On Feb 1 ~250 Twitter accounts of news orgs, farmers groups, etc. were blocked in response to a legal request from MeitY. The rationale of provocative tweets about protests and a specific hashtag was not substantiated as such direction under Sec 69A has not been made public.
2/n
Reports claim that Twitter contested the order. While Twitter restored the blocked accounts after public outrage, concerns about secrecy, proportionality and arbitrariness were raised. On Feb 3 MeitY reportedly sent an order to Twitter warning it about this decision.
3/n
MeitY, pointing to Twitter’s obligations as an intermediary bound by guidelines under Sec 69A of the IT Act, asked Twitter to comply with the earlier order or face criminal proceedings with penal consequences of imprisonment for up to 7 years.
4/n
A press note providing more details was privately circulated to media outlets. It outlined the rationale behind the order + Centre’s stance on Twitter’s response. Today reports emerged of a new order by MeitY sharing 1178 accounts it wanted removed. 5/n thehindu.com/news/national/…
This is harmful to transparency and India’s democratic ethos. The accounts have pointed out criticisms of the govt in the past. Blocking them is tantamount to censorship (especially when the govt failed to substantiate grounds on which orders for blocking were based).
6/n
The secrecy and lack of a clear process is concerning if directions are indeed under Sec 69A. From news reports no show cause notice or opportunity to present a defence has been provided to users. Twitter did not even notify most accounts about their access being withheld.
7/n
Directions have not been made public. This impacts freedom of speech + access to judicial remedies. It's in breach of the SC's directions in Shreya Singhal & Anuradha Bhasin Judgements (right to public info + censorship per principles of transparency & proactive disclosures)
8/n
We urge the Ministry to recall directions for blocking Twitter accounts, and in the future commence proceedings by providing a fair and clear opportunity to account users to participate and present their defence. Eventual orders under Sec 69A must be made publicly available.
9/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It cumulatively allots Rs. 68,487.7 crore to NDHM, Ministry of Electronics and IT, and Department of Telecom.
A 460% increase in total capital expenditure over Revised Estimates of 2020-21 is observed, but this is not significant in context of last year's Budget estimates.
2/n
MeitY witnesses a boost with Rs. 9,720.7 in allocations, largely due to the Digital India Program (L).
An increasing trend is seen in allocations towards innovation, with IT/ITeS industries and Centre for Development of Advanced Computing receiving boosts (R).
Reports suggest that a large number of Twitter accounts which were sharing information about the farmers' protests have been blocked by MeitY under the opaque Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. 1/n
Section 69A and the IT Blocking Rules prevent intermediaries like Twitter from disclosing any information about blocking of an account or tweet. 2/n
The confidentiality requirement present under Rule 16 of the IT Blocking Rules creates a bizarre situation where citizens have the right to challenge blocking of online content but they are unable to do so because they don't have access to these legal orders. 3/n
📢IFF along with @fsmi_in and @SFLCin released a joint statement yesterday condemning the use of internet shutdowns to suppress the farmers' protest. Learn about how you can support this important call. #keepiton 1/n
Such internet shutdowns will only increase the risk of violence and misinformation and they cannot be considered necessary or proportionate. 2/n
The internet shutdowns have made it impossible for journalists to provide real time updates about the protests and taken away the farmers’ ability to present their version of events through social media. 3/n
It recognises the privacy risks of indiscreet tech application. However, National Digital Health Mission data is cited as a plausible solution for information-related failures.
Alarmed by the recent changes to WhatsApp's Privacy Policy but confused about what exactly is going on? Well, we have got you covered with this explainer! 1/n
The latest changes to WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy cement the problematic status quo which has existed since the Policy was first updated in 2016. Here is a complete timeline of events and details of the changes made in 2021. 2/n
The changes to WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy in 2016 are also the subject of pending litigation before the Supreme Court and IFF is an intervenor in the case. 3/n