Access To Knowledge (A2K)

Free Net advocates flay Trai's public Wi-Fi paper

praskrishna — 2016-11-20T03:21:41Z

Stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The article by Anita Babu was published in the Business Standard on November 20, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

With the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India releasing its consultation paper on public Wi-Fi this week, stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the proposed regulations might lead to invasion of privacy and interfere with the freedom of hotspot providers to operate freely.

“While we welcome Trai’s vision that increasing the number of public Wi-Fi hotspots could be the way to bringing the majority of Indians online, the proposals turn out to be regressive and poorly thought out,” said Aravind Ravi Sulekha, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

The regulator in its consultation paper issued earlier this week proposed hotspot providers would have to register with the government and users could access hotspots only after paying using a service tied to their Aadhaar number. It wants to utilise Aadhaar, electronic-Know Your Customer (e-KYC) and the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) to build a standard authentication mechanism for access to public Wi-Fi in India. While the aim of Trai is to increase the number of Wi-Fi hotspots in India, proponents of free Internet fear these proposed rules might have a contrary effect.

Hotspot providers will have to incur costs on account of hardware installations for one-time password verification in addition to the costs of sending out the passwords. This might discourage entrepreneurs.

“This system of verification makes it harder for entrepreneurs to set up hotspots and for people to access them. It is impossible for broadband to proliferate in any significant way if Trai insists on applying ineffective and cumbersome regulations on those who wish to set up their own hotspots,” Internet Freedom Foundation said in its comments to Trai’s consultation paper.

The proposals have excluded individuals who do not have an Aadhaar account from accessing public Wi-Fi. “This not only brings concerns of costs and exclusion but also privacy, given the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, and its government-mandated use, is pending adjudication in the Supreme Court,” the foundation pointed out.

The proposals also come at the cost of anonymity. The foundation, cofounded by the crusaders of last year’s SaveTheInternet campaign, trashed the argument that imposing eKYC norms would help in countering terrorism and other crimes. “This prohibition on anonymous communication is a violation of Indians’ freedom of expression… making a call at a PCO, sending a telegram and posting a letter have always been possible without showing ID — even though criminals and terrorists occasionally abused these services… KYC measures are ineffective in preventing crime and terrorism, as tools like VPNs, TOR, and proxies can easily mask the identity of an Internet user,” it stated.

“The solution proposed by Trai is a classic example of centralism and over-regulation. It turns out that Trai is unclear about the problem to be solved,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society. He added that the new proposals had also failed to address the limitations on foreigners or tourists in India.

Current regulations prevent foreigners without a local mobile number from accessing public Wi-Fi connections. While Trai had identified the problem, it failed to come up with a plausible solution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-november-20-2016-anita-babu-free-net-advocates-flay-trais-public-wifi-paper

Free expression

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:48:44Z

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content. This news was published in Watertown Daily Times on May 2, 2011.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/free-expression

Free Basics: Negating net parity

sunil — 2016-01-03T05:58:00Z

Researchers funded by Facebook were apparently told by 92 per cent of Indians they surveyed from large cities, with Internet connection and college degree, that the Internet “is a human right and that Free Basics can help bring Internet to all of India.” What a strange way to frame the question given that the Internet is not a human right in most jurisdictions.

The article was published in the Deccan Herald on January 3, 2016.

Free Basics is gratis service offered by Facebook in partnership with telcos in 37 countries. It is a mobile app that features less than a 100 of the 1 billion odd websites that are currently available on the WWW which in turn is only a sub-set of the Internet. Free Basics violates Net Neutrality because it introduces an unnecessary gatekeeper who gets to decide on “who is in” and “who is out”. Services like Free Basics could permanently alienate the poor from the full choice of the Internet because it creates price discrimination hurdles that discourage those who want to leave the walled garden.

Inika Charles and Arhant Madhyala, two interns at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), surveyed 1/100th of the Facebook sample, that is, 30 persons with the very same question at a café near our office in Bengaluru. Seventy per cent agreed with Facebook that the Internet was a human right but only 26 per cent thought Free Basics would achieve universal connectivity. My real point here is that numbers don’t matter. At least not in the typical way they do. Facebook dismissed Amba Kak’s independent, unfunded, qualitative research in Delhi, in their second public rebuttal, saying the sample size was only 20.

That was truly ironical. The whole point of her research was the importance of small numbers. Kak says, “For some, it was the idea of an ‘emergency’ which made all-access plans valuable.” A respondent stated: “But maybe once or twice a month, I need some information which only Google can give me... like the other day my sister needed to know results to her entrance exams.” If you consider that too mundane, take a moment to picture yourself stranded in the recent Chennai flood. The statistical rarity of a Black Swan does not reduce its importance. A more neutral network is usually a more resilient network. When we do have our next national disaster, do we want to be one of the few countries on the planet who, thanks to our flawed regulation, have ended up with a splinternet?

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) chairman R S Sharma rightly expressed some scepticism around numbers when he said “the consultation paper is not an opinion poll.” He elaborated: “The issue here is some sites are being offered to one person free of cost while another is paying for it. Is this a good thing and can operators have such powers?” Had he instead asked “Is this the best option?” my answer would be “no”. Given the way he has formulated the question, our answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. The CIS believes that differential pricing should be prohibited. However, it can be allowed under certain exceptional standards when it is done in a manner that can be justified by the regulator against four axes of sometimes orthogonal policy objectives. They are increased access, enhanced competition, increased user choice and contribution to openness. For example, a permanent ban on Free Basics makes sense in the Netherlands but regulation may be sufficient for India.

Gatekeeping powers

To the second and more important part to Trai chairman’s second question on gatekeeping powers of operators, our answer is a simple “no”. But then, do we have any evidence that gatekeeping powers have been abused to the detriment of consumer and public interest? No. What do we do when we cannot, like Russell’s chicken, use induction to explain our future? Prof Simon Wren-Lew says, “If Bertrand Russell’s chicken had been an economist ...(it would have)... asked a crucial additional question: Why is the farmer doing this? What is in it for him?” There were five serious problems with Free Basics that Facebook has at least partially fixed, thanks mostly to criticism from consumers in India and Brazil. One, exclusivity with access provider; two, exclusivity with a set of web services; three, lack of transparency regarding retention of personal information; four, misrepresentation through the name of the service, Internet.org and five, lack of support for encrypted traffic. But how do we know these problems will stay fixed? Emerging markets guru Jan Chipchase tweeted asking “Do you trust Facebook? Today? Tomorrow? When its share price is under pressure and it wants to wring more $$$ from the platform?”

Zero. Facebook pays telecom operators zero. The operators pay Facebook zero. The consumers pay zero. Why do we need to regulate philanthropy? Because these freebies are not purely the fruit of private capital. They are only possible thanks to an artificial state-supported oligopoly dependent on public resources like spectrum and wires (over and under public property). Therefore, these oligopolies much serve the public interest and also ensure that users are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Also provision of a free service should not allow powerful corporations to escape regulation–in jurisdictions like Brazil it is clear that Facebook has to comply with consumer protection law even if users are not paying for the service. Given that big data is the new oil, Facebook could pay the access provider in advertisements or manipulation of public discourse or by tweaking software defaults such as autoplay for videos which could increase bills of paying consumers quite dramatically.

India needs a Net Neutrality regime that allows for business models and technological innovation as long as they don’t discriminate between users and competitors. The Trai should begin regulation based on principles as it has rightly done with the pre-emptive temporary ban. But there is a need to bring “numbers we can trust” to the regulatory debate. We as citizens need to establish a peer-to-peer Internet monitoring infrastructure across mobile and fixed lines in India that we can use to crowd source data.

(The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity

Fragmenting Cybersecurity Norms through the Language(s) of Subalternity: India in the East and the Global Community

Admin — 2019-07-06T03:01:39Z

Arindrajit Basu's research was quoted in the article by Riccardo Vecellio Segate published in Columbia Journal of Asian Law.

The global cybersecurity discourse has never proved more fragmented than in the aftermath of the failure of the last United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. This discourse stands trapped in long-lasting and seemingly crystallized normative stances between “the West”and “the East,” yet it also calls upon the international community to regulate a wide spectrum of phenomena, ranging from thefts ofdigitally-stored trade secrets to large-scale pervasive attacks, which may soon reach the threshold of armed attacks. If one situates the major cybersecurity players on a sliding scale between freedom and control over cyber content and infrastructure, the mainstream stance would place the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India, China, and Russia in that order. Nonetheless,this scale is in practice more complex, in part due to the influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional security forum which has witnessed major rebalancing after the membership expansion in June 2017.

This paper scrutinizes India’s contribution towards a possible fragmentation of the “Eastern” cybersecurity discourse based onhard laws and state assertiveness, and the consequent disruption of the constructivist East-West binary dialectic about cyberwarfare,cyberterrorism, cyber espionage, and online data protection. By simultaneously negotiating its sub-alterity and rejecting itssubalternity, India holds the potential to reshape an otherwise almostcoherent “cyber East.”

Click to read the complete article.

Citations:

(a)[Footnote 37}ARINDRAJIT BASU,THE CTR. FOR INTERNET &SOC’Y, THE POTENTIAL FOR THE NORMATIVE REGULATION OF CYBERSPACE:IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA 50(2018).

(b) [Footnote 146} Arindrajit Basu, India Needs a Credible Deterrence Strategy for Cyberspace, THE WIRE (Sept. 3, 2017), https://thewire.in/tech/india-needs-credible-deterrence-strategy-cyberspace (emphasis added)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/columbia-journal-of-asia-law-june-6-2019-ricardo-vecellio-segate

Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T07:45:31Z

The Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, together with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, Berlin, will be convening a Round-table on Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media on October 16, 2013 at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. Sunil Abraham is a speaker in the session on Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance.

The round-table will examine the changing role of civil society as a political actor and also how this is being impacted by the Media and Social Media.

This round-table is being designed as a brainstorming session and therefore there will not be any formal written papers. Ideally, we will aim to have one or two prepared comments in each session to lay out the issues and a general discussion thereafter.

Agenda

10.00 10.05	Opening Remarks by Roundtable Chairperson:
10.05 11.45	Session 1: The Changing Role of Civil Society in a Democracy/Democratic Governance Trilochan Sastry, Founder and trustee, Association for Democratic Reform, Bangalore Chakshu Rai,/PRS Legislative Research Institute for Policy Research Studies, Delhi Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Independent Journalist, Delhi Anand Kumar, Professor, JNU, Delhi
11.45 12.00	Tea/Coffee Break
	Session 2: The Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance Sunil Abraham, CIS Bangalore Aditya Kalra, Thomson Rueters, Delhi R. Swaminathan, ORF, Mumbai Niranjan Sahoo, ORF, Delhi
13.45	Lunch

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fragmentation-in-a-democracy

Fourth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-08-07T10:12:41Z

The next meeting of the two Sub-Groups (4th meeting) on privacy issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on July 9, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. in Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

Members of both the Sub-Groups are requested to send their final drafts as decided in the meeting held on June 27, 2012, by July 4, 2012 so that these could be circulated for obtaining feedback and for discussions/deliberations on July 9, 2012.

