Friday, April 29, 2011

Diabolical plot to curb free speech in India, to institute undeclared emergency


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28internet.html?pagewanted=all

April 27, 2011, NY Times

India Puts Tight Leash on Internet Free Speech



By VIKAS BAJAJ


MUMBAI, India — Free speech advocates and Internet users are protesting new Indian regulations restricting Web content that, among other things, can be considered "disparaging," "harassing," "blasphemous" or "hateful."


The new rules, quietly issued by the country's Department of Information Technology earlier this month and only now attracting attention, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable on the basis of a long list of criteria.


Critics of the new rules say the restrictions could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet, whose use has been growing fast in India.

The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order."


The rules highlight the ambivalence with which Indian officials have long treated freedom of expression. The country's constitutionallows "reasonable restrictions" on free speech but lawmakers have periodically stretched that definition to ban books, movies and other material about sensitive subjects like sex, politics and religion.


An Indian state, for example, recently banned an American author's new biography of the Indian freedom fighter Mohandas Gandhi that critics have argued disparages Mr. Gandhi by talking about his relationship with another man.


Although fewer than 10 percent of Indians have access to the Internet, that number has been growing fast — especially on mobile devices. There are more than 700 million cellphone accounts in India.

The country has also established a thriving technology industry that writes software and creates Web services primarily for Western clients.


Even before the new rules — known as the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 — India has periodically tried to restrict speech on the Internet. In 2009, the government banned a popular and graphic online comic strip, Savita Bhabhi, about a housewife with an active sex life. Indian officials have also required social networking sites like Orkut to take down posts deemed offensive to ethnic and religious groups.


Using a freedom of information law, the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, recently obtained and published a list of 11 Web sites banned by the Department of Information Technology. Other government agencies have probably blocked more sites, the group said.


The new Internet rules go further than existing Indian laws and restrictions, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Center for Internet and Society. The rules require Internet "intermediaries" — an all-encompassing group that includes sites like YouTubeand Facebook and companies that host Web sites or provide Internet connections — to respond to any demand to take down offensive content within 36 hours. The rules do not provide a way for content producers to defend their work or appeal a decision to take content down.


"These rules overly favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," Mr. Abraham said. "Whenever there are limits of freedom of expression, in order for those limits to be considered constitutionally valid, those limits have to be clear and not be very vague. Many of these rules that seek to place limits are very, very vague."


An official for the People's Union for Civil Liberties, an advocacy group based in New Delhi, said on Wednesday that it was considering a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the new rules.


"What are we, Saudi Arabia?" said Pushkar Raj, the group's general secretary. "We don't expect this from India. This is something very serious."


An official at the Department of Information Technology, Gulshan Rai, did not return calls and messages.


The rules are based on a 2008 information technology law that India's Parliament passed shortly after a three-day siege on Mumbai by Pakistan-based terrorists that killed more than 163 people. That law, among other things, granted authorities more expansive powers to monitor electronic communications for reasons of national security. It also granted privacy protections to consumers.


While advocates for free speech and civil liberties have complained that the 2008 law goes too far in violating the rights of Indians, Internet firms have expressed support for it. The law removed liability from Internet intermediaries as long as they were not active participants in creating content that was later deemed to be offensive.


Subho Ray, the president of the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which represents companies like Google and eBay, said the liability waiver was a big improvement over a previous law that had been used to hold intermediaries liable for hosting content created by others. In 2004, for instance, the police arrested eBay's top India executive because a user of the company's Indian auction site had offered to sell a video clip of a teenage couple having sex.


"The new I.T. Act (2008) is, in fact, a large improvement on the old one," Mr. Ray said in an e-mail response to questions.


Mr. Ray said his association had not taken a stand on the new regulations. An India-based spokeswoman for Google declined to comment on the new rules, saying the company needed more time to respond.


Along with the new content regulations, the government also issued rules governing data security, Internet cafes and the electronic provision of government services.


*******************

---------- Forwarded message ----------

IS INDIA HEADING FOR A DICTATOR RULE?



If the sources within the intelligence are believed, it may be true. Very recently, a high level meeting was called at the residence of Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram, which was attended by loyal confidants of Sonia Gandhi which included Digvijay Singh, Ahmed Patel, Jayanth Natarajan, Ambika Soni, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Manish Tiwari , Veerapan moily etc. Surprisingly top officials from IB, NIA, CBI, Cyber Cell, DRI, IT dept and few Media magnets close to congress leaders were invited for the close door meeting. 


One officer, who wished not to be named, made some startling revelations about the outcome of the meeting. The High profile people present at the meeting, discussed about 2G Spectrum scam and other scams which is haunting the government from time to time A vitriolic Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh raised the issue of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi been targeted frequently by many sections of the society terming as unscrupulous forces. In contrast to this the Home Minister quoted "He in is individualy capacity has committed to protect the integrity of Gandhi family and directed the officials present their to deal mercilessly who target their leaders. He instructed the intelligence officials to keep a vigilant track of emails, sms and other modes of communication exchanged between people in India. With a strong worded signal to officials, he directed that if any individual/organization (including religious institutions) are involved in speaking/distributing/propagating which hurts the interest of the Gandhi's, Congress, to a larger extent even to minorities, such people should be fixed in a case where procuring bailis impossible something equating with terrorism case or depending upon the gravity of the issue, (quoting the example of Sadhvi Praga). Manish Tiwari Quickly retorted and reminded the officials about their predecessor who was sacked after UPA came into Power. The sacked official was instrumental in stalling Mrs. Gandhi from becoming the Prime Minister of India who had presented certain confidential documents before former President of India. Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam 



Digvijay Singh demanded a really stringent tough law to tackle people who would even dare to speak against Sonia, Rahul or Priyanka, something on the lines of martial law, which other leaders did not react. Subsequently, Jayanthi Natarajan, was satisified with the decision taken by the Home Ministers direction. Few Media barons present at meeting pledged to extend all help in every manner.


The Officer stated, that all this officials are helpless and are forced to doing something which they do not like, they become scapegoats in the eyes of people and media by the act of this beasts. He further quoted that few opposition leaders are also bought by congress leaders to suppress them from speaking anything against Rahul and Soniaji. One name which ispopularly doing rounds is that of Ranjan Bhatacharya who plays a mediator role between Congress and BJP leaders. It is at his disposal, he fixes meetings between them at some undisclosed places. 
__________________________________________________________


I am sure many would agree with me that the above outcome of the meeting clearly signifies a Dictator rule for the blank future of India. Are Gandhi family above the Law in India, itdefinitely seems so, we have a weak judiciary which is scared to prosecute them in even Multi billion dollar corruption scam. 

If we do not protest or challenge the same, our Country will turn into another Afghanistan, Libya, with atrocity on streets of India by the so called leaders. 

Only the Judiciary and the Defence Personnel can save the country from the clutches of this Greedy politicians of our country.

We have made a big mistake by extending our faith in BJP, which in course of time has proved to be a frontier organization of the Congress.

Wikileaks rightly proved about Arun Jaitley "Who admitted that Hindutva is just a political issue" on similar lines of minorities are just vote bank for congress.

Think before it is too late, I am forwarding this message to all Indians, I am sure, you too would do in the interest of FREE DEMOCRATIC BHARAT.

JAI HIND. 

Retired Intelligence Officer