New Internet Rules Open To Arbitrary Interpretation

[KumaarShah 143]

Source: ToI

NEW DELHI: Six years after an e-commerce CEO's arrest for a pornographic CD sold from his website, the government has introduced a liability on intermediaries such as Facebook and Google to "act within 36 hours" of receiving information about offensive content.

Under the rules notified on April 11 under the Information Technology Act, the intermediaries are required to work with the internet user "to disable such information that is in contravention" of the prescribed restrictions. While most of the restrictions in the rules are based on the criminal law (stuff that is blasphemous, obscene, defamatory, paedophilic, etc), some are so loosely worded that they could easily be misused against netizens accustomed to speaking their mind freely, whether on politics or otherwise.

One glaring example of an ill-thought-out provision is the prohibition on saying something that is "insulting any other nation". Since this expression has been mentioned without any qualifications, it could be invoked against anybody who talks disparagingly about other countries.

Apart from encroaching on free speech, the subjective notion of insulting a nation — as opposed to valid criticism — opens scope for arbitrariness and politically motivated interpretation. The authorities may not, for instance, take action against any content that is bashing Pakistan but may be touchy about similar attacks on the US.

Since such violations and the remedial action taken on them could become a subject of police probe, the rules state that "the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least 90 days for investigation purposes".

Given their legal repercussions, activists termed the new rules "draconian". Pranesh Prakash of Centre of Internet and Society alleged, "The rules seek to expand government's reach to control content on the internet. This is neither reasonable nor constitutional as the rules undermine the free speech guaranteed by the Constitution."

The intermediaries are also required to appoint a grievance officer and publish his contact details as well as the mechanism by which "users or any victim who suffers" can notify their complaints. The grievance officer is required to redress the complaints within one month of the receipt of the complaint.

Industry sources hold that the 36-hour deadline imposed on the intermediaries to take action on complaints would unduly affect their freedom as service providers in the Indian jurisdiction. A Google spokesperson told TOI that the proposed guidelines could be "particularly damaging to the abilities of Indians who are increasingly using the internet in order to communicate, and the many businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper."

[rajanmehta 4,056]

This are the rules notified...

lnformation Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011.

Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011.

Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.

Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011.

If one has the time, should read it fully. Barring Cyber Cafe Regulations which has some hilarious provisions, the other regulations are good actually. They deal with protection of private data, privacy rules and has many provisions protecting sensitive individual info, suggesting how a service provider can or cannot use personal info. I would say first comprehensive guidelines for the internet jungle out there. Unfortunately Media generally never bother to study the full thing & pick up random juicy tid bits to tickle & sensationalise.

Not to say that few words of 3 (i) is not having subjective meaning...

Here is the offending provision... Read in totality...

3. Due diligence to be observed by intermediary.— The intermediary shall observe following due diligence while discharging his duties, namely : ―

(1) The intermediary shall publish the rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access or usage of the intermediary's computer resource by any person.

(2) Such rules and regulations, terms and conditions or user agreement shall inform the users of computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that —

(a) belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to;

(b] is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever;

[c] harm minors in any way;

(d) infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights;

(e) violates any law for the time being in force;

(f) deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature;

(g) impersonate another person;

(h) contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource;

(i) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

Download Full Regulation

RNUS_CyberLaw_15411 Rules April 2011.pdf

[digitalnirvana 646]

While the intent is no doubt good, but who will ensure these are being implemented correctly, is the cyber crime cell adequately skilled/empowered?

[rajanmehta 4,056]

A Network Of Chains

New infotech rules infringe on freedom of expression, make net use near-impossible

Arindam Mukherjee. Outlook India

If all goes according to plan, internet users may not be able to put up a strong message or comment about, say, the Congress on the BJP's website. A simple complaint from a Congress worker or, for that matter, any Indian citizen, can get the comment removed—it could even lead to the website being blocked by the host. Similarly, forceful comments on networking sites like Twitter and Facebook about individuals and on issues of national interest could soon also be history. If anyone wants, a simple complaint can get the comments—or even a user—removed from that network without informing him or her about it.

The new set of rules gives any citizen the right to complain against any content on any website that they consider objectionable. The new guidelines redefine the rules of the game for online intermediaries—Internet Service Providers, a website, a blog or a blog host, or the online edition of a media company with space for letters to the editor. These intermediaries, who are protected by the government against harmful content generated by third parties, stand to lose their protection if they do not comply and take off the objectionable comments within 36 hours.

As expected, there is a huge outcry in the online community and in civil society on the implications. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, says, "We are concerned about the overreach of the IT Act. These rules are unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is harmful to freedom of speech and does not go by the basic principles of natural justice because only the complainant is heard and not the user."

The new rules provide that anyone can complain against any online content if he thinks it is objectionable and breaches any of the keywords provided under the rules (see graphic). Chakshu Roy of prs Legislative Research, an independent group, says, "The keywords provided under the rules are rather too open to interpretation. This might lead to potential legal complications for internet companies who derive value by allowing people to interact online."

The tricky part is that the government has said that all disputes over interpretation of the keywords can only be adjudicated by a court of law and that the government or its agencies cannot interpret it. So if your website or content is blocked, the only recourse before you is to knock at the court's doors. In sum, under the new rules, it would be absolutely impossible for any online entity to carry any comment without getting into some infringement under the new rules. "If internet platforms are held liable for third-party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," says a spokesperson for Google.

