Short statement on website blocks ordered by @GoI_MeitY.
1. The basis of this statement are media reports which carry a press release. This is not a legal order issued under Section 69A. Our first ask is transparency and disclosure.
1. The basis of this statement are media reports which carry a press release. This is not a legal order issued under Section 69A. Our first ask is transparency and disclosure.
@GoI_MeitY 2. The website blocks are directed in an aggregated basis against 59 websites. Here common grounds and reasoning is made which goes against the individualised nature of the blocking power under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.
@GoI_MeitY 3. The Blocking Rules, 2009 specifically provide for a defined process of notice, hearing and a reasoned order. These processes emerge from the Shreya Singhal judgement and apply to all grounds for blocking, including those premised on national security.
@GoI_MeitY 4. There is legitimacy in concerns of data security and citizens privacy. This may be achieved through regulatory processes that emerge from objective, evidence based measures. This ensures credible action that protects, individual liberty, innovation & security interests.
@GoI_MeitY 5. “Bans” are absolute prohibitions. These must be adopted as a last step examining a wider roster of regulatory interventions including fines and directions. Admittedly, many of these measures are dependent on a Data Protection law which awaits enactment.
@GoI_MeitY Our recent work to reform website blocking is available here:
1) On WeTransfer : internetfreedom.in/we-urge-the-do…
2) On 4000 URLs : internetfreedom.in/whistleblower-…
1) On WeTransfer : internetfreedom.in/we-urge-the-do…
2) On 4000 URLs : internetfreedom.in/whistleblower-…
Here is the link of the press release :
Further explanation and context on the legality and the policy implications of the ban on these 59 “Chinese” Apps can be found here.
