Watch: Knowledge & Information; Expression & Writing; The Keys of Answer Writing | Dr Khan Vlog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmseqUOLceQ

Watch: Knowledge & Information; Expression & Writing; The Keys of Answer Writing | Dr Khan Vlog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmseqUOLceQ&list=PLCUwtp5IghZlajTykjW2IJ8YMe9Zeir99&index=19

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

Today's Headlines - 08 August 2023
Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 cleared
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

The Lok Sabha on 7 August 2023 passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, a first-ever legislation dedicated for digital privacy amid concerns of MPs regarding the removal of the data localisation mandate and increased government control.

More about the Bill

The Bill was passed with an amendment to a minor drafting error. Once the Bill comes into effect, all digital platforms will be required to obtain unconditional, free, specific, and informed consent from users for processing their data.
They will also need to issue a notice explaining the purpose of data processing and the rights of the users.
The government will appoint a data protection board, an independent body that will examine personal data breaches and impose penalties.
The latest version of the Bill does not mandate local storage of personal data, providing a major relief to big tech firms like Google, Meta, and Amazon.
The government may, however, notify a list of countries in future, where data cannot be transferred.
The Bill prescribes penalties of up to Rs 250 crore for each instance of a data breach arising from a lack of reasonable safeguards on platforms.
The government may block the operations of entities not complying with the law even after two instances of penalties. The draft Bill of the final version was released for public consultation in November 2022.
Models for data protection laws

The EU model:

The GDPR focuses on a comprehensive data protection law for the processing of personal data.
It has been criticised for being excessively stringent, and imposing many obligations on organisations processing data, but is the template for most of the legislation drafted around the world.
In the EU, the right to privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right that seeks to protect an individual’s dignity and her right over the data that she generates.

The US model:

Privacy protection is largely defined as a “liberty protection” — focused on the protection of the individual’s personal space from the government, and, therefore, is viewed as being somewhat narrow in focus by virtue of enabling the collection of personal information as long as the individual is informed of such collection and use. The US template has been viewed as inadequate in key respects of regulation.
Unlike the EU’s GDPR, there is no comprehensive set of privacy rights or principles that collectively address the use, collection and disclosure of data in the US. Instead, there is limited sector-specific regulation. The approach towards data protection in the US is different for the public and private sectors.

The China model:

New Chinese laws issued over the last 15 months on data privacy and security includes the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which came into effect in November 2021. It gives Chinese data principal’s new rights as it seeks to prevent the misuse of personal data.
The Data Security Law (DSL), which came into force in September 2021, requires business data to be categorised by different levels of importance and puts new restrictions on cross-border transfers.
These regulations will have a significant impact on how companies collect, store, use and transfer data, but are essentially focused on giving the government overreaching powers to both collect data and regulate private companies that collect and process information.

#upsc #news #headline #personaldata #protection #bill #polity #digital #EU #GDPR #personal #information #data #transfer #crossborder #business #collect #store #power #DSL #PIPL

Discover how Prathmesh Rajashrika( AIR-236) cleared the UPSC exam with his strategies. Tap on the link below 💫

https://youtu.be/PoeBBo5MkGQ?si=cM7TmspV-6bW0IAB