The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ib-times-jeff-stone-december-31-2014-sites-blocked-in-india-for-anti-india-content-from-isis
<b>The Indian government has convinced ISPs to block dozens of popular websites accused of hosting “anti-India” content posted by members of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The story was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.com/vimeo-dailymotion-pastebin-among-sites-blocked-india-anti-india-content-isis-1770814">published by IB Times</a> on December 31. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">GitHub, Pastebin, as well as the video sites Vimeo and DailyMotion were among those rendered inaccessible to many of India’s nearly 250 million Internet users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The text repository Pastebin <a href="https://twitter.com/pastebin/status/545881385756798978">first tweeted on Dec. 19</a> that it had been blocked, confirming on Dec. 26 that the blockade was at the behest of India’s Department of Telecom. Pranesh Prakash, the policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, posted a list of the blocked sites Wednesday. Notice the list was issued Dec. 17.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Insane! Govt orders blocking of 32 websites including <a href="https://twitter.com/internetarchive">@internetarchive</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Vimeo">@vimeo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/github">@github</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pastebin">@pastebin</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/censorship?src=hash">#censorship</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FoEx?src=hash">#FoEx</a> <a href="http://t.co/F75ngSGohJ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">pic.twitter.com/F75ngSGohJ</a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash/status/550196008416600064">December 31, 2014</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hours later Arvind Gupta, the national head of information technology at India’s Bharatiya Janata Party, <a href="https://twitter.com/buzzindelhi">confirmed on Twitter</a> that a block had indeed been put in place. Other than referencing “ongoing investigations,” Gupta did not provide specific details on the type of threats being made.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. 1/2</p>
<p>— Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/buzzindelhi/status/550225247455035392">December 31, 2014</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked. 2/2</p>
<p>— Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/buzzindelhi/status/550225666847690752">December 31, 2014</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The move comes after it was discovered that the operator of a prominent pro-ISIS Twitter account was <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/mehdi-masroor-biswas-was-only-isis-sympathizer-not-recruiter-bangalore-police-1752839">based in Bangalore</a>. Mehdi Masroor Biswas, 24, was arrested earlier this month after a <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/unmasked-the-man-behind-top-islamic-state-twitter-account-shami-witness-mehdi" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Channel 4 News investigation</a> determined he was behind @ShamiWitness, an account with more than 17,700 followers and 2 million tweets seen each month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the “Make in India” campaign earlier this year in an attempt to encourage international businesses to invest in India. The campaign specifically mentions information technology as a sector in which India wishes to improve.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ib-times-jeff-stone-december-31-2014-sites-blocked-in-india-for-anti-india-content-from-isis'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ib-times-jeff-stone-december-31-2014-sites-blocked-in-india-for-anti-india-content-from-isis</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2015-01-02T16:43:20ZNews ItemViews | Why the Left may for once be right
https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right
<b>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1"><u>The article by Pramit Bhattacharya was published in LiveMint on April 23, 2012</u></a>.</p>
<p>India’s information technology (IT) minister, Kapil Sibal appears to be running into rough weather over IT rules framed last year, which curb freedom of expression on the internet. The rules have incensed India’s growing blogging community and piqued at least a few of his fellow parliamentarians.</p>
<p>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a rediff.com report said. Ironically, the party that still treats Stalin as a hero (quoting him unfailingly in its political resolutions) has become the first to stand up for internet freedom.<br />Rajeeve is of course not the only parliamentarian to take exception to the rules. Jayant Choudhry, a member of parliament (MP) from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, was the first to draw attention to the draconian rules late last year, and MPs from other regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Asom Gana Parishad criticized the rules in a parliamentary discussion in December.<br /><br />Two sets of rules, one governing cyber cafes and the other relating to intermediaries have attracted most criticism. The rules relating to intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines or interactive websites such as Twitter and Facebook are the most disturbing. Intermediaries are required under the current rules to remove content that anyone objects to, within 36 hours of receiving the complaint, without allowing content creators any scope of defence.<br /><br />The criteria for deciding objectionable content, laid down in the rules, are subjective and vague. For instance, intermediaries are mandated to remove among other things, ‘grossly harmful’ content, whatever that may mean.<br /><br />This is a unique form of ‘private censorship’ that will endanger almost all online content. In this age of easily offended sensibilities, it is virtually impossible to write anything that does not “offend” anyone. For instance, even this piece may be termed ‘grossly harmful’ to the CPI(M) party.<br /><br />However far-fetched this may sound, this has already become a reality. A researcher working with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) tried out such a strategy with several different intermediaries, and was successful in six out of seven times, always with frivolous and flawed complaints, Pranesh Prakash of CIS wrote in a January blog-post. It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book, Prakash pointed out.<br /><br />The rules regulating cyber cafes are no better. Cyber cafes are required to keep a log detailing the identity of users and their internet usage, which has negative implications for privacy and personal safety of users, analysis of the rules by PRS legislative research said.<br /><br />Internet freedom in India has declined over time and is only ‘partly free’, a 2011 report on internet freedom by US-based think tank, Freedom House said. India has joined a growing club of developing nations where, “internet freedom is increasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque censorship procedures, or expanding surveillance,” the report noted.<br /><br />The only saving grace is that some of the IT rules are drafted in a language so arcane that anyone will find it hard to decipher them, leave alone implementing them. Sample this: “The intermediary shall not knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of computer resource or become party to any such act which may change or has the potential to change the normal course of operation of the computer resource than what it is supposed to perform thereby circumventing any law for the time being in force: provided that the intermediary may develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of securing the computer resource and information contained therein.”<br /><br />The first task at hand for Sibal may be to explain to fellow lawmakers what the above rule is supposed to mean, before he defends such rules.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1">Click</a> for the original, Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right'>https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:48:50ZNews ItemUS Clampdown Worse than the Great Firewall
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown
<b>If you thought China’s Internet censorship was evil, think again. American moves to clean up the Web could hurt global surfers, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka, Volume 8, Issue 50, 17 December 2011.</b>
<p>TWO PARTICULARLY terrible pieces of legislation — the PROTECT-IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) — have been introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives. If passed, the US administration will be empowered to shut down specific websites using the same four measures it employed in its failed attempt to shut down WikiLeaks — domain name system (DNS) filtering, blocking financial transfers via financial intermediaries, revoking hosting and sanitising search engine results. SOPA represents the perfect policy interest overlap between a State clamping down on freedom of expression and IPR-holders protecting their obsolete business models. After all it was Bono who publicly articulated the unspoken desire of many right-holders: “We know from China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent that it’s perfectly possible to track content.”</p>
<p>China fortunately only censors the Internet for its own citizens, the Great Firewall does not, for example, prevent access to knowledge by Indian netizens. SOPA will enable the US to censor the global Internet unilaterally. The Great Firewall can be circumvented using tools like Tor, but SOPA will in many ways make its targets disappear for the average user. DNS filtering, even when implemented in a single country, has global consequences. DNS, one of the foundational mechanisms of the Internet, is an address look-up service that allows users to translate domain names (e.g. cisindia.org — easier for humans to remember) into IP addresses (e.g. 202.190.125.69 — easier for machines). The most critical servers in the global DNS hierarchy are the root servers, or today’s server clusters. Mandated DNS filtering would result in some DNS servers returning different IP addresses than other DNS servers for certain domain names. With PROTECT-IP and SOPA, these global consequences would be at unprecedented levels given that seven of the 13 server clusters that constitute the DNS root fall within US jurisdiction. We already have some indication where this is headed. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency announced recently that it has seized 150 domain names for alleged IPR infringement.</p>
<p>We must remember that IPR policy in some countries has been configured in public interest to take advantage of the exceptions and limitations afforded by the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of IPR) agreement. In others, even though the letter of the law goes beyond TRIPS requirements, access by ordinary citizens is protected because of poor enforcement of these maximalist policies. E-commerce platforms that sell Micromax, Karbonn, Spice and Lava mobile phones that are manufactured in China may be taken offline because an American court is convinced of patent infringement. An online publisher of George Orwell’s books, which are public domain in Russia, India and South Africa but still under copyright in the US and Europe, may have its Paypal account blocked.</p>
<div class="pullquote">After the witch-hunt against WikiLeaks, policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy</div>
