The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 371 to 385.
Donald Trump is attacking the social media giants; here’s what India should do differently
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/donald-trump-is-attacking-the-social-media-giants-here2019s-what-india-should-do-differently
<b>For a robust and rights-respecting public sphere, India needs to ensure that large social media platforms receive adequate protections, and are made more responsible to its users.</b>
<p>This piece was first published at <a class="external-link" href="https://scroll.in/article/965151/donald-trump-is-attacking-the-social-media-giants-heres-what-india-should-do-differently">Scroll</a>. The authors would like to thank Torsha Sarkar for reviewing and editing the piece, and to Divij Joshi for his feedback.</p>
<hr />
<div id="article-contents" class="article-body">
<p>In retaliation to Twitter <a class="link-external" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/technology/twitter-trump-mail-in-ballots.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">labelling</a> one of US President Donald Trump’s tweets as being misleading, the White House signed an <a class="link-external" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">executive order</a>
on May 28 that seeks to dilute protections that social media companies
in the US have with respect to third-party content on their platforms.</p>
<p>The
order argues that social media companies that engage in censorship stop
functioning as ‘passive bulletin boards’: they must consequently be
treated as ‘content creators’, and be held liable for content on their
platforms as such. The shockwaves of the decision soon reached India,
with news coverage of the event <a class="link-external" href="https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/trump-twitter-spat-debate-rages-on-role-of-social-media-companies-120053100055_1.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">starting</a> to <a class="link-external" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/feud-between-donald-trump-and-jack-dorsey-can-have-long-lasting-effects-on-how-we-consume-media-in-india/articleshow/76111556.cms" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">debate</a> the <a class="link-external" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/trumps-move-against-social-media-cos-unlikely-to-change-indias-stand/articleshow/76094586.cms?from=mdr" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">consequences</a> of Trump’s order on how India regulates internet services and social media companies.</p>
<p>The
debate on the responsibilities of online platforms is not new to India,
and recently took main stage in December 2018 when the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology, Meity, published a draft set of
guidelines that most online services – ‘intermediaries’ – must follow.
The draft rules, which haven’t been notified yet, propose to
significantly expand the obligations on intermediaries.</p>
<p>Trump’s
executive order, however, comes in the context of content moderation
practices by social media platforms, i.e. when platforms censor speech
of their volition, and not because of legal requirements. The legal
position of content moderation is relatively under-discussed, at least
in legal terms, when it comes to India.</p>
<p>In contrast to
commentators who have implicitly assumed that Indian law permits content
moderation by social media companies, we believe Indian law fails to
adequately account for content moderation and curation practices
performed by social media companies. There may be adverse consequences
for the exercise of freedom of expression in India if this lacuna is not
filled soon.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block cms-block-heading">India vs US<br /></h3>
<p>A
useful starting point for the analysis is to compare how the US and
India regulate liability for online services. In the US, Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act provides online services with broad
immunity from liability for third party content that they host or
transmit.</p>
<p>There are two critical components to what is generally referred to as Section 230.</p>
<p>First,
providers of an ‘interactive computer service’, like your internet
service provider or a company like Facebook, will not be treated as
publishers or speakers of third-party content. This system has allowed
the internet speech and economy to <a class="link-external" href="https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-63/issue-3/articles/how-law-made-silicon-valley.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">flourish</a>
since it allows companies to focus on their service without a constant
paranoia for what users are transmitting through their service.</p>
<p>The
second part of Section 230 states that services are allowed to moderate
and remove, in ‘good faith’, such third-party content that they may
deem offensive or obscene. This allows for online services to instate
their own community guidelines or content policies.</p>
<p>In India,
section 79 of the Information Technology Act is the analogous provision:
it grants intermediaries conditional ‘safe harbour’. This means
intermediaries, again like Facebook or your internet provider, are
exempt from liability for third-party content – like messages or videos
posted by ordinary people – provided their functioning meets certain
requirements, and they comply with the allied rules, known as
Intermediary Guidelines.</p>
<p>The notable and stark difference between
Indian law and Section 230 is that India’s IT Act is largely silent on
content moderation practices. As Rahul Matthan <a class="link-external" href="https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/shield-online-platforms-for-content-moderation-to-work-11591116270685.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">points out</a>,
there is no explicit allowance in Indian law for platforms to take down
content based on their own policies, even if such actions are done in
good faith.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block cms-block-heading">Safe harbour</h3>
<div> </div>
<p>One
may argue that the absence of an explicit permission does not
necessarily mean that any platform engaging in content moderation
practices will lose its safe harbour. However, the language of Section
79 and the allied rules may even create room for divesting social media
platforms of their safe harbour.</p>
<p>The first such indication is
that the conditions to qualify for safe harbour, intermediaries must not
modify said content, not select the recipients of particular content,
and take information down when it is brought to their notice by
governments or courts.</p>
<p>Most of the conditions are almost a
verbatim copy of a ‘mere conduit’ as defined by the EU Directive on
E-Commerce, 2000. This definition was meant to encapsulate the
functioning of services like infrastructure providers, which transmit
content without exerting any real control. Thus, by adopting this
definition for all intermediaries, Indian law mostly considers internet
services, even social media platforms, to be passive plumbing through
which information flows.</p>
<p>It is easy to see how this narrow conception of online services is severely <a class="link-external" href="https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2.2-Gilespie-pp-198-216.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">lacking</a>.</p>
<p>Most prominent social media platforms <a class="link-external" href="http://guidelines." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">remove</a> or <a class="link-external" href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/16/instagram-fact-checking/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">hide</a> content, <a class="link-external" href="https://about.fb.com/news/2016/06/building-a-better-news-feed-for-you/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">algorithmically curate</a> news-feeds to make users keep coming back for more, and increasingly add <a class="link-external" href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">labels</a>
to content. If the law is interpreted strictly, these practices may be
adjudged to run afoul of the aforementioned conditions that
intermediaries need to satisfy in order to qualify for safe harbour.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block cms-block-heading">Platforms or editors?<br /></h3>
<p>For
instance, it can be argued that social media platforms initiate
transmission in some form when they pick and ‘suggest’ relevant
third-party content to users. When it comes to newsfeeds, neither the
content creator nor the consumer have as much control over how their
content is disseminated or curated as much as the platform does. By
curating newsfeeds, social media platforms can be said to essentially
‘selecting the receiver’ of transmissions.</p>
<p>The Intermediary
Guidelines further complicate matters by specifically laying out what is
not to be construed as ‘editing’ under the law. Under rule 3(3), the
act of taking down content pursuant to orders under the Act will not be
considered as ‘editing’ of said content.</p>
<p>Since the term ‘editing’
has been left undefined beyond the negative qualification, several
social media intermediaries may well qualify as editors. They use
algorithms that curate content for their users; like traditional news
editors, these algorithms use certain <a class="link-external" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Devito/publication/302979999_From_Editors_to_Algorithms_A_values-based_approach_to_understanding_story_selection_in_the_Facebook_news_feed/links/5a19cc3d4585155c26ac56d4/From-Editors-to-Algorithms-A-values-based-approach-to-understanding-story-selection-in-the-Facebook-news-feed.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">‘values’</a>
to determine what is relevant to their audiences. In other words, one
can argue that it is difficult to draw a bright line between editorial
and algorithmic acts.</p>
<p>To retain their safe harbour, the
counter-argument that social media platforms can rely is the fact that
Rule 3(5) of the Intermediary Guidelines requires intermediaries to
inform users that intermediaries reserve the right to take down user
content that relates to a wide of variety of acts, including content
that threatens national security, or is “[...] grossly harmful,
harassing, blasphemous, [etc.]”.</p>
<p>In practice, however, the
content moderation practices of some social media companies may go
beyond these categories. Additionally, the rule does not address the
legal questions created by these platforms’ curation of news-feeds.</p>
<p>The
purpose of highlighting how Section 79 treats the practices of social
media platforms is not with the intention of arguing that these
platforms should be held liable for user-generated content. Online
spaces created by social media platforms have allowed for individuals to
express themselves and participate in political organisation and <a class="link-external" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/07/11/public-attitudes-toward-political-engagement-on-social-media/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">debate</a>.</p>
<p>A
level of protection of intermediaries from immunity is therefore
critical for the protection of several human rights, especially the
right to freedom of speech. This piece only serves to highlight that
section 79 is antiquated and unfit to deal with modern online services.
