October 29, 2022 1:35 am
The government had first talked about constituting GACs in June but had said that if the industry came up with a self-regulating mechanism, then it was willing to consider that instead. However, the industry's initiative for a self-regulating mechanism failed due to lack of unanimity amongst all the players.
October 28, 2022 10:42 pm
While big tech companies had been advocating self-regulation, the government seems to have taken a view that users' concerns about content on social media platforms need to be addressed by a grievance appellate body.
July 30, 2022 11:31 am
These websites were blocked citing Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
July 20, 2022 4:30 pm
Mansi Kedia writes: This has resulted in a disproportionate policy focus on keeping Big Tech in check as against creating an enabling and trusted digital ecosystem in India. Participation of Indian MNCs could break the “us versus them” problem plaguing policy making in India today
June 07, 2022 1:24 am
Last week, the Ministry had issued a draft with the same proposal, but withdrew it within hours. At the time, a source at the ministry had said that the draft would be reissued with some changes following a formal announcement.
October 25, 2021 7:18 am
Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar says the IT rules are aimed at “keeping the Internet open” and explains why any law that governs the Internet has to take into account the “evolving jurisprudence” around cyberspace.
October 23, 2021 1:07 pm
The Government was responding to WhatsApp’s petition challenging the 2021 IT Rules’ requirement of enabling traceability of online messages.
September 22, 2021 10:37 am
According to government sources, the newly implemented Information Technology Rules were among the subjects that came up for discussion.
September 17, 2021 7:21 am
This is the second instance of a High Court citing the right to freedom of speech while staying the same provision in the IT Rules. On August 14, the Bombay High Court had stayed Rule 9(1) and 9(3), saying they are “manifestly unreasonable and go beyond the IT Act, its aims and provisions.”