Recipe for killing Internet in India
- Thread starter DigitalDude
- Start date
- Replies 36
- Views 4,581
DigitalDude
Doctor of Technology
Indian Peopls=This is madness , this is blasphemy...........!!
Indian Govt= Madness? Thissssss Issssssss Indiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and insanity.
Well why Tajmahal? why not Indian Govt, politician were conducted for 7 wonder of the world?
you need to get more sleep :thumbsup:
Indian Govt= Madness? Thissssss Issssssss Indiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and insanity.
Well why Tajmahal? why not Indian Govt, politician were conducted for 7 wonder of the world?
you need to get more sleep :thumbsup:
smartbuddy_82
Regulars
Hey Vishal, TOI-let papers are of better quality man........ 
gregory house
philosopher-in-chief
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\".
Please do not try to manipulate public opinion with planted stories
Keep TOI aside for a moment. It is not the only one which misinforms people. Most papers/ news channels are more or less guilty of that.
The thing to note is that most democracies frame laws wherein an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The section of ITA 2000 which you have pointed out applies 'presumption of guilt' to the accused - he has to prove that he did nothing wrong. The amendment (as pointed out by you, again) corrects the situation. The service provider is not guilty as long as a) he is not directly involved in the crime and b) he takes remedial action as soon as he is properly notified of a crime committed under his watch. There is nothing wrong with this. And the supercedure of all other laws/ sections is common in Indian laws (especially taxation laws).
If you make the NSP guilty for everything that goes on on his network, he will have to resort to policing the network. And that is neither acceptable nor feasible. If a) and b) (as mentioned above) are followed, that is more than enough.
Would appreciate further clarification on the matter if there is something wrong in my argument.
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\".
Please do not try to manipulate public opinion with planted stories
Keep TOI aside for a moment. It is not the only one which misinforms people. Most papers/ news channels are more or less guilty of that.
The thing to note is that most democracies frame laws wherein an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The section of ITA 2000 which you have pointed out applies 'presumption of guilt' to the accused - he has to prove that he did nothing wrong. The amendment (as pointed out by you, again) corrects the situation. The service provider is not guilty as long as a) he is not directly involved in the crime and b) he takes remedial action as soon as he is properly notified of a crime committed under his watch. There is nothing wrong with this. And the supercedure of all other laws/ sections is common in Indian laws (especially taxation laws).
If you make the NSP guilty for everything that goes on on his network, he will have to resort to policing the network. And that is neither acceptable nor feasible. If a) and b) (as mentioned above) are followed, that is more than enough.
Would appreciate further clarification on the matter if there is something wrong in my argument.