Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Government is planning to come up with new rules that will require companies like <keyword id="6355629" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Google">Google</keyword>, <keyword id="790242" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="WhatsApp">WhatsApp</keyword>, <keyword id="6358096" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Snapchat">Snapchat</keyword>, and <keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword> to store client data. This is a development that will face a considerable measure of opposition. 
 
A committee has been set up by the government for drafting rules for Section 67C of the Information Technology Act. 
 
What the government is looking to do now is draft rules for Section 67C of the Information Technology Act. The rules, whose drafting has been holding up since 2008, will explain what sort of information has to be stored, in what format, and for what time period, as per three individuals from the recently framed council. 
 
Sharing of data between outside firms and the Indian government has been a combative issue, and specialists said the order might be difficult to execute for firms, for example, WhatsApp that promise end-to-end encryption. Or for Snapchat - a chat app where messages disappear within seconds and are not even stored on the company's servers. 
 
Firms may also oppose the diktat, especially since most of them are not governed by Indian laws and also due to the high cost of data retention. 
 The committee is lead by additional secretary in the ministry of electronics and IT (<keyword id="3602182" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="MeitY">MEITY</keyword>), <keyword id="108416" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ajay-Kumar">Ajay Kumar</keyword>, and has one representative each from the ministry of home affairs, department of telecom, department of personnel and training, <keyword id="6372077" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Nasscom">Nasscom</keyword>, Internet Service Provider Association of India (ISPAI), along with an advocate specialising in cyber law and a few officers from MEITY. 
 
"This is a fairly complex issue, compounded by the general lack of understanding of mobile apps and over the top service providers," a person on the committee who did not wish to be identified told ET. 
 
He also said that most technology firms are US based and they have always been at loggerheads about sharing of information with the government. 
 "Even if it is for national security reasons, how much are these companies answerable to the Indian security establishment? And we do know how <keyword id="6354427" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Apple">Apple</keyword> refused to unlock the phone even for <keyword id="6355946" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="FBI">FBI</keyword>," he added. 
 However, <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> and cyber law expert <keyword id="194357" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Pavan-Duggal">Pavan Duggal</keyword> assured that the section is drafted in very broad terms and the move may be driven by the realisation that these companies are huge data repositories - some of which might be relevant to law enforcement investigations. 
 "It will have to be a huge balancing act and will be interesting to see what this committee decides," <keyword id="11461" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Duggal">Duggal</keyword> told ET. 
 
Section 67C refers to the obligation of the service providers to hold data, the nature of the data to be retained and the time period is not specified. Companies which do not comply with the law can be levied fine and its officers imprisoned. 
(image: Indiatimes)

Government may ask WhatsApp, Snapchat to store your private information

With <keyword id="6354616" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="twitter" source="Orion">Twitter</keyword> once again taking the Indian government to court, the debate has reignited over insufficient IT laws -- demanding the clearance of new IT Rules, 2021 as soon as possible -- to tame <keyword id="1781932" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="big-tech" source="Orion">Big Tech</keyword> and penalise them if found not complying with the law of the land, amid a completely changed digital landscape from two decades ago. When the IT Act, 2000 was passed, there was no social media presence. Today, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are dictating the public discourse and being used for disseminating fake news and trolls from across the spectrum. The <keyword id="6363148" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="information-technology" source="Orion">Information Technology</keyword> Act, 2000, which got amended only in 2008, is neither a data privacy law nor a data protection law. In such a scenario, is its Section 69A sufficient to book social media biggies and even penalise them for not complying with the government content blocking orders, especially when it comes to national security? According to New Delhi-based cyberlaw expert Virag Gupta, two decades back, intermediaries were acting as the messenger carrying a message from point A to point B, without interfering in it in any manner. "Nowadays, social media platforms are aggressively active and no longer playing the role of a conventional intermediary," Gupta told IANS. Twitter is an intermediary as per the Indian law which has to compulsorily comply with directions issued by the authorities under section 69A of the IT Act. According to experts, failure to comply with any such directions would take away the indemnity provided under section 79 of the IT Act. "Section 69A of the IT Act gives immense and extraordinary power to the government for blocking the content, which can be challenged before the High Court or Supreme Court," said Gupta. However, its purpose is to maintain public order, prevent cognisable offences and protect sovereignty, integrity, defence, security and <keyword id="3658" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="india" source="Orion">India</keyword>'s friendly relation with foreign states. Freedom of speech is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. However there are many restrictions under Article 19(2), which are part of the Section 69A of the IT Act. "So in such matters of national security, judicial review of the government orders may not be normally allowed," Gupta told IANS. Twitter was also involved in a legal battle in the Delhi High Court last year with the Centre over not complying with the Information Technology (<keyword id="7206149" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="intermediary-guidelines" source="Orion">Intermediary Guidelines</keyword> and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, that aim to redefine India's digital landscape. After Twitter went to the Karnataka High Court this time, the government reiterated that all Internet intermediaries and social media platforms have to comply with the law of the land. IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said that "be it any company, in any sector, they should abide by the laws of India". Minister of State for Electronics and IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar said that all foreign intermediaries and platforms have a right to approach the court and judicial review in India. "But equally, all intermediary/platforms operating here have an unambiguous obligation to comply with our laws and rules," Chandrasekhar emphasised. The IT Minister has given the hint for a new IT Act to fight multiple cyber challenges faced by the authorities and users. The republished draft by the IT Ministry has revealed a plan to form an appeals panel that can reverse content moderation decisions by Big Tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. The new IT rules also require big social media platforms to help the government trace the originator of messages in special cases. "The intermediary shall respect the rights accorded to citizens under the constitution," according to the new draft. By virtue of Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021, the moment any intermediary including any significant social media intermediary does not comply with the Information Technology Rules, they automatically lose their statutory exemption from legal liability. Further, they become liable for being punished for various offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. "There is actually no rationale for any service providers not to comply with the applicable law in India. The Internet service providers and social media platforms ought to comply with the rules immediately so as to prevent any potential future legal consequences," said Pavan Duggal, a seasoned Supreme Court advocate and a cyber law expert. The government is clearly entitled to take action for criminal prosecution against the service provider as per Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021. Further, all affected persons who have been affected by the inactions of the service provider, can sue the service provider, both for legal action and also for criminal liability, Duggal added. "The ultimate idea is to give a deterrent message to all service providers that they will have to ensure compliance with the applicable laws, otherwise they will continue to keep on facing legal consequences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and rules and regulations," Duggal told IANS. "The thumb rule is very clear: if you have to operate in India, then you have to ensure compliance with the applicable Indian law, otherwise you will be prepared to face the legal consequences emerging there from," he added. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/enterprise/news/facebook-insta-and-google-took-down-over-21-million-posts-in-may-while-whatsapp-and-twitter-banned-over-19-lakh-bad-accounts/articleshow/92698950.cms">Facebook, Insta and Google took down over 21 million posts in May while WhatsApp and Twitter banned over 19 lakh ‘bad’ accounts</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/enterprise/news/big-tech-should-obey-the-law-of-the-land-says-india-after-twitter-goes-to-court/articleshow/92689452.cms">Big Tech should obey the law of the land says India, after Twitter goes to court</a>

Opinion: There is a need to pass the IT Rules, 2021 to tame social media platforms like Twitter

New Delhi, June 30 (IANS) After India directed blocking of 59 Chinese apps, some of India's top legal experts have asked what the government plans to do about hundreds and thousands of Chinese mobile phones being used by Indians and the CCTV cameras installed in both the corporate sector and the government agencies, which could potentially be transmitting data of Indians outside the country. The IT Ministry on Monday issued an interim order to block 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The apps have been directed to be banned on the grounds that they have been trying to impact the "sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". "Banning or blocking apps is only a starting point, not the endgame journey. A lot of steps will have to be taken. There are a huge number of Chinese mobile phones which are being used by Indians and they continue to transmit data outside India, particularly to China," Pavan Duggal, one of the nation's top cyber law experts, told IANS. "Further a lot of Chinese CCTV cameras and other devices are installed both in corporate sectors and also in governmental agencies. Their use in terms of the collection of data and their transmission of data to China need to be reconsidered," he said, adding that India must come up with a strong cogent methodologies and process to protect Indian sovereign interest in cyberspace. According to Virag Gupta, a lawyer who is arguing the case in Supreme Court for data localisation in India, said the decision to block 59 apps will go a long way in shaping "our future plan of action against Internet giants"."Obviously, there will be challenges to implement this decision, but we can call it a digital surgical strike against global powers with colonial mindsets," he said. As India is a democratic country unlike China, a party aggrieved by the government's decision can challenge the action under the current legal framework. Once the law provides the remedy of an appeal to an affected party, the party will have to show that it is not misusing the data of Indian users, and similarly, the government will also be called upon to show what relevant material led to the conclusion that such kinds of apps impact the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, Duggal said. Besides TikTok, the banned apps include SHAREit, Helo, WeChat, UC Browser and Xiaomi's Mi Community, among others. Following the ban, TikTok said in a statement that it places "the highest importance on user privacy and integrity." Asserting that it has not shared any information of its users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese government, the ByteDance-owned short video-sharing platform promised that even if it is requested to share information of Indian users by the Chinese government in the future, it would not do so. But under the Chinese cybersecurity law, the government has the power to ask for any information pertaining to the sovereign interest of the country or pertaining to public order from any company which is located in China, Duggal said. "The said companies are duty-bound to share that information. If they do not share that information with the Chinese authorities, it actually becomes an offence under the Chinese law," he said. "So whenever any Chinese company says that it is not sharing any data of Indians with Chinese agencies, I think it will be further called upon to show how it will be going ahead in complying with applicable national laws and how it will be further ensuring that the said information will not be shared in the future," Duggal said. According to Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and an online civil liberties activist, India's move to ban 59 Chinese apps underscores that the cyber world and the Internet are part of the geopolitics and are not some distant matter left to the techies. "We must have a robust cyber peace or war policy that addresses our national security concerns and presents a well thought through, rights respecting policy in sharp contrast to an authoritarian regime like China," she said. As Nagpur-based lawyer Vinod Tiwari pointed out, if the interim order is confirmed, accessing these 59 apps will be an issue only within the territorial boundaries of India. Duggal also pointed out that the government of India has got the power under Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to come up with specific due diligence parameters for app developers and app service providers. "However, no such due diligence parameters have been given to app service providers so far," he said. (Gokul Bhagabati can be contacted at gokul.b@ians.in) --IANS gb/arm

After app ban, experts ask what about Chinese phones?