The above information was communicated by Shri S. Bose, Under Secretary, (CIT & I) to the following individuals:

Justice A.P. Shah, Chairman
Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj
Ms. Usha Ramanathan
Shri Sunil Abraham/Shri Pranesh Prakash
Prashant Reddy
Prof. Arghya Sengupta (requested to join the meeting on skype. Exact time for coming online will be communicated separately)
Shri Som Mittal
Shri Gulshan Rai
Ms. Mala Dutt

A copy of this information was sent to the following individuals:

Dr. C.M. Kumar, Sr, Adviser (CIT&I)

Shri R.K. Gupta, Adviser (CIT&I)

Shri Ramesh Kumar, Director (CIT&I)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fourth-meeting-of-sub-groups-on-privacy-issues

Fourth Discussion Meeting of the Expert Committee to Discuss the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill

praskrishna — 2014-12-08T16:07:24Z

The fourth expert committee meeting was held on November 10, 2014 at the Department of Biotechnology to discuss the potential privacy concerns of the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill. Sunil Abraham however was unable to participate because of technical problems.

Agenda

Welcome and opening remarks by the Secretary, DBT
Remarks by the Chairman - Dr. T.S. Rao, Senior Adviser, DBT
A brief overview on deliberations and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Dr. Alka Sharma, Director, DBT
Discussion and finalization of the Bill by the members
Recommendations of the Expert Committee
Any other item with the permission of the Chairman.

Resources

Click here (Zip file, 2698 Kb) to download the following resources from earlier meetings:

Record note of discussions of the Expert Committee Meeting held on January 31, 2013 at DBT, New Delhi, to discuss the potential privacy concerns on draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.
Annexure 1 to Record note: Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012: The Privacy Issues and Concerns
Annexure 2 to Record note: Short background note on the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the 2nd discussion meeting of the Expert Committee held on May 13, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Expert Committee held on November 25, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the discussions of the Experts Sub-committee Meeting on Human DNA Profiling Bill held on September 3, 2013 at CPFD, Hyderabad
Affidavit on behalf of DBT
Human Draft DNA Profiling Bill 2012 (Working Draft Version, April 29, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fourth-discussion-meeting-of-expert-committee-to-discuss-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development

praskrishna — 2016-06-18T17:57:53Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Civil Society is organizing a workshop on FOSS and a Free, Open Internet. The workshop will be held on November 13, 2015 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.

This was published on the IGF website.

The workshop will explore links between the Free and Open nature of the Internet and the Free and Open Source Software through a series of experience sharing among the speakers as well as audiences. The speakers have been selected on the basis of their wide exposure and geographical and occupational diversity.

As ICTs permeate lives of people around the world, code is fast emerging as an instrument that can change lives. In many parts of the world, the 4Rs of primary education are Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and pRogramming, indicative of the role that ICTs will play in the future.

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is, inter alia, a mechanism whereby code, and consequently the ability to code, is being democratized. In contrast with centralized proprietary models, FOSS allows decentralized creation, distribution and maintenance of code. Such democratization enables grassroots level application of code to solve local problems, leading to more empowered communities. Free flow of code is therefore important to ensure that communities to stay 'plugged in' and current. Code also enables communities to side-step practices such as surveillance, censorship.

A Free, Open, Unfragmented Internet is of critical importance to FOSS--without a free Internet, the FOSS-based peer-production methodologies for code would be infeasible. Interestingly, the Internet also needs the innovations of FOSS to remain free & open, thus forming a positive mutual dependency.

Both FOSS and the Internet are at risk from forces that are seeking increasing control over content and fragmentation, challenging its openness. This would be inimical to the rights of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives.

The Round-table seeks to highlight perspectives from the participants about the future co-developemnt of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these.

Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)

Civil Society
Technical Community
Private Sector

Has the proposer, or any of the co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before?

yes

The link to the workshop report

http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no80-steady-stepsfoss-and-mdgs

Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop

#openInternet #foss #codefordev

Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants

Besides specially identified resource persons, the Roundtable will invite IGF participants who are part of FOSS communities around the world (particularly Brazil, which has a vibrant FOSS community). Participation will include real-time remote participation from FOSS communities around the world, as well as Twitter and email-based submission of ideas and thoughts.

The Round-table format has been chosen for many-to-many interactions so as to generate a wealth of ideas. No speaker shall speak for more than 5 minutes. Two moderators will guide discussions, and a rapporteur will ensure that ideas are captured. The report of the Roundtable would be posted to all participating communities so as to stimulate grassroots-level action.

Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of the participants in the proposed workshop

Mr.Satish Babu, Technical Community, Director, International Centre for FOSS, Trivandrum, India, who shall provide technical inputs of FOSS and its relevance, particularly to emerging economies, Confirmed

Ms. Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa, is an experienced activist who has been promoting the use of FOSS in Africa. Seeking funding at present.

Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York, is a lawyer working with FOSS and its legal implications for over two decades. Confirmed

Mr. Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil, a FOSS-centric company that provides accessibility solutions to visually impaired people. Confirmed

Mr. Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation, a Civil Society organization working in Africa on a broad range of areas including FOSS. Confirmed

Mr. Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant, Private Sector. Seeking funding for participation.

Mr. Harish Pillay, Private Sector, RedHat Asia-Pacific. Seeking funding for participation.

Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil. Confirmed

Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil, Confirmed

Ms. Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies - CeWeb.br (a CGI.br/NIC.br initiative). Confirmed

Name of in-person Moderator(s)

Satish Babu, Mishi Choudhary

Name of Remote Moderator(s)

Judy Okite

Name of Rapporteur(s)

Pranesh Prakash

Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation

Besides around 30 persons at the IGF, we will be providing wide publicity for the workshop through FOSS communities and networks. Besides live audio/video participation, Twitter shall be a key resource for real-time participation. There shall be a Twitter co-ordinator identified whose role will be to tweet the salient points at the Roundtable periodically for the benefit of documenting and informing interested communities.

For those that have either technical difficulties or time-zone problems, ideas and comments can be submitted by email before the workshop to the moderators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development

Forget privacy, Aadhaar Bill gives too much power to the executive

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T14:44:12Z

The government promotes the Aadhaar programme because it believes the 12-digit unique identification number will let them track every penny spent from the exchequer. But money is not all that the Aadhaar number can track.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on March 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

It can help track people too with amazing efficiency. This is at the centre of the controversy around the programme, and the Aadhaar bill that requires every resident to get the number to access government subsidies and services.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley put up a spirited defence of the bill in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday when the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 came up for passage. And he was right.

As far as privacy is concerned, the NDA government’s version is much more stringent than the creaky draft proposed by the UPA in 2010.

Jaitley said there were only two circumstances in which personal data collected by UIDAI could be shared under this bill.

One, if the Aadhaar number holder consents to his details being shared. Second, if a government agency wants to access this data on grounds of national security.

But the debate around privacy concerns – that neither the NDA nor the UPA governments addressed – and the new bill is much more fundamental.

The Aadhaar bill gives the executive too much power to decide how to administer the law.

Every law requires the government to frame rules to specify the nitty-gritty of its implementation.

But the Aadhaar bill passed by Parliament gives the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) the power to prescribe regulations for nearly every provision, right down to what biometric or biological attributes need to be captured.

“The law leaves too much power in the hands of the executive,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-headquartered research advocacy group, Centre for Internet and Society.

For instance, the bill gives the Unique identification Authority of India (UIDAI) powers to determine if it should collect any biological attribute of people too. This means the government could at a later date mandate that DNA of all Aadhaar numbers too be collected.

The example echoed in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday as well.

“No power should be delegated to the UID Authority because then the UID Authority will decide tomorrow that DNA is required, and they will then have the powers to take DNA information as well,” Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said.

The minister tried to explain the reliance on regulations issued by UIDAI – the word ‘regulations’ does appear some 50 times through the legislation – as compared to less than 10 in, say, the right to information law or the 2010 version of the bill.

He said MPs could still review notifications issued by UIDAI when they are placed for parliamentary approval.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-17-2016-aloke-tikku-forget-privacy-aadhaar-bill-gives-too-much-power-to-the-executive

Forensic DNA Databases

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:57:33Z

A presentation by Jeremy Gruber

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/forensic-dna-databases.ppt

Foreign Media on Zuckerberg's India Backlash

praskrishna — 2016-01-03T09:20:41Z

When Facebook's co-founder proposed bringing free Web services to India, his stated aim was to help connect millions of impoverished people to unlimited opportunity. Instead, critics have accused him of making a poorly disguised land grab in India's burgeoning Internet sector. The growing backlash could threaten the very premise of Internet.org, his ambitious, two-year-old effort to connect the planet.

The blog post was published in NDTV on December 30, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Indian authorities are circumspect because the Facebook initiative provides access to only a limited set of websites -- undermining the equal-access precepts of net neutrality. The telecommunications regulator is calling for initial comments by Jan 7, extending the deadline from today, on whether wireless carriers can charge differently for data usage across websites, applications and platforms.

Losing this fight could imperil Facebook's Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and select services such as Messenger and Microsoft's Bing without a data plan.

"The India fight is helping shape debates elsewhere," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit advocacy group. "Activists in other countries such as Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia are watching this debate and will seize the momentum created in India."

Zuckerberg's argument for free Web access is based in part on Deloitte research showing that for every 10 people who are connected to the Web, one is lifted out of poverty and one job is created.

Facebook argues that by giving people free access to a small slice of the Internet, they will quickly see the value in paying for the whole thing. Zuckerberg has said his biggest challenge in connecting people to the Web isn't access to cellular networks, but a social hurdle: he needs to prove to people who have never been online that the Internet is useful.

"Who could possibly be against this?" Zuckerberg wrote in an impassioned op-ed in the Times of India this week. "Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India."

Zuckerberg's pleas underscore what's at stake. Facebook already attracts 1.55 billion people monthly, or about half of the Internet-connected global population. To keep growing, the world's largest social network needs to get more people online. Hence the billions of dollars Facebook is spending on projects to deliver the Web to under-served areas via drones, satellites and lasers. And Internet.org, which now spans 37 nations.

India, as the world's second most populous nation, is arguably the most important piece of Zuckerberg's Free Basics strategy. But the opposition is fierce. Critics note that the Facebook service doesn't offer Web favorites such as Google's search. Facebook has said it would be open to adding more features from competitors, but critics are skeptical of giving the social-networking giant such influence on the Internet.

Critics also say that by offering a limited swath of the Internet at comparatively slow speeds, the company is creating a diluted version of the Web. That could stifle innovation by causing disadvantages for Indian startups building rival apps, or allow Facebook and its telecommunications carrier-partners to act as Internet gatekeepers.

In a sign of the importance he attaches to the issue, Zuckerberg on Tuesday called one of India's most prominent entrepreneurs to make his case.

One97 Communications, the mobile payments startup backed by Alibaba Group Holding, is one of several tech companies that have come out against Facebook's plans.

"We are totally against telcos preferring one developer over another," One97 founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma said in a phone interview before that call. "We are asking for access neutrality. We are hoping that all startups will be treated equally."

Sonia Dhawan, a spokeswoman for One97's payment website Paytm, said the call took place but didn't describe the conversation further. Sharma wasn't available for further comment.

Facebook is now scrambling to drum up support. It's started a "Save Free Basics In India" campaign, asking Indian users to support "digital equality" by filling out a form that shoots an e-mail to regulators. That also has the effect of sending notifications to user's friends unless they opt out.
Facebook has also taken out full-page advertisements, including one featuring a smiling Indian farmer and his family who the ads say used new techniques to double his crop yield.

While countries such as the Philippines have embraced Free Basics, India has been "the outlier and more challenging," Chris Daniels, vice president of Internet.org, said in a Dec. 26 chat on Reddit.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-bhuma-shrivastava-december-30-2015-foreign-media-on-zukerberg-india-backlash

Foreign Funding of NGOs

praskrishna — 2013-03-04T23:52:31Z

Should FDI in India’s thinktank sector worry us? It is a debate long overdue.

This article by Prashant Reddy was published in the March issue of Open Magazine.

In 1976, at the height of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, India’s Parliament enacted a piece of legislation called the Foreign Regulation Contribution Act. It prohibited political parties and ‘organisations of a political nature’, civil servants and judges, as also correspondents, columnists and editors/owners of registered newspapers and news broadcasting organisations— and even cartoonists—from receiving foreign contributions.

The very fact that the Act makes a specific reference to cartoonists should be hint enough of the establishment’s paranoia vis-à-vis the ‘invisible hand’ of foreign powers back then. During a Rajya Sabha debate on the proposed bill on 9 March 1976, the term ‘CIA’ (Central Intelligence Agency) was mentioned at least 30 times by different legislators, while ‘Lockheed Martin’ (a military aerospace corporation) came up at least six times in the context of alleged instances of Americans pumping dollars into governments worldwide to buy influence during the Cold War.

The sentiment of the times was captured by the following statement made during that debate by Khurshid Alam Khan, father of India’s present Minister for External Affairs: “The CIA’s doings all over the world have very clearly indicated as to what could be done by foreign money and foreign interference.”

In 2010, a different parliament, with opposition members who had not been imprisoned like those in 1976, unanimously voted to update the law by passing the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). In fact, the Parliamentary Standing Committee that examined the bill was headed by the BJP’s Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and it had no major objections.

This time round, there was no talk of the CIA or Lockheed Martin. Instead, concern was focused on the increasingly influential role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as institutions of civil society in India. The term ‘NGO’ found at least 40 mentions during the Rajya Sabha debate on the 2010 bill. The main concern of the Upper House appeared to be a lack of transparency among NGOs receiving foreign contributions. Hence the calls to strengthen the monitoring regime, although several MPs expressed worry that the new law would give the Centre too much discretionary power to crack down on dissenting NGOs.

Worries about the 2010 Act’s overreach were validated last year when the Government used it to clamp down on NGOs involved in anti-corruption and anti-nuclear protests. As part of that exercise, at least four NGOs were booked under the FCRA for allegedly diverting foreign funds to aid the organisation of protests against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu. Their bank accounts were frozen. The protests, however, did not end.

Perhaps the most ironic use of the FCRA was when the Ministry of Home Affairs reportedly held back potential funding from the US-based Ford Foundation for the Mumbai-based Institute for Policy Research Studies (IPRS), a thinktank that runs Parliamentary Research Service (PRS).

Incubated at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a Delhi-based thinktank, PRS was spun off and institutionalised as IPRS in 2010 as a Section 25 non-profit company with a registered office in Mumbai. The main aim of PRS was to provide non-partisan legislative research services to parliamentarians, most of whom are starved of resources to conduct independent research required to hold the Executive accountable in Parliament. The service’s popularity among MPs was obvious from the fact that several of them reportedly made individual representations to the Home Ministry against blocking foreign funds for its parent institute.

The tragedy of why Parliament does not have a public-funded service like PRS is a debate for another day, but choking the IPRS of foreign funds raises a question of hypocrisy since the Central Government routinely collaborates with a wide range of civil society thinktanks that receive funds from the West.

Let’s start with the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). According to its filings with the MHA, accessible on the FCRA website (http://mha.nic.in/fcra.htm), ICRIER has received over Rs 11.5 crore in foreign donations from a range of international institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Sasakawa Peace Foundation between 2007 and 2012. This council, currently headed by Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Planning Commission Vice-chairperson Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, appears to have a cosy relationship with the present establishment. When the Government was in a fix over the contentious General Anti- Avoidance Rules (GAAR) of taxation, for example, it delegated the task of ironing out its problems to a four-member committee headed by Dr Parthasarathi Shome, a well-known economic policy expert at ICRIER. There are several other projects on which the Council’s faculty collaborates closely with the Government of India.

