Centre for Internet and Society

Women arrested for Facebook post: Did cops act under Sena pressure?

praskrishna — 2012-11-21T11:17:37Z

After Bal Thackeray's death, during the Mumbai Bandh, a 21-year-old criticised the shutdown on her Facebook page — her friend approved of it — next thing they know, they are facing a case, and this morning they were arrested.

YP Singh, Alyque Padamsee, Rohan Joshi, Karuna Nundy and Pranesh Prakash took part in a discussion about the arrest of two girls over a Facebook comment. The discussion was aired in NDTV on November 19, 2012.

The anchor asked Pranesh Prakash:

Who are these people scrolling through people's Facebook posts and Twitter accounts, finding these comments and taking action?

Pranesh Prakash said that it could be anyone. The reality is doesn't really matter because the laws are written in such a way that if it is public and stuff that is on Facebook for different purposes can either be public or private, if it is public these laws can very often apply and that is a problem. We haven't quite figured out to what extent these laws apply. The IT Act section 66A for instance, is unconstitutional, section 295 A which has been applied, and section 505 which also seems to have been applied in this case make it a clear case of misappropriation of those provisions. These kind of arrests will happen. It doesn't quite matter if we have right laws at one level and it clearly doesn't help if we have bad laws. What we need to do at least in part to remedy the situation is to amend the IT Act to make it consonant and consistent with civil and political rights and to do so in multi-stakeholder fashion involving civil society, industry and government. Right now it doesn't protect privacy and freedom of speech as much as it should.

Watch the full video aired on NDTV

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7

The flaw in cyber law

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T09:06:25Z

Legal experts and netizens want the controversial clause in the IT Act to be scrapped after two Mumbai girls were arrested for a post on Facebook.

This article by S Ronendra Singh was published in the Hindu BusinessLine on November 29, 2012. Sunil Abraham and Snehashish Ghosh are quoted.

Shaheen Dhada, 21, and her friend Rini Srinivas would never have imagined that they could land in jail because of a Facebook post. The two girls were arrested in Palghar following a complaint from local Shiv Sena workers against Shaheen's post on Facebook, where she questioned the need for a 'bandh' being observed in Mumbai on the death of the Sena supremo Bal Thackery.

While the two girls’ experience was traumatic, the action by the police has given fodder to activists and cyber experts to raise the clamour for scrapping section 66A of the IT Act, which they term as being draconian.

The Palghar incident is not an isolated event. Recently, Ravi Srinivasan, a 45-year-old supplier of plastic parts to telecom companies and a volunteer with India Against Corruption got into trouble with police after he tweeted about alleged corruption charges against Karti Chidambram, son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram.

There was a common factor in all these cases - arbitrary use of the Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The only mistake that most of these so-called offenders had committed was publishing their views online.

So, should we consider the law draconian now?

Assess Ambiguity

According to Snehashish Ghosh, Policy Associate at Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore-based organisation looking at multidisciplinary research and advocacy in the field of Internet and society), the main reason for such inconsistent application of the law can be found in the history of the provision.

He said the language used in Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 has been borrowed from Section 127 of the UK Communication Act, 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act, 1988.

“These two particular provisions are applicable in cases where the communication is directed to a particular person. Section 1 of the Malicious Prosecution Act begins with the, “any person who sends to another person” and hence it is clear that the provision does not include any post or electronic communication which is broadcasted to the world and deals with only one-to-one communication,” said Ghosh.

Section 127 only deals with “improper use of public electronic communications network”. It was meant to prevent misuse of public communication services. Therefore, social media Web sites do not fall under its ambit. However, the Section 66(A) in its current form fails to define any specific category, which has led to inconsistent and arbitrary use of the provision, said Ghosh.

One of the principles of interpretation of statute is that of absurdity. It states that when there are two interpretation of the law - where one renders it absurd and arbitrary, while the other puts it within the constitutional limits - then the latter interpretation is adopted.

“In the case of 66(A), interpreting it to include any form of communication transmitted using computer resource or communication device renders it to be absurd and arbitrary. Therefore, it should be interpreted and made applicable only to communication between two parties,” he opined.

According to Pavan Duggal, cyber law expert and advocate at Supreme Court of India, primarily section 66(A) is for protecting reputation and preventing misuse of its own.

“It is so vast – what is annoyance and inconvenience – gives a tremendous handle in the hands of the complainant and the police to target anyone. Further, if you send any information through email or SMS, which aims to mislead the addressee about such mail or message is a crime. All this suddenly opens a Pandora box of offences,” he said.

“So, when you look at case of Mamta Banerjee or latest case of those two girls getting arrested in Mumbai, it shows that Section 66(A) becomes an effective tool in the hands of ingenious complainants to gag free speech. And, that is why there is so much noise,” Duggal said.

To Use, Not Abuse

Sighting the recent case of the two girls from Mumbai, he said the law was abused and all they need to do is just exploit – whether clicking a ‘Like’ button on Facebook could involve Section 66(A) – and this case is setting a precedence that ‘liking’ a comment can be an offensive of Section 66(A).

“When you click a ‘Like’ button, you do not send any information that is defined under Section 66(A). You only send information of ‘liking’ that information or message,” he said.

However, it has become a code of misuse in its own sense. Parameters given there in the Act are extremely wide and can be interpreted.

“It has only one good thing – it makes the offence bailable, which means bail as a matter of right. But, once you get stuck under Section 66(A), along with that invites a long period of mental agony and trauma because the trial will take five-six years and you will have to undergo the trial,” he added.

So does it mean the Government should scrap or completely abolish this Section from the IT Act, 2000 or should the people of India file a petition against this Section?

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society says there are laws specifically dealing with cyber stalking and communications and therefore, there we do not need an additional law.

“Either scrap or retain narrow parameters, which could be made defamatory. Otherwise, more such cases would be seen in future under this section. It has not done anything significant and has an impact on basic free online speech to public,” says Duggal.

A better approach would be to strike down the provision and include separate well defined anti-stalking and anti-spamming provision, said Ghosh of Centre for Internet and Society.

However, Mahesh Uppal, Director, ComFirst India (consultancy firm on regulatory issues) said it would be premature, in these circumstances, for any litigation against this Section.

“The issue is serious. However, this is as much to do with policing in general as it is to do with Section 66(A) which needs an amendment and clarification to remove any scope for abuse,” he said.

But, is the Government ready for any change?

Minister of Communications and IT, Kapil Sibal recently said, “Just because some people do not follow it properly, we cannot entirely scrap the law. Can we do away with penal code? We cannot.”

So, does that mean we, as citizens, have to consult legal notes before posting a message online or sending an SMS? And, even if we do, are all laws, sections and under-sections comprehendible by the common man? If not, how big a risk are we, and the person who ‘Likes’ what we say is taking?

The answers to these questions determine the future of freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-businessline-november-29-2012-the-flaw-in-cyber-law

List of Chairman and Members of CRAC

snehashish — 2012-12-02T06:22:25Z

Notification on the constitution of the "Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee"

LIST OF CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF CYBER REGULATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOTIFICATION[1]

17th October, 2000

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) the Central Government hereby constitute the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee”, consisting of the following, namely: –

1. [2][Minister, Communication and Information Technology] - Chairman

2. Secretary, Legislative Department - Member

3. Secretary, [3][Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology] - Member

4. Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - Member

5. Finance Secretary - Member

6. Secretary, Ministry of Defence - Member

7. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member

8. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce - Member

9. Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India - Member

10. Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, Presently Member Secretary, Law Commission - Member [sic]

11. President, NASSCOM - Member

12. President, Internet Service Provider Association - Member

13. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Member

14. Controller of Certifying Authority - Member

15. Information Technology Secretary by rotation from the States - Member

16. Director General of Police by rotation from the States - Member

17. Director, IIT by rotation from the IITs - Member

18. Representative of CII - Member

19. Representative of FICCI - Member

20. Representative of ASSOCHAM - Member

21. [4][Scientist “6”, Department of Information Technology] - Member Secretary

2. Travelling Allowance/Dear Allowance, as per the Central Government rules, for non-official members shall be borne by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology.

3. The Committee may co-opt any person as member based on specific meetings

_______________________

[1] Vide G.S.R. 790(E), dated 17th October, 2000

[2] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[3] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[4] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Senior Director, Ministry of Information Technology”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/chairman-and-members-of-crac

Draft nonsense

pranesh — 2012-12-03T09:08:10Z

Seriously flawed and dodgily drafted provisions in the IT Act provide the state a stick to beat its citizens with.

Pranesh Prakash's op-ed was published in the Times of India on November 24, 2012.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act once again finds itself in the middle of a brewing storm. It has been used in cases ranging from the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, the Aseem Trivedi case, the Karti Chidambaram case, the Chinmayi case, to the current Bal Thackeray-Facebook comments case. In all except the Karti Chidambaram case (which is actually a case of defamation where 's. 66A' is inapplicable), it was used in conjunction with another penal provision, showing that existing laws are more than adequate for regulation of online speech. That everything from online threats wishing sexual assault (the Chinmayi case) to harmless cartoons are sought to be covered under this should give one cause for concern. Importantly, this provision is cognisable (though bailable), meaning an arrest warrant isn't required. This makes it a favourite for those wishing to harass others into not speaking.

Section 66A prohibits the sending "by means of a computer resource or a communication device" certain kinds of messages. These messages are divided into three sub-parts : (a) anything that is "grossly offensive or has menacing character";(b) information known to be false for the purposes of "causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" and is sent persistently;or (c) "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages". This carries with it a punishment of up to three years in jail and a fine without an upper limit. As even non-lawyers can see, these are very broadly worded, with use of 'or' everywhere instead of 'and', and the punishment is excessive. The lawyers amongst the readers will note that while some of the words used are familiar from other laws (such as the Indian Penal Code), they are never used this loosely. And all should hopefully be able to conclude that large parts of section 66A are plainly unconstitutional.

If that is so obvious, how did we end up getting this law? We copied (and badly at that) from the UK. The sad part is that the modifications that were introduced while copying are the bits that cause the most trouble. The most noteworthy of these changes are the increase in term of punishment to 3 years (in the UK it's 6 months); the late introduction (on December 16, 2008 by A Raja) of sub-section (c), meant as an anti-spam provision, but covering everything in the world except spam;and the mangling up of sub-section (b) to become a witches brew of all the evil intentions in this world.

Further, we must recognise that our Constitution is much stronger when it comes to issues like free speech than the UK's unwritten constitution, and our high courts and Supreme Court have the power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional, unlike in the UK where Parliament reigns supreme. The most the courts can do there is accommodate the European Convention on Human Rights by 'reading down' laws rather than striking them down.

Lastly, even if we do decide to engage in policy-laundering, we need to do so intelligently. The way the government messed up section 66A should serve as a fine lesson on how not to do so. While one should fault the ministry of communications and IT for messing up the IT Act so badly, it is apparent that the law ministry deserves equal blame as well for being the sleeping partner in this deplorable joint venture. For instance, wrongfully accessing a computer to remove material which one believes can be used for defamation can be considered 'cyber-terrorism'. Where have all our fine legal drafters gone? In a meeting, former SEBI chairman M Damodaran noted how bad drafters make our policies seem far dumber than they are. We wouldn't be in this soup if we had good drafters who clearly understand the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution.

There are a great many things flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the 2008 winter session of Parliament. For far too long the Indian government has spoken about "multi-stakeholder" governance of the internet at international fora (meaning that civil society and industry must be seen as equal to governments when it comes to policymaking for the governance of the internet). It is about time we implemented multi-stakeholder internet governance domestically. The way to go forward in changing this would be to set up a multi-stakeholder body (including civil society and industry) which can remedy this and other ridiculously unconstitutional provisions of our IT Act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense

The Last Word: Is there a need to review Information Technology Act?

praskrishna — 2012-11-21T12:10:15Z

Does the high-handed arrest of two young girls mean it's time to review and revise the IT Act?

Aryaman Sundaram, Pavan Duggal, Pranesh Prakash and Ravi Visvesvaraya Prasad took part in a discussion with Karan Thapar on section 66A of the IT Act. This was aired on CNN-IBN on November 20, 2012.

Pranesh Prakash said that it was just not a history of misuse of section 66A of the IT Act because that presumes that the law is otherwise fine and it has just been applied wrongly. This law is fundamentally flawed. It is unconstitutional. It is like a law in which there is a provision on rape, murder, theft, nuisance, everything put together in a single section with the same punishment being given for all of them. This obviously is not good law making but that is exactly what has been done in this case by taking bits from laws in the UK and from elsewhere and mashing them all up into one omnibust gargantuan monster which is unconstitutional.

Pranesh Prakash also added that the fact is that if you have bad laws they will be used to harass people. Having good law is one part of that. Apart from that there has been also other laws which have been misapplied in this case. In all these recent cases, section 66A of the IT Act wasn't the only provision used. This particular section has been used in conjunction with some other laws. So section 66A of the IT Act independently is not required. There are other laws in the Indian Penal Code and elsewhere which are usually enough to cover all the things that section 66A of the IT Act is right now covering. It is just an add on provision that really can't justify its existence unless it is really reduced in scope.

Watch the full video that was aired on CNN-IBN

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibnlive-videos-november-20-2012-the-last-word-is-there-a-need-to-review-information-technology-act

Facebook launches FB Newswire for journalists; loses part of its immunity under IT Act 2000

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T05:41:03Z

A bus accident in California, a fire in New Jersey and another in Vasant Kunj, NASA's successful test flight of its vertical take-off and landing craft, a ceremony to honour the sherpas who died during an avalanche at the Everest last week, and, Israel's suspension of talks with Palestinian authorities. These were some of the news that were disseminated on the first day of Facebook's newest social tool: a newswire to aid journalists and newsrooms.

The article was published in DNA on April 26, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In a tie-up with News Corp's Storyful, Facebook launched the Newswire late on Thursday to function as a tool to aid journalists and newsrooms to "find, share and embed newsworthy content from Facebook in the media they produce". Apart from Facebook, the tool is also accessible on twitter at @FBNewswire.

"FB Newswire aggregates newsworthy content shared publicly on Facebook by individuals and organisations across the world for journalists to use in their reporting. This will include original photos, videos and status updates posted by people on the front lines of major events like protests, elections and sporting events," said Andy Mitchell, director of news and global media partnerships at Facebook, via a Facebook blog post.

Facebook has been in the centre of the internet security debate for a while; claiming immunity from legal provisions citing its non-curatorial approach and also denying responsibility for the news the social media network produces. "With the launch of this new tool, Facebook is not only curating information, it also directs knowledge of the content its produces through the newswire. That makes it legally responsible under the Information Technology Act (2000)", says Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

The move is also seen as Facebook attempting to reach out to journalists, and eat away into the space that Twitter has occupied in the dissemination of information. Facebook has largely been operating as a social media network; and its move into the new-making space is seen as an expansion in that direction.

"There might be some competition for journalists and traditional media outlets. But largely, Facebook's tie-ups with broadcasters and political parties, where it has been promoting content in exchange for compensation, has not been transparent," says Abraham.

With more than a billion users, Facebook is considered the largest social media network. In a statement on April 24, Facebook revealed that more than half of the world's internet population now uses the social media network and recorded a 72% increase in its revenues in the first quarter of the year.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-26-2014-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000

SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T04:45:51Z

Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

The article by Shreeja Sen was published in Livemint on August 30, 2014. Leslie D’Monte contributed to this story. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked for the central government’s response in a writ petition filed by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) challenging the arbitrary powers that the Information Technology (IT) Act confers on the government to remove user-generated content.

This is not the first time that the amended provisions of the IT Act 2000 and the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been challenged. The rules were released by the government in April 2011, and laid down detailed procedures for regulation of intermediaries and online content.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, while issuing notice to the central government, tagged the cases with others of a similar nature, including ones by MouthShut.com, a consumer review website, and Shreya Singhal, a public interest litigant who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A in support of Shaheen Dhada, who was arrested for criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray in 2012. Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

“We’re very happy at MouthShut that IAMAI decided to take a stand regarding this,” said Faisal Farooqui, chief executive officer of MouthShut.com.

The petition, which runs into 1,100 pages according to those familiar with the case, seeks to challenge Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. The section holds an Internet service provider (ISP) responsible for content which may be unlawful, published by third parties (not the ISPs) when they’ve been intimated by the government. It takes away the safe harbour rule, which protects ISPs from being sued because of third party actions.

According to a statement by IAMAI, the industry lobby approached the apex court for “objective interpretation of the laws”. Referring to the court agreeing to hear the petition, the statement said, “This admission today allows the industry an opportunity to argue for a clear Safe Harbour Provision for the intermediaries, which is an essential pre-condition of a thriving digital content business.”

“In my view, the court may be sympathetic to this particular situation because there is a body of research and evidence that demonstrates that the private censorship regime instituted by Section 79A that places unconstitutional limits of freedom of speech and expression,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, a non-profit organization involved with research in freedom of expression, privacy and open access to literature.

On 27 April 2012, CIS-India had released a paper which, among other things, listed why the IT Rules 2011 could have a “chilling” effect on intermediaries. No much has changed since. The paper argued that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources (or the willingness to devote such legal resources) to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution. It also pointed out that the qualifications and due diligence requirements of different classes of intermediaries have not been clearly defined in the Rules resulting in uncertainty in the steps to be followed by the intermediary. It noted that depending on the nature of a service, it may be technically unfeasible for an intermediary to comply with the takedown within 36 hours.

“The chilling effect can primarily be attributed to the requirement for private intermediaries to perform subjective judicial determination in the course of administering the takedown. From the responses to the takedown notices, it is apparent that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, such intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution and chill legitimate expressions in order to limit their liability,” the paper said.

Another privacy lobby body, SFLC.in, had submitted feedback to the government when the draft IT Rules were put up for consultation but said that “when the final Rules were notified we found that most of our concerns were not addressed and that the Rules exceeded the scope of the parent act”.

In a July paper, SFLC.in reiterated that “Words and phrases like grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, disparaging and “harm minors in any way” are not defined in these Rules or in the Act or in any other legislation. These ambiguous words make the Rules susceptible to misuse…(and have a) chilling effect on free speech rights of users by making them too cautious about the content they post and byforcing them to self-censor…As technology evolves at a fast pace, the law should not be found wanting. The law should be an enabling factor that ensures that citizens enjoy their right to freedom of speech and expression without any hindrance. India, being the largest democracy in the world should lead the world in ensuring that the citizens enjoy the right to express themselves freely online.”

SFLC.in is a donor-supported legal services organization that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students.

According to a March study commissioned by the Global Network Initiative, a multistakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics and conducted by Copenhagen Economics, an economic consultancy, the GDP contribution of online intermediaries may increase to more than 1.3 % ($ 241 billion) by 2015, provided the current liability regime is improved.

In another development, hearing a petition asking to take down pornographic website, the court deemed it fit to send it to an advisory committee that has been set up under Section 88 of the Information Technology Act. The petition, filed by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani in 2013, asked for a direction to the central government to block pornography websites, platforms, links or downloading. Speaking to reporters, Vaswani’s lawyer Vijay Panjwani said, “as on date, there are 4 crore pornographic websites. For 18 months, the government has not blocked them.”

The central government informed the committee was considering several options to address the issue of including methods used in the US and UK. This case was being heard by a three-judge bench headed by the chief justice of India R.M. Lodha, who said that to address these technological issues, a “synthesis of law, technology and governance is required.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-august-30-2014-shreeja-sen-sc-seeks-govt-reply-on-pil-challenging-powers-of-it-act

Stats from 2014 reveal horror of scrapped section 66A of IT Act

praskrishna — 2015-09-26T07:28:13Z

An average of six netizens were arrested every day in 2014 for posting offensive content online under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, a draconian and much abused law no longer in use.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on August 20, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

A first-of-its-kind set of statistics compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau reveals that 2,402 people, including 29 women, were arrested in 4,192 cases under section 66A — which was struck down in March by the Supreme Court that ruled that it violated the constitutional freedom of speech.

These arrests made up nearly 60% of all arrests under the IT Act, and 40% of arrests for cyber crimes in 2014. It was also a little less than twice the number of people caught red-handed accepting bribes the same year.

“These statistics are shocking. I had assumed there may be a few hundred cases, at worst,” said Shreya Singhal, on whose petition the top court had scrapped the provision.

“It validates the judgment even more than when it was delivered,” said Singhal, a law student.

Quite like Rinu Srinivasan – one of two Mumbai girls arrested in 2012 for a Facebook post regarding Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackrey’s death — nearly half of those arrested (1,217) were in the 18-29 age group. This included nine girls. Another 1,015 were in the 30-44 age group while 166 were between 45 and 59 years old.

The now-repealed section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.

This is the first time the NCRB has collected detailed statistics on cyber crimes, listing out the number of cases registered under each section of the IT Act.

A government official conceded that the large number of cases registered under section 66A meant that the Centre’s guidelines — issued after a public outcry in November 2012 against its misuse — had served little purpose. In May 2013, the Supreme Court too put its weight behind the guidelines and made it legally binding on them.

In these guidelines, the Centre had made prior approval of an inspector general of police-rank officer mandatory for all arrests under section 66A. “Either this rule wasn’t followed or the IGPs did not rise to the occasion,” the official said.

The NCRB did not give a state-wise break-up of arrests under section 66A.

But in terms of cases registered, Uttar Pradesh led the pack with 898, followed by Karnataka (603), Assam (377), Maharashtra (375), Telangana (352), Rajasthan (291), Kerala (229), Punjab (123) and Delhi (137).

“It was “unconscionable that 2,402 persons were arrested in 2014, and many made to languish in jail, under a provision that we now know to have been unconstitutional,” said Pranesh Prakash at the Bengaluru-headquartered research and advocacy group, Centre for Internet and Society.

“Even after the Supreme Court laid down more stringent ad-hoc guidelines on arrests under Section 66A, it is clear they were not effective in the least: 860 charge-sheets were filed by the police under Section 66A in 2014,” the policy director at CIS said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-august-20-2015-aloke-tikku-stats-from-2014-reveal-horror-of-scrapped-section-66-a-of-it-act

Govt likely to issue guidelines to clarify IT rules soon

praskrishna — 2012-12-20T05:24:14Z

Norms relate to the role of intermediaries such as telcos, Web service providers, others on hosting content online, writes Surabhi Agarwal.

The article was first published in LiveMint on December 16, 2012.

After the government issued guidelines on the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, it is expected to soon come out with similar guidelines to clarify the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, that have also been heavily criticised.

A senior official of the department of electronics and information technology said that even though the government is not looking at amending the overall Act as the legislative process for that would be time consuming, it is hoping to issue guidelines within a week.

The rules were notified in April 2011 with the aim of clearly defining the role of intermediaries—including telcos, Internet and web-hosting service providers and search engines—while hosting content on their networks and websites along with ensuring some level of due diligence by them.

However, this led to outrage among the Internet community as the rules mandated hosts or owners of the websites to take action against “objectionable content” within 36 hours of receiving a complaint. Experts argued that the rules could lead to censorship attempts with some intermediaries complying with illegitimate requests to remove content from websites in a bid to avoid litigation.

