Why in News?

The government of India is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour for social media platforms, citing growing concerns about fake news online, cyber fraud, and AI-generated deepfakes.

This has been indicated by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in its submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communication and Information Technology.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Understanding Safe Harbour
• Regulatory Framework in India
• Government’s Concerns and Motivation
• Global Context and Future Legislative Steps
• Conclusion

Understanding Safe Harbour:

• Definition and origin:
  • Safe harbour is a legal concept that protects online intermediaries (websites/platforms hosting user-generated content) from criminal liability for third-party content.
  • It forms a key safeguard in promoting innovation and shielding platforms from being punished for content they did not create.
  • In the U.S., this is covered under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, introduced in 1996.
  • In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, provides similar protection to intermediaries.
• Limitations of safe harbour in India:
  • Protection is conditional: If intermediaries receive “actual knowledge” of illegal content (via court order or government notification), they must act swiftly to remove it, else lose protection under Section 79.
  • Notable case: In 2004, the head of eBay India was arrested over a child sexual abuse material listing.

Regulatory Framework in India:

• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021:
  • Platforms must appoint:
    • A Nodal Officer,
    • A Grievance Officer (resident in India),
    • Periodically submit reports of complaints they receive on content, and action taken against them for this.
  • These are mandatory to retain safe harbour protections.
  • Different parts of the IT Rules have been challenged in courts in the last few years.
• IT Amendment Rules, 2023:
  • Fact Check Unit: Empowered Press Information Bureau's Fact Check Unit to label content as "fake news", leading to possible removal of safe harbour.
  • Legal challenge: Comedian Kunal Kamra and others challenged the amendment in the Bombay High Court, for exceeding its authority and not following due process.
  • The Bombay HC ruled in his favour, and the case is being appealed by the government. 

Government’s Concerns and Motivation:

• Non-compliance by platforms:
  • Allegations that platforms (e.g., Twitter/X) are:
    • Flouting Indian laws,
    • Delaying takedowns,
    • Ignoring government orders without prior user notice.
  • This includes ongoing litigation involving X (Twitter) in the Karnataka High Court.
• Need for amending the safe harbour concept: For ensuring that social media companies proactively address not just misinformation/ fake news, but also AI-generated deepfakes, cyber frauds, etc.

Global Context and Future Legislative Steps:

• U.S. debate on safe harbour:
  • President Joe Biden: Advocated revising Section 230 to increase platform accountability for extremist content.
  • President Donald Trump: Criticised Section 230 for enabling censorship of conservative voices.
• Digital India Act (DIA):
  • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) plans to introduce a Digital India Act, potentially revising safe harbour protections.
  • However, the draft of the DIA is yet to be released, and details remain unclear.

Conclusion:

The reconsideration of safe harbour reflects the Indian government’s evolving strategy to balance freedom of expression, digital innovation, and national security in the face of rising online misinformation and platform unaccountability.

It is a significant development in the cybersecurity and governance domain, and closely tied to debates on intermediary liability, free speech, and digital regulation.