Naavi.org

The war that has erupted between FaceBook and the Australian Government has opened up a can of worms as regards the future of Internet. The proposed law envisages that news producers get rewarded for the news to be picked up by other content aggregators. Google appears to have negotiated a price and accepted it but Face Book has resisted it. It is understood that the Australian PM has sought the assistance of other Global leaders to support his move to make Tech Companies pay news generators.

The issue is however not simple and has its roots in the Copyright law and the argument on free speech and the status of Internet in the global information dissemination system.

When Internet was born, it was a “Free” medium of information. People voluntarily put up content accessible to others and it was considered an “Information Super Highway”. It soon acquired the status of “Free Speech” and “Fundamental Right”. The “Search Engines” like the old Alta Vista helped news to be accessed in an orderly fashion by the general users and the popularity of Internet exploded.

However “Money” started spoiling the beauty of Internet. Commercialization corroded the principle on which World Wide Web was set up and things got sour. Initially “Advertising” appeared to help bring Internet free. There were browsers which displayed advertisements on the top and internet access  credits were provided when the internet access was expensive. That was the time when 14.4 kbps access was available at Rs 16000/- per year from VSNL in India. The access was so slow that the volume of data accessed was not a criteria for charging.

As time passed, internet access became less and less expensive, speed of access increased and the payment system switched to time plus data based costing. Comparatively we  have today Fiber connections at enormous speed (200 Mbps+) and 1000 GB plus data access per month around Rs 1500-2000.

As Users did not need the support of advertising to defray cost of access, they started looking at it as an intrusion to their browsing experience. Since then, “Advertising” is only considered as an unavoidable evil.

Today the dispute has arisen between content owners and the tech companies like Google and Face Book whether news access by Google and FaceBook should be paid for. This is a “Copyright” issue similar to the “Deep Linking” disputes that erupted in the NewsBooster.com case in 2002.

There is no doubt that publishers have a point that they have a cost in producing content and the platforms like Google or Facebook are making what they consider “Disproportionate” profit.

But the entire system of content generation and delivery to the end user is a chain of services  and different people are making different profits. The concept of Copyright was to ensure that the first generator of a literary content gets the right to license and every body else pays for the use. But “Data” is not static and is like a growing organism in which different people add value and therefore claim benefit. Hence progressively the data value has to be shared by different persons. The search engines and platforms like Face Book have their own contributions to make in the last mile delivery of news.

(Please refer to the Theory of Data propounded by Naavi on the life cycle hypothesis and Additive Value hypothesis)

Hence it is difficult to summarily reject the claim of these platforms that they also have a claim on the profits of business. We can always discuss the fairness of distribution of profits and ultimately there has to be a commercial equilibrium established.

Today technology permits a content publisher to block search engines and hence Google has decided to go along with the proposal to pay for content. But Face Book where content is contributed by the users has resisted the claim for payment. Perhaps Face Book can claim that it is not pulling the content and therefore it is different from a search engine. Content is being pushed into Face Book platforms by the users and hence Face Book may not be willing to take on the responsibility to make payments to the publishers for content published on its platform.

We need to wait and see how this controversy develops further.

But we also need to understand that this controversy while providing incentives for the publications, can also result in them becoming more commercialized. In due course they will become greedy. If content is paid by the advertiser whose only value perception is the “Viewership”, then porn and semi-porn content will have more value than serious content of use to the society. This will encourage “News Creation” based on how many clicks it would get. There will be more fake and speculative news than real news. This is not good for the society.

There is an example right here in the form of naavi.org which is driven by the passion of the content creator and though revenue by way of advertising is welcome, it cannot be allowed to dilute the cause. There are a number of requests for “Paid Articles” to be published on this website which would provide a good flow of revenue. But most such articles would like to promote products and services which may not be keeping with the general principles to which Naavi.org is committed and hence are being refused.

The so called “News Papers” once were developed by philanthropists with similar principles but have lost their commitment today and succumbed to the pressure of commercialization.

This degeneration started with Times of India introducing soft porn content and even converting the front page to an Advertisement.

It is better that we continue to resist the temptation to commercialize news creation. It was such a tendency that promoted Rihanna to tweet against India. Naavi.org therefore is apprehensive about the content law of Australia for the possibility that it  may corrupt the content creators by a direct commercialization.

Let true journalism be driven by principles and not by money.

At the same time, platforms that distribute the news should be encouraged to pay a fair price to the content generators through persuasion and negotiation.

