The Internet – Laws and Censorship

One of the early nicknames for the Internet was the "information superhighway" because it was supposed to provide the average person with fast access to a practically limitless amount of data. For many users, that's exactly what accessing the Internet is like. For others, it's as if the information superhighway has some major roadblocks in the form of Internet censorship. The motivations for censorship range from well-intentioned desires to protect children from unsuitable content to authoritarian attempts to control a nation's access to information. No matter what the censors' reasons are, the end result is the same: They block access to the Web pages they identify as undesirable.

WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL

In 2007, AT&T came under fire when music fans discovered that the company had edited out political comments in a Webcast performance by the band Pearl Jam. The band covered Pink Floyd's song "Another Brick in the Wall" and added lyrics criticizing United States President George W. Bush. AT&T cut the new lyrics out of the song before Webcasting it. After an outcry from fans, the company eventually admitted that it wasn't an isolated incident, though AT&T spokeswoman Tiffany Nels claimed that it was never AT&T's intent to remove political statements from Webcasts [source: MTV].

HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NEGLECTED AND BLATANTLY VIOLATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. THESE HUMAN RIGHTS (HR) AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (FR) HAVE NOW TAKEN AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT SHAPE IN THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) DRIVEN WORLD. THE NATIONS ARE INCREASINGLY BECOMING “POLICE STATES” AND “ENDEMIC SURVEILLANCE SOCIETIES”. THE VICES OF ILLEGAL E-SURVEILLANCE, PRIVACY VIOLATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, ETC ARE BECOMING COMMON AND WIDELY SPREAD ALL OVER THE WORLD. THIS PLATFORM IS TRYING TO PROVIDE “TECHNO-LEGAL REMEDIES” TO NETIZENS SO THAT THEY MAY PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE “OVER ZEALOUS AND OVER CAUTIOUS STATE ACTIONS” THAT ARE BY THEIR VERY NATURE ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INHUMAN. 

We have no dedicated privacy laws, data protection laws, data privacy and security laws, etc in India. On the contrary, the Cyber Law of India, incorporated in the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act 2000), facilitates E-Surveillance, Internet Censorship, etc “Without any Procedural Safeguards”.

Legally speaking:

In June 2000 the Indian Parliament created the Information Technology (IT) Act to provide a legal framework to regulate Internet use and commerce, including digital signatures, security, and hacking. The act criminalizes the publishing of obscene information electronically and grants police powers to search any premises without a warrant and arrest individuals in violation of the act. A 2008 amendment to the IT Act reinforced the government's power to block Internet sites and content and criminalized sending messages deemed inflammatory or offensive. How effective this mechanism is, is yet to be tested to the fullest.

Internet filtering can also be mandated through licensing requirements. For example, ISPs seeking licenses to provide Internet services with the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) “shall block Internet sites and/or individual subscribers, as identified and directed by the Telecom Authority from time to time” in the interests of “national security”. License agreements also require ISPs to prevent the transmission of obscene or otherwise objectionable material. This would of course include pornographic material as well as material objectionable in the interest of national security.  

In 2003 the Government of India established the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) to ensure Internet security. Its stated mission is "to enhance the security of India's Communications and Information Infrastructure through proactive action and effective collaboration". CERT-IN is the agency that accepts and reviews requests to block access to specific websites. All licensed Indian ISPs must comply with CERT-IN decisions. There is no review or appeals process (which means that their decision is FINAL and there is no way in which the alleged violating party can get their say or explain themselves.) Many institutions, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, courts, the intelligence services, the police and the National Human Rights Commission, may call on it for specialist expertise and provide reports whenever called on in particular matters of probe and violation as per the Act. By stretching the prohibition against publishing obscene content to include the filtering of Web sites, CERT-IN was empowered to review complaints and act as the sole authority for issuing blocking instructions to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). Many have argued that giving CERT-IN this power through executive order violates constitutional jurisprudence holding that specific legislation must be passed before the government can encroach on individual rights.

