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

Posted on January 6, 2020January 6, 2020 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 23^rd 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.

Legality of Linking Social Media Accounts to Aadhar

Posted on December 16, 2019November 1, 2020 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 20^thAugust, 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.

Metadata by TLF: Issue 6

Posted on October 10, 2019December 20, 2020 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:

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).
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).
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).
The Wire Staff, Subodh Gupta Files Rs. 5-Crore Defamation Suit Against Anonymous Instagram Account, The Wire (1 October 2019)
Dhananjay Mahapatra, ‘MeToo’ can’t become a ‘sullying you too’ campaign: Delhi HC, Times of India (17 May 2019).
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:

Soumya Tiwari, Petition in Kerala High Court seeks ban on Telegram, cites terrorism and child porn, Medianama (7 October 2019).
Brenna Smith, Why India Should Worry About the Telegram App, Human Rights Centre (17 February 2019).
Benjamin M., Why Are So Many Countries Banning Telegram?, Dogtown Media (11 May 2019).
Vlad Savov, Russia’s Telegram ban is a big convoluted mess, The Verge (17 April 2018).
Megha Mandavia, Kerala High Court seeks Centre’s views on plea to ban Telegram app, The Economic Times (4 October 2019).
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:

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

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

Metadata by TLF: Issue 4

Posted on September 10, 2019December 20, 2020 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.

Facebook approaches SC in ‘Social Media-Aadhaar linking case’

In 2018, Anthony Clement Rubin and Janani Krishnamurthy filed PILs before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of Mandamus to “declare the linking of Aadhaar of any one of the Government authorized identity proof as mandatory for the purpose of authentication while obtaining any email or user account.” The main concern of the petitioners was traceability of social media users, which would be facilitated by linking their social media accounts with a government identity proof; this in turn could help combat cybercrime. The case was heard by a division bench of the Madras HC, and the scope was expanded to include curbing of cybercrime with the help of online intermediaries. In June 2019, the Internet Freedom Foundation became an intervener in the case to provide expertise in the areas of technology, policy, law and privacy. Notably, Madras HC dismissed the prayer asking for linkage of social media and Aadhaar, stating that it violated the SC judgement on Aadhaar which held that Aadhaar is to be used only for social welfare schemes.

Facebook later filed a petition before the SC to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. Currently, the hearing before the SC has been deferred to 13 September 2019 and the proceedings at the Madras HC will continue. Multiple news sources reported that the TN government, represented by the Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal, argued for linking social media accounts and Aadhaar before the SC. However, Medianama has reported that the same is not being considered at the moment and the Madras HC has categorically denied it.

Further Reading:

Aditi Agrawal, SC on Facebook transfer petition: Madras HC hearing to go on, next hearing on September 13, Medianama (21 August 2019).
Nikhil Pahwa, Against Facebook-Aadhaar Linking, Medianama (23 August 2019).
Aditi Agrawal, Madras HC: Internet Freedom Foundation to act as an intervener in Whatsapp traceability case, Medianama (28 June 2019).
Aditi Agrawal, Kamakoti’s proposals will erode user privacy, says IIT Bombay expert in IFF submission, Medianama (27 August 2019).
Prabhati Nayak Mishra, TN Government Bats for Aadhaar-Social Media Linking; SC Issues Notice in Facebook Transfer Petition, LiveLaw (20 August 2019).
Asheeta Regidi, Aadhaar-social media account linking could result in creation of a surveillance state, deprive fundamental right to privacy, Firstpost (21 August 2019).

Bangladesh bans Mobile Phones in Rohingya camps

Adding to the chaos and despair for the Rohingyas, the Bangladeshi government banned the use of mobile phones and also restricted mobile phone companies from providing service in the region. The companies have been given a week to comply with these new rules. The reason cited for this ban was that refugees were misusing their cell phones for criminal activities. The situation in the region has worsened over the past two years and the extreme violation of Human Rights is termed to be reaching the point of Genocide according to UN officials. This ban on mobile phones, would further worsen the situation in Rohingya by increasing their detachment with the rest of the world, thus making their lives at the refugee camp even more arduous.

Further Reading:

Nishta Vishwakarma, Bangladesh bans mobile phones services in Rohingya camps, Medianama (4 September 2019).
Karen McVeigh, Bangladesh imposes mobile phone blackout in Rohingya refugee camp, The Guardian (5 September 2019).
News agencies, Bangladesh bans mobile phone access in Rohingya camps, Aljazeera (3 September 2019).
Ivy Kaplan, How Smartphones and Social Media have Revolutionised Refugee Migration, The Globe Post (19 October 2018).
Abdul Aziz, What is behind the rising chaos in Rohingya camps, Dhakka Tribune (24 March 2019).

YouTube to pay 170 million penalty for collecting the data of children without their consent

Alphabet Inc.’s Google and YouTube will be paying a $170 million penalty to the Federal Trade Commission. It will be paid to settle allegations that YouTube collected the personal information of children by tracking their cookies and earning millions through targeted advertisements without parental consent. The FTC Chairman, Joe Simons, condemned the company for publicizing its popularity with children to potential advertisers, while blatantly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The company has claimed to advertisers, that it does not comply with any child privacy laws since it doesn’t have any users under the age of 13. Additionally, the settlement mandates that YouTube will have to create policies to identify content that is aimed at children and notify creators and channel owners of their obligations to collect consent from their parents. In addition, YouTube has already announced that it will be launching YouTube Kids soon which will not have targeted advertising and will have only child-friendly content. Several prominent Democrats in the FTC have criticized the settlement, despite it being the largest fine on a child privacy case so far, since the penalty is seen as a pittance in contrast to Google’s overall revenue.

Further Reading:

Avie Schenider, Google, YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty Over Collecting Kids’ Personal Info, NPR (4 September 2019).
Diane Bartz, Google’s YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty for Collecting Data on Kids, Reuters (4 September 2019).
Natasha Singer and Kate Conger, Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube, New York Times (4 September 2019).
Peter Kafka, The US Government Isn’t Ready to Regulate The Internet. Today’s Google Fine Shows Why, Vox (4 September 2019).

Facebook Data Leak of Over 419 Million Users

Recently, researcher Sanyam Jain located online unsecured servers that contained phone numbers for over 419 million Facebook users, including users from US, UK and Vietnam. In some cases, they were able to identify the user’s real name, gender and country. The database was completely unsecured and could be accessed by anybody. The leak increases the possibility of sim-swapping or spam call attacks for the users whose data has been leaked. The leak has happened despite Facebook’s statement in April that it would be more dedicated towards the privacy of its users and restrict access to data to prevent data scraping. Facebook has attempted to downplay the effects of the leak by claiming that the actual leak is only 210 million, since there are multiple duplicates in the data that was leaked, however Zack Whittaker, Security Editor at TechCrunch has highlighted that there is little evidence of such duplication. The data appears to be old since recently the company has changed its policy such that it users can no longer search for phone numbers. Facebook has claimed that there appears to be no actual evidence that there was a serious breach of user privacy.

Further Reading:

Zack Whittaker, A huge database of Facebook users’ phone numbers found online, TechCrunch (5 September 2019).
Davey Winder, Unsecured Facebook Server Leaks Data Of 419 Million Users, Forbes (5 September 2019).
Napier Lopez, Facebook leak contained phone numbers for 419 million users, The Next Web (5 September 2019).
Kris Holt, Facebook’s latest leak includes data on millions of users, The End Gadget (5 September 2019).

Mozilla Firefox 69 is here to protect your data

Addressing the growing data protection concerns Mozilla Firefox will now block third party tracking cookies and crypto miners by its Enhanced Tracking Protection feature. To avail this feature users will have to update to Firefox 69, which enforces stronger security and privacy options by default. Browser’s ‘Enhanced Tracking Protection’ will now remain turned on by default as part of the standard setting, however users will have the option to turn off the feature for particular websites. Mozilla claims that this update will not only restrict companies from forming a user profile by tracking browsing behaviour but will also enhance the performance, User Interface and battery life of the systems running on Windows 10/mac OS.

Delhi Airport T3 terminal to use ‘Facial Recognition’ technology on a trial basis

Delhi airport would be starting a three-month trial of the facial recognition system in its T3 terminal. This system is called the Biometric Enabled Seamless Travel experience (BEST). With this technology, passenger’s entry would be automatically registered at various points such as check-in, security etc. Portuguese company- toolbox has provided the technical and software support for this technology. Even though this system is voluntary in the trial run the pertinent question of whether it will remain voluntary after it is officially incorporated is still to be answered. If the trial run is successful, it will be officially incorporated.

