Social media: India
(→Government rules, regulations) |
(→Social media and the law) |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
Agreeing with his submission, the bench deferred the hearing on a petition challenging WhatsApp's 2016 privacy policy and fixed the matter for hearing on November 20. It, however, said that the data of users should be protected in the interim period and asked the companies to give the undertaking. | Agreeing with his submission, the bench deferred the hearing on a petition challenging WhatsApp's 2016 privacy policy and fixed the matter for hearing on November 20. It, however, said that the data of users should be protected in the interim period and asked the companies to give the undertaking. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == WhatsApp group admins not liable for members’ posts: HC== | ||
| + | [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/04/27&entity=Ar00907&sk=F39C663B&mode=text Vaibhav Ganjapure , April 27, 2021: ''The Times of India''] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has ruled that WhatsApp group admins can’t be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member unless it is proved there was common intention or a pre-arranged plan between them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | “In the absence of a specific penal provision creating vicarious liability, the administrator can’t be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member. Common intention can’t be established in the case of WhatsApp service users merely acting as administrators,” the division bench of Justices Zaka Haq and Amir Borkar said. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Quashing a complaint against a man from Maharashtra’s Gondia for alleged sexual harassment under Section 354-A(1)(iv), read along with Sections 509 and 107 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, the bench said a group admin doesn’t have power to regulate, moderate or censor the content before it is posted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | “The administrators are the ones who create the group by adding/deleting the members. Every group has one or more administrators, who control members’ participation. A group administrator has limited power of removing/adding the members. Once the group is created, the administrators’ and members’ functions are at par with each other, except addition/ deletion powers. But, if a member posts any objectionable content, s/he can be held liable under relevant provisions of law,” the court said. | ||
| + | Petitioner Kishor Tarone had moved court after a woman accused him, the admin of a WhatsApp group, of not removing a member who had used obscene language against her. She also alleged that the petitioner failed to ask the member to apologise and instead expressed helplessness. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The judges said when a person creates a WhatsApp group, they can’t be expected to presume or to have advance knowledge of any illegal intent of a member. “In our opinion, in the facts of present case, nonremoval of a member or failure to seek apology from him, who had posted the objectionable remark, would not amount to making sexually coloured remarks by the administrator.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''' Common intention can’t be established in the case of WhatsApp service users merely acting as administrators ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | -Nagpur bench, Bombay HC | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|S SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA | ||
| + | SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA]] | ||
| + | [[Category:India|S SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA | ||
| + | SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|S SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA | ||
| + | SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Pages with broken file links|SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIASOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA | ||
| + | SOCIAL MEDIA: INDIA]] | ||
=See also= | =See also= | ||
Revision as of 04:02, 17 May 2021
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Government rules, regulations
Pankaj Doval & Swati Mathur, February 26, 2021: The Times of India
From: Pankaj Doval & Swati Mathur, February 26, 2021: The Times of India
Reveal ‘originator’ of unlawful msg in 72 hrs, govt tells social media cos
NEW IT RULES BRING OTT, DIGITAL NEWS MEDIA UNDER REGULATION FOR FIRST TIME
New Delhi:
In a sweeping move, the government announced guidelines for social media, particularly giants such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter, Instagram and Google, as also OTT platforms and digital media, bringing them under the purview of specific regulation for the first time.
Social media intermediaries have been split into two categories with the large ones expected to have higher compliance standards. Apart from appointing compliance and grievance officers, the new regulations mandate that social media and global internet giants will not be able to withhold the information on the source of unlawful and inflammatory messaging beyond 72 hours. They will need to be prompt in responding to requests of subscribers, especially women, on removal of objectionable content such as leakage of nudity or sexual acts. The platforms will now need to take down any “unlawful” content in a span of 36 hours.
Information, account removal requests from govt
2019>2020
Anam Ajmal, February 11, 2021: The Times of India
From: Anam Ajmal, February 11, 2021: The Times of India
India’s infor mation and account removal requests to Twitter shot up exponentially between Jan-June 2020 and Jan-Jun 2019. During the same period, legal information requests made to Facebook also jumped. So did the number of hours lost to internet shutdowns.
Information requests made to Twitter leapfrogged by 451%. Following such requests, the company has to reveal who operates a specific account. Overall, the government made 2,613 such requests, specifying 6,346 accounts, out of which Twitter complied with just 1%. Account removal requests also registered a 450% leap, as per statistics offered by the micro-blogging company. Since 2012, India has made 5,5000 requests for account withdrawals, out of which Twitter complied with 18.8% requests. These requests specified 29,213 accounts.
Legal information requests also showed a 57% vault though content restriction requests indicate a 34% fall.
