VICTORY LAP: Celebrations in Lucknow after the Women’s Reservation Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha

When Shahana Nair Joshi, a young professional from Delhi, wrote a blog post titled ‘An Open Letter to a Delhi Boy’ last year, she was not prepared for the repercussions that followed. The post went viral overnight and received as many as 7,000 comments. Her blog post, which was a rant against the stereotypical Delhi man, became a topic of discussion on social networking sites, inviting with it a flurry of praise. But the fan following also brought with it an equal number of trolls (those who post inflammatory messages in an online community).

“Soon sexual insults, derogatory messages and inflammatory content became the norm,” says Joshi. “Then I started moderating the comments on my blog and went on to block trolls on Twitter,” says Joshi whose Twitter follower list jumped from 100 to 1,000 within a week. “One person even went to the extent of issuing a death threat to me over the phone,” she adds. “I decided to ignore the trolls as that is the best possible solution.”

Cases similar to Joshi’s are on the rise in cyber world. At a time when social networking sites are being asked to monitor and censor their content, bullying on the Internet is at an all time high. Trolls hide behind the anonymity that a social networking site provides to post derogatory comments and obscene remarks.

According to Supreme Court lawyer Pavan Duggal, harassment on social networking sites is emerging as one of the biggest problems in the online world. “Six out of 10 people aren’t aware of what constitutes a cyber crime. As a result they aren’t reported. Neither the victims nor the abusers know what is an offence,” says Duggal.

But even if a case of bullying on the Internet is reported, the law is somewhat fuzzy when it comes to bringing the offender to book. In India, social media come under a variety of civil and criminal laws. The Information Technology Act, 2000, tackles most cases related to cyber crimes. “However, we take recourse to not just the IT Act, 2000, and its amendments thereunder, but also to other legislation, such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, etc., to tackle cyber crimes in India,” says Gurpreet Singh, Internet law head, Amarjit & Associates, Delhi.

Bullying on the Internet consists of abuses that may have emotional and physical repercussions. “Trolling provokes a non-productive argument and as of now it is not considered a criminal offence anywhere in the world,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. However, most Internet users point out that trolling is out and out harassment that often verges on sexual harassment as well.

“I am routinely harassed by trolls. Even if I block them, they create a new twitter handle, start following me and post abusive comments,” says Joy Das, an advertising professional from Mumbai. His strong stand on several issues makes him a favourite among the trolls. Once Das had gone to the extent of filing a case and shared the details of the troll with the cyber crime cell department of the state police. He withdrew the case when the abuser retreated.

One of the main problems in taking action against a troll is that no legal definition of bullying is provided in Indian laws. As Karnika Seth, a Delhi-based cyber law expert, points out, “Even though the laws are in place, there is a clear lack of definition of offensive terms.”

Still, the laws do provide some relief in cases of harassment by Internet trolls. Usually, Section 509 of the IPC comes into effect when there is an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. “The offence also extends to an online medium,” says Singh of Amarjeet & Associates. “Besides Section 509, various other sections such as Section 503 and Section 504 of the IPC can also be invoked based upon the particular facts of a case,” adds Singh.

The networking sites on their part aren’t proactive when it comes to keeping a check on trolls. Twitter maintains that it is a communications platform, not a content mediator. “Removal of content does not in and of itself resolve the issue that led to the content being posted in the first place,” blogs the head of Twitter’s safety centre.

If you want to know the IP address and other details about the bully, you will have to file a police complaint and the copy should be sent to Twitter, informs Nabeel Ziyaan, a Bangalore-based entrepreneur and a contributor to Twitter’s ‘#140help’ section which deals with user queries. “In such cases, Twitter will work with the law enforcement agency,” says Ziyaan.

An accused can be booked for mental cruelty and sexual harassment under the provisions of the IPC as well as under Sections 67(a) & 67(b) of the IT Amendment Act, 2008, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 66(a) lays down, for example, that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh or with both.

According to Section 67(a), whoever publishes or transmits in the electronic form any material which contains a sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished with up to five years’ imprisonment and with a fine which may extend to Rs 10 lakh. And Section 67(b) hands out punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in a sexually explicit act in an electronic form.

