Freedom of Speech on the web in India

  • Thread starter Thread starter warthog
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 80
  • Views Views 32,405
lmao talk about paronia!I say bring em on,you take me to jail i'll sue your ass cuz i have done nothing wrong.If you have truth on your side they can never break you.ps:btw admin you better check data retention laws where your server are stored.its the US laws to have to follow as the server is in usa.
 
India's New IT Law Increases Surveillance Powers by PC World: Yahoo! Tech

The Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 was passed by the Indian Parliament in December last year, about a month after terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and reflects the government's concern that the Internet is being extensively used by terrorists to communicate and plan their activities. It entered force Tuesday, according to a news release from India's Ministry of Communications & Information Technology on the web site of the government's Press Information Bureau.

The rules for blocking web sites under certain conditions have come in for criticism, as they leave the decision in the hands of bureaucrats. \"I will be given a chance to present my case after my site has been blocked, and I will be heard by bureaucrats,\" Vijay Mukhi, an expert on issues related to cyber regulation, said on Tuesday. The blocking of sites should be done instead through a court of law, he added.

Section 79 of the new Act meets a demand by Internet companies, including Google, that they should not be held responsible for offensive content or communications using services provided by these companies. The correspondign section of the earlier act held network service providers liable unless they could prove that the offense or contravention was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such an offense or contravention.

The new section 79 removes the liability of intermediaries in these kind of situations, unless it is proven that they were in connivance with the offender, or did not act quickly, when notified, to remove the offensive material.

The onus of proving that the intermediary has not shown due diligence, or that the offense or contravention was done with the connivance of the intermediary, now shifts to the individual complainant, said Pavan Duggal, a cyber law consultant and advocate in India's Supreme Court, in an interview earlier this year.
 
admin tell your lawyer friend to sue the govt against sec 69 as it violates the telegraph act and fundamental right to privacy.we are now guilty until proven innocent
http://www.sacw.net/article606.html
DAMMIT

----------

Some recent commentary on the amendments to the Information Technology Act has claimed that the amendments are little different from powers already with the state in the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, and thus civil-liberties concerns are mistaken. This is not correct. Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, passed by Parliament on December 23, 2008, is far more intrusive than the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which was drafted to protect the interests of the British Raj. Under the new IT Act, any Government official or policeman will be able to listen in to all your phone calls, read your SMSs and emails, and monitor the websites you visit. And he will not require any warrant from a magistrate to do so.

----------

In December 1996, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment: it pointed out that “unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers” given them under 5(2). They went on to define them thus: a public emergency was the “prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action”, and public safety “means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large”. Without those two, however “necessary or expedient”, it could not do so.

But Section 69 of the amended IT Act drops all references to public emergency or public safety, meaning that the government’s powers have been vastly extended.

----------

damm they are violating SC order.

----------

look a this shit
In view of the many incidents of tapping of the phones of politicians, the Supreme Court in the PUCL case laid out procedures and guidelines to protect citizens against the arbitrary exercise of power by the government. But this judgement as well as the relevant sections of the Telegraph Act have become infructuous with the passage of the amended IT Act, since the latter has overriding effect.

----------

And what of the safeguards in the act? Well, when the Government has not formulated any safeguards to Section 5 of the Telegraph Act since Independence, it is unrealistic to expect it to formulate any safeguards under Section 69 (2) of the amended IT Act — especially in view of the prevailing terrorism situation.

F****:madness:

----------

Until suitable safeguards are in place, Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008 appears to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution — “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” It is unfortunate that a democratic and independent India has passed a law which is far more detrimental to personal liberty than the British Raj did.:@
 
lmao:P indeed but the contents is not funny.we need to do something.call the media and highlight this admin
 
this guy danish ali khan is currently chatting with me trying to get information on how i earn from my network of sites. blah.
 
and he told me that i was playing with fire! i am not sure why he decided to talk with me after such a long time. is indiamart considering filing a lawsuit against me? :P
 
rather long and interesting conversation i had with him. since i told him that it was off the records. i am not going to give out the details. essentially i came out disappointed. :) as expected.
 
heh it was interesting indeed. but disappointing too. i mean i cannot believe how brainwashed some people are. :)
 
Back