We are anonymous, we are legion

The Creation of a Network for the Global South - A Literature Review

tanvi — 2016-02-04T13:13:20Z

I. Introduction

The organization of societies and states is predicated on the development of Information Technology and has begun to enable the construction of specialized networks. These networks aid in the mobilization of resources on a global platform.[1] There is a need for governance structures that embody this globalized thinking and adopt superior information technology devices to bridge gaps in the operation and participation of not only political functions but also economic processes and operations.[2] Currently, public institutions fall short of an optimum level of functioning simply because they lack the information, know-how and resources to respond effectively to this newly globalized and economically liberalized world order. Civil society is beginning to seek a greater participatory voice in both policy making and ideating, which require public institutions to institute a method of allowing this participation while at the same time retaining the crux of their functions and processes. The network society thus requires, As argued by Castells, a new methodology of social structuring, one amalgamating the analysis of social structure and social action within the same overarching framework.[3] This Network propounds itself as a 'dynamic, self-evolving structure, which, powered by information technology and communicating with the same digital language, can grow, and include all social expressions, compatible with each network's goals. Networks increase their value exponentially through their contribution to human resources, markets, raw materials and other such components of production and distribution.' [4]

As noted by Kevin Kelly,' The Atom is the past. The symbol of science for the next century is the dynamical Net.…Whereas the Atom represents clean simplicity, the Net channels the messy power of complexity. The only organization capable of nonprejudiced growth or unguided learning is a network. All other topologies limit what can happen. A network swarm is all edges and therefore open ended any way you come at it. Indeed the network is the least structured organization that can be said to have any structure at all. ..In fact a plurality of truly divergent components can only remain coherent in a network. No other arrangement - chain, pyramid, tree, circle, hub - can contain true diversity working as a whole .'[5]

A network therefore is integral to the facilitation, coordination and advocacy of different agenda within a singular framework, which seeks to formulate suitable responses to a wide range of problems across regions. An ideal model of a network would therefore be one that is reflective of the interconnectivity between relationships, strengthened by effective communication and based on a strong foundation of trust.

The most powerful element of a network is however the idea of a common purpose. The pursuit is towards similar ends and therefore the interconnected web of support it offers is in realization of a singular goal,

II. Evolution of the Network

There are certain norms that must be incorporated for a network to be able to work at its best. Robert Chambers, in his book, Whose Reality Counts? Identifies these norms and postulates their extension to every form of a network, in order to capture its creative spirit and aid in the realization of its goals.[6] A network should therefore ideally foster four fundamental elements in order to inculcate an environment of trust, encouragement and the overall actualization of its purpose. These elements are; Diversity or the encouragement of a multitude of narratives from diverse sources, Dynamism or the ability of participants to retain their individual identities while maintaining a facilitative structure, Democracy or an equitable system of decision making to enable an efficient working of the net and finally, Decentralization or the feasibility of enjoying local specifics on a global platform.[7]

In order to attain these ideal elements it is integral to strengthen certain aspects of the practice through performing specific and focused functions, these include making sure of a clear broad consensus, which ensures the co-joining of a common purpose. Additionally, centralization, in the form of an overarching set of rules must be kept to a minimum, in order to facilitate a greater level of flexibility while still providing the necessary support structure. The building of trust and solid relationships between participants is prioritized to enhance creative ideation in a supportive environment. Joint activities, more than being output oriented are seen as the knots that tie together the entire web of support. Input and participation are the foremost objectives of the network, in keeping with the understanding that "contribution brings gain". [8]

Significant management issues that plague networks include the practical aspects of bringing the network into function through efficient leadership and the consolidation of a common vision. A balanced approach would entail a common consultation on the goals of the network, the sources of funding and an agreed upon structure within which the network would operate. It is also important to create alliances outside of the sector of familiarity and ensure an inclusive environment for members across regions, allowing them to retain their localized individuality while affording them with a global platform. [9]

III. Structure

The structural informality of a network is essential to its sustenance. Networks must therefore ensure that they embody a non-hierarchized structure, devoid of bureaucratic interferences and insulated from a centralized system of control and supervision. This requires an internal system of checks and balances, consisting of periodic reviews and assessments. Networks must therefore limit the powers of supervision of the secretariat. The secretariat must allow for the coordination of its activities and allocate appropriate areas of engagement according to the relative strength of the participating members.

One form of a network structure, postulated within a particular research study is the threads, knots and Nets model. [10] It consists of members within a network bound together by threads of relationship, communication and trust. These threads represent the commonality that binds together the participants of the particular network. The threads are established through common ideas and a voluntary participation in the process of communication and conflict resolution. [11]

The knots represent the combined activities which the participants engage in, with the common goal of realizing a singular purpose. These knots signify an optimum level of activity, wherein members of the network are able to support, inspire and confer tangible benefits onto each other. The net represents the entire structure of the network, which is constructed through a confluence of relationships and common activities. [12] The structure is autonomous in nature and allows participants to contribute without losing their individual identities. It is also dynamic and flexible; incorporating new elements with relative ease. It is therefore a collaboration which affords onto its members the opportunity to expand without losing its purpose. The maintenance of such a structure requires constant review and repair, with adequate awareness of weak links or "threads" and the capability and willingness to knot them together with new participants, thereby extending the net.

For example, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization used a system of organizational "milestones" to monitor the progress of the network and keep the network concentrated. It requires a sustained institutional effort to fulfill its mandate of "the right of every child to be protected against vaccine-preventable diseases" and brings together international organizations, civil society and private industry. [13] As postulated within the Critical Choices research study of the United Nations, clearly defined milestones are integral to sustaining an effective support mechanism for donors and ensuring that all relevant participants are on board. [14] This also allows for donors to be made aware of the tangible outcomes that have been achieved by the network. Interim goals that are achievable within a short span of time also afford a sense of legitimacy onto the network, allowing it to deliver on its mandate early on. Setting milestones would require an in depth focus and a nuanced understanding of specific aspects of larger problems and delivering early results on these problems would allow for a foundational base of trust, on the foundation of which, a possibly long drawn out consultative process can be fixed.[15]

A Network might often find alliances outside of its sector of operation. For example, Greenpeace was able to make its voice heard in International Climate Change negotiations by engaging with private insurance companies and enlisting their support.[16] The organization looked towards the private sector for support to mobilize resources and enlist the requisite expertise within their various projects. [17]

A. Funding

The financial support a network receives is essential for its sustenance. The initial seed money it receives can be obtained from a single source however, cross sectoral financing is necessary to build a consensus with regards to issues that may be a part of the network's mandate. The World Commission for Dams (WCD), for example, obtains funding from multiple sources in order to retain its credibility. The sources of funding of the WCD include government agencies, multilateral organizations, business associations, NGO's and Government Agencies, without a single donor contributing more than 10% of the total funding it receives.[18] However, the difficulty with this model of funding is the relative complexity in assimilating a number of smaller contributions, which may take away from its capacity to expand its reach and enhance the scope of its work. Cross sectoral funding is less of a fundamental requirement for networks whose primary mandate is implementation, such as The Global Environment Facility (GEF), whose legitimacy is derived from intergovernmental treaties and is therefore only funded by governments.[19] The GEF has only recently broadened its sources of funding to include external contributions from the private sector.

A network can also be funded through the objective it seeks to achieve through the course of its activities. For example, Rugmark an international initiative which seeks to mitigate the use of child labor in South Asia uses an external on site monitoring system to verify and provide labels certifying the production of carpets without the use of child labor.[20] The monitors of this system are trained by Rugmark and carpet producers have to sign a binding agreement, undertaking not to employ children below the age of 14 in order to receive the certification. The funds generated from these carpets, for the import of which American and European importers pay 1% of the import value, are used to provide rehabilitation and education facilities for the children in affected areas. The use of these funds is reported regularly. [21]

The funding must be sustained for a few years, which is a difficult task for networks that require an overall consensus of participants. The greatest outcomes of the network are not tangible solutions to the problem but the facilitation of an environment which allows stakeholders to derive a tangible solution. Thus, the elements of trust, communication and collaboration are integral to the efficient functioning of the network. However, the lack of tangible outcomes exposes the funders to financial risks. The best way to reduce such risks is to institute an uncompromising time limit for the initiative, within which it must achieve tangible results or solutions that can be implemented. A less stringent approach would be to incorporate a system of periodic review and assessment of the accomplishments of the network, subsequent to which further recommendations may be made for a further course of action.[22]

B. Relationships

A three year study conducted by Newell & Swan drew definitive conclusions with respect to the inter-organizational collaboration between participants within a network. The study determined that there currently exist three types of trust; Companion trust or the trust that exists within the goodwill and friendship between participants, Competence trust, wherein the competence of other participants to carry out the tasks assigned to them is agreed upon and lastly, Commitment trust or the trust which is predicated on contractual or inter-institutional that are agreed upon. [23] While companion and competence trust are easily identifiable, commitment trust is more subjective as it is determined by the agreement surrounding the core values and overall identifiable aims. Sheppard & Tuchinsky refer to an identification based trust which is based on a collective understanding of shared values. Such a trust requires significant investment but they argue, "The rewards are commensurably greater and the he benefits go beyond quantity, efficiency and flexibility." [24] Powell postulates, "Trust and other forms of social capital are moral resources that operate in fundamentally different manner than physical capital. The supply of trust increases, rather than decreases, with use: indeed, trust can be depleted if not used." [25]

Karl Wieck endorses the "maintenance of tight control values and beliefs which allow for local adaptation within centralized systems." [26] The autonomy that participants within a network enjoy is therefore considered to be close to sacred, so as to allow them to engage with each other on an equitable footing, while still maintain their individual identities. Freedman and Reynders believe that networks place a so called 'premium' on " the autonomy of those linked through the network…..networks provide a structure through which different groups - each with their own organizational styles, substantive priorities, and political strategies - can join together for common purposes that fill needs felt by each. "[27] Consequently, lower the level of centralized control within a network, the greater the requirement of trust. Allen Nan resonates with this idea, as is evident from her review of coordinating conflict resolution NGO's. She believes that these NGO's are most effective when " beginning with a loose voluntary association which grows through relationship building, gradually building more structure and authority as it develops. No NGO wants to give away its authority until it trusts a networking body of people that it knows. " [28]

C. Communication and Collaboration

The binding force that ties together any network is the importance of relationships between participants and their interactions with organizations outside the network. Research has shown that face to face interaction works best and although email may be practical, a face-to-face meeting at regular intervals builds a level of trust amongst participants. [29] It is however important to prevent network from turning into 'self-selecting oligarchies' and to prevent this, there needs to be a balance drawn between goodwill and the trust in others' competence along with a common understanding of differently hierarchized values. [30]

There is also an impending need to develop a relationship vocabulary, as suggested by Taylor, which would be of particular use within transnational networks and afford a deeper understanding of cross cultural relationships.[31]

D. Participation

A significant issue that networks today have to address is how to inculcate and then subsequently maintain participation in the activities of the network. This would include providing incentives to participants, encouraging diversity and enabling greater creative inflow across sectors to generate innovative output. Participation involves three fundamental elements; Action, which includes active contribution in the form of talking, listening, commenting, responding and sharing information, Process, which aids in an equitable system of decision making and constructing relationships and the underpinned values associated with these two elements, which include spreading equality, inculcating openness and including previously excluded communities or individuals. [32] Participation in itself envisages a three leveled definition; participation as a contribution, where people offer a tangible input, participation as an organization process, where people organize themselves to influence certain pre-existing processes and participation as a form of empowerment where people seek to gain power and authority from participating.

In order to create an autonomous system of evaluating and monitoring the nature and context of participation, a network would have to attempt to systematically incorporate a few fundamental processes, such as; enabling an understanding of the dynamism of a network through an established criteria of monitoring the levels of participation of the members, creating an explicit checklist of qualifications of this participation, such as the contributions of the participants, the limits of commitment and the available resources that must be shared and distributed, acknowledging the importance of relationships as fundamental to the success of any network., building a capacity for facilitative and shared leadership, tracing the changes that occur when the advocacy and lobbying activities of individuals are linked and using these individuals as participants who have the power to influence policy and development at various levels.[33] Finally, the recognition that utilizing the combined faculties of the network would aid in the effectuation of further change is vital to sustaining an active participation in the network.[34] It is common for networks to stagnate simply because of the lack of clarity on what a network really is or what it entails. There are significant misconceptions as to the activities engaged in by the network, such as the idea that a network "works solely as a resource center, to provide information, material and papers, rather than as forums for two way exchanges of information and experiences," contribute to the misunderstanding regarding the participation requirements within a network.[35] To facilitate an active, participatory function of learning, a network needs to be more than a resource center that seeks to meet the needs of beneficiaries. While meeting these needs is essential, development projects tend to obfuscate the benefit/input relationship within a network, thus significantly depleting its dynamism quotient. [36]

One method of moving away from the needs based model is to create a tripartite functionary, as was created within a particular research study. [37] This involves A Contributions Assessment, A Weaver's Triangle for Networks and An identification of channels of participation.

Contributions Assessment is an analysis of what the participants within a network are willing to contribute. It enables the network to assess what resources it has access to and how those resources may be distributes amongst the participants, multiplied or exchanged. [38] This system is predicated on a premise of assessing what participants have to offer as opposed to what they need. It challenges the long held notion of requiring an evaluation to identify problems, to address which recommendations are made and in fact seeks to focus on the moments of excellence and enable a discussion on the factors that contributed to these moments. [39] It thus places a value on the best of "what is" as opposed to trying to find a plausible "what ought to be". This approach allows participants to recognize that they are in fact the real "resource Centre" of the network and are encouraged act accordingly.

A Contributions Assessment may be practically incorporated through a few steps. It must be focused on the contributions, after a discussion on who the contributors may be. The aims of the network must be clarified, along with a specification of the contributions required such as perhaps newsletters, a conference, policy analysis etc. The members of the network must be clear on what they would like to contribute to the network and how such contribution might be delivered. Finally, the secretariat must be able to ideate or innovate on how it can enable more contributions from the networks in a more effective manner. [40]

The Weaver's Triangle has been adapted to be applies within networks and enables participants to understand what the aims and activities of the network are. It identifies the overall aim of the network and the change the network seeks to bring about to the status quo. It then lays out the objectives of the network in the form of specific statements about the said differences that the network seeks to bring about. Finally, the network would have to explain why a particular activity has been chosen. [41] The base of the triangle reflects the specific activities that the network seeks to engage in to achieve the said objectives. The triangle is further divided into two, to ensure that action aims and process aims have equal weightage; this allows for the facilitation of an exchange and a connection between the members of the network. [42]

The Circles of Participation is an idea that has been put forth by the Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network. (LACWHN). [43] This Network has three differentiated categories of membership, which it uses to determine the degree of commitment of an organization to the network. R- refers to the members who receive the women's health journal, P refers to members who actively participate in events and campaigns and who are advisors for specific topics. PP refers to the permanent participants within the network at national and international levels. They also receive a journal. This categorization allows the network to make an assessment of the dynamism and growth of a network, with members moving through the categories depending on their levels of participation. [44]

An important space for contributions to the network is the newsletter. This can be facilitated by allowing contributions from various sources, provided they meet the established quality checks, ensuring a balance between regions of origin of the members of the network, ensuring a balance between the policy and program activities of the members and keeping the centralized editorial process to a minimum. This is in keeping with the ideal of a decentralized system of expression that allows each member to retain its individuality while still contributing to the aims of the network. The Women's Global Network on Reproductive Rights (WGNRR) sought to create a similar system of publication to measure the success of their linkages, the levels of empowerment amongst members, in terms of strategizing and enabling localized action and the allocation of space in a fair and equitable manner. [45] Another Network, Creative Exchange customizes its information flow within the network so that each member only receives the information it expresses interest in.[46] This prevents the overburdening of members with unnecessary information.

The activities of the network which don't directly pass through the secretariat or the coordinator of the network can be monitored efficiently by keeping I close contact with new entrants to the network and capturing the essence of the activities that occur on the fringes of the network. This would allow an assessment of the diversity of the network. For example, Creative exchange sends out short follow up emails to determine the number and nature of contacts that have been made subsequent to a particular item in the newsletter. The UK Conflict Development and Peace Network (CODEP) records the newest subscribers to the network after every issue of their newsletter and AB Colombia sends out weekly news summaries electronically which are available for free to recipients who provide details of their professional engagements and why or how they wish to use these summaries. [47] This enables the mapping of the type of recipients the information reaches.

E. Leadership and Coordination

Sarason and Lorentz postulate four distinguishing characteristics that capture the creativity and expertise required by individuals leading and coordinating networks.[48] Knowledge of the territory or a broad understanding of the type of members, the resources available and the needs of the members is extremely important to facilitate an ideal environment of mutual trust and open dialogue between the members. Scanning the network for fluidity and assessing openings, making connections and innovating solutions would enable an efficient leadership that would contribute to the overall dynamism of the network. In addition to this, perceiving strengths and building on assets of existing resources would allow the network to capitalize on its strengths. Finally, the coordinators of a network must be a resource to all members of the network and thus enable them to create better and more efficient systems. They must therefore exercise their personal influence over members wherever required for the overall benefit of the network. Practically, a beneficial leadership would also require an inventive approach by providing fresh and interesting solutions to immediate problems. A sense of clarity, transparency and accountability would also encourage members of the network to participate more and engage with each other. It is important for the leadership within a network to deliver on expectations, while building consensus amongst its members.

A shared objective, a collaborative setting and a constant review of strategies is important to maintain linkages within a network. Responsible relationships underpinned by values and supported by flows of relevant information would allow an effective and fruitful analysis by those who are engaged within a network to do the relevant work. In addition to this, a respect for the autonomy of the network is essential.

F. Inclusion

Public policy networks are more often than not saturated with the economic and social elite from across the developed world. A network across the Global South would have to change this norm and extend its ambit of membership to grass root organizations, which might not have otherwise had the resources or the opportunity to be a part of a network.[49] Networks can achieve their long term goals only if they are driven by the willingness to include organizations from across economic demographics. This would ensure that their output is the result of a collaborative process that takes into account cross cultural norms and differentials across economic demographics.

The participation of diverse actors is reflective of the policy making processing having given due regard to on the ground realities and being sensitive towards the concerns of differently placed interest groups. Networks have been accused of catering only to the needs of industrial countries and subscribing to values of the global north thus stunting local development and enforcing double standards. This tarnishes the legitimacy of the processes inculcated within the network itself. It is therefore all the more essential that a network focused on the global south have a diverse collection of members from across backgrounds and economic contexts. Additionally, the accountability of the network to civil society is dependent on the nature of the links it maintains with the public. Inclusion thus fosters a sense of legitimacy and accountability. The inclusion of local institutions from the beginning would also increase the chances of the solutions provided by the network, being effectively implemented. Local inclusion affords a sense of responsibility and ensures that the network would remain sustainable in the long run. Allowing local stakeholders to take ownership of the network and participate in the formulation of policies, engage in planning and facilitate participation would enable an efficient addressing of significant public policy issues. [50] Thus networks would need to create avenues for participation of local institutions and civil society to engage in a democratic form of decision making.

III. Evaluation

The process of evaluation of a network is most efficiently effectuated through a checklist that has been formulated within a research study for the purpose of evaluating its own network. [51]

This checklist enumerates the various elements that have to be taken into consideration while evaluating the success of a network, as follows;

FIG 1.[52]

1. What is a network? 'Networks are energising and depend crucially on the motivation of members' (Networks for Development, 2000:35) This definition is one that is broadly shared across the literature, although it is more detailed than some. A network has: A common purpose derived from shared perceived need for action Clear objectives and focus A non-hierarchical structure A network encourages Voluntary participation and commitment The input of resources by members for benefit of all A network provides Benefit derived from participation and linking 2. What does a network do? Facilitate shared space for exchange, learning, development - the capacity-building aspect Act for change in areas where none of members is working in systematic way - the advocacy, lobbying and campaigning aspect Include a range of stakeholders - the diversity/ broad-reach aspect 3. What are the guiding principles and values? Collaborative action Respect for diversity Enabling marginalised voices to be heard Acknowledgement of power differences, and commitment to equality 4. How do we do what we do, in accordance with our principles and values? Building Participation Knowing the membership, what each can put in, and what each seeks to gain Valuing what people can put in Making it possible for them to do so Seeking commitment to a minimum contribution Ensuring membership is appropriate to the purpose and tasks Encouraging members to be realistic about what they can give Ensuring access to decision-making and opportunities to reflect on achievements Keeping internal structural and governance requirements to a necessary minimum. Building Relationships and Trust Spending time on members getting to know each other, especially face-to-face Coordination point/secretariat has relationship-building as vital part of work Members/secretariat build relations with others outside network - strategic individuals and institutions Facilitative Leadership (may be one person, or rotating, or a team) Emphasis on quality of input rather than control Knowledgeable about issues, context and opportunities, Enabling members to contribute and participate Defining a vision and articulating aims Balancing the creation of forward momentum and action, with generating consensus Understanding the dynamics of conflict and how to transform relations Promoting regular monitoring and participatory evaluation Have the minimum structure and rules necessary to do the work. Ensure governance is light, not strangling.Give members space to be dynamic Encourage all those who can make a contribution to the overall goal to do so, even if it is small. Working toward decentralised and democratic governance At the centre, make only the decisions that are vital to continued functioning. Push decision-making outwards. Ensure that those with least resources and power have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. Building Capacity Encourage all to share the expertise they have to offer. Seek out additional expertise that is missing. 5. What are the evaluation questions that we can ask about these generic qualities? How do each contribute to the achievement of your aims and objectives? Participation What are the differing levels or layers of participation across the network? Are people participating as much as they are able to and would like? Is the membership still appropriate to the work of the network? Purpose and membership may have evolved over time Are opportunities provided for participation in decision-making and reflection? What are the obstacles to participation that the network can do something about? Trust What is the level of trust between members? Between members and secretariat? What is the level of trust between non-governing and governing members? How do members perceive levels of trust to have changed over time? How does this differ in relation to different issues? What mechanisms are in place to enable trust to flourish? How might these be strengthened? Leadership Where is leadership located? Is there a good balance between consensus-building and action? Is there sufficient knowledge and analytical skill for the task? What kind of mechanism is in place to facilitate the resolution of conflicts? Structure and control How is the structure felt and experienced? Too loose, too tight, facilitating, strangling? Is the structure appropriate for the work of the network? How much decision-making goes on? Where are most decisions taken? Locally, centrally, not taken? How easy is it for change in the structure to take place? Diversity and dynamism How easy is it for members to contribute their ideas and follow-through on them? If you map the scope of the network through the membership, how far does it reach? Is this as broad as intended? Is it too broad for the work you are trying to do? Democracy What are the power relationships within the network? How do the powerful and less powerful interrelate? Who sets the objectives, has access to the resources, participates in the governance? Factors to bear in mind when assessing sustainability Change in key actors, internally or externally; succession planning is vital for those in central roles Achievement of lobbying targets or significant change in context leading to natural decline in energy; Burn out and declining sense of added value of network over and above every-day work. Membership in networks tends to be fluid. A small core group can be a worry if it does not change and renew itself over time, but snapshots of moments in a network's life can be misleading. In a flexible, responsive environment members will fade in and out depending on the 'fit' with their own priorities. Such changes may indicate dynamism rather than lack of focus. Decision-making and participation will be affected by the priorities and decision-making processes of members' own organisations. Over-reaching, or generating unrealistic expectations may drive people away Asking same core people to do more may diminish reach, reduce diversity and encourage burn-out

V. Learning and Recommendations

In order to facilitate the optimum working of a network several factors need to be taken into consideration and certain specific processes have to be incorporated into the regular functioning of the network. These are for example,

Ensuring that the evaluation of the network occurs at periodic intervals with the requisite level of attention to detail and efficiency to enable an in depth recalibration of the functions and processes of the network. To this effect, evaluation specialists must be engaged not just at times of crises or instability but as accompaniments to the various processes undertaken by the network. This would enable a holistic development of the network.
It is also important to understand the underlying values that define the unique nature of the network. The coordination of the network, its functions and its activities are intrinsically linked to these values and recognition of this element of the network would enable a greater functionality in the overall operation of the network.
A strong relationship between the members of the network, predicated on trust and open dialogue is essential for its efficient functioning. This would allow the accumulation of innovative ideas and dynamic thought to direct the future activities of the network.
The Secretariat or coordinator of the network must be able to engage the member in monitoring and evaluating the progress of the network. One method of enabling this coordination is through the institution of 'participant observer' methods at international conferences or meetings, which allow the members of the network to report back on the work that they have, which is linked to the work of other members.
The autonomy of a network and its decentralized mechanism of functioning are integral to retain the individuality of its members, who seek to pursue institutional objectives. The members seek to facilitate creative thinking and share ideas and this must be supported by financial resources. A strong bond of trust between the members of a network is therefore essential to enable long term commitments and the flourishing of interpersonal communication between members.
It is important that the subject area of operation of the network be comprehensively defined before the network comes into existence.
As seen with the experience of Canadian Knowledge Networks, it is beneficial to be selective in inviting participant to the network and following a rigorous process of review and selection would ensure that only the best candidates are selected so as to facilitate effective partnerships with other networks, as a result of demonstrable expertise within a particular field.
The management of a network must be disciplined, with clearly demarcated project deadlines and an optimum level of transparency and accountability. At the helm of leadership of every successful network, there has been intelligent, decisive and facilitative exchange, which is essential in securing a durable and potentially expandable space for the network to operate in.

A. Canadian Perspectives

A study of Canadian experiences was conducted by examining The Centers of Excellence and the Networks of Centers of Excellence (NCEs), which were funded through three Federal Granting Councils.[53] An initial observation that was made through the course of this study was that each network is intrinsically different and there is no uniform description which would fit all of them. The objectives of the Networks of Centers of Excellence Program are broadly, as follows; to encourage fundamental and applied research in fields which are critical to the economic development of Canada, to encourage the development and retention of world class scientists and engineers specializing in essential technologies, to manage multidisciplinary, cross sectoral national research programs which integrate stakeholder priorities through established partnerships and finally, to accelerate the exchange of research results within networks by accelerating technology transfers, made to users for social and economic development. [54] Extensive interviews carried out in the course of the research conducted by the ARA Consulting Group Inc. drew up particularly relevant conclusions with respect to the NCEs.

Firstly, they have been able to produce significant "cultural shifts" among the researchers associated with the network. This is attributed to the network facilitating a collaborative effort amongst researchers as opposed to their previous working, which was largely in isolation. The benefits of this collaboration have been identified as providing innovative ideas and leading the research itself in unprecedented directions. This has the effect of equipping Canada with the capability to compete on a global level with respect to its research endeavors. The culture shift has also allowed researchers to be more aware of the problems that plague industry and has instigated more in depth research into the development of the industrial sector. Government initiatives that have attempted to cohesively apply academic research to industry have had limited success. The NCE's however have managed to successfully disintegrate the barriers between these two seemingly disparate fields. This has resulted in a faster and more effective system of knowledge dissemination resulting in durable and self-sustaining economic development, which takes place at a faster rate. The NCE's have also been able to contribute to healthcare, wellness and overall sustainable development through their cross sectoral research approach, a model that can be used worldwide.

Another tangible effect has been that the relationship between industry and academic research is evolving into a positive and collaborative exchange, as opposed to the previous state which was largely isolationist, bordering on confrontational.[55] A possible cause of this is the increased representation of companies in the establishment of networks resulting in them influencing the course of research. This has not been met with any resistance from academic researchers who are driven by the imperative of an open publication. [56] Besides influencing the style of management, industrial representation has also brought about an increase in the level of private sector financial contributions made to NCEs. It is believed that these NCEs may even be able to support themselves in the next 7-8 years through the funding they receive from the commercialization of their research.

A third benefit that has emerged is the faster rate of production of new knowledge and innovative thinking. This is the result of collaborative techniques which is made more efficient through the use of modern technology. The increasing number of multi authored cross institutional scholarly publications made available by the NCE is evidentiary of this trend. The rate and quantity of technology transfers has also increased exponentially as a result of this. Knowledge networks also facilitate the mobilization of human resources and address cross disciplinary problems, resulting in an efficient and synergistic solutions. Their low cost, fast pace approach has been instrumental in constructing an understanding of and capacity to engage in sustainable development.

The significant contributions to sustainable development include the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network, which has discovered two specific genes that cause early onset Alzheimer's disease. The Sustainable Forest Management Network has claimed that its research does have a considerable level of influence on the industrial approach to sustainability. The Canadian Bacterial Disease Network conducts research on bacterially caused diseases which are mostly prevalent in developing countries, with a view to produce antibiotics and vaccines that may be able to successfully combat these vaccines. TeleLearning, another such network is working on the creation of software environments which will form the basis of technology based education in the future. [57] The greatest advantage of these knowledge networks is that they have been able to surpass traditional disciplinary barriers and have emerged at the forefront of interdisciplinary articulation, which is emerging as the path to breakthroughs in the fields of applied sciences and technology in the future. The NCE's have also been able to provide diverse working environments for graduate students, where they have been able to work under scientists associated with different specializations and across different departments. They have also been able to interact with government and industry representatives, giving them a far greater exposure of the field and equipping them to avail of a wide range of employment opportunities.

The corporate style of management incorporated within the NCEs encourages a sense of discipline and an enthusiasm for innovation. The Board of Directors at NCE's take on a perfunctory role and function as a typical corporate board. Researchers are therefore required to provide regular reports and meet deadlines to achieve predetermined goals that have been agreed upon. The new paradigm of sustainable development and the fluid transfer of knowledge requires this structure of management, even within a previously strictly academically oriented environment. NCEs have been incorporated as non-profit corporation for largely legal reasons such as the ownership of intellectual property.

The participation to these networks is restricted and is open only through an invitation, in the form of a submission of project proposals under a particular theme, with the final selection being made subject to a rigorous process of evaluation. This encourages the participants of the network to embody a degree of discipline and carry out their activities in a constructive, time bound manner.

B. Perceived Challenges

These knowledge networks, although extremely beneficial in the long run, do have certain specific issues that need to be addressed. Firstly, most formal knowledge networks do not have a formalized communication strategy. While they do make use of various forms of telecommunication, this communication is is no way formally directed or specific. Although some networks have managed to set up a directed communications strategy, supplemented by the involvement of specifically communications based networks (such as CANARIE) , there is still a long way to go in this area.

As is evident with most academic endeavors in recent years, efficient and sustained development both in terms of economy as well as self-sustenance, requires a smooth transitioning to a close collaboration with the industry. Although the NCE's have made progress in this area, a lesson that can be learnt from this is that knowledge networks do require a collaborative arrangement between researchers, the industry and the financial sector. [58] The nature of this collaboration cannot be predicted before tangible research outputs are developed that reflect the relevance of academia in the industrial and financial sectors. A particular network, PENCE has mandated that the boards of directors include a representative of the financial sector. This is a step forward in opening the doors to greater collaboration and mutually assured growth and sustainable development in both academia as well as the industrial and financial sectors.

As with all knowledge networks there is a continuous need for expansion of the focus areas to cover more fields and instigate research in neglected areas. The largest number of networks has been in the fields of healthcare and health associated work. However there is an impending need for networks to be established in other fields as well, such as those related to environmental issues, social dynamics and the general quality of life. [59]

The Canadian experience has resulted in a nuanced understanding of specific actions that need to be taken to strengthen knowledge networks across the spectrum. Firstly, there is an impending need to build new knowledge networks, which would be required to strengthen institutions upon which the networks are based. These include universities and research institutions, which have been weakened both financially and academically over the past few years. The NCE Program, on the face of it, seems to be strengthening universities, by attracting funding for research endeavors that would otherwise not be available to them. While this may be true, it tends to obfuscate the true nature of a university as an intellectual community, by portraying it as a funding source for research and equipment.[60] The deteriorating role of the university in fostering research and laying the foundation of an intellectual community can be reversed by the competition posed by the NCEs which tend to threaten its stature in the fields of multi-disciplinary and graduate institution. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the role of knowledge networks in fostering sustainable development not only on a national or regional scale but on a global level. This can be effectuated by allowing the amalgamation of the academia and industry through ample representation, a model that has proven to be effective within the NCEs. This is all the more relevant today where multinational corporations hold considerable sway over the global economy, so much so that the role of governments in regulating this economy is gradually decreasing. Multilateral investment treaties and agreements are reflective of this.

The final issue is that of the long standing debate between public good and proprietary knowledge. Canadian knowledge networks are of the opinion that knowledge must be freely disseminated. However, certain networks including the NCEs grant the exclusive right of the development and application of this knowledge to specific industry affiliates. On one hand this facilitates further investment into the research, which creates better products, new jobs and further social development. This is predicated on a fine balance of allowing this development without widening the already disparate socio-economic gaps that exist between developed and developing countries. Thus the balance between public good and propriety knowledge must be effectively managed by the regulatory role discharged by the governments and the decision making faculties of these knowledge networks. [61]

Establishing international linkages across networks based within different regions across the world would also be an effective means of ensuring effective partnerships and the creation of a new, self-sustaining structure. This would bring new prospects of funding into sustainable development activities and engage industrial affiliates with international development activities.

C. Donor Perspectives

The International Development Research Centre, based in Canada has also been instrumental in the setting up of support structures for networks. The IDRC has remained consistent in its emphasis of networks as mechanisms of linking scientists engaged in similar problems across the globe instead of as mechanisms to fund research in countries. This has afforded the IDRC with a greater level of flexibility in responding to the needs of developing countries as well as responding to the financial pressures within Canada to deliver superior technical support with a reduction in overheads. The IDRC sees networking an indispensable aspect of scientific pursuit and technological adaptation in the most effective manner. It is currently supporting four specific types of networks; horizontal networks which link together institutions with similar areas of specialization, vertical networks which work on disparate aspects of the same problem of different but interrelated problems, information networks which provide a centralized form of information service to members, which enables them to exchange information in the manner necessary and finally training networks which provide supervisory services to independent participants within the network.[62]

(I) Internal Evaluations

There is an outstanding need to monitor visits that are undertaken by the coordinator or the specific representatives of the member or donor as applicable. This would expedite the process of identifying problems and aid in deriving tangible solutions in an efficient manner. The criteria for the assessment would vary depending on the goals of the organization. Donors may pose questions with respect to the cost effectiveness of a particular pattern of research and may seek a formal report regarding this aspect. A more extensive model of donor evaluations may even include assessments with respect to the monitoring and coordination of specific functions.

(II) External Evaluations

A system of external evaluation would be useful with assessing data with respect to the operations of programs and their objectives. This would engage newer participants by injecting newer ideas and insights into the management and scope of the network. The most extensive method of network evaluation was one that was postulated by Valverde [63] and reviewed by Faris [64]. It aimed to draw an analysis of particular constraints and specific elements that would influence the execution of network programs. This method identifies a list of threats, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses which would inform future recommendations. The Valverde method makes use of both formal as well as informal data which is varied depending on the type of network and the management structure it employs.[65]

(III) Financial Viability

A network almost always requires external resources to aid in the setting up and coordination of its activities. Donor agencies must recognize the long term commitment that is required in this respect. It is therefore essential that the period for which this funding will be made available be clarified at the outset, to leave agencies with ample time to plan for the possibility of cessation of external financial support. [66] As concluded from the findings of the research study, although most networks are offered external support, it is primarily technology transfer and information networks that have been able to generate the bulk of funding in this respect. They have been able to obtain this financial assistance from a variety of sources including participating organizations as well as governments. [67] The funding for purely research networks however are inconsistent and the networks would have to plan in advance for a possible cessation of financial support.[68]

(IV) Adaptability

From the perspective of donors, the degree of adaptability and level of responsiveness of a particular network is especially relevant in assessing the coordination, control and leadership of a particular network. A network that is plagued by ineffective leadership and the lack of coordination is unable to adapt to changing circumstances and meet the needs of its participants. A combination of collaborative effort, a localized approach and far-sighted leadership instills in the participants of the network a sense of comfort in its processes and in the donors a faith in its ability to address topical issues and remain relevant.

(V) The Exchange of Information

As noted by Akhtar, a network is created to respond to the growing need to improve channels of information exchange and communication. [69] Information needs to be tailored to suit its users and must be disseminated accordingly. The study conducted has concluded that information networks that are engaged in the transfer of technology are inefficient in disseminating internally derived information and recognizing the needs of their users.[70] Given that these networks are especially user oriented this systemic failure is extremely problematic. There is also a need to review the mechanism of transferring strategic research techniques and the approaches employed in dealing with developing countries. Special attention must be paid to the beneficiaries of a particular network so that the research conducted is directed towards that particular demographic. This is especially relevant for information networks, which from the evaluation; appear to be generating data but not considering who would be using these services.[71]

(VI) Capacity Building

Facilitating the training of individuals both on a formal and informal level has led to an enhance level of research and reporting, as well as the designing of projects. There is however a need to tailor this training to suit the needs of the participants of a particular network. Networks which have been able to provide inputs which are not ordinarily locally provided have instigated the establishment of national and regional institutions. [72]

(VII) Cost Effectiveness

It is important to note however that networks need to employ the most cost effective mechanism of delivering support services to national programs. A network must work in a manner that allows for enough individual enterprise but at the same time follows a collaborative model to generate more effective and relevant research within a short span of time and through the utilization of minimum resources. The Caribbean Technology Consultation Services (CTCS) for example was found to be far more cost effective and in fact 50% cheaper than the services of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. [73] Similarly, the evaluators of the LAAN found that funding a network was significantly cheaper than finding individual research projects.[74]

[1] Castells, Manuel (2000) "Toward a Sociology of the Network Society" Contemporary Sociology, Vol

29 (5) p693-699

[2] Reinicke, Wolfgang H & Francis Deng, et al (2000) Critical Choices: The United Nations, Networks

and the Future of Global Governance IDRC, Ottawa

[3] Supra ., n.1, p.697

[4] Ibid

[5] Supra n.1, p.61

[6] Chambers, Robert (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last Intermediate Technology

Publications, London

[7] Ibid

[8] Chisholm, Rupert. F (1998) Developing Network Organizations: Learning from Practice and Theory

Addison Wesley

[9] Brown, L. David. 1993. "Development Bridging Organizations and Strategic

Management for Social Change." Advances in Strategic Management 9.

[10] Madeline Church et al, Participation, Relationships and Dynamic change: New Thinking On Evaluating The Work Of International Networks Development Planning Unit, University College London (2002), p. 16

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Reinicke, Wolfgang H & Francis Deng, et al (2000) Critical Choices: The United Nations, Networks

and the Future of Global Governance IDRC, Ottawa, p.61

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Supra n.13, p. 65

[17] Ibid

[18] Supra n. 13, p. 62

[19] Ibid

[20] Supra n. 13, p. 63

[21] Ibid

[22] Supra n. 13, p. 64

[23] Newell, Sue & Jacky Swan (2000) "Trust and Inter-organizational Networking" in Human Relations,

Vol 53 (10)

[24] Sheppard, Blair H & Marla Tuchinsky (1996) "Micro-OB and the Network Organisation" in Kramer, R.

And Tyler T. (eds) Trust in Organisations, Sage

[25] Powell, Walter W (1996) "Trust-based forms of governance" in Kramer, R. And Tyler T. (eds) Trust in

Organisations , Sage

[26] Stern, Elliot (2001) "Evaluating Partnerships: Developing a Theory Based Framework", Paper for

European Evaluation Society Conference 2001, Tavistock Institute

[27] Freedman, Lynn & Jan Reynders (1999) Developing New Criteria for Evaluating Networks in Karl, M.

(ed) Measuring the Immeasurable: Planning Monitoring and Evaluation of Networks, WFS

[28] Allen Nan, Susan (1999) "Effective Networking for Conflict Transformation" Draft Paper for

International Alert./UNHCR Working Group on Conflict Management and Prevention

[29] Supra n. 10, p. 20

[30] Ibid

[31] Taylor, James, (2000) "So Now They Are Going To Measure Empowerment!", paper for INTRAC 4th

International Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development, Oxford, April

[32] Karl, Marilee (2000) Monitoring And Evaluating Stakeholder Participation In Agriculture And Rural

Development Projects: A Literature Review, FAO

[33] Supra n. 10, p.25

[34] Ibid

[35] Supra n. 10, p. 26

[36] Ibid

[37] Supra n. 10, p.27

[38] Ludema, James D, David L Cooperrider & Frank J Barrett (2001) "Appreciative Inquiry: the Power of

the Unconditional Positive Question" in Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (eds) Handbook of Action

Research , Sage

[39] Ibid

[40] Supra n. 10, p. 29

[41] Ibid

[42] Ibid

[43] Sida (2000) Webs Women Weave, Sweden, 131-135

[44] Ibid

[45] Dutting, Gisela & Martha de la Fuente (1999) "Contextualising our Experiences: Monitoring and

Evaluation in the Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights" in Karl, M. (ed) Measuring the

Immeasurable: Planning Monitoring and Evaluation of Networks , WFS

[46] Supra n. 10, p. 30

[47] Supra n. 10, p. 32

[48] Allen Nan, Susan (1999) "Effective Networking for Conflict Transformation" Draft Paper for

International Alert./UNHCR Working Group on Conflict Management and Prevention

[49] Supra n. 13, p. 67

[50] Supra n. 13, 68

[51] Supra n 10, 36

[52] See Madeline Church et al, Participation, Relationships and Dynamic change: New Thinking On Evaluating The Work Of International Networks Development Planning Unit, University College London (2002), p. 36-37

[53] The three granting councils are: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC),

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and the Medical Research Council

(MRC).

[54] Howard C. Clark, Formal Knowledge Networks: A Study of Canadian Experiences, International Institute for Sustainable Development 1998, p. 16

[55] Ibid, p. 18

[56] Ibid, p. 18

[57] Ibid, p. 19

[58] Ibid , p 21

[59] Ibid , p. 22

[60] Ibid, p. 31

[61] Ibid

[62] Terry Smutylo and Saidou Koala, Research Networks: Evolution and Evaluation from a Donor's Perspective, p. 232

[63] Valverde, C. 1988, Agricultural research networking : Development and evaluation, International Services for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands. Staff Notes (18-26 November 1988)

[64] Faris, D.G 1991, Agricultural research networks as development tools: Views of a network coordinator, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, and International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropic, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India

[65] Supra n. 62

[66] Terry Smutylo and Saidou Koala, Research Networks: Evolution and Evaluation from a Donor's Perspective, p. 233

[67] ibid

[68] Ibid

[69] Akhtar, S. 1990. Regional Information Networks : Some Lessons from Latin America. Information Development 6 (1) : 35-42

[70] Ibid, p. 242

[71] Ibid, p. 242

[72] Ibid., p. 243

[73] Stanley, J.L and Elwela, S.S.B 1988, Evaluation report for the Caribbean Technology Consultancy Services (CTCS), CTCS Network Project (1985-1988) IDRC Ottawa, Canada

[74] Moreau,L. 1991, Evaluation of Latin American Aqualculture Network. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-creation-of-a-network-for-the-global-south-a-literature-review

Elite Capture of Governance in Bangalore

praskrishna — 2016-01-12T16:28:20Z

Vanya Rakesh participated in the event held in Bangalore on December 16, 2015.

This was a public consultation on the TENDER Sure Road project, discussing elite capture of Governance in Bangalore by way of this project. The panel comprised of experts to lead the consultation, followed by views of the society members on this issue. The panel discussion was organised by the Forum for Urban Governance and Commons. For more info click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/elite-capture-of-governance-in-bangalore

What are People's Rights in Digital World

praskrishna — 2016-01-12T01:51:53Z

Vanya Rakesh participated in this workshop organized by IT for Change on December 4, 2015 in Bangalore.


Above: Participants from the workshop

This workshop by IT for Change to build conceptions of rights with regard to the digital realm based on our tacit formative consciousness about them and undertake such an exercise to draw the first outlines of the social contract that must underpin our pervasively digital existence. IT for Change brought together thought leaders engaged in rights frameworks (including rights activists across domains and digital rights activists) to participate in this preliminary inquiry, to build from scratch a conception of what constitutes an equitable and just digital society, and what individual and collective rights would be commensurate to such a conception.

For more info click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/what-are-peoples-rights-in-digital-world

A Critique of Consent in Information Privacy

Amber Sinha and Scott Mason — 2016-01-18T02:20:10Z

The idea of informed consent in privacy law is supposed to ensure the autonomy of an individual in any exercise which involves sharing of the individual's personal information. Consent is usually taken through a document, a privacy notice, signed or otherwise agreed to by the participant.

Notice and Consent as cornerstone of privacy law
The privacy notice, which is the primary subject of this article, conveys all pertinent information, including risks and benefits to the participant, and in the possession of such knowledge, they can make an informed choice about whether to participate or not.

Most modern laws and data privacy principles seek to focus on individual control. In this context, the definition by the late Alan Westin, former Professor of Public Law & Government Emeritus, Columbia University, which characterises privacy as "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to other," ^{^[1]} is most apt. The idea of privacy as control is what finds articulation in data protection policies across jurisdictions beginning from the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPP) from the United States. ^{^[2]} Paul Schwarz, the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor at UC Berkeley School of Law and a Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, called the FIPP the building blocks of modern information privacy law. ^{^[3]} These principles trace their history to a report called 'Records, Computers and Rights of Citizens'^{^[4]} prepared by an Advisory Committee appointed by the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1973 in response to the increasing automation in data systems containing information about individuals. The Committee's mandate was to "explore the impact of computers on record keeping about individuals and, in addition, to inquire into, and make recommendations regarding, the use of the Social Security number."^{^[5]} The most important legacy of this report was the articulation of five principles which would not only play a significant role in the privacy laws in US but also inform data protection law in most privacy regimes internationally^{^[6]} like the OECD Privacy Guidelines, the EU Data Protection Principles, the FTC Privacy Principles, APEC Framework or the nine National Privacy Principles articulated by the Justice A P Shah Committee Report which are reflected in the Privacy Bill, 2014 in India. Fred Cate, the C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, effectively summarises the import of all of these privacy regimes as follows:

"All of these data protection instruments reflect the same approach: tell individuals what data you wish to collect or use, give them a choice, grant them access, secure those data with appropriate technologies and procedures, and be subject to third-party enforcement if you fail to comply with these requirements or individuals' expressed preferences"^{^[7]}

This makes the individual empowered and allows them to weigh their own interests in exercising their consent. The allure of this paradigm is that in one elegant stroke, it seeks to "ensure that consent is informed and free and thereby also to implement an acceptable tradeoff between privacy and competing concerns."^{^[8]} This system was originally intended to be only one of the multiple ways in data processing would be governed, along with other substantive principles such as data quality, however, it soon became the dominant and often the only mechanism.^{^[9]} In recent years however, the emergence of Big Data and the nascent development of the Internet of Things has led many commentators to begin questioning the workability of consent as a principle of privacy. ^{^[10]} In this article we will look closely at the some of issues with the concept of informed consent, and how these notions have become more acute in recent years. Following an analysis of these issues, we will conclude by arguing that today consent, as the cornerstone of privacy law, may in fact be thought of as counter-productive and that a rethinking of a principle based approach to privacy may be necessary.

Problems with Consent

To a certain extent, there are some cognitive problems that have always existed with the issue of informed consent such as long and difficult to understand privacy notices,^{^[11]} although, in recent past with these problems have become much more aggravated. Fred Cate points out that FIPPs at their inception were broad principles which included both substantive and procedural aspects. However, as they were translated into national laws, the emphasis remained on the procedural aspect of notice and consent. From the idea of individual or societal welfare as the goals of privacy, the focus had shifted to individual control.^{^[12]} With data collection occurring with every use of online services, and complex data sets being created, it is humanly impossible to exercise rational decision-making about the choice to allow someone to use our personal data. The thrust of Big Data technologies is that the value of data resides not in its primary purposes but in its numerous secondary purposes where data is re-used many times over. ^{^[13]} In that sense, the very idea of Big Data conflicts with the data minimization principle.^{^[14]} The idea is to retain as much data as possible for secondary uses. Since, these secondary uses are, by their nature, unanticipated, its runs counter to the the very idea of the purpose limitation principle. ^{^[15]} The notice and consent requirement has simply led to a proliferation of long and complex privacy notices which are seldom read and even more rarely understood. We will articulate some issues with privacy notices which have always existed, and have only become more exacerbated in the context of Big Data and the Internet of Things.

1. Failure to read/access privacy notices

The notice and consent principle relies on the ability of the individual to make an informed choice after reading the privacy notice. The purpose of a privacy notice is to act as a public announcement of the internal practices on collection, processing, retention and sharing of information and make the user aware of the same.^{^[16]} However, in order to do so the individual must first be able to access the privacy notices in an intelligible format and read them. Privacy notices come in various forms, ranging from documents posted as privacy policies on a website, to click through notices in a mobile app, to signs posted in public spaces informing about the presence of CCTV cameras. ^{^[17]}

In order for the principle of notice and consent to work, the privacy notices need to be made available in a language understood by the user. As per estimates, about 840 million people (11% of the world population) can speak or understand English. However, most privacy notices online are not available in the local language in different regions.^{^[18]} Further, with the ubiquity of smartphones and advent of Internet of Things, constrained interfaces on mobile screens and wearables make the privacy notices extremely difficult to read. It must be remembered that privacy notices often run into several pages, and smaller screens effectively ensure that most users do not read through them. Further, connected wearable devices often have "little or no interfaces that readily permit choices." ^{^[19]} As more and more devices are connected, this problem will only get more pronounced. Imagine in a world where refrigerators act as the intermediary disclosing information to your doctor or supermarket, at what point does the data subject step in and exercise consent.^{^[20]}

Another aspect that needs to be understood is that unlike earlier when data collectors were far and few in between, the user could theoretically make a rational choice taking into account the purpose of data collection. However, in the world of Big Data, consent often needs to be provided while the user is trying to access services. In that context click through privacy notices such as those required to access online application, are treated simply as an impediment that must be crossed in order to get access to services. The fact that the consent need to be given in real time almost always results in disregarding what the privacy notices say.^{^[21]}

Finally, some scholars have argued that while individual control over data may be appealing in theory, it merely gives an illusion of enhanced privacy but not the reality of meaningful choice.^{^[22]} Research demonstrates that the presence of the term 'privacy policy' leads people to the false assumption that if a company has a privacy policy in place, it automatically means presence of substantive and responsible limits on how data is handled.^{^[23]} Joseph Turow, the Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication, and his team for example has demonstrated how "[w]hen consumers see the term 'privacy policy,' they believe that their personal information will be protected in specific ways; in particular, they assume that a website that advertises a privacy policy will not share their personal information."^{^[24]} In reality, however, privacy policies are more likely to serve as liability disclaimers for companies than any kind of guarantee of privacy for consumers. Most people tend to ignore privacy policies.^{^[25]} Cass Sunstein states that our cognitive capacity to make choices and take decisions is limited. When faced with an overwhelming number of choices to make, most of us do not read privacy notices and resort to default options.[26] The requirement to make choices, sometimes several times in a day, imposes significant burden on the consumers as well the business seeking such consent. ^{^[27]}

2. Failure to understand privacy notices

FTC chairperson Edith Ramirez stated: "In my mind, the question is not whether consumers should be given a say over unexpected uses of their data; rather, the question is how to provide simplified notice and choice."^{^[28]} Privacy notices often come in the form of long legal documents much to the detriment of the readers' ability to understand them. These policies are "long, complicated, full of jargon and change frequently."^{^[29]} Kent walker list five problems that privacy notices typically suffer from - a) overkill - long and repetitive text in small print, b) irrelevance - describing situations of little concern to most consumers, c) opacity - broad terms the reflect the truth that is impossible to track and control all the information collected and stored, d) non-comparability - simplification required to achieve comparability will lead to compromising accuracy, and e) inflexibility - failure to keep pace with new business models.^{^[30]} Erik Sherman did a review of twenty three corporate privacy notices and mapped them against three indices which give approximate level of education necessary to understand text on a first read. His results show that most of policies can only be understood on the first read by people of a grade level of 15 or above. ^{^[31]} FTC Chairperson Timothy Muris summed up the problem with long privacy notices when he said, "Acres of trees died to produce a blizzard of barely comprehensible privacy notices." ^{^[32]}

Margaret Jane Radin, the former Henry King Ransom Professor of Law Emerita at the University of Michigan, provides a good definition of free consent. It "involves a knowing understanding of what one is doing in a context in which it is actually

possible for or to do otherwise, and an affirmative action in doing something, rather

than a merely passive acquiescence in accepting something."^{^[33]} There have been various proposals advocating a more succinct and simpler standard for privacy notices,^{^[34]} or multi-layered notices^{^[35]} or representing the information in the form of a table. ^{^[36]} However, studies show only an insignificant improvement in the understanding by consumers when privacy policies are represented in graphic formats like tables and labels. ^{^[37]} It has also been pointed out that it is impossible to convey complex data policies in simple and clear language.^{^[38]}

