Imlisanen Jamir
The Central Government on February 25 notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 which has huge implications on how the internet works in the country and redefines regulation of content distribution online.
At the outset, the Centre’s reasoning for the new regulations seem sound. We all now recognise that while the internet, social media in particular, provides a space for dissenting opinions, the idea of the free internet has seen much abuse.
The new set of rules brings oversight into the information being disseminated in platforms run by what the government calls ‘social media intermediaries.’ The most significant of these new rules is the one which binds ‘social media intermediaries’ to disclose the point of origin of information deemed to be criminal in nature.
This is for the purpose of “prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material, punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.”
A look at the above criteria, and it seems reasonable that amidst challenges like child sexual abuse, blatant incitement to hate and violence etc, regulations are critical in this internet age. It must however be noted that any action to divulge points of origin of information as is required by the new rules will inevitable necessitate breaking end to end encryption. This has implications on the fundamental rights to privacy and speech on a much larger scale. The danger lies in over regulation, especially given precedents of laws being abused by State power.
Much blame also lies with big tech and its years of inability or unwillingness to holistically self-regulate. This failure has led to the intensification of the battle between big tech and the State across the world.
Solutions should have been sought that pre-empted or at least sough to prevent the cesspool of hate, disinformation and sycophancy that festers in all corners of the web these days. This was not be. The result has been the rise of opportunities for State agencies to justify regulatory actions on the once cherished idea of the free internet.
With the regulations now in place, it is now the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that these well intended (at least on paper) measures do not pave a slippery slope for free expression.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