(A more detailed explanation of a suggested system that could contribute towards finding a solution to this controversy would be provided in the follow up articles..Naavi)

Let us watch how this controversy develops. India should not jump into taking position in this regard at this juncture irrespective of the differences we may otherwise have with Mark Zuckerberg. While the arrogance of FaceBook to take on a sovereign nation has its own implications like the controversies surrounding Twitter in India, the issue of Twitter Management being biased against Indian Government and Face Book resisting the content legislation in Australia are driven by different basic issues. We need to focus on issues rather than personalities if we want to avoid coming to wrong conclusions.

Naavi

Reference Articles

BBC.com :: MSNBC :: Diginomica.com

Old article at Naavi.org on Newsbooster.com

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing-Wikipedia

Theory of Data

The Journey to the development of a New “Theory of Data” begins

Theory of Data and Definition Hypothesis

Reversible Life Cycle hypothesis of the Theory of Data

Additive Value hypothesis of ownership of data

I recall the 2017 article on this website “Beware of the Cyber Stone pelters” and ” GDPR should not be a license for “Masked Cyber Stone Pelters” to disturb global peace” on the need to regulate irresponsible content which may be used for illegal activities, carrying out cyber crimes and anti national propaganda. The concerns expressed in these articles became a reality when Twitter as a platform hosted anti-India propaganda on its platform under different twitter handles such as Rihanna or  Greta Thunberg.

Over the last one week, Naavi.org has been pointing out that a more stable solution to Twitter problem has to be found through Information Technology Act. Naavi.org had also directly taken up with the MeitY the case of “The-file.in” which was a typical case of a website which hides its identity through the misconceived “Privacy Protect” facility in domain name registration and also does not provide any information on the website about its contact details and proceeds to post defamatory and other objectionable content.

For argument sake, we could have seen the Greta Toolkit being published on one such website with domain name registered with Privacy Protect and using a pseudonymous e-mail ID from proton mail account. The Government would have not been able to identify who posted the tool kit but it would be available on the web and even if the Government blocks the URL, access may still be available through proxy websites.

We can leave the Government aside because Government has more power to move the Interpol if required particularly when terrorism or sedition is involved. But think of an ordinary individual who may be defamed by a shoot and scoot strategy by political opponents publishing fake articles. How can he take steps to get the defamatory content removed?

As has been explained in the previous article on GoDaddy, the domain name registrars provide active assistance to the “Cyber Stone pelters” by hiding the identity of “Content Crime Perpetrators” by quoting “Privacy Laws”.  It is necessary to point out that first of all organizations like “Thefile.in” don’t have “Privacy” rights and further when the domain name owner does not provide correct contact details during registration or posts content which is in violation of any law the domain name contract with the registrar itself is violated and the registrar would be in contravention of the UDRP and ICANN guidelines.

Not providing any contact details on the website or giving false addresses is a prima facie indication that the content owner is hiding his identity which could be to avoid being legally questioned.

This point was highlighted in the e-mail letters sent during the last week to the Meity, the Secretary, the Minister etc.

It was therefore pleasing to note that today’s Hindustan Times Article suggests that Government has decided to take some steps on the lines suggested by making suitable provisions under ITA 2000.

The article has rightly pointed out the difficulty in invoking legal remedies through a Police Complaint or the Court order  and indicates that the Government may think of a “Alternative Dispute Resolution” mechanism probably on the ODR basis.

Quote:

It is a common practice for domain registrars to provide a facility called “Privacy Protect” where by the WhoIs information of a domain is hidden from the public view. Neither ICANN or some GDPR supervisory authorities have understood the proper concept of “Privacy” since in most cases, websites are owned by organizations and there is no “Privacy” involved. Even if some e-mail address is available, it is a “Business E Mail Address”.

The “Privacy” is a contention only in case of individual domain name owners  and even here it is judicially unacceptable that an individual would like to place his views in the public domain but wants to hide his identity.

Every person who places information in the public must own the consequences of such publication and allow any recipient of the information an opportunity to take legal action where required. Intermediaries like GoDaddy who hide the information or Google which hides the originating IP address from the recipient are actually abetting the information owner to send messages which may be defamatory or threatening or otherwise illegal to remain anonymous and escape legal liability.

I give below an example of a website www.the-file.in which calls itself a “media” website and its contact page gives its address as “Bengaluru”

When we checked with the domain name registrar namely GoDaddy, we got a reply that they would respond only to a “Subpoena”.

Such practices must be stopped forthwith since such anonymous postings can be used by persons like Greta Thunberg or Disha Ravi to spread hate messages besides other cases of defamation etc.

Naavi.org has therefore sent a request to the MeitY to come out with a “Mandatory Disclosure Guideline” for Intermediaries under section 79 of ITA 2000 which already mandates that the name and address of a “Grievance Officer” nee be disclosed  on the website but most websites ignore.

We need the Government to take suitable action to bring some order to the chaotic world of Internet if we want to avoid the use of Internet for spreading global chaos.

A Copy of the letter sent to the Ministry is available here:

Quote

To

The Honourable Minister of IT

Sub: Need to issue “Guidelines for mandatory Disclosure on Websites”

Dear Sir

We are aware of the phenomenon of “Fake Social Media Accounts” which are used for spreading fake messages either for political reasons or personal reasons. This issue is being addressed in the new Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)  by providing an option to the Social Media User to get himself verified. Though Twitter has a system of “Verification” it is noted that the system is not transparent and is biased. As and when the new PDPA comes into effect, there would be a possibility that “Social media intermediaries” will be mandated to introduce an acceptable system of user verification.

However, the PDPA provision is not going to apply to ordinary websites and it does not even apply to sending of e-mails in false names.

It is often considered that “Right to hide the identity” is a part of the “Privacy Right”. But this is not fully correct and is often misused to commit offences. Many organizations which donot have “Privacy” rights also quote “Privacy” to hide their real identity.

In view of this when an individual gets an e-mail from say gmail.com, neither the published name nor the IP address is reflecting the sender. If the recipient is unhappy with the message and considers it either as defamatory or threatening or committing any other offence, he will not be able to take any legal action against the sender.

In the messaging applications like WhatsApp the  identity of the user is the responsibility of the Admin who stands in the shoes of an “Intermediary”. In Gmail, Google is the intermediary and in the case of other websites, the hosting company or the domain registrant company are the intermediaries.

If the recipient of a message wants to initiate any legal action, he is now required to ideally file a case in a Court and request for an order to be issued on the intermediary. This is both expensive and time consuming. The other option is to file an FIR and request the Police to send a CrPc notice. This works only in case of criminal offences, and requires the police to agree to take action following the filing of a complaint. For various reasons we know that Police donot want to register and FIR and even when registered, do not take investigative action.

In such situations, the recipient has absolute right to know the sender’s details without any legal procedures. But at present getting such information requires either a registration of a complaint with the Police or filing of a case in the Court.

Most websites register their domain name under the “Privacy Protected” scheme where the registrar hides the WhoIs identity of the domain registrant. Under ITA 2000, websites are expected to provide the contact details of the “Grievance Officer”. Most responsible companies do give information on “About Us” but rarely provide proper physical address to which legal notices may be sent. Many times, Websites are created on the basis of “Brand Names” and the legal name of the organization is not revealed on the website at all.

For example, I am giving below a web page from  the website of a company which calls itself as a “Media Company” and maintains a website under the URL www.the-file.in. This is the “Contact”

Page where the address is given as “Bengaluru”. There is no other contact information on any of the pages but it publishes many articles which border on defamation of some Government officials.

I have tried to contact the “Registrar”, GoDaddy.com indicating that the contact information is required for pursuing our legal rights and got the  reply that they respond only on a subpoena.

(Full reply is enclosed in Annexure I)

The Godaddy website does not indicate the “Grievance Officer” and the e-mail address of the “contentcomplaints@godaddy” from which this reply was received, indicates that like Twitter, and WhatsApp,  Godaddy does not respect Indian laws and does not give an Indian grievance redressal option.

There is therefore an urgent need to initiate action to ensure that all Websites which are available to the Indian audience and particularly those who are directing their services to Indian population, and more so those who call themselves as “Media”, need to follow certain norms of disclosure so that any aggrieved person can initiate action to either get a content removed or to take action for defamation etc.

If this is not done some unscrupulous persons will resort to “shoot and scoot” tactic to harass people and also to create chaos and anarchy.

I therefore request the MeitY to issue a guideline that the instructions under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000, every “Intermediary” including websites shall provide real and correct name and address of the owner of the website and the owner of the content to enable “Accountability” for the content.

Where the intermediary is unable to identify the end content owner, the buck should stop with the intermediary who should bear the civil and criminal liabilities arising out of the publication.