3. Failure to anticipate/comprehend the consequences of consent

Today's infinitely complex and labyrinthine data ecosystem is beyond the comprehension of most ordinary users. Despite a growing willingness to share information online, most have no understanding of what happens to their data once they have uploaded it - Where it goes? Whom it is held by? Under what conditions? For what purpose? Or how might it be used, aggregated, hacked, or leaked in the future? For the most part, the above operations are "invisible, managed at distant centers, from behind the scenes, by unmanned powers."^{^[39]}

The perceived opportunities and benefits of Big Data have led to an acceptance of the indiscriminate collection of as much data as possible as well as the retention of that data for unspecified future analysis. For many advocates, such practices are absolutely essential if Big Data is to deliver on its promises.. Experts have argued that key privacy principles particularly those of collection limitation, data minimization and purpose limitation should not be applied to Big Data processing.^{^[40]} As mentioned above, in the case of Big Data, the value of the data collected comes often not from its primary purpose but from its secondary uses. Deriving value from datasets involves amalgamating diverse datasets and executing speculative and exploratory kinds of analysis in order to discover hidden insights and correlations that might have previously gone unnoticed.^{^[41]} As such organizations are today routinely reprocessing data collected from individuals for purposes not directly related to the services they provide to the customer. These secondary uses of data are becoming increasingly valuable sources of revenue for companies as the value of data in and of itself continues to rise. ^{^[42]}

Purpose Limitation

The principle of purpose limitation has served as a key component of data protection for decades. Purposes given for the processing of users' data should be given at the time of collection and consent and should be "specified, explicit and legitimate". In practice however, reasons given typically include phrases such as, 'for marketing purposes' or 'to improve the user experience' that are vague and open to interpretation. ^{^[43]}

Some commentators whilst conceding the fact that purpose limitation in the era of Big Data may not be possible have instead attempted to emphasise the notion of 'compatible use' requirements. In the view of Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of person data, for example, use of data for a purpose other than that originally stated at the point of collection should be subject to a case-by-case review of whether not further processing for different purpose is justifiable - i.e., compatible with the original purpose. Such a review may take into account for example, the context in which the data was originally collected, the nature or sensitivity of the data involved, and the existence of relevant safeguards to insure fair processing of the data and prevent undue harm to the data subject.^{^[44]}

On the other hand, Big Data advocates have argued that an assessment of legitimate interest rather than compatibility with the initial purpose is far better suited to Big Data processing.^{^[45]} They argue that today the notion of purpose limitation has become outdated. Whereas previously data was collected largely as a by-product of the purpose for which it was being collected. If for example, we opted to use a service the information we provided was for the most part necessary to enable the provision of that service. Today however, the utility of data is no longer restricted to the primary purpose for which it is collected but can be used to provide all kinds of secondary services and resources, reduce waste, increase efficiency and improve decision-making.^{^[46]} These kinds of positive externalities, Big Data advocates insist, are only made possible by the reprocessing of data.

Unfortunately for the notion of consent the nature of these secondary purposes are rarely evident at the time of collection. Instead the true value of the data can often only be revealed when it is amalgamated with other diverse datasets and subjected to various forms of analysis to help reveal hidden and non-obvious correlations and insights.^{^[47]} The uncertain and speculative value of data therefore means that it is impossible to provide "specific, explicit, and legitimate" details about how a given data set will be used or how it might be aggregated in future. Without this crucial information data subjects have no basis upon which they can make an informed decision about whether or not to provide consent. Robert Sloan and Richard Warner argue that it is impossible for a privacy notice to contain enough information to enable free consent. They argue that current data collection practices are highly complex and that these practices involve collection of information at one stage for one purpose and then retain, analyze, and distribute it for a variety of other purposes in unpredictable ways. ^{^[48]} Helen Nissenbaum points to the ever changing nature of data flow and the cognitive challenges it poses. "Even if, for a given moment, a

snapshot of the information flows could be grasped, the realm is in constant flux, with new firms entering the picture, new analytics, and new back end contracts forged: in other words, we are dealing with a recursive capacity that is indefinitely extensible." ^{^[49]}

Scale and Aggregation

Today the quantity of data being generated is expanding at an exponential rate. From smartphones and televisions, trains and airplanes, sensor-equipped buildings and even the infrastructures of our cities, data now streams constantly from almost every sector and function of daily life, 'creating countless new digital puddles, lakes, tributaries and oceans of information'.^{^[50]} In 2011 it was estimated that the quantity of data produced globally would surpass 1.8 zettabytes , by 2013 that had grown to 4 zettabytes , and with the nascent development of the Internet of Things gathering pace, these trends are set to continue. ^{^[51]} Big Data by its very nature requires the collection and processing of very large and very diverse data sets. Unlike other forms scientific research and analysis which utilize various sampling techniques to identify and target the types of data most useful to the research questions, Big Data instead seeks to gather as much data as possible, in order to achieve full resolution of the phenomenon being studied, a task made much easier in recent years as a result of the proliferation of internet enabled devices and the growth of the Internet of Things. This goal of attaining comprehensive coverage exists in tension however with the key privacy principles of collection limitation and data minimization which seek to limit both the quantity and variety of data collected about an individual to the absolute minimum. ^{^[52]}

The dilution of the purpose limitation principle entails that even those who understand privacy notices and are capable of making rational choices about it, cannot conceptualize how their data will be aggregated and possibly used or re-used. Seemingly innocuous bits of data revealed at different stages could be combined to reveal sensitive information about the individual. Daniel Solove, the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, in his book, "The Digital Person", calls it the aggregation effect. He argues that the ingenuity of the data mining techniques and the insights and predictions that could be made by it render any cost-benefit analysis that an individual could make ineffectual. ^{^[53]}

4. Failure to opt-out

The traditional choice against the collection of personal data that users have had access to, at least in theory, is the option to 'opt-out' of certain services. This draws from the free market theory that individuals exercise their free will when they use services and always have the option of opting out, thus, arguing against regulation but relying on the collective wisdom of the market to weed out harms. The notion that the provision of data should be a matter of personal choice on the part of the individual and that the individual can, if they chose decide to 'opt-out' of data collection, for example by ceasing use of a particular service, is an important component of privacy and data protection frameworks. The proliferation of internet-enabled devices, their integration into the built environment and the real-time nature of data collection and analysis however are beginning to undermine this concept. For many critics of Big Data, the ubiquity of data collection points as well as the compulsory provision of data as a prerequisite for the access and use of many key online services, is making opting-out of data collection not only impractical but in some cases impossible. ^{^[54]}

Whilst sceptics may object that individuals are still free to stop using services that require data. As online connectivity becomes increasingly important to participation in modern life, the choice to withdraw completely is becoming less of a genuine choice. ^{^[55]} Information flows not only from the individuals it is about but also from what other people say about them. Financial transactions made online or via debit/credit cards can be analysed to derive further information about the individual. If opting-out makes you look anti-social, criminal, or unethical, the claims that we are exercising free will seems murky and leads one to wonder whether we are dealing with coercive technologies.

Another issue with the consent and opt-out paradigm is the binary nature of the choice. This binary nature of consent makes a mockery of the notion that consent can function as an effective tool of personal data management. What it effectively means is that one can either agree with the long privacy notices, or choose to abandon the desired service. "This binary choice is not what the privacy architects envisioned four decades ago when they imagined empowered individuals making informed decisions about the processing of their personal data. In practice, it certainly is not the optimal mechanism to ensure that either information privacy or the free flow of information is being protected." ^{^[56]}

Conclusion: 'Notice and Consent' is counter-productive

There continues to be an unwillingness amongst many privacy advocates to concede that the concept of consent is fundamentally broken, as Simon Davies, a privacy advocate based in London, comments 'to do so could be seen as giving ground to the data vultures', and risks further weakening an already dangerously fragile privacy framework.^{^[57]} Nevertheless, as we begin to transition into an era of ubiquitous data collection, evidence is becoming stronger that consent is not simply ineffective, but may in some instances might be counter-productive to the goals of privacy and data protection.

As already noted, the notion that privacy agreements produce anything like truly informed consent has long since been discredited; given this fact, one may ask for whose benefit such agreements are created? One may justifiably argue that far from being for the benefit and protection of users, privacy agreement may in fact be fundamentally to the benefit of data brokers, who having gained the consent of users can act with near impunity in their use of the data collected. Thus, an overly narrow focus on the necessity of consent at the point of collection, risks diverting our attention from the arguably more important issue of how our data is stored, analysed and distributed by data brokers following its collection. ^{^[58]}

Furthermore, given the often complicated and cumbersome processes involved in gathering consent from users, some have raised concerns that the mechanisms put in place to garner consent could themselves morph into surveillance mechanisms. Davies, for example cites the case of the EU Cookie Directive, which required websites to gain consent for the collection of cookies. Davies observes how, 'a proper audit and compliance element in the system could require the processing of even more data than the original unregulated web traffic. Even if it was possible for consumers to use some kind of gateway intermediary to manage the consent requests, the resulting data collection would be overwhelming''. Thus in many instances there exists a fundamental tension between the requirement placed on companies to gather consent and the equally important principle of data minimization. ^{^[59]}

Given the above issues with notice and informed consent in the context of information privacy, and the fact that it is counterproductive to the larger goals of privacy law, it is important to revisit the principle or rights based approach to data protection, and consider a paradigm shift where one moves to a risk based approach that takes into account the actual threats of sharing data rather than relying on what has proved to be an ineffectual system of individual control. We will be dealing with some of these issues in a follow up to this article.

^{^[1]} Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom, Atheneum, New York, 2015.

^{^[2]} FTC Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPP) available at https://www.it.cornell.edu/policies/infoprivacy/principles.cfm.

^{^[3]} Paul M. Schwartz, "Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace," 52 Vanderbilt Law Review 1607, 1614 (1999).

^{^[4]} US Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens, available at http://www.justice.gov/opcl/docs/rec-com-rights.pdf

^{^[5]} https://epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/c13.htm .

^{^[6]} Marc Rotenberg, "Fair Information Practices and the Architecture of Privacy: What Larry Doesn't Get," available at https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-review/online/rotenberg-fair-info-practices.pdf

^{^[7]} Fred Cate, The Failure of Information Practice Principles, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1156972

^{^[8]} Robert Sloan and Richard Warner, Beyong Notice and Choice: Privacy, Norms and Consent, 2014, available at https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/SloanWarner.pdf

^{^[9]} Fred Cate, Viktor Schoenberger, Notice and Consent in a world of Big Data, available at http://idpl.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/67.abstract

^{^[10]} Daniel Solove, Privacy self-management and consent dilemma, 2013 available at http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2093&context=faculty_publications

^{^[11]} Ben Campbell, Informed consent in developing countries: Myth or Reality, available at https://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/docs/Campbell_informedconsent.pdf ;

^{^[12]} Supra Note 7.

^{^[13]} Viktor Mayer Schoenberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution that will transform how we live, work and think" John Murray, London, 2013 at 153.

^{^[14]} The Data Minimization principle requires organizations to limit the collection of personal data to the minimum extent necessary to obtain their legitimate purpose and to delete data no longer required.

^{^[15]} Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky, "Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics," SSRN Scholarly Paper, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2149364

^{^[16]} Florian Schaub, R. Balebako et al, "A Design Space for effective privacy notices" available at https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-schaub.pdf

^{^[17]} Daniel Solove, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age, NYU Press, 2006.

^{^[18]} http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size

^{^[19]} Opening Remarks of FTC Chairperson Edith Ramirez Privacy and the IoT: Navigating Policy Issues International Consumer Electronics Show Las Vegas, Nevada January 6, 2015 available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/617191/150106cesspeech.pdf

^{^[20]} http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/why-the-idea-of-consent-for-data-processing-is-becoming-meaningless-and-dangerous/

^{^[21]} Supra Note 10.

^{^[22]} Supra Note 7.

^{^[23]} Chris Jay Hoofnagle & Jennifer King, Research Report: What Californians Understand

About Privacy Online, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1262130

^{^[24]} Joseph Turrow, Michael Hennesy, Nora Draper, The Tradeoff Fallacy, available at https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/TradeoffFallacy_1.pdf

^{^[25]} Saul Hansell, "Compressed Data: The Big Yahoo Privacy Storm That Wasn't," New York Times, May 13, 2002 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/compressed-data-the-big-yahoo-privacy-storm-that-wasn-t.html?_r=0

[26] Cass Sunstein, Choosing not to choose: Understanding the Value of Choice, Oxford University Press, 2015.

