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 >>> >> >