Following the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 171 people, the Indian Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) that expanded the government’s censorship and monitoring capabilities. Internet users have sporadically faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content are obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities. Both bloggers and moderators can face libel suits and even criminal prosecution for comments posted by other users on their websites. Prior judicial approval for communications interception is not required and both central and state governments have the power to issue directives on interception, monitoring, and decryption. All licensed ISPs are obliged by law to sign an agreement that allows Indian government authorities to access user data.

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the Open Net Initiative in May 2007. ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, India’s experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamor of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. … Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticized for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.

OpenNet Initiative reports

Through 2010 the OpenNet Initiative had documented Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries worldwide. The level of filtering in 26 countries in 2007 and in 25 countries in 2009 was classified in the political, social, and security areas. Of the 41 separate countries classified, seven were found to show no evidence of filtering in all three areas (Egypt, France, Germany, India, the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States), while one was found to engage in pervasive filtering in all three areas (China), 13 were found to engage in pervasive filtering in one or more areas, and 34 were found to engage in some level of filtering in one or more areas. Of the 10 countries classified in both 2007 and 2009, one reduced its level of filtering (Pakistan), five increased their level of filtering (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Korea, and Uzbekistan), and four maintained the same level of filtering (China, Iran, Myanmar, and Tajikistan).

Instances of Web Censorship in India in the recent past:

·         1999 — Website of Dawn, a Pakistani daily newspaper, blocked following Kargil War

Towards the end of the Kargil War in 1999 and for sometime thereafter, the website of the Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn was blocked from access within India by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, a government-owned telecommunications company which at the time had monopoly control of the international internet gateways in India. Rediff, a media news website, claimed that the ban was instigated by the Indian government, and then published detailed instructions as to how one could bypass the filter and view the site

·         2003 — Yahoo Groups banned

In September 2003, Kynhun, a Yahoo group linked to the "Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council" (an illegal, minor separatist group from Meghalaya), which discussed the case of the Khasi tribe was banned. The Department of Telecommunications asked Indian ISPs to block the group, but difficulties led to all Yahoo! groups being banned for approximately two weeks.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/24/india_blocks_yahoo_groups/

·         IRC Undernet banned

IRC Undernet (www.undernet.org) was banned without any media coverage in 2008. There are not many details available on this however, the discussion panel in the link provided shows the angst of the people against such arbitrary bans.

http://gastly.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/undernet-irc-network-blocked-in-india/

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19blogs.htm

  

On a bare perusal of the links provided above and the instances given it is evident that Censorship has been in effect present since 2006.

When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, it listed 13 countries. By 2011 the number of countries listed had fallen to 10 with the move of Belarus, Egypt, and Tunisia to the "Countries under surveillance." Belarus was moved to surveillance status in 2009 and Egypt and Tunisia were moved after their revolutions in 2011. No new countries have been added to the list since it was established.

When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in 2008, it listed 10 countries. By 2011 the number of countries listed had grown to 16 after Jordan in 2009, Tajikistan in 2009, and Yemen in 2010 were dropped from the list; Australia in 2009, France in 2011, Russia in 2010, South Korea in 2009, Turkey in 2010, and Venezuela in 2011 were added; and with the three moves from the "Enemies of the Internet" list noted earlier. Bahrain, Eritrea, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka dropped from the list in 2010, but were added again in 2011. Libya dropped from the list in 2009, but was added again in 2011.

There are three primary motives or rationales for Internet censorship: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting intellectual property rights and existing economic interests are two additional motives for Internet censorship. In addition, networking tools and applications that allow the sharing of information related to these motives are often targeted. And while there is considerable variation from country to country, the blocking of Web sites in a local language is roughly twice that of Web sites available only in English or other international languages.

Politics and power

Censorship directed at political opposition to the ruling government is common in authoritarian and repressive regimes. Some countries block Web sites related to religion and minority groups, often when these movements represent a threat to the ruling regimes.

Any government that respects human rights and civil liberties must maintain a balance between human rights, civil liberties and national security requirements. Further, a sound and constitutional e-surveillance policy also required that clearly demarcates the nature, extent, procedure, etc of using e-surveillance for national security purposes. This attitude and mentality must be adopted by all the law enforcement agencies of the world, including India. Till human rights in cyberspace are not respected and protected, the fight against cyber crimes would always remain biased and incomplete.