^{^[27]} For example, Acxiom, processes more than 50 trillion data transactions a year. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

^{^[28]} Opening Remarks of FTC Chairperson Edith Ramirez Privacy and the IoT: Navigating Policy Issues International Consumer Electronics Show Las Vegas, Nevada January 6, 2015 available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/617191/150106cesspeech.pdf

^{^[29]} L. F. Cranor. Necessary but not sufficient: Standardized mechanisms for privacy notice and choice. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 10:273, 2012, available at http://jthtl.org/content/articles/V10I2/JTHTLv10i2_Cranor.PDF

^{^[30]} Kent Walker, The Costs of Privacy, 2001 available at https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-84436409/the-costs-of-privacy

^{^[31]} Erik Sherman, "Privacy Policies are great - for Phds", CBS News, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/privacy-policies-are-great-for-phds/

^{^[32]} Timothy J. Muris, Protecting Consumers' Privacy: 2002 and Beyond, available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/muris/privisp1002.htm

^{^[33]} Margaret Jane Radin, Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment, 1999 available at http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol75/iss4/1/

^{^[34]} Annie I. Anton et al., Financial Privacy Policies and the Need for Standardization, 2004 available at https://ssl.lu.usi.ch/entityws/Allegati/pdf_pub1430.pdf; Florian Schaub, R. Balebako et al, "A Design Space for effective privacy notices" available at https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-schaub.pdf

^{^[35]} The Center for Information Policy Leadership, Hunton & Williams LLP, "Ten Steps To Develop A Multi-Layered Privacy Notice" available at https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Centre/Ten_Steps_whitepaper.pdf

^{^[36]} Allen Levy and Manoj Hastak, Consumer Comprehension of Financial Privacy Notices, Interagency Notice Project, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-09-07/s70907-21-levy.pdf

^{^[37]} Patrick Gage Kelly et al., Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition Label Approach available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/privacy-roundtables-comment-project-no.p095416-544506-00037/544506-00037.pdf

^{^[38]} Howard Latin, "Good" Warnings, Bad Products, and Cognitive Limitations, 41 UCLA Law Review available at https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=41+UCLA+L.+Rev.+1193&key=1c15e064a97759f3f03fb51db62a79a5

^{^[39]} Jonathan Obar, Big Data and the Phantom Public: Walter Lippmann and the fallacy of data privacy self management, Big Data and Society, 2015, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239188

^{^[40]} Viktor Mayer Schoenberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution that will transform how we live, work and think" John Murray, London, 2013.

^{^[41]} Supra Note 15.

^{^[42]} Supra Note 40.

^{^[43]} Article 29 Working Party, (2013) Opinion 03/2013 on Purpose Limitation, Article 29, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp203_en.pdf

^{^[44]} Ibid.

^{^[45]} It remains unclear however whose interest would be accounted, existing EU legislation would allow commercial/data broker/third party interests to trump those of the user, effectively allowing re-processing of personal data irrespective of whether that processing would be in the interest of the user.

^{^[46]} Supra Note 40.

^{^[47]} Supra Note 10.

^{^[48]} Robert Sloan and Richard Warner, Beyong Notice and Choice: Privacy, Norms and Consent, 2014, available at https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/SloanWarner.pdf

^{^[49]} Helen Nissenbaum, A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online, available at http://www.amacad.org/publications/daedalus/11_fall_nissenbaum.pdf

^{^[50]} D Bollier, The Promise and Peril of Big Data. The Aspen Institute, 2010, available at: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/The_Promise_and_Peril_of_Big_Data.pdf

^{^[51]} Meeker, M. & Yu, L. Internet Trends, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, (2013), http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013 .

^{^[52]} Supra Note 40.

^{^[53]} Supra Note 17.

^{^[54]} Janet Vertasi, My Experiment Opting Out of Big Data Made Me Look Like a Criminal, 2014, available at http://time.com/83200/privacy-internet-big-data-opt-out/

^{^[55]} Ibid.

^{^[56]} http://www.techpolicy.com/NoticeConsent-inWorldBigData.aspx

^{^[57]} Simon Davies, Why the idea of consent for data processing is becoming meaningless and dangerous, available at http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/why-the-idea-of-consent-for-data-processing-is-becoming-meaningless-and-dangerous/

^{^[58]} Supra Note 10.

^{^[59]} Simon Davies, Why the idea of consent for data processing is becoming meaningless and dangerous, available at http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/why-the-idea-of-consent-for-data-processing-is-becoming-meaningless-and-dangerous/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-critique-of-consent-in-information-privacy

Will India win net neutrality battle?

praskrishna — 2016-01-11T02:28:44Z

There is more than what meets the eye in Facebook’s ‘noble mission’ of providing internet for all.

The article by Pratap Vikram Singh and Taru Bhatia was published by Governance Now on January 5, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

India is gearing up for an era of startups and entrepreneurship and the man pushing it as one of his biggest development and self reliance agenda is none other than prime minister Narendra Modi, who launched the ‘Startup India, Standup India’ campaign this year. Few technology giants, led by the likes of Facebook and some telecom service providers, however, have thrown a technology spanner. It is important to note that a significant number of the startups in India are internet-based – next only to the US and China in having maximum number of tech startups, according to industry body NASSCOM.

For these to flourish and for India to have next Facebook or Google it is important to have an open and neutral internet, believe digital rights experts. A network which doesn’t discriminate between the data packets (smallest unit of information sent in binary format over a network) and provides level playing field for all. “It is critical for the Startup India campaign. If we let the principles of net neutrality be compromised, then it makes it very difficult for entrepreneurs and startups to compete against established players, who can close off the market for upstarts by schemes like differentiated pricing and zero rating (toll free access to websites or apps),” said Vishal Misra, associate professor, department of computer science, Columbia University.

A prerequisite for startups

A few months from now, country’s telecom regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), is going to decide whether internet would remain neutral and whether it will continue to foster innovation. A major threat to net neutrality, according to civil society and digital rights experts, comes from zero rating – toll free access to a few selected websites or apps, a strategy adopted by internet service providers or internet platforms to hook users to those select few sites. For telecom and internet service providers zero rating is a new stream of revenue, a way to secure optimal return on investment from their existing subscriber base – without requiring additional investment. The ISPs are arguing that they should be given more flexibility in managing their network – in a way they should be allowed to assume the role of gatekeeper of the internet.

For ISPs, net neutrality is an obsolete and utopian idea. Facebook, which has grown into a mammoth internet platform since its inception in 2004, has recently joined this bandwagon. Under its Free Basics initiative (erstwhile internet.org), the internet giant provides toll free access to a set of websites (including Facebook obviously!) handpicked by itself to the users. In India so far it has partnered with Reliance Communications.

Facebook by far is the most audacious and aggressive proponent of ‘zero rating’ scheme. From lobbying the prime minister to giving back-to-back ads in television channels and two-page ads in national dailies to circulating a vaguely written letter in support of Free Basics on its social media site, Facebook is pitching for ‘digital equality’ by giving access to 'basic internet’ or say a slice of the internet.

Cautioning against zero rating, Prabir Purkayastha, chairperson, Society for Knowledge Commons, said the way zero-rating is being discussed, it seems Indians are only the consumers of internet, which is not true. “Indians are also the innovators on internet,” said Purkayastha. “Internet has given the innovators the right to connect to the users without having a huge amount of money. This is the character that will be destroyed if zero-rating will be implemented,” he says.

That’s true. Be it US-based Facebook or Google or Indian Flipkart or PayTm or SnapDeal, had it not been for open and neutral internet they wouldn’t have become what are today.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, global public policy director, Access Now, a New York-based firm working for digital rights, said the idea is to prevent a telco or an internet platform from assuming a role of a gatekeeper and control access. Misra, too, has written extensively on the counter-productiveness of zero rating: stifling of innovation and service providers loosing incentive to improve service and keep prices low. Both Misra and Chima testified their views on net neutrality to the standing committee on IT in August after the department of telecommunications submitted an expert committee report on the neutrality issue.

Whither public consultation

To formulate a regulation on how internet will shape up, the TRAI has come out with two consultation papers concerning net neutrality in the last nine months. The first consultation paper on ‘regulatory framework for over the top players (OTTs)’, which came in March, was written in favour of telecom and internet service providers. “It was embarrassing,” said Purkayastha. Over 1.2 million people wrote to the regulator. This was result of the savetheinternet.in campaign ran by free internet activists and lawyers, who were later joined by All India Bakchod (AIB) whose video on net neutrality went viral on YouTube (the video has received three million views in last eight months). This was unprecedented in the history of TRAI consultations. However, the fate of those responses is still unclear.

In December the regulator brought another paper. This time it was titled ‘regulation on differential pricing’. Contrary to the initial paper, this paper is far more objective and reasonable, said Nikhil Pahwa, founder, MediaNama portal and a key volunteer behind savetheinternet.in campaign. The regulator has sought comments on its second paper by December 30 and counter-comments by January 7. Till the time a final call is taken, the telecom regulator has instructed Reliance Communications, Facebook’s India telecom partner, to put Free Basics on hold.

The savetheinternet.in campaign has formulated the responses to the new consultation paper and has made it available for everyone favouring net neutrality to send it to the TRAI. The AIB team has released another video titled ‘Save the Internet - 2 – Judgement Day’, which has been viewed close to one million times in just four months.

The neutrality debate started in India in December 2014 when Airtel, country’s largest telco, announced – although it later backtracked – that the company would charge consumers more for using VOIP services, on top of the data charges. Later, it went on to launch Airtel Zero, wherein it struck deal with online services providers for user access at zero rate. Facebook had already introduced internet.org by then. While it was initially led by civil society, the debate was later joined by politicians – Naveen Patnaik, M Chandrashekhar, Jay Panda, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal – who strongly came out in support of net neutrality.

Facebook has termed its zero rating platform as a philanthropic activity intended to connect billions of unconnected population so that they can access education, health and employment related information. It has urged users to sign a petition, cautioning them against "a small, vocal group of critics" lobbying to prevent 1 billion people from accessing 'affordable internet'. Under Free Basics, Facebook claims, it doesn't charge app developers and includes them if they comply to its 'objective tech specs'.

Free Basics: A camouflage?

Critics, however, call it a walled garden. In providing free access to close to a hundred websites it continues to play the role of a gatekeeper. It is not the poor who decide what to access but Facebook! While it says that it is not making money out of Free Basics as it doesn't display ads in the Free Basics version of Facebook, it keeps the option of monetisation open in the future.

“It [Free Basics] has been camouflaged as charity," said a senior TRAI official, in an off the record conversation. While speaking to the Guardian on Facebook’s zero rating in December, Tim Berners Lee, founder of world wide web (www), said, “In the particular case of somebody who's offering... something which is branded internet, it's not internet, then you just say no. No it isn't free, no it isn't in the public domain, there are other ways of reducing the price of internet connectivity and giving something... [only] giving people data connectivity to part of the network deliberately, I think is a step backwards.”

Speaking in favour of zero rating, Payal Malik, associate professor, economics, Delhi University, said that it is wrong to assume that all consumers will get hooked to zero rated sites. “In a way you are saying that all humans have same preferences and likes and dislikes, which is very unlikely,” said Malik.

Experts representing telecom industry argue that the net neutrality regulation should be geography specific and the telecom players should be given more flexibility in dealing with the network. Mahesh Uppal, a senior telecom consultant and director, ComFirst India, while speaking at a round table discussion in Delhi, said that a majority of population in the West including countries opting for strict net neutrality – including Netherlands, Slovenia and the US – are already connected. "The data connectivity is primarily through fixed lines - copper, co-ax cable or optical fibre wired — wherein it is easier to add capacity to meet traffic growth. However this is difficult to do so for wireless networks," said Uppal. In developing countries, including India, mobile telephony and internet majorly runs on wireless. Hence, he argued, telecom and internet service providers should be given flexibility to zero rate. For Uppal, if zero rating or sponsored content is implemented properly “it can be one of the ways to scale up internet access” to the unconnected regions.

Neutrality proponents, however, differ. “It is basic economic theory, and zero rated sites get a price advantage. There are studies that show customers stay within the world of zero rated sites and never venture outside or are aware of the full internet,” professor Misra said.

Zero or equal rating?

So is there a middle ground? Are there ways to increase access without tampering with open and neutral character of the internet? Experts believe there are. Some of the solutions are not completely black and white, but in between. While there is a fierce opposition to zero rating, it might work, according to Sunil Abraham, executive director, centre for internet and society (CIS), if provided with an amount of equal rating (giving free data pack to users so that they can access any site or app they want).

Mozilla Foundation advocates equal rating. The foundation has sought to create such an alternative in Bangladesh and countries in Africa within the Firefox OS ecosystem. The foundation has tied up with telecom operator Grameenphone in Bangladesh to provide 20 Mb data per day for free to users, in exchange for viewing an advertisement. The model could be easily replicated in India, said Pahwa of MediaNama.

For African countries, the foundation has partnered with Orange. Both allow Africans to purchase $40 Firefox OS smartphones that come packaged with free three to six months of voice calling, text, and up to 500 Mb of monthly data. Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons said that zero-rating plan by telecom operators only makes sense when government services are provided for free through it. “That is the form of zero-rating I would support.”

There are a few platforms which are reimbursing data in megabytes to users accessing partnering apps. The user can then use the free data pack to access any other site or app. Some of them include: mCent, Gigato and DataMi. mCent, owned by Boston-based firm Jana, is a pioneer in this area. It is being used by 30 million users cross 98 countries. In India, according to Jana, one out of every 10 internet users has subscribed to mCent.

Yes, it does violate neutrality as it puts those app providers not having enough money at a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis to those having deep pocket to reimburse data to users. “I think it’s a grey area,” said professor Misra. On the surface it seems to be just like Free Basics, however, Gigato (or mCent) is making no pretense that what they are doing is philanthropy of increasing access, said professor Misra, adding that it is still acceptable as user will have the data to venture out of the walled garden. The senior TRAI official too finds it acceptable. “In my opinion, Facebook should become like Gigato,” he said.

If the regulator is going to protect consumers’ right and also not stifle startups and entrepreneurism, it will have to ensure some broad, core principles of the internet. It will have to prevent both the ISPs and the internet platforms from becoming gatekeepers. It must not allow any throttling, blocking, fast and slow lanes, discrimination based on price or quality of service and distortion of level playing field. How and whether TRAI is going to do these would be clear in a few months.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-pratap-vikram-singh-and-taru-bhatia-january-6-2015-will-india-win-net-neutrality-battle

Human Rights in the Age of Digital Technology: A Conference to Discuss the Evolution of Privacy and Surveillance

Amber Sinha — 2016-01-11T02:12:49Z

The Centre for Internet and Society organised a conference in roundtable format called ‘Human Rights in the Age of Digital Technology: A Conference to discuss the evolution of Privacy and Surveillance. The conference was held at Indian Habitat Centre on October 30, 2015. The conference was designed to be a forum for discussion, knowledge exchange and agenda building to draw a shared road map for the coming months.

In India, the Right to Privacy has been interpreted to mean an individual's’ right to be left alone. In the age of massive use of Information and Communications Technology, it has become imperative to have this right protected. The Supreme Court has held in a number of its decisions that the right to privacy is implicit in the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, though Part III does not explicitly mention this right. The Supreme Court has identified the right to privacy most often in the context of state surveillance and introduced the standards of compelling state interest, targetted surveillance and oversight mechanism which have been incorporated in the forms of rules under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Of late, privacy concerns have gained importance in India due to the initiation of national programmes like the UID Scheme, DNA Profiling, the National Encryption Policy, etc. attracting criticism for their impact on the right to privacy. To add to the growing concerns, the Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi argued in the ongoing Aadhaar case that the judicial position on whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right is unclear and has questioned the entire body of jurisprudence on right to privacy in the last few decades.

Participation

The roundtable saw participation from various civil society organisation such as Centre for Communication Governance, The Internet Democracy Project, as well as individual researchers like Dr. Usha Ramanathan and Colonel Mathew.

Introductions

Vipul Kharbanda, Consultant, CIS made the introductions and laid down the agenda for the day. Vipul presented a brief overview of the kind of work of CIS is engaged in around privacy and surveillance, in areas including among others, the Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2014, the Aadhaar Project, the Privacy Bill and surveillance laws in India. It was also highlighted that CIS was engaged in work in the field of Big Data in light of the growing voices wanting to use Big Data in the Smart Cities projects, etc and one of the questions was to analyse whether the 9 Privacy Principles would still be valid in a Big Data and IoT paradigm.

The Aadhaar Case

Dr. Usha Ramanathan began by calling the Aadhaar project an identification project as opposed to an identity project. She brought up various aspects of project ranging from the myth of voluntariness, the strong and often misleading marketing that has driven the project, the lack of mandate to collect biometric data and the problems with the technology itself. She highlighted inconsistencies, irrationalities and lack of process that has characterised the Aadhaar project since its inception. A common theme that she identified in how the project has been run was the element of ad-hoc-ness about many important decisions taken on a national scale and migrating from existing systems to the Aadhaar framework. She particularly highlighted the fact that as civil society actors trying to make sense of the project, an acute problem faced was the lack of credible information available. In that respect, she termed it as ‘powerpoint-driven project’ with a focus on information collection but little information available about the project itself. Another issue that Dr. Ramanathan brought up was that the lack of concern that had been exhibited by most people in sharing their biometric information without being aware of what it would be used, was in some ways symptomatic of they way we had begun to interact with technology and willingly giving information about ourselves, with little thought. Dr Ramanathan’s presentation detailed the response to the project from various quarters in the form of petitions in different high courts in India, how the cases were received by the courts and the contradictory response from the government at various stages. Alongside, she also sought to place the Aadhaar case in the context of various debates and issues, like its conflict with the National Population Register, exclusion, issues around ownership of data collected, national security implications and impact on privacy and surveillance. Aside from the above issues, Dr. Ramanathan also posited that the kind of flat idea of identity envisaged by projects like Aadhaar is problematic in that it adversely impacts how people can live, act and define themselves. In summation, she termed the behavior of the government as irresponsible for the manner in which it has changed its stand on issues to suit the expediency of the moment, and was particularly severe on the Attorney General raising questions about the existence of a fundamental right to privacy and casually putting in peril jurisprudence on civil liberties that has evolved over decades.

Colonel Mathew concurred with Dr. Ramanathan that the Aadhaar Project was not about identity but about identification. Prasanna developed on this further saying that while identity was a right unto the individual, identification was something done to you by others. Colonel Mathew further presented a brief history of the Aadhaar case, and how the significant developments over the last few years have played out in the courts. One of the important questions that Colonel Mathew addressed was the claim of uniqueness made by the UID project. He pointed to research conducted by Hans Varghese Mathew which analysed the data on biometric collection and processing released by the UID and demonstrated that there was a clear probability of a duplication in 1 out of every 97 enrolments. He also questioned the oft-repeated claim that UID would give identification to those without it and allow them to access welfare schemes. In this context, he pointed at the failures of the introducer system and the fact that only 0.03% of those registered have been enrolled through the introducer system. Colonel Mathew also questioned the change in stance by the ruling party, BJP which had earlier declared that the UID project should be scrapped as it was a threat to national security. According to him, the prime mover of the scheme were corporate interests outside the country interested in the data to be collected. This, he claimed created very serious risks to the national security. Prasanna further added to this point stating that while, on the face of it, some of the claims of threats to national security may sound alarmist in nature, if one were to critically study the manner in which the data had collected for this project, the concerns appeared justified.

The Draft Encryption Policy

Amber Sinha, Policy Officer at CIS, made a presentation on the brief appearance of the Draft Encryption Policy which was released in October this year, and withdrawn by the government within a day. Amber provided an overview of the policy emphasising on clauses around limitations on kind of encryption algorithms and key sizes individuals and organisations could use and the ill-advised procedures that needed to be followed. After the presentation, the topic was opened for discussion. The initial part of the discussion was focussed on specific clauses that threatened privacy and could serve the ends of enabling greater surveillance of the electronic communications of individuals and organisations, most notably having an exhaustive list of encryption algorithms, and the requirement to keep all encrypted communication in plain text format for a period of 90 days. We also attempted to locate the draft policy in the context of privacy debates in India as well as the global response to encryption. Amber emphasised that while mandating minimum standards of encryption for communication between government agencies may be a honorable motive, as it is concerned with matters of national security, however when this is extended to private parties and involved imposes upward thresholds on the kinds of encryption they can use, it stems from the motive of surveillance. Nayantara, of The Internet Democracy Project, pointed out that there had been global push back against encryption by governments in various countries like US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, UK, Tunisia and Morocco. In India also, the IT Act places limits on encryption. Her points stands further buttressed by the calls against encryption in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris last month.

It also intended to have a session on the Human DNA Profiling Bill led by Dr. Menaka Guruswamy. However, due to certain issues in scheduling and paucity of time, we were not able to have the session.

Questions Raised

On Aadhaar, some of the questions raised included the question of applicability of the Section 43A, IT Act rules to the private parties involved in the process. The issue of whether Aadhaar can be tool against corruption was raised by Vipul. However, Colonel Mathew demonstrated through his research that issues like corruption in the TPDS system and MNREGA which Aadhaar is supposed to solve, are not effectively addressed by it but that there were simpler solutions to these problems.

Ranjit raised questions about the different contexts of privacy, and referred to the work of Helen Nissenbaum. He spoke about the history of freely providing biometric information in India, initially for property documents and how it has gradually been used for surveillance. He argued has due to this tradition, many people in India do not view sharing of biometric information as infringing on their privacy. Dipesh Jain, student at Jindal Global Law School pointed to challenges like how individual privacy is perceived in India, its various contexts, and people resorting to the oft-quoted dictum of ‘why do you want privacy if you have nothing to hide’. In the context, it is pertinent to mention the response of Edward Snowden to this question who said, “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” Aakash Solanki, researcher

Vipul and Amber also touched upon the new challenges that are upon us in a world of Big Data where traditional ways to ensure data protection through data minimisation principle and the methods like anonymisation may not work. With advances in computer science and mathematics threatening to re-identify anonymized datasets, and more and more reliances of secondary uses of data coupled with the inadequacy of the idea of informed consent, a significant paradigm shift may be required in how we view privacy laws.

A number of action items going forward were also discussed, where different individuals volunteered to lead research on issues like the UBCC set up by the UIDAI, GSTN, the first national data utility, looking the recourses available to individual where his data is held by parties outside India’s jurisdiction.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/human-rights-in-the-age-of-digital-technology-a-conference-to-discuss-the-evolution-of-privacy-and-surveillance

Facebook Free Basics: Gatekeeping Powers Extend to Manipulating Public Discourse

vidushi — 2016-01-09T13:43:56Z

15 million people have come online through Free Basics, Facebook's zero rated walled garden, in the past year. "If we accept that everyone deserves access to the internet, then we must surely support free basic internet services. Who could possibly be against this?" asks Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in a recent op-ed defending Free Basics.

The article was published in Catchnews on January 6, 2015. For more info click here.

This rhetorical question however, has elicited a plethora of answers. The network neutrality debate has accelerated over the past few weeks with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) releasing a consultation paper on differential pricing.

While notifications to "Save Free Basics in India" prompt you on Facebook, an enormous backlash against this zero rated service has erupted in India.

The policy objectives that must guide regulating net neutrality are consumer choice, competition, access and openness. Facebook claims that Free Basics is a transition to the full internet and digital equality. However, by acting as a gatekeeper, Facebook gives itself the distinct advantage of deciding what services people can access for free by virtue of them being "basic", thereby violating net neutrality.

Amidst this debate, it's important to think of the impact Facebook can have on manipulating public discourse. In the past, Facebook has used it's powerful News Feed algorithm to significantly shape our consumption of information online.

In July 2014, Facebook researchers revealed that for a week in January 2012, it had altered the news feeds of 689,003 randomly selected Facebook users to control how many positive and negative posts they saw. This was done without their consent as part of a study to test how social media could be used to spread emotions online.

Their research showed that emotions were in fact easily manipulated. Users tended to write posts that were aligned with the mood of their timeline.

Another worrying indication of Facebook's ability to alter discourse was during the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in July and August, 2014. Users' News Feeds were flooded with videos of individuals pouring a bucket of ice over their head to raise awareness for charitable cause, but not entirely on its merit.

The challenge was Facebook's method of boosting its native video feature which was launched at around the same time. Its News Feed was mostly devoid of any news surrounding riots in Ferguson, Missouri at the same time, which happened to be a trending topic on Twitter.

Each day, the news feed algorithm has to choose roughly 300 posts out of a possible 1500 for each user, which involves much more than just a random selection. The posts you view when you log into Facebook are carefully curated keeping thousands of factors in mind. Each like and comment is a signal to the algorithm about your preferences and interests.

The amount of time you spend on each post is logged and then used to determine which post you are most likely to stop to read. Facebook even keeps into account text that is typed but not posted and makes algorithmic decisions based on them.

It also differentiates between likes - if you like a post before reading it, the news feed automatically assumes that your interest is much fainter as compared to liking a post after spending 10 minutes reading it.

Facebook believes that this is in the best interest of the user, and these factors help users see what he/she will most likely want to engage with. However, this keeps us at the mercy of a gatekeeper who impacts the diversity of information we consume, more often than not without explicit consent. Transparency is key.

(Vidushi Marda is a programme officer at the Centre for Internet and Society)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/catchnews-january-6-2016-vidushi-marda-facebook-free-basics-gatekeeping-powers-extend-to-manipulating-public-discourse

Nasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing

praskrishna — 2016-01-31T09:25:09Z

The debate against differential pricing of data services at the cost of net neutrality doesn’t seem to be getting over yet. While internet activists have gone out on streets in Bengaluru and Hyderabad to protest in favour of net neutrality, industry experts believe that differential pricing, when regulated could be tailored for public interest.

The article by Shadma Shaikh was published in Asian Age on January 7, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Given the current situation of low internet and broadband penetration along with lower levels of digital literacy and limited local language support in the country, IT industry body Nasscom said that protection of net neutrality is essential to fight these monumental challenges that require continuous innovation, both in technology solutions and business models.

“We strongly oppose any model where TSPs or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed,” Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said in a statement.

However, Nasscom also suggested a suitable oversight mechanism in the form of “an independent not-for-profit entity with an independent board to manage proposed differential pricing programs that are deemed to be in the public interest and are philanthropic in nature.”

In view of regulator Trai’s proposal to question the fairness of zero-rating—a practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage, Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society said, all forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.

Prakash says that Trai’s paper has been inappropriately reduced to a referendum, by both parties—supporters of differential pricing programme as well as internet activists fighting zero-rating. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, he says, adding “some traffic, such as government or public interest sites could be made free.”

Facebook’s Free Basics app that aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who cannot afford data packs, has run into trouble for being against net neutrality principle. Trai, while evaluating the zero-rating proposal has asked Reliance Communications, the official telecom partner for Free Basics to put the service on hold.

After drawing flak from critics and citizens over its Free Basics program and its extensive advertisement in the media and on Facebook itself to influence the decision of Trai in favour of zero-rating program, Zuckerberg reached out to Indian readers through an opinion piece he published in an Indian daily newspaper.

Facebook’s justification for Free Basics lies in comparing internet as a service similar to education and healthcare. Free schools, free libraries and public hospitals may not provide the best of services, but their existence is essential to cater to a large set of audience who cannot afford expensive healthcare or education. In the same way, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, everyone deserves access to free basic internet service.

