Category: Censorship

IT AMENDMENT RULES 2022: An Analysis of What’s Changed

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This post is authored by Sohina Pawah, a second-year student at the NALSAR University of Law, who is also an Editor for the TLF]

INTRODUCTION

Back in June 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) had first released the proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules 2021”) for public consultation. Recently, the MeitY notified the Amendments to Parts I and II of the IT Rules 2021 by introducing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022 (“IT Amendment Rules, 2022”). The IT Amendment Rules 2022 aim at the regulation of social media intermediaries by increasing the burden of their compliance, and ensuring that the safe harbours provided to them are not abused. On the whole, the Rules aim at strengthening the protective framework for the “netizens’ interests” by prioritising their fundamental rights under Articles 14,19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 19

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Harsh Jain and Harshita Lilani put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

Facebook Oversight Board picks the first batch of cases for review, adds additional matter from India

Facebook’s Oversight Board (OSB), an independent body set up to review moderation decisions by the company, chose 6 cases to review in the first week of December, 2020 from over 20,000 cases that were referred to it following the opening of user appeals in October 20, 2018. Five of the cases being considered by the OSB were referred via user appeals while the sixth arose from a reference by Facebook. A couple of days after announcing the first batch of cases, the OSB added an additional case for consideration from India. It involves a photo posted on a Facebook group with Hindi text describing the drawing a sword from its scabbard in response to “infidels” criticizing the prophet. The photo also included a logo with the words “Indian Muslims” in English. The accompanying text, also in English, includes hashtags calling President Emmanuel Macron of France “the devil” and calling for the boycott of French products.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 15

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

PIL filed seeking identities of content moderation officers

Former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya filed a public-interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi to prompt Google, Twitter and Facebook to disclose identities of designated content moderation officers on the basis of the Information Technology Rules. In response, Google submitted that the officers worked with government authorities to remove illegal content. Govindacharya claimed that without disclosure of the officers’ identities, no mechanisms to enforce obligations could not be adequately instituted. However, Google responded by stating that revealing the identities of officers would jeopardize their capacity to work efficiently with the government, as they would be exposed to public scrutiny and criticism.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 14

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

India bans 59 Chinese Apps including Tik-Tok

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced in a press release on 29th June that it had invoked its powers under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to ban 59 Chinese applications. The Indian government cited ‘raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians’ as reasons behind the ban. The move comes after a border skirmish with China resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. Regardless of the cybersecurity concerns cited in the press release, speculation remains rife over whether the ban was a retaliatory measure in light of the worsening geopolitical situation between India and China. India is a huge market for Chinese apps, particularly for the video-sharing platform Tik-Tok which had previously been banned in February 2019 for encouraging the spread of pornography and ‘cultural degradation’. The ban was ultimately lifted after assurances by Tik-Tok that it had the tools to censor explicit content. The current ban has been called a purely political decision and criticised for its procedural impropriety and its excessive restriction on dissemination of online content.

Read more

Right to access Internet: An end to oppressive Internet shutdowns?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

[This post has been authored by Mohd Rameez Raza (Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow) and Raj Shekhar (NUSRL, Ranchi).]

The Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in day to day working, access to information, and most important facilitating active citizen participation in building strong democratic societies. Relying on the same belief, the Kerala High Court, in its monumental, decision has held ‘Right to Internet Access’ as a fundamental right. Thus, making the right to have access to Internet part of ‘Right to Education’ as well as ‘Right to Privacy’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Read more

Delhi HC’s order in Swami Ramdev v. Facebook: A hasty attempt to win the ‘Hare and Tortoise’ Race

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This post has been authored by Aryan Babele, a final year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab and a Research Assistant at Medianama.

On 23rd October 2019, the Delhi HC delivered a judgment authorizing Indian courts to issue “global take down” orders to Internet intermediary platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter for illegal content as uploaded, published and shared by users. The Delhi HC delivered the judgment on the plea filed by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. requesting the global takedown of certain videos which were alleged to be defamatory in nature.

Read more

Legality of Linking Social Media Accounts to Aadhar

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This post has been authored by Saara Mehta, a fifth year at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. It discusses the legality of linking social media accounts to the government’s Aadhar scheme. 

On 20thAugust, 2019, the Attorney General of India, K.K. Venugopal, submitted to the Supreme Court that there was a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This, he argued, is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc. This post aims to examine the legality of this potential move in the light of the Puttaswamy decisions, as well as the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 19 and 21.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 6

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

Delhi HC orders social media platforms to take down sexual harassment allegations against artist

The Delhi High Court ordered Facebook, Google and Instagram to remove search result, posts and any content containing allegations of sexual harassment against artist Subodh Gupta. These include blocking/removal of social media posts, articles and Google Search result links. The allegations were made about a year ago, by an unknown co-worker of Gupta on an anonymous Instagram account ‘Herdsceneand’. These allegations were also posted on Facebook and circulated by news reporting agencies. An aggrieved Subodh Gupta then filed a civil defamation suit, stating these allegations to be false and malicious. Noting the seriousness of the allegations, the Court passed an ex-parte order asking the Instagram account holder, Instagram, Facebook and Google to take down this content. The Court has now directed Facebook to produce the identity of the person behind the account ‘Herdsceneand’ in a sealed cover. 

Further Reading:

  1. Trisha Jalan, Right to be Forgotten: Delhi HC orders Google, Facebook to remove sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta from search results, Medianama (1 October 2019).
  2. Akshita Saxen, Delhi HC Orders Facebook, Google To Take Down Posts Alleging Sexual Harassment by Artist Subodh Gupta [Read Order], LiveLaw.in (30 September 2019).
  3. Aditi Singh, Delhi HC now directs Facebook to reveal identity of person behind anonymous sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta,  Bar & Bench (10 October 2019).
  4. The Wire Staff, Subodh Gupta Files Rs. 5-Crore Defamation Suit Against Anonymous Instagram Account, The Wire (1 October 2019)
  5. Dhananjay Mahapatra, ‘MeToo’ can’t become a ‘sullying you too’ campaign: Delhi HC, Times of India (17 May 2019).
  6. Devika Agarwal, What Does ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Mean in the Context of the #MeToo Campaign, Firstpost (19 June 2019).

Petition filed in Kerala High Court seeking a ban on ‘Telegram’

A student from National Law School of India, Bengaluru filed a petition in the Kerala high court seeking a ban on the mobile application – Telegram. The reason cited for this petition is that the app has no  checks and balances in place. There is no government regulation, no office in place and the lack of encryption keys ensures that the person sending the message can not be traced back. It was only in June this year that telegram refused to hand over the chat details of the ISIS module to the National Investigation Agency.  As compared to apps such as Watsapp, Telegram has a greater degree of secrecy. One of the features Telegram boasts of is the ‘secret chat’ version which notifies users if someone has taken a screenshot, disables the user from forwarding of messages etc. Further, there are fewer limits on the number of people who can join a channel and this makes moderation on the dissemination of information even more difficult. It is for this reason that telegram is dubbed as the ‘app of choice’ for many terrorists. It is also claimed that the app is used for transmitting vulgar and obscene content including child pornography. Several countries such as Russia and Indonesia have banned this app due to safety concerns. 

Further Reading:

  1. Soumya Tiwari, Petition in Kerala High Court seeks ban on Telegram, cites terrorism and child porn, Medianama (7 October 2019).
  2. Brenna Smith, Why India Should Worry About the Telegram App, Human Rights Centre (17 February 2019).
  3. Benjamin M., Why Are So Many Countries Banning Telegram?, Dogtown Media (11 May 2019).
  4. Vlad Savov, Russia’s Telegram ban is a big convoluted mess, The Verge (17 April 2018).
  5. Megha Mandavia, Kerala High Court seeks Centre’s views on plea to ban Telegram app, The Economic Times (4 October 2019). 
  6. Livelaw News Network, Telegram Promotes Child Pornography, Terrorism’ : Plea In Kerala HC Seeks Ban On Messaging App, Livelaw.in (2 October 2019).

ECJ rules that Facebook can be ordered to take down content globally

In a significant ruling, the European Court of Justice ruled that Facebook can be ordered to take down posts globally, and not just in the country that makes the request. It extends the reach of the EU’s internet-related laws beyond its own borders, and the decision cannot be appealed further. The ruling stemmed from a case involving defamatory comments posted on the platform about an Austrian politician, following which she demanded that Facebook erase the original comments worldwide and not just from the Austrian version worldwide. The decision raises the question of jurisdiction of EU laws, especially at a time when countries are outside the bloc are passing their own laws regulating the matter.

Further Reading:

  1. Adam Satariano, Facebook Can Be Forced to Delete Content Worldwide, E.U.’s Top Court Rules, The New York Times (3 October 2019).
  2. Chris Fox, Facebook can be ordered to remove posts worldwide, BBC News (3 October 2019).
  3. Makena Kelly, Facebook can be forced to remove content internationally, top EU court rules, The Verge (3 October 2019).
  4. Facebook must delete defamatory content worldwide if asked, DW (3 October 2019).

USA and Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement

The Digital Trade Agreement was signed by USA and Japan on October 7, 2019. The Agreement is an articulation of both the nations’ stance against data localization. The trade agreement cemented a cross-border data flow. Additionally, it allowed for open access to government data through Article 20. Articles 12 and 13 ensures no restrictions of electronic data across borders. Further, Article 7 ensures that there are no customs on digital products which are electronically transmitted. Neither country’s parties can be forced to share the source code while sharing the software during sale, distribution, etc. The first formal articulation of the free flow of digital information was seen in the Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT), which was a key feature of the Osaka Declaration on Digital Economy. The agreement is in furtherance of the Trump administration’s to cement America’s standing as being tech-friendly, at a time when most other countries are introducing reforms to curb the practices of internet giants like Google and Facebook, and protect the rights of the consumers. American rules, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields companies from any lawsuits related to content moderation. America, presently appears to hope that their permissive and liberal laws will become the framework for international laws. 

Further Reading:

  1.     Aditi Agarwal, USA, Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement, stand against data localisation, Medianama (9 October 2019).
  2.     U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement Text, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).
  3.   Paul Wiseman, US signs limited deal with Japan on ag, digital trade,Washington Post (8 October 2019).
  4.   FACT SHEET U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).
  5. David McCabe and Ana Swanson, U.S. Using Trade Deals to Shield Tech Giants From Foreign Regulators, The New York Times (7 October 2019).

Read more