But law enforcement agencies are not always able to work out a way to track the trolls. “IP addresses can be spoofed using different software. In fact, innocent people can get punished if a troll hides under a proxy server,” says Seth.

Experts say that cyber laws need clarification and appropriate interpretation. The public should also be made aware of what constitutes a cyber offence. Until that happens, the trolls will, in all probability, trawl the Internet and maul Netizens at will.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120104/jsp/opinion/story_14959931.jsp ]]> http://www.karnikaseth.com/trail-of-the-trolls-bullying-and-abuse-on-the-internet-is-on-the-rise-smitha-vermathe-telegraph-4-january-2012.html/feed 0 http://www.karnikaseth.com/online-censorship-is-sycophantic-stupid-unconstitutional-the-sunday-guardian-dec-11-2011.html http://www.karnikaseth.com/online-censorship-is-sycophantic-stupid-unconstitutional-the-sunday-guardian-dec-11-2011.html#comments Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:26:37 +0000 admin http://www.karnikaseth.com/?p=5449 Online censorship is sycophantic, stupid, & unconstitutional

Cartoons like these have been circulating on all social networking sites for many months apil Sibal’s suggestion to social media websites to filter “objectionable content” has drawn many charges, one of them is sycophancy. “It is part of the Congress’ megalomania to not allow any criticism. It is sycophantic, stupid and it’s his way of currying favour with the power centre in the party,” rued Dr Aditya Nigam, of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, said, “Two high court decisions have made it clear that proactive filtering of the Internet by the government or private parties, places too high a burden on freedom of speech and hence is unconstitutional.” The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, notified in April, has had a “chilling” effect on both websites and Internet users, he said. Six out of seven “fake and pointless” take-down requests sent by the CIS under the IT Rules were accepted by websites. The New York Times was the first to report that Sibal was upset over certain references to Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh on the Internet. The newspaper claimed, citing unnamed sources from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Facebook, that Sibal showed the officials from these companies a Facebook page maligning Sonia. The paper quoted him as having said: “This is unacceptable.” However, Sibal categorically denied this. Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, he said: “Whatever I said is not about any individual. But, every individual has the right to privacy.” Sibal asserted that the newspaper had concocted the story and denied that his suggestions amounted to censorship. “But guidelines were necessary to avoid the online publication of blasphemous content.” Critics say that Sibal has not made it clear what constitutes “objectionable” content. Cyber law expert Karnika Seth said the Information Technology Act, 2000, too, gives no clear defintion for terms like “objectionable” and “blasphemous”, leaving room for interpretation. Yogesh Bansal, founder and CEO of business and career-networking site Apnacircle.com, however, cautioned, “Social media can also be used negatively. The riots that recently took place in the Tottenham district of London are an example of misusing social media.” Facebook said, “We recognise the government’s interest in minimising the amount of abusive content that is available online and will continue to engage with them as they debate this important issue.” Rachel Bremer, a Twitter spokesperson, didn’t comment on this particular situation, but said that “Twitter is a strong supporter of freedom of speech and we don’t monitor or censor content”. A Google spokesperson said it will take down what it deems is “illegal or breaks our terms of service. Access to information is the foundation of a free society.” Social media analyst Raka Majumdar feels that if the websites buckle under the Government’s pressure, the common man will lose access to a “free expression pool”. “Whom does he turn to express himself?” she said. “Expression on social networking sites is often without prompting and so is absolutely free.” http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/online-censorship-is-sycophantic-stupid-a-unconstitutional

Capital cry against Web gag

Ever since rising Tamil playback singer Chinmayi Sripada tweeted a remark against the caste system, she has been flooded with hate messages on her Facebook account and blog, some suggesting she should be “sliced up” on the streets.What if you were to face threats, abuse or obscenity on the Internet, especially the social networking websites where these are on the rise, sparing none from celebrity and politician to the ordinary citizen? Samanwaya Rautray answers some of the questions you may have:

What sort of messages, mail or pictures can I take action against legally? Anything defamatory or libellous, or obscene, or threatening. Any of this can bring the offender a jail term, usually of three years, and a Rs 5-lakh fine. Harassment and intrusion of privacy, however, are more difficult to prove in the absence of a clear-cut definition, as is content deemed “harmful to minors”, says cyber law expert Karnika Seth.

What is the first thing I should do? Inform the service provider that runs the website. Under the law, it must withdraw such content within 36 hours of it being brought to its notice, says Seth.

If this fails, can I bring the service provider to book? Sure. You can have a civil court secure an assurance from it to remove any such mail or messages against you, or get a criminal court to punish it (the official responsible) if you can prove it knew about the messages but did not remove them. Or, you can get the government to fine it.

Can you explain the options one by one? The easiest way is to file a complaint with the information technology department, which will appoint a secretary as the adjudicating officer. This official can fine the service provider — by an amount up to Rs 5 crore — as well as the user who sent the messages. The department can also appoint a director-level official as group coordinator, who can have the offending user’s account blocked.

What if the government does none of this? You can then go the Cyber Law Appellate Tribunal. If unhappy with its ruling, you can go to the high court and then to the Supreme Court.

Can I directly go to the courts at the outset? Yes. For instance, you can file a civil suit to get the service provider to ensure such content is blocked. You can also get an injunction passed against the user, says Seth.

What if I want those responsible punished? Then you have to file a police complaint so that the user’s IP address can be traced and the abusive content removed from the websites. The matter now goes to the criminal court. Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, for instance, has filed an FIR against 22 people and eight websites over posts that he considers defamatory and malicious. You can, of course, take a milder first step by sending legal notices to the offenders, if you know who they are. That could deter them from repeating their act, says Seth. This is what Sripada, 27, who is consulting lawyers, is thinking of doing.

Are there specific laws that you invoke while filing an FIR like this? Yes, Sections 66 and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to obscenity, defamation, etc.

lAren’t there loopholes? As mentioned before, acts like harassment or intrusion into privacy may be difficult to prove. For the service provider too, there is an escape hatch. The IT Act was amended in 2008 to make the service provider accountable only if it knew about the content and was aware that it violated norms and still did not act. This was done after the companies argued that such a huge volume of content is generated every day that it is impossible to subject all of it to rigorous scrutiny. However, this loophole is plugged if, as mentioned earlier, you inform the service provider about the content.

Are the offenders ever punished? In 2009, a Kerala youth was tried under Supreme Court orders for posting online hate mail against the Shiv Sena. The top court said those posting content on the Net are accountable for it. Baazi.com’s Avnish Bajaj is still facing prosecution in the lower courts for allegedly uploading onto the site a privately circulated MMS involving a schoolboy and a schoolgirl in Delhi.

Can’t the government do something about all this? Telecom minister Kapil Sibal has told service providers to take down “abusive” comments and images, especially those that could ignite passions. This mainly relates to anything that hurts religious sentiments, or goes against national integrity or sovereignty, or is an incitement to violence, or promotes obscenity. However, it may well relate to personal abuse against highly respected individuals. In March this year, India became the first country to declare it would block web addresses ending in .xxx, reserved for porn sites. But a .xxx website could be accessed in Calcutta on December 6 night.

What about other governments? In the US, two bills now being debated on could be used to restrict access to the Internet if they become laws.The Protect IP Act proposes to make it mandatory for search engines, Internet service providers, credit card companies and ad networks to cut off access to foreign “rogue sites”. It proposes to allow not just the US government but private parties to go to court and target foreign domains. The Stop Online Piracy Act aims to tackle online piracy by giving the US justice department powers to go after websites, both in the country and abroad, that host disputed copyright material.

Apart from Sripada, have any celebrities received hate mail lately? Many of them. Shah Rukh Khan got some when the Kolkata Knight Riders replaced Sourav Ganguly. Celina Jaitley was abused for supporting the gay community’s fight for legal acceptance, and Nandana Sen for a scene in Rang Rasiya. Writer Arundhati Roy has received hate messages because of her views on a range of subjects, such as Maoists and Kashmir. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111208/jsp/bihar/story_14853821.jsp ]]> http://www.karnikaseth.com/capital-cry-against-web-gag-the-telegraph-dec-82011.html/feed 0 http://www.karnikaseth.com/google-sued-for-showing-defamatory-results-rob-d-young-hindustan-times-june-23-2011.html http://www.karnikaseth.com/google-sued-for-showing-defamatory-results-rob-d-young-hindustan-times-june-23-2011.html#comments Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:22:41 +0000 admin http://www.karnikaseth.com/?p=5443 In New Dehli, Arindam Chaudhuri filed a major lawsuit against Google and several other sites for publishing and distributing “defamatory, libelous, and slanderous articles.” His action created a maelstrom of debate on whether or not aggregation websites, including search engines, can be held responsible for showing libelous information created by other groups.

