|
| Tweetering state | | Should democratic governments control social networking? |
| Business Standard / New Delhi Aug 15, 2011, 00:09 IST |
|
Everyone expects a China, even an Iran and an Egypt, to censor the Internet, ban posts on social networking sites, block websites in their entirety, and attempt other such anti-democratic acts. But when countries like India (the world’s largest democracy), the United States (most powerful democracy) and Britain (oldest democracy) start exploring ways to censor the Internet and monitor online posts by users, it’s time to sit up and think. Last week, the Indian government announced its intent to monitor conversations on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook for “security” reasons, and British Prime Minister David Cameron highlighted concern over the use of social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter by anti-social rioters. Mr Cameron said he would explore “whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”.
Internet censorship is a rising trend, with approximately 40 countries filtering the Web in varying degrees, including democratic and non-democratic governments. YouTube and Gmail (both from Google), BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (RIM), WikiLeaks, Twitter and Facebook have all been censored at various times in countries like China, Iran, Egypt and even India. For instance, the Indian Telegraph Act, the Information Technology (IT) Act 2008 (amendments were introduced in the IT Act 2000) and the rules notified under the this Act on April 11 this year give the government the power to monitor, intercept and even block online conversations and websites.
Cyberspace has no borders and governments have a tough time applying local laws to online companies, especially if the data reside on servers outside the country. Social networking sites, with over one billion users, have only added to the woes of governments. Twitter says it will not release user information unless it receives a “subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process document”. Facebook has a similar policy; Google’s no different, though it has been co-operating with the Indian government in cases where India’s security comes into question.
Governments, on their part, have the right to monitor conversations and websites if they truly believe the content can harm the security, defence, sovereignty and integrity of the country. But their helplessness in tracking criminals on an unstructured Internet should not result in a witch-hunt for all online users. Besides, are bureaucrats capable of understanding colloquial usage and the new lingo of the Internet to decipher whether a phrase is a security hazard or simple sarcasm? There are many such nuances on the Net. Besides, how many cybercriminals or terrorists have governments nailed through online monitoring?
Ironically, the Indian government is planning to introduce a right to privacy Bill which will penalise monitoring without due authorisation. The government will have to juggle monitoring with privacy concerns, giving rise to many legal suits over interpretation of the laws. New-age tools will always be enlightening yet disruptive. Blanket surveillance will only prove counterproductive and make Internet users adopt “anonymiser” tools. It is no longer possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
