The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 391 to 405.
Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23
<b>This is Judge Sudesh Kumar's summons order (dated December 23, 2011) by which he notes there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed with trial against the intermediaries named and their senior officials. In the order he notes that, "It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network. It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same."</b>
<p>IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI</p>
<p>Complaint Case No. 136 of 2011</p>
<p>In the matter of:</p>
<p>Vinay Rai<br />
S/o Sh. Mahima Rai<br />
10 A. First Floor. Pritvi Raj Road<br />
New Delhi<br /></p>
<p>...Complainant</p>
<p>Versus</p>
<p>...Accused</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Facebook India<br />
Through its country head<br />
Ms. Kirthiga Reddy<br />
Office at: 4th Floor, Building-14. OPUS Towers,<br />
Mindspace. Cyberabad, APIIC SW Unit Layout.<br />
Madhapur. Hyderabad-500081<br />
kirthiga@fb.com 07799021119<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Facebook<br />
Through its chairman<br />
Donald Edward Graham —<br />
Facebook Corporate Office<br />
1601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto. CA 94304<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Google India (P) Ltd.<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Orkut<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Youtube<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Blogspot<br />
Through its Country head<br />
Shri Rajan Anandan<br />
8th and 9th Floors. Tower — C, Building No.8,<br />
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon - 122 002<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Google<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Youtube<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Blogspot<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Orkut<br />
Through its CEO, Larry Page — CEO<br />
1600, Amphitheatre, Parkway, Mountain View,<br />
CA 94043, USA<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yahoo India (P) Ltd<br />
Shri Arun Tadanki<br />
Building No.8, Tower-C,<br />
DLF Cyber CityPhase-2 Gurgaon-<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yahoo<br />
Through Roy J. Bostock — Chairman<br />
Yahoo! Inc. 701 1st Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94089<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Microsoft India (P) Ltd.<br />
Sri Bhaskar Pramanik 7th Floor,<br />
Cyber Green Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3<br />
Gurgaon – 122002<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Microsoft<br />
Through Steve Ballmer — CEO<br />
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way<br />
Redmond, WA 98052-7329 USA<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Zombie Time<br />
DNS Services, 1650-302 Margaret St #332<br />
Jacksonville, FL 32204-3869, US<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Exbii<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>BoardReader.com<br />
700 Tower Drive, Suite 140<br />
Troy, Michigan 48098 US<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>IMC India<br />
Through Sh. K.M. Gala-CEO, IMC India (Head Office)<br />
418, Swastik Chambers, Sion Trombay Road<br />
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071 (Maharashtra)<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>My Lot<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br />
MyLot LLC, 7415 W 130th St<br />
Suite #100, Overland Park, KS 66213, US<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Shyni Blog<br />
Through Sri Rajan Anandan<br />
C/o Google India (P) Ltd<br />
8th and 9th Floors. Tower—C, Building No 8,<br />
DLF Cyber City Gurgaon—122002.<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Topix<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br />
TOPIX.COM.P.O. Box 821650<br />
Vancouver, WA 98682, US<br /></p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR</p>
<p>Ld. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI</p>
<p>CC No. 136/1<br />
Vinay Rai Vs. Facebook<br />
PS Tughlak Road<br />
23.12.2011<br /></p>
<p>Order on Summoning:</p>
<p>The complainant in the present case is a Senior Journalist and Editor of Urdu Weekly namely Akbari. He has filed the present complaint U/s 200 Cr. PC r/w 156 (3) Cr. PC therein praying that the accused persons be summoned for having committed offences punishable U/ s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295 (A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant has submitted that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic content in question in the present complaint and also responsible for the management and control of online site and internet content and the accused includes those who used, posted and uploaded the material on the site through the internet. It is alleged by the complainant that the content in question has been hosted on various websites which is per-se inflammatory, unacceptable by any set of community standards; seeks to create enmity, hatred and communal Violence amongst various religious communities: is demeaning, degrading and obscene, and it will corrupt minds and adversely affect religious sentiments. It is further submitted that the complainant had received some information in this regard and while going through the contents in the above said websites realized that the same were unacceptable to the secular fabric provided by the Constitution of India and would be intolerable to any community or religion. It is further alleged that on a bare perusal of the contents it is clear that the same would certainly corrupt young minds below the age of 18 and even elders, it is highly provocative and which may even lead to consequences effecting communal harmony. The complainant has mentioned the names of the websites allegedly hosting the said objectionable content in the memo of parties and provided the alleged objectionable material in a sealed envelope. The complainant has further stated that the Social Networking Websites are meant only for providing content with respect to educational, historical, research material and entertainment work etc. as part of their commercial activities for social purposes. However, the objectionable content available on these social networking websites may lead to communal riots. It is further alleged that Government authorities have turned a blind eye to the same and do not have any established procedure or rules and guidelines to control and regulate the same. It is averred that the Government is least bothered and as usual waiting for some mishappening before taking some appropriate actions. Neither police officials nor the Government have initiated any action to curb or check these activities sou moto and failed to register any case against the above named accused persons under any law to remove such contents from there. The complainant has further alleged that the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zombie Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. It is alleged that the accused persons knowingly allowed these contents and materials to be hosted in the websites which is dangerous to communal harmony with common and malfide intentions and have failed to remove the objectionable content for their wrongful gain. The complainant further stated that he has provided the said contents to the Court, in a sealed cover with request for directions not to publicize the offensive and inflammatory material which may lead to communal disharmony under his social responsibility. It is further stated by the complainant that the said contents available and hosted on the these sites are per-se unacceptable and clearly established the offences punishable under various provisions mentioned in the IPC and in case no action is taken against the accused person the same will cause serious prejudice to our society and social values provided and protected under the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as a member of the community the complainant is not only individually hurt but also believes that it such content is allowed to continue on these platforms in this form, then incalculable and irreparable damage will be caused to the secular fabric of India. It is alleged that all those who are responsible for allowing this content to be hosted on the websites conspired with those who are the source of such content, and those who are promoting such material with malice to defame the country and with intent to spread communal violence to destabilise the country with undisclosed persons and are liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences U/s 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and120-B IPC.</p>
<p>It is further averred that the contents which are shown on the social networking websites are clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony as is quite apparent on a bare look at the material available on these social networking websites. It is further stated that the content which has been shown on these websites amount to imputations, assertions, which are prejudicial to national integration. It is alleged that the contents which are available on these social networking websites are obscene may lead to creation of obscene books, pamphlets, paper, which can easily be downloaded from these social networking websites affecting the minds of children and was harmful for social harmony and may lead to increase in crime against women also.</p>
<p>That the contents which are clearly mentioned and annexed in the sealed cover show the malafide intentions of these social networking websites hosting such content in these websites is an act of malice intended to outrage, religious feelings of classes of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. It is averred that the cause of action for filing the present complaint has risen on 8.12.2011 when the complainant downloaded these pictures and photos and these facts came to the knowledge of the complainant while sitting at his above stated residence and still continuing.</p>
<p>The complainant prays that the above said accused persons alongwith undisclosed persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC.</p>
<p>The complainant has thereafter examined four witness in support of his complaint. Complainant Mr. Vinay Rai has examined himself as CW 1 in pre summoning evidence and he deposed on oath that he has gone through the contents which have been posted on various social networking websites as alleged and the documents downloaded from those sites are original as these have been downloaded directly from those websites. He produced Ex. CW 1/A-1 to Ex. CW 1/A-16 which have been downloaded from the website named as www.zombietime.com. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-17 has been downloaded from Orkut which is arrayed as accused no.4 and 10. He also proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-18 downloaded from website mylot.com, which is a pre-se defamatory to all politicians. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-19 to Ex. CW 1/A-22 were downloaded from the post of topix.com and the contents are dangerous for our social structure and community. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-23 to Ex. CW 1/A-36 which are posted by the service provider youtube.com without any sensor or prohibitory or disclaimer which is also dangerous for communal harmony and peace. He deposed that Youtube shown as accused no.5 and 8 provided the internet service and allowed to post these defamatory contents on websites and same is available to people below 18 years of age also which was also alarming danger to our society and Country. He deposed that such contents are against the secular fabric of our society, religion and culture. The witness has further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-37 to Ex. CW 1/A-48 are taken from the website facebook.com. He further proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-49 to Ex. CW 1/A-52 as provided by the blogspot.com, which is arrayed as accused at number 6 & 10 in the complaint and these documents are obscene and against the culture of our Country. He further stated that the blogspot is being managed by googleindia and googleinternational who have already been arrayed as accused in his complaint. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-53 has been taken from the website exbii.com, which provides services through google.com. The contents of the said exhibit are dangerous to our society and same has also been shown as political conspiracy to destabilize our Country. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-54 has been taken from website indymedia.org and same has been shown as a article posted by imcindia.org, which is against the Hinduism and defamatory to our religion. He further stated that the Ex. CW 1/A-55 provided by broadreader.com which is defamatory to Indian politicians and the Ex. CW 1/A-56 and Ex. CW 1/A-57 have been taken from the service provider blogspot.com which has been provided by the websites Further more, the complainant has deposed on the lines of his complaint. It is further prayed by the complainant that said accused persons alongwith certain undisclosed person were liable to be prosecuted U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. It is further deposed by the complainant that all the contents were clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.</p>
<p>Complainant thereafter examined Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex as CW 2 in pre summoning evidence, who deposed on oath that he was not only a practicing Orthodox Christian but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents on the websites in question. He further stated that the present complaint is filed by the complainant not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever user and post the material on the site through internet. CW 2 further deposed that the contents of the website in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that on bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequences. He deposed that the contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He stated that the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intentions of the these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused persons and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>Thereafter Dr. Aziz Ahmad Khan was examined as CW 3, who also deposed on oath that he is a scholar and P.HD. in Urdu but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He also deposed that the complainant has filed the present complaint not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused person are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He also deposed that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that the on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to dangerous consequences. He submitted that these contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He deposed that if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further deposed that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further deposed that all the documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>Mr. Rahul Agrawal was examined as CW 4 in pre summoning evidence by the complainant, who also deposed on oath that he is a Journalist and running a News Agency and he is a secular person and believe to maintain peace and harmony amongst the society and Country. He stated that he felt offended when he had seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He further stated that accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He further stated that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further stated that even on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequence. He further stated that the contents as exhibited prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony and if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further stated that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that the contents hosted on each of these websites are ex-facie scurrilous, defamatory, prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions and communities, likely to cause fear and generate a feeling of insecurity amongst members of religious communities, obscene by any criteria of community standards of obscenity, seeks to corrupt young minds, malicious and insulting to religions and religious feelings of persons and under no stretch of imagination be considered to be under freedom of speech and expression. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>No other Complainant witness was examined in pre summoning evidence and the pre summoning evidence was closed. As the addresses of most of the respondents are beyond the jurisdiction of this court, an enquiry report U/s 202 Cr. PC was sought from the SHO concerned regarding the authenticity of documents as filed in the court.</p>
