💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Social Media Networks & Internal Security

  • Creating safe digital spaces

    Context

    Various reports have indicated increased incidence of cyberbullying and online child sexual exploitation by adults.

    Tackling cyberbullying

    • School closures as a response to the COVID-19 lockdowns have led to an unprecedented rise in unsupervised screen time for children and young people, which in turn exposed them to a greater risk of online violence.
    • In India, an estimated 71 million children aged 5-11 years access the Internet on the devices of their family members, constituting about 14% of the country’s active Internet user base of over 500 million
    • There is growing scientific evidence which suggests that cyberbullying has negative consequences on the education, health and well-being of children and young people.
    • Published in 2019 and drawing on data from 144 countries, UNESCO’s report ‘Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying’ highlighted the extent of the problem, with almost one in three students worldwide reporting being bullied at least once in the preceding month.
    • Therefore, cyberbullying prevention interventions should aim at tackling all types of bullying and victimisation experiences at the same time, as opposed to each in silo.

    Cyberbullying prevention interventions

    • Although online violence is not limited to school premises, the education system plays a crucial role in addressing online safety.
    • To prevent and counter cyberbullying, the information booklet brought out by UNESCO in partnership with NCERT on Safe Online Learning in Times of COVID-19 can be a useful reference.
    • Effective interventions also require gender-sensitive and targeted approaches that respond to needs of learners who are most likely to be the victims of online violence.
    • Concerted efforts must be made to provide children and young people with the knowledge and skills to identify online violence so that they can protect themselves from its different forms, whether perpetrated by peers or adults.
    • Teachers also play a critical role by teaching students about online safety, and thus supporting parental involvement.

    Conclusion

    It is imperative that digital and social media platforms are free of cyberbullying, if learners have to access quality education. More importantly, confidential reporting and redress services must be established.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The outlines of a national security policy

    Context

    National security concepts have, in the two decades of the 21st century, undergone fundamental changes. Cyberwarfare has vastly reduced the deterrent value of conventional deterrents.

    Emergence of cyberwarfare

    • In the 21st century, after cybertechnology enters as an important variable in nations’ defence policies.
    • Geographical land size or GDP size will be irrelevant in war-making capacity or deterrence.
    • These fundamental changes are entirely due to the earlier 20th century innovations in cybertechnology and software developments.
    • Drones, robots, satellites and advanced computers as weapons are already in use.
    • Some examples of further innovations are artificial intelligence and nanotechnology.
    • Tracking those cyber warfare threat will need a new national security policy.
    • By credible accounts, China, recently, publicly cautioned Indians to sit up and take notice by using cybertechnology to shut down Mumbai’s electric supply in populated areas of the city, for a few hours.

    Four dimensions of national security policy

    • Objectives: the objective of the National Security Policy in the 21st century is to define what assets are required to be defended, the identity of opponents.
    • Although the novel coronavirus is perhaps accidental, it has completely destabilised peoples globally and their governments in all nations of the world over.
    • This is a preview of the kinds of threats that await us in the coming decades which a national security policy will have to address by choosing a nation’s priorities.
    • Priorities: National security priorities will require new departments for supporting several frontiers of innovation and technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells, desalination of seawater, thorium for nuclear technology, anti-computer viruses, and new immunity-creating medicines.
    • This focus on a new priority will require compulsory science and mathematics education, especially in applications for analytical subjects.
    • Strategy: The strategy required for this new national security policy will be to anticipate our enemies in many dimensions and by demonstrative but limited pre-emptive strikes by developing a strategy of deterrence of the enemy.
    • For India, it will be the China cyber capability factor which is the new threat for which it has to devise a new strategy.
    • Resource mobilisation: The macroeconomics of resource mobilisation depends on whether a nation has ‘demand’ as an economic deficit or not.
    • If demand for a commodity or service is in deficit to clear the market of the available supply of the same, then liberal printing of currency and placing it in the hands of consumers is recommended for the economy to recover the demand-supply parity.
    • A way to increase demand is by lowering the interest rate on bank loans or raising the rates in fixed deposits which will enable banks to obtain liquidity and lend liberally for enhancing investment for production.
    • If it is ‘supply’ that is short or in deficit compared to demand, then special measures are required to incentivise to encourage an increase in supply.

