To aid in the ongoing constitutional challenges to the IT Rules, Oxford University’s Pro Bono Publico research centre - @OPBPatOxford has released a report about laws in other countries regulating social media, digital news media and OTT platforms. 1/9
IFF reached out @OPBPatOxford to last year and asked specific questions on the law of other jurisdictions. We also specified which jurisdictions to examine - these were chosen to reflect political and economic diversity and reduce bias. 2/9
The report found that, in general, other countries
👉🏾 use existing laws to regulate digital content
👉🏾 are influenced by human rights jurisprudence
👉🏾 have not issued targeted laws for digital content, but some are in the process of developing them 3/9
For social media, in other countries -
👉🏾 removable content was linked to existing criminal law
👉🏾 generally no liability for content, except for intellectual property violations and defamation.
👉🏾 Expeditious timelines only for national security and CSAM
4/9
For digital news media, in other countries -
👉🏾 removal of news content is difficult unless copyright is violated.
👉🏾 press rights means more difficult removal regime than social media.
OTT platforms in other countries are mostly not regulated, or self-regulated. 5/9
The IT Rules were issued in Feb 2021, & significantly increase government control over social media, digital news media & OTT platforms. These 3 aspects of the internet are basically the entirety of leisure-time internet usage for millions of Indians! 6/9 internetfreedom.in/intermediaries…
IFF has legally assisted in challenges to the constitutionality of these Rules before the Kerala & Madras HCs on grounds that they are ultra vires the parent act, & violate privacy & free speech of users. Madras HC has affirmed a stay on Part III. 7/9 internetfreedom.in/madras-high-co…
This report represents a year of work by the @OPBPatOxford team at Oxford University. We thank their team of researchers, coordinators and supervisors. In particular, we would like to thank @sameeric, @rupavardhini, Gayathree Devi KT, @VanditaKhanna and MIhika Poddar 8/9
This report will help us continue our fight against the unconstitutional and undemocratic IT Rules!
💰 Financial Disclosure for February:
We raised Rs. 2,36,353 through one-time & recurring donations from our community members. All contributions go into protecting your digital liberties!
We received Rs. 12,400 from @FranklyWearing as an organisational donation as proceeds from the sale of the IFF x SanitaryPanels t-shirt. If you are an organisation that wants to support our work, please reach out to us at donate@internetfreedom.in
(2/4)
The amount raised this month is the lowest we have been able to raise over the past year. We need your support more than ever in order to continue to expand the scope of our work. You can become an IFF member or make an individual donation here: internetfreedom.in/donate/
(3/4)
Since our last #TransparencyReport, IFF has filed 36 RTI requests and 3 first appeals in February!
In response received from NIXI, we discovered that there was no legal basis for their undated notice for cap on [dot]in domains! 1/n
➡️ We filed RTIs with 30 Indian states and Union Territories over internet shutdown orders issued by them and their compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. UoI! 2/n
NIXI responded that the new policy is as per powers under Clause 9.19 of Registry-Registrar Agreement. The exercise of NIXI’s power based on this contractual agreement defies legal understanding. Further, NIXI justified their decision solely on grounds of National Security. 3/n
Who ensures the security of government websites?
As per @NICMeity, it does not maintain any information on websites developed by it or other vendors, nor does it document security audits (see attached picture). 1/5
It is worrisome that @NICMeity has stated that the security of government websites is tasked with the departments or ministries, even though security is a listed service. Here capacity for cyber security may not exist independently. 2/5
This disclosure comes after increasing incidents of vulnerabilities being discovered in official websites. For instance, a cybersec researcher discovered a vulnerability in the National Voter's Services Portal. 3/5
N.K. Premchandran stated that in the morning he opposed introduction on constitutional grounds, now he is opposing it on procedural grounds for passage. MPs are not even getting a chance to propose amendments. “What is parliamentary democracy? What is the use of debate” 8/n
E. T. Mohammed Basheer states that he opposes the Aadhaar-Voter ID linkage bill… focuses on the procedure, “that this is a shame… it is not had in the history of legislature…”. 9/n
Kiren Rijiju responds that he desired calm discussion on this important Bill but opposition has responded by creating a ruckus. The Bill is important for electoral reforms and refuses reference to parliamentary committee stating such examination has already been done. 10/n
Discussion has started on the Election Law (Amendment) Bill, 2021 for passage. It is being introduced by Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju. 2/n
Nishikant Dubey speaking in support of the linking and the amendment bill. He is arguing that all opposition parties are against the amendment bill due to their reliance on fake and bogus voters (“bangladeshis"). 3/n
Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju introduced the Election Law (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 1/n
Leader of Congress party in Loksabha @adhirrcinc opposes introduction. States that it should be referred to Standing Committee and Aadhaar-Election ID link will cause mass disenfranchisement. 2/n