<p>SHO PS Tughlak Road has furnished this enquiry report on 17.12.2011. Today, the matter has been fixed for Orders on summoning. The complainant has furnished about 60 internet generated print outs alongwith the complaint in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened during pre summoning evidence. I have gone through each and every internet generated print out. Today, complainant has also furnished a CD submitting that the same contained the vulgar and obscene data available on the networks of the proposed accused and print outs of which were placed on record vide Annexure-A.</p>
<p>To my mind the printouts as furnished and exhibited on bare perusal are found to be obscene, lascivious, indecent and shocking. The printouts shown are totally degrading and demeaning. Some of the printouts are showing various religious idols in a very degrading, demeaning and obscene way which are certainly unacceptable to any person professing such religion and also to civilized society as a whole. There are obscene picture and derogatory articles pertaining to Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and various Hindu God and Godesses. There are defamatory and obscene articles pertaining to various Indian political leaders. The contents are certainly disrespectful to the religious sentiments and faith and seem to be intended to outrage the feelings of the religious people whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. There are certain degrading and obscene photographs of various political leaders belonging to different political parties and the photographs pasted and the language used is also obscene, filthy and degrading.</p>
<p>Prima facie, I am satisfied that the material produced on record will promote enmity between different religious sections and groups and a feeling of hatred and ill-will between them would be promoted if the offensive material was allowed to be publicised as such. The documents are certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups. They tend to promote feeling of insecurity amongst members of some religion. The documents are obscene and could certainly corrupt the minds of the young. Most of the obscene pictures produced on record are tending to hurt the feelings of different religions. In my considered view, the said contents are certainly prejudicial to national harmony and integration. The publication of such offensive and inflammatory material which has tendency to inflame minds cannot be considered to be an expression of freedom of speech by any stretch of imagination in civil society. Having gone through the record, I am satisfied that the said contents produced on record by the complainant and which were available on various websites are not protected by the doctrine of free speech of expression under our Constitution. In fact much content fell foul of Provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.</p>
<p>The Counsel for complainant has further argued vehemently that the offensive material as placed on record was just a part of a very large bunch of such content which was available on these networks. He further argued that it was impossible that availability of such content in such large quantity was publicised without the knowledge and connivance of the accused persons. He further alleged that all the accused persons in connivance with each other and some unknown persons have intentionally and knowingly permitted such content to be publicised just for the sake of commercial gains.</p>
<p>Having gone through the record, I find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. All the accused persons are involved in the business of publication and are providing service of the electronic contents to users. They are certainly doing it for commercial gain. The accused persons having full control over the working of their sites it seems have purposely promoted and publicised offensive material for their commercial gains. It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network.</p>
<p>It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same. It is also evident that such contents are continuously openly and freely available to every one who is using the said network irrespective of their age and even the persons under the age of 18 years have full and uncensored access to such obscene contents.</p>
<p>From the above, it is clear that there is prima facie material on record against the accused persons for committing offences U/s 292/293/120 IPC and they are liable to be summoned for facing trial for the same.</p>
<p>However, from the testimony of these witnesses examined on record belonging to three different religions alongwith the material produced on record, it is evident that the same promotes enmity between different groups and religions, which is certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and communal harmony. The accused persons through the publication and promotion of the offensive material as produced on record seem to be promoting disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions. The act / omission on part of the accused person as alleged certainly tends to prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different groups and religions. The imputations and assertions and publications as produced on record are prejudicial to the national interest.</p>
<p>The contents as produced by the complainant are insulting and outrageous to the religious feelings of various classes of people.</p>
<p>From the above as argued vehemently by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I find, prima facie, that the accused persons are liable to be summoned for offences U/s 153-A, 153-B and 295-A IPC. However, owing to the embargo under section 196 Cr. PC which prohibits taking of cognizance under the said Provisions except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government or District Magistrate, the accused persons are not summoned for the said offences. All the accused persons however, be summoned for facing trial U/s 292, 293 and 120-B IPC for 13.01.2012 on filing of PF.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for complainant has also vehemently argued that even the Government of India seems to have turned a blind eye to the offensive, degrading and demeaning content on these websites which is outrageous and also against national integration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, let a copy of this Order be also sent to the Government of India through the Secretary (Information and Technology), Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law) for taking the immediate appropriate steps in this regard and file a report on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2012.</p>
<p>Sudesh Kumar / MM / ND / 23.12.2011.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionCourt Case2012-03-15T07:53:05ZPageSave Your Voice — A movement against Web censorship
https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship
<b>‘Save Your Voice (SYV)’ is a movement against Web censorship and its main demand is the repealing of the Information Technology Act, said SYV founders, Aseem Trividi, a cartoonist, and Alok Dixit, a journalist, on Monday. </b>
<p>DNA Correspondent covered a press conference held on March 12, 2012 in Bangalore. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the story.</p>
<p>Trivedi’s website — www.cartoonistagainstcorruption.com — was banned during Anna Hazare’s movement. Trivedi said: “Mumbai police banned the website without any prior notice and cases of ‘treason’ were also filed. The website was banned without a judicial order and I haven’t received an explanation about the crime committed.”</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, said the private sector does not protect the freedom of expression.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_save-your-voice-a-movement-against-web-censorship_1661820">Read the original published by Daily News & Analysis on March 13, 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-03-13T11:44:27ZNews ItemIndia debates limits to freedom of expression
https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression
<b>From Google to Facebook, from world-famous author Salman Rushdie to a little-known political cartoonist, it has become increasingly easy in recent months to offend the Indian government, and to incur the wrath of the censor or even the threat of legal action.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression/2012/02/02/gIQAHkOY9Q_story.html">This article by Simon Denyer was published in the Washington Post on February 13, 2012</a>. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this.</p>
<p>In the world’s largest democracy, many Indians say freedom of expression is under attack, and along with it the values of pluralism and tolerance that have bound this nation of 1.2 billion people together since independence from Britain more than 64 years ago.</p>
<p>India’s democracy is nothing if not raucous. The huge array of newspapers and 24-hour television news channels are often vociferous in their criticism of politicians. But the media’s determination to root out corruption in the past two years has prompted a backlash. Talk of more stringent regulation is mounting.</p>
<p>At the same time, artists say their creative freedom has been steadily eroded. Even <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/mitt-romney-joke-on-jay-leno-angers-indian-sikhs/2012/01/23/gIQAYJX4KQ_blog.html">Jay Leno managed to offend Indian Sikhs</a> — and prompt an official government complaint — with a satirical reference to their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple, in a joke about Mitt Romney’s vacation homes.</p>
<p>At fault, many say, is a thin-skinned government that gives in to the demands of violent mobs, ostensibly to make political gains but in fact to suppress its critics.</p>
<p>“For a country that takes great pride in its democracy and history of free speech, the present situation is troubling,” said Nilanjana Roy, a columnist and literary critic. “Especially in the creative sphere, the last two decades have been progressively intolerant.”</p>
<p><strong>Targeting authors, artists </strong></p>
<p>Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” was banned in India in 1988,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/salman-rushdie-video-interview-canceled-amid-muslim-protests/2012/01/24/gIQAtVRUNQ_blog.html"> was forced to cancel appearances at the Jaipur Literature Festival</a> last month after threats of violence from Muslim groups and a warning about a possible assassination attempt — information he said was probably fabricated by authorities to keep him away.</p>
<p>Wary of alienating Muslim voters in ongoing state elections, not a single Indian politician spoke out in favor of Rushdie’s right to be heard.</p>
<p>Last month, <a class="external-link" href="http://cpj.org/blog/2012/01/indias-challenge-intolerance-vs-intellectual-freed.php">the screening of a documentary on Kashmir was canceled</a> at a college in the city of Pune after right-wing Hindus objected, and an artist was beaten in his gallery in Delhi for showing nude paintings of actresses and models that his attackers claimed were an insult to the country.</p>
<p>The release of the <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kolkata-Book-Fair-cancels-release-of-Taslima-Nasreens-book/articleshow/11715363.cms">latest book by Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen</a> was canceled in Kolkata after Muslims protested, and <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/cpj.org/blog/2012/01/can-an-indian-cartoonist-be-barred-from-mocking-th.php" class="external-link">Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year-old political cartoonist</a>, was charged with treason and insulting India’s national emblems in drawings inspired by activist Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most shocking episode for advocates of freedom of expression has been <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/facebook-google-tell-india-they-wont-screen-for-derogatory-content/2011/12/06/gIQAUo59YO_blog.html">the government’s attempt to muzzle Facebook and Google</a> — and prosecute the companies’ executives — for content posted on their sites deemed to be offensive. “Like China, we can block all such Web sites,” warned the judge hearing the case in the Delhi High Court.</p>
<p>The government cites images insulting to one or another of India’s religions, content it says could provoke unrest. It is up to social media sites, the government says, to manually screen and censor all potentially offensive content or face prosecution.</p>
<p>“No freedom can be absolute,” said the chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice Markandey Katju. “The hold of religion is very strong in India, and you have to respect that. You can’t go insulting people.”</p>
<p>Katju’s concerns are perhaps understandable in a country whose birth was scarred by the mass murder of Hindus and Muslims at the time of independence in 1947. But the effect, critics say, is to give the mob the power of veto and take away a fundamental right in a free society: the right to offend others.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham at the Center for Internet and Society says the government’s proposals on Web censorship would kill the vibrancy of the Internet in India. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales warned that they would scare off investors and crush the country’s potential to become a true leader in the Internet industry.</p>
<p>The irony, according to critics, is that the concern over religiously offensive content was little more than an excuse: What appears to have really offended the ruling Congress party were defamatory images of their idolized leader, Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p>“The myth that is spread is that the government is acting against hate speech and obscenity. But when the government acts to control information on the Internet, it is usually defamatory or potentially defamatory content against people and politicians,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>Almost a year ago, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021602323.html">Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the media </a>were undermining the nation’s self-confidence by harping on official corruption. Since then, talk of tighter media regulation has grown louder.</p>
<p>And despite the vibrancy of India’s mainstream English-language media, the country’s ranking on the press freedom index of the journalism advocacy group <a class="external-link" href="http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html">Reporters Without Borders</a> has dropped, from 105th in 2009 to 131st last year.</p>
<h3>An optimistic view</h3>
<p>Arnab Goswami, the editor and anchor of the Times Now television channel, points to television’s dramatic success in exposing official corruption in the past two years to argue that there is plenty to be optimistic about.<br /><br />Courts in India generally have a better record than do politicians of defending freedom of expression. And there are people in government, including Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni, determined to resist the temptation to take a harder line.<br /><br />“The pressure was enormous, to control the media, to clamp down on the media,” she said. “But I did withstand the pressure.”<br /><br />Soni said she sees self-regulation by the media rather than official regulation as the way forward. She maintains that, for example, the debate about Rushdie has not necessarily done India any harm.<br /><br />“That’s the strength of Indian society,” she said. “You have discussed it, everyone has had their say on the matter, the government has had its share of criticism, yet we’ve moved on.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-02-28T09:50:37ZNews ItemMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPageIndia won't censor social media: Telecom Minister
https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media
<b>India does not intend to censor online social networks such as Facebook, a minister said Tuesday, but he demanded that they obey the same rules governing the press and other media. The article by AFP was published in the Tribune on February 14, 2012.
</b>
<p>“I never wanted to censor social media and no government wants to do so. But like the print and electronic media, they have to obey the laws of the country.” He held a number of meetings with leading Internet companies late last year in which he asked about the possibility of checking content before it is posted online by users.<br /> <br />The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of obscene images found on the Internet that risked offending Muslims or defaming politicians, including the boss of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi. “The media reported I had said I wanted to pre-screen the content on social media. I have never even heard the word pre-screen,” he told the summit.<br /> <br />Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their platforms. The government has given its sanction for the firms to be tried for serious crimes such as fomenting religious hatred and spreading social discord — offences that could land company directors in prison.<br /> <br />“All I want is that they (social media) should follow the laws of the land. Social media must not consider itself to be above that,” Sibal said. But Internet privacy groups say social media sites may not have the resources to screen obscene material that violates local laws posted on the Internet. Local laws prohibit the sale or distribution of obscene material as well as those that can hurt religious sentiments in overwhelmingly-Hindu India.<br /> <br />“It is just not humanly possible to pre-censor content and Sibal knows that very well,” said Rajan Gandhi, founder of a New Delhi-based advocacy group Society in Action. Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said he was “glad Sibal does not believe in censorship and that companies operating in India should follow local laws.” “But on the other hand he has asked them to evolve new guidelines and actively monitor user content which is not legally sanctioned. This makes him look two-faced,” Prakash added.</p>
<p>Google and Facebook said earlier this month they had removed the allegedly offensive content used as evidence in the court cases.</p>
<p>The groups have appealed to the Delhi High Court asking for the cases against them to be quashed on the basis they cannot be held responsible for their clients’ actions. The comments of a judge hearing the case raised further fears that freedom of expression online could be restricted. “You must have a stringent check. Otherwise, like in China, we may pass orders banning all such websites,” the judge said at the January hearing. Facebook is banned in China and Google moved its operations out of the country in 2010 in protest at censorship laws there.</p>
<p>The debate about social networks mirrors a larger national dialogue about freedom of speech in the world’s biggest democracy following recent protests by religious groups. Indian-origin writer Salman Rushdie was prevented from speaking at a literature festival in Jaipur last month after Muslim groups protested against his presence over his allegedly blasphemous 1988 novel “The Satanic Verses.” A group led by author and journalist Nilanjana Roy organised public readings of banned literary works on Monday to protest against what it said were recent curbs on intellectual freedom.</p>
<p>The initiative, called “Flashreads for free speech”, was widely advertised on social networks including Twitter and Facebook.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilgN7BOvkKddNXocYI9gMMd4XkvQ?docId=CNG.c0ad44e4f11cacfb71d75ae1fe1d813b.5b1">Originally published by AFP</a> and reproduced in the <a class="external-link" href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/336345/india-wont-censor-social-media-telecom-minister/">Tribune.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-03-01T07:15:29ZNews ItemPrometheus bound and gagged
https://cis-india.org/news/prometheus-bound-and-gagged
<b>Funny how a healthy person like me can collapse one day and end up in the hospital. The doctor who made me go through every lab test available, finally diagnosed the cause after a chat with me. Apparently, I collapsed because I’m getting angry, increasing my blood pressure. The only solution he said is to stop reading newspapers, as I’m getting agitated by headlines like ‘India can go the China way and block sites’, or by how the government says there’s no Internet censorship while all it’s actions point the other way.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://expressbuzz.com/tech/Prometheus-bound-and-gagged/355194.html">The article by Adarsh Matham was published in the New Indian Express on 20 January 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>Censorship is a word that is particularly abhorrent for someone like me, who grew up listening to tales of how people like Ramnath Goenka fought the censors during the Emergency. And to say that we’ll start blocking websites in India like China is doing, the most heart wrenching moment I’ve ever heard. While researching for this piece, I came across some information that is out in the open on the Internet, but which is not generating the level of debate it deserves. We seem to be immersed in discussing Kolaveri, while slowly sliding into an Orwellian nightmare. As an example, I didn’t know there are rules called ‘Intermediary Guidelines’ and ‘Cyber cafe rules’, and I bet you didn’t either. As Pranesh Prakash of Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has pointed out in a blog post, these two rules alone, made up by the Department of IT in April 2011, give the government and citizens of India great powers at censoring the web by allowing them to get Internet firms to remove content that is ‘disparaging’, ‘doesn’t have rights to’, etc.</p>
<p>Killing freedom of speech is only the first crime of these rules as proved by the good people at CIS. To test these rules, they complained against some frivolous content to ISPs and Internet companies, which resulted in six out of seven listings being removed without informing posters or users. More alarmingly, of the 358 items the Government of India (and some states) has requested Google to remove, only eight were for hate speech, one for national security, and an astounding 255 for ‘government criticism’.</p>
<p>Since introducing these draconian rules, the tale only gets murkier. Not content with asking Internet firms to self-regulate, Kapil Sibal has introduced an amendment to the Copyright Act, which introduces section 52(1)(C ), that allows anyone to send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. While this sounds normal, the catch is that ‘the Internet company has to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious’. This amendment is before Rajya Sabha, and considering how our Parliament passes bills without a debate, it’ll become a law very soon.</p>
<p>Baleful rules and people behind them fail to realise that such efforts will lead to the Streisand effect, whereby attempts to hide any information will lead to it being publicised more widely. Yes more widely, because you can take out some content, but India’s youth will re-post it in a million places within minutes, like they do with pirated movies. We play a lot of cunning games just to live peacefully in India already. Please don’t let us play them online too.</p>
<p>The writer is a tech geek.<br />Email: articles@theadarsh.net</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/prometheus-bound-and-gagged'>https://cis-india.org/news/prometheus-bound-and-gagged</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-02-14T04:47:46ZNews ItemWorld Narrow Web
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web
<b>Censorship and how govt reacts to it may push us to country-specific networks, writes Pranesh Prakash in an article published in the Indian Express on 4 February 2012. </b>
<p>Twitter, a popular micro-blogging service, recently announced that “[today] we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world”. In a move a few weeks ago, Blogger, Google’s blogging service, in effect announced something similar, by saying that default they would redirect Blogger users trying to get to Blogspot.com addresses (like <a class="external-link" href="http://example.blogspot.com">http://example.blogspot.com</a>) to their respective country sites (like <a class="external-link" href="http://example.blogspot.in">http://example.blogspot.in</a>). Twitter’s announcement was greeted with much disapproval by many Twitter users, as a move towards censorship, with some talking (on Twitter) about a boycott. Blogger’s move was hidden away, deep within a help page, and is being noticed now, and is causing quite a stir as caving in to censorship. Are these concerns justified? Before answering that question, let’s look at what the platforms’ announcements really say.</p>
<p>Twitter has given itself the ability to withhold specific tweets and users in particular countries where that content is legally required to be removed (generally with a court order). Their earlier option, they inform us, was to block the offending tweets and users in all countries. Apart from this, they will publish a notice for each tweet/ user that is blocked in a country. They will also be proactively publishing every removal request they receive at ChillingEffects.org, which allows us to hold them to account and question their decision to remove tweets.</p>
<p>Google, by redirecting you to the country-specific Blogger, is allowing for country-level removal of both blogs and individual blog posts. However, they also note that you can circumvent this by using a special “no redirect” address. Google currently forwards all search-related removals, but does not do so for Blogger-related requests, and all copyright-related complaints to ChillingEffects.org. Google does publish aggregate data relating to censorship of Blogger, on which free-speech advocates have been asking them to provide more granular information.</p>
