The comments are based on a misconception created by the TOI report which is incorrect.
Please see my detailed comments at
Naavi's portal on indian cyber law.
My brief comments are given here:
The correct position on the legislation regarding Internet Intermeidary liability in India is as follows.
ITA 2000 provided that there would be exemption from liability for the Network Service Providers when any contrvention or offence under ITA 2000 was committed if they follow "Due Diligence". Ths required every Network service provider to put in place a compliance programme which covered network security, user education programme, evidence maintenance etc.
The expert committee which went for a review suggested that "A Network Service Provider shall not be liable under any law except when there is conspiracy and abetment". This was endorsed for the amendment Bill which was before the parliament for approval and referred to the parliamentary committee.
According to the report, this committee has suggested that the amendment is not required. IOW it is suggesting the status quo to be continued. (We are awaiting for the recommendations to be made public after which I will correct my statement if required).
The report misleads by suggesting that the Intermediary will be made liable for every message that passes through the system (Hence the reference to telephone).
This is not correct. The "due diligence" applies to "Stored Content" such as the cases where Orkut.com maintains web pages and refuses to remove the content when it is legitimately contested. It applies to Cyber cafes who refuse to maintain a minimum information on who accessed the system. It may apply to an ISP which refuses to maintain access logs etc. It may also apply to an auction website which allows sale of illegal goods despite notice and Matrimonial and Job sites which may cheat the customers.
Regulating theses kind of activities is not "Killing Internet". It is "Fostering Responsible Use of Internet".
The TOI report appeared to have been planted by vested interests who want to run portals without any social responsibility. This attitude of irresponsible journalsim needs to be condemned as a "Fraud on the Public".
