on-regulation-and-policy

Resurrecting the marketplace of ideas

basu — 2019-02-22T02:18:53Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship by proxy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Algorithmic governmentality

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

Further, an algorithmically driven solution is an amorphous process.

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

Possible policy prescriptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Net Coalition Workshop on Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World

Admin — 2019-04-05T14:22:07Z

Anubha Sinha participated in a JNC workshop organized by Just Net Coalition Workshop on Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World and its partners in Bangkok from March 25 to 27, 2019.

Background

Digital is increasingly the substratum of much of social, economic and political activities, marking the advent of what has been called as the digital society and economy. While it does promise the advancement of human civilisation in many ways – enabling unimagined efficiencies of resource utilisation and new forms of intelligent social and economic organisation and functioning, these gains are not automatic. This is especially so regarding whether the benefits of a digital society and economy will be equitably distributed, or if data enabled pervasive digital intelligence will get employed by the powerful to further entrench their controls over the rest. It is a telling fact that the last decade and half of the rise of the Internet and digital were also the times of one of the fastest ever worsening of inequality worldwide. If the deep social, economic and political troubles currently faced by the world are any evidence, we may not be employing the newly available digitally intelligent means for better management of our societies and economies.

Governments, that are supposed to ensure appropriate economic distribution and social justice, are completely at a loss with regard to the digital society/economy phenomenon, and leave it to big – mostly global – business to advice and lead them. Even among civil society, while there exist many groups and networks advocating for the very important civil and political rights in a digital era, there is hardly any presence and work related to corresponding economic and social rights and justice. This has resulted in a singular homogeneous global digital economy discourse which is not just hegemonic – as admittedly happens in other areas as well – but also remains almost entirely uncontested, without any alternatives articulated even at its peripheries. It is underpinned by the neoliberal tenets of seamless techno-enabled economic globalisation, open unregulated markets (but actually monopoly corporate controls), and individual merit and personal responsibility. Productivity and inclusion are both sold as assured outcomes of imbibing digital technologies into everything.

For more info, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/just-net-coalition-workshop-on-equity-and-social-justice-in-a-digital-world

A look at two problematic provisions of the draft Anti-trafficking bill

swaraj — 2018-08-18T09:21:55Z

This post examines two badly drafted provisions of the new Anti-Trafficking bill that have the potential to severely impinge upon the Freedom of Expression, including through a misunderstanding of intermediary liability.

On 28 Feb 2018, the Union Cabinet approved ‘The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018’ (‘the bill’) for introduction to the Parliament. This comes after a series of consultations on an earlier 2016 draft bill, that had faced its fair share of criticism. As per the Press Information Bureau announcement, the Ministry of Women and Child Development met with various stakeholders including 60 NGOs and have incorporated many of the suggestions put forth. They’ve also stated that ‘the new law will make India a leader among South Asian countries to combat trafficking.’

However, at first glance, there appear to be several issues with overbroad or vague language used in the drafting of the bill, that stretch it into potentially problematic areas. This current post will focus on two such provisions that could lead to a deleterious effect on the Freedom of Expression. As the bill is currently not publicly available, a stakeholder’s copy of the draft is being used to source these provisions. The relevant sections have been reproduced below for convenience. (Emphasis in bold is as provided by the author).

Section 39: Buying or Selling of any person

39. (l) Whoever buys or sells any person for a consideration, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever solicits or publicises electronically, taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials or soliciting or guiding tourists or using agents or any other form which may lead to the trafficking of a person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.

The grammatical acrobatics of section 39(2) aside, this anti-solicitation provision is severely problematic in that it mandates punishment even for a vaguely defined action or actions that may not actually be connected to the trafficking of a person. In other words, the provision doesn’t require any of the actions to be connected to trafficking in their intent or even outcome, but only in potential connection to the outcome. At the same time, it says these ‘shall’ be punished!

This vagary that ignores actual or even probabilistic causation flies in the face of standard criminal law which requires mens rea along with actus rea. The excessively wide scope of this badly drafted provision leaves it prone to abuse. For example, currently the provision allows the following interpretation to be included: ‘Whoever publicizes electronically, by providing materials in any form, which may lead to trafficking of a person shall be punished…’. Even the electronic publicizing of an academic study on trafficking could fall under the provision as it currently reads, if it is argued that publishing studies that show the prevalence of trafficking ‘may lead to the trafficking of a person’! It is not hard to imagine that an academic study that shows trafficking numbers at embarrassingly high rates could be threatened with this provision. Similarly, any of our vast number of self-appointed moral guardians could also pull within this provision any artistic work that they may personally find offensive or ‘obscene’. Simply put, without any burden of showing a causal connect, it could be argued that anything ‘may lead’ to the trafficking of a person. Needless to say, this paves the way for a severe chilling effect on free speech, especially on critical speech around trafficking issues.

Section 41: Offences related to media

41. (l) Whoever commits trafficking of a person with the aid of media, including, but not limited to print, internet, digital or electronic media, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever distributes, or sells or stores, in any form in any electronic or printed form showing incidence of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, or rape for the purpose of exploitation or for coercion of the victim or his family members, or for unlawful gain shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

The drafters of this bill have perhaps overlooked the fact that unlike the physical world, the infrastructure of the electronic / digital world requires 3rd party intermediaries to handle information during most forms of electronic activities, whether it is transmission, storage or display. As it is not feasible, desirable or even practically possible for intermediaries to verify the legality of every bit of data that gets transferred or stored by the intermediary, ‘safe harbours’ are provided in law for intermediaries, protecting them from liability of the information being transmitted through them. These ensure that entities that act as architectural requirements and intermediary platforms are able to operate smoothly and without fear. If intermediaries are not granted this protection, it puts them in the unenviable position of having to monitor un-monitorable amounts of data, and face legal action for the slip-ups that are bound to happen regularly. Furthermore, there are several levels of free speech and privacy issues associated with having multiple gatekeepers on the expression of speech online. A charitable reading of the intent of a provision which does not recognise safe harbours for 3rd party intermediaries, would be that the drafters of the bill have simply not realised that users who upload and initiate transfer of information online, are not the same parties who do the actual transmission of the information.

Distribution, selling or storing of information online would require the transmission of information over intermediaries, as well as the temporary storage of such information on intermediary platforms. In India, intermediaries engaging with transmission or temporary storage of information are provided safe harbour[1] by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), so long as they:

(i) act as a mere ‘conduit’ and do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

(ii) exercise due diligence while discharging duties under this Act, and observes other guidelines that the Central Government may prescribe.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, list out the nature of the due diligence to be followed by intermediaries to claim exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Intermediaries will not be granted safe harbour if they have conspired, abetted, aided or induced commission of the unlawful act, or if they do not remove or disable access to information upon receiving actual knowledge, or notice from the Government, of the information that is transmitted or stored by the intermediary being used for unlawful purposes.

Thus it can be seen that the IT Act already provides an in-depth regime for intermediary liability, and given its non-obstante clause which states that Section 79 of the IT Act would apply “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force” , as well as the reiteration of the IT Act’s overriding effect via Section 81, which states that the provisions of the Act ‘shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force’ (barring the exercise of copyright or patent rights), it is generally considered the appropriate legal framework for this issue. However, it appears that the drafters of the 2018 Anti-trafficking bill have not considered this aspect at all, since they have not referenced the IT Act in this context in the bill, and have additionally added their own non-obstante clause in Section 59 of the bill:

59. The provisions of this Act, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency.

So the regime as prescribed by the IT Act allows for safe harbours, whereas the regime as prescribed by the Anti-Trafficking bill does not allow for safe harbours, and both say that they would an overriding effect for any conflicting law. This legislative bumble could potentially be solved by using the settled principle that a special Act prevails over a general legislation. This is still a little tricky as they are technically both special Acts. It could be argued that given the context of the Anti-trafficking bill as focusing on trafficking, and the context of the IT Act focusing on the interface of law and technology, that for the purposes of Section 41(2) of the Anti-trafficking bill, the IT Act is the special legislation. And thus Section 79 of the IT Act should make redundant the relevant portion of Section 41(2) of the Anti-trafficking bill. This reading would require the bill to be modified so as to remove the redundancy and the conflicting portion of Section 41(2).

[1] In 2016, a division bench of the Delhi High Court held in the case of Myspace Inc vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd that a safe harbour immunity for intermediaries was necessary as it was not technically feasible to pre-screen content from third parties, and that tasking intermediaries with this responsibility could have a chilling effect on free speech, It held that their responsibility was limited to the extent of acting upon receiving ‘actual knowledge’. Earlier, in determining what ‘actual knowledge’ refers to, in 2015 the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, required this to be in the form of a notice via a court or government order. Thus under our current law, intermediaries are granted a safe harbour from liability so long as they act upon court or government orders which notify them of content that is required to be taken down.

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-look-at-two-problematic-provisions-of-the-draft-anti-trafficking-bill

Legitimate Restrictions on Freedom of Online Speech: Deadlock to Dialogue

praskrishna — 2012-10-15T05:44:04Z

The event was hosted by FICCI Communications and Digital Economy Committee on September 4, 2012 at FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash spoke on censorship and the way forward.

The following were the speakers who spoke at the event:

Anja Kovacs, Project Director, Internet Democracy Project
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Center for Internet and Society
Prabir Purkayastha, Founder Member, Delhi Science Forum
Prasanth Sugathan, Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center
Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change
Ramanjit Singh Chima, Sr. Policy Analyst, Google India
Ankhi Das, Head of Public Policy for India, Facebook
Nikhil Pahwa, Editor & Publisher, Medianama.com
Rajesh Chharia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India
Mahesh Uppal, Policy Expert
Virat Bhatia, Chairman, Communication and Digital Economy Committee, FICCI

Click to read the Digest of Comments and Inputs at the panel discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/legitimate-restrictions-on-freedom-of-online-speech

On social media, Modi goes soft

praskrishna — 2012-11-02T06:20:13Z

“Truth stands on its own; it doesn’t need a prop.” Is this Mahatma Gandhi? No, it’s Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on Twitter. Gujarat’s elections are near, but in the arena of social media, Modi has already won. From over a million subscribers on Twitter to a Facebook page flooded with “likes”, Modi’s net is cast wide.

Zia Haq's article was published in the Hindustan Times on October 26, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In political rallies, Modi roars with demagogic speeches. On Twitter, he displays a softer, brooding side: “Powers of the mind are like rays of light.” Only occasionally is a political challenge thrown in: “Delhi Sultanate treats Gujarat like enemy nation but Gujarat will never bow.”

A polarising figure still, Modi is often accused of avoiding action to stop a carnage that killed nearly 2,000 people in 2002, mostly Muslims. Yet, he has pulled off a stunning PR strategy on social media to showcase Gujarat as India’s Guandong, a Chinese province with top GDP rankings. Gujarat has posted robust growth rates, although its human-development indicators remain skewed.

Modi became the third politician globally, after Obama and the Australian PM, to host a political conference on Google+ hangout, a video chat platform. In the past quarter, he added nearly 24,000 Twitter subscribers every 12 days, according to twittercounter.com.

Modi has leveraged social media in a way the Congress hasn’t been able to. Unlike him, none among the Congress’s leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, has a personal Twitter account. “Our leaders believe more in transparent dialogues with the public, rather than spreading Internet canards,” said Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari.

Shashi Tharoor, a Congress MP with the highest Twitter subscriber base among Indian politicians, attracts mostly the elite, not the masses.

He jibes at his own government with irreverent tweets often making his party frown.

Yet, research shows that social media is more persuasive than television ads. Nearly 100 million Indians, more than Germany’s population, use the Internet.

Of this, the 40 million who have broadband are the ones active on the social media. “Unlike Obama, who used it directly for votes, Indian politicians tend to use social media more to mould public discourse,” says Sunil Abraham, the CEO of The Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-specials-coverage-gujarat-assembly-elections-2012-zia-haq-oct-26-2012-on-social-media-modi-goes-soft

Freedom Song: Film Screening and Discussion

praskrishna — 2013-03-15T06:51:39Z

Freedom Song, a documentary film produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust and directed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Subi Chaturvedi will be screened at the IIHS Bangalore City Campus on March 21, 2013, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., followed by discussions. Paranjoy will be present for the screening and will answer questions from the participants.

Discussions and arguments on freedom of expression and what should or should not be censored are as old as civilization itself, across the world and in India. In recent years, these debates have acquired new dimensions with the growth of the mass media -- especially the internet. Maintenance of public order, national security, religious tolerance, blasphemy, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, artistic licence, pornography, obscenity, copyright and other intellectual property rights have all become issues linked to freedom of expression, often under highly contentious and controversial circumstances. Whereas Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right of all citizens, Article 19(2) imposes "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of such freedom. There is no consensus on what constitutes "reasonable" restrictions and/or who or which body should determine what is or should be "reasonable" restrictions on freedom of expression.

The 52-minute-long documentary film entitled Freedom Song produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust and directed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Subi Chaturvedi seeks to examine issues relating to freedom of expression in a contemporary Indian context. The film raises a number of questions. Has Indian society as a whole become more or less tolerant to dissent even as sections of the population have apparently become increasingly vociferous in protesting against what is considered offensive? Are vocal minorities drowning out the voices of passive majorities in issues pertaining to artistic freedom and independence of expression? Where does one draw a dividing line between an individual's right to offend and her or his obligations towards maintenance of social harmony?

The film includes examples of alleged violations and transgressions of the fundamental right to free expression in contemporary India. Such examples include incidents and episodes relating to why Salman Rushdie’s video conference at the Jaipur Literary Festival had to be called off, the banning of books by Taslima Nasreen by the West Bengal government, controversial paintings by the late Maqbool Fida Hussain, the chopping of the hand of professor of Malayalam T.J. Joseph in Ernakulam, Kerala, the arrest of professor Ambikesh Mohapatra in Kolkata for circulating an e-mail lampooning West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the controversy surrounding a cartoon first published in 1949 which depicts India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the architect of the country’s Constitution B.R. Ambedkar.

These examples are juxtaposed with the views of a cross-section of Indians from different walks of life: lawyers, creative artistes, journalists, politicians, social activists and ordinary individuals.

Film duration: 52 minutes
Year of production: 2012

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is an independent journalist and an educator. His work experience, spanning more than 35 years, cuts across different media: print, radio, television and documentary cinema. He is a writer, speaker, anchor, interviewer, teacher and commentator in three languages: English, Bengali and Hindi. His main areas of interest are the working of the political economy and the media in India and the world, on which he has authored/co-authored books and directed/produced documentary films. He lectures on these subjects to general audiences and also trains aspiring – and working -- media professionals. He participates frequently in and organizes seminars/conferences, is a regular contributor to newspapers, magazines and websites and is featured on television channels and radio programmes as an anchor as well as an analyst and commentator.

Born on October 5, 1955 and educated at St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi (1972-75) and at the Delhi School of Economics (1975-77) in the same university from where he obtained his Master’s degree in economics, he started his career as a journalist in June 1977 and has been employed with various media organizations including companies bringing out publications such as Business India, BusinessWorld, The Telegraph, India Today and The Pioneer. He worked with Television Eighteen (now Network 18) for almost six years between 1995 and 2001 when he anchored a daily discussion programme called “India Talks” on the CNBC-India television channel -- nearly 1,400 half-hour episodes were broadcast. From March 2007, he has been anchoring two one-hour-long weekly programmes for Lok Sabha Television (the channel owned and operated by the lower house of the Parliament of India) – a panel discussion called “Talktime” (earlier “Headstart”) and an interview called “1-on-One”. He has anchored programmes for other television channels.

He is (or has been) a visiting faculty member at over a dozen reputed educational institutions including the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Kolkata, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Hamdard University (both in Delhi), the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, the Film & Television Institute of India, Pune, the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie and the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. In September 2010, he became a visiting professor in the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Delhi, teaching M.Phil students.

He served as a member of the Press Council of India nominated by the University Grants Commission between January 2008 and January 2011. In April 2010, as a member of a two-member sub-committee of the Council, he co-authored a 36,000-word report entitled “Paid News: How Corruption in the Indian Media Undermines Democracy”.

He is a media trainer and a consultant/adviser on India’s political economy. He was the founder director of the School of Convergence (SoC). He has been a consultant at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, making presentations and writing papers on Indian politics. He has been associated with a number of projects of the United Nations Development Programme and the International Labour Organization (ILO). He moderated two panel discussions at the International Labour Conference at Geneva, Switzerland, in June 2009 and at the ILO’s Asia Pactific Regional Meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 2011. He is currently president of the Foundation for Media Professionals, an independent, not-for-profit organization. He has advised various organizations, including corporate bodies (Indian, foreign and multinational), government agencies (including India’s Ministry of Information & Broadcasting) and civil society organizations.

He is a director/producer of documentary films. One entitled “Idiot Box or Window of Hope” which examines the impact of television on Indian society – was produced by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust (PSBT) in 2003 and was broadcast on Doordarshan. In 2006-07, he produced and directed a five-part documentary series in partnership with the PSBT entitled: “Hot As Hell: A Profile of Dhanbad”, different versions of which have been broadcast on various television channels including Doordarshan and NDTV 24x7. In 2007, he directed a documentary film “Grabbing Eyeballs: What’s Unethical About Television News in India” for PSBT that was followed up by another entitled “Advertorial: Selling News or Products?” in 2009. In 2010, he produced and directed a three-part documentary film series entitled “Blood & Iron: A Story of the Convergence of Crime, Business and Politics in Southern India” on the political, economic and ecological consequences of iron ore mining in Bellary (Karnataka) and Ananthapur (Andhra Pradesh). The film has been translated into six Indian languages and broadcast on different television channels. In 2011, he produced and directed a documentary film entitled: “The Great Indian Telecom Robbery”. (He was one of the first journalists to write about the telecommunications spectrum scandal in November 2007 and was one of the petitioners in public-interest litigation petitions on the subject in the Supreme Court of India.) In 2012, he co-directed a film entitled “Freedom Song” that examines freedom of expression in a contemporary Indian context. He has produced/directed a number of other documentary films.

He has co-authored a book with Shankar Raghuraman entitled: “A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand”, published by Sage Publications India in March 2004. The book was able to anticipate the outcome of the 14th general elections in India, the results for which came out in May that year. A substantially revised, updated and enlarged version of the book titled “Divided We Stand: India in a Time of Coalitions” was published in December 2007. He has written “Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity, Making and Breaking News” published by Oxford University Press India in March 2009 – the second enlarged edition of the book was published in December 2011. He has contributed articles and chapters to books (including “Realizing Brand India” edited by Sharif D. Rangnekar [Rupa, 2005] and “India: The Political Economy of Reforms” edited by Bibek Debroy & Rahul Mukherji [Bookwell, 2004]).

He is currently engaged in authoring/co-authoring other books and producing/directing documentary films. He has travelled widely in India and across the world. He is a partner of Media Network of India, a firm engaged in designing and creation of content for all media, contract publishing, media training, establishment of radio stations and business development.

Contact details: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Work: E-1, Nizamuddin West, 2^nd Floor, New Delhi – 110 013, India
Phone: (+91) (011) 4182-7691; Mobile: (+91) 98101-70435
Home: K-33, South City – I, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122001, India;
E-mail: paranjoy@gmail.com or paranjoy@hotmail.com

For details on the venue: +91-80-67606666

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-song-film-screening-and-discussion

Namaste, Mr. Eric Schmidt

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T08:48:48Z

An article by R. Jai Krishna published in the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013 quotes Sunil Abraham.

Read the original published by the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013.

Sandwiched between a January visit to North Korea and a stop in Myanmar at the end of this week Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.42% executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is visiting India until Thursday.

The world’s largest democracy might seem to have little in common with the two authoritarian states.

But free speech advocates say recent developments in India are troubling and observers are waiting to see whether Mr. Schmidt addresses them during two events over the next couple of days.

At issue is a debate in India over the limits to free speech. In 2011, India’s government, angered at the spread of inflammatory material online, passed a law that allows it to hold Internet companies liable for “offensive” material posted by users. Parts of the law are being challenged in India’s Supreme Court, which has yet to rule.

In December 2011, India’s then-telecoms minister, Kapil Sibal, urged Google Facebook Inc. FB -2.67% and other Internet companies to screen derogatory material from their sites. The requests came amid official anger over content that parodied Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, as well as other leading politicians.

A journalist, Vinay Rai, subsequently filed criminal cases in a Delhi court against Internet firms including Google, alleging material they hosted was defamatory, obscene and promoted enmity among different religious and ethnic groups. The companies are challenging the validity of the case in a higher court. The lower court is expected to begin hearings next month.

Google and the others deny wrongdoing. Google has said it makes unavailable to Indian users any content that violates its terms of services or local laws.

Mr. Schmidt is unlikely to address the ongoing lawsuits. But he might take the opportunity to push India to reconsider its position on free speech, say activists.

“He will obviously make a case..but the government is unlikely to take it seriously,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. “It’s much more complicated.”

Mr. Schmidt is set to speak at two technology conferences – one organized by the country’s software industry body, the National Association of Software and Services Companies, or Nasscom, on Wednesday, and another by Google on Thursday.

Paroma Roy Chowdhury, a spokeswoman for Google India said: “The Google India team is very happy to host him here.”

Mr. Schmidt’s India visit follows his private visit to North Korea in January where he urged its officials to drop barriers to global Internet access if they hope to develop their economy. He is likely to travel to Myanmar on March 22, after his India trip.

Google is facing other legal challenges in India. They include a federal anti-trust probe on alleged anticompetitive practices by Google’s online advertising business. Google says it has done nothing wrong.

For Google, India is an important market for its Internet services as well as mobile-devices software Android.

Market research firm ComScore Inc. SCOR -0.41% said in June that Google reached 95% of online users in India. “Visitors spent 2.5 hours on Google sites, with YouTube accounting for a major share,” it said.

More and more Indians have started taking to the Internet to express their views. India has about 62 million people in urban areas using social media platforms, according to a recent study by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a trade body, and market-research agency, IMRB. That is expected to rise to 66 million by June.

Demographically, the report said, the “highest proportion’ of social media usage was among young men and college students, representing 84% and 82% of the total internet users, respectively.

Last year, New Delhi issued a series of guidelines on how government departments should use social media to reach out to people and to ensure public participation in policy framing.

The ruling Congress-led coalition government has now started embracing these networks.

For example, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram earlier this month interacted with citizens during the annual budget proposal using social media platform Google+.

For many, this was seen as a move to counter Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s use of online platforms during his successful re-election campaign late last year. Mr. Modi, widely expected to be named the prime ministerial candidate for the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, is scheduled to attend Google’s event Thursday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wsj-r-jai-krishna-march-20-2013-namaste-mr-eric-schmidt

Press controls ‘send wrong message to rest of world’

praskrishna — 2013-03-26T04:51:54Z

Britain could trigger an international media crackdown if the Government goes ahead with plans for a Royal Charter to introduce a new Press regulator, free speech campaigners warned yesterday.

Read the article written by Jerome Starkey from Johannesburg, Francis Elliott from Delhi and David Brown. It was published in the Times on March 21, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Oppressive regimes will use the example of the planned regulation in Britain to justify tighter controls on their own media, it was claimed. Campaigners from across the Commonwealth are preparing to urge the Queen not to approve the Royal Charter when it is presented by the Privy Council on May 8. Senior journalists and campaigners in Africa and Asia accused Britain of “chilling media freedom” by legitimising state interference in the media.

Phenyo Butale, the director of South Africa’s Freedom of Expression Institute, said: “African governments have shown they are uncomfortable with free press acting as a watchdog, holding them to account. A move to statutory regulation in the UK would really be a gift for them.”

In Somalia, one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist, reporters said that they were alarmed by the British plans. “It’s alarming that the British Government is regulating the freedom of its press,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, secretary-general of the Somali Union of Journalists.

Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based organisation that campaigns against the Indian Government’s often heavy-handed attempts to regulate online content, said that the UK had surrendered the moral high ground in an important international debate.

“The UK has traditionally made free speech an important component of their foreign policy and when their own internal actions contradict their external position . . . they no longer have any influence on the Indian situation,” he said.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times wrote that the proposed regulation would “do more harm than good”, adding: “It is worth keeping in mind that journalists at newspapers like The Guardianand The [New York] Times, not the police, first brought to light the scope and extent of hacking by British tabloids. It would be perverse if regulations . . . ended up stifling the kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism that brought it to light in the first place.”

Mumsnet, one of the most popular blogging sites, has sought a guarantee from the Government that it would not be caught by the regulations. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport told the website that it “will ultimately be for the court to decide on the definition of a ‘relevant publisher’ ” covered by the new regulations “but our view is that Mumsnet would not be covered by the new regime”.

Justine Roberts, the website’s founder, has asked to be specifically included in the list of exempted websites.

The House of Lords will vote on Monday on the definition of “relevant publisher” when peers consider new amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill. Some of Britain’s major newspaper and magazine publishers have indicated that they will not join the new regulator.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-uk-jerome-starkey-francis-elliott-david-brown-march-21-2013-press-controls-send-wrong-message-to-rest-of-world

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society 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 IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules