Dear Vickram,

Recalling this post of yours below, and your experiences with the
ministries, lack of transparency and openness etc.

I got some leaks about the new IT ACT amendments which disturbed me,
so I filed a RTI under this new RTI ACT 2005 (which is meant to usher
in transparency etc.) Nothing has changed, the Departments are still
going to be denying info and I was given 100 reasons why the info
could not be provided .. all bogus ...

The info I seek from DoIT is as follows:-

1) Please inform me if the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee has
formally considered and submitted any advice and/or recommendations
concerning amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000. If so,
please list out, and well specify, the dates / reference numbers of
such advice(s) / recommendations.

2) I wish to inspect (and take notes from) all records and/or recorded
deliberations of proceedings, materials, representations to,
submissions to/of, documents, information etc. considered from time to
time by the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee concerning amendments
to the Information Technology Act 2000.

3) Likewise (to para 2 above), I wish to inspect all similar records,
information(s), opinions, materials, file notings etc. concerning the
Expert Committee(s), in any, formed to examine amendments to the
Information Technology Act 2000.

Sarbajit Roy

Asian Age has a followup story to this today 3rd Oct.:-
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&cat1=7&c
at2=48&newsid=184492&RF=DefaultMain

(link will only work for 24 hours ... poor software design at asian
age)

-------------------------
Right to Information Act gets 1st applicant
- By Urvashi Kaul

New Delhi: While the citizens of India are waiting for October 12 to
spam the system to request for information using the Right to
Information Act 2005, which officially comes in to force from that
day, there already seems to be a request for information filed with
the department of information technology, due to a "tricky loophole"
that the applicant citizen has pointed out.

Official sources said that this is the first request for information
under the Right to Information Act 2005.

The application requests for information pertaining to amendments to
the Information Technology Act under this Act.

The request, under the said Act, a copy of which lies with this
newspaper, points out that as per Section 1(3) certain provisions,
particularly Sections 5(1) and 5 (2) of the Act, have long been in
force. The letter further says that "these sections provide for
mandatory designation of information officers within the department to
receive the requests for information from applicants within 100 days
of the Act coming into force."

Mr Sarbajit Roy, who requested for information under this Act, wanted
to know "whether a cyber regulation advisory committee has formally
considered and submitted any advice and/or recommendations concerning
amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000 and the other
specifics related to it."

The Act was passed in order to promote transparency and accountability
in the working of every public authority.

The Right to Information Act, 2005, received the assent of the
President on June 15, 2005, and was accordingly published on June 21,
2005.

The Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities. Under the Act the department must
expeditiously provide information.

The maximum time limit is 30 days from the receipt of the request.

-------------------------

--- In cyberlaw-india@yahoogroups.com, Vickram Crishna <v1clist@y...>
wrote:
> At 3:22 AM +0000 23/9/05, sroy1947 wrote:
> >Firstly I am most disturbed by how this thread is floundering on
non-issues.
>
> With all due respect, I don't agree about floundering.
>
> Neither lawmakers nor affected persons, which is just about
everyone,
> can be expected to share the same broad vision, and it is only
> through open discussion that the gaps emerge.
>
> Somewhere in the group of threads that characterise this
discussion,
> a mention of emerging laws in Canada was mentioned (actually that
is
> what evoked this particular thread), and it is obvious that if only
a
> small section of people are allowed to decide things for everyone,
> inequities can emerge. These are often because of poor lexicology,
> followed by deliberate abuse of lacunae or vagueness. Abuses happen
> in every country, and in every form of governance, and that is not
> sufficient cause for loss of hope.
>
> I have only had one major interaction with the law ministry, when
the
> first IT act was being developed, and it was my experience that
they
> simply could not conceive of openness and transparency of working
at
> the time. We know the result, and we know the extent to which bad
> application of law has dismayed and disturbed many sections of
> society. I do hope that at least some ministry officials are
> following discussion on this list, and others like it, and that
they
> will build in stronger mechanisms for public debate and adoption of
> consensual concerns as a result.
>
> It is true that this job was originally delegated to the ministry,
> for framing laws, and to Parliament, for adopting them. The task
is,
> however, beyond the innocence that characterised those early days
of
> independence, and the tools for better and more inclusive processes
> are now becoming available to a much larger (and growing) section
of
> the citizenry than was ever conceivable.
> --
> Vickram
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com