UN Special Rapporteurs say India's IT rules do not conform with international human rights

Experts from the United Nations said that India’s new IT rules do not conform with international human rights norms.

UN Special Rapporteurs say India's IT rules do not conform with international human rights

---

• The story: Experts from the United Nations said that India’s new IT rules do not conform with international human rights norms. Three special rapporteurs from the UN expressed “serious concerns" with certain parts of the legislation, and said that “due diligence obligations" placed on intermediaries may lead to "infringement of a wide range of human rights".
• Details: The communication is available on the UN’s website. It was written by Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Clement Nyaletsossi Voule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

1. They say that terms such as "racially or ethnically objectionable", "harmful to child", "impersonates another person", threatens the unity...of India", "is patently false and untrue", "is written or published with the intent to mislead or harass a person…" are too broad and "lack sufficiently clear definitions", which may lead to "arbitrary application".
2. The letter says that India’s new IT Rules are in violation of rules laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a key international human rights treaty.
3. Pursuant to Article 19 (3) of the ICCPR, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be ‘expressly prescribed by law’ and necessary ‘for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ or for ‘the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals’".

• Why pressurise the companies: They expressed serious concern about obligations on companies to monitor and rapidly remove user-generated content, which is likely to undermine the right to freedom of expression. The intermediaries will over-comply with takedown requests to limit their liability, or will develop digital recognition-based content removal systems or automated tools to restrict content. These techniques may not accurately evaluate cultural contexts and identify illegitimate context.
• Encryption: The letter expresses support for encryption, a technology that has been a major bone of contention between Facebook-owned WhatsApp and the Indian government. WhatsApp sued the Indian government in May over the new IT rules, alleging that they undermine the users’ right to privacy. Encryption is an ‘effective technical safeguard’ that can contribute to the protection of the right to privacy. It is privacy by design.
• What government said: In response to the letter, the Indian government told the UN that the IT rules are "designed to empower ordinary users of social media" and that the government had held broad consultations with civil society and other stakeholders in 2018. It said that the "traceability of first originator" seeks "only limited information". Only when a message already in public circulation is giving rise to violence, impinging on the unity and integrity of India, depicting a woman in a bad light, or sexual abuse of a child and when no other intrusive options are working, only then the significant social media intermediary will be required to disclose as to who started the message."
• Summary: The traceability rule is the central conflict between encrypted platforms like WhatsApp, and the Indian government. The platforms, which use end-to-end encryption technology to ensure user privacy, have argued that they will have to read, track and trace all user messages in order to trace the first originator of the texts that are offensive.

 

Join PT courses | PT Youtube | PT App | Contribute |  Testimonials