<p>There are three problems. First, while Twitter was just as open to repressive governments’ requests last week, by making this change, they are advertising this fact to such governments. Thailand has noted it, and has congratulated Twitter.</p>
<p>Second, as Rob Beschizza, managing editor of the website Boing Boing, pointed out, there have been no instances of political content having been removed by Twitter. Even British courts’ super-injunctions (injunctions on speech, that prevent you from mentioning the fact that there is an injunction) were defeated by Twitter users, which only showed that attempts to censor material results in even more attention being drawn to it (which is popularly known as the “Streisand Effect”). So, does this now mean that Twitter will start applying local laws to judge “valid and applicable legal requests”, instead of American laws? What if the law is as bad as that which exists in India, where they are required to remove content within 36 hours based on any affected person’s complaint — without a court order? Will they still act on it? If they don’t, will the government or courts order Twitter.com to be blocked in India, finding it liable for illegal omissions?</p>
<p>Third, this trend points increasingly to the fact that we are witnessing a Balkanisation of the Web as more countries start asserting their sovereignty online. As Chinese dissident journalist Michael Anti pointed out recently, it seems we now need visas (read “circumvention techniques”) to visit the international Web. But even then, there is no longer a singular “international” Web, but an Indian Web and a Guatemalan Web, and an Angolan Web. And the government’s recent proposal of requiring companies to locate their servers in India is a move towards this (apart from being a move towards killing cloud computing).<br /><br />That having been said, the reality is that the CEOs of Google, Google India, and Microsoft have been summoned to appear in Indian courts for allowing their users to publish material which they don’t know about, which is in a sealed envelope (and most of the accused companies haven’t been shown yet), and which they weren’t even asked once to remove.<br /><br />The Intermediary Guidelines Rules passed by the Department of Information Technology in April 2011 do not require the user, whose content it is, to be told that there is a complaint, nor to be given a chance to defend themselves. It does not even require public notice that the content has been removed.</p>
<p>The truth is, the transparency around censorship that Google and Twitter are providing is far better than what most other companies are providing. For instance, Big Rock, an Indian DNS provider, suspended the CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com web address on the basis of a seemingly not legal request by the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Crime Branch, and did so without any public notice and without even informing the cartoonist whose web address it was. At least Google and Twitter are pushing back against non-legal requests, and refusing to remove content that doesn’t violate local laws. Single-mindedly criticising them will only put off other companies from following in their footsteps.<br /><br />Instead of criticising those who are actually working towards transparency in censorship, we should encourage them and others, push intermediaries not to cave in to unreasonable censorship requests, prevent them from over-censoring on their own, and push hard for the government to incorporate their best practices as part of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/world-narrow-web/907579/1">The original article was published in the Indian Express</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshGoogleFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTwitterInternet GovernanceFeaturedCensorship2012-03-27T16:00:24ZBlog EntrySense and Censorship
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/sense-and-censorship
<b>The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills, at the US House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, appear to enforce property rights, but are, in fact, trade bills. This article by Sunil Abraham was published in the Indian Express on 20 January 2012.</b>
<p>In developed countries like the US, intellectual property (IP) plays a
dominant role in the economy, unlike in economies like India. Countries
that have significant IP are keen to increase global and national
enforcement activities, while countries with little domestic IP are keen
to reduce outgoing royalties in the balance of payments and therefore,
keen to expand alternatives, limitations and exceptions like copyleft
licensing, compulsory/statutory licensing and fair dealing.</p>
<p>The loss of generic medicines, hardware based on open standards,
public domain content, free and open source software, open access
journal articles, etc will equally impoverish consumers in the US and in
India. SOPA and PIPA, therefore, do not represent the will of the
average American but rather the interests of the IP sector, which has
tremendous influence in the Hill. There is one more layer of
complication for policy-makers to consider as they work towards a
compromise of interests in Internet governance — the tension between the
old and the new. The incumbents — corporations with business models
that have been rendered obsolete by technological developments — versus
emerging actors who provide competing products and services, often with
greater technological sophistication, higher quality, at a lower cost.</p>
<p>The US, in terms of policy and infrastructure, still controls the
global Domain Name System (DNS) and consequently, post-SOPA/PIPA, can
take unilateral trade action without worrying about national variations
enabled by international law. These bills directly undermine the
business models of many Indian companies — generic drug manufacturers
like Ranbaxy, software service providers like Infosys, electronics
manufacturers like Spice and players in many other sectors dominated by
IP rights. So it is baffling that they have not added their voices to
the global outcry.</p>
<p>SOPA and PIPA, if passed, will enable the US administration to take
three-pronged action against IP infringers — seizure of domain names and
DNS filtering, blocking of transactions by financial intermediaries and
revocation of hosting by ISPs. While circumvention may still be
possible, it will get increasingly laborious — something like the Great
Firewall of China, but worse. Unfortunately, the implementation of these
blunt policy instruments will require more and more public-funded
surveillance and censorship.</p>
<p>The censorship potential of efforts like SOPA and PIPA may appeal to
others, as autocratic and democratic regimes across the world have been
keen to try technology-mediated social engineering — these efforts have
been multiplied in the post-Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street world.
Organised religion, social conservatives and those who have been at the
receiving end of free speech would all want to shut down platforms like
WikiLeaks and political movements like Anonymous and the Pirate Party.</p>
<p>These are equally dismal times for Internet governance in India.
Google, Facebook and 20-odd other intermediaries are trying to avoid
jail time at the hands of a Delhi court. However, ever since the IT Act
amendments were put in place three years back, digital activists have
been requesting intermediaries to register their protests early and
often, regarding draconian provisions in the statute and in the
associated rules. Their silence is going to be very expensive for all of
us. We cannot depend on the private sector alone to defend our
constitutional rights. As yet unpublished research from CIS demonstrates
that private intermediaries only bother with defending freedom of
expression when it undermines their business interests. Working with an
independent researcher, we conducted a policy sting operation — faulty
take-down notices were served to seven intermediaries asking for
legitimate content to be taken down. In six of those cases, the
intermediaries over-complied, in one case deleting all comments on a
news article instead of just those comments identified in the notice.
The only take-down that was resisted was one claiming that sale of
diapers was “harmful to minors” under the Indian IT Act (because they
caused nappy rash). It is clear that the IT Act and its associated rules
have already had a chilling effect on online participation by Indians.</p>
<p>Fortunately for us, during the previous parliamentary session —
Jayant Chaudhary, Lok Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, asked for the
revision of rules concerning intermediaries, cyber-cafes and reasonable
security practices. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity
for the House to reject these rules and intervene for a free Internet.</p>
<p><em>The writer is executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society</em></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sense-and-censorship/901686/1">Read<em> </em>the original published in the Indian Express</a><em><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sense-and-censorship/901686/1"> </a><br /></em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/sense-and-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/sense-and-censorship</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-31T06:15:38ZBlog EntryTwitter’s Censorship Move Aimed at Regaining China?
https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china
<b>Twitter, the popular social networking site for micro-blogging, has announced it is open to content censorship and region-based filtering, if required by law. The service boasts nearly 300 million users from across the world. Vinod Yalburgi writes this in the International Business Times.</b>
<p>In a Twitter post - "Tweets Must Still Flow", the service's management has stated: "Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country, while keeping it available in the rest of the world." <br /><br />Twitter's drastic move comes in the wake of recent U.S. government allegations against Internet sites like Google, Yahoo and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/372/facebook/">Facebook</a>, regarding the need to regulate and filter controversial user-generated content. Both Google and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289019/20120128/facebook-timeline-privacy-5-things-basics.htm">Facebook</a> have made similar commitments. </p>
<h3><strong>Like us on Facebook</strong></h3>
<p class="getfaceBook">However, it must be seen if either of the three do follow through with those commitments.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">Meanwhile, experts quoted in a report by The Times of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/420/india/">India</a>, where too social networking Web sites are coming under the scanner, suggest the lack of clarity in laws in countries like <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/420/india/">India</a> means Twitter can only act reactively; the situation in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/352/germany/">Germany</a> or France, for example, where laws about pro-Nazi propaganda are codified, they can act proactively.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">Another post by Twitter speaks of a new feature that will allow the site's administrators to enable region-based selective content blocking, thereby allowing region-sensitive information to remain hidden from users in those areas. The post also cited the example of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/352/germany/">Germany </a>and France: "Some countries differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">There is also speculation that one reason for this decision could be Twitter's plans to re-enter the Chinese market, where the micro-blogging service has been banned since 2009. Incidentally, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/227/china/">China</a> boasts the largest number of Internet users in the world, at this moment.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">The hope, for Twitter, must be the promise to block sensitive tweets (or those the Chinese government deems offensive) without affecting the global audience. Twitter has rarely resorted to such censorship practices. However, the company does not seem unwilling to shy away from that responsibility.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">"...if and when we are required to withhold a tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld," the company's statement said.<br /><br />"The region-specific blocking was already being used on video hosting websites like <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/YouTube">Youtube</a> and Hulu, where due to the wishes of copyright owners many videos are not available in India. Twitter is extending this technology to its tweets," said Pranesh Prakash at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people. Cultural ethos is very important to us," Kapil Sibal, the Indian Telecom Minister, said last month, during his request to both Google and <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/www.ibtimes.co.uk/topics/detail/372/facebook/" class="external-link">Facebook</a> to filter offensive content.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook">The trend of social networking Web sites resisting censorship seems a thing of the past. Prakash recalls an incident in 2011, when the U.S. government sought detailed information about a Twitter user, only to be challenged, by the Internet company, in court.</p>
<p class="getfaceBook"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289008/20120128/twitter-censorship-content-filtering-china-block-tweets.htm">Read the original published by International Business Times </a>on 28 January 2012. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china'>https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-30T04:54:51ZNews ItemPrivacy Matters — Analyzing the Right to "Privacy Bill"
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-matters-analyzing-the-right-to-privacy-bill
<b>On January 21, 2012 a public conference “Privacy Matters” was held at the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai. It was the sixth conference organised in the series of regional consultations held as “Privacy Matters”. The present conference analyzed the Draft Privacy Bill and the participants discussed the challenges and concerns of privacy in India.</b>
<p>The conference was organized by Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab and Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Participants included a wide range of stakeholders that included the civil society, NGO representatives, consumer activists, students, educators, local press, and advocates.</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/high-level-summary-and-critique-to-the-leaked-right-to-privacy-bill-2011" class="internal-link" title="High Level Summary and Critique to the Leaked Right to Privacy Bill 2011">Comments to the Right to Privacy Bill</a></p>
<h2>Welcome</h2>
<p><strong>Prashant Iyengar</strong> was the Lead Researcher with Privacy India, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the five “Privacy Matters” series previously organised across India in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-nujsconference-summary" class="external-link">Kolkata</a> on January 23, 2011, in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-conferencebanglaore" class="external-link">Bangalore</a> on February 5, 2011, in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-matters-report-from-ahmedabad" class="external-link">Ahmedabad</a> on March 26, 2011, in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-guwahati-report" class="external-link">Guwahati</a> on June 23, 2011 and in<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-chennai-report.pdf/view" class="external-link"> Chennai </a>on August 6, 2011.</p>
<h2>Keynote Address</h2>
<p><strong>Na. Vijayashankar</strong> (popularly known as <strong>Naavi</strong>), a Bangalore based e-business consultant, delivered the key note address on the quest of a good privacy law in India. </p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Naavi.jpg/image_mini" title="Naavi" height="171" width="155" alt="Naavi" class="image-inline" /></td>
<td>
<p>He described the essential features of good privacy legislation. In
analyzing the Draft Privacy Bill’s definition of the right to privacy,
he suggested it should be defined through the “right to personal
liberty” rather than through what constitutes “infringements”. Mr.
Vijayashankar went on to explain that the “privacy right” should be
taken beyond “information protection” and defined as a “personal privacy
or a sense of personal liberty without constraints by the society”. He
explained the various classifications and levels of protection
associated with the availability and disclosure of data. He expressed
concerns regarding monitoring of data processors and suggested that data
controllers have contractual agreements between data processors, so as
to ensure an obligation of data security practices. He also called for
the simplification and division of offences and suggested numerous
reasons as to why the Cyber Appellate Tribunal would not be an ideal
monitoring mechanism or authority. See Naavi's presenation <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/proposed-privacy-bill" class="internal-link" title="Proposed Privacy Bill">here</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Session I: Privacy and the Legal System</h2>
<p> <strong>Dr. Sudhir Krishnaswamy</strong>, Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Krishnaswamy started off the presentation by questioning the
normative assumptions the Draft Privacy Bill makes. He referred to the
controversy of Newt Gingrich's second marriage, to question the range of
moral interests that were involved. The Bill falls short in accounting
for dignity in relation to privacy.<br /><br />He described the Draft Privacy Bill as a reasonable advance, given where
privacy laws were before. Although, he feels that it does fall short,
in terms of a narrow position, on what privacy law should do. He also
questioned if it satisfies constitutional standards. He stressed the
importance of philosophical work around the Draft Privacy Bill
considering that the nature of privacy is not neat and over-arching.<br /></td>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/sudhir.jpg/image_mini" title="Sudhir Krishnaswamy" height="144" width="152" alt="Sudhir Krishnaswamy" class="image-inline image-inline" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Privacy and the Constitutional Law</h3>
<p><strong>N S Nappinai</strong>, Advocate, High Court, Mumbai,</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/nappinai.jpg/image_preview" title="Nappinai" height="172" width="157" alt="Nappinai" class="image-inline image-inline" /></td>
<td>Nappinai spoke on the constitutional right to privacy. She explained the
substantial development of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to
include the ‘right to privacy’ with regards to its interpretation and
application. She described the different shift of the application of the
right to privacy in the West in comparison to India. The West has moved
from the right to privacy pertaining to property to the right to
privacy concerning personal rights, whereas India moved from personal
rights to property rights. She outlined three aspects of privacy:
dignity, liberty and property rights. <br /><br />Ms. Nappinai dissected the Bill in its major components: interception,
surveillance, method and manner of personal data, health information,
collection, processing and use of personal data. Using these components,
she questioned what precedence exists? What should be further protected
or reversed? What lessons should legislators draw from?<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Shortcomings of the Draft Right to Privacy Bill falls include:</p>
<ol><li>The objects and reasons section in the Draft Privacy Bill declares the right to privacy to every citizen as well as delineates the collection and dissemination of data. Nappinai dismisses the need for this delineation on the grounds that data protection is an inherent part of the right to privacy, it is not exclusive.</li><li>Large focus on transmission of data. The provisions do not account for property rights pertaining to the right to privacy. Therefore, the ‘knock-and-enter’ rule, the ‘right to be left alone’ and the ‘right to happiness’ should be included.</li><li>Applicability of the Bill should extend to all persons as well as data residing within the territory. It would be self-defeating if it only includes citizens, considering that the Constitution extends to all persons within the territory.</li><li>The right to dignity is unaccounted for.<br /><br />See Nappinai's presentation <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-and-the-constitution" class="internal-link" title="Privacy and the Constitution">here</a><br /></li></ol>
<h2>Session II: Privacy and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p><strong>Apar Gupta</strong>, Advocate, Delhi</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Apar Gupta is an advocate based in Delhi who specializes in IP and
electronic commerce law, spoke predominantly on the interplay between
privacy and freedom of expression. He used the example of an advocate
tweeting about his criticism of a judges’ ruling, to illustrate how
different realms of online anonymity enable freedom of speech. He went
beyond the traditional realm of journalistic architecture such as
television channels or newspapers and explained online community
disclosure.
<p>Mr. Gupta provided a practical example of Indian Kanoon, a popular
online database of Indian court decisions. Because Indian Kanoon is
linked to the Google search engine, many individuals involved in civil
and criminal matters have requested Indian Kanoon to remove the court
judgments, under privacy claims. This particularly occurs with
individuals involved in matrimonial cases. However, as court judgment
constitute public records India Kanoon only removes court judgments when
requested by a court order.</p>
<p>He described the several ways legislators can define privacy and
freedom of expression. Considering that the privacy of an individual may
border upon freedom of speech and expression, he questioned whether or
not privacy should override the right to freedom of speech and
expression. In addition, Mr. Gupta discussed the debate on whether or
not the Privacy Bill should override all existing provisions in other
laws.</p>
</td>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Gupta.jpg/image_preview" alt="Apar Gupta" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Apar Gupta" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Additionally, he analyzed the provisions of the Draft Privacy Bill
using three judgments. In these judgments, different entities sought of
various forms of speech to be blocked under privacy claims. He spoke
about the dangers of a statutory right for privacy that does not
safeguard freedom of speech and expression. Considering that the privacy
statute may allow for a form of civil action permitting private parties
to approach courts to stop certain publications, he stressed the
importance for legislators to ensure balanced privacy legislation
inclusive of freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<h3>Sexual Minorities and Privacy<br /></h3>
<p><strong>Danish Sheikh</strong>, researcher at Alternative Law Forum</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/danish.jpg/image_preview" alt="Danish " class="image-inline image-inline" title="Danish " /></td>
<td>Danish examined the status of sexual minorities in the light of privacy
framework in India. The tag of decriminalization has served to greatly
alter the way institutions approach the question of privacy when it
comes to sexual minorities. He used the Naz Foundation judgment as a
chronological marker to map the developments in the right to privacy and
sexual minorities over the years.