    Conclusion

    National security at its root in the 21st century will depend on mind-boggling skills in the four dimensions mentioned above.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Loss of Safe Harbour for Twitter

    Twitter has reportedly lost the coveted “safe harbour” immunity in India after failing to appoint statutory officers on time, as mandated by the new Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021.

    What is the news?

    • With this, the social media giant becomes the only American platform to have lost the protective shield – granted under Section 79 of the IT Act.
    • Its rival platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp remain protected.
    • The new development could mean that Twitter’s senior executives that include its India managing director, face legal actions under relevant IPC for ‘unlawful’ activities on the platform – even if conducted by users.

    Why such a move?

    • Earlier this week, Twitter said it appointed an interim Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), and the details of the officer were not yet shared with the government.
    • The company also posted job openings for a Nodal Officer and Resident Grievance Officer – the two key positions mandated by the central government’s IT Rules, 2021.

    What is safe harbour protection?

    • According to Section 79 of IT Act, 2000, “an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him,” therefore providing Safe Harbour protection.
    • To put it simply, the law notes that intermediaries such as Twitter or your Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable to punishment if third parties (users) misuse the infrastructure, in this case, the platform.
    • However, the protection is guaranteed only when the intermediary does not ‘initiate the transmission,’ ‘select the receiver of the transmission,’ and ‘modify the information contained in the transmission.’
    • It means that as long as the platform acts just as the medium to carry out messages from users A to user B, that is, without interfering in any manner, it will be safe from any legal prosecution.

    Inception of the concept

    • In its original form, the IT Act 2000 provided little or no Safe Harbour protection to internet intermediaries as the definition of the intermediary was restricted.
    • However, things began changing in 2004, in a case where a student posted an obscene clip for sale.
    • The student and the CEO of that company were both held later for letting pornographic material circulate online.
    • The CEO challenged the proceedings against him, contending that he could not be personally held liable for the listing and that the MMS was transferred directly between the seller and buyer without the intervention of the website.
    • The executive was acquitted, the case eventually resulted in the addition of Section 79 in the IT Act to provide immunity to intermediaries.

    Why has Twitter lost the protection?

    • Over the years, social media platforms have evolved and often tend to act as gatekeepers.
    • For instance, Twitter banning Donald Trump and adding “manipulated media” label on select posts have been questioned by excerpts.
    • In other words, an intermediary’s ability to “modify the information contained in the transmission,” opens rooms for revision of the law, experts believe.
    • Hence, the government introduced the IT Rules 2021 in December last year and implemented it in May 2021.
    • As per the new order, all social media platforms with more than 50 lakh (five million) users will need to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person, and a Resident Grievance Officer from India to smoothen the grievance mechanism for citizens.
    • The officers will need to acknowledge queries with 24 hours and resolve them in 15 days from the date of receipt.

    What can happen next?

    • Once a company loses the Safe Harbour protection, technically, officials are liable to punishment if a post even by a third user violates local laws.
    • The new IT Rules 2021 do not mention any ban for non-compliance.
    • But with an estimated 1.75 crore users in India, Twitter would likely fill key positions soon to comply with the new norms laid by the government.
    • As mentioned, the company already appointed an interim Chief Compliance Officer earlier.
    • This, according to the government, means that the protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, accorded to Twitter for being a social media intermediary, now stands withdrawn.

    How does this impact Twitter?

    • If someone puts out any content on Twitter that leads to some form of violence, or violates any Indian law with respect to content, not only the person that has put out the tweet will be held responsible.
    • Even Twitter will be legally liable for the content as it no longer has the protection.

    Is there something else that can happen subsequently?

    • In the longer run, there is also the theoretical possibility that Twitter might be subjected to the 26 per cent cap of direct foreign investment in media and publishing.
    • This in turn means that the platform may be forced to look for an Indian buyer for the remaining 74 per cent stake.

  • New IT Rules is not the way forward

    The article deals with the issues involved in the traceability requirement of the originator of information on social media platform as per new IT Rules.

    Traceability clause and issues involved

    • Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 imposes certain obligation on significant social media intermediaries.
    • Rule 4(2) puts an obligations to ensure traceability of the originator of information on their platforms.
    • Consequently, WhatsApp has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court.
    • WhatsApp contends that the mandate for traceability violates the privacy rights of Indian citizens, by rendering WhatsApp unable to provide encrypted services.

    Government’s response

    • The Government primarily relies on the argument that: privacy is not an absolute right, and that the traceability obligation is proportionate, and sufficiently restricted.
    • Notably, the new Rules mandate traceability only in the case of significant social media intermediaries i.e. those that meet a user threshold of 50 lakh users, which WhatsApp does.
    • Traceability is also subject to an order being passed by a court or government agency and only in the absence of any alternatives.
    • While it is indeed true that privacy is not an absolute right, the Supreme Court of India in the two K.S. Puttaswamy decisions of 2017 and 2018 has laid conditions for restricting this right.
    • In Puttaswamy cases, the Supreme Court clarified that any restriction on this right must be necessary, proportionate and include safeguards against abuse.

    Issues with traceability

    • Not proportionate: A general obligation to enable traceability as a systemic feature across certain types of digital services is neither suitable nor proportionate.
    • No safeguard against abuse: The Rules lack effective safeguards in that they fail to provide any system of independent oversight over tracing requests made by the executive.
    • This allows government agencies the ability to seek any messaging user’s identity, virtually at will.
    • Presumption of criminality:  Weakening encryption — which a traceability mandate would do — would compromise the privacy and security of all individuals at all times, despite no illegal activity on their part, and would create a presumption of criminality.

    Way forward

    • Explore the alternatives: The Government already has numerous alternative means of securing relevant information to investigate online offences including by accessing unencrypted data such as metadata, and other digital trails from intermediaries.
    • Already has ability to access encrypted data: The surveillance powers of the Government are in any case vast and overreaching, recognised even by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee report of 2018.
    • Importantly, the Government already has the ability to access encrypted data under the IT Act.
    • Notably, Section 69(3) of the Information Technology Act and Rules 17 and 13 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009 require intermediaries to assist with decryption where they have the technical ability to do so, and where law enforcement has no alternatives.
    • Judicial scrutiny of Section 79 of IT Act: The ability of the government to issue obligations under the guise of “due diligence” requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act must be subject to judicial scrutiny.
    • Legislative changes needed: The long-term solution would be for legislative change along multiple avenues, including in the form of revising and reforming the now antiquated IT Act, 2000.

    Consider the question “What are the issues involved in the traceability of the originator of the information on social media platforms as mandated by the new IT Rules 2021? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    While, undoubtedly, there are numerous problems in the digital ecosystem that are often exacerbated or indeed created by the way intermediaries function, ill-considered regulation of the sort represented by the new intermediary rules is not the way forward.

  • New IT Rules 2021

    The article highlights the issues with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    Important provision made in the IT Rules 2021

    • The Rules mandate duties such as removal of non-consensual intimate pictures within 24 hours.
    • The rules also mandates publication of compliance reports to increase transparency.
    • Rules provides for setting up of a dispute resolution mechanism for content removal.
    • It provides for adding a label to information for users to know whether content is advertised, owned, sponsored or exclusively controlled.

    Issues with the rules

    1) Affects right to free speech and expression

    • The Supreme Court, in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. Of India vs Prof. Manubhai D. Shah (1992) had elevated ‘the freedom to circulate one’s views as the lifeline of any democratic institution’.
    • So, the rules need to be critically scrutinised for the recent barriers being imposed by it.

    2) Violation of legal principles

    • The rules were framed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY).
    • However, the Second Schedule of the Business Rules, 1961 does not empower MeiTY to frame regulations for digital media.
    • This power belongs to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
    • This action violates the legal principle of ‘colourable legislation’ where the legislature cannot do something indirectly if it is not possible to do so directly.
    • Moreover, the Information Technology Act, 2000, does not regulate digital media.
    • Therefore, the new IT Rules which claim to be a piece of subordinate legislation of the IT Act, goes beyond the rule-making power conferred upon them by the IT Act.
    • This makes the Rules ultra vires to the Act.

    3) Deprives the fair recourse to intermediary

    • An intermediary is now supposed to take down content within 36 hours upon receiving orders from the Government.
    • This deprives the intermediary of a fair recourse in the event that it disagrees with the Government’s order due to a strict timeline.

    4) Privacy violation

    • These Rules undermine the right to privacy by imposing a traceability requirement.
    • The immunity that users received from end-to-end encryption was that intermediaries did not have access to the contents of their messages.
    • Imposing this mandatory requirement of traceability will break this immunity, thereby weakening the security of the privacy of these conversations.
    • This will also render all the data from these conversations vulnerable to attack from ill-intentioned third parties.
    • The threat here is not only one of privacy but to the extent of invasion and deprivation from a safe space.
    • Recent data breach affecting a popular pizza delivery chain and also several airlines highlights the risks involved in such move in the absence of data protection law.
    • Instead of eliminate the fake news, the Rules proceed to hurriedly to take down whatever authority may deem as “fake news”.

    5) Operational cost

    • The Rules create additional operational costs for intermediaries by requiring them to have Indian resident nodal officers, compliance officers and grievance officers.
    • Intermediaries are also required to have offices located in India.
    • This makes profit making a far-fetched goal for multinational corporations and start-up intermediary enterprises.
    • Therefore, not only do these Rules place a barrier on the “marketplace of ideas” but also on the economic market of intermediaries in general by adding redundant financial burdens.

    Consider the question “What are the challenges associated with the social media? How the  Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 will help is dealing with these challenges? What are the issues with these rules?”

    Conclusion

    Democracy stands undermined in direct proportion to every attack made on the citizen’s right. The IT Rules 2021 have tilt towards violation of rights. Therefore, these rules need reconsideration.

  • Explained: Social Media and Safe Harbour

    The new rules for social media platforms and digital news outlets called the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code has come into effect.

    New guidelines for digital media

    • The guidelines had asked all social media platforms to set up a grievances redressal and compliance mechanism.
    • This included appointing a resident grievance officer, chief compliance officer and a nodal contact person.
    • The IT Ministry had also asked these platforms to submit monthly reports on complaints received from users and action taken.
    • A third requirement was for instant messaging apps was to make provisions for tracking the first originator of a message.
    • Failure to comply with any one of these requirements would take away the indemnity provided to social media intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

    What is Section 79 of the IT Act?

    • Section 79 says any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.
    • This protection, the Act says, shall be applicable if the said intermediary does not in any way, initiate the transmission of the message in question, select the receiver of the transmitted message and does not modify any information contained in the transmission.
    • This means that as long as a platform acts just as the messenger carrying a message from point A to point B, without interfering in any manner, it will be safe from any legal prosecution.
    • The intermediary must not tamper with any evidence of these messages or content present on its platform, failing which it loses its protection under the Act.

    Effect of non-compliance

    • As of now, nothing changes overnight. Social media intermediaries will continue to function as they were, without any hiccups.
    • People will also be able to post and share content on their pages without any disturbance.
    • Social media intermediaries such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have so far not appointed any officer or contact person as required under the new rules.
    • They have also failed to submit monthly action taken reports on grievances and complaints submitted to them by users. Thus, protection under Section 79 of the IT Act does will not hold for them.

    Liabilities with the new rules

    • Further, Rule 4(a) of the IT Rules mandates that significant social media intermediaries must appoint a chief compliance officer (CCO) who would be held liable in case the intermediary fails to observe the due diligence requirements.
    • This means that if a tweet, a Facebook post or a post on Instagram violates the local laws, the law enforcement agency would be well within its rights to book not only the person sharing the content but the executives of these companies as well.

    Global norms on safe harbour protection

    • As most of the bigger social media intermediaries have their headquarters in the US, the most keenly watched is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
    • This provides Internet companies a safe harbour from any content users post of these platforms.
    • Experts believe it is this provision in the US law that enabled companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google to become global conglomerates.
    • Like Section 79 of India’s IT Act, this Section 230 states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.
    • This effectively means that the intermediary shall only be like a bookstore owner who cannot be held accountable for the books in the store unless there is a connection.

    Repercussions of the rules in India

    • WhatsApp has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the new Rules which include a requirement for social media platforms to compulsorily enable “the identification of the first originator of the information” in India upon government or court order.
    • It argued that this provision forces it “to break end-to-end encryption on its messaging service, as well as the privacy principles underlying it.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] New IT Rules 2021

  • Forestalling the cyber threats India faces

    The article highlights the threat of a cyber attack on India’s critical infrastructure and suggests the need to take preventive measures.

    Targetting the infrastructure

    • The U.S.-based cyber security firm, Recorded Future revealed that the past blackout in Mumbai was linked to the cyber attack from China.
    • Recorded Future had also found an increase in malware attacks targeting the Indian government, defence organisations and the public sector.
    • Also that, coinciding with Chinese incursions in Eastern Ladakh, certain Indian power facilities had been targets of a cyber attack.
    • This indicates that India’s key infrastructure facilities, such as the power sector, are now in the crosshairs of a hostile China.
    • Indian government agencies, such as the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) needs to be on its guard.

    Exploiting vulnerabilities

    • China’s cyber offensive is directed against many advanced nations as well.
    • In attempting this, what China is doing is essentially exploiting to perfection the many vulnerabilities that software companies (essentially those in the West), have deliberately left open (for offensive purposes at an opportune time).
    • Exploiting this loophole, and also turning matters on its head, it is companies in the western world that are now at the receiving end of such antics.
    • Chinese cyber espionage sets no limitations on targets.
    • Towards the end of 2020, and as the world prepared for large-scale deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, their attention was directed to vaccine distribution supply chains around the world.

    Way forward

    •  Nations should beware and be warned about how cyber attacks can bring a nation to its knees.
    • This was well demonstrated way back in 2016 through a major attack on Ukraine’s power grid.
    • The Ukraine example should be a wake-up call for India and the world, as in the intervening five years, the sophistication of cyber attacks and the kind of malware available have become more advanced.
    • India, could well be blindsided by Chinese cyber attacks on critical infrastructure if the latter sets out to do so, unless prophylactic measures are taken in time.

    Consider the question “Examine the threat posed by cyber attack on the critical information infrastructure? Suggest the ways to deal with it.”

    Conclusion

    Cyber’ could well be one of China’s main threat vectors employed against countries that do not fall in line with China’s world view. Drawing up a comprehensive cyber strategy, one that fully acknowledges the extent of the cyber threat from China, has thus become an imperative and immediate necessity.

  • In Centre’s IT rules, there is accountability with costs

    The article examines the issues with  Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    Change in the immunity for social media platforms

    • With the social media platforms amassing tremendous power, the Government of India and has over time sought to devise a core framework to governs social media.
    • This framework known as the “intermediary liability” has been made legally through Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
    • This framework has been supplemented by operational rules, and the Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
    • All this legalese essentially provides large technology companies immunity for the content that is transmitted and stored by them.
    • Recently, the Government of India announced drastic changes to it through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    Issues with the Rules

    1) Privacy concern

    • The regulations do contain some features that bring accountability to social media platforms.
    • For instance, they require that prior to a content takedown, a user should be provided adequate notice.
    • However, there are several provisions in the rules that raise privacy concerns.
    • Take traceability, where instant messaging platforms which deploy end-to-end encryption that helps keep our conversations private will now effectively be broken.
    • This is because now the government may require that each message sent through WhatsApp or any other similar application be tied to the identity of the user.
    • When put in the larger context of an environment that is rife with cybersecurity threats, an inconsistent rule of law and the absence of any surveillance oversight, this inspires fear and self-censorship among users.
    • The core of the traceability requirement undermines the core value of private conversations.

