#PornBan Or #पोर्न_बैन : Is the government's attempt to block porn websites futile?.SC’s observations prompt Centre to block 857 porn sites
New Delhi
- Updated: Aug 03, 2015
Can the government stop users from visiting porn sites?
Internet service providers (ISPs) have confirmed they received letters from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on Saturday that directed them to block certain websites. But can the government stop users from visiting porn sites?
The answer seems to be no.
"It is extremely easy to circumvent these blocks, using virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxies that anonymise your traffic," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru.
A cursory Google search on how to unblock porn websites throws up millions of how-tos and guides on using proxies and VPNs to get around restrictions set by authorities. All these services anonymise users’ web traffic by routing them through foreign servers.
According to data from Pornhub, one of the world’s largest porn sites, Indians are among the most "prolific consumers" of internet pornography, accounting for 40% of its 14.2 billion visits.
The government can try to keep up with proxies and block them too. But as proxies change on a daily basis and there are always dozens of functioning proxies to choose from across, blocking all of them will be a near impossible task.
Tor, an anonymity network, is also a popular way to surf blocked sites.
But is it legal to circumvent blocks put in place by authorities by using VPNs and proxies?
There is no law in India that prohibits viewing pornography, experts say. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act only deals with "publishing obscene information in electronic form".
This provision has been interpreted as a measure to criminalise the posting of pornographic content online. However, accessing "obscene" content privately – such as within the four walls of a person’s home – is not illegal, say experts.
In July, while hearing a petition seeking the blocking of pornographic websites, Supreme Court Chief Justice HL Dattu wondered whether the court could restrain an adult from watching pornography within his home and described such a ban as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which grants the right to personal liberty to its citizens.
But what about the legality of using VPNs and proxies? “There are no laws preventing the use of VPNs and proxies in India," said Prakash.
Are proxies and VPNs safe?
While the use of proxies and VPNs is very simple, they do come with their own set of problems. These services have access to all your browsing data and may push adware and other forms of malware.
Prakash advised that users should only choose services that are well known and have a good reputation.
"Sites like TorrentFreak put out annual lists of the top VPNs available," he said. These can be used as a guide to determine what services are safe.
SC’s observations prompt Centre to block 857 porn sites
NEW DELHI: The government has asked telecom operators and internet
service providers (ISPs) to block 857 porn sites, in an order that is
seen as an encroachment into citizens' personal space and their right to
view adult content within the confines of their homes.
Users complained that several adult websites, even if they did not have pornographic content, were blocked. They also said the government was using concern over child porn as an excuse to crack down on adult websites and intrude into the private space of citizens.
Sources in the government, however, denied that there was any crackdown. They said denial of access at department of telecom's (DoT) instance was temporary, insisting that it was a prelude to the creation of a regular regulatory oversight.
They said the directive was necessitated by the Supreme Court's observations last month over the home ministry's failure in blocking child pornography on several sites, and claimed that the idea was not to black out or police what people did in their bedrooms.
Telecom company executives said it was not possible to block all the sites immediately. "We have to block each site one by one and it will take a few days for all service providers to block all the sites," said an executive, requesting anonymity.
However, the denials failed to wash with those who pointed to the "prominence of prudes" in the current dispensation to claim that the restrictions could be part of larger drive to cleanse the web of pornography. They also said the SC had, while expressing concern, suggested that a citizen could not be stopped from browsing adult websites within his bedroom.
DoT sources said the government's concerns in the wake of the SC's observations were limited to looking at ways to ensure that there was no public viewing of sites in places such as cyber cafes.
They said the idea was to regulate rather than banish porn -- an objective for which several global models were being studied. "We are very clear that there should be no policing if someone watches porn in private. But there is need to have necessary safeguards against viewing in public or viewing certain types of content, especially when children are involved," said a source.
Sources said the order was issued under provisions of the Information Technology Act as well as Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which empowered the government to impose restrictions to enforce decency or morality, among other things.
Critics emphasized that the SC had not asked for a ban. A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu had in fact pointed to the freedom enjoyed by individuals. "It is an issue for the government to deal with. Can we pass an interim order directing blocking of all adult websites? And let us keep in mind the possible contention of a person who could ask what crime have I committed by browsing adult websites in private within the four walls of my house. Could he not argue about his right to freedom to do something within the four walls of his house without violating any law?" the bench had said.
Users complained that several adult websites, even if they did not have pornographic content, were blocked. They also said the government was using concern over child porn as an excuse to crack down on adult websites and intrude into the private space of citizens.
Sources in the government, however, denied that there was any crackdown. They said denial of access at department of telecom's (DoT) instance was temporary, insisting that it was a prelude to the creation of a regular regulatory oversight.
They said the directive was necessitated by the Supreme Court's observations last month over the home ministry's failure in blocking child pornography on several sites, and claimed that the idea was not to black out or police what people did in their bedrooms.
Telecom company executives said it was not possible to block all the sites immediately. "We have to block each site one by one and it will take a few days for all service providers to block all the sites," said an executive, requesting anonymity.
However, the denials failed to wash with those who pointed to the "prominence of prudes" in the current dispensation to claim that the restrictions could be part of larger drive to cleanse the web of pornography. They also said the SC had, while expressing concern, suggested that a citizen could not be stopped from browsing adult websites within his bedroom.
DoT sources said the government's concerns in the wake of the SC's observations were limited to looking at ways to ensure that there was no public viewing of sites in places such as cyber cafes.
They said the idea was to regulate rather than banish porn -- an objective for which several global models were being studied. "We are very clear that there should be no policing if someone watches porn in private. But there is need to have necessary safeguards against viewing in public or viewing certain types of content, especially when children are involved," said a source.
Sources said the order was issued under provisions of the Information Technology Act as well as Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which empowered the government to impose restrictions to enforce decency or morality, among other things.
Critics emphasized that the SC had not asked for a ban. A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu had in fact pointed to the freedom enjoyed by individuals. "It is an issue for the government to deal with. Can we pass an interim order directing blocking of all adult websites? And let us keep in mind the possible contention of a person who could ask what crime have I committed by browsing adult websites in private within the four walls of my house. Could he not argue about his right to freedom to do something within the four walls of his house without violating any law?" the bench had said.
No comments:
Post a Comment