The interpretative dangers that exist in the provision create regulatory
uncertainty for organisations operating in India.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block cms-block-heading">Dangers to speech<br /></h3>
<p>These dangers may not just be theoretical.</p>
<p>Only last year, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was <a class="link-external" href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-summoned-by-parliamentary-panel-on-feb-25-panel-refuses-to-hear-other-officials/story-8x9OUbNBo36uvp92L5nOKI.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">summoned</a>
by the Parliamentary Committee on Information Technology to answer
accusations of the platform having a bias against ‘right-wing’ accounts.
More recently, BJP politician Vinit Goenka <a class="link-external" href="https://www.medianama.com/2020/06/223-vinit-goenka-twitter-khalistan/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">encouraged people to file cases against Twitter</a> for promoting separatist content.</p>
<p>Recent <a class="link-external" href="https://sflc.in/sites/default/files/reports/Intermediary_Liability_2_0_-_A_Shifting_Paradigm.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">interventions</a>
from the Supreme Court have imposed proactive filtration and blocking
requirements on intermediaries, but these have been limited to
reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on free speech under Article
19 of India’s Constitution. Content moderation policies of
intermediaries like Twitter and Facebook go well beyond the scope of
Article 19 restrictions, and the apex court has not yet addressed this.</p>
<p>The
Delhi High Court, in Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj, has already
highlighted criteria for when e-commerce intermediaries can stake claim
to Section 79 safe harbour protections based on the active (or passive)
nature of their services. While the order came in the context of
intellectual property violations, nothing keeps a court from similarly
finding that Facebook and Twitter play an ‘active’ role when it comes to
content moderation and curation.</p>
<p>These companies may one day
find the ‘safe harbour’ rug pulled from under their feet if a court
reads section 79 more strictly. In fact, judicial intervention may not
even be required. The threat of such an interpretation may simply be
exploited by the government, and used as leverage to get social media
platforms to toe the government line.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block cms-block-heading">Protection and responsibility<br /></h3>
<p>Unfortunately,
the amendments to the intermediary guidelines proposed in 2018 do not
address the legal position of content moderation either. More recent
developments <a class="link-external" href="https://www.medianama.com/2020/04/223-meity-information-technology-act-amendments/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">suggest</a>
that the Meity may be contemplating amending the IT Act. This presents
an opportunity for a more comprehensive reworking of the Indian
intermediary liability regime than what is possible through delegated
legislation like the intermediary rules.</p>
<p>Intermediaries, rather
than being treated uniformly, should be classified based on their
function and the level of control they exercise over the content they
process. For instance, network infrastructure should continue to be
treated as ‘mere conduits’ and enjoy broad immunity from liability for
user-generated content.</p>
<p>More complex services like search engines
and online social media platforms can have differentiated
responsibilities based on the extent they can contextualise and change
content. The law should carve out an explicit permission to platforms to
moderate content in good faith. Such an allowance should be accompanied
by outlining best practices that these platforms can follow to ensure <a class="link-external" href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">transparency and accountability</a> to their users.</p>
<p>For
a robust and rights-respecting public sphere, India needs to ensure
that large social media platforms receive adequate protections, and are
made more responsible to its users.</p>
<p><em>Anna Liz Thomas is a law
graduate and a policy researcher, currently working with the Centre for
Internet and Society. Gurshabad Grover manages research in the freedom
of expression and internet governance team at CIS</em>.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/donald-trump-is-attacking-the-social-media-giants-here2019s-what-india-should-do-differently'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/donald-trump-is-attacking-the-social-media-giants-here2019s-what-india-should-do-differently</a>
</p>
No publisherAnna Liz Thomas and Gurshabad GroverContent takedownFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntermediary Liability2020-06-25T09:07:52ZBlog EntryDon’t SLAPP free speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tehelka-sunil-abraham-feb-3-2013-dont-slap-free-speech
<b>IIPM is proving adept at the tactical use of lawsuits to stifle criticism, despite safeguards. THE DEPARTMENT of Telecommunications, on 14 February, issued orders to block certain web pages critical of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM).</b>
<hr />
<p>Sunil Abraham's column with inputs from Snehashish Ghosh was <a class="external-link" href="http://tehelka.com/dont-slapp-free-speech/">published in Tehelka</a> on February 3, 2013 (Issue 9 Volume 10)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite our best efforts, we have not managed to get a copy of the court order. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of speculation among Internet policy experts on Twitter. What is the title of the case? Which judge issued the order? Who is the affected party? Why have mainstream media houses like Outlook not been served notice by the court? Is the infamous Section 66A of the IT Act to be blamed? That is highly unlikely. News reports suggest that a lower court in Gwalior has issued an ad interim injunction in a defamation suit. Most experts agree that this is a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, where a company uses the cost of mounting a legal defence to silence critics.</p>
<div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bullies with deep pockets use the law in very creative ways, such as forum shopping, forum shifting and the use of proxies. Forum shopping can be best understood through the example of mining giant Fomento suing Goan blogger Sebastian Rodrigues for $1 billion at the Kolkata High Court, even though Goa would have been a more logical location. Though IIPM lost an earlier case against <i>Careers360</i> before the Uttaranchal High Court, the offending URLs from that case are included in the latest block order, exemplifying successful forum shifting. The doctrine of ‘res subjudice’ does not permit courts to proceed in a matter which is “directly and substantially” similar to a previous suit between the same parties. Proxies are usually employed to circumvent this procedural doctrine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 19(2) of our Constitution empowers the State to create laws that place eight types (depending on how you count) of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. One of these reasonable restrictions is defamation. Tort law on defamation in India has been mostly borrowed from common law principles developed in the UK, which include a series of exceptions where the law cannot be used. In the present context, the exceptions important for the IIPM case include: fair and bona fide comment and matter of public interest. In addition, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code provides for 10 exceptions to defamation. The exceptions relevant to this case are: “first: imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published”, “ninth: imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests” and “tenth: caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good”. The criminal law on defamation in India is based on robust legal principles, but for the sake of public interest it’d be best to do away with such a law as it has far-reaching, chilling effects on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On interim injunctions in defamation suits, the Delhi High Court set an important precedent protecting free speech in 2011. While applying the English principle — the Bonnard Rule — the court in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd versus Greenpeace International held that a higher standard should be adhered to while granting an interim injunction in a defamation suit, because such an injunction might impinge upon freedom of expression and thus potentially be in violation of the Indian Constitution. This century-old rule states that “until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue… the importance of leaving free speech unfetter – ed is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions…”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the same case, the Court rejected the argument that since it was published online and thus had wider reach and greater permanence, an injunction should be granted. It observed that “publication is a comprehensive term, embracing all forms and mediums — including the Internet”, thus ruling out special treatment for the Inter net in cases of defamation. That is good news for free speech online in India. Now let’s stick to it.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tehelka-sunil-abraham-feb-3-2013-dont-slap-free-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tehelka-sunil-abraham-feb-3-2013-dont-slap-free-speech</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-02-28T11:22:09ZBlog EntryDiscussion on Ranking Digital Rights in India (Delhi, January 07)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/discussion-on-ranking-digital-rights-in-india-delhi-jan-07-2017
<b>Towards developing an understanding of how Indian ICT companies are recognising and upholding digital rights of their users, and to raise public awareness about the same, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS), with the support of Privacy International, has studied 8 Indian ICT companies, using the same methodology as the 2015 Corporate Accountability Index, to gain greater insight into company practices and initiate public dialogues. Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the study.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Download: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/CIS_RDRIndia-Discussion_07012017_Invitation.pdf">Invitation and agenda</a> (PDF)</h4>
<hr />
<p>The <a href="https://rankingdigitalrights.org/">Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Responsibility Index</a> is a project hosted by the Open Technology Institute at New America Foundation that aims to rank Information and Communications Technology (ICTs) companies with respect to their Governance, Freedom of Expression, and Privacy practices. The inaugural Corporate Accountability Index, released in November 2015, evaluated 16 companies based on the project’s methodology that included 31 indicators in total.</p>
<p>Towards developing an understanding of how Indian ICT companies are recognising and upholding digital rights of their users, and to raise public awareness about the same, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS), with the support of <a href="https://privacyinternational.org/">Privacy International</a>, has studied 8 Indian ICT companies, using the same methodology as the 2015 Corporate Accountability Index, to gain greater insight into company practices and initiate public dialogues.</p>
<p>Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the Ranking Digital Rights study. We will begin at 10:30 am with a round of tea and coffee.</p>
<p>The event is open to all but the venue has limited space. The participants are requested to RSVP by sending an email to <a href="mailto:nisha@cis-india.org?subject=RSVP: Ranking Digital Rights Discussion">nisha@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<p>To further encourage programmers, researchers, journalists, students, and users in general to use and contribute to the findings of the Ranking Digital Rights study, and critique the underlying methodology, we are also organising a “rankathon” on Sunday, January 08, at the CIS office in Delhi. More details can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/rankathon-on-digital-rights-delhi-jan-08-2017">here</a>.</p>
<p>We look forward to your participation and contribution to the discussion. Please support us by sharing this invitation with your colleagues and networks.</p>
<h2>Agenda</h2>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>10:30-11:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Coffee and Tea</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>11:00-11:15</strong></td>
<td><strong>Introduction</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>11:15-13:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Presentation of the Findings and Discussion</strong> <em>Divij Joshi and Aditya Singh Chawla</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>13:00-14:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Lunch</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>14:00-15:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Open Discussion #1: Parameters of Evaluation</strong><br />The RDR methodology was based upon evaluating commitments to uphold human rights through their services – in particular towards their commitment to users’ freedom of expression and privacy. Are there other parameters that may be considered in the Indian context?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>15:00-16:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Open Discussion #2: Towards Protecting Digital Rights</strong><br />What steps can be taken by the government, civil society, and industry in India to create an environment that recognizes and protects users digital rights? What are the relevant legal, political, and economic factors to take into consideration towards this? What are steps that other, multinational ICT companies have taken? Would these be realistic for Indian companies to implement?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>16:00-16:30</strong></td>
<td><strong>Conclusion</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>16:30-17:00</strong></td>
<td><strong>Coffee and Tea</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/discussion-on-ranking-digital-rights-in-india-delhi-jan-07-2017'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/discussion-on-ranking-digital-rights-in-india-delhi-jan-07-2017</a>
</p>
No publisheramberPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceRanking Digital RightsDigital Rights2016-12-29T07:07:34ZEventDigital native: Free speech? You must be joking!
https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-14-2017-digital-native-free-speech-you-must-be-joking
<b>India’s digital landscape is dotted with vigilante voices that drown out people’s right to free speech.</b>
<p>The article was published in the <b><a class="external-link" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/digital-native-free-speech-you-must-be-joking-4655464/">Indian Express</a></b> on May 14, 2017.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of speech and expression has always been a tricky issue. While all of us are generally in favour of defending our rights to speak what is in our hearts, we are not equally thrilled about the speech of others that we might not enjoy. While we know that free speech and expression are not absolute — there are blurred lines of things that are offensive, might cause harm, and are directed with malice at different individuals or collectives — we also generally accept that this is a freedom that marks the maturity and sustainability of a stable democratic system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, even when confronted with speech and expression that might be undesirable: a political view that contradicts ours, an expression of blasphemy or profanity, a voice of dissent that questions the status quo, or an unsavoury information tidbit that mocks at somebody we admire, we generally take it in good stride, and learn to deal and engage with these actions. We do this, because we know that trying to curtail somebody else’s rights to free speech, would eventually restrict our own capacity for it, thus reducing the scope of an engaged and critical society. Especially in countries like India, where everybody has an opinion, where people offer critiques over chai and join heated debates over paan, there’s no denying that we are fond of our rights and capacity to speak<br /> our minds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, within Digital India, these things seem to be changing fast. Every day we wake up to the cacophonous clamour of social media to realise that increasingly we are becoming an intolerant society filled with vigilantes bent on stopping people from saying things that we might just not like. In the ongoing saga of shrinking spaces of free speech, we now add the shameful incident at the Embassy of Sweden in India. On May 8, following mass populist trolling and complaints from the Twitteratti, the Embassy disinvited two women print and TV journalists — Swati Chaturvedi and Barkha Dutt — and cancelled their event, ironically, in the honour of World Press Freedom, on the topic of women’s participation in the online public space, to talk about trolls.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I shall wait here for the bitter irony to sink in: two of the strongest women voices in Indian public media, were disinvited to speak from an event where they were to talk about their experience of being trolled, harassed, bullied and intimidated in the newly emerging digital media landscape. Instead of giving them a voice, sharing their experiences, and engaging with their stories, the hypermasculine army of right wing vigilantes who object to these women’s history of critique of the current government and its leaders, decided to show their Twitter might, and celebrated as they succeeded in putting one more nail in the coffin of free and fearless speech in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some Twitter users went ahead and tagged their favourite leaders — @Narendramodi and @manekagandhibjp. They demanded, using their freedom of voice, to stop others from speaking. Social media networks have often been celebrated as alternative spaces where new, and unexpected voices can express their opinions without the fear of physical retribution or penalisation. While this has been consistently proven wrong by government authorities who have regularly policed, penalised and punished voices of dissent or disfavour, that at least is something we can notice, challenge and contest through legal redressal. However, with this new mob justice where the volume of voices engineered to amplify their disapproval, coupled with threats of violence and economic downfall (the users this time threatened to make a list of Swedish products and boycott them) is a recurring and disturbingly new phenomenon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Crowds have always had the power to demand and leverage change of their liking. However, on social media, this can take up more sinister forms, because a handful of people through Twitter bots and chat scripts can create the illusion of a hugely amplified voice that can then be used to threaten and restrict the scope of free speech. The mass bullying effect needs a strong counterpoint in the form of better internet governance policies and regulations that nurture safe spaces for the tinier voices to be heard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the same time, however, the stifling attempts require another strategy — the need to speak up against such acts of intimidation and silencing, not only from the regular people on the web, but from the officials and leaders who have sworn to protect our constitutional rights. And this is, perhaps, where our leaders are failing us. Because, in an age of hypervisibility, where every step they take is a selfie moment, where every move they make makes it to the headlines, and they take pride in documenting their life in exceedingly boring detail, it creates a deafening silence when the leaders remain mute to the slow dissipation of the rights to free speech and expression by the angry mobs of networked digitality.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-14-2017-digital-native-free-speech-you-must-be-joking'>https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-14-2017-digital-native-free-speech-you-must-be-joking</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionResearchers at WorkDigital India2017-06-08T01:16:01ZBlog EntryDIDP #33 On ICANN's 2012 gTLD round auction fund
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund
<b>This DIDP was filed to inquire about the state of the funds ICANN received from the last gTLD auctions.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, after years of deliberation ICANN opened the application round for new top level domains and saw over 1930 applications. Since October 2013, delegation of these extensions commenced with it still going on. However, 7 years since the round was open there has been no consensus on how to utilize the funds obtained from the auctions. ICANN until its last meeting was debating on the legal mechanisms/ entities to be created who will decide on the disbursement of these funds. There is no clear information on how those funds have been maintained over the years or its treatments in terms of whether they have been set aside or invested etc. Thus, our DIDP questions ICANN on the status of these funds and can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-33">found here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The response to the DIDP received on 24th April, 2019 states that that even though the request asked for information, rather than documentation, our question was answered. Reiterating that the DIDP mechanism was</span><span> developed to provide documentation rather than information.</span><span> </span><span>It stated that on 25 October 2018, Resolution 2018.10.25.23 was passed that compels the President and CEO to allocate $36 million to the Reserve Fund. The gTLD auction proceeds were allocated to separate investment accounts, and the interest accruing from the proceedings was in accordance with the new gTLD Investment Policy.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-09T15:51:47ZBlog EntryDIDP #31 Diversity of employees at ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann
<b>We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on race and citizenship.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This data is being requested to verify ICANN’s claim of being an equal opportunities employer. ICANN’s employee handbook states that they “...provide equal opportunities and are committed to the principle of equality regardless of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, political opinion or affiliation, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability.” The data on the diversity of employees based on race and nationality of their employees will depict how much they have stuck to their commitment to delivering equal opportunities to personnel in ICANN and potential employees.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The request filed by CIS can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-request">accessed here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherAkash SriramFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2018-08-21T09:26:48ZBlog EntryDetails emerge on government blockade of websites
https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites
<b>Facebook pages, Twitter handles among 300 unique web addresses blocked by ISPs.</b>
<hr />
<p>Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted in this article <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3812819.ece">published</a> in the Hindu on August 24, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Over the past week, the Ministry of Communications and IT has sent out orders to ISPs (Internet service providers) to block over 300 unique addresses on the Web, cracking down on websites, Facebook pages, YouTube videos and even Twitter handles, ostensibly to prevent incitement to communal tension and rioting.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>But a closer look at the specific URLs (web addresses) blocked by the government has given rise to doubts whether the government may have acted high-handedly, in some instances cracking down on parody Twitter handles.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Through four orders, one issued a day from August 18 to 21, the government sent out lists of specific URLs to be blocked by the Internet service providers.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>An analysis of the leaked government orders by blogger Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society (www.cis-india.org) revealed the extent of the government missive: in specific cases, it had asked for blocking of some portions of a website — like Facebook pages or Twitter handles — and in other instances asked for entire websites.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The government orders carried no specific reasons for the blockades. But in the backdrop of the paranoia surrounding the exodus of northeast people from South Indian cities, it appears that it may have been to disallow the use of the Web for spreading information that incites communal violence and rioting.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Cyber law expert N. Vijayashankar said though the government seemed to have acted within the Rules of IT Act 2008, the onus fell on it to justify the reasons why the specific websites were blocked and dispel doubts that there may have been some political motives at least pertaining to specific sites, especially in the blocking of some parody Twitter accounts spoofing the official Twitter account of the Prime Minister’s office (@PMOIndia).</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>“No website can be blocked permanently. Any blocked website must be taken up for review by a committee in a span of two months,” Mr. Vijayashankar added. “But sadly the review committee does not have any public representatives. It comprises only the secretaries to government.”</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>If the websites had indeed been blocked considering the emergency of the situation and keeping in mind national security, then the responsibility for preparing the list falls with the Home Ministry.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>“Whatever be the case, this cannot pave the way for clamping down on websites at one swipe,” Mr. Vijayashankar added.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The news about the clampdown set the social networks abuzz through Thursday. Popular humour Twitter account holder Ramesh Srivats tweeted: “Am slightly worried that some government guy will notice that all the offending sites have “http” in them, and then go ban that.”</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-28T09:51:01ZNews ItemDesiSec: Cybersecurity and Civil Society in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/desi-sec-cybersecurity-and-civil-society-in-india
<b>As part of its project on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia, the Centre for Internet & Society conducted a series of interviews with cyber security actors. The interviews were compiled and edited into one documentary. The film produced by Purba Sarkar, edited by Aaron Joseph, and directed by Oxblood Ruffin features Malavika Jayaram, Nitin Pai, Namita Malhotra, Saikat Datta, Nishant Shah, Lawrence Liang, Anja Kovacs, Sikyong Lobsang Sangay and, Ravi Sharada Prasad.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Originally the idea was to do 24 interviews with an array of international experts: Technical, political, policy, legal, and activist. The project was initiated at the University of Toronto and over time a possibility emerged. Why not shape these interviews into a documentary about cybersecurity and civil society? And why not focus on the world’s largest democracy, India? Whether in India or the rest of the world there are several issues that are fundamental to life online: Privacy, surveillance, anonymity and, free speech. DesiSec includes all of these, and it examines the legal frameworks that shape how India deals with these challenges.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the time it was shot till the final edit there has only been one change in the juridical topography: the dreaded 66A of the IT Act has been struck down. Otherwise, all else is in tact. DesiSec was produced by Purba Sarkar, shot and edited by Aaron Joseph, and directed by Oxblood Ruffin. It took our team from Bangalore to Delhi and, Dharamsala. We had the honour of interviewing: Malavika Jayaram, Nitin Pai, Namita Malhotra, Saikat Datta, Nishant Shah, Lawrence Liang, Anja Kovacs, Sikyong Lobsang Sangay and, Ravi Sharada Prasad. Everyone brought something special to the discussion and we are grateful for their insights. Also, we are particularly pleased to include the music of Charanjit Singh for the intro/outro of DesiSec. Mr. Singh is the inventor of acid house music, predating the Wikipedia entry for that category by five years. Someone should correct that.</p>
<p>DesiSec is released under the Creative Commons License Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC by 3.0). You can watch it on Vimeo: <a href="https://vimeo.com/123722680" target="_blank">https://vimeo.com/123722680</a> or download it legally and free of charge via torrent. Feel free to show, remix, and share with your friends. And let us know what you think!</p>
<hr />
<h2>Video</h2>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8N3JUqRRvys" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/desi-sec-cybersecurity-and-civil-society-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/desi-sec-cybersecurity-and-civil-society-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherLaird BrownCensorshipPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCyber Security FilmFeaturedChilling EffectCyber SecurityHomepageCyber Security Interview2015-06-29T16:25:43ZBlog EntryDesigning a Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN’s Policy Development Processes
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/designing-a-human-rights-impact-assessment-for-icann2019s-policy-development-processes
<b>As co-chairs of Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights (CCWP-HR) at International Corporation of Names and Numbers (ICANN), Akriti Bopanna and Collin Kurre executed a Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN's processes. It was the first time such an experiment was conducted, and unique because of being a multi-stakeholder attempt. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This report outlines the iterative research-and-design process carried out between November 2017 and July 2019, focusing on successes and lessons learned in anticipation of the ICANN Board’s long-awaited approval of the Work Stream 2 recommendations on Accountability. The process, findings, and recommendations will be presented by Akriti and Austin at CCWP-HR’s joint session with the Government Advisory Council at ICANN66 in Montreal during 2nd-8th November.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to download the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/designing-a-human-rights-impact-assessment-for-icann2019s-policy-development-processes">full research paper here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/designing-a-human-rights-impact-assessment-for-icann2019s-policy-development-processes'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/designing-a-human-rights-impact-assessment-for-icann2019s-policy-development-processes</a>
</p>
No publisherCollin Kure, Akriti Bopanna and Austin RuckstuhlFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2019-10-03T14:43:28ZBlog EntryDepartment of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS (2014-12-17, plaintext version)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.txt
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.txt'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActCensorship2014-12-31T15:21:21ZFileDepartment of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS (2014-12-17, compressed version)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order_compressed.pdf
<b>On December 17, 2014, the Dept. of Telecommunications blocked 32 URLs (as it was ordered to do so by the by Dept. of Electronics & IT — specifically the Designated Officer under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009), those being:
01) https://justpaste.it/
02) http://hastebin.com
03) http://codepad.org
04) http://pastie.org
05) https://pasteeorg
06) http://paste2.org
07) http://slexy.org
08) http://paste4btc.com/
09) http://0bin.net
10) http://www.heypasteit.com
11) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phorkie
12) http://atnsoft.com/textpaster
13) https://archive.org
14) http://www.hpage.com
15) http://www.ipage.com/
16) http://www.webs.com/
17) http://www.weebly.com/
18) http://www.000webhost.com/
19) https://www.freehosting.com
20) https://vimeo.com/
21) http://www.dailymotion.com/
22) http://pastebin.com
23) https://gist.github.com
24) http://www.ipaste.eu
25) https://thesnippetapp.com
26) https://snipt.net
27) http://tny.ct (Tinypaste)
28) https://github.com (gist-it)
29) http://snipplr.com/
30) http://termbin.com
31) http://www.snippetsource.net
32) https://cryptbin.com</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order_compressed.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order_compressed.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActCensorship2014-12-31T14:48:24ZFileDepartment of Labour Interaction Program: Online Business Platforms
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/department-of-labour-interaction-program-online-business-platforms
<b>The Department of Labour convened an interaction program of sorts at Vikas Soudha in Bangalore on 21st October, 2019 to hear the issues plaguing the emergent gig economy.</b>
<p>The blog post was edited by Ambika Tandon.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The meeting was called to hear and address the grievances of gig workers, (employed by online business platforms) in the presence of their employers. The meeting was presided by the esteemed Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, and the Secretary to the Labour Department, Shri Manivannan. The Minister began by disclosing that union members and delivery partners employed by online delivery companies (Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, Flipkart, etc.) had approached his office, with several complaints pertaining to the legal treatment or lack thereof, of gig workers across the nation. They also further identified the day-to-day concerns that they had to face (i.e. health & pay-related issues) as a consequence of their non-recognition under the labour law frameworks in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"<i>The majority of the delivery boys that aggregators (e.g. Swiggy, Ola, Uber, etc.) employ are full-time workers who depend solely on these companies for their income</i>." That was the refrain of most of the spokespeople supporting the cause of gig workers. These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the gig workers employed by online aggregators:</p>
<ol>
<li>Mr. G. S. Kumar (Food Delivery Partners Association)</li>
<li>Mr. Tanveer Pasha (Ola driver)</li>
<li>Mr. M. Manjunath (Auto Chalaka Okkuta) </li>
<li>Mr. Amit Gupta (Brand Strategist) </li>
<li>Ms. Kaveri (Researcher) </li>
<li>Mr. Basavaraj (Food Delivery Association)</li>
</ol>
<p><strong><i>"The delivery partners employed by online aggregators should be treated as full-time employees"</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. G.S Kumar, an office-bearer at the Food Delivery Partners Samithi set the context for the conversation, by identifying at the very outset that the term "delivery partners" is a misnomer and that they are largely full-time employees. They are further straddled with family commitments, health concerns, and dwindling pay structures. As such, he proclaimed that they are deserving of the protections statutorily available to employees (in the traditional sense of the term) under the extant labour legislations. It was also specifically highlighted by Mr. K.S. Kumar, that in status quo, delivery boys cannot avail of ESI, or PF benefits.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Furthermore, the protections the companies make available are also quite abysmal, for instance a Rs. 2 lakh accidental cover that's rarely ever paid. The practical exigencies of their itinerant lifestyles inhibit them from maintaining strict compliance with the protocols that are unfortunately condition precedents to obtaining the benefits they so desperately require. The language of these policies in the fine print often contains conditions that are quite hard to satisfy, and as such, the benefits remain inaccessible to the vast majority of drivers employed by these online business platforms. Adding value to this criticism of Mr. K.S. Kumar, Mr. Basavaraj later clarified that conditions such as requiring 24 hours of admittance for the processing of insurance claims, makes it nigh impossible for drivers plying the roads to ever materially avail of health or accidental insurance.</p>
<p><strong><i>"Ola/Uber drivers face serious health risks, as they ply the roads of Bangalore, and require functional insurance"</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tanveer Pasha, a member of the Ola/Uber Drivers Association, discussed the lived experiences of these delivery boys who ply the road, travelling nearly fifteen to twenty kilometres for each trip in peak Bangalore traffic. He narrated stories of trauma and violence faced by drivers, such as instances of heart attacks and accidents, which made the conversation a little heated. The minister then deftly interjected, by requesting them to be solution-centric, while discussing their grievances, as this aids the government's ability to balance the competing interests of both the aggregators and the gig workers.</p>
<p><strong><i>"A Government ombudsman is required to address the grievances of gig workers"</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To that effect, M. Manjunath from the Auto and Taxi Association asserted that insurance is a basic right that should be provided to the employees. Amit Gupta, Brand Strategist, spoke on behalf of his sister, previously employed at Swiggy, and stated that an ombudsman empowered to take complaints, even from gig workers, should be created. He believed this was imperative given that aggregators are de facto free to violate the terms and conditions prescribed in the employment order, as they have the resources to see the case through in court, whereas employees don't have much recourse, outside of trade unions. He concluded that for these delivery partners devoid of the right to collectivize, it becomes crucially important to maintain at the very least, a Government ombudsman.</p>
<p><strong><i>"Aggregators should not profit off of the positive network effects gained through delivery partners, and simultaneously deny their right to protest unfair business practices"</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ms. Kaveri, a researcher on the conditions of gig workers, brought to light some of the more egregious problems that are faced by these workers. For instance, they are removed from employment, at a moment's notice if they attempt to protest, and to that effect, she stated that Zomato had fired an employee that very day because he was supposed to participate in the meeting and make his case. She further specified that it was patently unfair to allow these aggregators to profit off of the positive network effects gained solely because of the delivery partners, and subsequently engage in cost-cutting practices like reducing the incentives that they receive.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to these claims, the Labour Minister invited representatives of online platforms to shed some clarity on the concerns raised by the gig workers they employ.</p>
<p>These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the online aggregators:</p>
<ol>
<li>Mr. Manjunath (Flipkart) </li>
<li>Mr. Panduranga (Legal Team, Swiggy) </li>
<li>Mr. Ashok Kumar (Zomato) </li>
</ol>
<p><strong><i>"Flipkart does provide significant benefits to its fixed-term contractors"</i></strong></p>
<p>Mr. Manjunath clarified his position on these issues, with regards to Flipkart, by stating that there is a tripartite classification amongst people who work there:</p>
<p>a) Full-time employees</p>
<p>b) Fixed Term Contractors (e.g. 8 or 10-month contract)</p>
<p>c) Interns</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He further affirmed that even for fixed term contractors, Flipkart offers ESI, and PF benefits. He also specified that they don't hire more employees or fixed-term contractors during peak season, but rather hire only interns to meet demand, as it offers the inexperienced interns a chance to gain industry exposure as well.</p>
<p><strong><i>"Swiggy empowers the agency of its delivery partners, and provides necessary benefits" </i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Panduranga, from the legal department at Swiggy, in direct response to the concerns about Swiggy, stated that the gig economy is emergent and that Swiggy and other such aggregators are merely technology platforms, facilitating end-to-end services (between different stakeholders, e.g. customer-driver-restaurant). In that sense, he clarified that the delivery partners they employ have the right to accept or deny deliveries and that there is no compulsion to commit to the work. Moreover, he specified that merely logging off the app frees up a delivery partner of his or her time. He opined that they have the freedom to work for multiple companies, and the process of joining and leaving is highly flexible. In that sense, he stated that a large number of students and after-office hours employees are the ones employing these apps as a means to generating quick cash flows (and as such, should not be treated as full-time employees). He also mentioned that there is up to 1 lakh for medical expenses, (which are currently being disbursed), and Rs. 5 lakhs for accidental death coverage as well. Mr. Ashok Kumar from Zomato also reaffirmed the statements of Mr. Panduranga.</p>
<p><strong><i>"Incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel gig workers to work hours akin to full-time employees"</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Basavaraj from the Food delivery Association/Samithi, along with all the other representatives clarified that it is extremely unlikely that the majority of gig workers are part-time and only in it for generating quick money. Instead, the majority of gig workers work 9-12-hour workdays, and in that sense, are really no different from traditional employees. Basavaraj stated that an examination of the travel logs of delivery partners will make it clear whether the majority of workers are part-time or full time. He also pointed out that incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel drivers to work long hours with poor working conditions. For example, drivers who don't operate during peak hours do not receive the incentives they are promised. Further, the manner of advertisement of these jobs is itself insidious, as the salary offering is inclusive of the money one would receive if they also met their incentive-targets. Basavaraj specified that the deceptive advertising of these companies is what leads to massive hordes of gig workers working, in essence, full-time jobs, and as such, they must require the protection of their rights enshrined under labour legislations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was also collective agreement from the spokespeople making a case on behalf of the gig workers, that the benefits provided on paper (health insurance for accident cases) are rarely ever provided, and that the process of acquiring the same is rife with hassles. However, this was met with fervent opposition from the spokespeople representing the online aggregators, who contended that these insurance payments were being sanctioned freely without inconvenience.</p>
<p><strong><i>Concluding Observations of the Labour Minister</i></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, identified that this is an emergent issue; one that requires serious consideration, as the gig economy is here to stay. He reaffirmed the social responsibility of the Government to inspect this matter and set up a legal framework, as it concerns the deprivation of agency for lakhs of people working as gig workers in the state, and across the country. He also affirmed that he is cognizant of the business interests at play. To that effect, he declared that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Shri. Balakrishnan would examine the relevant data at hand, hold necessary meetings with both parties, and submit a report on the creation of a prospective framework to regulate gig economies within one month. He stated that the Government will set up a framework with governing rules and regulations, based on the report submitted. He concluded by emphasizing the necessity for both parties to be trusting of one another and not render the working dynamic adversarial, however oppositional their competing interests maybe, as trust is a constitutive component of conflict resolution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/department-of-labour-interaction-program-online-business-platforms'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/department-of-labour-interaction-program-online-business-platforms</a>
</p>
No publisherBharath GururagavendranFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2019-10-29T06:05:56ZBlog EntryDelhi defends Internet blocking
https://cis-india.org/news/gulf-today-aug-25-2012-delhi-defends-internet-blocking
<b>India on Friday defended itself against accusations of heavy-handed online censorship, saying it had been successful in blocking content blamed for fuelling ethnic tensions.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Published in <a class="external-link" href="http://gulftoday.ae/portal/6b2874ab-3e6d-4049-bf2f-a89594fad170.aspx">Gulf Today</a> on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government over the past week has ordered Internet service providers to block 309 webpages, images and links on sites including Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, news channel ABC of Australia and Qatar-based Al Jazeera.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The orders were an effort to halt the spread of “hateful” material and rumours that Muslims planned to attack students and workers who have migrated from the northeast region to live in Bangalore and other southern cities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We have met with success. These pages were a threat to India’s national security and we demanded their immediate deletion,” Kuldeep Singh Dhatwalia, a spokesman for India’s home ministry said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Spreading rumours to encourage violence or cause tension will not be tolerated. The idea is not to restrict communication.” But Twitter users, legal experts and analysts criticised the government’s approach, which appeared to have resulted in only partial blocking of material, much of which was still accessible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The officials who are trusted with this don’t know the law or modern technology well enough,” Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society research group, told AFP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It is counter-productive. I accuse them of monumental incompetence, given that the main problem is that they are getting really bad advice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I hope that this fiasco shows the folly of excessive censorship and encourages the government to make better use of social networks and technology to reach out to people.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a strange irony, account of none other than Minister of State for Communication and Information Technology Milind Deora was suspended by Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But at the same time, a fake account similar to Deora’s remained active.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The followers of Deora on Twitter were in for a surprise when they found a search for his name showed “No people results for Milind Deora.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deora’s tweets gave the government’s version on the crackdown on the microblogging site and other social networking websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deora in his tweet on Thursday night had defended the government’s efforts to block hate content on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Ironically, let me clarify on Twitter that there is absolutely no intent of the government to curb freedom of social media platforms,” Deora’s tweet read.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Account suspended. The profile you are trying to view has been suspended...,” was the automated message that was seen on the Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The news of Deora’s account suspension spread like wild fire on the microblogging site with some making sarcastic comments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Communication Minister Milind Deora’s Twitter Account ‘Suspended.’ It’s like the home minister losing his house key,” read one of the tweets, while another user’s tweet read: “Ah! I know what happened. Milind Deora sent Twitter a list of people to (be) banned and signed his name under it.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has asked Internet service providers to block select 16 Twitter accounts, including that of some journalists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter has also removed six accounts, which resembled that of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) amid government’s assertion that action would be taken against those allowing objectionable content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a communication to the PMO, Twitter has said it has “removed the reported profile(s) from circulation due to violation of our Terms of Service regarding impersonation.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/gulf-today-aug-25-2012-delhi-defends-internet-blocking'>https://cis-india.org/news/gulf-today-aug-25-2012-delhi-defends-internet-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-27T04:13:10ZNews ItemDeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015
<b>Across India on 30 December 2014, following an order issued by the Department of Telecom (DOT), Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked 32 websites including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In February 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. We have received a response from DeitY which may be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf" class="external-link">seen here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this post, I shall elaborate on this response from DeitY and highlight some of the accountability and transparency measures that the procedure needs. To stress the urgency of reform, I shall also touch upon two recent developments—the response from Ministry of Communication to questions raised in Parliament on the blocking procedures and the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Section 69A and the Blocking Rules</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (S69A hereinafter) grants powers to the central government to issue directions for blocking of access to any information through any computer resource. In other words, it allows the government to block any websites under certain grounds. The Government has notified rules laying down the procedure for blocking access online under the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009 (Rules, 2009 hereinafter). CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file">download PDF</a>, 2.037MB).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">There are <em>three key aspects</em> of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Officers and committees handling requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Designated Officer (DO)</strong> – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.<br /><strong>Nodal Officer (NO)</strong> – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government. <br /><strong>Intermediary contact</strong>–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.<br /><strong>Committee for Examination of Request (CER)</strong> – The request along with printed sample of alleged offending information is examined by the CER—committee with the DO serving as the Chairperson and representatives from Ministry of Law and Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and representative from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). The CER is responsible for examining each blocking request and makes recommendations including revoking blocking orders to the DO, which are taken into consideration for final approval of request for blocking by the Secretary, DOT. <br /><strong>Review Committee (RC) </strong>– Constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951, the RC includes the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom). The RC is mandated to meet at least once in 2 months and record its findings and has to validate that directions issued are in compliance with S69A(1).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking</h3>
<p>Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a) Rule 6 lays out the first procedure, under which any person may approach the NO and request blocking, alternatively, the NO may also raise a blocking request. After the NO of the approached Ministry or Department of the State governments and Union Territories and/or any agency of the Central Government, is satisfied of the validity of the request they forward it to the DO. Requests when not sent through the NO of any organization, must be approved by Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory or the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, before being sent to the DO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The DO upon receiving the request places, must acknowledge receipt within 24 four hours and places the request along with printed copy of alleged information for validation by the CER. The DO also, must make reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary hosting the information, and having identified them issue a notice asking them to appear and submit their reply and clarifications before the committee at a specified date and time, within forty eight hours of the receipt of notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed and the CER gives it recommendations after hearing from the intermediary or the person has clarified their position and even if there is no representation by the same and after examining if the request falls within the scope outlined under S69A(1). The blocking directions are issued by the Secretary (DeitY), after the DO forwards the request and the CER recommendations. If approval is granted the DO directs the relevant intermediary or person to block the alleged information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">b) Rule 9 outlines a procedure wherein, under emergency circumstances, and after the DO has established the necessity and expediency to block alleged information submits recommendations in writing to the Secretary, DeitY. The Secretary, upon being satisfied by the justification for, and necessity of, and expediency to block information may issue an blocking directions as an interim measure and must record the reasons for doing so in writing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Under such circumstances, the intermediary and person hosting information is not given the opportunity of a hearing. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the request before the CER within forty eight hours of issuing of directions for interim blocking. Only upon receiving the final recommendations from the committee can the Secretary pass a final order approving the request. If the request for blocking is not approved then the interim order passed earlier is revoked, and the intermediary or identified person should be directed to unblock the information for public access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">c) Rule 10 outlines the process when an order is issued by the courts in India. The DO upon receipt of the court order for blocking of information submits it to the Secretary, DeitY and initiates action as directed by the courts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Confidentiality clause</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding all requests and actions taken thereof, which renders any requests received by the NO and the DO, recommendations made by the DO or the CER and any written reasons for blocking or revoking blocking requests outside the purview of public scrutiny. More detail on the officers and committees that enforce the blocking rules and procedure can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The response to our RTI from E-Security and Cyber Law Group is timely, given the recent clarification from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to a number of questions, raised by parliamentarian Shri Avinash Pande in the Rajya Sabha. The questions had been raised in reference to the Emergency blocking order under IT Act, the current status of the Central Monitoring System, Data Privacy law and Net Neutrality. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University New Delhi have extracted a set of 6 questions and you can read the full article <a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/governments-response-to-fundamental-questions-regarding-the-internet-in-india/">here</a>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of <em>a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date </em>and that <em>a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015)</em> under S69A through the Committee constituted under the rules therein. Further, a total of 2091 URLs and 143 URLs were blocked in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts of India in 2014 and 2015 (till 31 March 2015) respectively. The government also clarified that the CER, had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1<sup>st</sup><sup> </sup>January 2014 upto till date and so far, two orders have been issued to revoke 251 blocked URLs from 1st January 2014 till date. Besides, CERT-In received requests for blocking of objectionable content from individuals and organisations, and these were forwarded to the concerned websites for appropriate action, however the response did not specify the number of requests.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<colgroup> <col width="331"> <col width="90"> <col width="91"> <col width="119"> </colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="LEFT"><strong>Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="3">
<p align="CENTER"><strong>Number of websites</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2014</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2015</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>Total</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">None</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">216</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2091</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">143</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2234</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Recommendations to not block by CER</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">19</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Number of blocking requests revoked</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">251</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In a <a href="http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reveal-more/">response </a>to an RTI filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, DeitY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014.</p>
<h2>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In its recent judgment, the SC of India upheld the constitutionality of 69A, stating that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards. The constitutional challenge on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) considered the manner in which the blocking is done and the arguments focused on the secrecy present in blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/but-what-about-section-69a/">has pointed out</a>, there is no evidence of this in practice. The court has stressed the importance of a written order so that writ petitions may be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In doing so, the court seems to have assumed that the originator or intermediary is informed, and therefore held the view that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions. However, this recourse is rendered ineffective not only due to procedural constraints, but also because of the confidentiality clause. The opaqueness through rule 16 severely reigns in the recourse that may be given to the originator and the intermediary. While the court notes that rule 16 requiring confidentality was argued to be unconstitutional, it does not state its opinion on this question in the judgment. One expert, holds the <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/">view</a> that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, Sunil Abraham has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a">pointed</a> out, “block orders are unevenly implemented by ISPs making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.” As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders through which they are blocked exists, the public has to rely on media reports and filing RTI requests to understand the censorship regime in India. CIS has previously <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism">analysed</a> the leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests which have revealed that the block orders are full of errors and blocking of entire platforms and not just specific links has taken place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While the state has the power of blocking content, doing so in secrecy and without judical scrutiny, mark deficiencies that remain in the procedure outlined under the provisions of the blocking rules . The Court could read down rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions, and in not doing so, perhaps has overlooked the opportunities for reform in the existing system. The blocking of 32 websites, is an example of the opaqueness of the system of blocking orders, and where the safeguards assumed by the SC are often not observed such as there being no access to the recommendations that were made by the CER, or towards the revocation of the blocking orders subsequently. CIS filed the RTI to try and understand the grounds for blocking and related procedures and the response has thrown up some issues that must need urgent attention.</p>
<h2>Response to RTI filed by CIS</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30<sup>th</sup><sup> </sup>December 2014 and the response received from DeitY, E-Security and Cyber Law Group reveals that the websites had been blocked as “they were being used to post information related to ISIS using the resources provided by these websites”. The response also clarifies that the directions to block were issued on <em>18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015</em>, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">It is not clear if ATS, Mumbai had been intercepting communication or if someone reported these websites. If the ATS was indeed intercepting communication, then as per the rules, the RC should be informed and their recommendations sought. It is unclear, if this was the case and the response evokes the confidentiality clause under rule 16 for not divulging further details. Based on our reading of the rules, court orders should be accessible to the public and without copies of requests and complaints received and knowledge of which organization raised them, there can be no appeal or recourse available to the intermediary or even the general public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We also asked for a list of all requests for blocking of information that had been received by the DO between January 2013 and January 2015, including the copies of all files that had accepted or rejected. We also specifically, asked for a list of requests under rule 9. The response from DeitY stated that since January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 directions to block 143 URLs had been issued based on court orders. The response completely overlooks our request for information, covering the 2 year time period. It also does not cover all types of blocking orders under rule 6 and rule 9, nor the requests that are forwarded to CERT-In, as we have gauged from the ministry's response to the Parliament. Contrary to the SC's assumption of contacting the orginator of information, it is also clear from DeitY's response that only the websites had been contacted and the letter states that the “websites replied only after blocking of objectionable content”. </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Further, seeking clarification on the functioning of the CER, we asked for the recent composition of members and the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings including copies of the recommendations made by them. The response merely quotes rule 7 as the reference for the composition and does not provide any names or other details. We ascertain that as per the DeitY website Shri B.J. Srinath, Scientist-G/GC is the appointed Designated Officer, however this needs confirmation. While we are already aware of the structure of the CER which representatives and appointed public officers are guiding the examination of requests remains unclear. Presently, there are 3 Joint Secretaries appointed under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Home Ministry has appointed 19, while 3 are appointed under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, it is not clear which grade of scientist would be appointed to this committee from CERT-In as the rules do not specify this. While the government has clarified in their answer to Parliament that the committee had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1st January 2014 to till date, it is remains unclear who is taking these decisions to block and revoke blocked URLs. The response from DeitY specifies that the CER has met six times between 2014 and March 2015, however stops short on sharing any further information or copies of files on complaints and recommendations of the CER, citing rule 16.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Finally, answering our question on the composition of the RC the letter merely highlights the provision providing for the composition under 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The response clarifies that so far, the RC has met once on 7th December, 2013 under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, Department of Legal Affaits and Secretary, DOT. Our request for minutes of meetings and copies of orders and findings of the RC is denied by simply stating that “minutes are not available”. Under 419A, any directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 issued by the competent authority shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned RC within a period of seven working days. Given that the RC has met just once since 2013, it is unclear if the RC is not functioning or if the interception of messages is being guided through other procedures. Further, we do not yet know details or have any records of revocation orders or notices sent to intermediary contacts. This restricts the citizens’ right to receive information and DeitY should work to make these available for the public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Given the response to our RTI, the Ministry's response to Parliament and the SC judgment we recommend the following steps be taken by the DeitY to ensure that we create a procedure that is just, accountable and follows the rule of law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In upholding the constitutionality of S69A the SC cites the requirement of reasons behind blocking orders to be recorded in writing, so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">A</a><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">rticle 226</a> of the Constitution of India.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If the blocking orders or the meetings of the CER and RC that consider the reasons in the orders are to remain shrouded in secrecy and unavailable through RTI requests, filing writ petitions challenging these decisions will not be possible, rendering this very important safeguard for the protection of online free speech and expression infructuous. In summation, the need for comprehensive legislative reform remains in the blocking procedures and the government should act to address the pressing need for transparency and accountability. Not only does opacity curtial the strengths of democracy it also impedes good governance. We have filed an RTI seeking a comprehensive account of the blocking procedure, functioning of committees from 2009-2015 and we shall publish any information that we may receive.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionRTIIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFeatured69AInternet GovernanceChilling EffectTransparencyHomepageBlocking2015-04-30T07:37:40ZBlog EntryDecline in web freedom steepest in India: Report
https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-october-3-2013-javed-anwer-decline-in-web-freedom-steepest-in-india
<b>In a report on the state of internet in 60 countries, Freedom House, a US-based organization, said that in 2013 India saw the "most significant year-on-year decline" in terms of the web freedom.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Javed Anwer was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-10-03/internet/42663467_1_web-freedom-anja-kovacs-internet-democracy-project">published in the Times of India</a> on October 3, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report said that that the internet in India was "partly free". This is the same status that India had in 2012. But the country's score is now 47 points (higher means more censorship) in 2013 compared to 39 in 2012. The 8-point fall is the steepest Freedom House found among all 60 countries that the group surveyed. Freedom House said it recorded 5-point fall in Brazil, Venezuela and the US.</p>
<div class="mod-articletext mod-timesofindiaarticletext mod-timesofindiaarticletextwithadcpc" id="mod-a-body-after-first-para" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Despite mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for National Security Agency in the US, Freedom House calls the web in the country "free".</p>
<p>The Freedom House report said that in 2013 India "suffered from deliberate interruptions of mobile and internet service to limit unrest, excessive blocks on content during rioting in northeastern states, and an uptick in the filing of criminal charges against ordinary users for posts of social media sites".</p>
<p>In 2013, India's commitment to the web freedom has not only been worse than developed countries but has also been inferior to countries like Malawi, Tunisia and Mexico.</p>
<p>In the case of India, Freedom House particularly singles out Central Monitoring System, which Indian government is putting in place to regulate and monitor the web usage within the country. "Surveillance (under CMS) requires no judicial oversight. While some of this activity might be justifiable, the lack of transparency surrounding the system, which was never reviewed by Parliament, is concerning," it notes in the report. "The system's potential for abuse is also disquieting, as is its inadequate legal framework.</p>
<p>The report cites the case of the girl who was arrested for liking a Facebook post in Maharashtra, blocking of some <a href="http://timesofindia.speakingtree.in/topics/thoughts/twitter">Twitter</a> accounts belonging to Indian users, overly broad court directives that have resulted in blocking of websites and a general lack of transparency in how Indian government blocks or filters content reach a conclusion that Indians now have less freedom on how they use the web.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, director at Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, says that Freedom House reports are not very accurate because they don't factor in censorship by copyright holders. But he agreed with its basic premise that in India conditions for web users are getting more difficult.</p>
<p>"The report is absolutely right in pointing out that censorship and surveillance in India is increasing. Despite protests from many quarters, it is a real pity that the government is not taking steps to amend the IT act and has joined other nation states in the global race to the bottom of the internet freedom," said Abraham.</p>
<p>Anja Kovacs, founder of Delhi-based Internet Democracy Project, agrees. "I have some issues with Freedom House reports due to how they are prepared and their methodologies. But yes I can say that last year has been very eventful and difficult," said. "But at the same time, there has also been a lot of push back from web users and activists. There have been conversations around the issue of web censorship, which is good."</p>
<p>Globally, the web surveillance is on the rise. "Broad surveillance, new laws controlling web content, and growing arrests of social-media users drove a worldwide decline in internet freedom in the past year," noted Freedom House.</p>
<p>Overall, 34 out of 60 countries part of the report saw a decline in the web freedom. "Vietnam and Ethiopia continued on a worsening cycle of repression; Venezuela stepped up censorship during presidential elections; and three democracies—India, the United States, and Brazil—saw troubling declines," noted the report.</p>
Iceland and Estonia topped the list of countries with the greatest degree of internet freedom. China, Cuba, and Iran were found to be the most repressive countries.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-october-3-2013-javed-anwer-decline-in-web-freedom-steepest-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-october-3-2013-javed-anwer-decline-in-web-freedom-steepest-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-10-24T03:50:51ZNews Item