Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
Under the IT rules as they stand, merely on a request by the offended party. --Original Message-- From: Biju Chacko Sender: silklist-bounces+nikhil.mehra773=gmail@lists.hserus.net To: Intelligent Conversation ReplyTo: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws? Sent: Sep 18, 2012 5:03 PM Quick question to those clueful about Indian internet laws: On whose authority is a Internet service provider obligated to suspend access to web content? For example [1], what kind or order would make a hosting provider obligated to suspend a hosted domain? Would it be: a. A court order? b. An order from the DoT c. Instruction from an investigative agency (Police, CBI, etc) d. all of the above? -- b [1] A completely hypothetical one, I assure you. Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Nikhil Mehra nikhil.mehra...@gmail.com wrote: Under the IT rules as they stand, merely on a request by the offended party. Ouch. Cancel Righteous Indignation. -- b
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which includes the police etc As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 _ Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf 4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes. Sub Rule 2 prohibits intermediaries from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that a. Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to b. Is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparagng, relating or encourating money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever c. Harm minors in any way d. Infringers any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietory rights e. Violates any law for the time being in force f. Deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature g. Impersonate another person h. Contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource i. Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or prevents investigation of any offense or is insulting any other nation --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2012, at 17:03, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: Quick question to those clueful about Indian internet laws: On whose authority is a Internet service provider obligated to suspend access to web content? For example [1], what kind or order would make a hosting provider obligated to suspend a hosted domain? Would it be: a. A court order? b. An order from the DoT c. Instruction from an investigative agency (Police, CBI, etc) d. all of the above? -- b [1] A completely hypothetical one, I assure you.
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which includes the police etc As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 _ Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf 4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes. Sub Rule 2 prohibits intermediaries from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that a. Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to b. Is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparagng, relating or encourating money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever c. Harm minors in any way d. Infringers any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietory rights e. Violates any law for the time being in force f. Deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature g. Impersonate another person h. Contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource i. Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or prevents investigation of any offense or is insulting any other nation It seems to me that it is items (b) and (i) which can be most easily misused to gag people. Since those would involve making a judgement call, could a service provider punt it to the courts saying that it is not competent to make such judgements? -- b
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
I don't think I'd have a problem with complying with a court order. It's complying with the orders of every joe on the street with a chip on his shoulder that bothers me. It also bothers me that the kids on the abuse desk should have to decide what constitutes offensive speech. -- b On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: Technically they lose the safe harbor granted to intermediaries in such a case. These decisions are certainly capable of being challenged in the courts - in that once you refuse to take down such content, the offended party can complain to the police, get a court order etc to compel you to take it down. Once it goes to the courts you can challenge it there. --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2012, at 18:15, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which includes the police etc As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 _ Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf 4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes. Sub Rule 2 prohibits intermediaries from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that a. Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to b. Is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparagng, relating or encourating money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever c. Harm minors in any way d. Infringers any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietory rights e. Violates any law for the time being in force f. Deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature g. Impersonate another person h. Contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource i. Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or prevents investigation of any offense or is insulting any other nation It seems to me that it is items (b) and (i) which can be most easily misused to gag people. Since those would involve making a judgement call, could a service provider punt it to the courts saying that it is not competent to make such judgements? -- b
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
On 18-Sep-2012, at 18:15, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which includes the police etc As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 Here is some research that we conducted at the Centre for Internet and Society, looking at both the terms of the law, the avowed intention of the law, and the material practice affecting freedom of speech and expression in India: The brief summary: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india The full paper: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf/view Nishant -- Nishant Shah Director (Research), Centre for Internet and Society,( www.cis-india.org ) Asia Awards Fellow, 2008-09 # 00-91-9740074884 http://www.facebook.com/nishant.shah http://cis-india.academia.edu/NishantShah
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
As a registrar, your abuse desk has more than enough work to do .. I didn't think you did webhosting as well? --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2012, at 18:27, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think I'd have a problem with complying with a court order. It's complying with the orders of every joe on the street with a chip on his shoulder that bothers me. It also bothers me that the kids on the abuse desk should have to decide what constitutes offensive speech. -- b On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: Technically they lose the safe harbor granted to intermediaries in such a case. These decisions are certainly capable of being challenged in the courts - in that once you refuse to take down such content, the offended party can complain to the police, get a court order etc to compel you to take it down. Once it goes to the courts you can challenge it there. --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2012, at 18:15, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which includes the police etc As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 _ Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf 4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes. Sub Rule 2 prohibits intermediaries from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that a. Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to b. Is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparagng, relating or encourating money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever c. Harm minors in any way d. Infringers any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietory rights e. Violates any law for the time being in force f. Deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature g. Impersonate another person h. Contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource i. Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or prevents investigation of any offense or is insulting any other nation It seems to me that it is items (b) and (i) which can be most easily misused to gag people. Since those would involve making a judgement call, could a service provider punt it to the courts saying that it is not competent to make such judgements? -- b
Re: [silk] Any clue about cyber laws?
4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature I didn't notice earlier that such an email needs to be signed with an electronic signature, does the electronic signature need to be derived from ROOT-CA at cca.gov.in or does PGP qualify as well. Regards -Tarun