<p>He outlined four key effects on the right to privacy due to the Naz Foundation judgment:</p>
<ul><li>Prepared the understanding of privacy as a positive right and placed obligations on the state,</li><li>Discussed privacy as dealing with persons and not just places, it took into account decisional privacy as well as zonal privacy,</li><li>Connected privacy with dignity and the valuable worth of individuals, and</li><li>Included privacy on one’s autonomous identity.</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>He described various incidents that took place before the Naz Foundation judgment, pre-Naz, that altered the way we conceived of queer rights in general and privacy in particular, including the Lucknow incidents, transgender toilets, passport forms, the medical establishment and lesbian unions. Post-Naz, he described two incidents including the Allahabad Muslim University sting operation as well as the TV9 “Expose” that captured public imagination. </p>
<p>He concluded by asking: “What do these stories tell us about privacy?” The issues faced by the transgender community tell us that privacy doesn’t necessarily encompass a one-size-fits-all approach, and can raise as many questions as it answers. The issues faced by the Lucknow NGOs display the institutionalized disrespect for privacy and that has marginally more devastating consequences for the homosexual community by the spectre of outing. The issues faced by lesbian women evidence yet another need for breaching the public/private divide, demonstrating how the protection of the law might be welcome in the family sphere. Alternate sexual orientation and gender identity might bring the community under a common rubric, but distilling the components of that rubric is essential for engaging in any kind of useful understanding of the community and the kind of privacy violations it suffers – or engage with situations when the lack of privacy is empowering.</p>
<h2>Session III: Privacy and National Security</h2>
<p><strong>Menaka Guruswamy</strong>, Advocate, Supreme Court of India</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Menaka explored national security and its relationship to privacy. In
her presentation, she compared the similar manner in which the courts
approach national security and privacy issues. The courts feel national
security and privacy issues are too complex to define, therefore, they
take a case-by-case approach.<br />
<br />
<p>Ms. Guruswamy described three incidents that urged her to question
national security and privacy. First, she was interested in the lack of
regulation surrounding intelligence agencies and was involved in the
introduction of the Regulations of Intelligence Agencies Bill as a
private members bill. Second, national security litigation between the
Salwa Judum judgment and the State of Chhattisgarh is an example of how
national security triumphs constitutional rights and values. Third,
privacy in the context of the impending litigation of Naz Foundation in
the Supreme Court. She described the larger conversation of national security focus on
values of equality and privacy. She discussed the following questions
that serve in advancing certain conception of rights:</p>
<ul><li>How do we posit privacy which necessarily, philosophically as
well as judicially, is carved out as the right of an individual to be
left alone?</li><li>What are the consequences when national security,
which is posited as the rights of the nation, is in conflict with the
right of the individual to be left alone?</li><li>Considering that
constitutional rights are posited as a public facet of citizenship how
does a right to privacy play in that context?</li></ul>
</td>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_menaka.jpg/image_preview" alt="Menaka" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Menaka" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Privacy and UID</h3>
<p><strong>R. Ramakumar</strong>, professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/ramkumar.jpg/image_preview" title="Ramakumar" height="171" width="202" alt="Ramakumar" class="image-inline image-inline" /></td>
<td>Prof. Ramakumar spoke on UID, its collection of information and the
threat to individual privacy. First, he provided a historical trajectory
of national security that has led to increased identity card schemes.
He described the concrete connection between UID and national security.
<p><br />He briefed the gathering on the objectives of the UID project. He
described several false claims as proposed by the UIDAI. He explicitly
disproved the UIDAI claim that Aadhaar is voluntary. He did this by
comparing various legislations associated with the National Population
Registrar that had provisions mandating the inclusion of the UID number.</p>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>He went on to explain that the misplaced emphasis of technology to
handle large populations remains unproven. He described two specific
violations of privacy inherent in the UID system: convergence of
information and consent. The UID database makes it possible for the
linking or convergence of information across silos. In addition, consent
is unaccounted for in the UID system. The UID enrollment form requires
consent from a person to share their information. However, the software
of the enrollment form automatically checks ‘yes’, therefore you are not
asked. Even if you disagree, it automatically checks ‘yes’. Default
consent raises the important question, “to what extent are we the owners
of our information?” and “what are the privacy implications?”</p>
<p>Mr. Ramakumar was once asked, by Yashwant Sinha in a Parliamentary Standing Committee meeting, “Is the Western concept of privacy important in developing country like India?”. Using this question posed to him, he stressed the importance of privacy to be understood as a globally valued right, entitlement and freedom. He also referred to Amartya Sen’s work on individual freedoms.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>During the daylong consultation numerous questions and themes relating to privacy were discussed:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<ul><li>How is the right to privacy defined?</li><li>How can the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/draft-bill-on-right-to-privacy" class="internal-link" title="Draft Bill on Right to Privacy">Draft Privacy Bill</a> redefine the right to privacy?</li><li>How can reasonable deterrence mechanisms be included?</li><li>Does duplication of the right to privacy exists in different statutes?</li><li>Is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal an ideal monitoring mechanism or authority? <br /></li><li>What are the circumstances under which authorized persons can exercise the Right of privacy invasion?</li><li>How can the Draft Privacy Bill account for the right to dignity?</li><li>How much information should the State be allowed to collect?</li><li>How can citizens become more informed about the use of their information and the privacy implications involved?</li><li>What would be the appropriate balance or trade-off between security and civil liberties?</li><li>What are the dangers with permitting the needs of national security to trump competing values?</li><li>What are the consequences for the homosexual community, when faced with institutionalized disregard for privacy? </li></ul>
</td>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_usha.jpg/image_preview" alt="Usha " class="image-inline image-inline" title="Usha " /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> <img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/contests.jpg/image_preview" alt="Participants" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Participants" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/proposed-privacy-bill" class="internal-link" title="Proposed Privacy Bill"><br /></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-matters-analyzing-the-right-to-privacy-bill'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-matters-analyzing-the-right-to-privacy-bill</a>
</p>
No publishernatashaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceFeatured2012-02-15T04:27:28ZBlog EntryGoogle to change privacy policy to use personal info of users
https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy
<b>It is a warning for users of Google and other Social Networking sites. Who are using these sites for searching anything they want to know and sharing their personal life with friends, colleagues and relatives. If you have ever used Google for searching any place, restaurant or shared information about your personal life with your friends on Google and other social networking sites, or you have watched adult stuff on YouTube, if your answer is yes, Google knows about it. And according to its new privacy policy Google is going to put this information to some use. Sheetal Ranga's article was published in Punjab Newsline on 27 January 2012.</b>
<p>It is claimed by the web enormous that according to new privacy policy, better service will be provided to its users, including more relevant search results. And other side the web experts have expressed their concerns over potential misuse of data and defy of privacy. Google's new privacy policy will come into effect from 1 March 2012, said by Google.</p>
<p>Google provide service which will be shorter and easier to read and something that will enable it to create spontaneous experience across Google. Google had allowed users to choose personalized services; “unlike” this time there is no option to pick for the users.</p>
<p>The new policy of Google has made some people anxious over their privacy issues. The new policy is being adopted by Google, SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government is not happy with it.</p>
<p>A security analyst, Jeff ( SafeGov) said, "Google should not be data-mining information in e-mails, text messages, searches and documents that workers are putting into Google services. It’s a matter of not making government workers unnecessarily exposed to hackers and to inadvertent disclosures of information."</p>
<p>The Vice President of Google ,Amit Singh claims that Google’s new privacy policy for consumer data is antiquated by data privacy provisions in contracts with government agencies and other organization that use the paid version of Google Apps. Google will maintain our endeavor customers’ data in conformity with the confidentiality and security obligations provided to their domain, he said.</p>
<p>The new policy of Google has made some people edgy over their privacy issues. SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government agencies are very unhappy with the new policy of Google. It is also said by Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society that the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.</p>
<p>Director of privacy Alma Whitten has given some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."</p>
<p>Other side after the cross-checked the contract between Google and the city of Los Angele by Gould, claimed that he didn’t think through the consequences for government users.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/google-change-privacy-policy-use-personal-info-users/36333">Punjab Newsline published this story</a>. Sunil Abraham was quoted in it.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy'>https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernancePrivacy2012-01-30T05:03:55ZNews ItemHow India Makes E-books Easier to Ban than Books (And How We Can Change That)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-ebooks-easier-to-ban-than-books
<b>Without getting into questions of what should and should not be unlawful speech, Pranesh Prakash chooses to take a look at how Indian law promotes arbitrary removal and blocking of websites, website content, and online services, and how it makes it much easier than getting offline printed speech removed.</b>
<h2>E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books, And Safer</h2>
<p>Contrary to what Mr. Sibal's recent hand-wringing at objectionable online material might suggest, under Indian laws currently in force it is far easier to remove material from the Web, by many degrees of magnitude, than it is to ever get them removed from a bookstore or an art gallery. To get something from a bookstore or an art gallery one needs to collect a mob, organize collective outrage and threats of violence, and finally convince either the government or a magistrate that the material is illegal, thereby allowing the police to seize the books or stop the painting from being displayed. The fact of removal of the material will be noted in various records, whether in government records, court records, police records or in newspapers of record. By contrast, to remove something from the Web, one needs to send an e-mail complaining about it to any of the string of 'intermediaries' that handle the content: the site itself, the web host for the site, the telecom companies that deliver the site to your computer/mobile, the web address (domain name) provider, the service used to share the link, etc. Under the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/intermediary-guidelines-rules">'Intermediary Guidelines Rules'</a> that have been in operation since 11th April 2011, all such companies are required to 'disable access' to the complained-about content within thirty-six hours of the complaint. It is really that simple.</p>