That thinktanks are well networked goes without saying. In fact, ICRIER and PRS were involved in quite a controversy during last year’s Parliament vote on Foreign Direct Investment in India’s multi-brand retail sector. As reported by India Today, (‘Foreign Direct Instruction for our MPs?’ 6 December 2012), IPRS had organised a ‘close-door’ meeting at Delhi’s Constitution Club the day before the vote, where MPs were briefed on the benefits of FDI by Professor Arpita Mukherjee of ICRIER. Some MPs had publicly labelled this a ‘lobbying’ effort.

Another example of close collaboration between the Centre and a thinktank that gets significant foreign funding is the one between the Government and the CPR, headed by Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Between 2007 and 2012, according to its filings with the MHA, this thinktank received foreign funds of over Rs 40.8 crore from a range of donors such as the Ford Foundation, Google Foundation, International Development Research Centre, Economic and Social Research Council, Hewlett Foundation and IKEA Social Initiative.

Environmental policy is another area in which foreign-funded thinktanks have a significant impact. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), headed by Sunita Narain with a governing board that has Ela Bhatt, BG Verghese, Dr MS Swaminathan and Dr NC Saxena among others, has received over Rs 67.7 crore in foreign funds between 2006 and 2012. The CSE’s main donors, according to FCRA records, include the Denmark- based Dan Church Aid, Germany-based Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst EV, Heinrich Boll Foundation and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Other donors include the Commission of European Communities and Government of India.

Going by the media coverage that CSE receives, it is safe to say that this thinktank has a profound influence on India’s environmental policy. An indication of its ties with the Government is the fact that the two had their own ‘side-event’ at the recently concluded Doha talks on climate change.

The other green thinktank with generous foreign contributions that works closely with the Government is The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Consider this: the International Bioenergy Summit of 2012 held in New Delhi was organised by TERI and sponsored by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT). According to its FCRA filings, TERI, with a staff of over 900, has received about Rs 155.9 crore between 2006 and 2012 from a vast variety of donors.

In the field of health policy, one of the most influential thinktanks is the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI). Since it was founded in 2006, it has received a total of Rs 219 crore in funds, its biggest foreign donor being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and biggest Indian donor being the Government of India. Other foreign donors, according to FCRA filings, include the National Institutes of Health (of the US government), Welcome Trust, International Development Research Centre and MacArthur Foundation.

A public-private initiative, the PHFI is expected to shape India’s approach to public health policy over the next decade. An example of its influence on India’s health policy is the fact that its secretariat has been thanked and praised in a report of the High Level Expert Group constituted by the Planning Commission to frame a new policy on ‘universal health coverage’ for all Indians.

On matters of internet policy, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based thinktank focused on internet governance and intellectual property issues, has been a member of some key government committees, like the one under Justice AP Shah to study privacy laws in India. The CIS also receives foreign funding. According to its website, it has received over Rs 8.3 crore in funds, a significant portion of it from foreign donors like the UK-based Kusuma Trust, which was founded by Anurag Dikshit, an Indian businessman who made a fortune selling his stake in a popular online gambling website. He eventually donated most of his wealth to the Kusuma Trust, which funds various charities across the world.

In the human rights space, there is the famous Lawyers Collective, which, apart from its human rights advocacy, also provides legal aid to members of disadvantaged communities. Although this collective does not appear to work all that closely with the Government, it is interesting to note that it was founded by Indira Jaising, who is currently one of the Centre’s Additional Solicitor Generals. Since 2006, according to its FCRA filings, the organisation has received around Rs 21.8 crore in foreign funds from the Ford, Levi Strauss and Open Society foundations and from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, among others.

Another thinktank that deserves a mention is the Centre for Civil Society (CCS), which was founded by Dr Parth J Shah and has a ‘Board of Scholars’ with Isher Judge Ahluwalia, Jagdish Bhagwati, Lord Meghnad Desai and Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar, among others, as members. While it is not clear from its website whether it works closely with the Government, it was ranked 51st in a recent global survey of thinktanks by University of Pennsylvania. According to a CCS press release, these rankings were ‘based on not just our research and analysis, but also on our engagement with policy makers and ability to influence policy decisions’. The CCS’s rank was quite a surprise, given its modest resources. According to its FCRA filings, between 2006 and 2011, it received about Rs 6.2 crore from foreign donors such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, John Templeton Foundation and International Policy Network. As per its audited accounts, available on its website, donations from Indian donors were equally modest.

The above examples demonstrate the influence of foreign funded thinktanks on almost every major aspect of Indian policy today, be it economic or environmental, related to public health or internet governance.

Is this good or bad for India as a country? Given that most sectors of the economy are now open to foreign investment, does it make sense to regulate and restrict foreign funds for such thinktanks under laws like the FCRA?

The answer depends on what Indian society expects of them. Do we expect them to be completely independent of donors in their views? Would an organisation like the CSE still get foreign funds from European donors if it were to readily welcome genetically modified (GM) food in India? In such circumstances, how independent should we expect these thinktanks to be in the arena of policy?

Absolute objectivity—or at a least public perception of it—is an absolute myth. No matter who funds a thinktank, be it foreigners or Indians, it is impossible to be seen as such. The more pressing issue is of transparency. Are Indian policymakers aware of the details of foreign funds received by these thinktanks?

Take, for example, a recent Parliamentary Standing Committee report that expressed serious reservations about GM food. The Committee repeatedly quotes with approval the deposition of Dr Vandana Shiva against GM food. A little-known fact about Dr Shiva is that her organisation, Navdanya, according to its FCRA filings, has received a total of Rs 16.7 crore between 2006 and 2012 in foreign donations from mainly European organisations (some of which also contribute to the CSE) like Bread for the World, Diakonie Emergency Aid, Hivos Foundation, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst EV, RSF Innovations in Social Finance, and even from the European Union itself.

Would a Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by an MP of the CPM, a party that is always suspicious of the ‘foreign hand’, show the same deference to Dr Shiva’s views if its members knew of Navdanya’s European donors, several of which are also Christian churches?

In an op-ed article in The Indian Express (‘Do not disagree’, 29 February 2012), Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta while criticising the FCRA, states, ‘Of course, NGOs should be transparent and accountable in terms of their sources of funding.’ Yet, the CPR, of which Dr Mehta is president, only discloses the names of its donors in its annual report, and that too without revealing the amounts received from each. Similarly, Navdanya offers no information on either of its websites, Indian and Italian (navdanyainternational.it), on any of its funding. Other thinktanks like the PHFI and CIS offer a more detailed breakup of their different sources of funding, while some like the CSE and CCS provide only a roll of donor names and a figure of cumulative funding with no breakup of individual contributions. So, while these thinktanks are forced to disclose their foreign funding sources to the MHA under the FCRA, why do they not volunteer exhaustive information on their own websites?

An amusing facet of this is that the Central Government and Corporate India are more transparent (even if forced to be) than these civil society institutions, thanks to the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the extensive disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 1956. Of companies in particular, information is accessible over the internet on the MCA21 website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This contrast is amusing because some of these thinktanks never tire of demanding transparency of the State and corporate sector.

For several thinktanks, it is often hard to figure out something as basic as the nature of the legal entity through which they conduct their activities. Are they societies, associations or trusts? More pertinently, why is the Government not pushing for a stricter transparency regime? A major stumbling block may be the fact that these thinktanks are set up under state laws and it is difficult for the Central Government to coordinate a nationwide transparency regime. However, given that most are beneficiaries of income tax exemptions, it may be possible for the Centre to use the Income Tax Act to demand comprehensive disclosures. Since they enjoy tax benefits, they might also qualify as ‘public authorities’ under the Right To Information Act, 2005.

Another reason that disclosure of funding is important is to inform the analysis of people who usually see NGOs as selfless entities dedicated to nothing but a higher cause. While this may be true of some NGOs, many leaders of these set-ups have personal stakes in ensuring certain outcomes. After all, future donor grants often depend on sustaining one’s influence in the policy space. Many of the institutions described in this article have been regular recipients of funds from the same sources year after year.

Another question is the volume of funds coming in and where it will leave India’s public institutions that were originally meant to aid policymaking with unbiased intellectual inputs. How are cash-strapped Indian universities to compete with these well-funded thinktanks?

Government-run institutions of higher learning are supposed to have an inbuilt guarantee of academic independence, but would their scholarly voices be drowned out by those backed by bigger resources?

Also, given the frequency with which a few foreign funders appear on donor lists, is it time to worry about their influence on Indian policies? After all, generous funding lets the faculty of these thinktanks jetset around the world to attend conferences, organise seminars in India and network with officials at a level that most public universities cannot afford. How does this impact our civil society discourse? Should Parliament limit the amount that a single foreign entity can donate, or are we better off sticking to a regulatory regime that only insists on a set of disclosure norms?

On a concluding note, let us not forget that a large part of the credit for the RTI Act of 2005—the country’s most empowering piece of legislation since the Constitution of 1950—goes to the advocacy efforts of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a farmers group in Rajasthan that does not accept institutional funding from either India or overseas. Bank interest on its corpus and donations by individuals are the MKSS’s only sources of funding. Together, the two gave it Rs 30 lakh for the financial year 2010-11, details of which are available on its website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/openmagazine-article-business-prashant-reddy-march-2-2013-foreign-funding-of-ngos

Forecasting the Implications of the CLOUD Act Around the World

Admin — 2018-09-20T15:51:48Z

Elonnai Hickok participated in the event organized by the Global Network Initiative at the Russell Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. on September 18, 2018 as a speaker.

Elonnai spoke on the CLOUD Act from an Indian perspective based on the article that she co-authored with Vipul Kharbanda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forecasting-the-implications-of-the-cloud-act-around-the-world

For sex workers, mobile phone becomes a double-edged sword

Tushar Kaushik — 2019-07-30T01:01:26Z

Our research on the use of mobile phones by sex workers, as part of the project on Feminist Information Infrastructure in collaboration with Sangama, was cited in an article in the Economic Times.

The article by Tushar Kaushik was published in the Economic Times on July 23, 2019. CIS research was quoted.

A mobile phone makes sex workers more vulnerable to harassment and abuse; however, it also helps them protect themselves better, according to recent reports. The report compiled by research and advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in May was based on surveys and interviews of 64 sex workers in rural Bengaluru and Hassan conducted by the nonprofit Sangama, which works with sexual minorities and sex workers. It said most sex workers use basic phones rather than smartphones.

Some respondents said phones helped them conduct sex work discreetly and avoid solicitation on roads and in public spaces. “This was especially advantageous for workers employed in addition to sex work, allowing them to schedule appointments for sex work for short periods during the day,” the report said. Some respondents said it helped them stay connected with friends and family while working.

But, in some cases, clients circulated workers’ contacts, leading to frequent calls and messages, some of which turned abusive. Some said clients would circulate photos and videos that had them in a compromising situation, or record calls with them, and threaten to circulate the content among families and communities of the workers. Pooja S (name changed), 27, said many clients shared her numbers with others, who would then call and harass her. “Clients have sometimes taken my photos and videos without my knowledge,” she said. However, Pooja is also aware of the advantage of having a mobile phone — in case of any problem with any client, she can immediately call someone for help.

Many transgender sex workers also said the advantages of a mobile phone far outweigh the disadvantages. Trans-activist Uma Umesh, who works to help many sex workers from the community, said, “Some clients call workers for frivolous reasons, and when workers don’t respond well, clients turn abusive.” Some sex workers use a separate sim card when with clients, she said.

A journal published in February, titled ‘Female Sex Workers’ Use of Mobile Phones in India,’ made similar conclusions based on discussions with 67 sex workers and 18 staff members from local NGOs in Mumbai and parts of Karnataka between January and May 2015. The journal highlighted how phones helped workers to be less dependent on brokers. It also mentioned cases where the police, upon apprehending sex workers, called clients whose contacts were saved on the workers’ phone to use them as a witness.

Shubha Chacko, one of the authors and executive director at Solidarity Foundation, which works with sex workers, said the workers are being trained to use phones to minimise threats. “For instance, some clients don’t pay. We advise workers to seek digital payment in advance.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-july-23-2019-tushar-kaushik-for-sex-workers-mobile-phone-becomes-a-double-edged-sword

For India’s complaints department, visit Facebook Live

praskrishna — 2017-01-25T02:03:03Z

Notebook: Social media cuts through red tape in a country beset by inertia.

The article by Amy Kazmin was published in the Financial Times on January 23, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Rarely has a soldier’s lament about bad food received such attention. But Tej Bahadur Yadav, of India’s Border Security Force, made national headlines with Facebook videos complaining about his rations along India’s tense line-of-control with neighbouring Pakistan.

Standing against a landscape of desolate, snow-covered mountains, Mr Yadav bemoaned the fried flatbread and tea that constitutes breakfast, and the watery lentils, seasoned only with salt and turmeric, of his lunch. It was unclear whether his main complaint was about the poor cooking quality or limited food quantity but the video of the offending meals, including a burnt chapati, suggested both.

“I do not want to blame the government,” he said calmly in Hindi. “The government provides everything for us but these higher officers sell everything. Sometimes, we soldiers go hungry.”

Reaction to the videos, which were covered widely by the mainstream media, came fast and furious. The BSF publicly accused Mr Yadav of indiscipline, saying he was a chronic malcontent previously subjected to a court martial for aiming his weapon at a superior. It also noted he was taking voluntary retirement soon.

But many Indians found it easy to believe that their country’s troops are short-changed on food and they rallied to the disgruntled soldier as a courageous whistleblower. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered an investigation, and a dietitian was reportedly sent to the border to assess the soldiers’ food.

Analysts pointed out that Mr Yadav’s gripe echoed official critiques of deficiencies in the army’s food procurement. “One can imagine the toil our jawans [junior soldiers] go through while guarding the border in chilling conditions. And the least they can expect is a good meal after long hours of hard duty,” an Indian Express editorial declared.

That a soldier posted in a remote border area could unleash such a kerfuffle via a video highlights how Indians armed with mobile phones are taking to social media to hold to account the traditionally non-responsive political and bureaucratic establishment.

Smartphones make up nearly 30 per cent of phones in use in India and that number is rising fast, according to the Asian research group CLSA. Sushma Swaraj, India’s foreign minister, has garnered attention for her rapid responses to individual Twitter pleas for help — whether from Indians in trouble abroad or those struggling to renew a passport or secure a visa for a visitor.

Now other ministers and government agencies, including local police forces, have begun to respond personally to pleas for help and public complaints on Twitter. It’s a big change from a time I recall well, when Indians tangled in red tape had no option but to find those with connections to try to influence, or prod, the seemingly impenetrable bureaucracy.

“Bureaucrats and politicians are now active and available on social media — ordinary citizens tweet politicians and there is a spectacle of immediate redress of complaints,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, told me. When New Delhi’s police department set up an office to receive complaints against corrupt officers, for example, many citizens provided audio or visual recordings of the alleged wrongdoing. It’s only a matter of time before such footage finds its way to social media — or beyond. Ironically, those whose plights gain traction on social media, and are then amplified by mainstream media, are sometimes low-ranking civil servants harassed by their superiors.

This week brought news of a female railway clerk punished for dereliction of duty after she refused to sing “one particular” duet with her senior manager at his farewell party. A friend who works for a major western social media platform here in India (who ironically can’t be identified as he wasn’t authorised to speak to me), tells me that “the power structures that governed who used to be heard and who wouldn’t be heard have changed”. As technology spreads further and deeper in India, we can expect that noise to amplify.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-amy-kazmin-january-23-2017-for-indias-complaints-department-visit-facebook-live