The government official said that there had been some confusion about what it meant to take action within 36 hours.

“While the intent was to ensure that intermediaries take cognizance of the request and initiate some proceeding on it, it has been misconstrued as removing content within 36 hours in some cases,” this person said.

The official added that the government was looking at clarifying issues such as this. “We are currently studying the representations sent by different stakeholders on the rules.”

Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), said that the term “act” should be replaced by “acknowledge” to ensure that it is not wrongly interpreted as removing content within 36 hours.

“We have also requested the time period to be extended to 72 hours as 36 hours is sometimes too short a period if it falls during the weekend,” he said.

While only some clauses address issues such as national interest, public order and security restrictions under which content can be removed, “the remainder of grounds includes private claims such as content which ‘belongs to another person’, or otherwise infringes proprietary rights, or is ‘defamatory’,” said Bangalore-based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in its representation, of which Mint has a copy. Moreover, other terms, such as ‘grossly harmful’, ‘harassing’ and ‘disparaging’, are “terminologically indeterminate and purely subjective”, the representation said. It also said that “the intermediary guidelines create a two-track system by which private censorship is legitimized online”.

IAMAI’s recommendations include clearly defining who can qualify as the ‘affected person’ eligible to post a complaint on content, which has currently been left to the discretion and determination of the intermediary.

Ray’s representation also said the rules put the burden of interpretation and acting upon third-party content on the intermediary. “This, we believe is the function of the judiciary and not the intermediaries,” it said.

Guidelines, while bringing some initial clarity, may not be enough, said an executive at a top technology firm who did not want to be identified. “To ensure long-term solutions to some of the issues highlighted, the Act needs to be amended eventually,” he said.

Late last month, the government promised to issue guidelines to the states that complaints under the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, can be registered only with the permission of an officer at or above the rank of deputy commissioner of police, and inspector general in metro cities. However, even in the case of Section 66A, it did not amend the terms in the Section that are said to be vague and subject to interpretation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-16-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-likely-to-issue-guidelines-to-clarify-it-rules-soon

Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II

snehashish — 2012-09-27T10:42:30Z

Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”).

Unnecessary Blocks and Mistakes:

http://hinduexistance.files.wordpress.com/..., which appears on the leaked list, does not exist because the URL is incorrect. However, the correct URL does contain an image which, in my opinion, can be considered to be capable of inciting violence. It has not been blocked due to a spelling error in the order. Instead of blocking hinduexistence.wordpress.com/... the DoT has ordered the blocking of hinduexistance.wordpress.com/..., which does not exist.
Two URLs in the block order are from the website of the High Council for Human Rights, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason for blocking these two links from this particular website is unclear.
The website of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World was blocked. Again, the reason for blocking this website remains unclear.
URLs such as, http://farazahmed.com/..., mumblingminion.blogspot.com, were blocked. The content on these URLs was in fact debunking the fake photographs.
Certain blocked Facebook pages did not have any bearing on the North East exodus which was the main reason behind the blocks. For example, Facebook link leading to United States Institute for Peace page was blocked.

Duration of the Block

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) did not specify the period for which the block has been implemented in its orders. As a result of which certain URLs still remain blocked while a majority of the links in the leaked list can be accessed. Lack of clear directions from the DoT has resulted in haphazard blocking and certain internet service providers (ISPs) have lifted the block on certain links whereas some other ISPs have continued with a complete block.

How have the intermediaries reacted to the block orders?

Going by the leaked list of websites blocked by DoT, it issued the block orders to ‘all internet service licensees’. Intermediaries that do not fall in the category of 'internet service licensees’ were also sent a separate set of requests for taking down third party content. However, it is unclear under which provision of the law such request was made by the Government.

Internet Service Licensees

The internet service licensee or the ISPs have not followed any uniform system to notify that a particular URL or website in the leaked list is blocked according to DoT’s orders. The lack of transparency in the implementation of the block orders, have a chilling effect on free speech.

For instance, BSNL returns the following messages:

"This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications" or “This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom (DOT).”

However, these messages are not uniform across all the URLs/websites in the leaked list. BSNL does not generate any response for the majority of the URLs in the leaked list. This results in ‘invisible censorship’ as the person who is trying to access the blocked URL does not have any means to know whether a particular URL is unavailable or certain sites are blocked by government orders.

Lack of notification does not only infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but also violates the fundamental right to a constitutional remedy guaranteed under Article 32 of our Constitution. The person aggrieved by such block orders cannot approach the Court for a remedy because there is no means to figure out:

(a) Description of the content blocked?

(b) Who has issued the block order/request?

(d) Who has implemented the block order/request? and

(e) What was the reason for the block?

The intermediaries should provide with the above notification details while implementing a block order issued by the Government.

Intermediaries hosting third party content:

More than 100 out of the 309 blocks are Facebook (http and https) URLs. Facebook has not informed its users about the reasons behind unavailability of certain pages or content. This is another instance of invisible censorship. However, YouTube, a Google service, has maintained certain level of transparency, and informs the user that the content has been blocked as per ‘government removal request’. It is interesting to note that certain YouTube user accounts were terminated as well. It is unclear whether this was as a result of the block order. Furthermore, links associated with blogger.com, which is another service provided by Google, have been removed.

This was re-posted by Medianama on September 26, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical

pranesh — 2011-12-12T17:00:50Z

The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.

Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the IT Rules that have been in force since April 2011.

Background

The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the MCIT had been in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as 'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.

Concerns

One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the ICCPR and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.

Secrecy

It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.

Making intermediaries responsible

The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.) Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are. Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (Janhit Manch v. Union of India) and Madras (R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.

