Intermediary Liability Archives - Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Traversing the Contours of Safe Harbour: Comparison of India and US (Part II)

Posted on July 12, 2022July 12, 2022 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

This is the second part of a two-part post authored by Kavya Jha and Ananya Singh, fourth-year law students at RGNUL, Punjab. The first part can be found here.

In light of the ongoing attempts to provide intermediaries with the right degree of protection, this essay seeks to juxtapose the Indian approach to safe harbour protection with the American approach. It argues that both these jurisdictions have taken opposite but extreme approaches: while India has narrowed down the safe harbour protection from what was originally intended by the legislature, the American courts have interpreted the safe harbour provisions so expansively that an imbalance has been created in favour of the intermediaries. The essay, thus, recommends a balanced approach to providing safe harbour protection to intermediaries.

Traversing the Contours of Safe Harbour: Comparison of India and US (Part I)

Posted on July 7, 2022 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

This is the first part of a two-part post authored by Kavya Jha and Ananya Singh, fourth-year law students at RGNUL, Punjab.

In light of the ongoing attempts to provide intermediaries with the right degree of protection, this essay seeks to juxtapose the Indian approach to safe harbour protection with the American approach. It argues that both these jurisdictions have taken opposite but extreme approaches: while India has narrowed down the safe harbour protection from what was originally intended by the legislature, the American courts have interpreted the safe harbour provisions so expansively that an imbalance has been created in favour of the intermediaries. The essay, thus, recommends a balanced approach to providing safe harbour protection to intermediaries.

Fighting “Unlawful” Content: Moderation and the New Intermediary Guidelines

Posted on May 6, 2021May 3, 2021 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This post has been authored by Sanjana L.B., a 4^th year student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.]

Introduction

In January 2021, India had the highest number of Facebook users at 320 million. This was followed by the United States of America (“USA”), with 190 million users. As of February 2021, about 53.1% of the population of Myanmar were active social media users. These numbers are not only indicative of internet penetration, but also of the audience for user-generated content on platforms like Facebook. This article focuses, firstly, on the need for content moderation on social media by looking at harmful precedents of inefficient moderation, and secondly, on the Indian Government’s approach to content moderation through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines”) and recent developments surrounding the regulation of social media content in India.

Breaking Encryption and Violating User Privacy: Is there a Way Out?

Posted on May 2, 2021May 1, 2021 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This post has been authored by Shamik Datta and Shikhar Sharma, first year students at NALSAR University of Law and National Law School India University respectively.]

How the IT Rules break End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption ensures that intermediaries or third parties don’t have access to the content of the message and identity of the communicating parties. However, Rule 4 (2) of the new Informational Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 specifies that all ‘significant social media intermediaries’ must enable the traceability of the first originator of a message. The collected information may be used if and when required by a court of competent jurisdiction or competent authority under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The information derived via the breaking of end-to-end encryption may be used to investigate offences abetted or caused by the spread of fake news. This includes open-ended offences like disturbing ‘public order’, which are broad in their scope, and thus, leave a wide scope for their blatant misuse and arbitrary interpretation. The proviso to Rule 4(2) states that intermediaries are not required to reveal the content of the message, or any other related information. However, under Rule 4 of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption) Rules, 2009, the government possesses the power to demand the revelation of the content of electronic messages. The government could, upon identifying the user under the 2021 Rules, ask the intermediary to decrypt the content of other messages of the same user under the 2009 IT Rules citing “public order” (for example, citing the history of the user as a fake news spreader). This would render the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the 2021 Rules meaningless. Therefore, when the information about the first originator is gathered via enabling traceability and powers to disclose the content of the message is exercised, it leads to a break in end-to-end encryption. This destroys the very purpose of the cryptographic keys and encryption protocols developed over the years to encode the messages and safeguard the identity of their sender.

The Internet and Marginalised Genders: A Comment in view of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021

Posted on March 28, 2021March 27, 2021 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[Varsha Singh is a fifth-year law student and contributing editor at robos of Tech Law and Policy, a platform for marginalized genders in the technology law and policy field. This essay is part of an ongoing collaboration between r – TLP and the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Blog and is the third post in the series. Previous entries can be found here.]

We live an increasingly online everyday life. Today, internet platforms are at the helm of conversations, dominating interactions and impacting relationships between social actors. These platforms’ power and control play a role in furthering fundamental values such as the right to communication and access to knowledge and information. Policies that govern this control, both at self-regulatory and state levels, should ensure the protection of such rights and freedoms while ensuring that users can reap these platforms’ benefits. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology recently published Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to regulate intermediaries. While these guidelines adversely affect users’ rights and freedoms in general, the adverse effect is amplified manifold when it comes to marginalised genders, especially in light of India’s socio-political and cultural contexts.

Facebook and its Oversight Board: Regulatory Attempts in an Impractical Relationship

Posted on March 4, 2021March 27, 2021 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[Lian Joseph is a fourth-year law student and contributing editor at robos of Tech Law and Policy, a platform for marginalized genders in the technology law and policy field. This essay is part of an ongoing collaboration between r – TLP and the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Blog. Posts in the series may be found here.]

Facebook’s Oversight Board (OB) was instituted to respond to the growing concerns regarding Facebook’s inadequate content moderation standards. The company has been alleged to have proliferated and played an important role in several instances of human right violations, hate and misinformation campaigns related to elections and COVID 19 among other issues. The introduction of the OB – the Facebook Supreme Court, as it has been dubbed – was met with a lot of skepticism, with many arguing that it was an attempt to deflect actual accountability. The Board was established as an independent body with a maximum of 40 members, separate from Facebook’s content review process with the power to review decisions made by the company and suggest changes and recommendations. Notably, the OB will be reviewing cases that are of grave concern and have potential to guide future decisions and policies. Appeals can be made by the original poster or the person who previously submitted it for review or by Facebook itself referring matters.

Metadata by TLF: Issue 19

Posted on December 21, 2020December 20, 2020 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.

Metadata by TLF: Issue 18

Posted on November 18, 2020November 17, 2020 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.

Streaming platforms and online news portals brought under the purview of the I&B Ministry

The Cabinet Secretariat issued a notification on November 11, 2020 granting the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting authority over streaming platforms and online news portals. Simply put, this means that platforms such as Netflix, Hotstar, Amazon Prime, etc. will now be under the jurisdiction of the I&B Ministry. While the I&B Ministry cannot regulate these platforms without specific laws being passed towards that end, the notification signals the intent of the government to bring out a regulatory code in the near future. Such a move was expected after Amit Khare, the Secretary of the I&B Ministry, expressed the Ministry’s intent to bring content streamed over OTT platforms under its purview. The online content sector, unlike radio, cinema and television, has till now remained free of censorship. In August 2020, more than a dozen OTT platforms operating in India such as Netflix, Zee5, Voot, Jio, SonyLiv, etc. had signed a self-regulation code aimed at empowering consumers with tools to assist them in making informed choice with regard to viewing decisions for them and their families but the I&B Ministry had refused to support the same.

Are Safe Harbour Provisions anchored in deep waters?

Posted on November 6, 2020November 6, 2020 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This post has been authored by Raashi Vaishya, a fourth year student at the NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai.]

The sentiment of intermediary liability in India can be felt from the dialogue that transpired between Cleopatra and the messenger who informed her about Antony’s marriage. When Cleopatra threatened to treat the messenger’s eyes as balls, he replied, “Gracious madam, I that do bring the news made not the match.”[1]

Metadata by TLF: Issue 17

Posted on August 19, 2020December 20, 2020 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.

SC moves to dismiss PIL implicating Jio’s liability in RCom’s AGR dues

Jio was recently made a party in a matter regarding adjusted gross revenue (AGR case) between companies in India and the Department of the Telecommunications and other telecom companies in India. The issue was regarding investigation into whether telcos like RCom, Videocon and Aircel wanted to evade paying their dues to the DoT by filing for insolvency. The DoT had decided that Jio was to be made liable for the 31000 crore AGR dues that RCom owed to the Department, since Jio was using RCom’s airwaves as evidenced by a 2016 spectrum sharing agreement. Jio sought to prove that the spectrum was simply leased and that they didn’t have any exclusive use of the spectrum. They further argued that spectrum sharing agreements do not assume a sharing of liabilities for DoT’s AGR dues.