Tech
Breaking News:
Govt backs down, asks ISPs to block only child porn
Within 4 days of banning 857 websites deemed to be pornographic, govt reversed the order on Tuesday, making an exception only for websites engaged in child pornography.
RELATED
NEW DELHI: Within four days of banning 857 websites deemed to be pornographic and having been accused of moral policing for it, the government reversed the order on Tuesday, making an exception only for websites engaged in child pornography.
It, however, passed the responsibility of identifying and blocking child porn sites to internet service providers. In turn, the service providers protested, saying that they didn't have the wherewithal to identify child porn sites. Nor was it fair to hold them responsible if some site surreptitiously purveyed child porn, they said.
The government has been feeling the heat for the past few days for being viewed as control freaks with an objectionable streak of moral policing. On Tuesday, IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad called a meeting to review the apparently knee-jerk decision to ban 857 sites that were listed by a petitioner who had gone to the Supreme Court against pornographic websites.
READ ALSO: 'Why erect a barrier that is too porous to work?'
It was left to the bureaucrats to implement the embarrassing turnaround of the government. A letter from the Department of electronics and Information Technology group coordinator B J Srinath sent to S K Arya, director in the Department of Telecommunications, on Tuesday said, "In continuation of our letter of even number dated July 30, department of telecom (DoT) is hereby requested to communicate to all the intermediaries (SIPs) that the intermediaries are hereby directed that they are free not to disable any of the 857 URLs, as given in the list, which do not have child pornographic content."
The lifting of the ban, while welcomed by proponents of freedom of speech, however, was lambasted by the Internet Service Providers Association of India. "How can the government put the responsibility on us to see whether a website carries child pornography or not?" Rajesh Chharia, president of the association, told TOI. "Why should an Internet service provider by punished if a website suddenly transmits child pornography?"
READ ALSO: 'Irrational' decision draws flak from civil society
Shriller questions about whether the government had any business controlling what people saw in the privacy of their homes had been raised since July 30, when the government had sent ISPs, or intermediaries, a list of what it considered to be offending websites and asked them to block them.
An embattled telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad refuted the charge of "Talibanisation" on Monday. Describing the ban order as "an interim measure", he said, "Our government supports a free media, respects communication on social media and has respected freedom of communication at all times. My government is committed towards freedom on social media and communication on the Internet."
However, an unsure government, facing the risk of being seen as a control-freak regime following similar actions, like the ban on beef in Maharashtra, was forced to review the decision on Tuesday. Prasad met high-level officials, among them IT secretary R S Sharma and additional solicitor general Pinky Anand, and told them that it was not the intention of the government to curb Internet freedom. Therefore, it did not want to block any website other than than those carrying child pornography.
READ ALSO: Not just about porn, it's about govt acting responsibly in applying laws
The government may be meaning only to address the concern expressed in the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation over the issue of pornography, especially featuring children. However, the ham-handed manner in which it sought to blank out the websites, among which were listed several innocuous portals, left many fuming.
Officials in the telecom and IT ministry themselves resented being made "a scapegoat in the whole affair" as the recommendation on the gag order had been made by the home ministry which was under pressure from the Supreme Court on action against child pornography.
READ ALSO: 'Crimes against women have little to do with porn'
The government's proposal to have an ombudsman for monitoring online content - dubbed as "net nanny" by many - too was severely criticised.
While it may have unblocked the sites, the government is clearly not sure of the direction it should take on the matter. Sources say the government realises it is faced with a difficult task of juggling the competing objectives of Internet freedom, curbs on child porn and criminality at a time when technological advances had rendered traditional insights ineffective.
It isn't surprising then that ministry sources say that the government wants the Supreme Court to play a more pro-active role on the issue so that a consensus can be reached. "The court should involve child rights activists, NGOs, resident-welfare associations, civil society and the government in order to get a clearer view," said a source.
