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 >> >
