Saturday, December 10, 2011

How to Counter Rogue Sites

This article first published in December 2000 at www.naavi.org is reposted here in the context of Mr Sibal's new move. Recently there has been reports of a spate of Rogue Web sites carrying "Anti Indian" messages, the latest being the one from the Tamil Nationalist group interlinked with the Islamic fundamentalists. It is certainly alarming for the E-Governance of the Country that such sites should come up to disturb the peaceful fabric of the country or a part of it. However it would be interesting to see how the Government reacts to this challenge. This is not the first time that such a web site has come up in India or elsewhere and neither it will be the last time. The Government will have to therefore take a policy decision on how to handle such sites. The Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA-2000) has empowered the Controller some powers in this regard. Section 69 of the Act, states as follows: 69 (1): If the controller is satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do in the interest of the soverignity or integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government to intercept any information transmitted through the computer resource. (2) The subscriber or any person in charge of the Computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under subsection (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to decrypt the information. (3) The subscriber or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in the sub section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. Read with section 75 which extends the provisions of the ITA-2000 to persons outside India, the Controller will be in a position to take appropriate action under the Act to punish the owners of the site, the ISP that hosts the site and the content providers. He can conduct an enquiry with or without the assistance of an Adjudicating officer, pronounce his verdict (Using the quasi judicial powers vested in him through the section 69) and request the enforcement authorities to take action invoking International Public law. Of course such action should be completed within a few days to be of any effect in the Cyber World. One other easy option for the Indian Government is to block the site from being viewed from within India as they have done in the case of some of the Pakistani newspaper sites. However, blocking of a site may not be the correct solution since surfers may still access such sites through anonymizer services. Then the Government may have to block these services as well. More over, "Blocking " is a negative way of regulation and only helps in distancing the Government from understanding the ground realities. It is a part of history now that Mrs Indira Gandhi sufferred because of the Press Censorship during Emergency which gave her a wrong impression about the real situation in the Country. The Censorship by blocking those who access Internet with Indian ISP s will create a situation where the sites will continue to build up international viewpoint against the country with no counter point being served. I therefore suggest for consideration the following model for handling "Objectionable Sites". 1. Sites which are said to contain "Politically Objectionable material" are reviewed by a virtual committee of experts and voted for or against being declared "Objectionable for Viewing by the Indian Government". 2. Based on such a verdict delivered through digitally signed e-mail confirmations from the virtual committee members, the Controller can issue a notice to ISP s in India to do the following. 3.Whenever a request for an objectionable site is received from a surfer, an "Objection Notice" to the following effect is displayed in a pop up box. " The site requested by you contains information considered "Objectionable" by the Government of the Republic of India vide GO No xxx of xx.xx.xx. The reasons for objection can be found here. (Hyper linked Document) A List of sites presenting a counter view point can be found here (Hyper link to list of "Counter view point sites") 4. You can click here to enter the site. (Hyperlink to "continue") The moment a site is declared "objectionable", the Government should notify the same on the internet and invite the public to register their site or Pages containing counter view points. These can be reviewed and if found suitable, added to the list of "Counter View Point Sites". This strategy will enable the Government to use the public resources to produce content which will neutralise the objectionable material. If these sites do an equally good job, all the persons who are targetted to be influenced by the "Objectionable site" may actually be converted to the counter view point. Imagine some body like Mr Arun Shourie commenting on Kashmir problem. The owners of the "Objectionable sites" would think twice about inviting their audience to see his reasoned views on many of the contentious issues in the market. Once a system is established for the purpose, the Indian Government can take up a request to other friendly Governments to bring an International treaty on mandating such services through the ISP s of their countries. India can take international lead in setting up a new treaty for " International Cooperation in Cyber Space Governance". Naavi December 8, 2000 Related Story in Indian Express

posted by Naavi @ 8:20 PM

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