EDITORIAL : THE HINDU, INDIA

 

‘World's greatest spying machine'

Speaking to students at Cambridge University earlier this month, Julian Assange, Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks, offered an important insight: “while the Internet has in some ways an ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing … it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen.” Now, the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, has cautioned against the Net coming under a regime of espionage and censorship in various countries, negating its potential for good. These warnings underscore the rising importance of the world's biggest public network and the need for the people to ensure that it remains truly free and open, unimpeded by official controls, technological discrimination, and cost barriers. The digital natives who inhabit the world look upon unrestricted, good quality access to the Internet as a fundamental right. Indeed, some progressive countries have initiated action to legislate such an entitlement. Finland became a model state last year by making broadband connectivity a legal right. There is a message here for India, which brings up the rear among fast-growing countries when it comes to high-speed Internet connectivity. After setting ambitious targets, it has taken weak, jagged steps to improve broadband coverage, particularly in rural areas. The target is to provide high bandwidth connections to 160 million households by 2014, but this involves a steep climb — the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India says only about 10 million were connected at the end of 2010.

Physical access to the Internet is crucial, but as Mr. Assange and Mr. Berners-Lee emphasise, the more complex issue is one of official controls. India put in place the Information Technology Act, 2000 and amended it subsequently in a bid to address public and industry concerns. But the law is still founded on the principle of executive control of online publication, rather than judicial due process. The amended Act has drawn criticism from advocates of free speech and data protection for its over-broad sweep and poor legislative clarity. This law must be rewritten in plain language and the fundamental right of free speech protected without dodges and equivocation. The more odious provisions enabling pre-censorship must go, and generic descriptions that serve as definitions of infringements need to be replaced with specific ones. India also needs a data protection law that restricts access to personal data collected and held by government. The Internet era is all about sharing and enabling people to express themselves freely. The imperative is to specify just what governments are allowed to do — and prevent them from exercising Orwellian control.

Goldstone's continuing value

Richard Goldstone, the internationally renowned jurist, has attracted attention by retracting key conclusions in the report he prepared for the United Nations Human Rights Council on Israel's 2008-09 Gaza Strip Operation Cast Lead. Writing in the Washington Post on April 1, he drew upon an independent investigation, chaired by the United States judge Mary McGowan Davis, to state that “civilians were not deliberately targeted” as a matter of Israeli policy — although both the Israeli government and Ms McGowan Davis have confirmed the validity of cases against certain Israeli soldiers. Mr. Goldstone also noted that Israel had investigated more than 400 cases of “operational misconduct” by members of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza; but that the Palestinian ruling party Hamas, for which Gaza is a stronghold, has investigated none of the allegations the Goldstone report made against both sides.

As can be expected, official reactions in Israel have been intemperate. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wants the original report to be “thrown into the dustbin of history.” Other leading Israelis have launched vitriolic attacks on Mr. Goldstone, and there has been talk of attempts to persuade the U.N. to withdraw the report altogether. But the retractions do not alter the core fact that during Operation Cast Lead, more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed — and that half the number of Palestinians and three of the Israelis were civilians. Secondly, Judge McGowan Davis was herself critical of Israel; several investigations remain open, and there is “no indication” that those who planned and oversaw Cast Lead will be questioned. Thirdly, Mr. Goldstone states that he reached his original conclusions after Israel blocked all cooperation with his inquiry. He was given no information about Israeli forces' behaviour during Cast Lead, and his team was barred from the country. Fourthly, as Israeli journalist Aluf Benn points out in The Guardian, the IDF has investigated its own conduct in the Gaza war precisely because of the U.N.'s criticisms; it has also devised new procedures to protect civilians in urban warfare and to limit the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. While a just solution to the Palestine question is nowhere in sight, the U.N. can claim two significant achievements. Its strictures dealt a great shock to the Israeli polity; and it has shown the Zionist state that not cooperating with legitimate international investigations could lead to indictments in the International Criminal Court.