New government regulations on internet use are intrusive and may have a chilling effect on communications.
On April 11, the Union government quietly enforced three sets of guidelines to regulate internet usage. Dealing with security practices and sensitive personal information, intermediaries and cyber cafes, the rules contain provisions that have angered the online community — more so because they were notified despite their being heavily criticised when they were opened to public scrutiny in February.
Yes, Big Brother just got scarily more powerful.
The most problematic set of rules, say activists, is the one that concerns intermediaries. According to the Information and Technology Act, 2000, an intermediary could be an internet service provider, website, internet company or blog. The new rules demand that the intermediary notify users to not publish or use information that could be "harmful", "defamatory" or "causes annoyance" in any way. If a government agency alerts an intermediary about the existence of such information, the latter is required to block it within 36 hours.
The rule is worrying for several reasons. First, there is no definition of what constitutes objectionable content. Secondly, the onus of removing content lies with the intermediary, because of which websites and internet service providers (ISPs) become liable for content published by internet users or 'third parties'. The rule also requires intermediaries to block 'objectionable' content if they learn of its existence. But what's objectionable is highly subjective. And it's not only the government that can object to content; individuals are allowed to write to intermediaries if they want material that they find offensive blocked.
"These rules will have a vast, chilling effect on internet communications in India," says Apar Gupta, a lawyer who works at the Software Freedom Law Centre. "Intermediaries will turn from gentle ushers to burly bouncers, throwing out users and censoring content at the slightest hint of trouble. And when the legal prescriptions are broad and vague, most opinion and criticism will be blocked and censored pre-emptively."
The rules have a number of disturbing implications. In a country in which people are quick to take offence, it's not hard to imagine laypersons calling for material to be removed and political vendettas that involve banning websites. Gupta points out that the potential for abuse is high, given the ambiguity of the rules. "Hence, when there is no objective guidance on content which may 'harm minors in any way', any clips which are tagged 'adult' on YouTube (for example) and require a subscriber sign-in may be complained against and blocked in India," he explains. Intermediaries are worried about the fallout of the rules. It has been reported, for instance, that Google has expressed concerns that intermediaries will be vulnerable to liabilities, and that content that is not illegal will end up being blocked.
What's also controversial is that the rules allow one to bypass the judicial process. All it takes to get content removed is a letter to the intermediary. "A person who has written (something considered objectionable) is considered guilty without trial," says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama, a portal that discusses issues related to digital media. "If he wants to reinstate content, he has to go to court." Pahwa adds that there is a thin line between criticism and libel and that it is up to the courts to make distinctions. "Say, someone writes a critical essay on what's happening in Bhatta Parsaul," he says. "That's legitimate criticism. But someone can say that it's harmful to Rahul Gandhi's political prospects. What if that request came from the Congress? Would anyone want to defy the party?"
While internet communication in India is free compared to the restrictive regimes followed by countries like China and Saudi Arabia, the new rules are being viewed as a way for the government to regulate the medium in a more involved manner. The government has blocked sites in the past. In 2006, it made news by blocking the blog-hosting service, Typepad, Clickatell, a bulk SMS site and Mobango, a mobile application site, for reasons unknown. Earlier this year, the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore filed an RTI to find out the sites blocked by the government between 2008 and 2011. They got a list of 11 sites that includes an 'I Hate Ambedkar' Facebook page and some adult sites. Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS, says the process of blocking sites is not as transparent as it should be.
Pahwa views the rules as one tool, among others, to limit freedom of expression and invade individual privacy. He believes that we are being dogged by the "troika of paranoia" — interception, identification and blocking. Interception refers to the thousands of phone calls that are tapped every month; Pahwa says it's not farfetched to believe that the interview, which took place on the phone, was being tapped. He even has another mobile number for personal calls. Identification refers in particular to the Unique Identification (UID) project that will eventually be a vast storehouse of personal information that various government agencies could access and potentially misuse.
Internet experts believe that information collected at cyber cafés too is in danger of being abused. The rules instruct cyber café owners to take pictures of users, if they don't have a photo ID, and keep logs of users for a year. The rules are obviously a way of shoring up cyber security. In the past, terrorists have used cyber cafés. "ID requirements and data retention by ISPs on a blanket basis has been going on for years," Abraham says. "Where is the evidence that the existing level of surveillance has prevented cyberterrorism or real-world terrorism? If no evidence exists, then what is the need for more surveillance via these latest rules?"
Abraham also argues that café owners could misuse photographs, especially those of women and children. "What happens if (the owner) takes multiple photographs, or zooms the camera inappropriately?" he says. "In the age of nanotechnology, reducing form factor and software sophistication, do we really need to incentivise surveillance by ordinary citizens?"