The concept of ‘intermediary liability’ in all its nuances, as I have written before, is one of the bulwarks of the internet as we know it, including one of the aspects of it that we all know and love – the power it gives to each and every individual to exercise their right to free speech. In fact, it is that very power that even I am exercising right now as a blogger, even as part of an academic institution. This post looks into the Shreya Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India judgment, the contentions raised therein by intermediaries, and the consequences it has for intermediaries and internet-users alike. We will be looking at the Section 69A issues in a separate post.
Last week, the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal and Ors. v Union of India has decreed S. 66A of the Information Technology Act unconstitutional in its entirety, and at the same drastically restricted the ambit of Ss. 69A and 79 by reading into them the jurisprudence of Art. 19(1) (a) and 19(2). It has at the same time struck down the notice-and-takedown regime, replacing it with a system with more oversight, as we will see in following posts.
We will shortly be coming out with separate, detailed posts on each of the separate dimensions of the judgement, including but not restricted to the Free Speech issues, the Intermediary Liability issues, and the Website blocking concerns. But before we start on to that, a short word of caution.
1. Dot wants to be the Wikipedia of location mapping, Napier Lopez, TheNextWeb.
2. Hardware Designs Should be Made Free: Here’s How to Do It, Richard Stallman, WIRED.
3. Humans: The Next Platform, Geoffrey Woo, TechCrunch.
1) Anatomy of a Hack, Russell Brandom, The Verge.
2) Documentary on 2012 Delhi gang rape banned in India, Nikita Doval, Live Mint.
3) Opinion: The FCC’s Net Neutrality victory is anything but, Geoffrey A. Manne, Wired.
4) Facebook post written in Florida lands US man in United Arab Emirates jail, David Kravets, Ars Technica.
5) Facebook reaching out to users who might be suicidal, Rex Santus, Mashable.
For the first time since the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s (IPT) establishment in 2000, a complaint against a UK intelligence agency has been upheld. The IPT, which oversees Britain’s secret agencies, is one of its most secretive and deferential courts. In a judgment last week, the IPT announced that the intelligence-sharing rules between the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and its British equivalent Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) governing the exchange of information collected through ‘mass surveillance of internet communications’ were against UK human rights law.