New Delhi: The government has sanctioned the prosecution of several websites including Google, Facebook, Yahoo and YouTube amongst others. The Delhi High Court had earlier refused to squash proceedings against Google and Facebook.
The court had issued a summons to a host of websites on allegations that they were allowing defamatory articles against politicians and articles that hurt religious sentiments. The summons may be served through the Ministry of External Affairs. All the websites named are based outside India.
When CNBC-TV18 contacted Google India, a spokesperson said and we quote, "We did file a petition before the Delhi High Court. The high court has now issued a notice to the petitioner. We can't comment further at this stage." A Yahoo India spokesperson said and we quote, "The matter is subjudice and we won't be able to comment at this point."
Som Mittal, president of NASSCOM says the court is just following a legal process given that criminal proceedings have already been filed. These websites will have to respond within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. "There will be plenty of debate and discussion on the court's order henceforth," he says.
According to him, the government's proactive move saw the amendment of the IT Act last year. Mittal however, says that websites have a technological challenge on their hands if they have to pre-screen posts and remove objectionable material.
Below is an edited transcript of his views on CNBC-TV18. Watch the accompanying video for more.
Q: This battle started more than a month ago when Kapil Sibal called on all these companies and in a sense issued summons there. So it's not really surprising that the government has given the go ahead for this matter to be proceeded on by the court. What is your reaction?
A: What the court has done is a natural legal process which has already been started. I am sure this will go one with debates and hearings. So what has happened today is nothing new and is a natural process given that criminal proceedings had already been started. However, the issue is much larger right now. There are a large number of websites where new social media has made every individual across the world a content creator.
We have more than a billion accounts and the current construct and model that is there makes it quite difficult to do what's being asked for. So, I am sure there will be discussions and dialogues that will get started on how to avoid any of this unintended offensive material that gets on websites.
Q: When we heard Kapil Sibal, the telecom minister take on the likes of Google etc, he said - if China can go ahead and block you guys, so can we, don't take us for a ride, comply with what we are asking you to comply. How will this go down with foreign investors who have put in a substantial amount of money in creating centers in India and hiring people in India? What's the message likely to go down?
A: This is a debate as I mentioned like any innovation where there are so many advantages that come in and some unintended consequences that happen. I would say that just last year, the government had taken a very proactive step by amending the IT Act and the rules that got framed.
These rules in fact are superior to the rules available anywhere else in the world where any individual who finds anything very offensive, actually before they go to the court can approach the concern intermediary in this case a website and within 36 hours that website has to respond.
If the individual is not satisfied by the response that they receive from the intermediary then they can go to the court and get an order. We think there are provisions today which can be used to take this offensive material, but the debate now is can we pre-screen it or not and the whole issue has become a technological issue now.
Q: Do you believe that while it is not possible to humanly pre-screen content perhaps these companies have also been guilty of not acting fast enough or not acting at all perhaps on the complaints that may have come in?
A: If there is a debate and some data has been pointed out, I don't think people should wait for it. If somebody spots offensive material and people realize it as offensive they should take it up. We must also be clear that there are many things which can be labeled straight off as very offensive because they are clearly offensive, but the internet being a global medium there could be cultural sensitivity which are very local.
Hence, even if you wanted to screen, it is virtually impossible for anyone to determine what is offensive and what's not unless it was very evident. I suppose the cases that are being discussed right now are very clearly offensive. I would have said that it is probably appropriate for people to proactively take them off without being worried about the legal process itself.
Comments
0 comment