Intermediary Guidelines: Most tech firms uncomfortable with the changes

[Discussion continued from previous articles]

“Status Quo” is most comfortable for some of the tech companies as regards Intermediary guidelines is what comes out of the 609 page collection of public comments.

There are a total of 141  comments which are listed in the list given below.

Index of Suggestions received as Public Comments

Sl No Entity Category Pages
1 IIIT-B Academic 2-3
2 All India Professional Congress Political 4-6
3 Wipro IT Company-Indian 7-14
4 Shrutanjaya Bharadway Individual-Lawyer 15-19
5 Freedom Publishers Union NGO-Foreign 20
6 FDPPI NGO-India 21-28
7 JUUL-LABS Vaping  Product Company-Foreign 29-33
8 Asia Internet Coalition NGO-Foreign 34-42
9 ITU-APT Foundation of India NGO-India 43-47
10 Rajeev Chandrashekar Individual-MP 48-53
11 Change.org India NGO-India 54-59
12 Banana IP Legal Firm 60-75
13 The Indian Music Industry Industry-Music 76-81
14 ? ? 84-85
15 Digital Empowerment Foundation NGO-India 86-90
16 Information Technology Industry Council Industry-IT-Global 91-94
17 Amnesty International NGO-Foreign 95-104
18 Election Commission of India Government 105-106
19 Computer & Communications Industry Association Industry-Foreign 107-112
20 CCAOI NGO 113-116
21 Internet Service Providers Association of India Industry Association-IT-India 117-120
22 ESYA Center NGO-India 121-141
23 Asia Cloud Computing Assocaition Industry-IT-Global 142-148
24 Broad Band India Forum Industry-IT-India 149-154
25 ? ? 155-168
26 ? ? 169-181
27                             Internet Society NGO-India 182-186
28 IAMAI-Internet and Mobile Association of India Industry-IT-India 187-192
29 CII-Confederation of Indian Industry Industry-India 193-203
30 BSA-The Software Alliance Industry-Global 204-206
31 Harsheet Yogesh Shaah Individual-Cyber Expert 207-210
32 Internet Freedom Foundation NGO-India 211-224
33 The Bachchao Project NGO-India 225-228
34 Access Now NGO-Global 229-238
35 ? ? 239-244
36 Sankalp Srivatsava Individual 245
37 Center for Internet Society (CIS) NGO-India 246-271
38 National Institute of Public Finance & Policy NGO-India 272-299
39 ? ? 300
40 Global Network Initiative NGO-Global 301-304
41 India Internet Foundation NGO-India 305-306
42 SFLC NGO-India 307-328
43 DSCI/NASSCOM Industry-India 329-345
44 Heart Care Foundation of India NGO-Health Care 346-349
45 ? ? 350-367
46 Free Software Movement of India NGO-India 368-380
47 Dr Joan Barata Mir-CIS (USA) Individual- Professor-Law 381-383
48 Mozilla Industry-IT-Global 384-390
49 IndiaTech Industry-IT-India 391-395
50 AWS (Amazon Web Services) Industry-IT-Global 396-405
51 Samvad Partners Advocates 406-411
52 US India Business Council Industry-Global 412-413
53 CPF NGO-Global 414-415
54 COAI NGO-IT-India 416-425
55 XIAOMI IT-China 426-429
56 AMCHAM-India Industry-India 430-432
57 SFLC-2 NG-India 433-456
58 ? ? 457-
59 IRA Law Law Firm 458-471
60 Reliance Jio IT-India 472-478
61 Center for Communication Governance NGO-India 479-497
62 ? ? 498-502
63 Association of Vapers India Industry-India 503-515
64 Sharechat Industry-IT 516-522
65 ? Individual 523
66 Bingi Vivek Varun Individual 523-524
67 Divya Individual 525-526
68 ? Individual 527
69 ? Individual 528
70 Bhavin Chandarana Individual 529
71 ? Individual 530
72 ? Individual 533
73 Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry Industry-India 534-539
74 IBM Industry-India 540-545
75 ? Individual 546-548
76 FICCI Industry-India 549-555
77 Shubhi Trivedi Individual-CA 556-
78 ? Individual 557-
79 ? Individual 558
80 Piyush Individual 559
81 ? Individual 560
82 ? Individual 561
83 ? Individual 562
84 Aryan Individual 563
85 ? Individual 564
86 ? Individual 565
87 A Voter Individual 566
88 ? Individual 567
89 ? Individual 568
90 ? Individual 569
91 ? Individual 570
92 ? Individual 571
93 ? Individual 572
94 ? Individual 573
95 ? Individual 574
96 ? Individual 575
97 ? Individual 576
98 ? Individual 577
99 Yaogesh Tavre Individual 578
100 ? Individual 579
101 ? Individual 580
102 ? Individual 581
103 ? Individual 582
104 ? Individual 583
105 ? Individual 583
106 ? Individual 584
107-109 ? Individual 585
110-111 ? Individual 586
112 ? Individual 587
113 ? Individual 588
114 ? Individual 589
115 ? Individual 590
116 ? Individual 591
117 ? Individual 592
118 ? Individual 593
119 ? Individual 594
120-121 ? Individual 595
122-123 ? Individual 596
124 ? Individual 597
125-126 ? Individual 598
127-128 ? Individual 599
129 ? Individual 600
130 ? Individual 601
131-132 ? Individual 602
133 ? Individual 603
134 ? Individual 604
135 ? Individual 605
136-137 ? Individual 606
138-139 ? Individual 607
140 ? Individual 608
141 ? Individual 609
(Please note that the .Page numbers are from a down loaded document. One the website there will be a difference of page numbers by one page since numbering starts from the second page. Also, since in some cases the identity of the persons was not visible, they have been left blank  If any body can claim the particular comment, they can keep Naavi informed so that this index can be updated.)

Who all have provided comments

It may be noted that there are a number of foreign companies, NGOs and even individuals who have provided their comments.

As could be expected, several NGOs who are active in promoting human rights on the Internet have provided their views.

Since Naavi’s views were already contained in FDPPI’s views, no separate submission was made by either Naavi individually or from Cyber Law College or Naavi.org.

What is surprising is that most of the Premier Law Colleges including the NLSUI, NALSAR etc have not contributed their thoughts. IIIT Bangalore is however one of the academic institutions that has submitted its views.

FINTECH industry as well as the E Commerce, industry  are conspicuous by its absence in the list of contributors.

There is some thoughts contributed from the health care sector particularly regarding the part referring to smoking, alcohol and Narcotics promotion on Internet.

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry,  FICCI, AMCHAM and CII are industry associations which have contributed their thoughts. US India Business Council has also provided its views.

Election Commission of India  is the Government body which has submitted its views.

Number of law firms which have submitted their views are few. Banana IP, IRA Law, Samvad partners are a few who can be identified. There are a few individual lawyers who have submitted their views. Most of the persons who promote themselves as “Cyber Lawyers” have not taken the trouble of providing their considered views. The habitual PIL lawyers who raise the Constitutional rights at the drop of a hat have also failed to record their views at this stage.

Rajeev Chandrashekar as an MP has submitted his views while comments have also been made from the Congress Party in the name of “All India Professional Congress”.

IBM, Wipro, JIo, XIAOMI, AWS, Mozilla, are the noticeable names from the tech industry.

ISPs and MSPs are represented through their associations. Few Policy research organizations have provided their views.

NASSCOM’s views are provided through DSCI.

Overall, it is heartening to note that so many people have taken the interest in submitting their views, though several more should have also contributed.  At least this indicates the wide interest being shown on Indian law making process across the world.

Negative Comments predominant

It is unfortunate to note that majority of comments are “Negative” comments and include those which keep saying, more consultation is required etc. These indicate that people are happy with policy paralysis and no action being taken rather than some action.

Many of the suggestions made also indicate lack of understanding of the context in which this notification has to be placed as an administrative notification under the statute which became effective in 2009 itself.

Shreya Singhal Judgement which was a faulty judgement with a wrong interpretation of “Messaging” as “Publication” and Puttaswamy Judgement which was related to “Information Privacy” without defining what is “Privacy” have been extensively quoted by many.

Further Comments to Follow

It is easy to say “Don’t Do this or that”. But it is difficult to say “What should be done”.  We therefore  need to ignore most of the negative comments and focus on a few which contain some suggestions. It is only from those comments that the Government would be able to bring some changes that would try to tackle the issue of “Fake News” and “Frauds through Intermediaries”.

We shall try to focus on such positive comments in our subsequent articles though it may be necessary to comment on a few others in the passing.

Naavi

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Cyber Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.