Naavi.org

https://kannada.oneindia.com/news/business/bengaluru-cyber-expert-writes-letter-to-pm-modi-to-ban-bitcoin-to-control-black-money-215924.html

Article published in Oneindia.com

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಬಯಿಸಿ ಪ್ರಧಾನಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಸೈಬರ್ ತಜ್ಞ

By Muralidhara V | Updated: Saturday, February 20, 2021, 12:43 [IST] ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 20 :

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡದೇ ಹತ್ತು ಸಲ ನೋಟ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ರೂ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್ ಮನಿ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಮಾಡಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಅಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಮೊದಲು ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಜಾಗತಿಕ ನಾಯಕರಾಗಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ನೀವು ಈ ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟೋ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇ ಆದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬೆಂಬಲಕ್ಕೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಲಿವೆ ! ಪ್ರಧಾನಿ ಮೋದಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ:

ಕಪ್ಪು ಹಣ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಆರೋಪ ಹೊತ್ತಿರುವ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸೈಬರ್ ತಜ್ಞ ನಾ. ವಿಜಯಶಂಕರ್ ಅವರು ಪ್ರಧಾನಿ ಮೋದಿ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಬಹಿರಂಗವಾಗಿ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದರು. ಅದರ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಸಾರಾಂಶವಿದು.

ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ನಿಷೇಧ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬಿಲ್ ಮಂಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷವಾದರೂ ಬಿಲ್ ಗೆ ಅನುಮೋದನೆ ನೀಡಿ ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ತ್ವರಿತ ನಿಷೇಧ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ದೇಶದ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ನಾಶವಾಗುವ ಜತೆಗೆ ಸೈಬರ್ ಅಪರಾಧಕ್ಕೆ ಬಲಿಪಶುವಾಗಲಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸೈಬರ್ ತಜ್ಞ ನಾ. ವಿಜಯ ಶಂಕರ್ ಎಳೆ ಎಳೆಯಾಗಿ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡಿಸಿಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಪ್ರಧಾನಿಗೆ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಪತ್ರದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾ. ವಿಜಯಶಂಕರ್ ಒನ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾ ಕನ್ನಡ ಜತೆ ಹಲವು ವಿಷಯ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡರು.

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಯಾಕೆ ?

ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟೋ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿ ನಿಷೇಧ ಮಾಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮೋದಿಗೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದಲೂ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ನೂರು ಸಲ ನೋಟ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ರೂ ಕಪ್ಪು ಹಣ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಮಾಡಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಷೇಧ ಹೇರಲಿ, ರಾಜಕಾರಣಿಗಳ, ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಳಿಸಿರುವ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ಬಯಲಿಗೆ ಬರಲಿದೆ. ದೇಶದ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಗೆ ಮಾರಕವಾಗಿರುವ ಈ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ನಿಷೇಧ ಮಾಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವರ್ಷದ ಹಿಂದೆಯೇ ಬಿಲ್ ಮಂಡಿಸಿದ್ದರು.

ಆದರೆ ಈವರೆಗೂ ಅದನ್ನು ಪಾಸ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ತಲೆ ಕೆಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಬ್ಬ ಭಾರತೀಯನಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ದೇಶ ಉಳಿಸುವ ಹಂಬಲ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ನಾನು ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ದೇಶದ ಉಳಿವು ಅಳಿವು:

ಅಧಿಕಾರಸ್ಥರು, ಉದ್ಯಮಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಈಗ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್, ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟೋ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿ ಇಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದು ಮೇಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಎಷ್ಟು ಸಾವಿರ ಕೋಟಿಯನ್ನು ಬೇಕಾದರೂ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಬಹುದು.