<p>In the recent past, activists in authoritarian regimes and democracies with draconian Internet laws have leveraged US Internet freedom rhetoric. This was first deployed by Hillary Clinton in early 2010 after Google’s melodramatic withdrawal from China. Even then, many observers were convinced that this was just selective tokenism and the real agenda was domination of global markets by US-based MNCs. Today, after the witch-hunts against WikiLeaks and Anonymous, global policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Fortunately, opposition for SOPA has cut across traditional political and ideological divides — libertarians, liberal human rights organisations and political conservatives who believe in small government and also modern- day capitalists like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Let us pray that Kapil Sibal registers his protest with the Obama administration to protect the online aspirations of millions of Indian citizens and entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>Read the original published in Tehelka <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op171211proscons.asp">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-26T20:42:14ZBlog EntryUN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-special-rapporteur-report-on-freedom-of-expression-and-the-private-sector-a-significant-step-forward
<b>On 6 June 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, released a report on the Information and Communications Technology (“ICT”) sector and freedom of expression in the digital age. Vidushi Marda and Pranesh Prakash highlight the most important aspects of the report.</b>
<h2 dir="ltr">Background</h2>
<p dir="ltr">Today, the private sector is more closely linked to the freedom of expression than it has ever been before. The ability to speak to a mass audience was at one time a privilege restricted to those who had access to mass media. However, with digital technologies, that privilege is available to far more people than was ever possible in the pre-digital era. As private content created on these digital networks is becoming increasingly subject to state regulation, it is crucial to examine the role of the private sector in respect of the freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The first foray by the Special Rapporteur into this broad area has resulted in a sweeping report, that covers almost every aspect of freedom of expression within the ICT sector, except competition which we will elaborate on later in this post.</p>
<h2 dir="ltr">Introduction</h2>
<p dir="ltr">The report aims to “provide guidance on how private actors should protect and promote freedom of expression in a digital age”. It identifies the relevant international legal framework as Article 19 of the <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a>, and Article 19 of the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. The UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and Guiding Principles, also known as the <a href="http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf">Ruggie Principles</a> provide the framework for private sector responsibilities on business and human rights.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The report categorises different roles of the private sector in organising, accessing, regulating and populating the internet. This is important because the manner in which the ICT sector affects the freedom of expression is far more complicated than traditional communication industries. The report identifies the distinct impact of internet service providers, hardware and software companies, domain name registries and registrars, search engines, platforms, web hosting services, platforms, data brokers and e-commerce facilities on the freedom of expression.</p>
<h2>Legal and Policy Issues</h2>
<div>The Special Rapporteur discusses four distinct legal and policy issues that find relevance in respect of this problem statement: Content Regulation, Surveillance and Digital Security, Transparency and Remedies.</div>
<div> </div>
<h3>Content Regulation</h3>
<p dir="ltr">The report identifies two main channels through which content regulation takes place: the state, and internal processes.</p>
<p>Noting that digital content made on private networks is increasingly subject to State regulation, the report highlights the competing interests of intermediaries who manage platforms and States which demand for regulation of this content on grounds of defamation, blasphemy, protection of national security etc. This tension is demonstrated through vague laws that compel individuals and private corporations to over-comply and err on the side of caution “in order to avoid onerous penalties, filtering content of uncertain legal status and engaging in other modes of censorship and self-censorship.” Excessive intermediary liability forces intermediaries to over-comply with requests in order to ensure that local access to their platforms are not blocked. States attempt at regulating content outside the law through extra legal restrictions, and push private actors to take down content on their own initiative. Filtering content is another method, wherein States block and filter content through the private sector. Government blacklists, illegal content and suspended accounts are methods employed, and these have sometimes raised concerns of necessity and proportionality. <a href="http://scroll.in/article/807277/whatsapp-in-kashmir-when-big-brother-wants-to-go-beyond-watching-you">Network or service shutdowns</a> are classified as a “particularly pernicious” method of content regulation. Non neutral networks also are a method of content regulation with the possibilities of internet service providers throttling traffic. Zero rating is a potential issue, although the report acknowledges that “it remains a subject of debate whether they may be permissible in areas genuinely lacking Internet access”.</p>
<p>The other node of content regulation has been identified as internal policies and practices of the private sector. <a href="https://consentofthenetworked.com/author/rebeccamackinnon/">Terms of service</a> restrictions are often tailored to the jurisdiction’s laws and policies and don’t always address the needs and interests of vulnerable groups. Further, the report notes, <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/facebook-free-basics-gatekeeping-powers-extend-to-manipulating-public-discourse-1452077063.html">design and engineering choices</a> of how private players choose to curate content are algorithmically determined and increasingly control the information that we consume. </p>
<h3>Transparency</h3>
<div> The report notes that transparency enables those entities subject to internet regulation to take informed decisions about their responsibilities and liabilities in a digital sphere and points out, that there is a severe lack of transparency about government requests to restrict or remove content. Some states even prohibit the publication of such information, with India being one example. In respect of the private sector, content hosting platforms sometimes at least reveal the circumstances under which content is removed due to a government request, although this is rather erratic. The report recognises the need to balance transparency with competing concerns like security and trade secrecy, and this is a matter of continued debate.</div>
<div> </div>
<h3 dir="ltr">Surveillance and Digital Security</h3>
<p>Freedom of expression concerns arise as data transmitted on private networks is gradually being subjected to surveillance and interference from the State and private actors. The report finds that several internet companies have reported an increase in government requests for customer data and user information. According to the Special Rapporteur, effective resistance strategies include inclusion of human rights guarantees, restrictively interpreting government requests negotiations. Private players also make surveillance and censorship equipment that enable States to intercept communications. Covert surveillance has been previously reported, with States tapping into communications as and when necessary. When private entities become aware of interception and covert surveillance, their human rights responsibilities arise. As private entities work towards enhancing encryption, anonymity and user security, states respond by <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html">compelling companies</a> to create loopholes for them to circumvent such privacy and security enhancing technology.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">Remedies</h3>
<p>Unlawful content removal, opaque suspensions, data security breaches are commonplace occurrences in the digital sphere. The ICCPR guarantees that all people whose rights have been violated must have an effective remedy, and similarly, the Ruggie principles require that remedial and grievance mechanisms must be provided by corporations. There is some ambiguity on how these complaint or appeal mechanisms should be designed and implemented, and the nature and structure of these mechanisms is also unclear. The report states that it is necessary to investigate the role of the state in supplementing/regulating corporate mechanisms, its role in ensuring that there is a mechanism for remedies, and its responsibility to make sure that more easily and financially accessible alternatives exist for remedial measures.<br /><br /></p>
<h2> Special Rapporteur’s priorities for future work and thematic developments</h2>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Investigating laws, policies and extralegal measures that equip governments to impose restrictions on the provision of telecommunications and internet services. Examining the responsibility of companies to respond in a way that respects human rights, mitigates harm, and provides avenues for redress.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Evaluating content restrictions under terms of service and community standards. Private actors face substantial pressure from governments and individuals to restrict expression, and a priority is to evaluate the interplay of private and state actions on freedom of expression in light of human rights obligations and responsibilities.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Focusing on the legitimacy of rationales for intermediary liability for content hosting, restrictions, conditions for removing third party content.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Exploring censorship and surveillance within the human rights framework, and encouraging greater scrutiny before using these technologies for purposes that undermine the freedom of expression.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Identifying ways to balance an increasing scope of freedom of expression with the need to address governmental interests in national security and public order.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Internet access - Future work will explore issues around access and private sector engagement and investment in ensuring affordability and accessibility, particularly considering marginalized groups.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Internet governance - Internet governance frameworks and reform efforts are sensitive to the needs of women, sexual minorities and other vulnerable communities. Throughout this future work, the Special Rapporteur will pay particular attention to legal developments (legislative, regulatory, and judicial) at national and regional levels.</p>
</li></ol>
<div> </div>
<h2>Conclusions and Recommendations</h2>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">States: The report recommends that states should not pressurise the private sector to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression in a manner that does not meet the condition of necessary and proportionate principles. Any request to take down content or access customer information must be based on validly enacted law, subject to oversight, and demonstrate necessary and proportionate means of achieving the aims laid down in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Private Actors: The Special Rapporteur recommends that private actors develop and implement transparent human rights assessment procedures, and develop policies keeping in mind their human rights impact. Apart from this, private entities should integrate commitments to the freedom of expression into internal processes and ensure the “greatest possible transparency”.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">International Organisations: The report recommends that organisations make resources and educational material on internet governance publicly accessible. The Special Rapporteur also recommends encouraging meaningful civil society participation in multi-stakeholder policy making and standard setting processes, with an increased focus on sensitivity to human rights.</p>