Karnika Seth, an expert in cyber law who resides in New Delhi, states that, “A search engine is not entirely to be blamed and it is difficult for them to monitor their content because of their huge database.” Rodney Ryder, a cyber crime expert, agrees that it’s illogical to sue sites like Google because “it’s just a content aggregator, and not the publisher.”

However, some groups insist that Google has a greater level of responsibility than it is living up to. Koena Mitra, a Bollywood actor, stated that, “Google should probably become like imdb and verify all our details through us,” while fellow actor Eesha Koppikhar stated that “Google should have a censor mechanism that scrutinizes content before it is put up.”

For most, the issue comes back to a very basic principle: open or vetted? Google has long taken the open approach, putting responsibility on publishers and the defamed to resolve their conflicts, while assuming that content that is both relevant and accurate will be what surfaces in Google’s algorithm. However, other groups believe that vetting is an important way to prevent innacurate, useless, or defamatory content from appearing. Blekko, a small engine, is an example of a search site that curates its content.

A Google India spokesperson stated in response to the lawsuit that, “We are disappointed that search engines that use computer algorithms to create automated indexes of the world wide web are sought to be held liable for content that is indexed as search results.”

read -http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-sued-for-showing-defamatory-results/30819/

A typing error while entering the website address may lead you to a fraudulent website specifically created to capitalise on such errors – which is why you need to make sure the website address is correct before you initiate a transaction.

“While making payments online, using secure portals with a trust e-seal and tested payment gateways such as Paypal and CCavenue can keep tricksters at bay,” suggests Karnika Seth, partner at law firm Seth Associates.”While making purchases online, you need to ensure that you are doing business with a reputable Internet merchant, and study the website’s privacy policy carefully. A reputable website often has a clearly stated privacy policy at an accessible place. Your computer browser can tell you if the place where you are about to send the information is secure. If you cannot determine this, do not put your payment card information over the Internet,” advises Barry Wong, senior business leader and regional head, security and risk services, Asia/Pacific, MasterCard Worldwide.

You would also do well to seek all information about the offer, including contact details of the Internet merchant. Keeping a record of your online shopping, by taking a printout of the transaction details, is important. Also, while using the net banking facility, if the online shopping portal prompts you for username and password, steer clear of it.

You should trust only those portals that redirect you to your bank’s website for such purposes.Never respond to ‘phishing’ emails asking for your personal information and passwords.

You need to remember that no bank or financial institution will ask for such sensitive information over email. Installing an anti-virus software application would also go a long way in keeping your computer and, thereby, all your private information secure.

If you ignore the fineprint of your bank and credit card documents, it deprives you of the knowledge of your rights.

“For example, if you see a transaction on your credit card statement which you haven’t executed, you have the right to raise the issue with the bank,” says Mr Srinivasu. For this purpose, you need to constantly monitor your statements.

With the advent of bank and card statements, many tend to neglect going through the documents, unlike earlier, when the good-old habit of updating the pass book kept them abreast of their account details.

Finally, if you believe that your account has been misused, you have the option of seeking legal help. The law provides for civil as well as criminal remedies if your bank account /credit card/ debit card has been misused.

“An FIR should be filed immediately for theft (section 378 IPC), fraud and cheating (Section 415 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC, if the crime is committed by a person known to the victim).

Usually these offences attract a punishment of approximately three years or fine or both. In case the bank is involved in this conspiracy, a consumer action can also be initiated for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services where compensation can also be awarded, apart from criminal remedies,” informs Ms Seth.

Moreover, the Information Technology Act, 2000 has laid down provisions for punishing those indulging in hacking or gaining unauthorised access to others’ computers.

see http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/et-slideshows/et-slideshows-made-here/prevent-online-fraud/legal-recourse/quickiearticleshow/3523718.cms