ಇನ್ನು ಈ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೇಶದ ಅಧಿಕೃತ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿಯೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಇದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾರಿಗೂ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಹಾಕುವ ಹಕ್ಕು ಇಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಇವತ್ತಿನ ದಿನಮಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಭಾವಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಅಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಪತ್ತನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಮೂಲಕ ರಕ್ಷಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇ ಆದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪಕ್ಷ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ನಾಣ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಅಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ಉಳಿವಿಗಾಗಿ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ನಾ. ವಿಜಯಶಂಕರ್ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಭ್ರಷ್ಟರೇ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಪ್ರೇಮಿಗಳು:

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಿಂದೆ ಆರ್ ಬಿಐ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿತ್ತು. ಕಪ್ಪು ಹಣದ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಮುಂದೆ ಆರ್‌ಬಿಐ ಆಟ ನಡೆಯಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಆರ್ ಬಿಐ ಮೇಲಿನ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಇಲ್ಲದಾಗಿದೆ.

ಇನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಷೇಧ ಹೇರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸುಪ್ರೀಂಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಮಹತ್ವದ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಲಿದೆಯಾ ಎಂಬ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲ.

ರಾಜಕಾರಣಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಭ್ರಷ್ಟ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಪ್ರೀತಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಯಾಕೆಂದರೆ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಲಂಚ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸುವುದು ಅತಿ ಸುಲಭ.

ಇನ್ನು ಭಯೋತ್ಪಾದನೆ ಕೃತ್ಯ ಎಸಗಿರುವ ಉಗ್ರ ಸಂಘಟನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಹಣ ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬಳಕೆಯಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ದೇಶ ವಿರೋಧಿ ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ನೆರವು ನೀಡಲು ಈ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬಳಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬಳಕೆ ಮಾಡುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆನಡಾ ಮೊದಲ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಆಸ್ಪದ ನೀಡಿದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಶಕ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ನಾಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ನಿಷೇಧ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಮೌನ ವಹಿಸಿರುವುದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಯಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ವಿವರಣೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಡ್ರಗ್ ಗಿಂತಲೂ ಅಪಾಯ ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ :

ಡಿಟಿಟಲ್ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್ ಮನಿಯನ್ನು ರದ್ದು ಮಾಡದೇ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕಪ್ಪು ಹಣದ ವಹಿವಾಟು, ಸೈಬರ್ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲಾರದ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ನಿಲ್ಲುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ , ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟೋ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿ ರದ್ದು ಮಾಡುವ ಗಟ್ಟಿ ನಿರ್ಧಾರವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಧಾನಿ ಮೋದಿ ಅವರು ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಬ್ಯಾನ್ ಮಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಜಾಗತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಅದರನ್ನು ರದ್ದು ಮಾಡುವ ನಾಯಕತ್ವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಧಾನಿಯಾಗಿ ನೀವು ಮುಂದಾಳತ್ವ ವಹಿಸಿ.

ಬಿಟ್ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ಮಾದಕ ಜಾಲಕ್ಕಿಂತಲೂ ಅಪಾಯಕಾರಿ. ದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಇದು ಸರ್ವ ನಾಶ ಮಾಡಲಿದೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೂ ಮುನ್ನ ಅದನ್ನೇ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಮಾಡಿ. ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರ್‌ಬಿಐ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿಯನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತನ್ನಿ ಎಂಬ ಸಲಹೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಮಂತ್ರಿಗಳ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಾವಿ ರವಾನಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

Read more at: https://kannada.oneindia.com/news/business/bengaluru-cyber-expert-writes-letter-to-pm-modi-to-ban-bitcoin-to-control-black-money/articlecontent-pf189492-215924.html

RBI Governor Mr Shaktikanta das has echoed similar sentiments today in his article in economic times.

Naavi

Criminal Justice System and Criminal Jurisprudence is being re-written by one Additional Session Judge Sri Dharmender Rana of Delhi while granting bail to Disha Ravi a lady from Bangalore who was accused of having aided and abetted the Delhi Republic Day attack on Red fort.

