SnTHosting has addressed legal representation to MeitY seeking recall of the CERT-In Directions which mandate them to surveil their users and collect their personal data and make such data available to CERT-In on demand.
To have an informed debate about the legal e-surveillance regime and practices in India, we filed RTI Applications seeking related information in 2018. We have not received this information till date, but we will continue to pursue it.
IFF had filed six RTIs with the MHA seeking data on the e-surveillance. MHA first denied information on grounds of national security and later claimed that the data did not exist. CIC has admonished the CPIO for changing its stance and sought confirmation on non-availability of data on affidavit.
Mr. Lyngdoh, a law student, sent a legal notice to the Meghalaya Govt. seeking reconsideration of use of FRT for pensioners in view of the possible privacy concerns. The Meghalaya Govt. in its response has explained its position which we have analysed.
We filed 6 RTI applications in Dec 2018 seeking information about Electronic Surveillance orders passed under Section 69 of the IT Act. Three years have passed since, and we apprehend that the information sought is being continuously destroyed during the pendency of the RTI proceedings.
MEITY has published Frequently Asked Questions to ‘bring clarity’ to IT Rules, 21. We separate the Facts from the Claims made in the FAQ document.
In light of the recent facebook disclosures, we wrote to MEITY about any forthcoming updates to the Information Technology Act, 2000. We pointed out several inadequacies and lacunae in the Act, and asked the Ministry to publish a full consultation timeline over any proposed amendments.
Madras High Court finds merit in Mr Krishna’s contention that Part II of the Rules violated the right to speech, and held that any action taken under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 shall be subject to the decision in the petition. The Court has also affirmed the previous stay on Rule 9.
The Court found these rules, which prescribed a Code of Ethics and a 3-tier grievance redressal mechanism, to be prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a) and beyond the rule-making power conferred by the Parliament on the Government.
PUCL's application seeks direction to ensure that authorities do not continue to prosecute individuals under S.66A of the IT Act, 2000. Supreme Court heard PUCL's application and sought responses from all State's, UT's and High Court's.