</li></ol>
<div> </div>
<h2>CIS Comments</h2>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">CIS strongly agrees with the expansion of the Special Rapporteur’s scope that this report represents. He is no longer looking solely at states but at the private sector too.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">CIS also notes that competition is an important aspect of the freedom of expression, but has not been discussed in this report. Viable alternatives to platforms, networks, internet service providers etc., will ensure a healthy, competitive marketplace, and will have a positive impact in resolving the issues identified above.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Our <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf/view">work</a> has called for maintaining a balanced approach to liability of intermediaries for their users’ actions, since excessive liability or strict liability would lead to over-caution and removal of legitimate speech, while having no liability at all would make it difficult to act effectively against harmful speech, e.g., revenge porn.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality">CIS’ work</a> on network neutrality has highlighted the importance of neutrality for freedom of speech, and has advocated for an evidence-based approach that ensures there is neither under-regulation, nor over-regulation. The Special Rapporteur suggests that ‘Zero-Rating’ practices always violate Net Neutrality, but the majority of the definitions of Net Neutrality proposed by academics and followed by regulators across the world often do not include Zero-Rating. Similarly, he suggests that the main exception for Zero-Rating is for areas genuinely lacking access to the Internet, whereas the potential for some forms of Zero-Rating to further freedom of expression, especially of minorities, even in areas with access to the Internet, provides sufficient reason for the issue to merit greater debate.</p>
</li></ol>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>(Pranesh Prakash was invited by the Special Rapporteur to provide his views and took part in a meeting that contributed to this report)</div>
<div> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-special-rapporteur-report-on-freedom-of-expression-and-the-private-sector-a-significant-step-forward'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-special-rapporteur-report-on-freedom-of-expression-and-the-private-sector-a-significant-step-forward</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceUNHRCDigital MediaIntermediary LiabilityICT2016-06-08T17:27:22ZBlog EntryUN Human Rights Council urged to protect human rights online
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online
<b>63 civil society groups urged the UN Human Rights Council to address global challenges to freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights on the Internet. Centre for Internet & Society joined in the statement, delivered on behalf of the 63 groups by Article 19.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 26th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is currently ongoing (June 10-27, 2014). <span>On June 19, 2014, 63 civil society groups joined together to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to protect human rights online and address global challenged to their realization. Centre for Internet & Society joined in support of the statement ("<strong>the Civil Society Statement</strong>"), which was delivered by Article 19 on behalf of the 63 groups.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its consensus resolution <a class="external-link" href="http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8">A/HRC/20/8 (2012)</a>, the UNHRC affirmed that the "<span><i>same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice</i>". India, a current member of the UNHRC, stood in support of resolution 20/8. The protection of human rights online was also a matter of popular agreement at <a class="external-link" href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf">NETmundial 2014</a>, which similarly emphasised the importance of protecting human rights online in accordance with international human rights obligations. Moreover, the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organised by the ITU in collaboration with other UN entities, emphasized the criticality of expanding access to ICTs across the globe, including infrastructure, affordability and reach.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Civil Society Statement at HRC26 highlights the importance of retaining the Internet as a global resource - a democratic, free and pluralistic platform. However, the recent record of freedom of expression and privacy online have resulted in a deficit of trust and free, democratic participation. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/world/europe/turkish-officials-block-twitter-in-leak-inquiry.html">Turkey</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-25756864">Malaysia</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/27/thailands-cybercoup/">Thailand</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/egypt-police-monitor-social-media-dissent-facebook-twitter-protest">Egypt</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Facebook-under-fire-for-blocking-pages-in-Pakistan/articleshow/36194872.cms">Pakistan</a> have blocked web-pages and social media content, while Edward Snowden's <a class="external-link" href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/looking-back-one-year-after-edward-snowden-disclosures-international-perspective">revelations</a> have heightened awareness of human rights violations on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At a time when governance of the Internet and its institutions is evolving, a human rights centred perspective is crucial. Openness and transparency - both in the governance of Internet institutions and rights online - are crucial to continuing growth of the Internet as a global, democratic and free resource, where freedom of expression, privacy and other rights are respected regardless of location or nationality. In particular, the Civil Society Statement calls attention to <a class="external-link" href="https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/take-action/EFF">principles of necessity and proportionality</a> to regulate targeted interception and collection of personal data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The UNHRC, comprising 47 member states, is called upon to address these global challenges. Guided by resolutions A/HRC/20/8 and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1">A/RES/68/167</a>, the WSIS+10 High Level Event <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a> (especially operative paragraphs 2, 8 and 11 of the Vision Document) and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx">forthcoming report</a> of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding privacy in the digital age, the UNHRC as well as other states may gather the opportunity and intention to put forth a strong case for human rights online in our post-2015 development-centred world.</p>
<h3><span>Civil Society Statement:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The full oral statement can be accessed <b><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/unhrc-civil-society-statement-26th-session" class="internal-link">here</a></b>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceInternet GovernanceUNHRC2014-06-19T13:28:32ZBlog EntryTwo women arrested over Facebook gripe on Mumbai shutdown
https://cis-india.org/news/la-times-nov-19-2012-emily-alpert-two-women-arrested-over-facebook-gripe-on-mumbai-shutdown
<b>A woman who complained about the Indian city of Mumbai shutting down for the funeral of divisive Hindu nationalist politician Balasaheb Thackeray was arrested for "hurting religious sentiments," local police told reporters amid public anger over the case.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by <span>Emily Alpert appeared in <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/19/world/la-fg-wn-arrest-facebook-mumbai-shutdown-20121119">Los Angeles Times</a> on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</span></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian media identified the woman as Shaheen Dhada, 21, who reportedly wrote, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh [shutdown] for that.”</p>
<p>Police also arrested a friend of hers who "liked" the comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Facebook remark spurred angry backers of Thackeray, a controversial figure who once openly called for attacks on Muslims, to assault a clinic owned by Dhada' uncle. Analysts told the Associated Press that the arrests appeared to be a move by police to head off any further violence from Thackeray supporters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free-speech groups were outraged by the ransacking and arrests. In a blistering letter to the chief minister of Maharashtra state, a former Supreme Court justice who now heads the Press Council of India called the charges absurd and unlawful and demanded that the police officers involved be prosecuted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship," Markandey Katju wrote.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Maharashtra director-general of police ordered a probe into the arrests Monday, Indian television station <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/mumbai-after-outrage-dgp-orders-probe-into-girls-arrest-over-antithackeray-facebook-post/306336-37.html">IBN reported</a>. The two women were reportedly released on bail during the day.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Shiv Sena political party that Thackeray founded has polarized Mumbai over the years with campaigns against Muslims and migrants. His death put the city on high alert over the weekend amid fears of violence. As shops were shuttered and taxis sat idle, some Mumbai residents grew frustrated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"When tens of thousands were making similar comments ... how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?” wrote Pranesh Prakash of the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A">Center for Internet and Society</a>. He added, "This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/la-times-nov-19-2012-emily-alpert-two-women-arrested-over-facebook-gripe-on-mumbai-shutdown'>https://cis-india.org/news/la-times-nov-19-2012-emily-alpert-two-women-arrested-over-facebook-gripe-on-mumbai-shutdown</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-01-15T09:26:33ZNews ItemTwo Arguments Against the Constitutionality of Section 66A
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/two-arguments-against-the-constitutionality-of-section-66a
<b>Gautam Bhatia explores the constitutionality of Section 66A in light of recent events.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In the immediate aftermath of the elections, free speech issues have come to the fore again. In Goa, a Facebook user </span><a href="http://m.firstpost.com/politics/goa-facebook-user-faces-jail-term-for-anti-modi-comments-1538499.html">was summoned</a><span> for a post warning a second holocaust if Modi was elected to power. In Karnataka, a MBA student was </span><a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/aap-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-forwarding-anti-modi-mms-in-karnataka/article1-1222788.aspx">likewise arrested</a><span> for circulating an MMS that showed Modi’s face morphed onto a corpse, with the slogan “</span><i>Abki baar antim sanskaar</i><span>”. These arrests have reopened the debate about the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, which is the legal provision governing online speech in India. </span><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act">Section 66A</a><span> criminalises, among other things, the sending of information that is “</span><i>grossly offensive or menacing in character</i><span>” or causes “</span><i>annoyance or inconvenience</i><span>”. The two instances cited above raise – not for the first time – the concern that when it comes to implementation, Section 66A is unworkable to the point of being unconstitutional.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Like all legal provisions, Section 66A must comply with the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of – </span><i>inter alia</i><span> – “public order, decency or morality”. Presumably, the only way in which Section 66A can be justified is by showing that it falls within the category of “public order” or of “morality”. The precedent of the Supreme Court, however, has interpreted Article 19(2) in far narrower terms than the ones that Section 66A uses. The Court has </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386353/">held</a><span> that “public order” may only be invoked if there is a direct and immediate relation between the offending speech and a public order disturbance – such as, for instance, a speaker making an incendiary speech to an excited mob, advocating imminent violence (the Court has colloquially stated the requirement to be a “</span><i>spark in a powder keg</i><span>”). Similarly, while the Court has never precisely defined what “morality” – for the purposes of Article 19(2) – means, the term has been </span><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1623275/">invoked</a><span> where (arguably) pornographic materials are concerned – and never simply because speech has “offended” or “menaced” someone. Indeed, the rhetoric of the Court has consistently rejected the proposition that the government can prohibit individuals from offending one another.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>This raises two constitutional problems with Section 66A: the problems of </span><i>overbreadth </i><span>and </span><i>vagueness</i><span>. Both doctrines have been developed to their fullest in American free speech law, but the underlying principles are universal.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A statute is </span><i>overbroad </i><span>when it potentially includes within its prohibitions </span><i>both</i><span> speech that it is entitled to prohibit, and speech that it is not. In </span><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/518/case.html"><i>Gooding v. Wilson</i></a><span>, a Georgia statute criminalized the use of “</span><i>opprobrious words or abusive language</i><span>”. In defending the statute, the State of Georgia argued that its Courts had read it narrowly, limiting its application to “fighting words” – i.e., words that by their very nature tended to incite an imminent breach of the peace, something that was indisputably within the power of the State to prohibit. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and invalidated the statute. It found that the words “opprobrious” and “abusive” had greater reach than “fighting words”. Thus, since the statute left “</span><i>wide open the standard of responsibility, so that it [was] easily susceptible to improper application</i><span>”, the Court struck it down.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A statute is </span><i>vague </i><span>when persons of “</span><i>ordinary intelligence… have no reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited</i><span>.” In </span><a href="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/grayned.html"><i>Grayned v. Rockford</i></a><span>, the American Supreme Court noted that </span><i>“</i><i>a vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” </i><span>There are, therefore, a number of problems with vague laws: one of the fundamental purposes of law is to allow citizens to plan their affairs with a degree of certainty. Vagueness in legislation prevents that. And equally importantly, vague laws leave a wide scope of implementing power with non-elected bodies, such as the police – leading to the fear of arbitrary application.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>While overbreadth and vagueness are problems that affect legislation across the board, they assume a particular urgency when it comes to free speech. This is because, as the American Supreme Court has recognized on a number of occasions, speech regulating statutes must be scrutinized with specific care because of the </span><i>chilling effect</i><span>: when speech is penalized, people will – out of fear and caution – exercise self-censorship, and the political discourse will be impoverished. If we accept – as the Indian Courts have – that a primary reason for guaranteeing free expression rights is their indispensability to democracy, then the danger of self-censorship is one that we should be particularly solicitous of. Hence, when speech-regulating statutes do proscribe expression, they must be clear and narrowly drawn, in order to avoid the chilling effect. As the American Supreme Court euphemistically framed it, “</span><i>free speech needs breathing space to survive</i><span>.” Overbroad and vague speech-restricting statutes are particularly pernicious in denying it that breathing space.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>There seems to be little doubt that Section 66A is both overbroad and vague. However ill-judged a holocaust comparison or a morphed corpse-image may be, neither of them are like sparks in a powder keg, which will lead to an immediate breach in public order – or “immoral” in the way of explicit pornography. We can therefore see, clearly, that the implementation of the law leaves almost unbounded scope to officials such as the police, provides room for unconstitutional interpretations, and is so vaguely framed that it is almost impossible to know, in advance, what actions fall within the rule, and which ones are not covered by it. If there is such a thing as over-breadth and vagueness </span><i>par excellence</i><span>, then Section 66A is surely it!</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>At various times in its history, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the problems of overbreadth, vagueness and the chilling effect, but never directly incorporated them into Indian law. As we have seen, each of these elements is connected to the other: over-broad and vague speech-regulating statutes are problematic because of the chilling effect. Since Section 66A is presently being challenged before the Supreme Court, there is a great opportunity for the Court both to get rid of this unconstitutional law, as well as strengthen the foundations of our free speech jurisprudence.</span></p>
<div class="kssattr-macro-text-field-view kssattr-templateId-blogentry_view.pt kssattr-atfieldname-text plain" id="parent-fieldname-text" style="text-align: justify; ">
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i>Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/two-arguments-against-the-constitutionality-of-section-66a'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/two-arguments-against-the-constitutionality-of-section-66a</a>
</p>
No publisherGautam BhatiaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionConstitutional LawCensorshipSection 66A2014-06-04T03:42:17ZBlog EntryTwitter’s Censorship Move Aimed at Regaining China?
https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china
<b>Twitter, the popular social networking site for micro-blogging, has announced it is open to content censorship and region-based filtering, if required by law. The service boasts nearly 300 million users from across the world. Vinod Yalburgi writes this in the International Business Times.</b>
<p>In a Twitter post - "Tweets Must Still Flow", the service's management has stated: "Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country, while keeping it available in the rest of the world." <br /><br />Twitter's drastic move comes in the wake of recent U.S. government allegations against Internet sites like Google, Yahoo and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/372/facebook/">Facebook</a>, regarding the need to regulate and filter controversial user-generated content. Both Google and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289019/20120128/facebook-timeline-privacy-5-things-basics.htm">Facebook</a> have made similar commitments. </p>
<h3><strong>Like us on Facebook</strong></h3>
<p class="getfaceBook">However, it must be seen if either of the three do follow through with those commitments.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">Meanwhile, experts quoted in a report by The Times of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/420/india/">India</a>, where too social networking Web sites are coming under the scanner, suggest the lack of clarity in laws in countries like <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/420/india/">India</a> means Twitter can only act reactively; the situation in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/352/germany/">Germany</a> or France, for example, where laws about pro-Nazi propaganda are codified, they can act proactively.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">Another post by Twitter speaks of a new feature that will allow the site's administrators to enable region-based selective content blocking, thereby allowing region-sensitive information to remain hidden from users in those areas. The post also cited the example of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/352/germany/">Germany </a>and France: "Some countries differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">There is also speculation that one reason for this decision could be Twitter's plans to re-enter the Chinese market, where the micro-blogging service has been banned since 2009. Incidentally, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/227/china/">China</a> boasts the largest number of Internet users in the world, at this moment.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">The hope, for Twitter, must be the promise to block sensitive tweets (or those the Chinese government deems offensive) without affecting the global audience. Twitter has rarely resorted to such censorship practices. However, the company does not seem unwilling to shy away from that responsibility.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">"...if and when we are required to withhold a tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld," the company's statement said.<br /><br />"The region-specific blocking was already being used on video hosting websites like <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/YouTube">Youtube</a> and Hulu, where due to the wishes of copyright owners many videos are not available in India. Twitter is extending this technology to its tweets," said Pranesh Prakash at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people. Cultural ethos is very important to us," Kapil Sibal, the Indian Telecom Minister, said last month, during his request to both Google and <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/372/facebook/" class="external-link">Facebook</a> to filter offensive content.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">The trend of social networking Web sites resisting censorship seems a thing of the past. Prakash recalls an incident in 2011, when the U.S. government sought detailed information about a Twitter user, only to be challenged, by the Internet company, in court.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289008/20120128/twitter-censorship-content-filtering-china-block-tweets.htm">Read the original published by International Business Times </a>on 28 January 2012. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china'>https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-30T04:54:51ZNews ItemTwitter users hit back at government ban
https://cis-india.org/news/www-hindustantimes-com-aug-24-2012-twitter-users-hit-back-at-govt-ban
