IT RULES

What happened?

Last year, India passed a law that makes internet companies responsible for ethically objectionable, blasphemous and grossly harmful content posted on their websites.  They are required to take down anything deemed as offensive within 39 hours in case of a complaint. It also includes censoring anything that, “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.”  

While civil rights activists oppose, the government feels that India, being a socially conservative country with a history of violence between religious groups it is at the best interest of its people. Their intention is to align Indian law with global practices and protect Indian data.

What my view on the subject is?

In the past laws such as IT Act of 2008, the Indian government put pressure on Internet intermediaries who were forced to succumb under them. Yahoo resisted this when it took the government to court over e-surveillance and more such litigations. How cyber laws of India develop is still the million dollar question.

While selective censorship has been a continuous process since 2003, it is brought to public discourse now. Allegedly, many posts regarding malpractices of the Indian government fail to appear in news, blogs and search engines. This action was aided by Google who along with censorship of news and manipulation of search engines, engaged in illegal data gathering.

Censorship guards against viruses and spams, but tech-savvy users have inbuilt software to prevent it from causing damage. Several outsourcing foreign companies are also having a tough time coping with the new rules. Stealing identity also has low chances, as some websites ask for verification.

The new internet rules also have major potential legal problems as individuals/corporations can sue to have their blocks removed if the cyber laws are not strong enough. Resulting in more conflicts and lord knows we can do without them.

This law aids in protecting women and children from the dangerous side-effect of watching porn, however there are many who have access to it with or without government filtering in India, through pirated CDs, etc. Besides, there are several hundred websites that continue to show porn and no action to eradicate it has taken place. And as far as other sites go, people have softwares that pass through government firewalls or that content is simply available discreetly on other websites. 

People have a right to information and it is conflicting with the new internet law. One cannot blindfold the audience and expect it to progress. If the government wants development it needs to strip itself of everything, including the ugly. Information cannot be one-sided and they cannot restrict oppositional political viewpoint, which ultimately aids in progress.

Internet to people is a whole new world which they access for entertainment, to acquire information and express themselves. Yes there are websites/pages/comments/ pictures/ blog posts that oppose certain government laws, restrictions and support groups, but at the end of the day they are just public forums where people vent out their frustration or campaign against/for a cause and create opinion. The government shouldn’t take this too seriously. People are more aware and informative than before and will not engage in riots. If at all there will be peaceful protests like the ones held for Anna Hazare. After all, the government is for the people and by the people.

People sit within the constraints of their homes or cafés and write their views. That’s about it. If the government knew better, it would do better. They shouldn’t blind fold the public and keep them out of the loop. The whole scenario is interpreted wrongly and filing cases against websites that are actually expanding our horizons and exposing us to the world is undone. It must have started with good intentions but is leading nowhere. Besides, such websites are hosts to information; they should not be responsible for whatever content is posted by its members.

Internet censorship is aimed to control or suppress public opinion and individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship caused by inbuilt intimidation and fear.  China is not allowed to view information about Tibet, Saudi Arabia restricts information on women’s rights and Cuba permits only pro-government blogs.

Indians are much more liberal in action, forward in thinking and democratic in nature where freedom of expression is given a platform. It will be shameful for the nation if censorship of the Internet is encouraged and progressed.