internet censorship by ronak

7/30/2019 Internet Censorship by Ronak

1/23

By: Ronak Karanpuria

LL.M. 1st year I.D. No. 534

Under the guidance of S.B. N. Prakash


2/23

Done by:

Governments or by private organizations at

the behest of government or by regulators

Internet censorship:

Control or Suppression

publishing of, or accessto information on theInternet

Reason: Political, Social & Conflict reasons

Moral, Religious, Business reasons or Legal

consequences


3/23

The basic idea of the Internet - to be able to communicate and

connect with people all over the world and say whatever we want

to say. This basic right is now severely at stake

.by Sir Tim Berners-Lee

FREEDOM

Economic - Business - marketing tool for companies

Social - Relations - friends, relatives

Political - Fame - politician mass image


4/23


5/23

Partially Free

Information

Technology Act

(ITA)

Government

blocking requests

Watch out what

you say on the

Internet

Government Regulations on

Pornographic, offensivecontent, violent and etc.

Internet Police

Comments, Blog and

forums

Federal Laws

o Communications

Decency Acto Children's Internet

Protection Act

Censorship by

institutionso Schools

o Libraries

o Telecommunicatio

n Companies

o

Wikileaks

Peoples Republic of ChinaIndiaUSA


6/23

1999 Dawn website blocked after Kargil War website ofPakistani daily

newspaper Dawn was banned

2007 Orkut and Indian law enforcement agreement to track defamatory

content

2011 Websites like Typepad, Mobango, Clickatell, without warning to

prevent piracy of the film Singham.2012 434 sites like Buydomains.com, Fabulous.com etc are blocked as a

result of government or court orders, some have been blocked by ISP.

Delhi Court issues summons to Google, Facebook for objectionable

content.

File sharing sites Vimeo, Megaupload, Torrentz & other torrents sites etcwere banned

During Assam Violence around 300 specific URL including website

ofRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and in addition, articles from Wikipedia, and

news reports of violence in Assam on the websites ofThe Times of India,

Firstpost, The Daily Telegraph and Al-jazeera were blocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(newspaper)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singham_(2011_film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrentzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraphhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-jazeerahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-jazeerahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-jazeerahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-jazeerahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraphhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sanghhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrentzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singham_(2011_film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(newspaper)


7/23

Pornography

Social Networks

Wikipedia

Wikileaks

Political Blogs

YouTube

Nazi and Similar

Websites

Religious Websites

Google

Websites Associated

with Censorship

Circumvention

Most Commonly Targeted Websites:


8/23

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-

In) constituted under IT act 2003 by executive order.

The task of oversight of the Indian cyberspace for

enhancing cyber protection, enabling security

compliance and assurance in Government and

critical sectors. CERT-IN is the agency that accepts and reviews

requests to block access to specific websites. No

review nor appeal.

CERT-IN act as the sole authority for issuing

blocking instructions to the Department ofTelecommunications (DOT)

In 2004, CERT-In ordered to block

http://hinduunity.org on the grounds that it

contained anti-Islamic material that could be

inflammatory
http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/http://www.cert-in.org.in/


9/23

Section 69A IT Act, grants powers to the

Central Government to "issue directions for

blocking of public access to any information

through any computer resource".

Guidelines, per s.69A(2), "shall be such asmay be prescribed". It has to be ensured thatthey are prescribed first, before any powers of

censorship are granted to any body.

Any law that gives unguided discretion on an

administrative authority to exercise censorship

is unreasonable (In re Venugopal, AIR 1954

Mad 901).

Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because

society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable
http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.html


10/23

Like Google, Facebook etc. and ISP responsible for the content their

users upload(Intermediary liability) Terms of service to remove content that is grossly harmful, harassing,

blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically

objectionable, unlawful in any manner, etc.

When intermediary has the knowledge (either obtained on its own,or when it is informed by any person)that the content being hostedby the intermediary violates the Rules, it is required to initiate action for

removal of such content within 36 hours or to terminate the access of

the users.

Are phone operators responsible for "content" carried on their networks- or their CEOs arrested if someone made a terror threat over a phonecall? No, they were simply asked to help with the investigation - intowho made the call.
http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.htmlhttp://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2008/01/launch-of-indian-kanoon-shedding-light.html


11/23

intermediary - Vague Definition there are differentclasses of intermediary which control the architecture of

the internet and the hardware which enables it to run.

So liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type

of service that each provides.

Sube Singh v. State of Haryanathat the states failure to

support a classification on the touchstone ofreasonability, with the existence ofintelligible differentia

or the rational basis of achieving a stated object, will be

ground for it to be held arbitrary and unreasonable.


12/23

Three grounds of attack:

Rules made by government are ambiguous and undefined.

Publication of certain categories of content over internet as

mentioned in the Rules are not offences under any existing law.Article 19(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech

and expression. Article 19(2) this right may be restricted in the

interest of the States sovereignty, integrity, security and

friendly relations with other States, public order, morality,

decency, contempt of court, and for protection againstdefamation. Some of the categories of objectionable content underthe Rules may not meet the requirements of Article 19(2) and may

infringe the right to freedom of speech and expression.