Magistrate Dhamender Rana granted bail to the lady and in the process passed critical comments on the Government and substantially strengthened the resolve of the Urban Naxalites who are putting all their intelligence at destroying the country.

Copy of the Judgement

The judgement refers to the accused as a “22 years old young lady” with “Absolutely” blemish free criminal antecedents. It also makes a statement that “The offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of Governments”.

The toolkit contained the following:

PRIOR ACTIONS

1. Share solidarity Photo/Video Message by email to scrapfarmacts@gmail.com, preferably by 25th January (solidarity messages for farmers at Delhi’s border)

2. Digital Strike: #AskindiaWhy Video/Photo Message On or Before 26th January.

3. Tweet Storm­ 23rd January onwards­11.30 pm UTC/5 pm IST­ Feel free to tag @ PMOIndia@nstomar ( Minister of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare), your own heads of state & others who ought to take note, like the IMF, WTO, FAO, World Bank (Tweetbank).

4. Zoom session ( Ask your Questions) with a Greens with Farmers’ Coalition representative from Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture on 23rd January,
2020( We will be happy to organize another session. Write to us at scrapfarmacts@gmail.com)

5. XR Global Insta Live at 9.30 am UTC/3 pm IST*on 26th January(India’s Republic Day) with farmers at the borders of Delhi and environmental workers & activists worldwide.

6. Physical Actions – Near Indian Embassies, Govt. offices, Media houses ( or even Adani­Ambani offices) globally­ 26th January.

7. Watch out or (or Join) the Farmers’ March/Parade ( a first of its kind)into Delhi and back to the borders on 26th January.

8. Call/Email any of your govt representatives and ask them to take action, Sign online Petitions and take action to Divest from monopolists and oligopolists like Adani­ Ambani.
(* tentative time) Get a complete picture through the Farmers Protests’ Cheat ­sheet. (#AskIndiaWhy)

Disha Ravi had admitted that she had the editing rights for this document and had edited it and also shared it with people like Greta Thunberg. She had also admitted that later she had deleted many WhatsApp messages (electronic evidence) to hide her involvement in the editing and distribution of this toolkit. She had also expressed apprehension that she would be considered as having committed an offence under UAPA etc.

The magistrate however, in his wisdom goes on to state that in his “considered opinion” Disha Ravi deserves to be released because sufficient evidence has not been provided .

I leave it to the readers to go through the entire judgement and decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with the “Considered” opinion of the honourable magistrate.

However it is necessary to remember that this judgement expects that at the pre-trial stage of an international conspiracy, the Police have to produce all the evidence to prove the accused guilty to claim custody for further investigation. This could very well be quoted in many other similar cases.

It is necessary that the Police should oppose the grant of bail and go on appeal. If this judgement is not over turned, we will have more anarchist attitude in the country and the Tukde Tukde Gang will get a big boost.

It is a black day for Indian Judiciary as an upholder of national integrity.

Naavi

The legal aspects of the use of electronic documents were first introduced in India through the Information Technology Act 2000 which therefore became the mother of all legislations related to electronic documents. The forth coming Personal Data Protection Act will be one of the major laws that will be an extension of the ITA 2000. In between there have been many other laws like UIDAI act which have touched upon some aspects of electronic documents.

The Arbitration Act and the Companies act has also made references to use of electronic documents in their own domains.

In terms of compliance it becomes important for organizations to keep track of such secondary sectoral laws since these laws need to be implemented without conflict with the main Act. One such instance occurred when state Government in Karnataka tried to amend the Registration Act and the Government of Kerala tried to amend the Police Act.

It is possible that similar amendments can be expected in media laws also in due course.

While there will always be a debate on whether laws related to the use of Electronic documents should be made only by the Central Government and more particularly by the MeitY, it is necessary to point out that there is also a tendency which is not considered ideal to make significant amendments to the Information Technology Act through the notification of “Rules” under another Act.

We refer to the rules under the Legal Metrology Act described below as one example of such a development. It would be preferable for the Central Government to introduce some system where by such amendments are introduced only through Acts and not through rules.

However, for the sake of record we give below the details of this Legal Metrology Act so that it remains within the radar of ITA 2008 compliance as applicable to the E Commerce companies.

With effect from March 1, 2011, Government of India notified the “Legal Metrology Act”.

The copy of the Act is available here

This act was meant to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures, regulate trade and commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The Ministry of Consumer affairs has also issued the rules in 2017  and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 became effective from 1st January 2018.

The rules defined several terms in E Commerce which

Clause 2

‘(bd) “E-commerce” means buying and selling of goods and services including digital products over digital and electronic network;

(be) “E-commerce entity” means a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or the companies Act, 2013 or a foreign company covered under clause (42) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, or an office, branch or agency in India covered under sub-clause (ii) of clause (v) of section 2 of the foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) owned or controlled by a person resident outside India and conducting e-commerce business;

(bf) “marketplace based model of e-commerce” means providing of an information technology platform by an ecommerce entity on a digital and electronic network to act as a facilitator between buyer and seller;’;

Rule 4(10) has also been added stating

“(10) An E-Commerce entity shall ensure that the mandatory declarations as specified in sub-rule (1), except the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or packed, shall be displayed on the digital and electronic network used for e-commerce transactions: Provided that in case of market place model of e-commerce, responsibility of the correctness of declarations shall lie with the manufacturer or seller or dealer or importer if,-

(a) the function of the e-commerce entity is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by the manufacturer or seller or dealer or importer is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or

(b) the entity does not- (i) initiate the transmission; (ii) select the receiver of the transmission; and (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) the entity observes due diligence while discharging its duty as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf: Provided further that there shall not be any protection to the market place e-commerce entity if,-

(a) the entity has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise of otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;

(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the entity is being used to commit the unlawful act, the entity fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that the provision of this sub -rule shall not provide exemption from from the declarations required to be made under these rules on pre-packaged commodities delivered to the consumers.”.

Naavi

Reference:

Article in print.com

The war that has erupted between FaceBook and the Australian Government has opened up a can of worms as regards the future of Internet. The proposed law envisages that news producers get rewarded for the news to be picked up by other content aggregators. Google appears to have negotiated a price and accepted it but Face Book has resisted it. It is understood that the Australian PM has sought the assistance of other Global leaders to support his move to make Tech Companies pay news generators.

The issue is however not simple and has its roots in the Copyright law and the argument on free speech and the status of Internet in the global information dissemination system.

When Internet was born, it was a “Free” medium of information. People voluntarily put up content accessible to others and it was considered an “Information Super Highway”. It soon acquired the status of “Free Speech” and “Fundamental Right”. The “Search Engines” like the old Alta Vista helped news to be accessed in an orderly fashion by the general users and the popularity of Internet exploded.

However “Money” started spoiling the beauty of Internet. Commercialization corroded the principle on which World Wide Web was set up and things got sour. Initially “Advertising” appeared to help bring Internet free. There were browsers which displayed advertisements on the top and internet access  credits were provided when the internet access was expensive. That was the time when 14.4 kbps access was available at Rs 16000/- per year from VSNL in India. The access was so slow that the volume of data accessed was not a criteria for charging.

As time passed, internet access became less and less expensive, speed of access increased and the payment system switched to time plus data based costing. Comparatively we  have today Fiber connections at enormous speed (200 Mbps+) and 1000 GB plus data access per month around Rs 1500-2000.

As Users did not need the support of advertising to defray cost of access, they started looking at it as an intrusion to their browsing experience. Since then, “Advertising” is only considered as an unavoidable evil.

Today the dispute has arisen between content owners and the tech companies like Google and Face Book whether news access by Google and FaceBook should be paid for. This is a “Copyright” issue similar to the “Deep Linking” disputes that erupted in the NewsBooster.com case in 2002.

There is no doubt that publishers have a point that they have a cost in producing content and the platforms like Google or Facebook are making what they consider “Disproportionate” profit.