It, however, passed the responsibility of identifying and blocking child porn sites to internet service providers. In turn, the service providers protested, saying that they didn't have the wherewithal to identify child porn sites. Nor was it fair to hold them responsible if some site surreptitiously purveyed child porn, they said.
The government has been feeling the heat for the past few days for being viewed as control freaks with an objectionable streak of moral policing. On Tuesday, IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad called a meeting to review the apparently knee-jerk decision to ban 857 sites that were listed by a petitioner who had gone to the Supreme Court against pornographic websites.
READ ALSO: 'Why erect a barrier that is too porous to work?'
It was left to the bureaucrats to implement the embarrassing turnaround of the government. A letter from the Department of electronics and Information Technology group coordinator B J Srinath sent to S K Arya, director in the Department of Telecommunications, on Tuesday said, "In continuation of our letter of even number dated July 30, department of telecom (DoT) is hereby requested to communicate to all the intermediaries (SIPs) that the intermediaries are hereby directed that they are free not to disable any of the 857 URLs, as given in the list, which do not have child pornographic content."
The lifting of the ban, while welcomed by proponents of freedom of speech, however, was lambasted by the Internet Service Providers Association of India. "How can the government put the responsibility on us to see whether a website carries child pornography or not?" Rajesh Chharia, president of the association, told TOI. "Why should an Internet service provider by punished if a website suddenly transmits child pornography?"
READ ALSO: 'Irrational' decision draws flak from civil society
Shriller questions about whether the government had any business controlling what people saw in the privacy of their homes had been raised since July 30, when the government had sent ISPs, or intermediaries, a list of what it considered to be offending websites and asked them to block them.
An embattled telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad refuted the charge of "Talibanisation" on Monday. Describing the ban order as "an interim measure", he said, "Our government supports a free media, respects communication on social media and has respected freedom of communication at all times. My government is committed towards freedom on social media and communication on the Internet."
However, an unsure government, facing the risk of being seen as a control-freak regime following similar actions, like the ban on beef in Maharashtra, was forced to review the decision on Tuesday. Prasad met high-level officials, among them IT secretary R S Sharma and additional solicitor general Pinky Anand, and told them that it was not the intention of the government to curb Internet freedom. Therefore, it did not want to block any website other than than those carrying child pornography.
READ ALSO: Not just about porn, it's about govt acting responsibly in applying laws
The government may be meaning only to address the concern expressed in the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation over the issue of pornography, especially featuring children. However, the ham-handed manner in which it sought to blank out the websites, among which were listed several innocuous portals, left many fuming.
Officials in the telecom and IT ministry themselves resented being made "a scapegoat in the whole affair" as the recommendation on the gag order had been made by the home ministry which was under pressure from the Supreme Court on action against child pornography.
READ ALSO: 'Crimes against women have little to do with porn'
The government's proposal to have an ombudsman for monitoring online content - dubbed as "net nanny" by many - too was severely criticised.
While it may have unblocked the sites, the government is clearly not sure of the direction it should take on the matter. Sources say the government realises it is faced with a difficult task of juggling the competing objectives of Internet freedom, curbs on child porn and criminality at a time when technological advances had rendered traditional insights ineffective.
It isn't surprising then that ministry sources say that the government wants the Supreme Court to play a more pro-active role on the issue so that a consensus can be reached. "The court should involve child rights activists, NGOs, resident-welfare associations, civil society and the government in order to get a clearer view," said a source.
FROM AROUND THE WEB
MORE FROM THE TIMES OF INDIA
Recommended By Colombia
From around the web
More from The Times of India
Recommended By Colombia
ALSO ON TOI
Recent Messages (87)
This move should have included getting rid of all the underworld linked animal and child porn distributors from all major cities like Delhi and Mumbai who are freely selling this filth on the streets and is one of the reasons why some children become victims of paedophiles.
Paedophiles should be chemically castrated and put on a paedop ... Read More