Madras HC directs meeting between Law Enforcement Agencies and Social Media giants to tackle online crimes

The Madras High Court today directed that a meeting be convened between law enforcement agencies and social media companies to discuss ways in which they can cooperate to tackle online crimes..Law enforcement agencies and representatives of social media/online companies – Google, Youtube, WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter – are expected to discuss the issue in a meeting chaired by the state’s Chief Secretary..During this meeting, the participants are expected to look into such aspects as what kind of information can be made available by the companies, what kind of information should be made available to detect cybercrimes, the manner in which assistance in such cases may be sought etc. The meeting is to be held between May 20-27, and report on the same is also expected to the submitted to the High Court..The interim order was passed today by the Bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad following submissions made by the social/online media companies and the Government..Senior Advocate Arvind Datar made submissions on behalf of WhatsApp; Senior Advocate PS Raman argued for Google and Youtube; Facebook was represented by Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran and Senior Advocate R Murari appeared for Twitter. Submissions for the state were made by Additional Government Pleader, E Manoharan..The order was passed in a 2018 PIL filed to link Aadhaar with e-mail IDs and other online user accounts for easier detection of online crimes. The Bench rejected the prayer for Aadhaar linkage during the intial stages of hearing. However, the Bench was prompted to examine what measures were in place to counter such crime..While responding to the Court’s queries, the Government informed the court that social media companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were often reluctant to share pertinent user information to carry out an investigation against cyber crimes. This had led the Court to implead the online companies in the matter..Submissions made by Social Media companies.All appearing social media companies have asserted that they were cooperating with the investigating agencies as far as possible, as and when appropriate requests are being made for assistance in the investigation of cyber crimes. However, it was also argued that there were certain limits to the assistance that could be provided by online companies in such matters..Datar pointed out that in WhatsApp’s case, the content shared between users is not available for the company to share owing to its end-to-end encryption policy. He argued, inter alia, that one of the reasons why the WhatsApp is popular is because it respects user privacy. He also submitted that the company is permitted to function as such under Indian law. Further, he pointed out that steps were being taken to minimise the abuse of the platform. It was also asserted that WhatsApp cooperates with government requests for assistance in the investigation of cyber crimes. However, for it to provide information, the request had to be made in the appropriate manner..A similar issue was also highlighted by Raman, who appeared for Google and Youtube. He argued that Google ordinarily responds to requests made by the Government to share information to tackle cybercrime. However, for the company to respond, the request must not only be made by a Government functionary, but it must also come through an official channel. Explaining the issue, it was pointed out that in several cases, a public official would use his private email ID to seek assistance. Google would not respond to such private requests, he informed..Twitter faced another peculiar problem. Murari informed the Court that when it comes to Twitter users, the US base is being operated by Twitter US. However, as far as users from the rest of the world are concerned, the relevant company is the Twitter International Corporation, which is based in Ireland. While this is the case, it was submitted that often the government’s requests for assistance is being directed to the wrong Twitter entity. Otherwise, however, it was argued that Twitter has been cooperating with the government as long as the request from assistance is being made by an authorised source..Appearing for Facebook, Parasaran also assured that it was cooperating with the law enforcement agencies to share the information it has regarding its users. However, a particular issue pinpointed was that it may not always be possible to trace the real name of the Facebook user in question, given that accounts are created based on the e-mail/phone number provided by the user..In view of these submissions, all the appearing companies agreed with a proposal that a training programme could be conducted so that law enforcement agencies are better sensitized as to the kind of information that can be made available by the companies and the manner in which such information may be sought..Submissions made for the Government.Whereas there is scope for improvement, it was submitted on behalf of the Government by AGP Manoharan that Facebook and Google have been more or less cooperative in providing assistance. However, he argued that WhatsApp has been less responsive. In relation to this grievance, he also argued that the end-to-end encryption policy cited by WhatsApp only came about around 2017. Therefore, he submitted that the company could not claim it was a core feature..With particular reference to WhatsApp, Manoharan also argued that there were ways to by-pass its counter-measure of restricting the message forwards to five users at a time. This measure was intended to control the spread of false forward messages. Manoharan pointed out that a WhatsApp group could easily be created with the upper limit of 256 participants. Thereafter, if a message is posted in such a group, it is as good as forwarding the message to 256 users simultaneously..It was also pointed out that there is a need for nodal agencies for each company in India. In WhatsApp’s case, it was submitted that a grievance officer exists for the company. However, this officer is based abroad. There is no physical presence for any such officer in India..Another issue raised was that the online companies often decided whether or not there were emergent conditions warranting the sharing of user information when a request is made for the same by the Government. Manoharan submitted that whether or not an emergency exists cannot be left solely to the online companies alone..The High Court has posted the matter to be taken up next on June 6.