According to a report in
Hindu, today, Al-Queda websites are back in Cyber space, some of them in
different names.
As the world continues its war
against terrorism, there is a renewed need to discuss the measures to control
the proliferation of websites that are considered as pro-terrorists.
The establishment view is
surely to "Block Such Sites". At the same time there will
also be a cry from the "Human Rights Activists" that the voice of dissent if
any against any establishment should not be arbitrarily curbed. There is some
truth but not whole truth in the claim of the Human Right Activists and
Freedom lovers.
The answer to the dilemma
obviously lies in between the two extreme measures. This means that there
should be "Content Monitoring" of some kind that satisfies the human right
activists and at the same time also addresses the concerns of the law
enforcement.
Balancing Viewpoints
naavi.org had suggested the
following action to handle some sites which fall as border cases between free
expression and anti establishment. (See
here for complete article)
1. Sites which are said to contain "Politically
Objectionable material" are reviewed by a virtual committee of experts and
voted for or against being declared "Objectionable for Viewing by the
Indian Government".
2. Based on such a verdict delivered through
digitally signed e-mail confirmations from the virtual committee members,
the Controller can issue a notice to ISP s in India to do the following.
3.Whenever a request for an objectionable site is
received from a surfer, an "Objection Notice" to the following effect is
displayed in a pop up box.
" The site requested by you contains information
considered "Objectionable" by the Government of the Republic of India
vide GO No xxx of xx.xx.xx. The reasons for objection can be found here.
(Hyper linked Document) A List of sites presenting a counter view point
can be found here (Hyper link to list of "Counter view point sites")
4. You can click here to enter the site. (Hyperlink to "continue")
The moment a site is declared "objectionable", the Government should notify
the same on the internet and invite the public to register their site or
Pages containing counter view points. These can be reviewed and if found
suitable, added to the list of "Counter View Point Sites".
This strategy will enable the Government to use the
public resources to produce content which will neutralise the objectionable
material.
Concept of Due Diligence
under Section 79 of ITA-2000
In the past, some ISP s have
refused to carry out the instructions from authorities to block specific
websites under "Technical Reasons". ISP s have however been the
beneficiaries of the provisions under Section 79 of the ITA-2000 (In India)
where by they were considered "Intermediaries to Communication" and absolved
of the responsibility for any "Communication passing through them" if they had exercised "Due
Diligence" and " Were Unaware" of the offending communication.
This particular section of
ITA-2000 was expected to protect ISPs from charges similar to one faced by
Indiatimes.com and rediff.com regarding free webpages or embedded search
engines.
However, recent incidents
point out that ISP s are now prepared to take higher responsibilities in
monitoring content viewed by their customers. While VSNL had represented to
the Mumbai High Court some time back (In the Cyber Pornography at Cyber Cafe
Case) that the technology is inadequate to block specific websites, Satyam has
indicated recently that it has the technological capability and willingness to
block specific websites.
Even though Satyam has adopted
"Blocking of Websites" only in connection with sites such as dialpad.com,
net2phone.com etc which are websites which provides services in competition to
its own net telephony product called way2talk, (launched on August 2, 2002,), it has demonstrated its
capability to block sites which are identified.
Satyam has at the same time
denied the earlier Hindustan Times report which had reported that Satyam is
considering blocking of Yahoo and Hotmail sites as they compete with them in
different product categories. Skeptics have however attributed the denial to
the uproar that the Hindustan Times Report caused in the Net Community and its
blocking of dialpad.com etc indicates its mind to use its technical
capabilities to monitor and filter content that its customers can receive.
This action of Satyam has
brought a substantive change to the definition of what is "Due Diligence".
Courts can now take the view that it is possible to block identified sites at
the ISP level unless the ISP is deliberately not interested in such blocking.
Since Section 79 protection is available only when there is "No Knowledge", if Satyam is aware that a particular website contains information that is against
the sovereignty and integrity of India, it is duty bound to block the site. A
failure to do so particularly after a notice has been received by them either
from a member of public or from the Government may put them at the risk of
being held liable for prosecution under POTA.
In the light of this, the
article in Hindu can be taken as a public notice that there are terrorist
sites on the net which are accessible through Satyam service containing
information which is against the interests of the country.
Sataym needs to clarify
immediately if it takes upon the responsibility to block these sites
along with dialpad.com and net2phone.com or accept the "intermediary" status
that has been provided under law and remove the restrictions placed on rival
business sites.
This is a defining moment in
the history of ISP s in India since future court decisions on "Due Diligence"
under Section 79 of ITA-2000 would be based on how Satyam handles this issue.
Naavi
August 3, 2002
Related Article in The Hindu
Your Views
can be sent here
