Indian Government Wants Tech Companies To Give Law Enforcement 24-Hour Access To User Data And Broken Encryption
from the it's-going-to-get-a-whole-lot-worse-before-it-gets-even-worse dept
India's government is joining the rest of the world in seeking more direct control of the internet. We in the US used to be able to point at Section 230 immunity and the First Amendment as evidence of our hands-off approach, but with the passage of FOSTA and multiple legislators demanding tech companies engage in more moderation and less moderation simultaneously, we've ceded a lot of the high ground.
The Indian government, however, is seeking to expand its control of the internet far past what should be considered reasonable in a nation whose government pays occasional lip service to protecting free speech. In addition to its already-abused laws covering certain forms of speech -- which, in practice, tends to mean criticism of government officials -- the Indian government is demanding speedy takedowns of content and direct access for law enforcement to user info, posts, and comments around the clock.
The proposals would… require any platform with more than 5 million users in India to appoint a “person of contact” for “24x7 coordination with law enforcement agencies and officers”, keep a record of all “unlawful activity” for 180 days (or indefinitely if mandated by a court), and send monthly notifications to every user informing them that the platform can “remove non-compliant information” immediately and kick the user off.
This is the result of discussions with representatives from companies including Google, Facebook, Whatsapp, and Twitter. There's no word yet on how compliant these companies will be. The only news that's surfaced so far is the Indian government's long list of demands. And those demands include something becoming distressingly popular in world governments: broken encryption.
“[On] the face of it, [the government seems] to be contemplating pro-active censorship and breaking encryption with traceability,” Apar Gupta, an Indian Supreme Court lawyer and cofounder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told the Indian Express. “They will make the internet a corporal environment, damaging the fundamental rights of users.”
This will more closely align India's control of the internet with the Chinese model (or the Australian model!) -- something no nation should be in any hurry to adopt. That tech companies may be willing to comply with these demands rather than lose millions of users is worse news for everyone who uses their platforms. One just needs to look at Turkey's stranglehold on Twitter to see where this will be headed: tech companies will be complying with laws not valid in their home countries, allowing authoritarian rulers to silence critics and stifle dissent by proxy.
From what's been observed so far, Whatsapp seems to be the only company publicly resisting the Indian government's advances. Buzzfeed reached out to the other companies involved in these talks but has not received any comments or statements in response. Whatsapp's refusal to cooperate with India's demands for broken encryption dates back several months, but it's unlikely to have changed its views on undermining the protections it offers its users.
It's more bad news for internet users around the world, some of whom are going to be caught up in the Indian government's new net rules, even though they don't reside in that nation. Agreeing to help the government directly police users and/or break encryption will create ripple effects felt far outside the borders of India.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: encryption, going dark, india, law enforcement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Traceability?
In the original article, WhatsApp takes the same stance as above, but it makes no sense. Encryption and tracing are independent of each other. Something like a VPN or tor might combine the two, but either one can exist without the other.
Maybe there is some confusion between "end-to-end encryption" and "what WhatsApp does".
WhatsApp uses store and forward, so sender sends encrypted message to WhatsApp server, then deletes the message after the recipient acknowledges reception (or a timeout of 30-days), which would certainly affect traceability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traceability?
A public key system allow end to end encryption in a store and forward system, including email. Just make sure the public key you use belongs to your intended recipient, and that you sign messages to detect man in the middle relay attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable Control
well then, the solution is simple -- the government should be granted only 'reasonable control' of the internet. Nothing more, nothing less.
The American FCC should immediately adopt that same formal policy: Reasonable Control of the Internet
Everyone supports 'reasonable' government control of the overall internet. There is no conceivable alternative to such government control, no downside, and all agree on the details of such government control. problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasonable Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasonable Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seem to be getting worse than they already were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What government isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time
Noncryption perhaps?
Fauxcryption?
Weacryption?
Leacryption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
Want to sound off about blacks, nazis, gays, muslims, or the usual Victim_Group_of_the_Month, go for it!
Prove you're an idiot by posting it publicly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'How about 'no' Scott/Vic?'
Even going with a hypothetical where the vast majority of anonymous speech is made by truly despicable people, given the option between some assholes getting away with being assholes because anonymous/free speech is available, and that not being an option because anonymity has been eliminated, I know which one I'd consider better, both personally and in a free speech context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
It makes sense that most totalitarian states want total control over what their citizens are exposed to. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to be totalitarian states.
"There is no such thing as Free Speech when it spews hate or violence"
OK.
Now, definite "hate": and "violence" in terms of speech. The catch is, there will at times be people in charge who have different definitions of those terms, and those definitions will at some pojnt include include you and the speech you consider to be acceptable.
Sure, you might like the tools when they're used against literal Nazis. But, what happens when the fascists are in power and they decide that anti-Nazi speech constitutes hate speech and anything said against the Jews and socialists is fair game?
"Whoever speaks must own their words and be held accountable."
As long as it's by other citizens using their own freedom of speech to rebut and fight back, sure. It's when you allow governments to control the speech and to decide what's acceptable where it becomes difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
"In light of the sophisticated manipulation of media content by foreign powers and inside agitators in the US, it makes sense that governments around the world want to have greater oversight of what happens on the web that can affect their country, for better or for worst."
Here's the problem. The issue of encryption is binary. Either it's secure...or it's not.
If it's not and any entity has a master key to unlock said encryption then it is guaranteed that it eventually leaks. After which whoever holds that master key can empty every bank account belonging to every citizen. Cyber security, for all purposes, ceases to exist.
And that's not a problem you can solve by "nerding harder". Hence government will have to accept that there are hard limits to what oversight they can have over what is, essentially, private conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's why we have DUI stops on the highway which presume guilt in the driver, who has to prove s/he is not drunk.
It's why someone who orders a drink is not presumed to be of legal age until they prove it affirmatively, etc.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
When there is a compelling state interest, what would otherwise be unconstitutional, isn't. Whether or not this rises to that level is a separate debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even your attempt to give examples falls flat when you actually walk through them. The DUI example is dead the minute you recognize that an officer must have observed you driving in a manner that leaves reason to suspect you may be drunk. This gives the officer probable cause which allows them to move past some of your rights. This is you giving up your rights, not the state being given freedom to take them from you.
Your second example doesn't even deal with any constitutional right and is therefore not worth discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the mantra of authoritarians everywhere, and leads to the state determining everything that citizens can do, and what the state will do tho those who do not conform to the states ideals..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election season.
Just like the recent ban on online retailers having a "conflict of interest" when selling goods to a market clearly not upset as much as the local shops who lose out are.
"Laws" make people feel better, even if they're ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Australia, now India and coming soon to the US!
The thing is, these governments/security agencies on some level KNOW this is going to harm citizens but they don't care because transparency for thee, not for me.
They don't care that as soon as a vulnerability is introduced it will be found and used by those with malicious intent or that by having breakable encryption or forcing companies to make backdoors makes EVERYONE less safe.
The actual experts keep yelling but they keep being ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps you shoudl focus on real problems like men raping young women on trains, buses, the street that has been happening for decades & your system fails the victims over and over before deciding you need to control the internet.
Oh darn a Bollywood movie got leaked so we blocked 90% of the internet in India to protect it... but a young woman is raped as 30 people watch but we can't do anything about that.
Perhaps you are busy focusing on things that don't benefit your citizens & trying to grab more special powers you think will solve everything... as another girl is raped & then ignored by the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New rule?
Why govt wants to control the use of internet? If we are living in India we have the right of free speech. The netizens should be more responsible regarding the content on internet then there will be no such rule.
check this also <a href="https://www.creativedigitalinfotech.com/">web designing</a>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]