IT Rules, 2011

In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech. Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical

Free Speech Policy in India: Community, Custom, Censorship, and the Future of Internet Regulation

bhairav — 2015-08-23T10:12:16Z

This note summarises my panel contribution to the conference on Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age at New Delhi on 21 April 2015, which was organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Internet Policy Observatory of the Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania

Download the Note here (PDF, 103 Kb)

Preliminary

There has been legitimate happiness among many in India at the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Shreya Singhal case to strike down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") for unconstitutionally fettering the right to free speech on the Internet. The judgment is indeed welcome, and reaffirms the Supreme Court’s proud record of defending the freedom of speech, although it declined to interfere with the government’s stringent powers of website blocking. As the dust settles there are reports the government is re-grouping to introduce fresh law, allegedly stronger to secure easier convictions, to compensate the government’s defeat.

Case Law and Government Policy

India’s constitutional courts have a varied history of negotiating the freedom of speech that justifiably demands study. But, in my opinion, inadequate attention is directed to the government’s history of free speech policy. It is possible to discern from the government’s actions over the last two centuries a relatively consistent narrative of governance that seeks to bend the individual’s right to speech to its will. The defining characteristics of this narrative – the government’s free speech policy – emerge from a study of executive and legislative decisions chiefly in relation to the press, that continue to shape policy regarding the freedom of expression on the Internet.

India’s corpus of free speech case law is not uniform nor can it be since, for instance, the foundational issues that attend hate speech are quite different from those that inform contempt of court. So too, Indian free speech policy has been varied, captive to political compulsions and disparate views regarding the interests of the community, governance and nation-building. There has been consistent tension between the individual and the community, as well as the role of the government in enforcing the expectations of the community when thwarted by law.

Dichotomy between Modern and Native Law

To understand free speech policy, it is useful to go back to the early colonial period in India, when Governor-General Warren Hastings established a system of courts in Bengal’s hinterland to begin the long process of displacing traditional law to create a modern legal system. By most accounts, pre-modern Indian law was not prescriptive, Austinian, and uniform. Instead, there were several legal systems and a variety of competing and complementary legal sources that supported different interpretations of law within most legal systems. J. Duncan M. Derrett notes that the colonial expropriation of Indian law was marked by a significant tension caused by the repeatedly-stated objective of preserving some fields of native law to create a dichotomous legal structure. These efforts were assisted by orientalist jurists such as Henry Thomas Colebrook whose interpretation of the dharmasastras heralded a new stage in the evolution of Hindu law.

In this background, it is not surprising that Elijah Impey, a close associate of Hastings, simultaneously served as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Fort William while overseeing the Sadr Diwani Adalat, a civil court applying Anglo-Hindu law for Hindus, and the Sadr Faujdari Adalat, a criminal court applying Anglo-Islamic law to all natives. By the mid-nineteenth century, this dual system came under strain in the face of increasing colonial pressure to rationalise the legal system to ensure more effective governance, and native protest at the perceived insensitivity of the colonial government to local customs.

Criminal Law and Free Speech in the Colony

In 1837, Thomas Macaulay wrote the first draft of a new comprehensive criminal law to replace indigenous law and custom with statutory modern law. When it was enacted as the Indian Penal Code in 1860 ("IPC"), it represented the apogee of the new colonial effort to recreate the common law in India. The IPC’s enactment coincided with the growth and spread of both the press and popular protest in India. The statute contained the entire gamut of public-order and community-interest crimes to punish unlawful assembly, rioting, affray, wanton provocation, public nuisance, obscenity, defiling a place of worship, disturbing a religious assembly, wounding religious feelings, and so on. It also criminalised private offences such as causing insult, annoyance, and intimidation. These crimes continue to be invoked in India today to silence individual opinion and free speech, including on the Internet. Section 66A of the IT Act utilised a very similar vocabulary of censorship.

Interestingly, Macaulay’s IPC did not feature the common law offences of sedition and blasphemy or the peculiar Indian crime of promoting inter-community enmity; these were added later. Sedition was criminalised by section 124A at the insistence of Barnes Peacock and applied successfully against Indian nationalist leaders including Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897 and 1909, and Mohandas Gandhi in 1922. In 1898, the IPC was amended again to incorporate section 153A to criminalise the promotion of enmity between different communities by words or deeds. And, in 1927, a more controversial amendment inserted section 295A into the IPC to criminalise blasphemy. All three offences have been recently used in India against writers, bloggers, professors, and ordinary citizens.

Loss of the Right to Offend

The two amendments of 1898 and 1927, which together proscribed the promotion of inter-community enmity and blasphemy, represent the dismantling of the right to offend in India. But, oddly, they were defended by the colonial government in the interests of native sensibilities. The proceedings of the Imperial Legislative Council reveal several members, including Indians, were enthusiastic about the amendments. For some, the amendments were a necessary corrective action to protect community honour from subversive speech. The 1920s were a period of foment in India as the freedom movement intensified and communal tension mounted. In this environment, it was easy to fuse the colonial interest in strong administration with a nationalist narrative that demanded the retrieval of Indian custom to protect native sensibilities from being offended by individual free speech, a right derived from modern European law. No authoritative jurist could be summoned to prove or refute the claim that native custom privileged community honour.

Sadly the specific incident which galvanised the amendment of 1927, which established the crime of blasphemy in India, would not appear unfamiliar to a contemporary observer. Mahashay Rajpal, an Arya Samaj activist, published an offensive pamphlet of the Prophet Muhammad titled Rangeela Rasool, for which he was arrested and tried but acquitted in the absence of specific blasphemy provisions. With his speech being found legal, Rajpal was released and given police protection but Ilam Din, a Muslim youth, stabbed him to death. Instead of supporting its criminal law and strengthening its police forces to implement the decisions of its courts, the colonial administration surrendered to the threat of public disorder and enacted section 295A of the IPC.

Protest and Community Honour

The amendment of 1927 marks an important point of rupture in the history of Indian free speech. It demonstrated the government’s policy intention of overturning the courts to restrict the individual’s right to speech when faced with public protest. In this way, the combination of public disorder and the newly-created crimes of promoting inter-community enmity and blasphemy opened the way for the criminal justice system to be used as a tool by natives to settle their socio-cultural disputes. Both these crimes address group offence; they do not redress individual grievances. In so far as they are designed to endorse group honour, these crimes signify the community’s attempt to suborn modern law and individual rights.

Almost a century later, the Rangeela Rasool affair has become the depressing template for illegal censorship in India: fringe groups take offence at permissible speech, crowds are marshalled to articulate an imagined grievance, and the government capitulates to the threat of violence. This formula has become so entrenched that governance has grown reflexively suppressive, quick to silence speech even before the perpetrators of lumpen violence can receive affront. This is especially true of online speech, where censorship is driven by the additional anxiety brought by the difficulty of Internet regulation. In this race to be offended the government plays the parochial referee, acting to protect indigenous sensibilities from subversive but legal speech.

The Censorious Post-colony

Independence marked an opportunity to remake Indian governance in a freer image. The Constituent Assembly had resolved not to curb the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution on account of public order. In two cases from opposite ends of the country where right-wing and left-wing speech were punished by local governments on public order grounds, the Supreme Court acted on the Constituent Assembly’s vision and struck down the laws in question. Free speech, it appeared, would survive administrative concerns, thanks to the guarantee of a new constitution and an independent judiciary. Instead Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet responded with the First Amendment in 1951, merely a year after the Constitution was enacted, to create three new grounds of censorship, including public order. In 1963, a year before he demitted office, the Sixteenth Amendment added an additional restriction.

Nehru did not stop at amending the Constitution, he followed shortly after with a concerted attempt to stage-manage the press by de-legitimising certain kinds of permissible speech.

Under Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha, the government constituted the First Press Commission which attacked yellow journalism, seemingly a sincere concern, but included permissible albeit condemnable speech that was directed at communities, indecent or vulgar, and biased. Significantly, the Commission expected the press to only publish speech that conformed to the developmental and social objectives of the government. In other words, Nehru wanted the press to support his vision of India and used the imperative of nation-building to achieve this goal. So, the individual right to offend communities was taken away by law and policy, and speech that dissented from the government’s socio-economic and political agenda was discouraged by policy. Coupled with the new constitutional ground of censorship on account of public order, the career of free speech in independent India began uncertainly.

How to regulate permissible speech?

Despite the many restrictions imposed by law on free speech, Indian free speech policy has long been engaged with the question of how to regulate the permissible speech that survives constitutional scrutiny. This was significantly easier in colonial India. In 1799, Governor-General Richard Wellesley, the brother of the famous Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, instituted a pre-censorship system to create what Rajeev Dhavan calls a “press by permission” marked by licensed publications, prior restraint, subsequent censorship, and harsh penalties. A new colonial regime for strict control over the publication of free speech was enacted in the form of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the preamble of which recognises that “the literature of a country is…an index of…the condition of [its] people”. The 1867 Act was diluted after independence but still remains alive in the form of the Registrar of Newspapers.

After surviving Indira Gandhi’s demand for a committed press and the depredations of her regime during the Emergency, India’s press underwent the examination of the Second Press Commission. This was appointed in 1978 under the chairmanship of Justice P. K. Goswami, a year after the Janata government released the famous White Paper on Misuse of Mass Media. When Gandhi returned to power, Justice Goswami resigned and the Commission was reconstituted under Justice K. K. Mathew. In 1982, the Commission’s report endorsed the earlier First Press Commission’s call for conformist speech, but went further by proposing the appointment of a press regulator invested with inspection powers; criminalising attacks on the government; re-interpreting defamation law to encompass democratic criticism of public servants; retaining stringent official secrecy law; and more. It was quickly acted upon by Rajiv Gandhi through his infamous Defamation Bill.

The contours of future Internet regulation

The juggernaut of Indian free speech policy has received temporary setbacks, mostly inflicted by the Supreme Court. Past experience shows us that governments with strong majorities – whether Jawaharlal Nehru’s following independence or Indira Gandhi’s in the 1970s – act on their administrative impulses to impede free speech by government policy. The Internet is a recent and uncontrollable medium of speech that attracts disproportionately heavy regulatory attention. Section 66A of the IT Act may be dead but several other provisions remain to harass and punish online free speech. Far from relaxing its grip on divergent opinions, the government appears poised for more incisive invasions of personal freedoms.

I do not believe the contours of future speech regulation on the Internet need to be guessed at, they can be derived from the last two centuries of India’s free speech policy. When section 66A is replaced – and it will be, whether overtly by fresh statutory provisions or stealthily by policy and non-justiciable committees and commissions – it will be through a regime that obeys the mandate of the First Press Commission to discourage dissenting and divergent speech while adopting the regulatory structures of the Second Press Commission to permit a limited inspector raj and forbid attacks on personalities. The interests of the community, howsoever improperly articulated, will seek precedence over individual freedoms and the accompanying threat of violence will give new meaning to Bhimrao Ambedkar’s warning of the “grammar of anarchy”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-in-india-community-custom-censorship-and-future-of-internet-regulation

66A ‘cut & paste job’

praskrishna — 2012-12-11T05:43:50Z

The controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has borrowed words out of context from British and American laws, according to lawyers here who are calling it a “poor cut-and-paste job”.

GS Mudur's article was published in the Telegraph on December 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Snehashish Ghosh are quoted.

Section 66A, passed by Parliament in December 2008, draws on laws passed in the UK in 1988 and 2003 and the US in 1996. But some lawyers say that, unlike 66A, those foreign laws impose only reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech.

"The text of 66A seems to be the result of a cut-and-paste job done without applying the mind," said Snehashish Ghosh, a lawyer with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a non-government organisation in Bangalore.

Some of the language in Section 66A is taken from Britain’s Malicious Communications Act (MCA) of 1988, which begins with the words: "Any person who sends to another person...."

This provision in MCA 1988, Ghosh said, is intended to curb malicious messages from one person to another. "It does not cover a post on a social website or an electronic communication broadcast to the world."

Section 66A has also borrowed words from Britain’s Communications Act of 2003 which, Ghosh said, is intended to prevent abuse of public communication services and does not directly deal with messages sent by individuals.

Government officials have said that 66A has also plucked language from the US Telecommunications Act of 1996.

This was a landmark legislation that overhauled America’s telecommunication law by taking into account the emergence of the Internet and changing communications technologies. Among other things, it made illegal the transmission of obscene or indecent material to minors via computers.

"Section 66A in its current form fails to define a specific category (context) as defined in the laws from where it has borrowed words," Ghosh said. "This is what has led to its inconsistent and arbitrary applications."

Ghosh and his colleagues say that 66A, through an "absurd" combination of borrowed and ambiguous language, curbs freedom of expression and threatens people with three years’ imprisonment for certain offences that would otherwise, under existing Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, draw a fine of only Rs 200.

Section 66A(b), for example, clubs together the offences of persistently repeated communications that might lead to "annoyance", "inconvenience", "danger", "insult", "injury", "criminal intimidation", "enmity", "hatred", and "ill-will".

This is "astounding and unparalleled", said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the CIS, who has posted an analysis of Section 66A on the NGO’s institutional blog.

"We do not have such a provision anywhere but in India’s information technology law."

This is “akin to... providing equal punishment for calling someone a moron (insult) and threatening to kill someone (criminal intimidation),” Prakash wrote in the blog, where he has listed existing IPC provisions that can deal with the offences that 66A seeks to cover.

Lawyers have also questioned 66A’s effect of criminalising what the existing IPC would label as civil offences. For example, Prakash said, while the punishment under IPC for criminal nuisance is Rs 200, the penalty imposed by 66A is jail for up to three years.

Several sections in the IPC, they said, can effectively address offences that 66A attempts to address exclusively for electronic communications. For example, the IPC has sections for defamation (499 and 500), outraging religious sentiments (295) and obscenity (292).

"We do not require extraordinary laws when existing laws suffice," Ghosh said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-december-3-2012-gs-mudur-66a-cut-and-paste-job

Hacktivists deface BSNL website

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T05:20:56Z

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) website, www.bsnl.co.in, was hacked and defaced on Thursday afternoon.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on December 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

A message on the home page said the attack was carried out by the hacktivist group, Anonymous India, as a protest against section 66 A of the IT Act and in support of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since Dec 8 for the same. The website was restored around 7 pm.

Trivedi said he had received a call from Anonymous around 1.30 in the afternoon informing him that the website has been defaced. On being asked if such a form of protest was valid, Trivedi said, "When the government doesn't pay heed to people's protests against its laws and arrests innocent people for Facebook posts, then such a protest is absolutely valid."

For most of the afternoon and early evening, the BSNL website wasn't available directly. A cached version of the BSNL home page showed an image of cartoonist Trivedi with text that read "Hacked by Anonymous India. support Aseem trivedi (cartoonist) and alok dixit on the hunger strike. remove IT Act 66a databases of all 250 bsnl site has been d Hacked by Anonymous India (sic)". While this message was repeated over and over on the page, it ended with the line "Proof are (sic) here" followed by a link to a page containing the passwords to BSNL databases. BSNL officials were unaware of the attack until Thursday evening.

Late in the evening, Anonymous India tweeted from their account @opindia_revenge: "BSNL Websites hacked, passwords and database leaked... Anonymous India demands withdrawal of Sec 66A of IT Act."

In an open letter to the Government of India posted on alternate media website Kafila in June this year, Anonymous had explained they only carried out Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Indian government websites, which is different from the act of hacking per se.

Contrary views too exist. Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, says the attack was unwarranted. "Speech regulation in India is not a lost cause, the Minister is holding consultations, MPs are raising the issue in Parliament, courts have been approached and there is massive public outcry on social media. Therefore I would request Anonymous India to desist from defacing websites," said Abraham. A group of MPs, including Baijayant Jay Panda from Odisha, are scheduled to present a motion in Parliament on Friday morning for the amendment of section 66A of the IT Act.

Last month, two young girls were arrested in Palghar, Maharashtra, for criticizing on Facebook the bandh that followed the death of Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray. Before that, Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P Chidambaram, took a man to court for commenting on his financial assets on Twitter. In both cases, the complainant 'used' section 66 A of the IT Act. The section and the Act have since come in for wide debate regarding freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website

Despite SC order, thousands booked under scrapped Sec 66A of IT Act

praskrishna — 2016-09-07T15:31:18Z

College student Danish Mohammed’s arrest this March under the scrapped Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for allegedly sharing a morphed picture of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat wasn’t an exception.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on September 7, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Police arrested more than 3,000 people under the section in 2015, triggering concerns that the law was abused well after it was struck down by the Supreme Court in March last year. The top court had ruled Section 66A violated the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.

The exact number of people arrested after it was scrapped is not available. But the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Crime in India report released last month shows 3,137 arrests under the section in 2015 against 2,423 the previous year.

On an average, four people were arrested every 12 hours in 2015 as compared to three in 2014.

“I am shocked,” said Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy, who represented the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, among the petitioners in Supreme Court seeking removal of Section 66A.

“Making sure that our guardians of law know their law is absolutely basic... Whether it is training or notifying every police officer, we need action on it immediately,” she said.

It is unlikely that all 3,000-plus arrests were made before the provision was struck down in March. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-headquartered advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society, said it was obvious that the police had not made these arrests before the SC ruling.

Lawyer Manali Singhal said once the Supreme Court struck off a provision of law, “any arrest under that provision would be per se illegal and void”.

Police also appeared to be on an overdrive to file charge sheets against people booked before the SC verdict – in 1,500 cases last year, almost twice the 2014 figure.

NCRB statistics suggest that trials too did not end.

There were 575 people still in jail on January 1, 2016, twice as many as the 275 in prison when the law was in force a year earlier. In 2015, the courts also convicted accused in 143 cases.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-september-7-2016-despite-sc-order-thousands-booked-under-scrapped-sec-66a-of-it-act