- Prelims: 4G, 5G, Governance(Adhar, UIDAI, KYC,Bharatnet, CSCs, drones.
- Mains GS Paper II: Digital India, Important aspects of governance(e governance, accountability),
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
- The Ministry of Electronics and IT has been organizing consultations on the proposed “Digital India Bill” to build conceptual alignment on a new law that will replace the Information Technology (IT) Act.
INSIGHTS ON THE ISSUE
Context
Digital India:
- It is an umbrella program to prepare India for a knowledge-based transformation.
- It weaves together a large number of ideas and thoughts into a single comprehensive vision so that each of them is seen as part of a larger goal.
- It has been launched by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity).
Vision of Digital India:
- Digital infrastructure as Utility to Every Citizen
- Governance and services on demand
- Digital empowerment of citizens
Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000:
Goal of new bill:
- Upgrade the current legal regime to tackle emerging challenges such as user harm, competition and misinformation in the digital space.
- It is likely to redefine the contours of how technology is regulated, not just in India but also globally.
Changes proposed:
- Categorisation of digital intermediaries into distinct classes such as e-commerce players, social media companies, and search engines to place different responsibilities and liabilities on each kind.
The current IT Act:
- It defines an “intermediary” to include any entity between a user and the Internet
- IT Rules sub-classify intermediaries into three main categories:
- Social Media Intermediaries” (SMIs)
- Significant Social Media Intermediaries” (SSMIs)
- Online Gaming Intermediaries”.
- The rules lay down stringent obligations for most intermediaries, such as a 72-hour timeline for responding to law enforcement requests and resolving ‘content take down’ requests.
- ISPs, websites, e-commerce platforms, and cloud services are all treated similarly.
Issues:
- Platforms such as Microsoft Teams or customer management solutions such as Zoho: By virtue of being licensed, these intermediaries have a closed user base and present a lower risk of harm from information going viral.
- Treating intermediaries like conventional social media platforms not only adds to their cost of doing business.
- It exposes them to greater liability without meaningfully reducing risks presented by the Internet.
Global standing:
- The European Union’s Digital Services Act is probably one of the most developed frameworks for us to consider.
- It introduces some exemptions and creates three tiers of intermediaries — hosting services, online platforms and “very large online platforms”, with increasing legal obligations.
- Australia:
- It created an eight-fold classification system, with separate industry-drafted codes governing categories such as social media platforms and search engines.
- Intermediaries are required to conduct risk assessments, based on the potential for exposure to harmful content such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or terrorism.
Social Media Intermediaries(SMIs):
- SMIs are platforms that facilitate communication and sharing of information between users
- SMIs that have a very large user base (above a specified threshold) are designated as SSMIs.
- SMIs can encompass a variety of services such as video communications, matrimonial websites, email and even online comment sections on websites.
Focus areas for India:
- A granular, product-specific classification could improve accountability and safety online, such an approach may not be future-proof.
- We need a classification framework that creates a few defined categories, requires intermediaries to undertake risk assessments and uses that information to bucket them into relevant categories.
- The goal should also be to minimize obligations on intermediaries and ensure that regulatory tasks are proportionate to ability and size.
- Exempt micro and small enterprises, and caching and conduit services (the ‘pipes’ of the Internet) from any major obligations.
- Clearly distinguish communication services (where end-users interact with each other) from other forms of intermediaries (such as search engines and online-marketplaces).
- Given the lower risks, the obligations placed on intermediaries that are not communication services should be lesser.
- They could still be required to appoint a grievance officer, cooperate with law enforcement, identify advertising, and take down problematic content within reasonable timelines.
Way Forward
- Intermediaries that offer communication services could be asked to undertake risk assessments based on the number of their active users, risk of harm and potential for virality of harmful content.
- The largest communication services (platforms such as Twitter) could then be required to adhere to special obligations such as appointing India-based officers.
- Setting up in-house grievance appellate mechanisms with independent external stakeholders to increase confidence in the grievance process.
- Alternative approaches to curbing virality, such as circuit breakers to slow down content, could also be considered.
- For the proposed approach to be effective, metrics for risk assessment and appropriate thresholds would have to be defined and reviewed on a periodic basis in consultation with industry.
- Framework could help establish accountability and online safety, while reducing legal obligations for a large number of intermediaries.
- It could help create a regulatory environment that helps achieve the government’s policy goal of creating a safer Internet ecosystem, while also allowing businesses to thrive.
QUESTION FOR PRACTICE
What are the different elements of cyber security ? Keeping in view the challenges in cyber security, examine the extent to which India has successfully developed a comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy. (UPSC 2022) (200 WORDS, 10 MARKS)