<ul><li>India wants to deploy <keyword id="731490" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="facial-recognition-software">facial recognition software</keyword> to catch criminals off the streets but none of the laws in the country address the use of such technology. </li><li>Human rights groups and researchers asked companies to refrain from selling <keyword id="30939" type="TECHNOLOGY" weightage="20" keywordseo="facial-recognition">facial recognition</keyword> technology to governments as it could lead to increased surveillance. </li><li>In the absence of laws to govern the use of facial recognition software, the technology could undermine a citizen’s right to privacy. </li></ul>India’s facial recognition has already been tested successfully. And, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) wants the system to go live with it to all law agencies, by next year. In April, the <a href="https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/facial-recognition-system-helps-trace-3000-missing-children-in-4-days/articleshow/63870277.cms">Delhi Police</a> used the software to identify nearly 3,000 missing children over the course of four days to try out the facial recognition software. But, there’s a catch. None of the laws in India address the use of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=facial+recognition&amp;sortorder=score&amp;curpg=1">facial recognition technology</a>. It’s not just about implementing the technology but also about how the data so collected can be potentially misused. The Home Ministry <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/policy/facial-recognition-by-national-crime-records-bureau-ncrb-will-be-used-to-spot-history-sheeters-and-missing-people-only/articleshow/70187881.cms">issued a statement</a> assuring citizens that facial recognition will only be used to track individuals on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network Systems (CCTNS), which is the national database of Indian criminals. Misidentification Without a regulatory framework in place, facial recognition could possibly undermine the people’s right to privacy according to Pavan Duggal, an Indian cyber law expert. He points out that even with the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, there is no specific mention of facial recognition technology. The technology, though useful and mostly accurate, has been known to falter from time to time. There is no safety net in place that will help individuals to contest the results, if the software misidentifies a person. For instance, Amazon ‘Rekognition’ software <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/facial-recognition-is-almost-perfectly-accurate-heres-why-that-could-be-a-problem/articleshow/68930012.cms">reportedly</a> had trouble identifying dark skinned women. There’s also an issue of transparency. Even though it’s enough to say that facial recognition will be employed to identify criminals, the actual algorithm that powers the software and its functionality are likely to stay behind layers of non-disclosure agreements. Global take Microsoft has been trying to <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/07/13/facial-recognition-technology-the-need-for-public-regulation-and-corporate-responsibility/">push</a> for facial recognition to implemented in the US to nab criminals. Microsoft’s President, Brad Smith, has <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/12/06/facial-recognition-its-time-for-action/">urged</a> the country’s law makers to put regulations in place before implementing the technology but certain states are pushing back, saying that it should be banned altogether. Amazon also<a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/some-thoughts-on-facial-recognition-legislation/"> joined</a> Microsoft in calling for rules that deal specifically deal with facial recognition technology. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/Artificial-intelligence-experts-from-Facebook-Google-and-Microsoft-called-on-Amazon-not-to-sell-its-facial-recognition-software-to-police/articleshow/68721371.cms">Human rights groups</a> and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/an-mit-researcher-who-analyzed-facial-recognition-software-found-eliminating-bias-in-ai-is-a-matter-of-priorities/articleshow/67664512.cms">researchers</a>, globally, are up in arms asking tech companies to refrain from selling their recognition software to governments because of how it could escalate surveillance. China, on the other hand, is an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/one-chinese-city-is-using-facial-recognition-that-can-help-police-detect-and-arrest-criminals-in-as-little-as-2-minutes/articleshow/63374619.cms">avid </a>user of facial recognition. There are over 170 million CCTV cameras along the roads in China equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition capabilities. It is implemented in schools, to monitor student attitudes and stress levels; and even at fast food joints, where it’s used to try and predict a customer’s order. (with inputs from IANS) See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/facial-recognition-by-national-crime-records-bureau-ncrb-will-be-used-to-spot-history-sheeters-and-missing-people-only/articleshow/70187881.cms">Facial recognition will be used to spot history sheeters and missing people only, assures Home Ministry</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/facial-recognition-is-almost-perfectly-accurate-heres-why-that-could-be-a-problem/articleshow/68930012.cms">Facial recognition is almost perfectly accurate - here's why that could be a problem</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/cities-should-regulate-facial-recognition-instead-of-banning-it-chinas-ai-champion-sensetime-says/articleshow/69367810.cms">Cities should regulate facial recognition instead of banning it, China’s AI champion SenseTime says</a>

You Searched For "Pavan Duggal" and got 4 results

Government may ask WhatsApp, Snapchat to store your private information

BI India Bureau

Opinion: There is a need to pass the IT Rules, 2021 to tame social media platforms like Twitter

IANS

After app ban, experts ask what about Chinese phones?

IANS

India is all set to deploy facial recognition but there is no law in place to keep a check

Prabhjote Gill

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides