Centre for Internet and Society

India's Online Freedom Advocates Hail Court Ruling on Free Speech

praskrishna — 2015-03-27T01:43:22Z

Online freedom advocates in India are hailing a court ruling that struck down a controversial law seen as infringing free speech on the Internet. But in a country expected to have the world’s largest number of web users by 2018, some concerns about net censorship remain.

The blog post by Anjana Pasricha was published by Voice of America on March 24, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The 24-year old law student, Shreya Singhal, who spearheaded the legal battle for overturning the harsh law, said it was the arrest of two young women in 2012 for a seemingly innocuous Facebook post that prompted her to petition the Supreme Court. One woman had criticized a shutdown in Mumbai after the death of a Hindu nationalist leader Bal Thackeray, the other “liked” her post.

Like millions of others, Singhal was alarmed at their detention because she says she could have been the one to post the innocuous comment.

“It [the law] was punishing people for expressing their views on the Internet, whereas if they did it or they did it on TV or they did nit in newspapers, they would not get arrested for the same views,” she said.

Scrapping the law on Tuesday, India's Supreme Court said the Information Technology Act was vaguely worded, and did not explain what could be “inconvenient" or “grossly offensive.” The judgment said the law was liable to have a chilling effect on free speech as it strikes at the root of liberty and freedom of expression.

The law had raised alarm bells after several people were arrested in recent years for posting “objectionable content.” In the latest instance, a 16-year-old boy in Uttar Pradesh state was arrested and released on bail for posting an “insulting” remark about regional party leader, Azam Khan. Among others who were picked up under the law were a professor in Kolkata and a cartoonist in Mumbai.

The previous government, which passed the law, said it was necessary to combat abuse and defamation on the Internet, but critics said it was used by political parties to suppress dissent and criticism.

The Supreme Court ruling also made it tougher for the government to order Internet companies to remove online content.

Sunil Abraham of Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society says local and foreign Internet companies have faced growing pressure for putting up content deemed offensive in India.

“According to Facebook's latest transparency report, takedown requests and information requests from the Indian government continue to grow, and that is worrying. But that part of the law has been read down. Now when the government sends the takedown notice, it has to be accompany the takedown notice with a court order,” said Abraham.

But free speech campaigners say concerns about online censorship have not completely gone away. The Supreme Court has upheld a law that allows the government to block websites, saying there are sufficient safeguards.

Campaigners like Sunil Abraham think otherwise. “Lack of transparency makes it impossible for anybody to tell whether the government is censoring the Internet in a proportionate manner, whether it is working to truly address the real harms that emerge from bad content online. When the court in India bans books or movies, the judgments of these courts are made available to the public."

"But if when it comes to website blocking, this transparency requirement is missing. In fact, the law has secrecy provisions, which prevents ISP’s that receive these block orders from making them available in the public domain,” said Abraham.

The young student, Singhal, who led the legal battle, said she was “overwhelmed” at the victory for online freedom.

“We are such a diverse society in India with so many diverse and different opinions. It is inherent in us, it is part of us, this democracy, this debate we have,” she said.

Her views were echoed on Twitter and Facebook by people in India, a country of 1.2 billion people where Internet access is growing rapidly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-march-24-2015-anjana-pascricha-indias-online-freedom-advocates-hail-court-ruling-on-free-speech

India's landmark online speech ruling is step toward greater press freedom

praskrishna — 2015-03-29T00:55:35Z

In an historic decision, India's Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down part of a law used to silence criticism and free expression. While this marks a pivotal victory that has been welcomed in many quarters, many challenges remain for press freedom in the country.

The blog post by Sumit Galhotra was published by CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) on March 28, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act--the vaguely worded provision struck down by the court--criminalized online speech deemed "grossly offensive" or "menacing," along with information for the purpose of causing "annoyance" or "inconvenience." Individuals convicted under the provision could face up to three years in prison. This law, along with others that remain on the books, has allowed India to become a paradise for the offended.

The law was challenged by a public interest litigation mounted by Shreya Singhal, in 2012. Singhal, who had just returned to Delhi from her studies in the U.K., was infuriated at how the law was being used to stifle debate and criticism in her home country, according to reports.

The September 2012 arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, on a range of charges including one under Section 66A, over his cartoons on politics and corruption, caught Singhal's attention. A few weeks later, she learned of the arrest of 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada, who questioned on Facebook the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a politician, Singhal said. Dhada's friend, Renu Srinivasan, who had merely "liked" the comment, was arrested under the law. According to news reports, both were charged. These cases sparked a national debate on the space for free expression in the world's largest democracy, and led Singhal to challenge the law, she told reporters.

"It's a big victory," Singhal, who is currently studying law in Delhi, told the media following Tuesday's decision. "The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it's very important for us to protect this right."

India is expected to overtake the U.S. as the second largest population of Internet users in the world, behind only China, according to the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a nonprofit group representing the Web and mobile industry. As Internet usage accelerates in India, thanks in large part to the widespread use of mobile devices, there has been an ongoing debate on how best to policeit in a country that has to contend with frequent episodes of violence, civil unrest, and terrorist attacks.


Karuna Nundy, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India who helped the legal challenge, says the country has several laws that are a threat to press freedom. (Geoffrey King)

Lawrence Liang, a lawyer and researcher at the Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum, an Indian legal research organization, shared in Singhal's welcoming of the decision. "It is important to note that this is the first judgment in decades in which the Supreme Court has struck down a legal provision for violating freedom of speech, and in doing so, it simultaneously builds upon a rich body of free speech cases in India and paves the way for a jurisprudence of free speech in the 21st century, the era of the Internet and social media," he told CPJ.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, an organization that focuses on issues of digital pluralism, called the judgment "a moral victory." He said the decision "furthers free speech jurisprudence in India, but also in all those other countries where an Indian precedent would be important," including many countries in Asia, and places such as South Africa.

As part of the judgment, the court narrowed its reading of Section 79 of the IT Act, under which private parties could submit notice-and-takedown orders directly to Internet intermediaries. The court held that intermediary liability can be pursued only through a court order or other government order, reports said.

Liang told CPJ the judgment falls short in some areas. The Supreme Court's 123-page judgment kept in place Section 69A of the IT Act and Information Technology Rules 2009 that allows the government to block websites if the content in question has the potential to create communal discord, social disorder, or impact India's relations with other countries, according to news reports.

"I would say that if there is missed opportunity in the judgment, it is the clarification of the process of blocking websites. If Section 66A was found to be arbitrary in that its scope covered protected and unprotected speech, then the procedure for blocking websites as laid out in Section 69A is also beset with similar problems," Liang said.

According to Chinmayi Arun, research director at the Centre for Communications Governance at the National Law University in Delhi, the 2009 rules require blocking requests and implementation to be kept confidential. "This means that speakers will have no way of finding out that the government has ordered intermediaries to block their content. Speakers will therefore not be able to question unconstitutional blocking orders before the judiciary--this is a clear interference with their constitutional rights," she told CPJ via email, referring to online users who could fall foul of the law.

Academic in me: As a matter of legal & constitutional analysis, the SC judgment is at its best on #66A, but weaker on 69A & weakest on 79.
-- Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) March 24, 2015

For some journalists, the decision highlights how virtually no national party in India, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is a champion of these rights. In a piece for independent news website Scroll, journalist Shivam Vij criticizes the current Narendra Modi-led government for missing an opportunity by not acting decisively to address the problematic law. "It has become routine for India's politicians to avoid taking tough political decisions if they can be left to the courts," he said. "When in power, the BJP is as happy as the Congress to have at its disposal laws that can muzzle voices of dissent."

Trivedi told CPJ he agreed that the previous and current government did little to address abuses of the law. Trivedi, who up until the court decision, faced charges under Section 66A, and had joined Singhal as a petitioner in the case, added: "This decision marks a strong first step." The cartoonist's lawyer, Vijay Hiremath, told CPJ that the Section 66A charge has now been removed, but Trivedi still faces charges under the National Emblem Act.

While the striking down of Section 66A is a step in the right direction, many challenges remain for press freedom in India. Karuna Nundy, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India, who was at the forefront of the legal challenge, told CPJ numerous colonial-era laws, particularly in India's penal code, continue to pose threats to free speech and press freedom in India. CPJ has long documented cases of Indian journalists being threatened with sedition, defamation, and laws that criminalize "outraging religious sentiment."

Actually, next step(s): a review of the constitutionality of sedition, challenge criminal defamation, constitutionalise civil defamation.
-- Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) March 24, 2015

But Nundy expressed optimism for the challenges ahead for press freedom in India and elsewhere. She said the judgment shows, "If you do the work, you take the trouble, you make the challenge, you can achieve the kinds of values that you stand for. That is the work that is the duty of all us as national citizens and citizens of the world."

[Geoffrey King, CPJ Internet Advocacy Coordinator, contributed to this report from Manila]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cpj-march-28-2015-sumit-galhotra-indias-landmark-online-speech-ruling-is-step-toward-greater-press-freedom

India's Internet Jam

pranesh — 2014-03-20T12:41:58Z

As authorities continue to clamp down on digital freedom, politicians and corporations are getting a taste for censorship too. Pranesh Prakash reports.

The article was published in Index on Censorship in August 2012. This is an unedited version of the article.

In a matter of three days, in August 2012, India’s central government ordered internet service providers to block around 309 pieces of online content – mostly individual web pages, YouTube videos and Facebook groups. The blocking orders came days after people originally from north-eastern India living in Bangalore began fleeing the city in fear of attack. Rumours that some Muslims in the city were planning violence in retaliation for recent clashes between the indigenous Bodo tribe and Muslim settlers in Assam spread quickly via text messages and through the media. The Nepali migrant community in Bangalore also received text messages from their families, warning them that they might be mistaken for north-eastern Indians and also be targeted. Indian Railway, catering to the huge demand, organised special trains to Assam for the crowds of people.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of India, which came into force in 1952, and specifically in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees that ‘all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression’. While in the United States, it wasn’t until the 1920s that the Supreme Court struck down a law or governmental action on freedom of speech grounds, in India, just one year after the constitution was adopted, government actions against both left- and right-wing political speech were struck down for violating Article 19(1)(a). Enraged, the Congress government then amended Article 19, expanding the list of restrictions to the right to free expression. These included speech pertaining to ‘friendly relations with foreign states’, ‘public order’ and ‘incitement to an offence’. In 1963, in response to the 1962 war with China, the ‘sovereignty and integrity of India’ was also added, taking the number of categories of permissible restrictions up to eight. While the constitution categorically stipulates that no further restrictions should be imposed, courts have on occasion added to the list (privacy, for instance) through judicial interpretation without explicitly stating that they are doing so. Comparisons are often drawn between the constitution’s ‘reasonable restrictions’ and the categorical prohibition enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ – a meaningless comparison as there are indeed many categories of speech that are seen as being protected under the US constitution and even speech that is protected may be restrained in a number of ways.

Today, there are a number of laws that regulate freedom of speech in India, from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Victorian legislation meant to codify crimes, to the Information Technology Act, which was amended in 2008 and in some cases makes behaviour that is perfectly legal offline into a criminal activity when online.

Sedition and social harmony

The Indian Penal Code criminalises sedition; speech intended to cause enmity between communities; speech intended to ‘outrage religious feelings of any class’; selling, singing or displaying anything obscene; and defamation. It also prohibits ‘causing someone, by words or gestures, to believe they’re the target of divine displeasure’. Each of these provisions has been misused, as there are indeed many catagories of speech that are not seen as being protected under thw US constitution, and even speech that is protected may be restrained in a number of ways.

In recent years, sedition charges have been brought against human rights activists (Binayak Sen and Arundhati Roy), journalists (Seema Azad), cartoonists (Aseem Trivedi) and protesters (thousands of villagers in Koodankulam and neighbouring villages who demonstrated against a nuclear reactor in their area). It is usually the higher judiciary that dismisses such cases, while the lower judiciary seems to be supplicant to the bizarre claims of government, the police and complainants. Similarly, the higher judiciary has had to intervene in cases where books and films have been banned for ‘causing enmity between communities’ or for intentionally hurting the sentiments of a religious group.

Of the last six books banned by the Maharashtra government, all but one (RV Bhasin’s Islam: A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims) have been overturned by the Mumbai High Court. In one case, the court criticised the government for using a violent protest (organised by the Sambhaji Brigade, one of many right-wing political groups that frequently stage demonstrations) as reason enough for banning an academic book on the Maratha king Shivaji. In its decision, the judge pointed out that it is the government’s job to provide protection against such violence. Given India’s history of communal violence there is indeed a need for the law to address incitement to violence – but these laws should be employed at the actual time of incitement, not after the violence has already taken place. But, as recent events have shown, the government is willing to censor ‘harmful’ books and films and less likely to take action against individuals who incite violence during demonstrations.

Online speech and the law

There are regular calls for the government to introduce legislation that deals specifically with online behaviour, despite the fact that the vast majority of the laws regarding sedition and social harmony apply online as well as offline. One example is the recent move to introduce amendments to the Indecent Representation of Women Act (1986) so that it applies to ‘audiovisual media and material in electronic form’.

But the government’s attempts to control online speech began long before the introduction of any internet-specific legislation. Indeed, when state-monopoly internet service provider VSNL censored content, it did so under the terms of a contract it had entered with its customers, not under any law. In 1998, a mailing list called Middle East Socialist Network was blocked on national security grounds. In 1999, Pakistani newspaper Dawn’s website was blocked during the Kargil conflict. In both of the latter cases, the government relied on the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) to justify its actions, though that act contains no explicit provisions for such censorship.

In 2000, the Information Technology (IT) Act was passed and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) was created, which (unlawfully) assumed the role of official online censor. Importantly, while the IT Act did
make the publication of obscene content online illegal (though it already was under the IPC), it did not grant permission for authorities to block websites. Despite this, an executive order passed on 27 February 2003 granted CERT-In the power to block. Had this been challenged in a court, it may well have been deemed unconstitutional since, in the absence of a statutory law, an executive order cannot reverse the freedom granted under Article 19. And although the telecommunications sector in India was being liberalised around this time, as part of their licence agreements, all internet service providers (ISPs) have to agree to block links upon being requested to do so by the government. In 2008, when the IT Act was amended, it clearly stated that the government can block websites not only when it deems it necessary to do so but also when it is deemed expedient in relation to matters of public interest, national security and with regard to maintaining friendly relations with foreign states. The power to block does not, however, extend to obscenity or defamation offences. At the same time, further categories of speech crimes were introduced, along with other new offences, including the electronic delivery of ‘offensive messages through communication services’ or anything ‘for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience’. This has often been abused, including by the chief minister of West Bengal, who issued proceedings against a professor for forwarding an email containing a cartoon that mocked him. Under this draconian and unconstitutional provision, the police do not need an arrest warrant and the punishment can be as much as three years’ imprisonment, longer than even the punishment for causing death by negligence. The amendment also granted the government extensive powers to monitor and intercept online speech and data traffic, greatly extending the powers provided under colonial laws such as the Indian Telegraph Act (1885). As legislation has been introduced, the penalties for online offences have increased significantly. For example, the penalty for the first-time publication of an obscene ebook is up to five years in prison and a 1,000,000 rupee (US$18,800) fine, compared with two years’ imprisonment and a 2,000 rupee (US$38) fine as stipulated in the IPC for publishing that same material in print version. New laws introduced in 2009 pertain specifically to blocking (section 69a), interception, decryption and monitoring (69 and 69b) and are in accordance with the constitution. However, the amendments were brought in without any attempt at transparency or accountability.

Power in the hands of intermediaries

In April 2011, despite critical submissions received during its public consultation, the government announced new ‘intermediary guidelines’ and ‘cyber cafe rules’, both of which have adverse effects on freedom of expression. The rules, which were issued by the Department of Information and Technology (DIT), grant not only the government but citizens significant powers to censor the internet. They require all intermediaries – companies that handle content, including web hosts, telecom companies, domain name providers and other such intermediaries – to remove ‘disparaging’ content that could ‘harm minors in any way’. They prohibit everything from jokes (if the person sharing the joke does not own copyright to it) to anything that is disparaging. In a recent case, in December 2011, thousands of people used the hashtag #=IdiotKapilSibal on Twitter to criticise the minister of communications and information technology, Kapil Sibal, who had requested that officials from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Facebook in India pre-screen online content. These guidelines and rules are badly drafted and unconstitutional, as they go beyond the limits allowed under Article 19 in the constitution. And do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and
fairness. They are inconsistent with offline laws, too: for example, because the guidelines also refer to gambling, the government of Sikkim can publish advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers but not online. It’s far easier to persuade officials to remove online material than it is to persuade them to remove books from a bookstore or artwork from a gallery. Police are only empowered to seize books if the government or a court has been persuaded that it violates a law and issues such an order. This fact is always recorded, in government or legal records, police files or in the press. By contrast, web content can be removed on the basis of one email complaint; intermediaries are required to ‘disable’ the relevant content within 36 hours of the complaint. A court order is not required, nor is there a requirement to notify the owner of the content that a complaint has been received or that material has been removed. The effect is that of almost invisible censorship.

This assertion – that it only takes one complaint – may seem far-fetched. But a researcher from the Centre for Internet and Society sent complaints to several intermediaries on a number of occasions, resulting in content being removed in a majority of cases. If intermediaries choose not to take action, they risk losing their immunity against punishment for content. In essence, the law is the equivalent of punishing a post office for the letters that people send via the postal service.

The amendments were brought in without any attempt at transparency or accountability

In 1984, Indira Gandhi was forced to sue Salman Rushdie for defamation in a London court in order to ensure one sentence was expurgated from his novel Midnight’s Children. Today Gandhi wouldn’t need to win a lawsuit against publishers. She would merely have to send a complaint to websites selling the book and it would have to be removed from sale. It is easier to block Akbari.in – the online newspaper run by Vinay Rai, who filed a criminal complaint against multiple internet companies in December 2011 for all manner of materials – than it is to prevent its print publication. There is no penalty for frivolous complaints, such as those sent by researchers from the Centre for Internet and Society, nor is there any requirement for records to be kept of who has removed what. Such great powers of censorship without any penalties for abuse of these powers are a sure-fire way of moving towards greater intolerance, with the internet – that republic of opinions and expressions – being a casualty.

Censorship outside the law

Since 2011, governments and private companies alike have increasingly engaged in internet censorship. In April 2011, in response to a right to information request, the DIT released a list of 11 websites that had been officially blocked under the IT Act since 2009, when the amended act came into force. But, according to a recent Google Transparency Report, government requests for the removal of material far exceeds that number. The report reveals that the government (including state governments) requested that Google remove 358 items from January 2011 to June 2011. Of this number, only eight were considered to be hate speech and only one item was related to concerns over national security. The remaining material, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests), was taken down because of ‘government criticism’. Criticism of the government is protected under the country’s constitution but, nonetheless, Google complied with take-down requests 51 per cent of the time. It’s clear, then, that governmental censorship is far more widespread than officially acknowledged.

In July 2011, Reliance Entertainment obtained a ‘John Doe’ order to protect its intellectual property rights with regard to its film Singham, which was scheduled for release that month. The order prohibited both online and offline infringement of copyright for the film and was sent to a number of ISPs, which then blocked access to file-sharing websites, even though there was no proof of the film having been available on any of them. According to Reliance Entertainment, they merely asked ISPs ‘not to make the film available’ on their networks, even though the order did not authorise it. But a right to information request pertaining to a similar case dealing with the distribution of the film Dhammu showed that the entertainment company’s lawyers had in fact asked for dozens of websites – not just deep-link URLs to infringing content – to be blocked, despite publicly claiming otherwise. If web users encountered any information at all about why access to the sites was blocked, it was that the Department of Telecom had ordered the blocking, which was plainly untrue. In February 2012, following a complaint from the Indian Music Industry (a consortium of 142 music companies), the Calcutta High Court ordered 387 ISPs to block 107 websites for music piracy. At least a few of those, including Paktimes.com and Filmicafe.com, were general interest entertainment sites. The most famous of these sites, Songs.pk, re-emerged shortly after the block as Songspk.pk, highlighting the pointlessness of the block. And outside the realm of copyright, in December 2011, the domain name CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com was suspended based on an unlawful complaint from the Mumbai police requesting its suspension, despite there being no powers for them to do so under any law.

Between August and November 2011, the DIT also went to great efforts to compel big internet companies including Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, to ‘self-regulate’. This revealed the department’s desire to gain ever greater powers to control ‘objectionable’ content online, effectively bypassing the IT Act. It’s obvious, too, that by encouraging internet companies to ‘self-regulate’ the government will avoid embarrassing statistics such as those revealed by Google’s Transparency Report.

New dangers

A way forward, at least for internet-specific laws, could be to rekindle the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee – a multi-stakeholder committee required by the IT Act – and to practise at home what we preach abroad on matters of internet governance: the value of a multi-stakeholder system, which includes industry, academia and civil society and not just governments. The idea of a multi-stakeholder framework has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the ‘Declaration of Principles’ at the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003. It has also been at the heart of India’s pronouncements at the Internet Governance Forum and the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum. The Internet Governance Division, which formulates the country’s international stance on internet governance, has long recognised that these decisions must be taken in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DIT’s Cyber-Law and ESecurity Group, which formulates the country’s national stance on the internet, realises the same.

Freedom of speech means nothing in a democratic society if it does not allow everyone to speak. Despite the internet being a very elite space, the number of people who have used it to express themselves since its introduction in India in 1994 is vast, especially when compared to the number of people in India who have expressed themselves in print since 1947 when the country won its independence. Online speech is indeed a big shift from edited and usually civil discussions in the world of print media. Perhaps this gives us some indication of why there is some support among the mass media for government regulations on speech. Too many discussions of online speech laws in India descend into arguments about the lack of civility online. However, the press – and all of us – would do well to remember that civility and decency in speech, while desirable in many contexts, cannot be the subject of legislation. But in India, the greatest threat to freedom of expression is not a government clampdown on dissent but threats from political and corporate powers with a range of tools at their disposal, including fostering a climate of selfcensorship. The government has passed bad laws that have given way to private censorship. And many of these laws are simply a result of gross ineptitude.

We cannot take sufficient comfort in the fact that, in India, censorship is limited and nowhere on the scale that it is in China or Iran. It is crucial that, from a legal, cultural and technological standpoint we do not open the door for further censorship. And currently, we are failing.

Pranesh Prakash is Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. Part of this article appeared in a blog by the author on the centre’s website, cis-india.org, in January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/index-on-censorship-august-2012-pranesh-prakash-indias-internet-jam

India's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism

pranesh — 2012-04-26T13:45:25Z

Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.

(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as "Practise what you preach" on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)

The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of "computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act is a great example of that.)

The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a clarification through a press release, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called "arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev, who has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.

Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.

While s.5 of the Telegraph Act only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.

Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has been granted very broad functions under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.

All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body.

The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an "Internet Steering Committee" which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's Internet Governance Division, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.

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

India won't censor social media: Telecom Minister

praskrishna — 2012-03-01T07:15:29Z

India does not intend to censor online social networks such as Facebook, a minister said Tuesday, but he demanded that they obey the same rules governing the press and other media. The article by AFP was published in the Tribune on February 14, 2012.

“I never wanted to censor social media and no government wants to do so. But like the print and electronic media, they have to obey the laws of the country.” He held a number of meetings with leading Internet companies late last year in which he asked about the possibility of checking content before it is posted online by users.

The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of obscene images found on the Internet that risked offending Muslims or defaming politicians, including the boss of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi. “The media reported I had said I wanted to pre-screen the content on social media. I have never even heard the word pre-screen,” he told the summit.

Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their platforms. The government has given its sanction for the firms to be tried for serious crimes such as fomenting religious hatred and spreading social discord — offences that could land company directors in prison.

“All I want is that they (social media) should follow the laws of the land. Social media must not consider itself to be above that,” Sibal said. But Internet privacy groups say social media sites may not have the resources to screen obscene material that violates local laws posted on the Internet. Local laws prohibit the sale or distribution of obscene material as well as those that can hurt religious sentiments in overwhelmingly-Hindu India.

“It is just not humanly possible to pre-censor content and Sibal knows that very well,” said Rajan Gandhi, founder of a New Delhi-based advocacy group Society in Action. Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said he was “glad Sibal does not believe in censorship and that companies operating in India should follow local laws.” “But on the other hand he has asked them to evolve new guidelines and actively monitor user content which is not legally sanctioned. This makes him look two-faced,” Prakash added.

Google and Facebook said earlier this month they had removed the allegedly offensive content used as evidence in the court cases.

The groups have appealed to the Delhi High Court asking for the cases against them to be quashed on the basis they cannot be held responsible for their clients’ actions. The comments of a judge hearing the case raised further fears that freedom of expression online could be restricted. “You must have a stringent check. Otherwise, like in China, we may pass orders banning all such websites,” the judge said at the January hearing. Facebook is banned in China and Google moved its operations out of the country in 2010 in protest at censorship laws there.

The debate about social networks mirrors a larger national dialogue about freedom of speech in the world’s biggest democracy following recent protests by religious groups. Indian-origin writer Salman Rushdie was prevented from speaking at a literature festival in Jaipur last month after Muslim groups protested against his presence over his allegedly blasphemous 1988 novel “The Satanic Verses.” A group led by author and journalist Nilanjana Roy organised public readings of banned literary works on Monday to protest against what it said were recent curbs on intellectual freedom.

The initiative, called “Flashreads for free speech”, was widely advertised on social networks including Twitter and Facebook.

Originally published by AFP and reproduced in the Tribune.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media

India tops list of content restrictions requests, says Facebook

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T17:01:53Z

India has again topped the list of content restriction requests in the second half of 2014 with over 5,800 requests recorded in Facebook's Government Requests Report released on Sunday.

The article by Neha Alawadhi was published in the Economic Times on March 17, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

"Overall, we continue to see an increase in government requests for data and content restrictions. The amount of content restricted for violating local law increased by 11% over the previous half, to 9,707 pieces of content restricted, up from 8,774," said Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, and Chris Sonderby, deputy general counsel, in a statement on the social networking website.

Facebook saw a rise in content restriction requests from countries like Turkey and Russia, while requests from countries like Pakistan came down. The number of content restriction requests from Pakistan came down to 54 in the second half of 2014 from 1,773 in the first half. The number of content restriction requests from India rose to 5,832 from 4,960 in the first half.

India has been the top requestor for content restrictions in the past one and a half years, and the number of these requests and for user account data from the country have consistently been on the rise.

Facebook said that while the number of government requests for user account data remained relatively flat in the six-month period, there was an increase in data requests from "governments such as India, and decline in requests from countries such as the United States and Germany".

India made 5,473 requests for user account data in the six months ending December 2014, second only to the United States, which made 14,274 requests in the same period. About 45% of the requests made by India led to Facebook producing some data, according to the report, while 79% of the requests made by the US were complied with.

"Of course, the figures are alarming... But it would have been better if Facebook had also given us more information on the kind of data that was being asked for. Now we only have consolidated figures. So what kind of data was asked for, that would have been more useful," said counsel for the Software Freedom Law Centre.

India is the second largest market for Facebook, with 112 million users until last year, second only to the United States. According to Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, "the number of content restriction requests are not only high on an absolute number, but even on a per-user basis".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook

India threatens action against Twitter for ethnic violence 'rumors'

praskrishna — 2012-08-27T02:52:55Z

India threatened to take action on Thursday against Twitter over content alleged to have inflamed ethnic tensions, as leaked documents revealed the government scrambling to censor online material.

Published in the China Post on August 24, 2012. CIS is quoted.

More than 309 orders have been issued demanding the removal of posts, images and links on websites including Facebook and Twitter as well as Australian news channel ABC, broadcaster Al-Jazeera and London's The Daily Telegraph newspaper.

The government has blamed Internet sites for spreading rumors that Muslims would attack students and workers who have migrated from the northeast to live in Bangalore and other southern cities.

Tens of thousands of people fled back to India's remote northeast region last week, fearing an outbreak of violence.

The government has demanded that Twitter and other social network sites remove “inflammatory and harmful” material. It has also banned bulk text messages.

“If Twitter fails to respond to our request, we will take appropriate action,” senior home ministry official R.K. Singh said in the Times of India newspaper. “We have asked the information technology ministry to serve them a notice.”

The paper added that the government had set a deadline of Thursday for Twitter to respond.

The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) research group published analysis of the blocking orders sent by the Department of Telecommunications to domestic Internet services providers from August 18-21.

The CIS said that of the 309 separate items that the government ordered the providers to be blocked, the most affected sites were Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Blogspot.

Content on websites for ABC, Al-Jazeera, The Times of India, The Daily Telegraph and online Catholic portal www.catholic.org were also targeted by the orders, though details of the contentious material are not known.

Twitter representatives were not available to comment, but both Facebook and Google this week said they were in communication with Indian authorities and already had policies banning content that incited violence.

The government has complained it was not receiving timely cooperation from social network groups over its attempts to ban “hateful” content.

On Thursday it said Twitter had agreed to remove six fake accounts pretending to be postings by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

“Officials at Twitter have told us they are reviewing our request ... and they intend to cooperate,” Pankaj Pachauri, the premier's spokesman, told AFP.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-china-post-aug-24-2012-india-threatens-action-against-twitter-for-ethnic-violence-rumors

India sees biggest improvement in Internet freedom, says report

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T11:08:34Z

Big stride ascribed to removal of restrictions imposed in 2013; globally, Internet freedom sees decline.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on December 5, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

India fared better this year when it came to freedom of the Net, while globally Internet freedom declined for the fourth consecutive year in 2014 with a growing number of countries introducing more aggressive online censorship and monitoring practices, said a report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog.

The global Freedom on the Net report 2014, which covered the period between 1 May 2013 and 31 May 2014 and was released on Thursday, said India scored 42 points this year, an improvement of five points over the previous reporting period.

It’s the largest increase in Internet freedom over the past year and was ascribed to the removal of temporary restrictions on access and content that had been imposed in 2013 to stem an exodus of people from north-eastern states from wherever else they were in India.

Of the 65 countries assessed, 36 saw a decline in Internet freedom. The most significant declines were in Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Iran, Syria and China are the world’s worst abusers of Internet freedom, said Freedom House.

A low score indicates higher Internet freedom.

The US remained relatively free compared with the rest of the world with a total score of 19, the report said.

“Any report on Internet freedom that ranks US as free cannot be taken seriously,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

There is massive intellectual property rights (IPR)-related censorship in the US, which Freedom House does not consider censorship, and the total surveillance regime of the National Security Agency that resulted in self-censorship was also ignored by Freedom House, he said.

In India, curbs on content and arrests related to online publishing under Section 66A of the information technology (IT) Act declined in the past year.

There have been nine criminal complaints filed against social media posts in the period, but the Supreme Court did its bit by curtailing arrests for online expression under the IT Act.

Independently, the Supreme Court is assessing the constitutionality of provisions in the IT Act and secondary legislation that restrict content and criminalize speech online. Section 66A of the IT Act criminalizes a wide range of speech and led to several arrests for social media posts in 2012 and early 2013. On 2 December, the Supreme Court asked the government to clarify its stand on the constitutionality of these provisions by 9 December.

Several petitioners have also challenged parts of the IT Act, including rules introducing potential criminal liability for intermediary companies for content posted by third parties, as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.

“Legislation and procedures to effectively protect privacy, meanwhile, remain lacking, and the scope of a privacy law currently being drafted is unclear,” said the Freedom House report.

India was expected to get a privacy law before the launch of the Unique ID, or Aadhar, programme, but this has not happened.

“Allegations of procedural abuses by state officials in surveillance cases have emerged in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat, in the latter while the present Prime Minister was chief minister,” the report said. “Partly in response to these scandals, the government tightened procedures in January 2014, saying officials must issue interception orders to telecommunications providers in written form, though they still require no warrant or judicial oversight.”

Currently, the government can retrieve data from intermediaries such as Internet service providers, which are required to install infrastructure for surveillance and keyword scanning of all traffic passing through each gateway.

