Internet censorship in India

Internet censorship in India is selectively practiced by both federal and state governments. While there is no sustained government policy or strategy to block access to Internet content on a large scale, measures for removing content that is obscene or otherwise objectionable, or that endangers public order or national security have become more common in recent years

Overview

The India country report that is included in Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2011 report, says:

• India's overall Internet Freedom Status is "Partly Free", unchanged from 2009.
• India has a score of 36 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free), which places India 14 out of the 37 countries worldwide that were included in the 2011 report.
• India ranks second best out of the nine countries in Asia included in the 2011 report.
• Prior to 2008, censorship of Internet content by the Indian government was relatively rare and sporadic.
• Following the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 171 people, the Indian Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) that expanded the government’s censorship and monitoring capabilities.
• While there is no sustained government policy or strategy to block access to Internet content on a large scale, measures for removing certain content from the web, sometimes for fear they could incite violence, have become more common.
• Pressure on private companies to remove information that is perceived to endanger public order or national security has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended ITA. Companies are required to have designated employees to receive government blocking requests, and assigns up to seven years’ imprisonment private service providers—including ISPs, search engines, and cybercafes—that do not comply with the government's blocking requests.
• Internet users have sporadically faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content are obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities.
• Both bloggers and moderators can face libel suits and even criminal prosecution for comments posted by other users on their websites.
• Prior judicial approval for communications interception is not required and both central and state governments have the power to issue directives on interception, monitoring, and decryption. All licensed ISPs are obliged by law to sign an agreement that allows Indian government authorities to access user data.

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the OpenNet Initiative in May 2007. ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, India’s experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamor of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. … Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticized for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.

Background

In June 2000 the Indian Parliament created the Information Technology (IT) Act to provide a legal framework to regulate Internet use and commerce, including digital signatures, security, and hacking. The act criminalizes the publishing of obscene information electronically and grants police powers to search any premises without a warrant and arrest individuals in violation of the act. A 2008 amendment to the IT Act reinforced the government's power to block Internet sites and content and criminalized sending messages deemed inflammatory or offensive.

Internet filtering can also be mandated through licensing requirements. For example, ISPs seeking licenses to provide Internet services with the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) “shall block Internet sites and/or individual subscribers, as identified and directed by the Telecom Authority from time to time” in the interests of “national security”. License agreements also require ISPs to prevent the transmission of obscene or otherwise objectionable material.

In 2001, the Bombay High Court appointed a committee to oversee issues relating to online pornography and Cybercrime. The Court invited the petitioners, Jayesh Thakkar and Sunil Thacker, to make recommendations on cyber laws. The committee published a report which analyses the key issues and made recommendations regarding areas such as the licensing of cyber cafés, putative identity cards for cyber cafe visitors, that minors use computers in public spaces, and the maintenance of IP logs by cyber cafes. The Committee also recommended that internet service providers keep correct time logs and records.

The report also addressed the protection of children from adult websites and advised internet service providers to provide parental control software for every Internet connection. The committee also identified lack of technical knowledge in the police as a problem. The report was well received by the courts, and its recommendations are being implemented the police and cyber cafes. The Cyber Crime Investigation Cell was set up pursuant to a recommendation made by the committee.

In 2003 the Government of India established the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) to ensure Internet security. Its stated mission is "to enhance the security of India's Communications and Information Infrastructure through proactive action and effective collaboration". CERT-IN is the agency that accepts and reviews requests to block access to specific websites. All licensed Indian ISPs must comply with CERT-IN decisions. There is no review or appeals process. Many institutions, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, courts, the intelligence services, the police and the National Human Rights Commission, may call on it for specialist expertise. By stretching the prohibition against publishing obscene content to include the filtering of Web sites, CERT-IN was empowered to review complaints and act as the sole authority for issuing blocking instructions to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). Many have argued that giving CERT-IN this power through executive order violates constitutional jurisprudence holding that specific legislation must be passed before the government can encroach on individual rights.

Instances of censorship

1999 — Website of Dawn, a Pakistani daily newspaper, blocked following Kargil War

Immediately after the Kargil War in 1999, the website of the Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn was blocked from access within India by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, a government-owned telecommunications company which at the time had monopoly control of the international internet gateways in India. Rediff, a media news website, claimed that the ban was instigated by the Indian government, and then published detailed instructions as to how one could bypass the filter and view the site.