Further Reading:

Soumyarendra Barik, Facial Recognition tech to debut at Delhi airport’s T3 terminal; on ‘trial basis’ for next three months, Medianama (6 September 2019).
PTI, Delhi airport to start trial run of facial recognition system at T3 from Friday, livemint (5 September 2019).
Times Travel Editor, Delhi International Airport installs facial recognition system for a 3 month trial, times travel (6 September 2019).
Renée Lynn Midrack, What is Facial Recognition, lifewire (10 July 2019).
Geoffrey A. Fowler, Don’t smile for surveillance: Why airport face scans are a privacy trap, The Washington Post (10 June 2019).

UK Court approves use of facial recognition systems by South Wales Police

In one of the first cases of its kind a British court ruled that police use of live facial recognition systems is legal and does not violate privacy and human rights. The case, brought by Cardiff resident Ed Bridges, alleged that his right to privacy had been violated by the system which he claimed had recorded him at least twice without permission, and the suit was filed to hold the use of the system as being violative of human rights including the right to privacy. The court arrived at its decision after finding that “sufficient legal controls” were in place to prevent improper use of the technology, including the deletion of data unless it concerned a person identified from the watch list.

Further Reading:

Adam Satariano, Police Use of Facial Recognition Is Accepted by British Court, New York Times (4 September 2019).
Owen Bowcott, Police use of facial recognition is legal, Cardiff high court rules, The Guardian (4 September 2019).
Lizzie Dearden, Police used facial recognition technology lawfully, High Court rules in landmark challenge, The Independent (4 September 2019).
Donna Lu, UK court backs police use of face recognition, but fight isn’t over, New Scientist (4 September 2019).

Privacy on Facebook: An Absolute Prerequisite

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Jitesh Anand

[Image Source: http://flic.kr/p/86Q3gF]

Social networking websites have taken the Internet by storm in today’s organic society. One such website, Facebook, with over a billion users has often been referred to as the ‘third largest country’ of the world. The rise of Facebook to soaring heights can be credited to first, the intensive monitoring of its users which enables the company to provide them tailor made services, targeted advertising and second, of course to Metcalfe’s Law, which in common parlance means that the more users there are on a social networking site, the more attractive it will be to people who are contemplating joining. In this blog post, I have tried to analyze Facebook’s privacy policies along the lines of the National Privacy Principles. These principles have been comprehensively dealt with by Justice A.P. Shah in his ‘Report on Privacy’, published by the Planning Commission of India. They also closely tie to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Privacy Principles and European Union’s Data Protection Directives.

Law Commission Media Law Consultation – Panel V, Social Media

Posted on October 1, 2014February 21, 2023 by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/e5wZ3t)

The following is a post by Aman Gupta, a fourth year student at NUJS, covering the fifth panel of the Law Commission’s Media Law Consultation. Aman is currently the Director of the NUJS Society of International Law and Policy, and his areas of interest include Sports Law and Media Law. This post brings forward some very interesting ideas about Social Media Regulation in India, which we will be following up on in future posts.

The Law Commission of India hosted a two day consultation process on issues concerning Media Law in New Delhi on the 27^th and 28^th of September. The fifth panel of the event dealt with the controversial topic of ‘Social Media’ with regard to Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act (IT Act). The consultation was attended by journalists, academics and students, along with the owners of various websites that have been affected by the application of the provisions of the IT Act.

Of Facebook and Privacy – Part I: The Constitutional and Tortuous Facets

Posted on September 25, 2014 by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

(Image Source: opensource.com, https://flic.kr/p/84VZAr)

The following post by Samyak Sibasish is the first in a series of posts analysing the effects of Social Media, specifically Facebook, on Privacy. This post focuses on the constitutional and tortuous dimensions of the issue, while the next one will focus on the contractual aspects of it. Samyak is a 3rd year student at NUJS, Kolkata. Apart from being interested in cricket and politics, he spends his time on reading on law and justice systems, more specifically caste. Additionally, being a social media freak, he likes to research on the curious myriad ways the world of social media interacts with the laws that govern it.

Of late, it has been confirmed by media that Facebook has seen a meteoric rise in its number of users over the past decade and if bracketed as a nation, it can be the fourth most populated nation in the world. It is but pertinent to examine how protected is users’ privacy on a social networking forum like Facebook.