Today's Headlines - 20 July 2023
IEEE finally brings Li-Fi
GS Paper - 3 (ICT)
Dr. Harald Haas (Professor of Mobile Communications at the University of Edinburgh) touted as the father of Li-Fi (Light Fidelity) was the first to coin this term in 2011. It is capable of delivering almost 100X times faster internet speed compared to the current crop of Wi-Fi routers. After two decades, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has formally announced the 'IEEE 802.11bb’ Light Communication Global standard.
About Li-Fi
Li-Fi works on optical wireless communications (OWC) technology. Unlike Wi-Fi routers, which use Radio Frequencies to transmit data, Li-Fi devices (with light-emitting diodes: LEDs) will deliver data through light or infrared light.
Li-Fi devices will be able to deliver internet speed close to 224 Gb per second. With such speed, users can download close to 20 high-resolution movies in a second.
However, the hardware capable of delivering such speed is yet to be developed. For now, with the IEEE 802.11bb standard specification, the speed is limited to 9.6Gbps.
For now, developers are working to optimise mixed use of Wi-Fi and Li-Fi at homes and offices.
It should be noted that Li-Fi has one disadvantage, it can't connect to devices in a different room separated by walls. Both the device and LED Li-Fi router has to be in the line of sight for internet support
It not only offers lightning-fast internet speed and also is said to be more reliable and safer compared to Wi-Fi and 5G cellular connectivity, as it is almost impossible to tap light from a far distance.
Besides connectivity with phones and computers, Li-Fi comes in handy in connecting with Internet-of-Things(IoT)-based smart home appliances for instant connection.
With the advancement in technology in the future, there is a possibility of companies coming up with multi-functional bulbs that support Li-Fi in every room of the office or the house for super-fast connectivity.
#upsc #news #IEEE #LiFi #drharaldhaas #internetspeed #wifirouters #institute #electrical #electronics #engineers #lightcommunication #global #technology #hardware #capable #multifunctional #bulbs
IEEE finally brings Li-Fi
GS Paper - 3 (ICT)
Dr. Harald Haas (Professor of Mobile Communications at the University of Edinburgh) touted as the father of Li-Fi (Light Fidelity) was the first to coin this term in 2011. It is capable of delivering almost 100X times faster internet speed compared to the current crop of Wi-Fi routers. After two decades, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has formally announced the 'IEEE 802.11bb’ Light Communication Global standard.
About Li-Fi
Li-Fi works on optical wireless communications (OWC) technology. Unlike Wi-Fi routers, which use Radio Frequencies to transmit data, Li-Fi devices (with light-emitting diodes: LEDs) will deliver data through light or infrared light.
Li-Fi devices will be able to deliver internet speed close to 224 Gb per second. With such speed, users can download close to 20 high-resolution movies in a second.
However, the hardware capable of delivering such speed is yet to be developed. For now, with the IEEE 802.11bb standard specification, the speed is limited to 9.6Gbps.
For now, developers are working to optimise mixed use of Wi-Fi and Li-Fi at homes and offices.
It should be noted that Li-Fi has one disadvantage, it can't connect to devices in a different room separated by walls. Both the device and LED Li-Fi router has to be in the line of sight for internet support
It not only offers lightning-fast internet speed and also is said to be more reliable and safer compared to Wi-Fi and 5G cellular connectivity, as it is almost impossible to tap light from a far distance.
Besides connectivity with phones and computers, Li-Fi comes in handy in connecting with Internet-of-Things(IoT)-based smart home appliances for instant connection.
With the advancement in technology in the future, there is a possibility of companies coming up with multi-functional bulbs that support Li-Fi in every room of the office or the house for super-fast connectivity.
#upsc #news #IEEE #LiFi #drharaldhaas #internetspeed #wifirouters #institute #electrical #electronics #engineers #lightcommunication #global #technology #hardware #capable #multifunctional #bulbs
Today's Headlines - 22 July 2023
Section 69 (A) on social media platforms
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
After a video of two Manipur women sparked outrage, the Centre has asked Twitter and other social media platforms to take down the video. The Centre has powers to issue content takedown orders to social media companies under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
What is Section 69 (A)?
Section 69 of the IT Act allows the government to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecom service providers, web hosting services, search engines, online marketplaces, etc.
The Section requires the information or content being blocked to be deemed a threat to India’s national security, sovereignty, or public order.
If the Centre or state government are satisfied that blocking the content is “necessary” and “expedient” on grounds of “sovereignty or integrity of India, defence 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, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct any agency “to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource,” the law says.
As per rules that govern these blocking orders, any request made by the government is sent to a review committee, which then issues these directions.
Blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) of the IT Act are typically confidential in nature.
What has the SC said on Section 69 (A)?
In a landmark 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which entailed punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services, etc.
The plea had also challenged Section 69A of the Information Technology Rules 2009, but the SC held this to be “constitutionally valid”.
It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2).
Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court noted.
How did the Karnataka HC rule on this?
Section 69A was again under legal scrutiny in July last year when Twitter approached the Karnataka HC against the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Alleging disproportionate use of power by officials, Twitter challenged the Ministry’s content-blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) after the IT Ministry wrote to the social media giant, asking it to comply with its orders or lose safe harbour protection.
In July this year, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC dismissed the plea, saying the Centre had the power to block tweets.
Justice Krishna D Dixit also ruled that the blocking powers of the Centre extend to not just single tweets but entire user accounts.
#upsc #news #section69 #socialmedia #manipur #technology #constitution #disproportionate #karnataka #alleging #ministry #electronics #polity #manipurwomen #information #content #sovereignty #integrity #monitor #landmark
Section 69 (A) on social media platforms
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
After a video of two Manipur women sparked outrage, the Centre has asked Twitter and other social media platforms to take down the video. The Centre has powers to issue content takedown orders to social media companies under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
What is Section 69 (A)?
Section 69 of the IT Act allows the government to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecom service providers, web hosting services, search engines, online marketplaces, etc.
The Section requires the information or content being blocked to be deemed a threat to India’s national security, sovereignty, or public order.
If the Centre or state government are satisfied that blocking the content is “necessary” and “expedient” on grounds of “sovereignty or integrity of India, defence 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, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct any agency “to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource,” the law says.
As per rules that govern these blocking orders, any request made by the government is sent to a review committee, which then issues these directions.
Blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) of the IT Act are typically confidential in nature.
What has the SC said on Section 69 (A)?
In a landmark 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which entailed punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services, etc.
The plea had also challenged Section 69A of the Information Technology Rules 2009, but the SC held this to be “constitutionally valid”.
It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2).
Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court noted.
How did the Karnataka HC rule on this?
Section 69A was again under legal scrutiny in July last year when Twitter approached the Karnataka HC against the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Alleging disproportionate use of power by officials, Twitter challenged the Ministry’s content-blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) after the IT Ministry wrote to the social media giant, asking it to comply with its orders or lose safe harbour protection.
In July this year, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC dismissed the plea, saying the Centre had the power to block tweets.
Justice Krishna D Dixit also ruled that the blocking powers of the Centre extend to not just single tweets but entire user accounts.
#upsc #news #section69 #socialmedia #manipur #technology #constitution #disproportionate #karnataka #alleging #ministry #electronics #polity #manipurwomen #information #content #sovereignty #integrity #monitor #landmark