2003 — Yahoo Groups banned

In September 2003, Kynhun, a Yahoo group linked to the "Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council" (an illegal, minor separatist group from Meghalaya), which discussed the case of the Khasi tribe was banned. The Department of Telecommunications asked Indian ISPs to block the group, but difficulties led to all Yahoo! groups being banned for approximately two weeks.

2006 — Websites banned

In July 2006 the Indian government ordered the blocking of 17 websites, including some hosted on the Geocities, Blogspot and Typepad domains. Initial implementation difficulties led to these domains being blocked entirely. Access to sites on these domains other than those specifically banned was restored by most ISPs after about a week.

2007 — Orkut and Indian law enforcement agreement

In 2007 Indian law enforcement entered an agreement with the popular social networking site Orkut to track down what it deems defamatory content which, in their example, includes content critical of Bal Thackeray.

2007 — Rediff drops bulletin boards on Glasgow International Airport attack

One of the leading Indian websites, Rediff, dropped bulletin boards on all news items relating to the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and other stories on terrorism after hostile messages were posted after news surfaced of the terrorists being Indian Muslims. The move was said to be self-censorship, based on guidelines from the government.^{[citation needed]}

2008 — IRC Undernet banned

IRC Undernet (www.undernet.org) was banned without any media coverage in 2008. However the ban was lifted.

2011 — Websites banned

In March 2011 the government banned several websites, Typepad, Mobango, Clickatell, without warning.

On 21 July 2011, all file hosting websites were blocked by ISPs to prevent piracy of the film Singham, causing anger among Internet users. This ban was later lifted.

On 24 December 2011, Reliance Communications, a widely used ISP, again blocked access to file-sharing sites, having obtained a John Doe order from a Delhi court to prevent piracy of the movie Don 2 several days before its release. The block was lifted on 30 December 2011.

Controversy on Pre-screening of Internet

On the 7th of December 2011, The Times of India revealed that the search engine Google was asked to remove around 358 items by the Government of India out of which 255 items were said to criticize the government as per a Google transparency report. The government had asked Google to remove 236 items from Orkut and 19 items from YouTube for the same reason, it added. Other reasons include defamation (39 requests), privacy and security (20 requests), impersonation (14 requests), hate speech (8 requests), pornography (3 requests) and national security (1 request). Google admitted that 51 per cent of the total requests were partially or fully complied with.

The news of banning and blocking objectionable content on the internet was seen negatively by many Indian netizens and #IdiotKapilSibal trended on twitter after netizens expressed the outrage over the move. It was seen as a way to block websites criticizing the government . In an interview to NDTV, communications minister Kapil Sibal responded by saying that most of the content being asked to removed was pornographic in nature and involved deities, which could have caused communal disharmony. While Kapil Sibal claimed that the government wanted to remove pornographic content, Google transparency report published by Google claims that the content that included protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders were not removed. Google on it's transparency report states

"We received requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders. We declined the majority of these requests and only locally restricted videos that appeared to violate local laws prohibiting speech that could incite enmity between communities. In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with this request, since the content did not violate our Community Standards or local law."

Google on this matter has also said that

"When content is legal and does not violate our policies, we will not remove it just because it is controversial, as we believe that people's differing views, so long as they are legal, should be respected and protected."

While presently there are talks going on between the government and officials of internet companies like Google and Facebook, there is no consensus on this issue.

2012 - Delhi Court Summons

In January 2012, a Delhi Court issues summons to Google, Facebook headquarters for objectionable content. This was followed by the Delhi High Court saying that websites such as Google and Facebook were liable for the content, posted on their platform by users, as they benefited from the content. Google responded to both the Court and the Minister for Communication and IT Kapil Sibal, stating that it was impossible to pre-screen content. A plea was made by an educationist citing any sanctions on the online services will directly affect the fundamental right and will be against public interest. The Delhi Court also allowed Yahoo's case to be heard separately after it appealed citing it did not host any objectionable content and does not fall under the social networking site category.

Plans

The government plans to set up a centralized mechanism at the eight landing stations for the country to block websites as and when it pleases.

On the 1st of November 2007, The Economic Times reported that the Government of India was considering a ban on "posting of private and personal videos on internet and mobiles" to tackle cybercrime and piracy.

The Government has planned to set up national intelligence grid where it can track all call logs and internet data in real time, even though such an act would violate fundamental rights.

External links

• "The Discreet Charms of the Nanny State: Just what is it the government doesn't want you surfing to?", Shivam Vij, National Highway, 6 October 2006