Building a digital India that is ready for the future
- It is a comprehensive programme designed to get India ready for a shift to a knowledge-based economy.
- It integrates a great deal of concepts and ideas into one cohesive vision, making each one appear to be a component of the overall objective.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) is the one who introduced it.
Digital India’s Future:
- The Use of Digital Infrastructure for All Citizens
- On-demand services and governance
- Citizens’ digital empowerment
Information Technology Act (IT Act) of 2000:
The new bill’s objective:
- Revise the current legal framework to address new issues like user injury, unfair competition, and disinformation in the digital sphere.
- It is probably going to redraw the boundaries of technological regulation, not just in India but throughout the world.
Modifications suggested:
- search engines, social media firms, and e-commerce businesses are examples of diverse groups of digital intermediaries that have varied obligations and liabilities.
The IT Act of today:
- It describes a “intermediary” as any organisation that stands between a user and the Internet.
- Intermediaries are divided into three primary groups by IT Rules:
- Intermediaries in Social Media (SMIs)
- Important Social Media Middlemen (SSMIs)
- Intermediaries in Online Gaming.
- The regulations impose strict requirements on the majority of intermediaries, including a 72-hour window in which to respond to requests from law enforcement and handle requests for “content take down.”
- Cloud services, websites, e-commerce platforms, and ISPs are all handled in the same way.
Problems:
- Customer management apps like Zoho and Microsoft Teams are examples of platforms that have a closed user base and a reduced risk of damage from information spreading virally since they are licenced.
- Not only does treating intermediaries like traditional social media networks increase their operating expenses.
- It does not significantly lessen the risks that the Internet presents, only increasing their exposure to litigation.
Worldwide standing:
- One of the most advanced frameworks for us to take into consideration is most likely the Digital Services Act of the European Union.
- Along with a few new exclusions, it establishes three layers of intermediaries with escalating legal responsibilities: hosting services, online platforms, and “very large online platforms.”
Australia:
- It produced an eight-tiered classification scheme, with distinct industry-drafted codes controlling categories including search engines and social networking sites.
- Based on the possibility of exposure to hazardous content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or terrorism, intermediaries are required to conduct risk assessments.
SMIs, or social media intermediaries:
- SMIs are online forums that let people exchange information and communicate with one another.
- SSMIs are SMIs with an extremely high user base (above a predetermined threshold).
- SMIs can include a wide range of services, including email, online comment sections on webpages, video chats, and marriage-related websites.
India’s areas of focus are:
- Although a detailed, product-specific classification can enhance online safety and accountability, this strategy might not be sustainable in the long run.
- We seek a categorization framework that establishes a few distinct groups, mandates risk assessments from intermediaries, and then utilises the results to group them into appropriate groups.
- Minimising requirements for intermediaries and making sure that regulatory tasks are commensurate with size and skill should also be the goals.
- Release micro and small businesses, as well as caching and conduit services—the Internet’s “pipes”—from significant responsibilities.
- Make a clear distinction between communication services, which facilitate end-user interaction, and other types of intermediaries, such search engines and online markets.
- Intermediaries that are not communication services should have less obligations because the dangers are lower.
- They might still be forced to designate a grievance officer, assist law enforcement, recognise advertisements, and remove objectionable content quickly enough.
The Way Ahead:
- Communication service providers may be required to do risk assessments based on the quantity of their active users, danger of damage, and likelihood of harmful content going viral.
- Subsequently, the biggest communication providers (platforms like Twitter) could have to follow specific rules like designating officers who are based in India.
- establishing internal grievance appeal processes in collaboration with impartial outside parties to boost trust in the grievance procedure.
- Other strategies for reducing virality should be taken into consideration, such slowing down content via circuit breakers.
- Metrics for risk assessment and suitable thresholds would need to be established and assessed on a regular basis in collaboration with industry in order for the suggested strategy to be effective.
- A framework might lessen many intermediaries’ legal responsibilities while promoting accountability and internet safety.
- It might contribute to the development of a regulatory framework that supports the government’s policy objective of fostering economic growth and a safer Internet ecosystem.