<p>"That's ridiculous," you think, "surely he must be exaggerating." Think again. A researcher working with us at the Centre for Internet and Society tried it out, several times, with many different intermediaries and always with frivolous and flawed complaints, and was successful <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/news/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules"> six out of seven times </a>. Thus it is easier to prevent Flipkart or Amazon from selling Rushdie's Midnight's Children than it is to prevent a physical bookstore from doing so: today Indira Gandhi wouldn't need to win a lawsuit in London against the publishers to remove a single line as she did then; she would merely have to send a complaint to online booksellers and get the book removed. It is easier to block Vinay Rai's Akbari.in (just as CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com was recently blocked) than it is to prevent its print publication. Best of all for complainants: there is no penalty for frivolous complaints such as those sent by us, nor are any records kept of who's removed what. Such great powers of censorship without any penalties for their abuse are a sure-fire way of ensuring a race towards greater intolerance, with the Internet — that republic of opinions and expressions — being a casualty.</p>
<h2>E-Book Bans Cannot Be Challenged</h2>
<p>In response to some of the objections raised, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology, ever the dutiful guardian of free speech, noted that if you have a problem with access to your content being 'disabled', you could always <a href="http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=72066">approach a court</a> and get that ban reversed. Unfortunately, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology forgot to take into account that you can't contest a ban/block/removal if you don't know about it. While they require all intermediaries to disable access to the content within thirty-six hours, they forgot to mandate the intermediary to tell you that the content is being removed. Whoops. They forgot to require the intermediary to give public notice that content has been removed following a complaint from person ABC or corporation XYZ on such-and-such grounds. Whoops, again.</p>
<p>So while records are kept, along with reasons, of book bans, there are no such records required to be kept of e-book bans.</p>
<h2>E-Book Censors Are Faceless</h2>
<p>Vinay Rai is a brave man. He is being attacked by fellow journalists who believe he's disgracing the professional upholders of free-speech, and being courted by television channels who believe that he should be encouraged to discuss matters that are sub judice. He is viewed by some as a man who's playing politics in courts on behalf of unnamed politicians and bureaucrats, while others view him as being bereft of common-sense for believing that companies should be legally liable for not having been clairvoyant and removing material he found objectionable, though he has never complained to them about it, and has only provided that material to the court in a sealed envelope. I choose, instead, to view him as a scrupulous and brave man. He has a face, and a name, and is willing to openly fight for what he believes in. However, there are possibly thousands of unscrupulous Vinay Rais out there, who know the law better than he does, and who make use not of the court system but of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, firmly assured by those Rules that their censorship activities will never be known, will never be challenged by Facebook and Google lawyers, and will never be traced back to them.</p>
<h2>Challenging Invisible Censorship</h2>
<p>Dear reader, you may have noticed that this is a bit like a trial involving Free Speech in which Free Speech is presumed guilty upon complaint, is not even told what the charges against it are, has not been given a chance to prove its innocence, and has no right to meet its accusers nor to question them. Yet, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology continues to issue press releases defending these Rules as fair and just, instead of being simultaneously Orwellian and Kafkaesque. These Rules are delegated legislation passed by the Department of Information Technology under <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-79-information-technology-act">s.79 of the Information Technology Act</a>. The Rules were laid before Parliament during the 2011 Monsoon session. We at CIS believe that these Rules are *ultra vires* the IT Act as well as the Constitution of India, not only with respect to what is now (newly) proscribed online (which in itself is enough to make it unconstitutional), but how that which is purportedly unlawful is to be removed. We have prepared an alternative that we believe is far more just and in accordance with our constitutional principles, taking on best practices from Canada, the EU, Chile, and Brazil, while still allowing for expeditious removal of unlawful material. We hope that the DIT will consider adopting some of the ideas embodied in our draft proposal.</p>
<p>As Parliament passed the IT Act in the midst of din, without any debate, it is easy to be skeptical and wonder whether Rules made under the IT Act will be debated. However, I remain hopeful that Parliament will not only exercise its power wisely, but will perform its solemn duty — borne out of each MP's oath to uphold our Constitution — by rejecting these Rules.</p>
<p>Photo credit: <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/grandgrrl/5240360344/">Lynn Gardner</a>, under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence*</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279712">This was reproduced in Outlook Magazine</a> on 27 January 2012</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-ebooks-easier-to-ban-than-books'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-ebooks-easier-to-ban-than-books</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-02-21T11:50:56ZBlog EntryTangled Web
https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web
<b>Government and social networking sites at loggerheads as debate rages over freedom of expression, writes Kumar Anshuman and Nikita Doval in this story published in the Week on Saturday, 21 January 2012.</b>
<p>Journalist-turned-activist Vinay Rai has succeeded where Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal failed—putting the fear of law in the minds of India's bloating community of bloggers, surfers, plain e-wayfarers and inter(net)lopers.</p>
<p>Blogs haven't yet been blocked, but a Delhi High Court bench asked 21 internet firms, including Google, Facebook and YouTube, to look at China and have stringent checks on their content on January 19. It was enough to set the net on fire. Compulsive tweeter Shashi Tharoor, who lost his ministerial berth for over-tweeting, wondered whether phone companies could "be sued if someone sends a defamatory, obscene SMS". Said IT expert Niyam Bhushan: "If you fall on the ground and hurt your nose, you can't sue gravity. At a time when people in autocratic countries are using social media to bring in democracy, a democratic country like India is trying to restrict it!"</p>
<p>When the summons for the case was first sent to the companies in December, a number of respondents who were based outside India failed to answer. Said cyber crime expert Pavan Duggal: "Companies are observing the IT Act more in breach than in observance."</p>
<p>The debate was originally kick-started by Sibal last December when he summoned the chiefs of social networking sites and showed them offensive material from their sites. However, they pleaded helplessness. Sibal's subsequent press conference drew more flak, and he retreated saying, "The government does not believe in interfering in the freedom of the press, but we have to take care of the sensibilities of our people."</p>
<p>It was then that Rai petitioned a Delhi criminal court, accusing 21 social networking sites of hosting objectionable and inflammatory content which would create enmity and violence among religious communities. In a sealed envelope, he presented 62 items downloaded from different web sites and got three witnesses.</p>
<p>Though the companies were ordered to appear before court on January 13, they challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, saying that curbing the content is technically impossible. "Human interference is not possible, and it is not feasible to check such incidents given that billions of people across the globe are posting articles and other material on their web sites," argued Mukul Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general, representing Google India. "Certain keywords can be blocked or not allowed," said Yogesh Bansal, founder and CEO of ApnaCircle.com. "However, filtering or having 100 per cent control over the content posted is technically not possible."</p>
<p>According to the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, if the companies receive complaints about unlawful or objectionable online material, they have 36 hours to remove it, failing which the aggrieved party can approach court or the Cyber Law Appellate Tribunal. "The rules purportedly try to regulate and control the intermediaries like interactive web sites and social media sites, but, in effect, regulate content generated or posted by users," said Prasanth Sugathan, legal counsel, Software Freedom Law Center.</p>
<p>The 'intermediaries', as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, include a broad list of players ranging from internet service providers like Airtel and MTNL to blogging platforms like Blogspot and WordPress to auction sites like eBay and search engines like Google to cyber cafes. The new rules mandate the intermediaries to impose a set of rules and regulations on users. </p>
<p>The rules specify the terms of regulations, which include a broad list of unlawful content—information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, related to paedophilia, libellous, invasive of privacy, hateful, racially objectionable, disparaging, encourages money laundering or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever. </p>
<p>"These are very broad terms which have not been defined very well," said Duggal. "The service provider is not even required to come to a judgment. Only after they receive a complaint or are notified by the government can they act." According to Delhi-based cyber law consultant Karnika Seth, it will be helpful if illustrations are given to explain the nature of the crime, as in the Indian Penal Code. "This is missing in the IT Act which leaves terms like 'blasphemy' and 'obscenity' open to wide interpretations."</p>
<p>The companies claim they stick to the rules. "We have a review committee, which decides on complaints in case of any content posted on our sites," said a representative of one of the accused companies. In the current case, the official claimed that they were not shown the content presented before court. "The current accusation is baseless," he said. </p>
<p>There have been several instances in the past when social networking companies acted on complaints. In 2009, a young Keralite was booked for posting offensive remarks against Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and his party on a social networking site and the material was removed. In May 2010, the controversial 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' in Facebook was blocked in India, following protests from Muslims. </p>
<p>In August last year, the cyber wing of the Punjab Crime Branch charge-sheeted a Sunny Dhiman for allegedly uploading a pornographic video of a female student from Chandigarh on YouTube. Following complaints, the video was removed.</p>
<p>According to Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, the companies are over-compliant. "We did a policy sting operation wherein we sent fraudulent notices to big web sites," he said. "They never bothered to check the veracity of the complaints, but complied with everything we asked for. In one case where we asked for the removal of three comments, they removed all 13. So there is already a private censorship underway. The existing IT Act is draconian and has led to great dilution of privacy."</p>
<p>According to Google Transparency Report, Google received government requests for removing 358 items from its services between January and June last year. Fifty-one per cent of the requests were partially or fully complied with. "In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with it as the content did not violate our community standards or local law," said the report.</p>
<p>Both Duggal and Seth said the government's demand for pre-screening and monitoring content was not feasible. "In the IT Act there is not a single phrase which requires pre-screening or moderation under the law," said Duggal. The government has a right to stop a company from displaying content which it deems perverse to Indian standards. But, as Seth said, "How do you define Indian standards? They are ever changing."</p>
<p>Web sites can put certain filters in place, but even they have limitations. As the counsel for the companies argued in court, the word 'sex' even comes up in documents like ration cards and passports. So blocking them is not feasible.</p>
<p>Though freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) states that the state may make a law imposing "reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech on eight grounds mentioned in Clause (2)—security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence and sovereignty and integrity of India.</p>
<p>The evidence presented before court clearly points to violation of some of these rules. "Freedom of expression doesn't mean mutilating or morphing pictures of leaders of different religious beliefs,” said Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer. “This is a crime and the persons responsible should be accused under Section 153(A)."</p>
<p>Said BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain: "Anything hurting religious sentiments should not be allowed. But the government is trying to stop certain political viewpoints, which is wrong." Senior Congress leader Shakeel Ahmed said freedom of expression should be "in a proper, democratic way without demeaning anyone."</p>
<p>Team Anna member Kumar Vishwas blamed social networking sites for hosting his videos without consent. "The main part of my speech has been deliberately removed and hence it doesn't present the fact which I said." Though he has complained, the videos have not been removed. However, he said that social networking was the voice of young India and it shouldn't be curbed in any way.</p>
<p>According to columnist and social analyst Syed Mubin Zehra, "There should be a check or verification process to have an internet identity." However, she is against a total ban. "We are not China, and think about the good things which the internet has contributed to society."</p>
<p>The corporate sector is increasingly using social networking sites to build stronger ties with consumers. For brands like Airtel, having a Facebook page meant reaching out to Generation Y, who spend a large amount of time with computers. "With Facebook there is dialogue, it becomes a barometer of customer satisfaction level," said Marzin Shroff, CEO (direct sales) and senior vice-president (marketing), Eureka Forbes, which started using Facebook in 2010 and has more than 1.6 lakh 'likes' on its page.</p>
<p>Cleartrip.com, a major online travel company, heavily uses the social networking platform. "We have always been early adopters of social media tools with a blog, customer forum, Twitter presence and a Facebook page," said Hrush Bhatt, co-founder and director (product & strategy), Cleartrip. "There are multiple cases where extremely irate customers have been vocal on their blogs or Twitter and our team has successfully reached out to them, taken care of their problems and turned them from complainers to evangelists."</p>
<p>Corporate honchos are worried over the ongoing controversy. "Banning social networking sites will hurt business as social media is now becoming a source of business for many," said Mohandas Pai, former director (HR) at Infosys Ltd. The worry is equally troubling a real estate company like Prestige Group. "As we have a very strong NRI customer base, such sites also make it possible for us to address their every need and give them an opportunity to clarify their queries with us,” said Uzma Irfan, executive director, corporate communications, Prestige Group. “Hence, ban of any free media such as Facebook shall only create a void in the marketing efforts of companies."</p>
<p>Some experts, however, are of the opinion that a ban or restriction on social networking sites will only have a short-term impact on some companies as many of them will change their online advertising strategy to deal with the situation. "Companies are smart enough to design new innovative advertising strategies," said Sridhar Ramanujam, CEO of brand-comm, a Bangalore-based brand communications consultancy. "Take, for instance, the liquor companies. Though liquor advertisements are banned in different places, such companies are doing more and more of surrogate advertising in the form of mineral water."</p>
<p>The only kind of censorship that can work on the net is self-imposed and, perhaps, a few guidelines in netiquette might not be out of line, said Seth. "Netiquette culture needs to be developed. The common man has to be explained what is legal and illegal. Otherwise there will be rampant cyber crime without people even realising that they are indulging in it." <br />with Abhinav Singh and Sharmista Chaudhury</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham was quoted in this story.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?contentId=10870337&programId=1073755753&tabId=13&categoryId=-171361">Read the original published in the Week</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web'>https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-01-23T08:42:01ZNews ItemThe Quixotic Fight to Clean up the Web
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web
<b>The ongoing attempt to pre-screen online content won’t change anything. It will only drive netizens into the arms of criminals, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 04, Dated 28 Jan 2012.</b>
<p>GOOGLE AND Facebook’s ongoing case in the Delhi High Court over offensive online content is curious in three ways. First, the complaint does not mention the IT Act, 2000. Prior to the 2008 amendment, intermediaries (in this case, Google, Facebook, etc) had no immunity. But after the amendment, intermediaries have significant immunity and are not considered liable unless takedown notices are ignored.</p>
<p>Second, it is curious that the complaint does not mention specific individuals or groups directly responsible for authoring the allegedly offensive material. Only intermediaries have been explicitly named. If specific content items have been submitted in court then it is curious that specific accounts and users have not been charged with the same offences.</p>
<p>Three, Delhi-based journalist Vinay Rai claims that takedown notices and requests for user information were ignored by the intermediaries. As yet, unpublished research at the Centre for Internet and Society has reached the exact opposite conclusion. We sent fraudulent takedown notices to seven of the largest intermediaries in India as part of a policy sting operation. Six of them over-complied and demonstrated no interest in protecting freedom of expression. Our takedown notices were complied with even though they were largely nonsensical. It is therefore curious that Rai’s takedown notices were ignored.<br /><br />Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the intermediary must not “initiate the transmission”, “select the receiver of the transmission” and “select or modify the information contained in the transmission”. In other words, they must not possess “actual knowledge” of the content. This would be absolutely true if intermediaries acted as “dumb pipes” or “mere conduits”. But today, they have reactive “human filters” ensuring conformance to community guidelines that often go beyond constitutional limits on freedom of expression.<br /><br />For example, Facebook deletes breastfeeding photographs if a certain proportion of the breast is visible, despite numerous protests. Intermediaries also use proactive “machine filters” to purge their networks of pornography and copyright infringing content. In order to retain immunity under the IT Act, intermediaries would have to demonstrate that they have no “actual knowledge”. This would also imply that they cannot proactively filter or pre-screen content without becoming liable for illegal content.</p>
<p>More sophisticated “machine filters” will continue to be built for social media platforms as computing speeds increase and costs decrease dramatically. But there will be significant collateral damage — the vibrancy of online Indian communities will be diminished as legitimate content will be removed and this in turn will retard Internet adoption rates. Free media, democratic governance, research and development, culture and the arts will all be fundamentally undermined. So whether pre-censorship is technically feasible is an irrelevant question. The real question is what limits on freedom of expression are reasonable in the Internet age.</p>
<div class="pullquote">The legal tussle is yet another chance for reflecting on the shortcomings of the IT Act</div>
<p>Censorship is like prohibition, illegal content will persist, the mafia will profit and ordinary citizens will be implicated in criminal networks. Use of anonymising proxies, circumvention tools and encryption technologies will proliferate, frustrating network optimisation efforts and law enforcement activities.</p>
<p>This is yet another opportunity for reflecting on the shortcomings of the ITAct. A lot of the confusion and anxiety today emerges from vague language, unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, multi-tiered blanket surveillance provisions, blunt security policy measures contained in the statute and its associated rules. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for MPs to ask for the rules for intermediaries, cyber cafes and reasonable security practices to be revisited. The MP who musters the courage to speak will be dubbed a superhero.<br /><br />As told to Shonali Ghosal. Sunil Abraham is Executive director, centre for internet and society and can be contacted at <a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a>. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op280112proscons.asp">The original article was published in Tehelka</a>.</p>
<p>Illustration by Sudeep Chaudhuri</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceInformation Technology2012-01-26T20:53:02ZBlog EntryIndian Internet Lawsuit Puts Spotlight on Freedom of Expression
https://cis-india.org/news/indian-internet-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-freedom-of-expression
<b>In India, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are fighting a lawsuit after the government authorized their prosecution for online content on their sites deemed to be offensive. The case has put the spotlight on free speech in the world’s largest democracy.
</b>
<p>The criminal lawsuit filed by the editor of New Delhi-based Urdu weekly Akbari accuses 21 Internet companies of violating Indian law. Vinay Rai alleged that online material on their websites has the potential to incite religious conflict.</p>
<p>Rai said his colleagues brought to his attention images of Prophet Muhammad which could offend Muslims. He cited other images and text which could hurt sentiments of Hindus and Christians. Rai wants Internet companies to screen content before it is posted.</p>
<p>Google and Facebook have asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the case against them. In an appeal, they said it is impossible to filter all content or stop individuals from posting material online.</p>
<p>Editor Rai filed the case after the government indicated its approval for the prosecution. The official go-ahead came weeks after the government also raised a similar demand.</p>
<h3>Voluntary framework <br /></h3>
<p>Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal told Internet company representatives to come up with a voluntary framework to keep offensive material off the net. After confronting them with photos and material derogatory of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi, he said the companies had not cooperated.</p>
<p>Both the court case and the government’s demands have stoked fears of net censorship in the world’s largest democracy.</p>
<p>Advocacy groups say the dispute between authorities and websites began simmering last year when India tightened laws to block content which could be deemed offensive. Citizens and officials can ask sites to block objectionable material and failure to comply within 36 hours can attract penalties or imprisonment of up to seven years.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, with the Center for Internet and Society in India, said these rules have the potential to curtail debate and discussion on the net.</p>
<p>“These limits are vague. They allow for all sorts of subjective tests by private parties and we predicted they would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online," Abraham said. "Policy in India has been headed in a very worrisome direction."</p>
<p>Abraham pointed out that one of his organization’s recent studies indicates that, faced with the threat of stiff penalties, most service providers removed content when asked to do so, even when it was not offensive or controversial.</p>
<h3>Free media?</h3>
<p>The government insists its objective is not to encroach on the fundamental right of free speech guaranteed by India’s democratic constitution. The clarification came from Minister Kapil Sibal after his meetings with Internet companies last month.</p>
<p>"This government does not believe in censorship," noted Sibal. "This government does not believe in either directly or indirectly interfering in the freedom of the press, and we have demonstrated that time and again."</p>
<p>India does have a vibrant free media and Internet access is largely free, unlike in China. But in a country with a history of religious violence, authorities have long tussled with the dilemma of balancing free speech with the need to not inflame sentiments among religious groups. India was one of the first countries to ban Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”</p>
<p>Other books and articles have also faced bans. Many are challenged in courts and several have been overturned. Now the focus is on the Internet and questions are being raised about whether the web should or can be policed.</p>
<h3>Online freedom</h3>
<p>In a remark widely quoted in the domestic media, a judge hearing the case had warned websites that like China, India might be compelled to block some of them if they did not create means to curb material seen as offensive.</p>
<p>However, Abraham from the Center of Internet and Society hopes that, as the latest case navigates its way through Indian courts, online freedom will come up the winner.</p>
<p>"I think the executive in India has always been very conservative in freedom of expression. It is usually the courts in India that protect freedom of expression, the precedent," Abraham said. "So we are every hopeful that the current case is in the appropriate venue, and we are confident that, as in the past, the judiciary in India will stand on the side of freedom of expression."</p>
<p>With 100 million people surfing the web, India has the world’s third largest number of Internet users after China and the United States.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Indian-Internet-Lawsuit-Puts-Spotlight-on-Freedom-of-Expression--137555168.html">Published in the Voice of America on 19 January 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.<br /></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/indian-internet-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-freedom-of-expression'>https://cis-india.org/news/indian-internet-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-freedom-of-expression</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-19T08:59:15ZNews Item