<b>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.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Twitter-users-hit-back-at-government-ban/Article1-918505.aspx">Hindustan Times</a> on August 24, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 Indian 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.</p>
<p>Twitter, which does not have an office in India, declined to comment. There are about 16 million Twitter users in the South Asian country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has found itself on the defensive this week over what critics see as a clumsy clampdown on social media websites - including Google (GOOG.O), YouTube and Facebook - that has raised questions about freedom of information in the world's largest democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Dear GOI (Government of India), Keep your Hands Off My Internet. Else face protest" tweeted one user, @Old_Monk60.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Washington, the State Department urged New Delhi to balance its security push with respect for basic rights including freedom of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"As the Indian government seeks to preserve security we are urging them also to take into account the importance of freedom of expression in the online world," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nuland said Washington stood ready to consult with US companies as they discuss the issue with the Indian government, although it was not now directly involved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The unique characteristics of the online environment need to be respected even as they work through whether there are things these companies can do to help calm the environment," she said.</p>
<p><b>Indian journalists targeted</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government says Google and Facebook have largely cooperated while Twitter has been much slower to respond.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter has been instructed to remove 28 pages containing "objectionable content," an interior ministry official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If they do not remove the pages, the Indian government will take appropriate and suitable action," he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-hindustantimes-com-aug-24-2012-twitter-users-hit-back-at-govt-ban'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-hindustantimes-com-aug-24-2012-twitter-users-hit-back-at-govt-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-25T02:51:18ZNews ItemTwitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective
https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-aug-26-2012-twitter-handles
<b>Here's a weekend reading recommendation for the mandarins who run the Government of India: it's a freely downloadable, a 145-page long document called "After the Riots". It is a report by the Riot Communities and Victims Panel, set up by the British prime minister to study reasons for the cause, spread and the damage wreaked by the riots that occurred in towns and cities in England in early August 2011. </b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TV Mahalingam and Shantanu Nandan Sharma's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/15706015.cms?prtpage=1">published</a> in the Economic Times on August 26, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">During the riots, many British politicians had blamed <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/social-media">social media</a> for the quick spreading of lawlessness. "Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media," British Prime Minister <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/David-Cameron">David Cameron</a> had told the British parliament. Others called for social networking sites to be "switched off". That is perhaps why the word <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Twitter">Twitter</a> features four times in the report, <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Facebook">Facebook</a> twice, BBM once and the phrase 'social media' appears 39 times. <br /> <br /> So, what did the report have to say about the role of social media in the riots that tore through England? "Although social media was used to mobilise rioters, it has also been acknowledged that a number of forces used social media extensively to engage with their communities and provide reassurance during the riots," reads the report. <br /> <br /> The report also highlights that by using social media to provide and receive intelligence, social media "can become a crime fighting tool". It shot down the idea that social media be switched off during times of widespread and serious disorder. The panel also recommended that every neighbourhood policing team should acquire social media capability by the end of 2013.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img alt="Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective" class="gwt-Image" src="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/photo/15706315/.jpg" title="Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Bangalore Falling</strong> <br /> <br /> Bangalore's deputy commissioner of police Vincent S D'Souza has had a harrowing 10 days. He had been asking most of his friends to post his mobile number on all social media networks. D'Souza's message: if anyone from the Northeast feels insecure in any part of the city, contact him directly. <br /> <br /> But by then, the damage was already done. In the three days beginning August 15, as many as 37,000 people belonging to India's Northeastern region fled the city after SMS threats spread like a wildfire among the closely-knit Northeastern communities living in the city. <br /> <br /> "A lot of the damage happened through social media. The images of victims of <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Tibet">Tibet</a> earthquakes and Gujarat riots were morphed and passed on as those of <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Assam">Assam</a> riots. We busted a module in Bangalore. Seized computers and mobiles have given us enough leads," says D'Souza, who is in charge of intelligence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br /> Nitin Pai, founder of Takshashila Institution, a think tank, believes that the current crisis unfolded in two phases. The first phase, says Pai, was the events (the riots and mobilised violence) that occurred in Assam before August 15. The second phase, starting August 15, was the flight of Northeastern people from various parts of India after rumours of attacks began to flow. "To be fair, what happened between August 15 and August 18 was unprecedented in India," says Pai. <br /> <br /> "Perhaps, for the first time, the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Indian-government">Indian government</a> had legitimate reasons to censor speech," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Centre-for-Internet">Centre for Internet</a> and Society in Bangalore, adding that even international human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which India is a signatory, provide for restrictions in free speech for the protection of public order. <br /> <br /> However, what most people who have closely followed the events of the last fortnight, will disagree with is the way in which the government has gone about playing censor. "The government got in too late and went about too bluntly," says Pai.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img alt="In the developed world, police depts use Twitter to engage with their citizens — upload mugs and profiles of suspects, give advisories, etc." class="gwt-Image" src="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/photo/15706389/.jpg" title="In the developed world, police depts use Twitter to engage with their citizens — upload mugs and profiles of suspects, give advisories, etc." /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Subtle as a Sledgehammer </strong><br /> <br /> "Given that SMS-based mobilisation isn't new in India (stone-pelting incidents in Kashmir led to a ban on SMSes since 2010), the government has had almost 2-3 years to put in place the strategy and ability to counter the problem. The arrests of miscreants spreading rumours through SMSes should have happened sooner," says Pai. <br /> <br /> On August 17, two days after the trains from Bangalore began to fill up, an advisory signed by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT) chief Gulshan Rai cautioned intermediaries that "publishing and hosting of hateful and inflammatory content is an offence" under Section 69A and 79-3(b) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The advisory, which lacked specific details such as the names of the offenders and details of such content, asked all intermediaries to disable inflammatory and hateful content hosted on their website on "a priority basis". ICERT falls under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. <br /> <br /> "That essentially made intermediaries like ISPs the judges of what was inflammatory or hate speech and what wasn't," says Abraham. In the following days, more orders would come, this time from the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Ministry-of-IT">Ministry of IT</a> and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Department-of-Telecommunications">Department of Telecommunications</a> and they would worsen things even more. These orders were a lot more specific: they had URLs of websites, Twitter posts and Facebook pages that were ordered to be blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br /> However, like a Centre for Internet and Society posting revealed: the list wasn't compiled with enough care. Some items did not exist, others were not even web addresses and in some case, thanks to overzealous ISPs, whole websites were blocked instead of a page on the site. One webpage that actually busted doctored riot pictures was blocked. <br /> <br /> What gave teeth to the rumours that the government was using the events of August 15 to go after its critics was its crackdown on Twitter accounts. First, the government asked for a list of accounts parodying the PMO's account to be blocked, on charges of impersonation (which Twitter eventually did on Friday). <br /> <br /> On late Wednesday, several other people, including journalists, a tech entrepreneur, discovered that their accounts had been blocked by some ISPs. Even as speculation raged if this was the case of yet another trigger-happy ISP, the government maintained a stony silence, The Economic Times broke the story that it was a notification issued by Ministry of IT and Department of Telecommunications that resulted in these blocks. The blocked account holders meanwhile continued to tweet, thanks to the ISP-level blocks, making the whole affair shambolic.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img alt="Twitter and law enforcement" class="gwt-Image" src="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/photo/15706553/.jpg" title="Twitter and law enforcement" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Big, Bad Government?</strong> <br /> <br /> For its part, heavyweights from the government like <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Sushil-Kumar-Shinde">Sushil Kumar Shinde</a> and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Kapil-Sibal">Kapil Sibal</a> have maintained that this was just an effort to censor hate speech and not free speech. That's a line many are increasingly finding tough to believe, especially what this government tried to do late last year. In December 2011, Sibal had called a meeting of social networking companies like Facebook, Twitter and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Google">Google</a> and asked them to remove offensive content. <br /> <br /> A New York Times report had said that Sibal had showed the companies a page that maligned Congress president <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Sonia-Gandhi">Sonia Gandhi</a> and told them that this was "unacceptable". After heavy criticism followed Sibal's call to "pre-screen" content, the government backed off. So, is this government's second attempt to muzzle voices that it doesn't want heard? <br /> <br /> "Perhaps not. It's just government being itself: gauche, clumsy, big-brother like and swinging a club when it needs to be using a surgeon's knife," says a cyber security consultant who has worked with the government in the past. "But, it would be a good idea to keep track if any more blocks or bans come our way. That would be crucial," he adds. <br /> <br /> As for the companies themselves, Facebook and Google have "co-operated" in removing the "objectionable pages", while Twitter, after taking its time, knocked off the PMO "impersonators".<br /> <strong>Rules of Engagement</strong> <br /> <br /> Social media is posing challenges and opportunities for governments and law enforcement agencies across the world. In the developed world, police departments like the New York Police Department (@nypd) or London's Metropolitan Police department (metpoliceuk) use Twitter to engage with citizens. They upload mugs and profiles of suspects, give advisories and ask for retweets of missing persons' pictures. It's a game Indian authorities have just begun to play. <br /> <br /> "At best, cyber monitoring is a reactive intervention. So the strategy must be how best to live with social media and counter it [misinformation] from within," says GK Pillai, former Union home secretary. He suggests that the government must create a separate department to exclusively tackle issues arising out of social media and messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br /> <br /> "If social media is used for any propaganda, the government should use the same platform to counter it. If one hate message appears, there should be a thousand to counter it. We can't ban social media the way China has done it. We have to live with it," he adds. <br /> <br /> Social media is a challenge to existing legal frameworks like never before, even in countries where free speech is protected a lot more than ours. Last week, the New York Police Department went to court to get Twitter to reveal details of a person who had tweeted: "people had gonna die like Aurora" at a Broadway theatre. Initially, Twitter had refused to share details but eventually relented (after lots of criticism) and the matter was resolved 'without an arrest'. <br /> <br /> Things get even more complex, say government officials, because Twitter is a US-based company and claims that it is beyond India's jurisdiction. "Social media and disputes associated with it are relatively new areas [for India]. The US is already engaged in court battles with social media sites. We are a bit slow on this matter," admits Mohan Parasaran, additional solicitor general of India. <br /> <br /> Centre for Internet and Society's Abraham believes that the government needs to put in a process which is transparent when it comes to censoring hate speech. "Even in Saudi Arabia, when you go to a blocked site, reasons are given why the site is being blocked along with addresses of the offices where redressal can be sought," says Abraham. <br /> <br /> For now, observers say the Indian government needs to learn to engage and communicate better on social media. "There is a lot of hyperbole out there because the Indian government doesn't communicate — what it does and how it does things — very well. There is a lot of second-hand information and as a result a lot of speculation," says Pai. "Basically, the government is trying to use industrial age policies [like blocking] to solve information age issues," he adds. <br /> <br /> A first step, perhaps, is fine-tuning the guidelines for social media use for its departments published by the government last week. It will be a big challenge — a change of mindset — for the Indian government which is used more to monitoring and posturing than engaging. <br /> <br /> <strong>When the law & social media worlds intersect, the results can be not so pleasant. Here are a few examples:</strong> <br /> <br /> 1) An anonymous <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/tweet">tweet</a> that people were going to "die like Aurora" at Broadway show had the New York police department worried. So, the police approached Twitter for details about the account, which Twitter turned down. After some criticism, Twitter shared the details. The matter was resolved "without an arrest". <br /> <br /> 2) In Early 2010, Paul Chambers was stranded at Robin Hood Airport, south Yorkshire, thanks to cancellation of flights due to heavy snowfall. "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high," he tweeted. He was charged, asked to pay a fine and lost his job. However, two appeals later, Chambers conviction was overturned. <br /> <br /> 3) When footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the field after suffering a heart attack, 21-year-old Liam Stacey posted a vile, racist remark on Twitter about Muamba. When others questioned him, Stacey was combative and a case was registered against him. Even though Stacey admitted that he was drunk and that he was sorry, a court sentenced him to a 56-day imprisonment.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-aug-26-2012-twitter-handles'>https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-aug-26-2012-twitter-handles</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-07T09:22:47ZNews ItemTweets and twits
https://cis-india.org/news/www-thehindu-com-opinion-editorial-aug-25-2012-tweets-and-twits
<b>The orders issued by the Ministry of Communication and IT to block more than 300 items on the Internet, including Twitter handles, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, blogposts, pages of certain websites, and in some cases entire websites, tell a revealing story of a government that has simply not applied its mind to the issue of how to deal with hate speech, both cyber and traditional. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article3817241.ece">Hindu</a> on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's blog post is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There can be no argument against taking down material that can incite violence, and some of the targeted content rightly needed to be blocked. But this should have been done transparently, with judicial oversight. In the present case, it is not clear what laws have been invoked to block the items specified in the four orders issued from August 18 to 21. Certainly, the orders themselves do not make reference to any law. As pointed out by the Centre for Internet and Society (<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism" class="external-link">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism</a>), if the government had acted under the Information Technology Act, the host servers of the affected sites should have been notified and given 48 hours to respond under the IT Rules of 2009; and if it used the emergency provision in the Rules, which are themselves opaque, the orders should have come up before an ‘examination of request’ committee within 48 hours. Another serious problem is that the orders do not mention the duration of the blocks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Especially disturbing is the decision to block the Twitter handles of right-wing agitators and one pro-Hindutva journalist. Bad taste, warped logic and chauvinist comment do not, by themselves, add up to hate speech or criminal incitement. If an individual is really spreading hate through speech, print or the Internet, let the government proceed against him or her under the Indian Penal Code — where the courts will have the final word — rather than indulging in censorship that is pre-emptive and arbitrary. And mindless too: among the sites blocked is an anti-hate page on a Pakistani website which was one of the first to expose how fake photographs had been used to whip up Islamist passion on the Rakhine clashes in Myanmar. A London School of Economics-Guardian study of the 2011 London riots documents how Twitter was used extensively in a positive way, to organise community clean-up operations after the riots. On the other hand, their analysis of 2.5 million tweets showed, the response to messages inciting riots was ‘overwhelmingly negative’. The lesson from this is that it is possible to counter hate on social media through the same platform. This is really what the government should be doing, instead of the Sisyphean task of trying to block noxious content that will always find other ways of bubbling to the surface.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-thehindu-com-opinion-editorial-aug-25-2012-tweets-and-twits'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-thehindu-com-opinion-editorial-aug-25-2012-tweets-and-twits</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-25T07:45:43ZNews ItemTV versus Social Media: The Rights and Wrongs
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media
<b>For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a toilet, and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham's guest column was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130120/edit.htm#2">published in the Tribune </a>on January 20, 2013.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many in traditional media, especially television, look at social media with a mixture of envy and trepidation. They have been at the receiving end of various unsavoury characters online and consequently support regulation of social media. A common question asked by television anchors is "shouldn't they be subject to the same regulation as us?" This is because they employ the 'principle of equivalence', according to which speech that is illegal on broadcast media should also be illegal on social media and vice versa. According to this principle, criticising a bandh on national TV or in a newspaper op-ed or on social media should not result in jail time and, conversely, publishing obscene content, in either new or old media, should render you a guest of the state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given that Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, places more draconian and arguably unconstitutional limits on free speech when compared to the regulation of traditional and broadcast media, those in favour of civil liberties may be tempted to agree with the 'principle of equivalence' since that will mean a great improvement from status quo. However, we must remember that this compromise goes too far since potential for harm through social media is usually very limited when compared to traditional media, especially when it comes to hate speech, defamation and infringement of privacy. A Facebook update or 'like' or a tweet from an ordinary citizen usually passes completely unnoticed. On rare occasion, an expression on social media originating from an ordinary citizen goes viral and then the potential for harm increases dramatically. But since this is the fringe case we cannot design policy based on it. On the other hand, public persons (those occupying public office and those in public life), including television journalists, usually have tens and hundreds of thousands friends and followers on these social networks and, therefore, can more consistently cause harm through their speech online. For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a public or residential toilet and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ideally speech regulation should address the asymmetries in the global attention economy by constantly examining the potential for harm. This applies to both 'speech about' public persons and also 'speech by' them. Since 'speech about' public persons is necessary for transparent and accountable governance and public discourse, such speech must be regulated less than 'speech about' ordinary citizens. Let us understand this using two examples: One, a bunch of school kids referring to a classmate as an idiot on a social network is bullying, but citizens using the very same term to criticise a minister or television anchor must be permitted. Two, an ordinary citizen should be allowed to photograph or video-record the acts of a film or sports star at a public location and upload it to a social network, but this exception to the right of privacy based on public interest will not imply that the same ordinary citizen can publish photographs or videos of other ordinary citizens. Public scrutiny and criticism is part of the price to be paid for occupying public office or public life. If speech regulation is configured to prevent damage to the fragile egos of public persons, then it would have a chilling effect on many types of speech that are critical in a democracy and an open society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When it comes to 'speech by' those in public office or in public life - given the greater potential for harm - they should be held more liable for their actions online. For example, an ordinary citizen with less than 100 followers causes very limited harm to the reputation of a particular person through a defamatory tweet. However, if the very same tweet is retweeted by a television anchor with millions of followers, there can be more severe damage to that particular person's reputation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many in television also wish to put an end to anonymous and pseudonymous speech online. They would readily agree with Nandan Nilekani's vision of tagging all - visits to the cyber cafe, purchases of broadband connections and SIM cards and, therefore, all activities from social media accounts with the UID number. I have been following coverage of the Aadhaar project for the past three years. Often I see a 'senior official from the UIDAI' make a controversial point. If anonymous speech is critical to protect India's identity project then surely it is an important form of speech. But, unlike the print media, which more regularly uses anonymous sources for their stories, television doesn't see clearly the connection between anonymous speech and free media. This is because many of the trolls that harass them online often hide behind pseudonymous identities. Television forgets that anonymous speech is at the very foundation of our democracy, i.e., the electoral ballot.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-01-21T03:09:56ZBlog EntryTrending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims
<b>Twitter claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the Hashtag while it had not.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Puja Bhattacharjee was <a class="external-link" href="https://newscentral24x7.com/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-hate-muslims-yogi-adityanath-bjp-rss-twitter-trends/">published in News Central</a> on October 21, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.news24.com/Columnists/AlistairFairweather/In-darkies-Africa-20091106" rel="noopener" target="_blank">In 2009, Twitter took down a trending hashtag. The hashtag in question started in South Africa and had the word “darkie” in it. </a>That word is not a slur in South Africa, but it was used as a slur against the African Americans community in the USA. On receiving complaints, Twitter immediately removed that from trending topics though it was a clash of meanings between two different places.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Sunday evening, a hashtag of more insidious nature was trending in India. The hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8B_%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A3_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0">#मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार</a>, translated literally means “Total boycott of Muslims”. The incident is ominous given <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-violent-toll-of-hindu-nationalism-in-india" rel="noopener" target="_blank">rising apprehension across the world</a> that India is now in the grip of a violent form of Hindu Nationalism. The tweets in support of the hashtags were mostly from right-wing accounts, some of which not only called for the boycott of Muslims but also celebrated the persecution of Uighurs in China.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking to <em>NewsCentral24x7.com</em>, a Twitter spokesperson claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the hashtag from trending: “There are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules”. (<em>Full statement at the end of the story)</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However this was patently false since many users pointed out that the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/atti_cus/status/1186261563105132545" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continued to trend</a> even after Twitter’s statement. In Delhi, the hashtag continues to trend at number one. More disturbingly, as reported by <em><a href="https://thewire.in/communalism/ministers-hate-accounts-twitter-follow-boycott-muslims" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Wire</a> </em>some of the accounts tweeting in support of the hashtags are followed by the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also Read: <a class="post-title post-url" href="https://newscentral24x7.com/hate-crimes-muslims-madhya-pradesh-officer-change-name-communal-modi-government/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> Need To Change Name To Save Myself From Sword Of Hate: Muslim Bureaucrat From M.P. On The Atmosphere Of Hate In Modi II</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of Centre for Internet and Society, says that Twitter usually does not ban a hashtag. “They can remove it from trending and if people use it offensively, then they can ban that person or that tweet…. Twitter should put out a statement apologizing for and condemning this given they condemn white nationalists in the US.” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The hashtag was started ostensibly in retaliation of the murder Kamlesh Tiwari, 45, the president of the Hindu Samaj Party. Over the weekend, the police arrested five people in connection to the murder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Kamlesh Tiwari in his last<a href="https://scroll.in/video/941132/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-his-last-facebook-live-video-and-his-mothers-statement-blame-bjp" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> Facebook Live video</a> before his murder protested the removal of his security by the Yogi Adityanath government and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. His mother echoed his sentiments and has come out to say that there is no communal angle to his murder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The matter once again raises questions about the responsibility Big-Tech platforms like Twitter need to discharge in monitoring and combating hate speech. Many organizations in the USA, UK and Australia such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Women, Action and the Media (WAM!), Online Hate Prevention Institute and Sentinel Groups for Genocide Prevention have become increasingly invested in combating hate speech online by targeting Internet intermediaries and asking them to take greater responsibility in moderating content, in addition to raising awareness among users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An interactive map showing the trends of the hashtag from October 20 evening till October 21 morning in the sub-continent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, in India, the government’s proposed changes to Section 79 of the IT Act for restricting hate speech has led to fears of widespread censorship. The Internet Freedom Foundation published a <a href="https://internetfreedom.in/india-must-resist-the-lure-of-the-chinese-model-of-surveillance-and-censorship-intermediaryrules-righttomeme-saveourprivacy/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">comprehensive blog</a> on why such an amendment is undesirable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a report released in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended broadening the existing provisions of hate speech to include other criteria that are based on their gender and sexuality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It does not look at underlying reforms. Like understanding the link to violence and whether it should only be a provision which should apply to members of a minority community -linguistic, caste, religion,” says Apar Gupta, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He says if lawmakers are unwilling to substantively tinker with definitions in a very real and substantial way, they should come up with procedural safeguards instead.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter or any social media company has two levels of obligation – its own obligations towards its users which is under the terms of service contract under which it can proactively take down a speech if there is a violation of those standards. “They have a degree of discretion to do it as well. This is where most of the content takedowns happen which also results in a certain amount of criticism because they lack the consistency desired by people,” says Gupta.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second level of compliance is when a legal notice is sent by a judicial or executive authority. If they do not comply, their online immunity from liability for the content posted by the user can be removed and they can be prosecuted as an accessory or abettor to the content published on their platform. “Twitter can block the hashtag but what we are looking for is a much more credible law enforcement response based on the content of each tweet,” Gupta adds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In her book,<em> HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen</em>, the author <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/counter-speech-offers-effective-remedy-hate-speech">argues that</a> that censorial measures are ineffective and do not promote equality. Instead, Strossen, recommends forceful counter-speech and activism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In 2016, a report was issued about counterspeech on Twitter, coauthored by a group of scholars from the United States and Canada. The report, which included the first review of the “small body” of existing research about online counterspeech, concluded that hateful and other “extremist” speech was most effectively “undermined” by counterspeech rather than by removing it,” she writes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><em>Editors Note: </em>The hashtag discussed above is absolutely horrifying and historically widespread calls for ‘boycott’ have preceded genocide. While on one hand we cannot allow hate speech to become an excuse for governments to curb non-harmful, legal speech, the censor or counter debate cannot be allowed to become a veil for big-tech to wash its hands off the matter. There is now significant reportage which shows that hate speech essentially benefits social media platforms and therefore they are unwilling to curb it. In this specific case the double standards twitter has displayed in being prompt in one country while unresponsive in other is also a very disturbing aspect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Full statement by Twitter:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><em>“At Twitter our singular goal is to<a href="https://twitter.com/jack/status/969234275420655616" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> improve the health of the public conversation</a>, including ensuring the safety of people who use our service. As outlined in our<a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> Hateful Conduct Policy</a>, we do not tolerate the abuse or harassment of people on the basis of religion. As <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-trending-faqs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">per our Help Center</a>, there are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules. If people on Twitter see something that violates the Twitter Rules, the most important thing they can do is<a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/report-a-tweet" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> report it</a>, by clicking the drop down arrow at the top of the Tweet and selecting “Report Tweet.”</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims</a>
</p>
No publisherPuja BhattacharjeeFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2019-10-23T00:54:41ZNews ItemTo regulate Net intermediaries or not is the question
