Sex and the cellphone camera

For the last few days, the incident of the MMS pornographic images involving students of a prestigious Delhi school has captured public atte...

For the last few days, the incident of the MMS pornographic images involving students of a prestigious Delhi school has captured public attention. At first, the concern was about vulnerable groups, like children, misusing mobile phones. Later, when the same clip was sold through websites, there emerged the demand for greater control of such technology. The alleged kiss, involving Kareena Kapoor and Shahid Kapur, that was evidently captured on a cellphone camera, only added to the debate.

A host of issues have emerged. Should children be given mobile phones, especially camera-enabled ones? Should schools ban the use of such devices? Is it possible to do this? What is the punishment that should be meted to students misusing cellphones? How does one control the circulation of harmful material through such technologies? Are commercial websites committed to monitoring what is being traded on their sites? How can we ensure that the privacy of individuals is not violated? What is the role of law enforcement agencies?Although India is grappling with these issues for the first time, they have already figured in many other nations.

Mobile phone use by schoolchildren has been banned in several countries, with heavy penalties for misuse. There is the general recognition that teenagers are particularly vulnerable and that this demands a pro-active response from parents/teachers. In many cases, children are given mobile phones for security reasons. But the kids themselves are attracted to their entertainment value. They SMS jokes to each other; browse on the internet; help each other in class tests via SMS and, recently, instances of morphed pictures of schoolmates being passed around have become routine. In Japan, young people have used 3G phones to access online dating services and there have been reports of sexual abuse as well.

Story continues below this ad

The challenge, today, is to ensure that the advantages offered by these gadgets are not outweighed by their potential disadvantages. Any possible solutions would involve manufacturers of mobile handsets, service providers, law enforcers and guardians. Certainly, while newer technologies need to emerge, manufacturers too have to understand their social impact. A phased deployment based on such understanding rather than a blind pursuit of profit should guide their marketing practices. The international watchdog, Privacy International, has suggested including a click feature in cellphone cameras so that people realise they are being filmed. Likewise, operators need to ensure that the high-end handsets are not provided to young children, or marketed for them.

Today, there is little we can do to educate manufacturers as far as GSM phones are concerned. They are widely available in Indian markets. Therefore, it becomes important for parents/teachers to exercise their discretionary role. Not only do they need to make their wards understand the values that underlie civilised inter-personal interaction, they also need to ensure that camera-enabled phones are not given to them.

While the DPS incident was ugly, the issue of the same MMS clip being circulated and sold is, arguably, more worrying. The clip was available in stores selling porn CDs as well as sold by an IIT student through a popular auction site. The police action in this case is encouraging, although this is not the first time pornography is being circulated. What needs to be considered here is the interest generated in the clip and its conversion into all possible forms of viewing enablement — whether in computers or in mobiles. The fact that eight clips could be sold in no time speaks of the speed and extent to which today’s technology can travel.

Consider, the provisions of the law. Such abuse is covered under Section 67 of the IT Act 2000 and Sections 292 and 294 of the IPC. While the former envisions a punishment of imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for the sale and transmission of objectionable content, the latter entails jail terms ranging from three months to two years for the sale of obscene material. The question is: who can be nabbed under these laws? CD stores? The auction site? Those circulating the clips? Also, since in this case the image originated from a minor, what form of punishment can apply to him?

Story continues below this ad

We need a public debate on these issues so that there is greater clarity on them. Incidents of this kind, once their sensational value diminishes, are forgotten. We must ensure that this doesn’t happen.