202
Rebecca MacKinnon
customer communications. K-Internet argued that the bill “ seems to be focused excessively on improving the ‘ effi ciency ’ of investigations and less on protecting communication freedoms and limiting threats to privacy, posing a serious threat to the
fundamental rights of citizens, limiting the business of communications operators and
needlessly increasing social costs. ” An “ industry insider ” was further quoted as saying,
“ There is no fun in joking about Pakistan and China anymore, when our own government seems to have a similar approach to Internet users. ”
47 Korean ICT companies
clearly see a link between protecting users ’ and customers ’ rights and their long-term
brand reputation and commercial success. It is less clear whether civil liberties groups
and Korean businesses are seeking or fi nding ways to work together effectively, not
only to prevent further incursion but also to regain lost ground.
India: Systematizing Surveillance
48
In contrast to South Korea ’ s 82 percent Internet penetration as of 2009, India ’ s Internet
penetration hovered around 5 percent. While small in percentage terms, that still
translates into nearly 60 million Internet users — larger than South Korea ’ s roughly 40
million.
49 More broadly, India ’ s telecommunications market is the fastest growing in
the world, with industry executives predicting that the number of Indian mobile
phone users could surpass one billion by 2015.
50 While India has a lively blogosphere
and large communities on Orkut, Facebook, and Twitter, Indian citizens also expect
their government to protect them from the spread of online crime, shield youth from
pornography in a country where traditional values remain important, and take measures to prevent ethnic and religious violence in a country with a highly complex and
volatile mix of religions and ethnicities. Internet and mobile technologies were used
to coordinate the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
51 Cyber attacks launched from China,
uncovered in 2009, exposed the need for improved cyber security.
52 Although these
are all serious concerns for any democracy in the Internet age, the Indian government ’ s approach to addressing these problems has raised concerns from civil liberties
groups and industry.
The Information Technology Act of 2000 established the legal framework for fi ltering and regulating India ’ s Internet, as well as the procedures by which ISPs and other
Internet content and service companies can be compelled to censor online material
or share information with government authorities.
53 Several incidents took place in
the early 21st century in which the government ordered ISPs to block specifi c blogs
and groups hosted on international services like Orkut, Yahoo Groups, and Blogger.
These fi ltering efforts proved counterproductive because ISPs lacked the technical
capacity to block individual subdomains, resulting in the blanket blocking of Blogger,
Yahoo Groups, and Orkut at different points in time. This in turn prompted widespread public outcry and ridicule in the Indian media and blogosphere. It also sparked
Rebecca MacKinnon
customer communications. K-Internet argued that the bill “ seems to be focused excessively on improving the ‘ effi ciency ’ of investigations and less on protecting communication freedoms and limiting threats to privacy, posing a serious threat to the
fundamental rights of citizens, limiting the business of communications operators and
needlessly increasing social costs. ” An “ industry insider ” was further quoted as saying,
“ There is no fun in joking about Pakistan and China anymore, when our own government seems to have a similar approach to Internet users. ”
47 Korean ICT companies
clearly see a link between protecting users ’ and customers ’ rights and their long-term
brand reputation and commercial success. It is less clear whether civil liberties groups
and Korean businesses are seeking or fi nding ways to work together effectively, not
only to prevent further incursion but also to regain lost ground.
India: Systematizing Surveillance
48
In contrast to South Korea ’ s 82 percent Internet penetration as of 2009, India ’ s Internet
penetration hovered around 5 percent. While small in percentage terms, that still
translates into nearly 60 million Internet users — larger than South Korea ’ s roughly 40
million.
49 More broadly, India ’ s telecommunications market is the fastest growing in
the world, with industry executives predicting that the number of Indian mobile
phone users could surpass one billion by 2015.
50 While India has a lively blogosphere
and large communities on Orkut, Facebook, and Twitter, Indian citizens also expect
their government to protect them from the spread of online crime, shield youth from
pornography in a country where traditional values remain important, and take measures to prevent ethnic and religious violence in a country with a highly complex and
volatile mix of religions and ethnicities. Internet and mobile technologies were used
to coordinate the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
51 Cyber attacks launched from China,
uncovered in 2009, exposed the need for improved cyber security.
52 Although these
are all serious concerns for any democracy in the Internet age, the Indian government ’ s approach to addressing these problems has raised concerns from civil liberties
groups and industry.
The Information Technology Act of 2000 established the legal framework for fi ltering and regulating India ’ s Internet, as well as the procedures by which ISPs and other
Internet content and service companies can be compelled to censor online material
or share information with government authorities.
53 Several incidents took place in
the early 21st century in which the government ordered ISPs to block specifi c blogs
and groups hosted on international services like Orkut, Yahoo Groups, and Blogger.
These fi ltering efforts proved counterproductive because ISPs lacked the technical
capacity to block individual subdomains, resulting in the blanket blocking of Blogger,
Yahoo Groups, and Orkut at different points in time. This in turn prompted widespread public outcry and ridicule in the Indian media and blogosphere. It also sparked