What can curb Net freedom substantially in India, according to the report, is the Indian government’s ambitious nationwide surveillance programme, the Central Monitoring System, which allows authorities to monitor individuals’ digital communications directly without issuing orders to service providers, written or otherwise—that is, “without judicial oversight”.

The move allows government agencies to intercept any online activities, phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations in real time by directly accessing interception equipment on intermediary premises.

The Indian government also requested user information from international Web-based platforms including Google Inc., which received 2,794 data requests from Indian government agencies from January to June 2014. Facebook Inc. got 3,598 such requests and Twitter Inc. 19.

Apoorva contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-december-5-2014-moulishree-srivastava-india-sees-biggest-improvement-in-internet-freedom

India seeks a tighter grip on social media

praskrishna — 2012-08-25T03:02:35Z

India, with the world's third largest number of Facebook users, is clamping down on social media after recent posting of inflammatory videos on Web sites.

Published in United Press International on August 24, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

But the United States urged New Delhi to find the right balance between freedom of speech and the need to maintain law and order, a report by The Times of India said.

The government's move to block sites it deems unacceptable comes after doctored videos showing apparent violence against Muslims in Assam created violent panic.

While officials say they believe the videos originated on Pakistani blogs, the issue highlighted the uneasy relationship between freedom of speech on the Internet and the government's need to damp down inter-ethnic tensions.

Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh said New Delhi will be raising the issue with Pakistani officials.

"I am sure they (Pakistan) will deny it but we have fairly accurate technical evidence to show that the images originated and were circulated from their territory," he said.

Last week Indian federal and state ministers as well as police authorities watched closely as Assamese Muslims living and working in Bangalore engulfed the train station seeking train ticket home after rumors of the Web site information swept through their community.

Rail authorities and train companies in Bangalore, in the southwest state of Karnataka, put on extra trains to Assam in the northeast to cope with the influx of people who said they feared an outbreak of ethnic violence.

Twitter promised to cooperate with the government after the Prime Minister's Office complained to it about objectionable content on six accounts resembling the PMO's official account, a Press Trust of India report said.

Twitter said it was "actively reviewing" the request and will seek information from the Ministry of Communication and IT "to locate the unlawful content and the specific unlawful tweet," the PTI report said.

Facebook said it will comply with requests from Indian authorities but only where posts broke its existing rules that apply in all countries, a report by the BBC said.

"We have received requests from Indian authorities and agencies and are working through those requests and responding to the agencies," Facebook said. "Content or individuals can be removed from Facebook for a variety of reasons including issuing direct calls for violence or perpetuating hate speech."

At stake for many Internet service providers, site developers and proxy servers is a slice of one of the world's potentially most lucrative advertising markets.

A report by Businessweek in May said India will have more users of Facebook -- which opened an office in India in 2010 -- than any other country by 2015.

India has around 46,300,000 Facebook users,Socialbakers, a social media analytics firm in London, says. This makes India the third-biggest Facebook market behind second-place Brazil with just more than 48 million users and first-place United States with nearly 157 million.

The growth of users in India is around 22 percent a month and will match the United States by the end of 2014, each having around 175 million users, Socialbakers said.

However, the United States has voiced concern that India may overstep a censorship mark in its attempt to stamp out offensive Web sites.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Washington has been monitoring the situation of Assamese Indians flooding back to Assam from southern India because of concerns about their personal safety.

The U.S. government is "going to obviously watch and see how that process goes forward."

"We are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet," Nuland said in a report by The Times of India.

"But as the Indian government continues to investigate these instances and preserve security, we also always urge the government to maintain its own commitment to human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law."

Nuland also said the U.S. government maintained "open lines to our own companies in India, as we do around the world, and we are obviously open to consultation with them if they need it from us."

The weight of the law may be against most of Internet intermediaries, Pranesh Prakash, a lawyer at the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society, said.

"The rules are very onerous on intermediaries, since they require them to act within 36 hours to disable access to any information that they receive a complaint about," Prakash wrote in an article The Indian Express newspaper in May 2011.

Any "affected person" according to technology laws can complain about issues including defamation, blasphemy, trademark infringement, threatening the integrity of India, disparaging speech or the blanket "in violation of any law."

It isn't mandatory to give the violator an opportunity to be heard before taking down their content.

"Since intermediaries would lose protection from the law if they didn't take down content, they have no incentives to uphold freedom of speech," Prakash said.

"They instead have been provided incentives to take down all content about which they receive complaints without a considered evaluation of the content."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-upi-com-aug-24-2012-india-seeks-a-tighter-grip-on-social-media

India partially lifts Porn Ban?

praskrishna — 2015-09-20T06:30:34Z

India is said to have partially removed the porn ban. But many internet service providers have refused to restore access, due to a 'vague' government order.

The blog post by Nazhat Khan was published in DESI blitz on August 7, 2015.

India has partially lifted the ban of online pornography, just days after blocking user access to 857 adult websites.

The Indian government enforced the ban on July 30, 2015, only to reverse its decision on August 4, 2015. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Communications and IT Minister, clarifies the ban only targets websites promoting child pornography.

He says: “A new notification will be issued shortly. The ban will be partially withdrawn. Sites that do not promote child porn will be unbanned.” Under the new order, internet service providers (ISPs) in India are allowed to unblock these 857 websites – except for those that contain child pornography.

This has caused another outrage. ISPs complain it is not within their capability and responsibility to do so. Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) explains: “ISPs have no way or mechanism to filter out child pornography from URLs, and the further unlimited sub-links.

“Hence, we request your good self to advise us immediately on the future course of action in this regard.

“Till your further directive, the ISPs are keeping the said 857 URLs disabled.”

An executive at an Indian ISP tells the Wall Street Journal: “How can we go ahead? What if something comes up tomorrow [on one of these sites], which has child porn, or something else?”

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out it is not right for the government to pass the ball over to private companies.

He says: “The onus cannot be put on the service providers. What the government is doing is inherently unfair, it is not what the law requires.” In effect, porn sites in India are still blocked. The Supreme Court and senior officials are yet to provide clearer directives for ISPs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/desi-blitz-august-7-2015-nazhat-khan-india-partially-lifts-porn-ban

India limits social media after civil unrest

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T11:59:01Z

Indian officials have gone too far in limiting text messages and pressuring local Internet firms as well as Twitter and others to block accounts, critics say.

This article by Mark Magnier was published in Los Angeles Times on August 23, 2012 and re-posted in Channel 6 News on August 24, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Has the Indian government lost its sense of humor?