These websites though they may call themselves as “Media” or “TV” are not run by professional journalists and are often run as “Yellow Journals” to extort money with the threat of defamation. They should ideally be run by accredited “Journalists” or “Registered News Vendors” who may be registered by the Ministry.

The suggestion is not meant for censorship of any content but to ensure that the right of an Indian to take legal recourse through the appropriate judicial forum is not frustrated by hiding the identity of the persons who post content as “news”.

This instruction can also be given under the State Police Act but it is better if the MeitY issues a proper guideline under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000.

In all such cases, I have been requesting the Police to include the intermediary as the first accused in the FIR so that they either provide the information for further action or own the responsibility themselves.  I request you to advise the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue necessary instructions to all the Cyber Crime Police Stations in India to take note of this.

I request you to kindly do the needful

Yours sincerely

Na.Vijayashankar

Unquote

(First Published on India Legal-Print magazine)

There is a virtual war being unleashed over Twitter. On February 4, the government sent it a list of 1,178 accounts that it wants removed or blocked. The centre alleged that these accounts were being run from Pakistan and were tweeting about the farmers’ protests. It said that if the executives of Twitter failed to do this, they could face imprisonment up to seven years.

Soon after, a Washington Post editorial described the Indian government as a “dictatorial” regime like Myanmar. This was followed by pop star Rihanna and green activist Greta Thunberg tweeting support for the farmers’ agitation. All this took Twitter propaganda to the level of an “Information War”.

Twitter refused to abide by the notice of the government under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA 2000). Earlier on January 31, the government had sent it a list of 257 tweets and accounts that it wanted blocked in India. Twitter initially complied, but later reinstated the accounts, stating that according to Twitter rules, the posts were protected under freedom of expression.

At the same time, Twitter decided to suspend the tweets of actress Kangana Ranaut as they were not in accordance with its standards. Twitter is now challenging the government and indicated that it has a legal right to overrule Indian law. This is similar to the behaviour of the East India Company which framed the rules of voluntary surrender of Indian rulers by imposing on them a condition that if they do not have a legal heir, they should accede the kingdom to it.

The ball is now in the court of the government. Will it respond meekly and surrender to Twitter or assert its right to establish its authority? And what is the legal status of Twitter in the context of the current controversy?

The entire row revolves around the claim that Twitter is a “media” and entitled to the right of freedom of press and has a duty to support freedom of expression. Simultaneously, it is a matter of debate whether Twitter is an “Intermediary” under ITA 2000 and entitled to protection under Section 79 of ITA 2000 or not.

Compared to a print publication, Twitter is like a newspaper which consists predominantly of “Letters to the Editor”, with advertisements in between. It, therefore, contains more views than news. To recognize a publication as news, there has to be more news than views. According to copyright laws, in fair use in reporting of a copyrighted work, the accepted norm is that the reproduction of the original should not exceed 10 percent. Similarly, according to the ethics of journalism, any publication in the category of a newspaper should predominantly have news which is a factual report of an occurrence of an event. Views should be incidental and advertising should be sparse. Twitter, therefore, does not pass this test as a news publication.

If a publication says that “there was a protest of 10,000 persons in Delhi opposing the recently passed farm laws on APMC regulation, MSP and Contractual Farming”, it is a news report. But if the publication says that hundreds of farmers died during a protest and that Narendra Modi is carrying out a genocide against them that is propaganda. If a person dies while trying to run over a barricade and a journalist claims that he was shot dead by the police, it is fake reporting meant to instigate further violence. Twitter is guilty of such fake reporting containing provocative statements. In such a scenario, the government has a duty to take action against the publication. The least that is expected in such a situation is blocking of individual tweets and fake accounts.

When the direction comes from a court, then Twitter has no option but to obey. When it comes from a government authority with relevant powers under the ITA 2000, it has to be implemented, but can be challenged in a court of law. Twitter does not have the right to overrule the notification of the government under the law. If this results in a violation of Section 69A of ITA 2000, then the company as well as its officers and CEO are liable to be charged with a criminal offence.

Further, since the provocative statements encourage commission of a cognisable offence and spreading hatred, the offence falls under the definition of “cyber terrorism” as per Section 66F of ITA 2000 and could be punishable with life imprisonment. As Greta Thunberg promoted a “toolkit” which talked of protests around the world over the farmers’ issue, it could be considered a conspiracy in which Twitter, by providing the platform, is also the co-accused.

It was clever of the public policy head of Twitter in India to have resigned to avoid any criminal action against her. But whether the resignation can prevent her from being charged for an offence that happened when she was in charge of the business is doubtful. As regards removal of content, Twitter is not a judicial authority to determine whether the notice issued by the government is in accordance with international laws of freedom of speech or human rights.

The Delhi High Court in Baba Ramdev vs Google, Twitter and Facebook had clearly stated that removal of disputed content is mandatory when there is a judicial order. In the case of an administrative order of a similar nature from an authorized body under law, the intermediary should either comply or challenge it in a court of law. In the meantime if the disputed content remains on the platform, the intermediary will be responsible for the consequences.

As Twitter is a global platform, the question that arises is whether a publication that has been objected to has to be removed only for the Indian audience or for the global one too. This question was answered in the above Delhi High Court judgment where it was held that if the objectionable data has been uploaded from India, it has to be removed globally, but if it is posted from abroad, it has to be blocked from Indian viewers.

Further, it must be noted that “content regulation” is inherently in conflict with the concept of an intermediary. As long as the content publisher retains the power to choose what to publish and what not to, he is not an intermediary. Hence, there is no protection under Section 79 of ITA 2000 even if he has practised due diligence.

Therefore, Twitter has to directly face the charge of contravention of Section 69A and Section 66F as if the offence was committed by it directly in conspiracy with others. By deciding to block Kangana Ranaut but publish Greta Thunberg and Rihanna, Twitter has shown a positive intent in taking sides in the farmers’ agitation.

There is also a demonstrated lack of good faith. The government, therefore, has a strong case for blocking Twitter from India and taking criminal action as and when necessary. By not appointing a grievance officer as required under ITA 2000, Twitter is already in contravention of the law for which action can be initiated.

Twitter’s country representative who resigned when the offence occurred remains liable unless she is able to convince a court that she did due diligence to prevent the offence which was perhaps overruled by the company.

If the government fails to take strong action against Twitter, then any internet-based law, including the forthcoming Personal Data Protection Act, will be rendered ineffective. Plus, the government will be considered weak. The legal battle ahead will be interesting as it will lay down the principles of how international media companies waging an information war against a sovereign government can be disciplined by the judiciary.

—The writer is a cyber law and techno-legal information security consultant based in Bengaluru

In recent days we have been discussing the Social Media Platforms like Twitter and how the platform is supporting ideologically biased views. These platforms are normally referred to as “Social Media”. By the use of the term “Media” these platforms get a perceived right to claim “Freedom of Press” as an excuse in reporting “Views” as “News”. Internet gave an excellent opportunity for creating “Crowd Sourced News” through blogs and micro blogging platforms like Twitter and the respect that the tag of “Social Media” carried is in danger of being permanently eroded.

In the recent blog response of Twitter it claimed that it is committed to enforce “Judiciously” and “Impartially” enforced action on content as per their policy. It says it took steps to remove many tweets as per the Government order but it is noticed that they did not remove all. They recorded their judgement on a few requests and deviated from the Government order. Additionally the owner of Twitter posted his own “Likes” to some of the controversial posts taking sides in the controversy. He has now followed up with the opening of another front on “Crypto Currencies” to fight against the Indian Government thereby indicating clearly the stand of Twitter as a media.

It is surprising that many of these agencies are not able to distinguish their roles as “A platform for use by registered users” and a “Publication” which needs some clarification.

Let us take an example.

If Times of India has a website and posts the reports filed by their reporters, then it is a media activity. Such reports are filed by accredited reporters and filtered by an editorial team as per the journalistic principles.

But when a twitter user posts his views on the micro blogging platform, he takes on the role of a reporter, editor and publisher. Twitter should be only a “Technical Platform” on which the publishing takes place.

If Twitter wants to take on the role of a publisher then every one of the users who are allowed to post are like accredited news reporters on behalf of Twitter the publishing agency. Such an agency may have a claim to be called as a “Publication” and as long as they take responsibility for content, it is their choice to be a publisher.

If there is any accreditation system in law similar to registration of print journals and news papers, then the publication has to adhere to it. Since there is no such requirement now, Twitter is not registered as a News Publication.

The law of Internet provides a special status to such platforms as “Intermediaries” and gives them protection from liability if any offences are committed by the platform users under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000 as amended in 2008 (ITA 2000/8). However to invoke the protection under this section, an Internet service should be neutral to the posts and should not take a decision on the content whether it represents “Freedom of Speech” or not. When a judicial authority asks any content to be removed, the order should be complied with immediately. If a take down request is received from any other law enforcement authority, it should be checked if it is issued in accordance with the law (Section 69A of ITA 2000/8) and if so should be honoured without demur.

In other instances where the take down request is received directly from the affected person, then the platform needs to take a view based on an assessment of…

a) By refusing the request, am I adversely affecting the alleged victim?

b) By accepting the request, am I adversely affecting the freedom of expression of the person posting the information?

In taking this decision, the platform should make reference to either the Court or any other legal authority except when it is found necessary to take a temporary emergent view. Naavi.org considered this kind of a situation way back in the year 2000 and the recommendation is contained in the article titled “How to Counter Rogue Sites”

Though this was written in the context of sites like dalitstan.org, (at a time when Twitter did not exist) the principle is relevant now when Twitter becomes the “Rogue Platform”. The recommendation was to flag the objected content until a direction can be received from a Court. Probably such a direction can also be sought from the MHA/MeitY which has the powers under sections 69,69A or 69B or 70B to issue instructions to regulate such content.

YouTube turning Rogue?

At this point of time we need to also look at the policies of Youtube.com which allows some videos to be hosted and some removed and the logic similar to what is applied for Twitter should apply here also.

In the recent days, Naavi.org had pointed out one occasion when the Youtube channel of Praveen Mohan was blocked though he was putting up well researched non political articles on Temple architecture and completely apolitical.

Very recently YouTube removed a video of “String” because of a post which opposed George Soros.

In this context the role of YouTube whether it is an intermediary or a content owning and publishing platform comes up for debate.

Just as the starting of Twitter as a micro blogging site to provide a “Voice” to the ordinary internet users and make them “Citizen Journalists” were mis-used, there is a danger of the YouTube platform also being misused.

The Youtube gives a wonderful service where by individuals can consistently post content and develop a channel on which advertisements can be taken and a revenue model can be built up. You Tube has some policy by which advertising is permitted only after a threshold level of activity is reached by the Channel. This requires a certain minimum number of “Followers” and “Views”.

Since this is a number game many “Youtubers” are emerging with Tiktok type content which attracts certain class of audience for specific interests which need not always be good to the society.

The debate of what is “Freedom of Speech” and what is not will therefore be relevant in this context also.

While observing this new phenomenon of “YouTubers” is is found that a few unscrupulous publishers are creeping into Youtube channels posting content which is defamatory and threatening to certain well known persons in the physical society and to score personal scores.

At the same time there are many responsible journalists who are fed up of the commercialization and politicization of the traditional media and want to pursue genuine principles of journalism.

We did a brief study of some Kannada Channels on You Tube and the findings were interesting.

While channels like Vijaytimes exist and pursue journalistic principles , there are also certain you tube channels which donot follow any journalistic principles. These channels some of whom call themselves “TV” have neither the experience as journalists nor the ethics related to fair reporting. They are the “Yellow Journals” of the digital world.

In one of the recent instances, we came across a channel titled “Garuda TV” which gave an impression that it is a “TV channel” when some videos from the channel were circulated in WhatsApp. Similarly there was a channel called “Gardi Gammat” which also posts videos. We donot know the original objective of such channels. There are some reports in these channels which may be news worthy also. But some of the reports relate to defamation and contains threats which indicate a tendency to post content for ulterior purposes whether by design or ignorance.

Some of the presenters in these channels donot seem to know the real principles of journalism and try to narrate incidents as if the incidents occurred in front of their eyes and they were eye witnesses. Some  go to the extent of importing visuals from the Internet and mix it up with the narration providing a completely misleading viewer experience. This style of narration is unprofessional.

It is hightime that these so called “Channels” realize that news reporting is not “Story weaving” and even what is called as “Investigative Journalism” is to be backed by real “Investigation” and cannot be based on heresay.

It is high time that we flag such unprofessional channels so that the tendency to misuse free Internet through motivated articles and videos in the guise of news reports is nipped in the bud.

Naavi.org is therefore proposing to the MeitY that just as under Section 79 of ITA 2000, it has issued notifications for Cyber Cafes and Matrimonial websites, it should issue guidelines on websites which project themselves as “Media” or “TV” either through websites or blogs or through video hosting platforms.