But the entire system of content generation and delivery to the end user is a chain of services  and different people are making different profits. The concept of Copyright was to ensure that the first generator of a literary content gets the right to license and every body else pays for the use. But “Data” is not static and is like a growing organism in which different people add value and therefore claim benefit. Hence progressively the data value has to be shared by different persons. The search engines and platforms like Face Book have their own contributions to make in the last mile delivery of news.

(Please refer to the Theory of Data propounded by Naavi on the life cycle hypothesis and Additive Value hypothesis)

Hence it is difficult to summarily reject the claim of these platforms that they also have a claim on the profits of business. We can always discuss the fairness of distribution of profits and ultimately there has to be a commercial equilibrium established.

Today technology permits a content publisher to block search engines and hence Google has decided to go along with the proposal to pay for content. But Face Book where content is contributed by the users has resisted the claim for payment. Perhaps Face Book can claim that it is not pulling the content and therefore it is different from a search engine. Content is being pushed into Face Book platforms by the users and hence Face Book may not be willing to take on the responsibility to make payments to the publishers for content published on its platform.

We need to wait and see how this controversy develops further.

But we also need to understand that this controversy while providing incentives for the publications, can also result in them becoming more commercialized. In due course they will become greedy. If content is paid by the advertiser whose only value perception is the “Viewership”, then porn and semi-porn content will have more value than serious content of use to the society. This will encourage “News Creation” based on how many clicks it would get. There will be more fake and speculative news than real news. This is not good for the society.

There is an example right here in the form of naavi.org which is driven by the passion of the content creator and though revenue by way of advertising is welcome, it cannot be allowed to dilute the cause. There are a number of requests for “Paid Articles” to be published on this website which would provide a good flow of revenue. But most such articles would like to promote products and services which may not be keeping with the general principles to which Naavi.org is committed and hence are being refused.

The so called “News Papers” once were developed by philanthropists with similar principles but have lost their commitment today and succumbed to the pressure of commercialization.

This degeneration started with Times of India introducing soft porn content and even converting the front page to an Advertisement.

It is better that we continue to resist the temptation to commercialize news creation. It was such a tendency that promoted Rihanna to tweet against India. Naavi.org therefore is apprehensive about the content law of Australia for the possibility that it  may corrupt the content creators by a direct commercialization.

Let true journalism be driven by principles and not by money.

At the same time, platforms that distribute the news should be encouraged to pay a fair price to the content generators through persuasion and negotiation.

(A more detailed explanation of a suggested system that could contribute towards finding a solution to this controversy would be provided in the follow up articles..Naavi)

Let us watch how this controversy develops. India should not jump into taking position in this regard at this juncture irrespective of the differences we may otherwise have with Mark Zuckerberg. While the arrogance of FaceBook to take on a sovereign nation has its own implications like the controversies surrounding Twitter in India, the issue of Twitter Management being biased against Indian Government and Face Book resisting the content legislation in Australia are driven by different basic issues. We need to focus on issues rather than personalities if we want to avoid coming to wrong conclusions.

Naavi

Reference Articles

BBC.com :: MSNBC :: Diginomica.com

Old article at Naavi.org on Newsbooster.com

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing-Wikipedia

Theory of Data

The Journey to the development of a New “Theory of Data” begins

Theory of Data and Definition Hypothesis

Reversible Life Cycle hypothesis of the Theory of Data

Additive Value hypothesis of ownership of data

I recall the 2017 article on this website “Beware of the Cyber Stone pelters” and ” GDPR should not be a license for “Masked Cyber Stone Pelters” to disturb global peace” on the need to regulate irresponsible content which may be used for illegal activities, carrying out cyber crimes and anti national propaganda. The concerns expressed in these articles became a reality when Twitter as a platform hosted anti-India propaganda on its platform under different twitter handles such as Rihanna or  Greta Thunberg.

Over the last one week, Naavi.org has been pointing out that a more stable solution to Twitter problem has to be found through Information Technology Act. Naavi.org had also directly taken up with the MeitY the case of “The-file.in” which was a typical case of a website which hides its identity through the misconceived “Privacy Protect” facility in domain name registration and also does not provide any information on the website about its contact details and proceeds to post defamatory and other objectionable content.

