302
India
However, most companies opted to use the lines already established by the
government.
16
In June 2000, the Indian Parliament created the Information Technology Act (IT
Act) to provide a legal framework to regulate Internet use and commerce, including
digital signatures, security, and hacking. The act criminalizes publication of obscene
information electronically and grants police powers to search any premises without a
warrant and arrest individuals in violation of the act.
17
In December 2008, the Indian Parliament amended the IT Act; the amended act
came into force on October 27, 2009.
18 The 2000 IT Act had criminalized the electroinc publication of obscene information, granting police powers to search premises
without warrants and arrest individuals in violation of the act.
19 The 2008 amendment broadened content that could be blocked beyond online obscenity. The newly
added Section 69A grants power to the central government, “ in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, ” to issue directions to block public access
to any information “ generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. ”
20 Although Section 69A(2) requires procedures and safeguards to
be prescribed when the government exercises this power,
21 these restrictions are
unclear because they are not specifi ed in the amendment. Critics claim that the
amendment, which makes such sweeping changes in the existing regime, was passed
“ in an unprecedented hurry, without any discussion in both the houses of the
Parliament. ”
22
The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN)
23 was set up by the
Department of Information Technology under the amended IT Act to implement
India ’ s fi ltering regime.
24 In 2004, CERT-IN became operational to review complaints
and act as the sole authority for issuing blocking instructions to the DOT.
25 Under the
2008 amendment of the IT Act, CERT-IN was assigned “ the task of oversight of the
Indian cyberspace for enhancing cyber protection, enabling security compliance and
assurance in Government and critical sectors. ”
26 Only limited or specifi ed individuals
or institutions can make offi cial complaints and recommendations for investigation
to CERT-IN. These include high-ranking government offi cials, the police, government
agencies, and “ any others as may be specifi ed by the Government. ”
27
On July 13, 2006, CERT-IN ordered access to 17 Web sites blocked following the
2006 Mumbai train bombings, reportedly because the attackers were believed to have
communicated by means of the blogosphere. The blocked Web sites included “ American right-wing ” sites ( http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/ , http://mackers-world.com/ ), Hindu
extremist or “ Hindutva ” sites, and a defunct Web site supporting the formation of a
“ Dalit ” homeland within India ( http://www.dalitstan.org ).
28
In 2006, fi ltering requests also came from individuals protesting content they considered offensive or obscene. On October 10, 2006, media reported that the Bombay High
India
However, most companies opted to use the lines already established by the
government.
16
In June 2000, the Indian Parliament created the Information Technology Act (IT
Act) to provide a legal framework to regulate Internet use and commerce, including
digital signatures, security, and hacking. The act criminalizes publication of obscene
information electronically and grants police powers to search any premises without a
warrant and arrest individuals in violation of the act.
17
In December 2008, the Indian Parliament amended the IT Act; the amended act
came into force on October 27, 2009.
18 The 2000 IT Act had criminalized the electroinc publication of obscene information, granting police powers to search premises
without warrants and arrest individuals in violation of the act.
19 The 2008 amendment broadened content that could be blocked beyond online obscenity. The newly
added Section 69A grants power to the central government, “ in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, ” to issue directions to block public access
to any information “ generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. ”
20 Although Section 69A(2) requires procedures and safeguards to
be prescribed when the government exercises this power,
21 these restrictions are
unclear because they are not specifi ed in the amendment. Critics claim that the
amendment, which makes such sweeping changes in the existing regime, was passed
“ in an unprecedented hurry, without any discussion in both the houses of the
Parliament. ”
22
The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN)
23 was set up by the
Department of Information Technology under the amended IT Act to implement
India ’ s fi ltering regime.
24 In 2004, CERT-IN became operational to review complaints
and act as the sole authority for issuing blocking instructions to the DOT.
25 Under the
2008 amendment of the IT Act, CERT-IN was assigned “ the task of oversight of the
Indian cyberspace for enhancing cyber protection, enabling security compliance and
assurance in Government and critical sectors. ”
26 Only limited or specifi ed individuals
or institutions can make offi cial complaints and recommendations for investigation
to CERT-IN. These include high-ranking government offi cials, the police, government
agencies, and “ any others as may be specifi ed by the Government. ”
27
On July 13, 2006, CERT-IN ordered access to 17 Web sites blocked following the
2006 Mumbai train bombings, reportedly because the attackers were believed to have
communicated by means of the blogosphere. The blocked Web sites included “ American right-wing ” sites ( http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/ , http://mackers-world.com/ ), Hindu
extremist or “ Hindutva ” sites, and a defunct Web site supporting the formation of a
“ Dalit ” homeland within India ( http://www.dalitstan.org ).
28
In 2006, fi ltering requests also came from individuals protesting content they considered offensive or obscene. On October 10, 2006, media reported that the Bombay High