There is no reason to curb the free publishing activity even by these channels but the way the activity is promoted. As long as a person posts his views under his correct identity, whether he is criticizing or supporting the Government it is fine. But when the identity of the entity is not properly displayed, contact information is faulty or fake names are used for news credits, then there is a need for regulations to intervene.

In the now proposed Personal Data Protection Act (PDPB 2019) there is  a provision to recognize a category of publishers called “Social Media Intermediaries” which will certainly apply to Twitter WhatsApp, Face Book and Youtube. These intermediaries are required to provide a mandatory option to “Verify” the members so that fake postings may be segregated from unverified reports. Even today ethical journals do use the term “Received from Unverified sources” when publishing information which could be controversial but cannot wait confirmation of counter views. At the same time such journalists take the earliest opportunity to get counter views and publish it along with the original views when issues like defamation etc are involved.

It is possible that if PDPB 2019 defines the “Social Media Intermediaries” on the basis of size of followers or members alone, the small entities mentioned above will escape regulation. Hence the Data Protection Authority needs to keep the principle of what is a “Social Media” and what is an “Intermediary” and design an appropriate operative definition of a “Social Media Intermediary” in the regulations that will be introduced later.

The Press council of India has released some norms  of  Journalistic Conduct  in it’s 2010 edition. This mentions  Principles and Ethics few of them are listed as below.

1. 1. Accuracy and Fairness – It is defined Press shall not publish inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material.
   2. Pre-Publication Verification – It is defined on receipt of a report or article which is of public interest the editor should check with due care and attention of its facts and accuracy of the information
   3. Investigative journalism, its norms and parameters – Basic elements here are – It has to be work of the reporter, his story on the facts being investigated, detected and verified by him and not hearsay or on derivate evidence collected by a third party, not checked up from direct, authentic sources by the reporter himself.
   4. They should resist temptation from half-baked incomplete, doubtful facts, not fully checked up and verified from authentic sources by the reporter himself. Facts are vital they should be checked and cross-checked whenever possible.
   5. Trial by Media – Media is not expected to conduct it’s own parallel trial.
   6. Norms of Photo Journalism – Images should be accurate, All subjects should be treated with RESPECT and DIGNITY.

These and more such ethical guidelines need to be brought into the “Social Media Guidelines” under ITA 2000 even before the PDPB 2019 becomes a law. Additionally many websites or channels donot follow the requirements of the current Section 79 which also need to be monitored and compliance ensured,

Since some of the suggestions made above relate to Karnataka, we urge Karnataka Government to take up proactive steps to introduce such norms applicable within the jurisdiction of Karnataka which can be also suggested for implementation across the country.

At the same time I also urge genuine journalists who want to be on You Tube channels to to ensure that a few bad journalists donot spoil the reputation of Internet journalists in general and ensure that some self regulation can be implemented.

Naavi.org had suggested such self regulation at least a decade and half back but it did not materialize. Perhaps time has come now  and responsible online journalists of Karnataka come together to form a “Society of Ethical Online Journalists”  who will streer clear of the financial allurement of George Soros or committed  Political ideologies and re-establish the respect which is due to Journalism as the fourth pillar of democracy.

(Comments are invited)

Naavi

Twitter has been in the forefront of the Information war against India in the recent days. It is now clear that this is not just a “freedom of speech issue” for Twitter. It wants to take its fight further to help the terrorists who consider Crypto Currencies as their birthright and are opposed to the proposed legislation on banning of crypto currencies in India.

Naavi.org had flagged the possible use of Bitcoins in financing the farm law agitation which had already been corroborated with the involvement of Canada in financing of the agitations. Now it is clear that Twitter is also a sponsor of the “Currency of Criminals”.

A rep0rt today in inc42.com 

indicates that even as the Indian Government is planning to ban all cryptocurrencies in India, Twitter CEO and Co founder Jack Dorsey and American Singer-songwriter Jay-Z have set up a Bitcoin Trust to fund Bitcoin development in India and Africa.

This is another warfront for Mr Modi to handle and has links to the demonetization and subsequent conversion of black money in India to Bitcoins by many tax evaders including political parties.

The need for banning Bitcoins and other crypto currencies is stronger than ever and the Government needs to take quick action before the Modi opponents re-group under different fronts.

Bitcoin was one of the reasons for the failure of the demonetization and this cannot be allowed to flourish irrespective of whether Elon Musk supports it or there is opposition from political parties in India or even if some foreign Governments support it.

Naavi