Internet shutdowns also went up during this period, as per UK-based organisation Top10vpn’s annual report. In 2020, the number of hours lost (8,927) resulted in an estimated economic loss of $2.8 billion. The previous year, 4,196 hours were lost causing a projected loss of $1.3 billion. To put it in percentage, there was a 113% rise in the number of hours lost and a 115% rise in economic cost between 2019 and 2020. The report further assessed the global internet shutdown cost to be around $4 billion, with India accounting for nearly 70% of the total losses.
Between January and June 2020, India stood second after the US in the list of countries which wrote to Twitter for account information of users. Since 2012, India has made 5,877 information requests, specifying 19,8000 accounts from the microblogging platform. Almost half of these requests, 44.5% came in the first half of 2020.
During the same period, India sent Twitter 149 legal demands for action on verified accounts, including journalists and news outlets. About 142 demands were made by Turkey. Twitter withheld two tweets under Section 69A of the IT Act but said it did not act on the remaining demands since the accounts came under its “protected speech” policies.
India also made 35,560 requests, impacting 57,294 accounts, for user information from Facebook during January-June 2020, out of which Facebook complied with 50% requests. In the second half of 2019, India had made 26,698 requests for user information, out of which Facebook had complied with 57%. Globally, India was the second country with the maximum requests, after the US (57,910).
In the same period, Facebook also restricted access to 681 items in response to directions from the ministry of electronics and information technology for violating Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, including content against security of the state and public order.
The networks used most frequently
FB, Twitter users are more trusting/ 2011
The Times of India, June 18, 2011
A study has found that people who use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are more trusting. The study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project surveyed the emotional lives and engagement of US social networking fans. The report found them to be more trusting, more socially and politically engaged and to have a better sense of wellbeing than those who don’t participate in online social networks.
2016-18
From: January 25, 2019: The Times of India
See graphic:
The social networks used most frequently in India, 2016-18
Social media and the law
The Supreme Court asked online behemoths Facebook and WhatsApp to file an affidavit assuring that they will not share data of their users with a third party until the Centre framed a law for data protection.
A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, justices A K Sikri, Amitava Roy , A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar granted the companies four weeks to file the affidavit. The bench said it will examine their response and decide whether interim order is required to restrain sharing data with a third party .
The Centre is framing a law on data protection in the light of the recent judgment of the SC pronouncing the right to privacy as a fundamental right in which it had left it to the government to frame a legislation.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar, appearing for the multi-national companies, denied allegations of sharing of data with any third party . They contended that two billion people used WhatsApp but none, except two students who filed petition, had complained about violation of privacy .
Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench at the outset of proceedings that an expert committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of former apex court judge Justice B N Srikrishna by Centre to identify key data protection issues in India and file a draft bill on data protection law. He pleaded the court defer the hearing till the Centre framed the law.
Agreeing with his submission, the bench deferred the hearing on a petition challenging WhatsApp's 2016 privacy policy and fixed the matter for hearing on November 20. It, however, said that the data of users should be protected in the interim period and asked the companies to give the undertaking.
WhatsApp group admins not liable for members’ posts: HC
Vaibhav Ganjapure , April 27, 2021: The Times of India
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has ruled that WhatsApp group admins can’t be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member unless it is proved there was common intention or a pre-arranged plan between them.
“In the absence of a specific penal provision creating vicarious liability, the administrator can’t be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member. Common intention can’t be established in the case of WhatsApp service users merely acting as administrators,” the division bench of Justices Zaka Haq and Amir Borkar said.
Quashing a complaint against a man from Maharashtra’s Gondia for alleged sexual harassment under Section 354-A(1)(iv), read along with Sections 509 and 107 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, the bench said a group admin doesn’t have power to regulate, moderate or censor the content before it is posted.
“The administrators are the ones who create the group by adding/deleting the members. Every group has one or more administrators, who control members’ participation. A group administrator has limited power of removing/adding the members. Once the group is created, the administrators’ and members’ functions are at par with each other, except addition/ deletion powers. But, if a member posts any objectionable content, s/he can be held liable under relevant provisions of law,” the court said. Petitioner Kishor Tarone had moved court after a woman accused him, the admin of a WhatsApp group, of not removing a member who had used obscene language against her. She also alleged that the petitioner failed to ask the member to apologise and instead expressed helplessness.
The judges said when a person creates a WhatsApp group, they can’t be expected to presume or to have advance knowledge of any illegal intent of a member. “In our opinion, in the facts of present case, nonremoval of a member or failure to seek apology from him, who had posted the objectionable remark, would not amount to making sexually coloured remarks by the administrator.”
Common intention can’t be established in the case of WhatsApp service users merely acting as administrators
-Nagpur bench, Bombay HC
