Unduly Worried Over New Rules

Context: Selective interpretation of provisions of IT Rules 2021 is disingenuous.

Concerns over IT Rules 2021 from across the globe

• Against the fundamental rights: 
• Three United Nations special rapporteurs raised serious concerns over provisions of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• They claim these provisions do not meet standards of rights to privacy and to freedom of expression as per Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
• Lacks clear definition and may lead to arbitrary application: Regarding terms in new rules such as ‘ethnically or racially objectionable,’ ‘harmful to child,’ ‘impersonates another person’ etc.

Arguments in favour of IT Rules 2021

• Rules are clear enough: Rule 3(1)(b) of IT Rules specifies the contentious terms clearly. The rules bring in transparency in how intermediaries deal with user content and are not violative of the UN’s joint declaration on freedom of expression, ‘fake news, disinformation and propaganda.
• In line with due process of law: Relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, it is in line with the due process specified by Supreme Court in 2015 ‘Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India’ case, that is 36 hours.
• Time limit of 72 hours under IT Rules for providing information for investigation in response to lawful requests in writing from government agencies is reasonable.
• Content of the nature of ‘revenge porn’ must be removed within 24 hours.
• Liability of the chief compliance officer under Rule 4(1) is not arbitrary: As he/she can be held liable in any proceeding only after a due process of law.
• No harm to privacy: Lawful investigation of crimes cannot be termed as harmful to privacy. 
• Rule 4(2) requires ‘significant social media intermediaries’ to provide only metadata about the first originator of a viral message that may be required for the investigation of a serious crime.
• This is reasonable as lawful order is passed by a court or a competent authority, and where there are no other less intrusive means of obtaining such information.
• There is no provision of intermediary break any encryption to obtain contents of message.
• Countries like the US, Britain and Australia have enacted laws that allow for far more intrusive interception of encrypted messages, including their decryption.
• Media Self-Regulation as prescribed by the UN: Section 5 of UN’s joint declaration specifically enjoins upon media outlets to provide for self-regulation at the individual media outlet level.
• IT Rules provide for a three-tier system of regulation, in which government oversight mechanism comes in only at the third level.