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

The Delhi <keyword id="19900812" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="high-court" source="keywords">High Court</keyword> has refused to set aside the Central government's order blocking open-source messaging application '<keyword id="22332861" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Briar" source="keywords">Briar</keyword>' in <keyword id="19900657" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Jammu-and-Kashmir" source="keywords">Jammu and Kashmir</keyword> as it is suspected to be used by <keyword id="19900658" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="terrorists" source="keywords">terrorists</keyword> and could be a potential <keyword id="19968363" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="threat" source="keywords">threat</keyword> to <keyword id="19896999" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-security" source="keywords">national security</keyword>. The high court observed that in the matters of national security, principles of natural justice can be given a go-by. "The interim order has been reviewed by the committee constituted under Section 7 of the Blocking Rules and as stated earlier, the committee consists of top officials of the Government of India. The blocking orders have been passed for 14 applications/ softwares, including the software/ application of the petitioner herein as it was being used by the terrorists and their supporters to disturb the security and sovereignty of the country. "The application of the petitioner has been blocked only in Jammu and <keyword id="19896255" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kashmir" source="keywords">Kashmir</keyword> and the same can be used in all other parts of the country. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed," Justice Subramonium Prasad said. Sublime Software Ltd, the petitioner, sought direction to the Centre to produce and publish the order passed by it under Section 69A of the Information <keyword id="19901571" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="technology" source="keywords">Technology</keyword> Act, blocking its open-source messaging application 'Briar' and also prayed for setting aside that order. It was stated that Briar operates on a technology in which a person can directly send a message to another person even when there is no internet connectivity. It added that the technology is crucial in times of emergency, natural calamities and catastrophic disasters in providing emergency healthcare and disaster management as it enables smooth communication between persons and authorities during times of distress. On the other hand, the Centre's counsel submitted that the software, which can work even when there is no internet connection, is suspected to be used by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. The application can be misused and can definitely be a potential threat to the national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, the Centre's counsel said. The high court in its order noted that rule 16 of the Blocking Rules provides that strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. "This court can take judicial notice of the fact that decisions taken at the highest level and for the benefit of the security and sovereignty of the country can be kept confidential," it said.

HC dismisses plea to set aside order blocking messaging app in J&K over threat to national security

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A new bipartisan bill that's quickly gaining steam could lead to a TikTok ban in the United States. </li><li>The bill has been deemed "unconstitutional" by some, but its framing around national security could bolster it. </li></ul>The widely-popular social media app <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/tiktok">TikTok</a> is once again <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktok-ban-bill-explained-politics-tech-platform-2024-3">facing a possible ban in the United States</a> over <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nearly-half-of-americans-fear-tiktok-would-give-china-data-2021-7">concerns about its links to China</a>.A new bipartisan bill that could see TikTok banned is quickly gaining traction in Congress.And though the bill has been deemed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-slams-house-for-latest-plan-to-ban-tiktok-and-stifle-free-speech">"unconstitutional"</a> by some civil rights groups and First Amendment advocates, and has even been <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-sides-with-donald-trump-tiktok-ban-2024-3">opposed by 2024 Republican frontrunner former President Donald Trump</a>, its framing around a threat to national security could potentially help pave the way for its passage."Framing this as a national security threat offers the government considerable latitude when it comes to First Amendment questions," Sarah Kreps, a political scientist and director of the Tech Policy Institute at New York's Cornell University, told Business Insider.Kreps, also a government and law professor, explained that the government does not and should not approach restrictions on free speech lightly, "but when they do, the national security justification proves to be strong and robust to judicial repeal because courts do not want to be in a position to adjudicate the gravity of a particular threat."If enacted, the <a target="_blank" href="https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Protecting%20Americans%20From%20Foriegn%20Adversary%20Controlled%20Applications_3.5.24.pdf">bill</a> dubbed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, would force TikTok's Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell its US operations of the video-sharing platform to a non-Chinese company within six months or have to grapple with a nationwide ban on the app.The bill, which a House of Representatives committee unanimously green-lighted in a 50-0 vote last week, says it seeks to "protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd."The Republican-controlled House is expected to vote on the bill on Wednesday."We must ensure the Chinese government cannot weaponize TikTok against American users and our government through data collection and propaganda," GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tiktok-us-security-threat-says-trump-similar-facebook-cnbc-2024-03-11/">said</a> this week.Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which voted to approve the bill, said in an <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2IAUHBsPZI">interview</a> with Fox Business on Tuesday, "This is a real national security threat.""The bill is narrow," McMorris Rodgers said. "It is targeted to address the national security threat that we believe these apps, like TikTok, pose to the United States because of its ownership by a foreign adversary."Kreps told BI that she was more confident this bill would go further than past attempts to ban TikTok in the US because the cosponsors of the bill appeared to have done "the legal legwork to identify the weaknesses of previous versions and address those concerns."Still, the bill, if passed, is expected to face legal challenges by ByteDance and TikTok on First Amendment grounds, according to Kreps and other experts.<h2>Citing national security is 'not a get out of jail free card'</h2>Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York, told BI that the US Supreme Court "has been very clear that invoking national security is not a 'get out of jail free' card for having to comply with the First Amendment.""The First Amendment protects Americans' right to access social media platforms of their choosing," Krishnan said. "To justify a ban, the government would have to demonstrate that the privacy and security concerns it has can't be addressed in narrower ways.""And the government simply hasn't done this," said Krishnan, who called the bill "unconstitutional" and said that a ban on TikTok "would set a dangerous precedent for how we regulate free speech online."Though there's been <a target="_blank" href="https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf">evidence</a> to suggest that TikTok suppresses content around political speech, the US government "hasn't pointed to any evidence that China uses TikTok's algorithm to promote disinformation," Krishnan said."More fundamentally," Krishnan, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, added, "the First Amendment doesn't permit the government to suppress media on the grounds that it contains disinformation."TikTok has <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/communist-party-god-credential-data-bytedance-tiktok-former-executive-alleges-2023-6">repeatedly denied allegations</a> that it has ties to the Chinese Communist Party and has been fighting back against the new bill that could see the social media app banned.In a statement last week, TikTok said the US government was "attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.""This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country," the statement continued.<div type="image" title="Trump" height="3191" width="4786" msid="108443847" hostid="261" sizebytes="966416"></div><h2>Trump once supported a TikTok ban, but is now against it</h2>Meanwhile, Trump — whose <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tiktok-ban-sold-by-sept-15-microsoft-2020-8">administration tried to ban TikTok</a> in the US — but was blocked from doing so in court after TikTok sued — has now come out against a ban for the app."If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business," Trump argued on his social media platform, Truth Social, in a dig at <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/mark-zuckerberg">Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg</a>.Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously voted to advance the bill, several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology, sent a letter to the committee urging members to oppose the bill that they called "censorship.""We are deeply disappointed that the committee chose to ignore the serious First Amendment concerns raised by civil liberties groups and instead voted to advance this bill that would silence over 170 million people around the country who use TikTok every day," Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU, said in a statement after the vote."When this bill comes to the floor for a vote, we urge representatives to stand up for free speech, and vote down this misguided bill," Leventoff said.

The proposed TikTok ban has been deemed unconstitutional by some, but framing around national security could help advance it

You Searched For "national securities depository ltd" and got 2 results

HC dismisses plea to set aside order blocking messaging app in J&K over threat to national security

PTI

The proposed TikTok ban has been deemed unconstitutional by some, but framing around national security could help advance it

Natalie Musumeci

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides