Broadcasting

September 1, 2006
The window that brings in sunshine also lets in a bit of dust!

Deepak Maheshwari

Internet is like the sunshine and when we let it in through our windows, some dust may also come in. We need to place screens and carry out periodic dusting within our house to keep it dust-free yet lit with sunshine. The task ahead is to invest in long-term capacity building so that people take ownership of their deeds, actions and choices on the Internet.

NEW DELHI -- The hullabaloo that one witnessed in July 2006 when the government directed the ISPs to block certain URLs, is an indication of the growing power of the Internet as well as a clarion call for all the users of this wonderful medium to accept responsibility for their respective actions and behaviour on the Internet.

It would be useful to consider the events in the perspective. First and foremost, the government had notified a gazette on 27 February 2003 wherein CERT-IN (Computer Emergency Response Team, India) was set up under the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology as the sole body authorised to decide which Websites are to be blocked. Thereafter, on 7 July 2003 in a follow-up Gazette Notification titled ‘Process of Blocking websites’ the government had detailed the procedure and the modus operandi to be followed.

To cut a long story short, specific bodies and offices could approach CERT-IN with their respective objections and after having considered that it was appropriate to block specific Websites, evidence would be recorded and advice sent to Department of Telecommunications (DoT). DoT, in turn, would issue directions to the ISPs to carry out the blocking. The administrative process is presumably embedded in the belief that once the specific URL has been blocked by all the ISPs in the country, content displayed and hosted therein would remain beyond the access from India.

Every URL on the Internet is represented by a certain IP address and a DNS (Domain Name Server) is used to decipher the URL typed in the browser to find out the corresponding IP address so that the query may be sent on the Internet to the host computer server for a response. In case of blocking, the ISP can block the URL at the DNS as well as at the IP address level.

A subscriber has an option to have his own DNS instead of using the DNS of the ISP who is providing the Internet access. In such a situation, even if the specific domain/sub-domain has been blocked in the ISP’s DNS, such domain/sub-domain would still be accessible. Moreover, if the entity that owns/controls it, can use a different domain name and the access would be possible to the same content even through the DNS of the ISP.

However, if the IP address corresponding to the respective domain/sub-domain is blocked, even if a subscriber uses his own DNS other than that of the ISP, though the IP address would get resolved in such DNS, it would not proceed beyond the ISP’s network. Obviously, such blocking is more effective than blocking at the DNS level. During the event under review, some ISPs chose to block certain URLs at the IP address level as a matter of abundant caution and in the process, the whole domain got blocked out.

However, after ISPAI advised its members on 19 July 2006 that blocking may be done at the sub-domain level only and further wrote to the government explaining the technical nuances and their respective implications on 20 July 2006, the government issued a press release on 20 July 2006 mentioning that unhindered access to the Internet be permitted except the specific Website/Webpages directed to be blocked. Presumably, in terms of compliance it would suffice for an ISP to block the specific URLs at sub-domain level only notwithstanding that such URL could still be accessible using a different DNS.

However, when it comes to an extension, it is not practical to block such a URL either at the DNS level or at the IP level, perforce resulting in blocking of the whole domain/sub-domain rather than just the specific extension alone. Though the Internet, as depicted in terms of logical connections, is a hierarchical system, the WWW and its aficionados shun hierarchy and often use the medium itself as a way of ascertaining their individuality. More than the ability to download the content from a certain website, what distinguishes the Internet from many other mass media is the fact that it also enables and empowers the users to upload and distribute their own content; blogging being a typical example.

It so happened that some of the recent blocking resulted in blocking of certain blogging sites. Freedom of Expression is a fundamental trait of a democratic system but it does not give a right to anyone to poke one’s nose in the affairs of others or for that matter, poking a stick in another fellow’s nose.

While we celebrate the concept that ‘Information is power’ those in charge of control have been attempting to regulate the flow of information with different objectives, means and levels of success. Censorship is often upheld on the grounds of public interest in the interest of security, sovereignty, maintenance of law and order, preservation of socio-cultural mores and saving the vulnerable minds from the mala fide vagaries.

Censoring access to certain specific content can be successful if and only if it is possible to ascertain that such content cannot be stored and/or published anywhere on the Internet. In fact, some of the ‘extension’ Webpages were removed by the entity that was providing hosting facility to such contents. Once the government received such communication, it advised the ISPs to enable access and the specific domain is accessible once again – sans the couple of specific extensions therein.

Administratively, a sovereign country can exercise control on the content yet it can be truly effective only if it is ascertained that such content cannot be stored/accessed anywhere in the world since the Internet spans beyond the political boundaries of nation states.

It would be apt to cite some excerpts from the latter notification. ‘In fact, blocking is taken to amount to censorship. …Websites promoting …can reasonably be blocked since all such websites may not claim constitutional right of speech. Blocking of such Websites may be equated to “balanced flow of information” and not censorship’.

However, it is a fact of human nature to seek out the ‘forbidden fruit’ and explore via media to lay one’s hands on the same. This also showed up by people spreading information about tools and routes through which one could bypass such blocking and such information got promptly spread out through the media – including, the Internet itself.

Going forward, the efficacy lies in three things – firstly, beyond the administrative process we need to appreciate the technical structure of the Internet and the URLs therein; secondly, if at all such directions are issued the same must be issued to certain other entities as well who provide Internet access (e.g. the Unified Access Service Licensees); and thirdly, to develop a responsive mechanism to handle issues related to sites engaged in spread of spam and various forms of security threats (like viruses and worms). However, the persuasion with the content owners may work better.

Notwithstanding all this, to counter misinformation we should use the Internet itself as the means of providing credible and updated information to the public in relevant context and preferably, in local languages.