2. Cybercaf owners:Cyber cafs are required to maintain a logcontaining personal details, such as address and photographs of the

users, and their internet usage. Provision to prevent or investigatecrime. Such provision could have negative implications on the right

to privacy and personal security of the user.


13/23

3. Privacy & Survellience: Sec- 69 of the new amended act, it ispossible for the policeto snoop through ones emails, phonecalls, texts and other personal communication over the Internet

without any warrant for the same from the magistrate.

The intermediary is no position to decide whether a painting of

women is obscene or not, since that requires judicial applicationof mind.

Restriction that does not provide the affected persons a right to be

heard is procedurally unreasonable (Virendra v. State of Punjab,AIR 1957 SC 896).

Q1. How intermediary can decide which content is harmfulorunlawful?

Q2. Executive function of government delegated to private agenciesis abuse of power? No review ? No Appeal?Q3. Principle of Natural justice is violated as the content uploaderis not given the opportunity to speak about its content?


14/23

Word grossly harmful,

harassing, disparaging, Not Legal Standards subjective

grossly offensive Vague Terms indicators ofor menacing, hateful, personal sensitivitiesBlasphemous, defamatory

Do Not Fit in A.19(2)

Void for Vagueness Doctrine. [SC 1994 SCC (3) 569]It is the basic principle of legal jurisprudence that anenactment is voidfor vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague lawsoffend several important values. It is insisted or emphasised that lawsshould give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity

to know what is prohibited. Vague laws may trap the innocent by notproviding fairwarning

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India - Limitations onthe exercise of the Article 19(1)(a) right which do not fall within Article

19(2) cannot be upheld.


15/23

Under Rule 3 (4) IT guidelines 2011:Intermediary Guidelines violate

the authors right to notice and consequently affect his/her right toprepare and present a defence at all. In Sec-79 - limited time within

which action must be takenintermediary will lost the immunity if noaction is taken - Guidelines presume and rule in favour of the

complainants and in favour of (private) censorship.

Union of India v. Tulsiram PatelSupreme Court held that the principleof natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram partemrule, which consisted of several requirements, including the requirementthat a person against whose detriment an action is taken be informed of

the case against him and be afforded a full and fair opportunity torespond.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: Supreme Court held that the absence ofdue notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond would vitiate any

holding to the rights holder's detriment.


16/23

1. Rule 3(3) ultra vires section 79 of the IT Act.Rule expressly prohibits the hosting, publication or initiation of transmission of

content while sec- 79 does not intend any prohibition.2. Rule 3(4) inconsistent with section 69BRule states Intermediaries to take steps to disable access to within 36 hoursof receiving a complaint while sec- 69B which lays down in detail, theprocedure to be followed to disable access to information. Sec- 69B isstatutory law, Rule 3(4), being mere delegated legislation

3. Rule 3(7) is ultra vires sections 69 and 69B, and falls outside thescope of section 79(2).

Rule 3(7) provides that intermediaries must comply with requests for

information or assistance when required to do so by appropriate authorities.

This provision has no relation to the contents of sec- 79(regulates

intermediaries liability forcontent) & not consistent with the rules under sec-69 and 69B.

4. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception,Monitoring, and Decryption) Rules 2009

Permission must be obtained from the competent authority to access records

while Rule 3(7) makes intermediaries answerable to virtually any request fromany government agency.


17/23

Internet is inherently DEMOCRATIC, suspending internet is violate the democratic

principles

1. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes

freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

2. Special Rapporteurs Report & UN Internet Freedom Resolution2012

Recognize the need for special efforts to be undertaken by states to preserve free

speech on the internet. The former document justifies censorship only in the

most limited circumstances and makes specific mention of the commercial

interests that may be implicated in delivering free speech

3. Article 19(1) of Constitution of India, 1950 All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(c) to form associations or unions;

4. Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 No person shall be deprived of his

life or personal liberty expect according to the procedure established by law
http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/ART19.HTMhttp://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htmhttp://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htmhttp://www.udhr.org/UDHR/ART19.HTMhttp://www.udhr.org/UDHR/ART19.HTM


18/23

Internet censorship affects everyone. Environmental activists, HIV

lobbyists, human rights supporters, bloggers with opinions

When information is controlled, censored or blocked there is no

transparency.

Free flow of information restricted.

Speed of internet will be restricted User-generated content be filtered: Thatwould slow down the global Internet to a crawl, with posts appearing after

days

Everyone has the right to express an opinion and to access information

without fear

That's freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. And it doesn't

matter whether you live in Australia or in China your rights are the same.

Human rights are not just ideas and concepts they affect the lives of

real people.


19/23


20/23

Is INDIA the Next CHINA?


21/23

Google on this matter has also said that:

"When content is legal and does not violate

our policies, we will not remove it just because

it is controversial, as we believe that people's

differing views, so long as they are legal,

should be respected and protected."


22/23

1. To what extent do you believeinformation should be free?

2. Will you obey the governments

regulation of not reporting some certain

news, or will you insist to reveal the truthto the public?

3. What do you think about it with regard to

the internet censorship and the influence

of social network such as Twitter andFacebook?


23/23

Thank [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

internet censorship by ronak

Documents