Despite the government arguing otherwise, this is being construed as an indirect way to control the internet and online activity. The new laws will suppress public opinion at a time when the internet is developing into a primary medium to mould as well as express public opinion. Nikhil Pahwa, an avid blogger and editor of Medianama, says, "National security is one thing, but what about civil liberty? Isn't that being violated here? This is a veiled move to block all public opinion."

In recent times, 11 websites and search results have been blocked on the government's order, apart from over 1,400 requests to Google for removal or blocking of content. Soon, many more websites and portals could be in the firing line and face a block, censure or even closure under the new set of rules.

Online protagonists also feel that enough thinking has not gone into the framing of the rules. Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India (iamai), says, "The new rules are arbitrary as it is protecting the interest of one set of citizens while compromising upon that of others." Also, there is ambiguity in the rules on bulk sms carriers and telecom-based content, which should technically fall under user-generated content reaching the masses.

Perhaps the most bizarre are the rules regarding cyber cafes, which seek to define not just how the cafes conduct their business but also how a cyber cafe should look and even arrange its furniture. The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.

"Today a third of India's internet usage comes from cyber cafes. If you are putting requirements of photo ID and maintenance of logs of usage of every user, the crowd going to these cafes will move away," says Ray. He also feels that cyber cafes, which are already subject to harassment by local authorities, may find it even more difficult to survive under the new rules. Also, there are serious online security concerns over the functioning of cyber cafes under the new rules. "If you require all cyber cafes to maintain history of all websites visited by a user, including bank accounts and credit card transactions, it will be naive to think that such information will not be misused," says Prakash.

Significantly, the new rules also allow the government to access personal data and intercept any conversation or communication without judicial intervention. This, at a time when telephone intercepts by government agencies are being questioned, could lead to further complications. The government asserts that the new rules have been put in place looking at the "best practices" from across the world. But looking at the discontent—and the real danger of misuse—it needs to rethink these strategies.

[commonman 228]

Perhaps the most bizarre are the rules regarding cyber cafes, which seek to define not just how the cafes conduct their business but also how a cyber cafe should look and even arrange its furniture. The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.

"Today a third of India's internet usage comes from cyber cafes. If you are putting requirements of photo ID and maintenance of logs of usage of every user, the crowd going to these cafes will move away," says Ray. He also feels that cyber cafes, which are already subject to harassment by local authorities, may find it even more difficult to survive under the new rules. Also, there are serious online security concerns over the functioning of cyber cafes under the new rules. "If you require all cyber cafes to maintain history of all websites visited by a user, including bank accounts and credit card transactions, it will be naive to think that such information will not be misused," says Prakash.

Seems Govt. wants to stop business of all home grown cyber cafes and create a monopoly business model for large scale Corporate groups to create cyber cafe chains where users would be able to access only through prepaid photo cards (issued after verifying their details) valid for all cafes under the chain and all actions of the users would be recorded in the proxy servers.

[Proton 21]

Perhaps the most bizarre are the rules regarding cyber cafes, which seek to define not just how the cafes conduct their business but also how a cyber cafe should look and even arrange its furniture. The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.

"Today a third of India's internet usage comes from cyber cafes. If you are putting requirements of photo ID and maintenance of logs of usage of every user, the crowd going to these cafes will move away," says Ray. He also feels that cyber cafes, which are already subject to harassment by local authorities, may find it even more difficult to survive under the new rules. Also, there are serious online security concerns over the functioning of cyber cafes under the new rules. "If you require all cyber cafes to maintain history of all websites visited by a user, including bank accounts and credit card transactions, it will be naive to think that such information will not be misused," says Prakash.

Seems Govt. wants to stop business of all home grown cyber cafes and create a monopoly business model for large scale Corporate groups to create cyber cafe chains where users would be able to access only through prepaid photo cards (issued after verifying their details) valid for all cafes under the chain and all actions of the users would be recorded in the proxy servers.

Sounds familiar. Conspiracy theory? Not really:

Quote

Short version is that the citizens asked for high speed internet years ago,but the BTC (big telecoms) refused. The citizen took responsibility built a better system at a lower price, all for themselves, and now the Gov of NC is allowing BTCs to steal the market that the citizen created.

This isn't one corporation against another. The is the rights of the individual, in this case, a group of citizens, being taken away to make a corporation and politicians rich.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/22/nc-governor-will-let-cable-backed-bill-restricting-municipal-bro/

[kshah 452]

I will make first complaint against google maps for showing wrong boundries of kashmir. Let's see how government and people react to it.

Implementation may be doubtful but certainly intentions are good.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

[raccoon 53]

Despite the government arguing otherwise, this is being construed as an indirect way to control the internet and online activity. The new laws will suppress public opinion at a time when the internet is developing into a primary medium to mould as well as express public opinion. Nikhil Pahwa, an avid blogger and editor of Medianama, says, "National security is one thing, but what about civil liberty? Isn't that being violated here? This is a veiled move to block all public opinion."

When the choice is between security and liberty, the scale must always tip in favor of liberty, to the extent possible, for security without liberty is meaningless.

Not only must this not become law, those who propose such laws should be branded as enemies of liberty and be delt with...

Edited May 24, 2011 by raccoon