Whatever the intention behind them, the new rules framed last month under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are likely to have a chilling effect on the development of the Internet as a medium of communication and information in India. Apart from the unreasonable restrictions on free speech they envisage, the rules raise serious concerns about the privacy of a citizen's personal information, including medical profile, financial position, and sexual orientation. The problem lies with three sets of rules that create guidelines on “intermediaries” and cyber cafes and on the manner in which “sensitive personal data or information” can be shared, especially with government agencies. Intermediaries, defined as those who store, transmit, or provide services related to electronic messages, will henceforth be obligated to block content or information that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence…” This description is so vague and open-ended that it is likely to lead Internet Service Providers, webmasters, and others to play it safe and shut off access to views and opinions that they consider controversial. The rules specify a mechanism for appeal but the permissible time frame of one month is far too long to offer any meaningful redressal of grievances.
The rules on privacy represent an advance in one respect: they prohibit companies with whom an individual has shared her or his sensitive personal information from disclosing it to any third party without prior permission from that individual. But an exception is made for government agencies; they will be entitled to access that information without a court warrant simply on the basis of a written request that states that the information is required for the investigation of a crime. Although these agencies are, in turn, obligated not to share that information with anyone else, this ‘safeguard' is of little value to citizens who value their privacy vis-à-vis the state. The fact that officially sanctioned telephone intercepts have made their way into the public domain points to the danger of giving officials access to personal information. Nor is it clear how crime can be fought by police officers gathering details about a potential suspect's “physical, physiological and mental health condition; sexual orientation; and medical records and history,” as the rules partially define “sensitive personal data or information.” Such rules have no place on the statute book of a democracy that values the rights of its citizens. Parliament should insist that the government take another look.
Though much has been made out of the IT rules, I would say what is wrong in having a grievance officer for each website. It would only help you or me when our information would be shared without our consent. Yes, the rule requiring the censoring views is not right but that isn't what the law is saying. Law just wants holder of websites to be responsible for the content they share or display. And the intended clause (to protect sovereignty of our country) is also embedded in our fundamental right, Freedom of Speech! And even in our fundamental right "The State" does have the right to impose restrictions to maintain the sovereignty of our country. Yes there is a lot of subjectivity involved but I hope a nice way would be arrived at to resolve this.
Can't believe that all this is happening,that too in India famed for free speech and divergent opinions -- one expects evolution with progress in time and technology, not devolution.
This is an important issue in our times. I read the news article about it a few weeks back and then there was nothing else. Thank you for bringing the matter up in your editorial. When a warrant is required to tap phone conversations, how can it not be required when government agencies want access to personal private information on individuals? It seems as if the state wants to use this opportunity to take away our privacy with this new law.
The other issue of blocking content on so loosely defined grounds is also equally important. The internet has become the last refuge of free speech in recent times, because often the rest of the media ends up being highly biased towards sensational news items; we also hear of paid news. It has to be protected, especially by the government.
the defined rules atleast not allow specifically the private companies from sharing the individual's privacy details without the consent of individual with other organisation. That is really big feather in the cap of Govt. to showcase their concern about interference in the individual privacy.
It looks as if we are aping China in this field though not in other economic development measures. View this authoritarian move in the light of the emerging political opposition in various regions of the country and ii)the dwindling support to the ruling party. These attempts are highly out of proportion and stifled basic freedoms that have been granted to us by our constitution. I would say this alone constitutes an inspiring focal point for the opposition to unite and force the government to withdraw these measures. It's like using a sledge-hammer to kill a mosquito. If this move is not opposed, tomorrow you cannot use in your communications words like 'dynasty', 'family rule' etc. and words as innocuous as 'meet in Jantqar Mantar' ,'meet at Flora Fountain' or Marina would be taboo! We too will have a long list of forbidden words like 'Tiananman Square' etc.
With the advent of the smart phones, almost everyone is on the internet and this will have far reaching implications for the citizens. 'The Hindu' is right in asking the parliament to relook.
There should be clear and well studied established rules to prevent such invasion on privacy of anyone using internet services.The users should also be made known of their rights and rules so that in case they need they can use it to secure themselves.Some online websites and open sessions doubt clearing should also be run by information and technology ministry,where doubts of internet users regarding their safety are solved by experts.Time to time public feedback of such rules and regulations is also one option.Check on such invaders is vital otherwise there is always a threat that a person will fall pray to such invaders,and these immoral people may exploit victims by any means.
This is the sweet little way to get back at the citizen of this country.When Mr Raja cried that mobile charges would become cheaper, broadband services at a very cheap rate, no one listened to his sage advice.Instead, we stabbed him back, by raising 2G allocation Scam and threw him into jail. Mr Sibal tried to whitewash the issue still people did not believe in his sage words and shouted him down. The Prime minister then attempted to stall the issue, in a very honest way but we still ridiculed him.
These wise men must have thought it fit to hit back by shutting the same facilities down to the common man. If you block internet, information cannot spread fast. If you go behind the ISP and force him to block the information, then no one would know. We really wonder whether this is what Mr sibal promised in his 100 days. Congress party is doing everything possible, to make sure that they are voted out of power in 2014 and if it is possible, even earlier. Where have all the wise men gone?
Ironically, even in the dictatorial middle east countries, they never thought about this. They tweeted and threw a despot out. The last sentence in your Editorial only reminds us of a famous scene in the YES MINISTER SERIES, Where Sir Humphry would say the civil servants makes the rules and let the politicians fight it out and when queried further, he would reply that if needed , they would review, reexamine, deliberate but come out with the same answer. But in our great democracy, where is the time for our MPs to discuss and deliberate on issues? They do not have problem in passing crucial bills by voice vote . The Speaker passes the resolution almost immediately saying that YES are more, YES are more. Please do not pass on the burden to our parliamentarians. Let the Press and the media be vigilant and exert pressure on them and open their eyes to the evil.
Please Email the Editor