For argument sake, we could have seen the Greta Toolkit being published on one such website with domain name registered with Privacy Protect and using a pseudonymous e-mail ID from proton mail account. The Government would have not been able to identify who posted the tool kit but it would be available on the web and even if the Government blocks the URL, access may still be available through proxy websites.

We can leave the Government aside because Government has more power to move the Interpol if required particularly when terrorism or sedition is involved. But think of an ordinary individual who may be defamed by a shoot and scoot strategy by political opponents publishing fake articles. How can he take steps to get the defamatory content removed?

As has been explained in the previous article on GoDaddy, the domain name registrars provide active assistance to the “Cyber Stone pelters” by hiding the identity of “Content Crime Perpetrators” by quoting “Privacy Laws”.  It is necessary to point out that first of all organizations like “Thefile.in” don’t have “Privacy” rights and further when the domain name owner does not provide correct contact details during registration or posts content which is in violation of any law the domain name contract with the registrar itself is violated and the registrar would be in contravention of the UDRP and ICANN guidelines.

Not providing any contact details on the website or giving false addresses is a prima facie indication that the content owner is hiding his identity which could be to avoid being legally questioned.

This point was highlighted in the e-mail letters sent during the last week to the Meity, the Secretary, the Minister etc.

It was therefore pleasing to note that today’s Hindustan Times Article suggests that Government has decided to take some steps on the lines suggested by making suitable provisions under ITA 2000.

The article has rightly pointed out the difficulty in invoking legal remedies through a Police Complaint or the Court order  and indicates that the Government may think of a “Alternative Dispute Resolution” mechanism probably on the ODR basis.

Quote:

It is a common practice for domain registrars to provide a facility called “Privacy Protect” where by the WhoIs information of a domain is hidden from the public view. Neither ICANN or some GDPR supervisory authorities have understood the proper concept of “Privacy” since in most cases, websites are owned by organizations and there is no “Privacy” involved. Even if some e-mail address is available, it is a “Business E Mail Address”.

The “Privacy” is a contention only in case of individual domain name owners  and even here it is judicially unacceptable that an individual would like to place his views in the public domain but wants to hide his identity.

Every person who places information in the public must own the consequences of such publication and allow any recipient of the information an opportunity to take legal action where required. Intermediaries like GoDaddy who hide the information or Google which hides the originating IP address from the recipient are actually abetting the information owner to send messages which may be defamatory or threatening or otherwise illegal to remain anonymous and escape legal liability.

I give below an example of a website www.the-file.in which calls itself a “media” website and its contact page gives its address as “Bengaluru”

When we checked with the domain name registrar namely GoDaddy, we got a reply that they would respond only to a “Subpoena”.

Such practices must be stopped forthwith since such anonymous postings can be used by persons like Greta Thunberg or Disha Ravi to spread hate messages besides other cases of defamation etc.

Naavi.org has therefore sent a request to the MeitY to come out with a “Mandatory Disclosure Guideline” for Intermediaries under section 79 of ITA 2000 which already mandates that the name and address of a “Grievance Officer” nee be disclosed  on the website but most websites ignore.

We need the Government to take suitable action to bring some order to the chaotic world of Internet if we want to avoid the use of Internet for spreading global chaos.

A Copy of the letter sent to the Ministry is available here:

Quote

To

The Honourable Minister of IT

Sub: Need to issue “Guidelines for mandatory Disclosure on Websites”

Dear Sir

We are aware of the phenomenon of “Fake Social Media Accounts” which are used for spreading fake messages either for political reasons or personal reasons. This issue is being addressed in the new Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)  by providing an option to the Social Media User to get himself verified. Though Twitter has a system of “Verification” it is noted that the system is not transparent and is biased. As and when the new PDPA comes into effect, there would be a possibility that “Social media intermediaries” will be mandated to introduce an acceptable system of user verification.