    2) Regulation without clear legal backing

    • The rules seek to regulate digital news media portals as well as online video streaming platforms.
    • Rules will perform functions similar to those played by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for TV regulation.
    • For instance, as per Rule 13(4), this also now includes powers of censorship such as apology scrolls, but also blocking of content.
    • All of this is being planned to be done without any legislative backing or a clear law made by Parliament.
    • A similar problem exists with digital news media portals.
    • The purview of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is limited.
    • It only extends to the blocking of websites and intermediary liabilities framework, but does not extend to content authors and creators.
    • Hence, the Act does not extend to news media despite which it is being stretched to do so by executive fiat.
    • The oversight function will be played by a body that is not an autonomous regulator but one composed of high ranking bureaucrats.
    • This provides for the discretionary exercise of government powers of censorship over these sectors.

    Way forward

    • This could have ideally been achieved through more deliberative, parliamentary processes and by examining bodies in other democracies, which face similar challenges.
    • For instance, OFCOM, a regulator in the United Kingdom, has been studying and enforcing regulations that promise higher levels of protection for citizens’ rights and consistency in enforcement.
    • Instead, the present formulation increases government control that suffers from legality and core design faults.
    • It will only increase political control.

    Consider the question “What is the purpose of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and what are the concerns with these rules?”

    Conclusion

    While every internet user in India needs oversight and accountability from big tech, it should not be at the cost of increasing political control, chilling our voices online and hurting individual privacy.

  • Australia vs Facebook Row

    The social media giant Facebook is locked in a battle with Australia over legislation that would require FB, Google to pay for news outlets.

    Row over the news on social media

    • Australia had proposed a law called the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code Bill 2020.
    • It seeks to mandate a bargaining code that aims to force Google and Facebook to compensate media companies for using their content.

    Imagine if the case arises in India where tons of news channels and impulsive journalists are dying off hard to gather TRPs!

    Response from the ‘giants’

    • Google had threatened to make its search engine unavailable in Australia in response to the legislation, which would create a panel to make pricing decisions on the news.
    • Facebook responded by blocking users from accessing and sharing Australian news.

    Why countries are bringing such legislation?

    • Australia has launched a global diplomatic offensive to support its proposed law to force Internet giants Facebook and Google to pay media companies.
    • Google accounts for 53% of Australian online advertising revenue and Facebook for 23%.
    • The legislation sets a precedent in regulating social media across geographies and is being closely watched the world over.

    What is happening in other countries?

    • Australia’s proposed law would be the first of its kind, but other governments also are pressuring Google, Facebook and other internet companies to pay news outlets and other publishers for the material.
    • In Europe, Google had to negotiate with French publishers after a court last year upheld an order saying such agreements were required by a 2019 EU copyright directive.
    • France is the first government to enforce the rules, but the decision suggests Google, Facebook and other companies will face similar requirements in other parts of the 27-nation trade bloc.

    The ‘doubted’ reluctance

    • Last year, Facebook announced it would pay US news organizations including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today for headlines.
    • In Spain, Google shut down its news website after a 2014 law required it to pay publishers.

    Why does this matter?

    • Developments in Australia and Europe suggest the financial balance between multibillion-dollar internet companies and news organizations might be shifting.
    • Australia is responding to complaints by news reports, magazine articles and other content that appears on their websites or is shared by users.
    • The government acted after its competition regulator tried and failed to negotiate a voluntary payment plan with Google.
    • The proposed law would create a panel to make binding decisions on the price of news reports to help give individual publishers more negotiating leverage with global internet companies.

    Not losing out revenue gain

    • Google’s agreement means a new revenue stream for news outfits, but whether that translates into more coverage for readers, viewers and listeners is unclear.
    • The union for Australian journalists is calling on media companies to make sure online revenue goes into newsgathering.

  • Controversial hashtags on twitter and their regulation

    The Centre has issued notice to Twitter after the micro-blogging site restored more than 250 accounts that had been suspended earlier on the government’s ‘legal demand’.

    Take this new term “Hashtags Activism”.

    What is the news?

    • Twitter was asked to block accounts and controversial hashtags that spoke of an impending ‘genocide’ of farmers for allegedly promoting misinformation about the protests, adversely affecting public order.
    • Twitter reinstated the accounts and tweets on its own and later refused to go back on the decision, contending that it found no violation of its policy.

    Concerns with the directive

    • This direction presents a clear breach of fundamental rights but also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms on the understanding of the Constitution of India.
    • The specific legal order issued is secret.
    • This brings into focus the condition of secrecy that is threshold objection to multiple strands of our fundamental rights.
    • It conflicts against the rights of the users who are denied reasons for the censorship.
    • Secrecy also undermines the public’s right to receive information, which is a core component of the fundamental freedom to speech and expression.
    • This is an anti-democratic practice that results in an unchecked growth of irrational censorship but also leads to speculation that fractures trust.
    • The other glaring deficiency is the complete absence of any prior show-cause notice to the actual users of these accounts by the government.
    • This is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
    • This again goes back to the vagueness and the design faults in the process of how directions under Section 69A are issued.

    Are platforms required to comply with legal demands?

    • Cooperation between technology services companies and law enforcement agencies is now deemed a vital part of fighting cybercrime and various other crimes that are committed using computer resources.
    • These cover hacking, digital impersonation and theft of data.
    • The potential of the misuse has led to law enforcement officials constantly seeking to curb the ill-effects of using the medium.
    • Therefore, most nations have framed laws mandating cooperation by Internet service providers or web hosting service providers and other intermediaries to cooperate with law and order authorities in certain circumstances.

    What does the law in India cover?

    • In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended from time to time, governs all activities related to the use of computer resources.
    • It covers all ‘intermediaries’ who play a role in the use of computer resources and electronic records.
    • The term ‘intermediaries’ includes providers of telecom service, network service, Internet service and web hosting, besides search engines, online payment and auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes.
    • It includes any person who, on behalf of another, “receives, stores or transmits” any electronic record. Social media platforms would fall under this definition.

    What are the Centre’s powers, vis-à-vis intermediaries?

    • Section 69 of the Act confers on the Central and State governments the power to issue directions “to intercept, monitor or decrypt…any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource”.

    The grounds on which these powers may be exercised are:

    • in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state,
    • friendly relations with foreign states,
    • public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to these, or
    • for investigating any offence

    How does the government block websites and networks?

    • Section 69A, for similar reasons and grounds, enables the Centre to ask any agency of the government, or any intermediary, to block access.
    • Any such request for blocking access must be based on reasons given in writing.
    • Procedures and safeguards have been incorporated in the rules framed for the purpose.

    Obligations of intermediaries under Indian law

    • Intermediaries are required to preserve and retain specified information in a manner and format prescribed by the Centre for a specified duration.
    • Contravention of this provision may attract a prison term that may go up to three years, besides a fine.
    • When a direction is given for monitoring, the intermediary and any person in charge of a computer resource should extend technical assistance in the form of giving access or securing access to the resource involved.
    • Failure to extend such assistance may entail a prison term of up to seven years, besides a fine.
    • Failure to comply with a direction to block access to the public on a government’s written request also attracts a prison term of up to seven years, besides a fine.

    Is the liability of the intermediary absolute?

    • Section 79 of the Act makes it clear that “an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him”.
    • This protects intermediaries such as Internet and data service providers and those hosting websites from being made liable for content that users may post or generate.
    • However, the exemption from liability does not apply if there is evidence that the intermediary abetted or induced the commission of the unlawful act involved.

    Judicial intervention in this regard

    • In Shreya Singhal Case (2015), the Supreme Court read down the provision to mean that the intermediaries ought to act only upon receiving actual knowledge that a court order has been passed.
    • This was because the court felt that intermediaries such as Google or Facebook may receive millions of requests, and it may not be possible for them to judge which of these were legitimate.
    • The role of the intermediaries has been spelt out in separate rules framed for the purpose in 2011.

    Legislative efforts

    • In 2018, the Centre favoured coming up with fresh updates to the existing rules on intermediaries’ responsibilities, but the draft courted controversy.
    • This was because one of the proposed changes was that intermediaries should help identify originators of offensive content.
    • This led to misgivings that this could aid privacy violations and online surveillance.
    • Also, tech companies that use end-to-end encryption argued that they could not open a backdoor for identifying originators, as it would be a breach of promise to their subscribers.