Kapil Sibal, Impractical, Undesirable and Unnecessary
Mr Kapil Sibal first stated that he wanted Facebook, Google and other Social Networking sites to introduce "Human controlled pre-screening of content" before they are posted. He cited that there are many anti national postings which could stir up communal passions etc. Many however believed that he was agitated because of some cartoons of Sonia Gandhi published some where which were perhaps defamatory. While I fully agree that any defamation is undesirable, political leaders need to be little more thick skinned than others and tolerate some criticism in public. Otherwise they cannot be enjoying the benefits of public office. Having said this, we also need to accept that current laws in India in terms of ITA 2008 with rules on "Due Dilgence" for intermediaries under Section 79 of the Act clearly specify that any person who is aggrieved can initiate legal action as well as a request for removal of objectionable content. No body can use this better than a politically connected Ms Sonia Gandhi or Kapil Sibal. Specific objectionable content can therefore be effectively removed easily and this is being done often. What Mr Sibal is now proposing in the form of pre-screening that too by a human is utter nonsense. In fact it is an irresponsible statement as it has the potential for being wrongly projected at some point of time in future in a Court of Law as "Expected Due Diligence". Hence it is necessary that the idea has to be opposed and the opposition is recognized by a Court through some PIL and be declared as "Impractical" and "Undesirable" as well as "unnecessary". No body thinks that Mr Sibal is not aware of the impracticality of his demand. According to some reports he has retracted on this statement and wants only a discussion on how regulation can be done. He has however indicated that a new set of rules may be announced by his ministry in this regard. We need to appraise this enthusiasm of Mr Sibal in the background of several months of paralysis that Mr Sibal's ministry is being afflicted with due to the 2G scam. I have personally tried all tricks to wake up DIT to the pressing need of appointing a new Chair Person for Cyber Appellate Tribunal which is pending for last 6 months. But the department remains eloquently silent. I understand that the file is pending at the level of Mr Sibal. When such pressing requirements are being ignored it surprises everyone why an intelligent person like Mr Sibal should rake up a controversy which projects himself as an idiot. There has to be a reason behind this apparently illogical act. The secret behind this latest onslaught on "Freedom of Speech" on Internet was revealed by the fact that one of the first to jump to Mr Sibal's support was Mr Digvijay Singh. This betrayed the connection between the move of the Government and the upcoming Anna Hazare campaign. The whole world knows that Anna Hazare team made use of social networking sites extensively during their last campaign. The power of this media in raising public opinion has been seen in the recent incidents in Egypt and other places. Mr Sibal has rightly recognized this as a real threat to the UPA Government in the coming days and hence there is an urgent need to bring the Social Networking Sites into a compliance mood. The fact that Mr Sibal is bluffing when he talks of national interest behind this move is evident when we look at the information published by Google on the number of requests received by them last year for blocking of content. According to a recent report published in Hindu, during the first half of 2011, Indian Government sought to remove 255 items classified as "Government Criticism" from Google content. Additionally 39 items were sought to be removed on grounds of defamation, 20 due to privacy and security concerns, 14 due to impersonation, three pornographic items and one due to national security reasons. This shows that there was only one case of "National Interest" against 255 cases of "Political interests". ..so much for Mr Sibal's concern for National Security. Now let's come to the genuine requirements of content control as per law and fairness. The fact that Internet media can be misused to spread rumors and cause social disturbance besides "Defamation" is accepted. Yes, there has to be a mechanism to curb this. According to Section 79 of ITA 2008 and the rules notified in April 2011, when an intermediary receives a complaint about objectionable content, they need to act within 36 hours to take necessary action. This does not mean that the content has to be removed within 36 hours. What is required is that within 36 hours the intermediary needs to start a process of enquiry leading to contacting the person responsible for the content to show cause why the content has to be removed. Subject to receiving his response and being evaluated by a suitable internal dispute resolution mechanism, the content can then be removed if required. When content needs to be removed, there is no reason for the entire website being blocked or entire article to be blocked. It should be fair and sufficient if a) A rejoinder is published with the counter view b) Where found absolutely necessary, blocking of the specific words or sentences that are objectionable. This solution was suggested by Naavi way back in 2001 when the Dalitstan.org controversy was raging. (Refer : How to Control Rogue Sites:- http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial/edit_8dec00_1.htm ) I hope that ISPs will present this view to Mr Sibal when they meet him next Naavi
posted by Naavi @ 7:43 PM
<< Home