ONI Country Profi le
303
Court had directed the Maharashtra government to issue notice to Google for “ alleged
spread of hatred about India ” on its social networking site Orkut, in response to a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) petition calling for the ban of Orkut for hosting a “ We Hate
India ” community.
29 Similarly, in 2009, the Maharashtra government began examining
legal options for censoring Google Earth, for fear that it could be used to facilitate terror
attacks.
30 It was reported that the surviving gunman of the 2008 terror attacks in
Mumbai claimed that Google satellite images had been used in planning the attacks.
31
In November 2006, in response to protests over an “ anti-Shivaji ” community on
Orkut, police banned Orkut, temporarily shut down Internet caf é s where users were
found using the site, and began an investigation under the IT Act and penal code
provisions for obscene publications and religious insult offenses.
32 In December, a
government offi cial made a similar blocking request after a report that “ obscene ”
material about “ Hindu girls ” was posted on Orkut.
33 In May 2007, although none of
these efforts resulted in a comprehensive ban of Orkut, site offi cials reached an agreement with the Indian government to block “ defamatory or infl ammatory content ”
and to release the IP addresses of the offending parties to law enforcement.
34
Many have argued that giving CERT-IN this power through executive order violates
constitutional jurisprudence, holding that specifi c legislation must be passed before
the government can encroach on individual rights. When CERT-IN has issued orders
to block specifi c Web sites, no communication has been made to the public beforehand.
35 The blocking mechanism created under the IT Act provides for no review or
appeal procedures, except in court, and is a permanent block.
Police commissioners, who can exercise the powers of executive magistrates in
times of emergency, can also block Web sites containing material that constitutes a
nuisance or threat to public safety under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
36 The fi rst occurrence of such an action was in 2004, when Mumbai police
blocked http://hinduunity.org on the grounds that it contained anti-Islamic material
that could be infl ammatory.
37 One of the nation ’ s ISPs, Sify, refused to block the site
on the basis that only CERT-IN had the authority to issue blocking orders.
38
Filtering can also be mandated through licensing requirements. For example, ISPs
seeking licenses to provide Internet services with the DOT “ shall block Internet sites
and/or individual subscribers, as identifi ed and directed by the Telecom Authority
from time to time ” in the interests of “ national security. ”
39 License agreements also
require ISPs to prevent the transmission of obscene or otherwise “ objectionable
material. ”
40
Surveillance
Section 69 of the IT Act empowers the central government to designate agencies and
issue orders for interception, monitoring, and decryption in the interest of national
303
Court had directed the Maharashtra government to issue notice to Google for “ alleged
spread of hatred about India ” on its social networking site Orkut, in response to a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) petition calling for the ban of Orkut for hosting a “ We Hate
India ” community.
29 Similarly, in 2009, the Maharashtra government began examining
legal options for censoring Google Earth, for fear that it could be used to facilitate terror
attacks.
30 It was reported that the surviving gunman of the 2008 terror attacks in
Mumbai claimed that Google satellite images had been used in planning the attacks.
31
In November 2006, in response to protests over an “ anti-Shivaji ” community on
Orkut, police banned Orkut, temporarily shut down Internet caf é s where users were
found using the site, and began an investigation under the IT Act and penal code
provisions for obscene publications and religious insult offenses.
32 In December, a
government offi cial made a similar blocking request after a report that “ obscene ”
material about “ Hindu girls ” was posted on Orkut.
33 In May 2007, although none of
these efforts resulted in a comprehensive ban of Orkut, site offi cials reached an agreement with the Indian government to block “ defamatory or infl ammatory content ”
and to release the IP addresses of the offending parties to law enforcement.
34
Many have argued that giving CERT-IN this power through executive order violates
constitutional jurisprudence, holding that specifi c legislation must be passed before
the government can encroach on individual rights. When CERT-IN has issued orders
to block specifi c Web sites, no communication has been made to the public beforehand.
35 The blocking mechanism created under the IT Act provides for no review or
appeal procedures, except in court, and is a permanent block.
Police commissioners, who can exercise the powers of executive magistrates in
times of emergency, can also block Web sites containing material that constitutes a
nuisance or threat to public safety under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
36 The fi rst occurrence of such an action was in 2004, when Mumbai police
blocked http://hinduunity.org on the grounds that it contained anti-Islamic material
that could be infl ammatory.
37 One of the nation ’ s ISPs, Sify, refused to block the site
on the basis that only CERT-IN had the authority to issue blocking orders.
38
Filtering can also be mandated through licensing requirements. For example, ISPs
seeking licenses to provide Internet services with the DOT “ shall block Internet sites
and/or individual subscribers, as identifi ed and directed by the Telecom Authority
from time to time ” in the interests of “ national security. ”
39 License agreements also
require ISPs to prevent the transmission of obscene or otherwise “ objectionable
material. ”
40
Surveillance
Section 69 of the IT Act empowers the central government to designate agencies and
issue orders for interception, monitoring, and decryption in the interest of national