However, the PDPA provision is not going to apply to ordinary websites and it does not even apply to sending of e-mails in false names.

It is often considered that “Right to hide the identity” is a part of the “Privacy Right”. But this is not fully correct and is often misused to commit offences. Many organizations which donot have “Privacy” rights also quote “Privacy” to hide their real identity.

In view of this when an individual gets an e-mail from say gmail.com, neither the published name nor the IP address is reflecting the sender. If the recipient is unhappy with the message and considers it either as defamatory or threatening or committing any other offence, he will not be able to take any legal action against the sender.

In the messaging applications like WhatsApp the  identity of the user is the responsibility of the Admin who stands in the shoes of an “Intermediary”. In Gmail, Google is the intermediary and in the case of other websites, the hosting company or the domain registrant company are the intermediaries.

If the recipient of a message wants to initiate any legal action, he is now required to ideally file a case in a Court and request for an order to be issued on the intermediary. This is both expensive and time consuming. The other option is to file an FIR and request the Police to send a CrPc notice. This works only in case of criminal offences, and requires the police to agree to take action following the filing of a complaint. For various reasons we know that Police donot want to register and FIR and even when registered, do not take investigative action.

In such situations, the recipient has absolute right to know the sender’s details without any legal procedures. But at present getting such information requires either a registration of a complaint with the Police or filing of a case in the Court.

Most websites register their domain name under the “Privacy Protected” scheme where the registrar hides the WhoIs identity of the domain registrant. Under ITA 2000, websites are expected to provide the contact details of the “Grievance Officer”. Most responsible companies do give information on “About Us” but rarely provide proper physical address to which legal notices may be sent. Many times, Websites are created on the basis of “Brand Names” and the legal name of the organization is not revealed on the website at all.

For example, I am giving below a web page from  the website of a company which calls itself as a “Media Company” and maintains a website under the URL www.the-file.in. This is the “Contact”

Page where the address is given as “Bengaluru”. There is no other contact information on any of the pages but it publishes many articles which border on defamation of some Government officials.

I have tried to contact the “Registrar”, GoDaddy.com indicating that the contact information is required for pursuing our legal rights and got the  reply that they respond only on a subpoena.

(Full reply is enclosed in Annexure I)

The Godaddy website does not indicate the “Grievance Officer” and the e-mail address of the “contentcomplaints@godaddy” from which this reply was received, indicates that like Twitter, and WhatsApp,  Godaddy does not respect Indian laws and does not give an Indian grievance redressal option.

There is therefore an urgent need to initiate action to ensure that all Websites which are available to the Indian audience and particularly those who are directing their services to Indian population, and more so those who call themselves as “Media”, need to follow certain norms of disclosure so that any aggrieved person can initiate action to either get a content removed or to take action for defamation etc.

If this is not done some unscrupulous persons will resort to “shoot and scoot” tactic to harass people and also to create chaos and anarchy.

I therefore request the MeitY to issue a guideline that the instructions under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000, every “Intermediary” including websites shall provide real and correct name and address of the owner of the website and the owner of the content to enable “Accountability” for the content.

Where the intermediary is unable to identify the end content owner, the buck should stop with the intermediary who should bear the civil and criminal liabilities arising out of the publication.

These websites though they may call themselves as “Media” or “TV” are not run by professional journalists and are often run as “Yellow Journals” to extort money with the threat of defamation. They should ideally be run by accredited “Journalists” or “Registered News Vendors” who may be registered by the Ministry.

The suggestion is not meant for censorship of any content but to ensure that the right of an Indian to take legal recourse through the appropriate judicial forum is not frustrated by hiding the identity of the persons who post content as “news”.

This instruction can also be given under the State Police Act but it is better if the MeitY issues a proper guideline under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000.

In all such cases, I have been requesting the Police to include the intermediary as the first accused in the FIR so that they either provide the information for further action or own the responsibility themselves.  I request you to advise the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue necessary instructions to all the Cyber Crime Police Stations in India to take note of this.

I request you to kindly do the needful

Yours sincerely

Na.Vijayashankar

Unquote