India Pulls A China

Apparently the Indian Government doesn’t subscribe to the view that one person’s poetry could be another person’s blasphemy. Recently issued rules from the country’s ominous-sounding “Ministry of Communications and Information Technology” have India’s web junta fuming in indignation. The regulations have raised a number of red flags for India’s Internet users, many of whom have accused the government of attempting to curb Internet freedom, à la China.

One can appreciate their concern.  The rules require that any content (comment/photo/blog/tweet) considered objectionable be removed by the host website within 36 hours of receiving a complaint. The definition of “objectionable content” is left surprising vague and  open to interpretation. According to the rules, such information includes content that:

“harms minors in any way”

Or

“is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever.”

For all the clarity this provides, they might have as well have defined this content as “whatever.”

Because, who gets to define what is “grossly harmful,” or “disparaging?” Or even what constitutes “harming minors in any way?” Even a benign post like this one could be termed disparaging because it’s critical of a government policy. The regulations could severely limit a citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression – a right guaranteed by India’s constitution. Furthermore, the rules will place a tremendous burden on companies to constantly monitor content – and when a complaint is received, they will be required to take down the content with no opportunity for recourse.

Not surprisingly, the regulations have made companies like Google nervous about potential liability. The Internet giant is rumored to have sent a confidential memo objecting to some of the rule’s clauses as early as February. In a statement, the company said that “If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information.”

The rules have especially made life harder for cyber café owners. Cyber cafes in India, which account for a third of the country’s Internet usage, already experience harassment from state and local authorities. According to Outlook:

“The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.”

While this part is obviously triggered by national security concerns, it could open a  Pandora’s Box in terms of misuse of personal information like financial transactions and bank accounts.

The government is stubbornly insisting that the rules are not meant to curb Internet speech and freedom.  According to them,  companies are only required to observe due diligence practices –many of which are already being followed internationally – in order to “enjoy  exemption from liability for content posted by third parties.” This is probably true, if international implies countries like China and Iran.  The government has also failed to publicly release comments and feedback submitted by companies and organizations, despite promising a transparent process.

While the government’s protestations about its intentions may very well be legitimate, it has to understand that these regulations have created a completely arbitrary set of standards for determining what constitutes “offending material.” Delhi should revisit these guidelines before they are hauled into court by an Internet-savvy  public  that is in no mood to bite its tongue.