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-herald-aug-26-2012-to-regulate-net-intermediaries-or-not-is-the-question
<b>Given the disruption to public order caused by the mass exodus of North-Eastern Indians from several cities, the government has had for the first time in many years, a legitimate case to crackdown on Internet intermediaries and their users.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil's column was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274218/to-regulate-net-intermediaries-not.html">published</a> in the Deccan Herald on August 26, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was, of course, much room for improvement in the manner in which the government conducted the censorship. But the policy question that becomes most pertinent now is: do we need to regulate Internet intermediaries further? The answer is yes and no. <br /> <br /> There are areas where these intermediaries need to be regulated in order to protect citizen and consumer interest. But to deal with rumour-mongering and hate speech, there is sufficient provisions in Indian law to deal with the current disruption in public order and any similar disruptions in the future. <br /> <br /> It is a common misunderstanding to assume that all civil society organisations that advocate civil liberties on networked technologies are regulatory doves that wish to dismantle regulation of the private sector and allow them complete free hand for innovation and, perhaps, causing harm to public interest.<br /> <br /> The opposite is also not necessarily true. We are not hawks, those that believe in maximal regulation of the private sector. The state should regulate the private sector in areas where the citizens are unable to protect their own interest and self-regulation is inadequate. But there are many other areas where regulation needs to be dismantled in the interests of citizen and public interest. <br /> <br /> Dr Rohan Samarajiva, founder of a Colombo-based regional policy think tank LIRNEasia, explains this best using the ‘law of soft toys’. When his daughter was young he told her that in Sri Lanka there was a law which mandated that every time she got a new soft toy, she would have to necessarily give away another one.<br /> <br /> The regulatory lesson here is: the mandate for regulation cannot keep endlessly expanding. As the government moves into new areas of regulation, it should also exit other older areas where regulatory rupee is providing limited returns. These decisions should be based on evidence of harm caused to citizens and consumers. The following are a list of areas where regulation is required for Internet intermediaries:<br /> <br /> Privacy: India needs the office of the privacy commissioner established and an articulation of national privacy principles through the enactment of the long awaited Privacy Act. This privacy commissioner should be able to investigate complaints against intermediaries, proactively investigate companies, order remedial action and fine companies that violate the principles and other policies in force. Remedial action could require change in policies, features, data retention policies and services etc. <br /> <br /> Competition: Many of these intermediaries have been taken to court on anti-trust complaints, fined and subjected to remedial action by regulators in America and Europe. <br /> <br /> Earlier this year, BharatMatrimony.com has filed a complaint against Google at the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging anti-competitive practices in its Adwords program. In addition, based on a report submitted by Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), a civil society organisation, CCI has initiated an investigation into Google's search engine for anti-competitive practices. If they are found guilty of breaking competition law they could be fined up to 10 per cent of their turnover.<br /> <br /> Speech: Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits Parliament to enact laws that place eight categories of reasonable restrictions on speech. Unfortunately, the Information Technology Act and its associated rules attempts to expand these restrictions and in addition does not comply with the principles of natural justice. Ideally, all those impacted by the censorship should be informed and should be able to seek redress and reinstatement for the censured speech.<br /> <br /> The policy sting operation conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) last year demonstrated that intermediaries are risk-averse and tend to over-comply with takedown notices. There is a clear chilling effect on speech online and it is important that the Act and rules be amended at the earliest.<br /> <br /> Intellectual Property: Policies that fall under this inappropriate umbrella term for many differently configured laws make the yet unproven fundamental assumption that granting limited monopolies to rights holders, usually corporations, will result in greater innovation. However, citizen and consumer interest is protected through provisions for exceptions and limitations in laws such as copyright, patent, trademarks etc. Some examples of these safeguards that guarantee access to knowledge in Indian law include compulsory licences, patent opposition, fair-dealing etc. <br /> <br /> There are many other areas where special treatment may be required for intermediaries. For example tax law needs to handle evasion techniques like the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich. Given my lengthy wish-list of regulation of Internet intermediaries, why then has CIS become an NGO member of the Global Network Initiative?<br /> <br /> This is because I believe that technological development happen too quickly for us to purely depend on government regulation. Self-regulation has an important role to play in keeping up with these rapid changes. As self-regulatory norms mature they could be formalised into policy by the government.<br /> <br /> Therefore, I consider it a privilege that CIS has been accepted as a member of this self-regulatory initiative and we influence GNI norms using our Indian perspective. However, when self-regulation fails to protect public interest, then the government must step in to regulate Internet intermediaries.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-herald-aug-26-2012-to-regulate-net-intermediaries-or-not-is-the-question'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-herald-aug-26-2012-to-regulate-net-intermediaries-or-not-is-the-question</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-08-26T06:12:48ZBlog EntryTo preserve freedoms online, amend the IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-april-16-2019-gurshabad-grover-to-preserve-freedoms-online-amend-it-act
<b>Look into the mechanisms that allow the government and ISPs to carry out online censorship without accountability.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Gurshabad Grover was published in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/to-preserve-freedoms-online-amend-the-it-act/story-aC0jXUId4gpydJyuoBcJdI.html">Hindustan Times</a> on April 16, 2019.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The issue of blocking of websites and online services in India has gained much deserved traction after internet users reported that popular services like Reddit and Telegram were inaccessible on certain Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The befuddlement of users calls for a look into the mechanisms that allow the government and ISPs to carry out online censorship without accountability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among other things, Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which regulates takedown and blocking of online content, allows both government departments and courts to issue directions to ISPs to block websites. Since court orders are in the public domain, it is possible to know this set of blocked websites and URLs. However, the process is much more opaque when it comes to government orders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, issued under the Act, detail a process entirely driven through decisions made by executive-appointed officers. Although some scrutiny of such orders is required normally, it can be waived in cases of emergencies. The process does not require judicial sanction, and does not present an opportunity of a fair hearing to the website owner. Notably, the rules also mandate ISPs to maintain all such government requests as confidential, thus making the process and complete list of blocked websites unavailable to the general public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the absence of transparency, we have to rely on a mix of user reports and media reports that carry leaked government documents to get a glimpse into what websites the government is blocking. Civil society efforts to get the entire list of blocked websites have repeatedly failed. In response to the Right to Information (RTI) request filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre India in August 2017, the Ministry of Electronics and IT refused to provide the entire of list of blocked websites citing national security and public order, but only revealed the number of blocked websites: 11,422.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unsurprisingly, ISPs do not share this information because of the confidentiality provision in the rules. A 2017 study by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found all five ISPs surveyed refused to share information about website blocking requests. In July 2018, the Bharat Sanchar Nagam Limited rejected the RTI request by CIS which asked for the list of blocked websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of transparency, clear guidelines, and a monitoring mechanism means that there are various forms of arbitrary behaviour by ISPs. First and most importantly, there is no way to ascertain whether a website block has legal backing through a government order because of the aforementioned confidentiality clause. Second, the rules define no technical method for the ISPs to follow to block the website. This results in some ISPs suppressing Domain Name System queries (which translate human-parseable addresses like ‘example.com’ to their network address, ‘93.184.216.34’), or using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) headers to block requests. Third, as has been made clear with recent user reports, users in different regions and telecom circles, but serviced by the same ISP, may be facing a different list of blocked websites. Fourth, when blocking orders are rescinded, there is no way to make sure that ISPs have unblocked the websites. These factors mean that two Indians can have wildly different experiences with online censorship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Organisations like the Internet Freedom Foundation have also been pointing out how, if ISPs block websites in a non-transparent way (for example, when there is no information page mentioning a government order presented to users when they attempt to access a blocked website), it constitutes a violation of the net neutrality rules that ISPs are bound to since July 2018.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the rules in 2015 in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, recent events highlight how the opaque processes can have arbitrary and unfair outcomes for users and website owners. The right to access to information and freedom of expression are essential to a liberal democratic order. To preserve these freedoms online, there is a need to amend the rules under the IT Act to replace the current regime with a transparent and fair process that makes the government accountable for its decisions that aim to censor speech on the internet.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-april-16-2019-gurshabad-grover-to-preserve-freedoms-online-amend-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-april-16-2019-gurshabad-grover-to-preserve-freedoms-online-amend-it-act</a>
</p>
No publishergurshabadFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActInternet GovernanceInternet Freedom2019-04-16T10:09:41ZBlog Entry