The short answer: Because we're equally bad if not worse when it comes to policing the web. I would argue 'worse', because we're hypocrites. At least the Chinese make no bones about being an authoritarian state. We on the other hand like to use fancy phrases like "freedom of speech & expression" and "civil liberties" but happily go and notify the 2008 amendments to the Information Technology Act (on October 27th 2009) without any sort of real public debate.
The particularly damning addition to the original IT Act 2000:
69 (1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.
FYI: from Article 21 of the Constitution:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
So while the Chinese had to try hard to hack into Gmail accounts of human rights activists, any Indian official can practically walk up to Google and order the company to hand private data over. No court order or magistrate nod needed - and even something as vague as "friendly relations with foreign states" can be reason enough. Rediff.com founder Ajit Balakrishnan has gone on the record in the past about requests for snooping on email. He got away earlier because a written request from the Home Secy of the state was needed. He won't with the new law ...
It's not a very well kept secret that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and even board member Ram Shriram avoided visiting India for a couple of years for fear of being detained because of a criminal case against them pertaining to content on blogspot.com, where Google was refusing to divulge information. A similar case against them last year was stayed but only after Google India resorted to some fairly creative arguments. International sites have started putting India on the list of "safe search" countries but the move has had little impact.
The amended IT Act is just the culmination of a decade of 'sarkari' fumbling in cyberspace. Here's a quick jog down memory lane of the best of this century:
2001: The tragi-comic case of India's 'first cyber crime' that was 'cracked' by the Mumbai cops. The lunacy of it all is best summed up in this Wired story. (A recounting of my personal experiences while covering the story is here.)
2002: Delhi Police arrests noted Kashmiri journalist Iftikar Gilani on charges of spying after finding "sensitive information" on his computer. The case falls apart after it is confirmed that the documents recovered from his computer were freely available on the Internet. They later book him for obscenity based on porn-spam mails in his inbox.
2003: Yahoo Groups gets blacked out in India because of one North-east e-group with mild separatist propoganda. BBC report here. I had a Jt. Secy in the Dept. of IT openly telling me on camera, that "If it's anti-national, we will ban it!"
2004: Baazee (now eBay India) CEO gets arrested by the same cops whom he offered to fully co-operate with, in a case of pornographic content being uploaded on the site. He later told me how they tricked him into coming to the police station on a Friday so that they could jail him over the weekend without a hearing till Monday.
2005: President APJ Abdul Kalam (followed by others including the National Security Adviser) wags a finger at Google Earth. While some claim it's a legit concern, I think that anyone seriously interested in planning an attack is not going to sit and look at 3-5 year old maps that are being sourced from freely available satellite imagery.
2006: The Government goes into overdrive on internet censorship and knocks off most of the blogosphere in the process of targeting 17 (at first random looking, but clearly politically motivated) sites and blogs.
2007: Cops pick up the wrong guy and keep him in custody for 50 days. Apparently the ISP (Airtel) mapped an incorrect physical address to the IP address that was posting anti-Shivaji content.
2008: The government suddenly decides that Blackberry services are illegal nearly 3 years after they've debuted in the country and a handful of operators are offering the service. The issue magically disappears after "meetings" with RIM representatives.
2009: While the Chinese are hacking away at our vital IT, the government decides that banning the Savita Bhabi comic strip is far more important, in the process giving it much wider publicity and readership than it ever had.
| Bookmark / Share | |
|
|
Google Bookmarks |
| Buzz up! | |
| StumbleUpon | |
| More | |

Networking
itimes | Dating & Chat | Email





Comments:
Sort by: Oldest | Newest | Recommended (6) | Most DiscussedJanuary 15,2010 at 04:57 AM IST
As dubious as the above incidents in India are, they still cannot compare to China's authoritarianism. Quite a lot of information that is negative or critical toward India, including the government can be found on the internet via Google, or other sources, including directly without resort to Google search.
Agree (16)
Disagree (10)
Recommend (12)
Offensive
(Reply to Varun Shekhar)-
JKS
says:
January 16,2010 at 11:10 PM IST
VARUN
U are right
The author should know that INDIA does not follow the kind of censorship laws and media control as the Chinese do. India IS A free liberal democracy where the information flow thr internet is smooth barring some rare obstructions
That is the differance between India AND China
They may have greater prosperity but they do not enjoy the kind of freedom that we have and enjoy
Agree (9)
Disagree (9)
Recommend (10)
Offensive
(Reply to Varun Shekhar)-
ASHISH ANUJ
says:
February 18,2010 at 05:00 PM IST
As dubious as the above incidents in India are, they still cannot compare to China's authoritarianism. Quite a lot of information that is negative or critical toward India, including the government can be found on the internet via Google, or other sources, including directly without resort to Google search.
Agree (7)
Disagree (7)
Recommend (7)
Offensive
January 15,2010 at 07:04 PM IST
The cencors that government imposed, you have mentioned, sound legitimate. This situation is still far better than China.
Just imagine, writing this article itself against Chinese state would have landed Mr. Tech-now in jail, or worse, have him sentenced for death injection...
Agree (12)
Disagree (9)
Recommend (11)
Offensive
January 16,2010 at 11:46 AM IST
Well said!
Agree (9)
Disagree (9)
Recommend (9)
Offensive
February 07,2010 at 12:23 AM IST
i want to inform the author of this article that I have too written many articles on my blog which criticise indian administration in very harsh terms. I have even asked some friends to read it.
My blog has never been blocked.
manu5402.spaces.live.com
Agree (8)
Disagree (8)
Recommend (8)
Offensive
February 10,2010 at 01:20 PM IST
That was a higly unlettered article. There is no comparison between India and China as far as freedom of speech goes.
The Indian Government is well within its rights to gain acess to information that feel can cause damage in any whatsoever to the fabric of the nation. This is a part of surveillence is there is probably no country in this world that does not do this.
However I do agree that the Freedom of Speech has not truely been understodd by the Indian polity as well as by the citizens in general. Examples are banning of books like Satanic verses and asking people not draw certain pictures because they offend a certain group.
There can't be any compromise on the issue of freedom of choice and saying what you wish to say through any legitimate means. I defend the freedom to speech and expression even if it means offending 1.3 billion people.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Recommend (0)
Offensive