That's what some in India were asking as word spread that authorities had pressured Twitter into blocking several accounts parodying the prime minister after civil unrest that saw dozens of people from northeastern India killed and thousands flee in panic.

This week, the government also imposed a two-week limit of five text messages a day — raised Thursday to 20 — potentially affecting hundreds of millions of people, and pressured local Internet companies as well as Facebook, Twitter and Google to block hundreds of websites and user accounts.

Although journalists, free speech advocates and bloggers said the effort to squelch rumors may be justified, several criticized the actions as excessive.

"You cannot burn the entire house to kill one mischievous mouse," said Gyana Ranjan Swain, a senior editor at Voice & Data, a networking trade magazine. "You're in the 21st century. Their thinking is still 50 years old. It's just 'kill the messenger.'"

Comedians said Indian political humor is evolving and there's more leeway to make fun of politicians than a decade ago, but the nation's mores still call for greater respect than in the West.

"If I tried something like South Park, I'd be put behind bars tomorrow," said Rahul Roushan, founder of Faking News website, which satirizes Indian current events.

Faking News has lampooned the recent corruption scandals, including specious stories about theme restaurants (where customers must bribe waiters or go hungry); and a tongue-in-cheek report that India has banned the zero because too many of them appear nowadays in auditors' reports, after recent coal and telecommunications scandals each allegedly involving more than $30 billion.

Roushan, whose site isn't blocked, said he hopes low-level officials misinterpreted government directives.

"I'm still in a state of disbelief," he said. "I don't think the government is so stupid that it can ask that parody accounts get taken down. If they did, God help this country."

A spokesman for the prime minister's office said the blocking of six fake Twitter accounts attributed to the prime minister has been in the works for months and wasn't related to the recent crisis. He said the move was in response to tweets containing hate language and caste insults that readers could easily mistake as the Indian leader's. A dozen Twitter accounts and about 300 websites were blocked, according to news reports.

"We have not lost our sense of humor," said Pankaj Pachauri, the prime minister's spokesman. "We started a procedure to take action against people misrepresenting themselves."

But some Twitter users whose accounts are frozen, including media consultant Kanchan Gupta, counter that the government may be using the crisis to muzzle critics.

"I'm very clear in my mind this is a political decision," said Gupta, who has been critical of corruption and the government's policy drift. "If they were openly confrontational of me, they'd go nowhere, so they're trying this."

Attempts to access his Twitter page Thursday were met with the message: "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications."

Even Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has numerous parody accounts so India needs to lighten up, consultant Gupta said.

He's received several messages from worried Pakistani friends since the news broke. "They ask if I'm all right, say they hope they haven't frog-marched you to jail," he said. "What irony."

The restrictions are the latest chapter of a crisis that started in July when Muslims and members of the Bodo tribal community in northeastern India clashed over land, jobs and politics. The result: 75 people killed and 300,000 displaced.

Muslims in Mumbai, formerly Bombay, staged a sympathy demonstration last week; two more people were killed and dozens injured.

Rumors, hate messages and altered photos of supposed atrocities against Muslims soon spread on social media sites, and several people from northeastern India were beaten in Bangalore and other cities, prompting the crackdown.

New Delhi has accused Pakistani websites of fanning the online rumors. (Islamabad said it would investigate if there's any proof.) But Indian news media also reported that 20% of the websites blocked contained inflammatory material uploaded by Hindu nationalist groups in India that were apparently trying to stir up sectarian trouble.

The Twitter community has responded with derision and humor to limits on text messages on prepaid cellphones.

"Feeling deeply insulted that I still have not been blocked," tweeted user @abhijitmajumder. "Victim of govt apathy."

Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore civic group Center for Internet and Society, said this week's restrictions are the latest in a series of regulations and recommendations aimed at tightening Internet control.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/articles-latimes-com-mark-magnier-aug-23-2012-india-limits-social-media-after-civil-unrest

India limits social media after civil unrest

praskrishna — 2012-08-24T12:33:21Z

Has the Indian government lost its sense of humour? That’s what some in India were asking as word spread that authorities had pressured Twitter into blocking several accounts parodying the prime minister after civil unrest that saw dozens of people from northeastern India killed and thousands flee in panic.

Published in the Australian Financial Review. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

This week, the government also imposed a two-week limit of five text messages a day – raised Thursday to 20 – potentially affecting hundreds of millions of people, and pressured local internet companies as well as Facebook, Twitter and Google to block hundreds of websites and user accounts.

Although journalists, free speech advocates and bloggers said the effort to squelch rumours may be justified, several criticised the actions as excessive.

“You cannot burn the entire house to kill one mischievous mouse,” said Gyana Ranjan Swain, a senior editor at Voice & Data, a networking trade magazine. “You’re in the 21st century. Their thinking is still 50 years old. It’s just ‘kill the messenger’. ”

Comedians said Indian political humour is evolving and there’s more leeway to make fun of politicians than a decade ago, but the nation’s mores still call for greater respect than in the West.

“If I tried something like South Park, I’d be put behind bars tomorrow,” said Rahul Roushan, founder of Faking News website, which satirises Indian current events.

Faking News has lampooned the recent corruption scandals, including specious stories about theme restaurants (where customers must bribe waiters or go hungry); and a tongue-in-cheek report that India has banned the zero because too many of them appear nowadays in auditors’ reports, after recent coal and telecommunications scandals each allegedly involving more than $US30 billion.

Roushan, whose site isn’t blocked, said he hopes low-level officials misinterpreted government directives.

“I’m still in a state of disbelief,” he said. “I don’t think the government is so stupid that it can ask that parody accounts get taken down. If they did, God help this country.”

A spokesman for the prime minister’s office said the blocking of six fake Twitter accounts attributed to the prime minister has been in the works for months and wasn’t related to the recent crisis. He said the move was in response to tweets containing hate language and caste insults that readers could easily mistake as the Indian leader’s. A dozen Twitter accounts and about 300 websites were blocked, according to news reports.

“We have not lost our sense of humour,” said Pankaj Pachauri, the prime minister’s spokesman. “We started a procedure to take action against people misrepresenting themselves.”

Muslims in Mumbai, formerly Bombay, staged a sympathy demonstration last week; two more people were killed and dozens injured.

Rumours, hate messages and altered photos of supposed atrocities against Muslims soon spread on social media sites, and several people from northeastern India were beaten in Bangalore and other cities, prompting the crackdown.

New Delhi has accused Pakistani websites of fanning the online rumours. (Islamabad said it would investigate if there’s any proof.) But Indian news media also reported that 20 per cent of the websites blocked contained inflammatory material uploaded by Hindu nationalist groups in India that were apparently trying to stir up sectarian trouble.

The Twitter community has responded with derision and humour to limits on text messages on prepaid mobile phones.

“Feeling deeply insulted that I still have not been blocked,” tweeted user @abhijitmajumder. “Victim of govt apathy.”

Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore civic group Centre for Internet and Society, said this week’s restrictions are the latest in a series of regulations and recommendations aimed at tightening internet control.

“Before, the government’s had no grounds for censorship, it was only acting on the bruised egos of bureaucrats and officials,” he said. “This time, it’s got a legitimate right given the disruption of public order. But it hasn’t done so very effectively.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/afr-com-aug-24-2012-mark-magnier-india-limits-social-media-after-civil-unrest

India launches crackdown on online porn

pranesh — 2015-08-05T01:21:12Z

India has launched a crackdown on internet pornography, banning access to more than 800 adult websites, including Playboy and Pornhub.

The article by James Crabtree published in Financial Times on August 3, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.

The restrictions followed a ruling from India’s telecoms ministry ordering internet service providers, including international telecoms groups operating in the country such as the UK’s Vodafone, to block 857 such sites.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government provided no public justification for the unexpected ban when it came into effect at the weekend. However, on Monday India’s telecoms ministry said that the order, issued under India’s Information Technology Act, had been prompted by comments made by a supreme court judge during a hearing in July.

The ministry said that the restrictions were temporary and did not amount to a “blanket” ban, arguing that internet users running virtual private networks, which can be used to access blocked sites, could still view the material. “It isn’t that they are being banned lock, stock and barrel,” the ministry said. “The justice noted that free and open access to these websites.... should be controlled, but these sites will continue to be available through the mechanism of a VPN.”

The crackdown is set to raise fresh concerns about sudden and sweeping legal restrictions in India, after the introduction of a ban on the sale of beef earlier this year in the western state of Maharashtra, a move that was supported by Mr Modi’s government. The ruling also drew criticism from legal experts following broader concerns about a recent rise in poorly-targeted internet rules, including some restrictions on global social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society think-tank questioned the basis of the ruling, describing it as a further example of a “clumsy” approach to online regulation.

“There is no proper justification that they have given for banning all porn, rather than child porn or revenge porn or something like that,” he said. “The reaction is heavy handed, and has been done under the cloak of secrecy.” The remarks by a judge cited by India’s government as a rationale for the ban were a comment made in court rather than a legal ruling, Mr Prakash added, casting further doubt on the basis for the restrictions.

India’s mix of strict regulation and conservative public morals mean explicit sexual content is almost unheard of in mainstream media, where Bollywood films seldom featuring more than a chaste on-screen embrace.However India’s fast-growing internet population of about 300m is now both the world’s second largest after China, and an increasingly important sources for traffic for global pornographic websites.

Pornhub, which is the world’s 66th most visited website according to ranking service Alexa, said Indians were the fourth largest national users of its content during 2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-james-crabtree-august-3-2015-india-launches-crackdown-on-online-porn

India High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:18:52Z

Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.

The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in Bloomberg BNA on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.

Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).

The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.

Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.

The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.

Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A

Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.

A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”

Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.

Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.

Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion

Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated
officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.

“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”

Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable
to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”

Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).

Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A

Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.

The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).

The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.

Impact on Intermediary Liability

Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.

Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.

“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B
to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.

The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”

The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order

India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown

praskrishna — 2012-08-28T09:56:11Z

The government faced an angry backlash from Twitter users on Thursday after ordering Internet service providers to block about 20 accounts that officials said had spread scare-mongering material that threatened national security.

Post published in INDOlink, Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The backlash came as New Delhi turned up the heat on Twitter, threatening "appropriate and suitable action" if it failed to remove the accounts as soon as possible. Several newspapers said this could mean a total ban on access to Twitter in India but government officials would not confirm to Reuters that such a drastic step was being considered.

There was no immediate response from Twitter, which does not have an office in India. There are about 16 million Twitter users in the country.

The government has found itself on the defensive this week over what critics see as a clumsy clampdown on social media websites - including Google, YouTube and Facebook - that has raised questions about freedom of information in the world's largest democracy.

"Dear GOI (Government of India), Keep your Hands Off My Internet. Else face protest" tweeted one user, @Old_Monk60.

India blocked access to more than 300 Web pages after threatening mobile phone text messages and doctored website images fuelled rumours that Muslims, a large minority in the predominantly Hindu country, were planning revenge attacks for violence in Assam, where 80 people have been killed and 300,000 have been displaced since July.

Fearing for their lives, tens of thousands of migrants fled Mumbai, Bangalore and other cities last week. The exodus highlighted underlying tensions in a country with a history of ethnic and religious violence.

According to documents obtained by Reuters, the government has targeted Indian journalists, Britain's Daily Telegraph, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Al Jazeera television in its clampdown on Internet postings it says could inflame communal tensions.

The directives to Internet service providers listed dozens of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter pages. A random sampling of the YouTube postings revealed genuine news footage spliced together with fear-mongering propaganda.

INDIAN JOURNALISTS TARGETED

The government says Google and Facebook have largely cooperated while Twitter has been much slower to respond.

"Every company, whether it's an entertainment company, or a construction company, or a social media company, has to operate within the laws of the given country," said Sachin Pilot, minister of state in the Ministry of Communications.

Twitter has been instructed to remove 28 pages containing "objectionable content", an interior ministry official said.

"If they do not remove the pages, the Indian government will take appropriate and suitable action," he added.

The government has ordered Internet service providers to block the Twitter accounts of veteran journalist Kanchan Gupta and television anchor Shiv Aroor. Some appeared to have begun complying with the order on Thursday as Twitter users reported difficulties in accessing their pages.

"It is a political decision, because of my criticism of the government," said Gupta, who was an official in the previous government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

The government's actions triggered a storm of criticism from Twitter users, with the hashtags #Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks among the top trending topics on Twitter in India on Thursday. Some compared the situation with the state of emergency imposed by the government in 1975, when some journalists were jailed.

The Centre for Internet and Society, which analysed the 300 banning orders, found that they contained "numerous mistakes and inconsistencies". Some of the banned websites belonged to people trying to debunk the rumours, for example, it said.

"This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly," said CIS programme manager Pranesh Prakash.

The parliament last year passed a law that obliges Internet companies to remove a range of objectionable content when requested to do so, a move criticised at the time by rights groups and social media companies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-indolink-com-india-faces-twitter-backlash