IT Act in need of malware protection
- There are legitimate reasons to have bank account outside, we're part of #PanamaPapers probe team: Rajan
- #PanamaPapersIndia Part 2: Politician, industrialist, jeweller
- Trailing 6 firms, Delhi hit Mossack Fonseca wall
- Hand over Panama Papers to SC, Congress urges government
- The Parade of the blacklisted: Funding Syria’s war and bloodshed
Curtailing free speech can boomerang in double quick time in the digital age
The alacrity with which the enforcers of law are able to put ordinary netizens behind bars for slighting the egos of politicians with their harmless comments has raised the ire of the Supreme Court, also reveals the government's utter incompetence in dealing with a powerful and open medium like the internet.
A vaguely worded sentence in the Information Technology Act under Section 66A, which criminalises any comments made online or electronically causing annoyance or inconvenience, has come under very heavy criticism, forcing the government to tweak this regulation by stating that only a high ranking police officer or government official will be allowed enforce this law. Section 66A was just another innocuous clause under the IT Act but its draconian impact was seen following the immediate arrest by the Maharashtra police citing this law of two young women for posting certain online comments on Mumbai shutting down after the death of the Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray.
The powers that be should realise that internet as a medium is here to stay for a very long time and would benefit a larger section of the society from the time one embraces it wholeheartedly rather than trying to curb its influence. Given the demographics of the country, with majority of the population below the age of 27, internet has become the most preferred medium for this class of people in expressing their thoughts and communication. This anger among younger population is also amply reflected in the public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court against Section 66 of the IT Act by 21-year-old Shreya Singhal.
Responding to the notices issued by the Supreme Court, Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati admitted that the arrests were wrong but said Section 66 (A) of the IT Act need not be scrapped.
- VP Ansari's remarks on protecting minority rights have been made before. But they bear repeating
- Family planning is at the core of the mission to reduce maternal and child mortality
- Latehar hangings took place in a context — of a politics that stokes insecurity, trades on fear
- PM Modi is stepping up political and security engagement with the Gulf
- There’s little to choose between the Trinamool and the Left in West Bengal
- Simultaneous elections to panchayat, assembly and Lok Sabha may be desirable, not feasible