Adf.ly blocked by Department of Telecom!

josin

josin

In the zone
Extreme Gamer said:
Erm no. If the intent was indeed what you said it was, why the hell is the section so vaguely worded?

Also, in most free countries, people have the right to express their opinion. Section 66A takes away that right if it is critical of something or someone.

We already have laws against libel, so they can be used. We do not need Section 66A and its draconian implementation for people's dignity to remain intact.

This act basically gives you the right to sue anyone if you don't like what they say. That goes against our Fundamental Rights, as stated in the constitution.

People have the Fundamental Rights of Freedoms of Thought and Expression. What we do not have is the right to libel. What Section 66A does is go against our fundamental rights by classifying our thoughts and expressions as libel. It does not define what constitutes as grossly menacing communication.
Click to expand...


i said "I too admit that its a section that can easily be misused by authorities". I have/had no intention to justify IT minister wrt Section 66A or 66A(a). As a lawyer I know the consequences of such a provision and i have defended a case Under 66A(a) of the said Act. In the present form it is ambiguous and i doubt its constitutionality. Lets all hope SC is going to make it unconstitutional in future. I think even the GOI is thinking like that since they have issued Advisory on Implementation of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 to the Chief Secretaries and the Director General of Police of all States/UTs. The advisory asks State governments not to allow the police to make arrests under Section 66A of the IT Act without prior approval from an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police in the metropolitan cities or Deputy Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police at the district level. Actually section 66 A is taken from Section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act, 2003 ( But in England House of Lords held that Parliament could not have intended to criminalise statements that one person may reasonably find to be polite and acceptable and another may decide to be ‘grossly offensive... we also expect the same from SC).
In the U.K., Section 127(1)(a) makes the sending of ‘matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’ an offence. The drafters of the 2009 amendments to the IT Act in India presumably omitted the words ‘indecent, obscene’ as Section 67 of the IT Act makes the publishing or transmittal of obscene material in electrical form an offence. The drafters should have also defined the word “grossly offensive” but they chose not to and this is the main issue with the Section.

in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins, arising out of racist references in messages left by a constituent on the answering machine of a British MP, the House of Lords laid down a seminal test for determining whether a message is ‘grossly offensive.’ It agreed with the formulation by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court that, in determining whether a message is ‘grossly offensive’ the “Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, and that the words must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances.” The House of Lords added that “there can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context.” Most importantly, the House of Lords held that whether a message was grossly offensive did not depend merely on the degree of offence taken by the complainant but on whether it violates the basic standards of an open and just multi-racial society. This is considered a ‘reading down’ by the House of Lords of Section 127(1) of the U.K. Communications Act 2003, a hugely controversial legislation in the U.K. for its chilling effect on speech
Click to expand...

I don't think even for a second that Mr. Kapil Sibal had drafted this section, I don't know who had done it but i seriously doubt he had drafted this after 2/3 shots of vodka martini.But IT/Law minister could have cured the defect, re drafted it, its crime to humanity not to do it. But let me tell you i personally feel that there is a requirement of a provision "like" Section 66 A and it should contain proper wordings with clear definitions and proviso adding safeguards like a prior approval from a judicial Magistrate/ District judge before taking cognizance under the section.

NB: @Extreme Gamer : Beware you can now be prosecuted U/S 66A for your usage
I do accuse that scumbag
Click to expand...
against kapil sibal:-D
 
Last edited:
ratul

ratul

█████████████████
i can currently access adf.ly without any problems, guess the news hasn't reached to my ISP for now.. :p
 
Extreme Gamer

Extreme Gamer

僕はガンダム！
Vendor
josin said:
i said "I too admit that its a section that can easily be misused by authorities". I have/had no intention to justify IT minister wrt Section 66A or 66A(a). As a lawyer I know the consequences of such a provision and i have defended a case Under 66A(a) of the said Act. In the present form it is ambiguous and i doubt its constitutionality. Lets all hope SC is going to make it unconstitutional in future. I think even the GOI is thinking like that since they have issued Advisory on Implementation of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 to the Chief Secretaries and the Director General of Police of all States/UTs. The advisory asks State governments not to allow the police to make arrests under Section 66A of the IT Act without prior approval from an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police in the metropolitan cities or Deputy Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police at the district level. Actually section 66 A is taken from Section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act, 2003 ( But in England House of Lords held that Parliament could not have intended to criminalise statements that one person may reasonably find to be polite and acceptable and another may decide to be ‘grossly offensive... we also expect the same from SC).
In the U.K., Section 127(1)(a) makes the sending of ‘matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’ an offence. The drafters of the 2009 amendments to the IT Act in India presumably omitted the words ‘indecent, obscene’ as Section 67 of the IT Act makes the publishing or transmittal of obscene material in electrical form an offence. The drafters should have also defined the word “grossly offensive” but they chose not to and this is the main issue with the Section.



I don't think even for a second that Mr. Kapil Sibal had drafted this section, I don't know who had done it but i seriously doubt he had drafted this after 2/3 shots of vodka martini.But IT/Law minister could have cured the defect, re drafted it, its crime to humanity not to do it. But let me tell you i personally feel that there is a requirement of a provision "like" Section 66 A and it should contain proper wordings with clear definitions and proviso adding safeguards like a prior approval from a judicial Magistrate/ District judge before taking cognizance under the section.

NB: @Extreme Gamer : Beware you can now be prosecuted U/S 66A for your usage against kapil sibal:-D
Click to expand...

Let him prosecute me. As if the Digit admins would disclose my identity. If they did, Team Digit would lose my money for their magazines ;) Or are you going to get him informed through any of you colleagues/ acquaintances? lol jk :D

I'm not against a section like 66A, but like I said, the wording is vague (and you agree). And we already have laws protecting individuals against libel and defamatory comments, so section 66A, as it stands now, is not only redundant, but also a means of misuse of authority. The act was passed without discussion in parliament, so it stands to reason that malicious intent was present under a veil of genuine concern, given how the errors were not corrected.

And like you said, it is criminal of Kapil Sibal to have not cured the defects before accepting the draft, given how senior a lawyer he is. So you're only proving my point that he's not qualified for the IT ministry- if he had any understanding of what he was passing, he would not have let it pass in the manner that it did. Someone with an understanding of IT would be at least vaguely familiar with how people communicate via the internet.

I'm not against Section 66A in principle, because it protects people's sentiments. I'm against it with the way it has been worded. All they needed to do was amend existing laws against defamation, harassment, libel etc to include electronic transmissions. At least there the laws are mostly well-defined and clear.

Directives that make cops require permission from IG,s SPs or DCPs means nought, because these people can easily be coerced by political pressure from the top echelons. It is the law that needs to be fixed first.

Although I must say that anarchy is the best form of freedom :D
 
SaiyanGoku

SaiyanGoku

kamehameha!!
adfly blocked by Tata Photon plus too :evil:. but, i found a work-around to get direct links from adfly links. :D

vinaget.us - GET LINK ADF.LY
 
papul1993

papul1993

not a newbie.....
Uploaded.net, imagebam.com and some other sites are blocked too.

Filesharing Sites Uploaded.net, Ul.to, Stooorage & Blog On Politics Blocked On Some ISPs - MediaNama

However more popular file sharing sites and torrent sites still open. I have no idea what the Govt of India is thiinking.
 
paroh

paroh

Padawan
More list of sites blocked
*www.youbroadband.in/List of Blocked Websites-Regulatory Guidelines & HighCourt Orders.pdf
 
papul1993

papul1993

not a newbie.....
CommanderShawnzer said:
Why are people raging about this?

Kat & tbp are not blocked,so why do you care?
Click to expand...

Because, soon, they will be too.

I urge everyone with unlimited internet connections to please run I2P on their computers and share as much bandwidth as they can.

paroh said:
More list of sites blocked
*www.youbroadband.in/List of Blocked Websites-Regulatory Guidelines & HighCourt Orders.pdf
Click to expand...

I tested a few sites on that list and they opened on my BSNL connection. Some ISPs are blocking some sites and others are blocking different sites. WTF?
 
CommanderShawnzer

CommanderShawnzer

Steam High Templar
papul1993 said:
Because, soon, they will be too.

I urge everyone with unlimited internet connections to please run I2P on their computers and share as much bandwidth as they can.



I tested a few sites on that list and they opened on my BSNL connection. Some ISPs are blocking some sites and others are blocking different sites. WTF?
Click to expand...

Reliance blocks all torrent sites when thier bull**** films release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom