Facebook-owned instant messenger WhatsApp, in a petition in Delhi High Court, said that enabling identification of the first originator of information on its platform in India puts end-to-end encryption and its benefits at risk, as it urged the .
Is there an immediate threat to society due to WhatsApp messages? Govt needs to prove that freepressjournal.in - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from freepressjournal.in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
What s True
Social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp could possibly face legal action in India if they fail to comply with new digital-ethics guidelines enforced by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY). The guidelines took effect on May 26, 2021, after companies were given three months to comply. What s False
So far, there is no indication that Twitter has been banned in India, though relations have grown increasingly tense between the government and the social media company. Twitter has said they will advocate for changes in the regulations. What s Undetermined
Unknown is how much Twitter has complied with the new regulations, and if the government is enforcing them.
6 days ago
The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology refused to disclose the details of their orders to censor certain Twitter handles and tweets in India earlier this year, in a letter to the Internet Freedom Foundation on April 26.
On February 08, IFF demanded that MEITY make its blocking orders to Twitter public. The response, which came from “Team 69A” at the ministry, argued that under rules notified for the eponymous section of the IT Act, blocking orders are subject to “strict confidentiality”. “The orders passed by the committee cannot be made publically available as strict confidentiality is to be maintained in regards of the actions taken under section 69A,” the government wrote in its response to IFF’s initial letter.
, the 9-judge constitutional bench explicitly crystallized the concept of a fundamental right to privacy under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Similar to other fundamental rights under Part-III, the Court held that the said right is not absolute. Nevertheless, it was articulated that every State action interfering with the privacy of an individual, to be construed as being constitutionally valid, must satisfy the notable three-fold test. The third prong of this test obligates that State actions intruding into the privacy must satisfy the test of proportionality.
This leads us to the obvious question, that is,
what does the test of proportionality necessitate?