We don't usually think of India, the world's largest democracy, as being against the Internet. (They still have India shirts at Sunsite.)
The nature of how Indians use the Internet -- mainly using cyber-cafes -- makes tracing real crimes that start on the Internet very hard. Criminals are not supposed to have anonymity under any law I know of, and once evidence of a crime is in the hands of police, they don't like to hit dead-ends.
Bangalore has begun demanding identification of Internet cafe users, with other cities expected to follow. Needless to say, users are not amused. And I'd love to hear from the Indian readers of Mooreslore (I know y'all are out there) what you think.
The problems (and the problems with solving the problems) don't end there. They barely even start...
The CEO of Baazee, eBay's India affiliate, has been arrested for distribution of pornography, over the sale of video clips featuring two Indian teenagers having sex.
The teens, both of whom attended a very prestigious Indian school, have been expelled. News of the clips, and the sale, took place over mobile phones.
A student at India's Indian Institute of Technology (the local equivalent of MIT or CalTech, according to the BBC), has also been arrested on charges of selling the clips at Baazee for $2.85 per copy.
Should any of this be a crime? That's not for me to say. (IMHO, no, assuming everyone was consenting.) The point is that if you define anything as a crime, what tools are you to give Law & Order in prosecuting it?
Inquiring minds want to know, in every country on Earth.
UPDATE: Rajesh Jain, in Mumbai, has published a comment on the Baazee case. He wants the CEO released.
Wouldn't it be fair for the West (and the Westerns) not to try to impose their 'tastes' and 'values' on to their Easter fellows?
I mean, their concerns of Human Rights and Terrorism issues in South East Asia are understandable but 'consent-based immorality' isn't open (if not uncommon) in this part of the world.
Refering back to the Bazee case, I think unless progress is assumed to mean 'immitating west', the poor Asians should be allow to develop their owns unique form of Internet.
For all its technology & openness, the Internet isn't at risk - South Asan Identity is.
Permalink to CommentWouldn't it be fair for the West (and the Westerns) not to try to impose their 'tastes' and 'values' on to their Eastern fellows?
I mean, their concerns of Human Rights and Terrorism issues in South East Asia are understandable but 'consent-based immorality' isn't open (if not uncommon) in this part of the world.
Refering back to the Bazee case, I think unless progress is assumed to mean 'immitating west', the poor Asians should be allow to develop their owns unique form of Internet.
For all its technology & openness, the Internet isn't at risk - South Asan Identity is.
Permalink to CommentWouldn't it be fair for the West (and the Westerns) not to try to impose their 'tastes' and 'values' on to their Eastern fellows?
I mean, their concerns of Human Rights and Terrorism issues in South East Asia are understandable but 'consent-based immorality' isn't open (if not uncommon) in this part of the world.
Refering back to the Bazee case, I think unless progress is assumed to mean 'immitating west', the poor Asians should be allow to develop their owns unique form of Internet.
For all its technology & openness, the Internet isn't at risk - South Asian Identity is.
Permalink to Comment