[Reader-list] Why censor the internet?

[geeta seshu]

well, these are draft rules - but they are as good as final -
in any case, blogs have already been under scrutiny and over the last two
months, a few blogs were blocked for a while - its still unclear who ordered
the blocking and why...

And there has been a distressing lack of discussion except for a few sites
and blogs...

http://www.thehoot.org/web/freetracker/story.php?storyid=251&sectionId=6

 Centre for Internet and Society has filed an RTI for more info too:

http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/igov/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking

geeta





On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Ram Bhat <ram at maraa.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you know our government has sought to amend the IT Act 2000, with new
> rules,
> and one of them is particularly interesting, and disturbing to say the
> least.
> It is titled "Information Technology (Due diligence observed by
> intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011."
>
> You can read the proposed amendment here:
>
> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/due_dilligance4intermediary07_02_11.pdf
>
> Section 3 of the proposed rules, particularly point (g) should be of
> interest:
>
> *"causes annoyance or inconvenience or deceives or misleads the addressee
> about the origin of such messages or communicates any **information which
> is
> grossly offensive or menacing in nature;"*
>
> <
> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/due_dilligance4intermediary07_02_11.pdf
> >In
> essence, the proposed amendment concerns Intermediaries, and the IT Act
> defines them under clause (w) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act.
> The definition is given below:
>
> *"intermediary" with respect to any particular electronic message means any
> person who *
> *on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or
> provides any service *
> *with respect to that message*
> *
> *
> Consider a group like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti or HJS (
> http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11491.html), who decide that an ad on the
> internet is hurting sentiments of Hindus. They will not only resort to
> publishing details of the publisher (As they already have), they can now,
> under the new rules (if passed), move the government to remove this content
> under point (g) mentioned above. Annoyance and inconvenience has been
> caused!
>
> Until now, these battles have been fought on the internet itself...abuses
> exchanges, debates self-organised. Remember the case of Pink Chaddi where
> pink underwear, pink sarees and bangles were all exchanged and sent across
> the length and breadth of the country with gleeful abandon. Facebook groups
> were started, clicked on, hacked, and then ignored. That was, and currently
> is the preferred mode of expressing - freedom and difference of opinion on
> the internet. Ocassionally things do get out of hand, when our friends,
> people like HJS start publishing details like office locations, numbers,
> start calling ad companies and threaten to burn offices etc. But I digress.
>
> The point is that we need to sit up and take notice of this proposed
> amendment. It will affect not only the Facebooks and Googles of the world,
> but also our own humble efforts on Wordpress and other such platforms.
> Because anyone who has a blog or a site, becomes an intermediary. Through
> this comment on intermediary, our government also has seen it fit to decide
> what are the categories under which content can be censored..where are
> these
> words coming from - annoying, inconvenience etc ? Will the Computer
> Emergency Response Team (CERT) decide what is annoying?
>
> We cannot rely merely on the present argument of "don't punish the
> messenger". Efforts to hamper the messenger don't happen in vacuum. It
> implies that the message which is being carried might be of some
> discomfort.
> Otherwise why simply attack the messenger. You and I and many many people
> currently are in the business of sending and receiving messages on the
> internet today. To be more specific, 100 million users. Internet growth
> does
> not hold a candle to mobile phone, but in less than 3-5 years, there will
> not be much of a difference between the latter and the former. Current
> rural
> teledensity is somewhere between 26-29%. Most of the people living in rural
> India, who will probably access mobile phones (over the next few years)
> will
> probably access it over 3G standards, with data access assured. So that's
> close to 600-700 million people experiencing internet for the first time on
> a mobile phone. There is bound to be an explosion of internet based
> content.
> The new Telecom policy 2011 is set for a release in April. The government
> knows what is coming ahead, and these kind of amendments are just growing
> signs of nervousness when it knows that it needs to control the rural
> population.
>
> The government doesn't care much for how the urban population responds or
> what information it accesses. Cable TV, print etc, is largely unregulated.
> Can't be regulated - for the sheer volume of content which passes through
> daily. However, please note no news on radio - community radio or private
> FM. Why? Because FM is free to air, and even the lowest income groups can
> access it, either directly or through group listening. Now that can be
> dangerous.
>
> With the impending growth of telecom, the same situation looms silently. On
> one hand, our government wants to create a rapid growth in internet access
> and peer-to-peer content exchange amongst people who have no access (no
> doubt this will be written in new telecom policy), but on the other hand,
> it
> wants to create restrictive and disabling conditions even before people get
> widespread access.
>
> This paradoxical nature has to be brought out in to the open and fought for
> what its worth. I hope that you find the time to go through the amendments,
> and post in your thoughts.
> Unfortunately, the last date for comments has already passed (28th Feb) but
> please continue to absolutely flood the gates at this contact : grai AT
> mit.gov.in <grai at mit.gov.in>
>
> Complete tamasha can be seen at http://www.mit.gov.in/content/cyber-laws
>
> Would love to hear your thoughts and comments on this issue as well.
>
> best,
> Ram
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>