There have already been cases where loose comments on historical figures like Shivaji and Mahatma Gandhi have invited the ire of some people. Now the arm of the law will also go after the authors. Government action could be swift--and without judicial intervention. The manner in which the government ordered internet service providers (ISPS) to block adult cartoon website savitabhabhi.com without giving it a chance to respond could be a precursor to a new digital era.

Some are also viewing this as a government attempt at censorship of online media. Says Subho Ray, president of the internet body, IAMAI: "There is a feeling that under the garb of rules, they are bringing in Net censorship. There's no limit to which the provisions can be stretched. It's fragile. What's worse...the rules pre-empt the judicial process by giving powers to government agencies."

Media organisations with electronic or online versions are also in a huddle. They feel this could seriously affect their working. In a statement, the News Broadcasters Association said: "What is now being done amounts to eavesdropping, taping and interception of electronic communications including, quite shockingly, the blocking of information or censorship of sites that disseminate news and information." And since a large number of online news portals are an extension of their print versions, the tremors could be felt in the print sphere too.

Obviously, the government feels otherwise. Says MoS for IT Sachin Pilot: "In no way will the Act be allowed to take away freedom of speech. The objective is not to endanger national security. We have a lot of strategic assets online. These need to be protected."

Legal experts, however, feel the new provisions could lead to increased litigation. "The amendments have been actuated with noble intentions but have come up with a hybrid creature which is neither effective, nor comprehensive," warns cyber-law expert Pavan Duggal. He feels that while the new rules have enhanced the coverage of cyber crimes, its impact has been somewhat loosened by making most of them bailable--which could make arrests/conviction difficult.

The other issue engaging internet companies and users is that of privacy. While the government justifies wire-tapping and looking into data and information being exchanged between individuals as a way to prevent terror attacks, many view this as an infringement. The rules make sending and receiving information that is "offensive, annoying and which is causing inconvenience" an offence. This, feel lawyers, not only infringes on privacy but also is open to interpretation as any data or information exchange could be termed offensive. Pilot, however, feels such a situation will not arise. As he says, "The government is quite conscious of this and is not looking to use this legislation to infringe upon people's privacy."

Industry has been busy protecting its interests. The law absolves the intermediaries--typically ISPS, telcos, mobile value-added service providers and even web mail companies--of responsibility if any objectionable or offensive content surfaces on their service. So if you abuse a political leader on Yahoo or Google mail, or even a blog, you and not the mail or blog company would be held responsible and prosecuted. Recently, a Mumbai doctor moved the HC against alleged defamatory material posted on blogs on Google. While Google will not be held responsible, under the new regime the government might extract data about the users and go after them.

The intermediaries are now liable to provide information and data about users to state agencies on demand. Naturally, they are up in arms, saying this violates confidentiality of user data. Says Amitabh Singhal, ex-president, ISPAI: "There should be a specific agency responsible for authorising such action or the government agencies should get a judicial mandate for seeking data. That will indemnify ISPS from being sued by users who provide personal data on the condition of confidentiality."

There is, however, a feeling that some amount of accountability is required from the ISPS--and other intermediaries. "The internet is clearly being used by the enemies of the state. We need some ability to intrude into the internet and stop that. There is a need to ensure that objectionable material have their sources identified. Anonymity is not permitted under the Act," says RS member Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who was involved in the discussion process for the new rules.

What is also bothering the ISPS is the fact that the new proposals give them just two hours to respond to any instruction given by a government agency to modify, remove or block a particular website or content. A more logical timeframe is needed to execute such orders as removing or blocking content is not just a local matter and requires them to tie up with local, national and international servers and companies--many of whom might not be accessible within those two hours.

On the brighter side, the new rules remove the provision for fixed penalties, which were earlier prescribed. Those found guilty now would be required to pay "compensation", the amount of which would depend upon the extent of the crime and damage, which would need to be established. This would ensure that cyber criminals will no longer be able to get away with paltry fines for crimes with serious ramifications. Lawyers, however, are sceptical about its effectiveness. Says Duggal: "In all the years that this law has been in existence, not a single rupee has been awarded to anyone."