Screwed up :o :o the mail sent to AI! :/ Apologies. On 4/30/13, Amar Jain <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Just now read your email on the subject. To avoid any sort of > arguments, writing to you privately about what I feel its implications > should be as far as our group is concerned. My analysis is based on > section 66A, in which I have covered what type of information is > prescribed in this section, and its applicability as per the act. Then > comes the definition of intermediaries as applicable to us, followed > by the guidelines which prescribes due diligence on part of the > intermediaries under Rule 3. Subrules (2), (3) and (4) are very > important. It is little long email, so you may please adjust it > accordingly. Skip the section 66A part if needed. > > If an analysis of section 66A is done, then it deals with 3 things: > > 1. Any information which is grossly offensive, or which is menacing in > character. > Since the terms offensive and menacing have no definitions in this > act, the general definitions are to be adopted. In that sense, what is > offensive in nature is declared by Indian Law, mainly Indian Penal > Code and Criminal Procedure Code. > The term menacing is nowhere defined so dictionary meaning shall > prevail, which should mean that the information should be such which > should be threatening in nature. > > 2. Clause B is self-explanatory, which says that any information which > is known to the person sending being false, but it is being sent to > cause the stated effects as mentioned in that clause. > > 3. Clause (c), deals with such emails which either cause stated > effects such as annoyance or inconvenience, or which mislead the > person receiving at the other end about its origen. > > The section is applicable to the person who is the sender, and none else. > > Now comes our part, the intermediaries part. > > The definition of intermediaries in section 2 (1) (w) of the principle > act is clearly applicable to us as we are receiving information on > behalf of the other person and transmitting the same. > > We are exempted from the originator part as defined under Section 2 > (1) (za), hence section 66A is not applicable to us in any case (even > by stretch of imagination of crooked lawyers). > > Now, the guidelines: > > (1) This sub-rule clearly prescribes that the intermediary should have > published its rules privacy policy user access agreement etc. In that > sense, we have the list guidelines. I don't know whether those are the > part of the welcome email or not, but for safer side in order to come > under the term 'publish', I recommend it to be put up on our main page > of joining itself. > > (2): This is the main rule which prescribes that: > The intermediary shall inform the user of the computer resource ..... > not to transmit, host, display, share and publish.... any information > as prescribed in various sub-clauses thereafter. > > (3) The intermediary shall not **knowingly** host, publish, initiate > the transmition of such information. > > Exception (saving clause for us): (a) temporary or > transient or intermediate storage of information automatically within > the computer resource as an intrinsic feature of such computer > resource, involving no exercise of any human editorial control, for > onward transmission or communication to another computer resource; > > Thus, the mailing software being automated, the transmition of such > information is not applicable to us as we are not intervening. > > Second saving clause: (b) removal of access to any > information, data or communication link by an intermediary after such > information, data or communication link comes to the actual knowledge > of a person authorised by the intermediary pursuant to any order or > direction as per the provisions of the act; > > Thus, unless there is any order issued under this act by the > authorities, or any direction given in that behalf, we are safe. (but > read below, the next subrule imposes the obligation on us) > > Work to be done as a moderator under sub-rule (4) by deleting the > message from archives which violates subrule 2, if it is in your > actual knowledge or is being brought to your knowledge **in writing** > or by a **digitally signed email**, then the information is to be > removed within 36 hours. Which shall be then preserved for 90 days for > investigation purposes. > > As it is already done, you have to keep the users informed that any > information in violation of this rule will be removed and the user's > rights will be terminated. > > A best suggestion is to include a small note in the signature stating > that violation of list guidelines and any act / rules which are > applicable to us (or mention the name) will result in termination of > user and removal of such information. > > I have not gone through Information Technology (Reasonable security > practices and procedures and sensitive personal Information) Rules, > 2011. So I cannot say whether they have any obligation on us to keep > our systems in what way secure to avoid transmition of such > information. If required, I can look into it. I hope, that whatever > little knowledge I have, according to that I have been able to address > your concerns satisfactorily. I will be more than happy to give my > interpretations or discuss anything if required. And would also look > forward for correction of my knowledge wherever I have gone wrong. > > Regards, > -- > Amar Jain. > Website: www.amarjain.com >
-- Amar Jain. Website: www.amarjain.com Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
