Telecom News: New Delhi: Friday,
31 July 2020.
Internet
Freedom Foundation (IFF), a digital advocacy firm, has questioned the
government's decision to block 59 apps and noted that any opaqueness in
blocking rules impacts the digital rights of citizens. The firm filed a Right to
Information (RTI) seeking reasons behind the ban but was informed that
information is "restricted" and "prohibited".
Internet
Freedom Foundation (IFF), a digital advocacy firm, has questioned the
government's decision to block 59 apps and noted that any opaqueness in
blocking rules impacts the digital rights of citizens. The firm filed a Right to
Information (RTI) seeking reasons behind the ban but was informed that information
is "restricted" and "prohibited".
"Such
secrecy and opacity in the Blocking Rules are a systemic issue and affects the
digital rights of every citizen. We need the govt to cease such opaque blocking
and introduce regulatory reforms to increase the transparency and
accountability of the govt authorities involved," said the advisory body
on its Twitter handle.
The
government in its response, detailed out the various authorities that looked
into the banning of the apps but did not divulge details of the grounds on
which the apps were barred.
"...clause
16 of Information Technology procedure and safeguards for blocking for access
of information by public rules 2009 says that strict confidentiality shall be
maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken
thereof. The information sought by the applicant is restricted and prohibited
under section, 8 (1)(a)of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it is not permissible
for this CPIO to disclose the same," the government said in its response.
The
comments come on the back of an RTI filed by IFF demanding an explanation on
why 59 apps were blocked and if Section 69A, IT Act and Blocking Rules 2009,
were applied. The group had earlier questioned reports of blocking of popular
search site DuckDuckGo as well, which was later allowed. IFF also questioned if
objective assessments were carried out before the sites were blocked on grounds
of privacy concerns.
The
government last week also banned 47 variants, or clones, of the 59 Chinese
mobile applications that it had banned last month, including Helo Lite, Bigo
Lite, CamScanner Advanced, among others. The 59 Chinese apps were banned,
citing threats to the country’s “sovereignty and security”. The apps included
social media apps TikTok, WeChat and Helo, along with file sharing app ShareIT,
UC Browser and shopping app Club Factory.
The
barring of the apps come on the backdrop of security concerns regarding apps
which are of Chinese origin. Some bans were also related to data sharing and
privacy concerns. The government had evoked emergency powers under the
Information Technology Act, 2000 to ban these apps, including provisions under
Section 66A of the law. The government has since sent a long questionnaire to
these companies giving them three weeks’ notice to respond. The deadline is
expiring this week.
.JPG)
.JPG)