Calling Facebook’s Free Basics programme as an illusion, Nikhil Pahwa, founder MediaNama and volunteer at savetheinternet.in said “Facebook’s Free Basics is not free internet.” The choice to determine what data or content to browse should be left to the internet users, he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing

Facebook Free Basics vs Net Neutrality: The top arguments in the debate

praskrishna — 2016-01-07T02:26:16Z

On Twitter, there's a whole conversation around Facebook Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here's a look at the debate.

The article was published in the Indian Express on December 31, 2015. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash were quoted.

Facebook’s Free Basics app, which aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who can’t afford data packs, has run into trouble in India over the last two weeks. After regulator TRAI issued a paper questioning the fairness of zero-rating platforms, it also asked Reliance Communications (the official telecom partner for Free Basics) to put the service on hold.

Facebook on its part has gone for an aggressive campaign, both online and offline, to promote Free Basics and ensure that its platform is not banned permanently. For Net Neutrality activists, zero-rating platforms are in violation of the principle as it restricts access to free, full Internet for users.

On Twitter too, there’s a serious debate unfolding around Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here’s a look at some of the prominent voices around this Net Neutrality vs Free Basics debate.

Watch our video

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of news website MediaNama, has been campaigning for quite some time against zero-rating platforms in general and Net Neutrality. On Twitter, Pahwa points out that the problem with the zero-rating apps is that it gives telecos right to play kingmaker, and get into a direct relationship between a website and a user.

Pahwa also wrote a counter-blog to Mark Zuckerberg’s column in The Times of India questioning why Facebook is going with this restricted version of the web on Free Basics, rather than giving access to all websites.

He posted recently on Twitter, “Why hasn’t Facebook tried any model other than on which gives it a competitive advantage?”

Pahwa adds, “With zero rating, telcos insert themselves into a previously direct relationship between a site and user. Some sites made cheaper versus others. Said it earlier, saying it again. Problem with zero rating is that it gives telcos the right to play kingmaker through pricing. So Net Neutrality battle isn’t just about Facebook. It’s about telcos lobbying for differential pricing+revenue share from Internet companies.”

Check out some of this tweets on the issue of Net Neutrality:

Pranesh Prakash, the director for policy at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, has said that a total ban might not be the ideal solution and one should look at the platforms on a case by case basis.

He writes on Twitter, “My position: We should ban some zero-rating, allow some zero-rating, and deal w/ middle category either w/ +ve obligation or case-by-case. I’m all for banning Free Basics if it harms people more than it benefits them. I’ve even proposed tests for determining this. The regulator needs more data on a) conversion rates to full-Internet; b) cost of subsidy & c) QoE (speed, etc.) of Free Basics.”

Check out Pranesh's tweets below

Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, has however questioned Free Basics on Twitter. He also posted counter-points to Pranesh’s tweets about data on conversion being used to create regulations around zero-ratings. He’s also called for a ban on Free Basics.

Check out his tweets below

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-december-31-2015-facebook-free-basics-vs-net-neutrality-the-top-arguments-in-the-debate

Nasscom against differential pricing for data services

praskrishna — 2016-01-06T15:12:17Z

The National Association of Software and Services Companies says it should be the regulator that decides on such content, not firms.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on January 5, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

India’s top software lobby on Monday said if select web content needs to be provided cheaper for some Indians, it must be the regulator that decides on such content, not companies.

In its response to a consultation paper by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on differential pricing for data usage, the National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom) objected to plans such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero where companies choose content to be provided at different speeds and prices, but backed powers for the regulator to allow such a model if the regulator deems they are in “public interest”, while adhering to principles of net neutrality.

“We strongly oppose any model where telecom service providers (TSPs) or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed... any differential pricing by TSP either directly such as Airtel Zero or indirectly as in the case of Free Basics through a platform provider which limits access to the internet services or websites (selected by the TSP or by the partners) violate the idea of net neutrality,” said R. Chandrashekhar, president, Nasscom.

“But when we recognize the reality of India as a country which has low internet penetration and even lower broadband penetration, apart from low levels of digital literacy and limited local language content... there may be a need to provide certain services in public interest at differential or lower prices which the regulator feels are necessary,” he said.

“Therefore, it is important that the regulator should have the power to allow differential pricing for certain types or classes of services that are deemed to be in public interest and based on mandatory prior approvals,” he said. “Any such programmes should abide by the principles of net neutrality and not constrain innovation in any way and not constrain innovation in any way.”

Differential pricing for data usage means offering services at different price points to different users. However, analysts say it could lead to an anti-competitive environment, hurting small companies and start-ups, while giving the TSPs and their partner platforms near-monopolistic access to the vast amount of user data that has potential commercial value in a country such as India where privacy laws are not strong.

Differential pricing is a significant aspect of the net neutrality debate that erupted in India in 2015, when Trai released a consultation paper in April. Soon, telecom operator Bharti Airtel Ltd launched Zero, a marketing platform that allows customers to access mobile applications for free but charges the application providers.

Facebook’s Free Basics service (the new name for Internet.org) aims to offer people without the Internet free access to a handful of websites and a range of services through mobile phones, which net neutrality activists say will violate the core principle that everyone should have unrestricted access to Internet and it should not be regulated by a company.

Following the outrage, Trai put Free Basics on hold, asking Reliance Communications Ltd to furnish the detailed terms and conditions of its Free Basics service. The next step will be announced later this month.

In an op-ed in the Times of India last week, Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys Ltd. and former chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India, publicly criticized Facebook’s Free Basics, calling it a walled garden.

“The walled garden of Free Basics goes against the spirit of openness on the internet, and in the guise of being pro-poor, balkanises it. Only Free Basics-approved websites will be accessible for free,” he said in the article which he co-authored with Viral Shah who led the design of government’s subsidy platforms using Aadhaar. “In theory, anyone meeting the technical guidelines today can participate. However, services that may potentially compete with telco offerings may not join Free Basics. Since Facebook does not currently subsidise free usage, telcos will have to foot the bill by raising prices.”

He said schemes such as direct benefit transfer for Internet data packs would be better compared to programmes such as Free Basics.

Nasscom, in its response, recommended “mandatory prior approval of such services by the regulator and sharing of periodic information on tariff plans seek to lower the price as well as zero rating services,” adding that these programmes should abide by the principle of net neutrality, meaning it should not limit consumers access to pre-defined set of services or websites.

“Any such differential pricing programs should have explicit approval of the regulator—and should be deemed to be in the public interest and the onus of proving it to be in the public interest in the first instance would be on service provider and before Trai arrives at a final decision a public consultation is also advised because of the dangers involved,” Nasscom said. “Even after the approval, suitable oversight mechanism should be maintained by the regulator in all such case.”

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said Nasscom’s approach to make differential pricing plans and options as an exception rather than the rule was quite reasonable. “It says that if differential pricing services adhere to the guidelines of being non-discriminatory, non-anti-competitive, non-predatory, non-ambiguous and transparent, they can be allowed under the supervision of the regulator, which is similar to the position adopted by CIS,” he said.

“Though some of their positions are ambiguous—for instance what they mean by non-discriminatory, and whether they are okay with differential pricing between classes of applications, are unclear—and some of their recommendations increase regulatory complexity, such as their proposal for independent not-for-profit entities with independent boards to own and manage such differential pricing programs, by and large it is a useful submission,” Prakash added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-moulishree-srivastava-january-5-2016-nasscom-against-differential-pricing-for-data-services

Zuckerberg's India Backlash Imperils Free Global Web Vision

praskrishna — 2016-01-06T14:51:42Z

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 by Bhuma Shrivastava was published by NDTV on January 4, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

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-january-4-2016-zuckerberg-india-backlash-imperils-free-global-web-vision

Reply to RTI Application under RTI Act of 2005 from Vanya Rakesh

vanya — 2016-01-13T02:40:57Z

Unique Identification Authority of India replied to the RTI application filed by Vanya Rakesh.

Madam,

Please refer to your RTI application dated 3.12.2015 received in the Division on 10.12.2015 on the subject mentioned above requesting to provide the information in electronic form via the email address vanya@cis-india.org, copies of the artwork in print media released by UIDAI to create awareness about use of Aadhaar not being mandatory.
I am directed to furnish herewith in electronic form, copy of the artwork in print media released / published in the epapers edition of the Times of India and Dainik Jagran in their respective editions of dated 29.8.2015 in a soft copy, about obtaining of Aadhaar not being mandatory for a citizen, as desired.
In case, you want to go for an appeal in connection with the information provided, you may appeal to the Appellate Authority indicated below within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter.
Shri Harish Lal Verma,
Deputy Director (Media),
Unique Identification Authority of India
3nd Floor, Tower – II, Jeevan Bharati Building,
New Delhi – 110001.

Yours faithfully,

(T Gou Khangin)
Section Officer & CPIO Media Division

Copy for information to: Deputy Director (Establishment) & Nodal CPIO

Below scanned copies:

RTI Reply

Coverage in Dainik Jagran

Download the coverage in the Times of India here. Read the earlier blog entry here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-application-under-rti-act-of-2005-from-vanya-rakesh

Facebook’s Free Basics Shuts Down In Egypt, Continuing Troubled Run

praskrishna — 2016-01-03T06:11:51Z

The report was published by TV Newsroom on January 1, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

“This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests – there aren’t even any ads in the version of Facebook in Free Basics”, he said. Initiatives like Internet.org are attempting to change that, but not without backlash. A similar proposal called zero internet was put forward later by Airtel.

Facebook now has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).

“The India fight is helping shape debates elsewhere”, said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based nonprofit advocacy group.

That prompted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to write an op-ed piece published in the Times of India that asks, “Who could possibly be against this?” There was fulsome praise for Modi from the young internet billionaire. Etisalat Egypt could not be reached for comment at this time. “For example, Facebook can just provide 50 or 100 megabytes for their data connection free every month”.

On Wednesday, Trai extended the last date for submission of comments and counter comment to 7 and 14 January, respectively.

But Zuckerberg is not having a walk in the park with this Free Basics proposition. It sounds a perfectly good idea.

Internet.org is a partnership, led by Facebook and including Samsung, Ericsson, MediaTek, Opera, Nokia and Qualcomm. Through a deal between Facebook and local mobile operators, the data to access those services is free.

The coalition has said that Facebook is misleading users and cautioned that the free service could be replete with advertising if and when it’s implemented. Similarly, signature drives are going on by those staunchly opposed to it. Now the problem for this is that we had asked for response to the specific question of differential pricing… instead we have got responses on supporting Free Basics.

Those campaigning to protect net neutrality in India suggest data providers should not favour some online services over others by offering cheaper or faster access.

The founders and executives mention that the difference in pricing through zero rating “affects the ability of new players to compete” with well-established companies. A situation where the haves can access the Internet and enjoy its tremendous opportunities and the have nots are kept out. Zuckerberg said that India’s progress depends on providing Web access to the 1 billion Indians without it.

Listing three main flaws within the programme, the scientists urged the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to “completely reject” Facebook’s “free fundamentals” proposal. Such as providing a tiered system of broad band access.

It would make sense for the government to target free Internet services while it clamps down on physical gathering places.

Read the original here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook2019s-free-basics-shuts-down-in-egypt-continuing-troubled-run

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

December 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2016-01-13T14:07:01Z

Our newsletter for the month of December 2015 is below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is happy to share the twelfth issue of CIS newsletter (December 2015). Previous editions of the newsletter can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

Highlights
The 4th edition of the Global Congress themed around "Three Decades of Openness, Two Decades of TRIPS" was organized in New Delhi from December 15 - 17, 2015. The largest ever in Asia, the Congress was jointly organised by CIS, NLU-D, Open A.I.R., CREATe, Columbia University and American University. Nehaa Chaudhari summarized the developments of the 4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest in a blog post that was originally published on the Global Congress blog. Sunil Abraham wrote a blog entry stating the institutional position of CIS on the Net Neutrality discussion going on in India. Catch News interviewed Sunil Abraham about the recent advertisement by Facebook titled "What Net Neutrality Activists won't Tell You or, the Top 10 Facts about Free Basics" . Sunil argued against the validity of all the 'top 10 facts'. Odia author and cultural historian Jagannath Prasad Das has recently permitted 30 volumes of his notable works to be re-license under an open license (Creative Commons Share-Alike 4.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0) . Subhashish Panigrahi wrote a blog post on this in Discover Bhubaneswar, a web portal in Odisha. CIS has established institutional partnerships with University of Mysore and Guru G Learning Labs for furthering Wikipedia growth. Tanveer Hasan analyses the developments and lists out the possible future plans in this regard. CIS along with Observer Research Foundation, Centre for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, and Internet Policy Observatory organized an event in New Delhi on Net Neutrality across South Asia . Today the quantity of data being generated is expanding at an exponential rate. From smartphones and televisions, trains and airplanes, sensor-equipped buildings and even the infrastructures of our cities, data now streams constantly from almost every sector and function of daily life, stated Scott Mason in a blog post. The Government of India is in the process of developing 100 smart cities in India which it sees as the key to the country's economic and social growth. Vanya Rakesh gave an overview of the Smart Cities project currently underway in India in a blog post. For the second part of the Smart City podcast series, Sruthi Krishnan and Harsha K from Fields of View spoke with Sumandro Chattapadhyay on data, people, and smart cities. Fields of View has produced and shared the recording. An extended survey of digital initiatives in arts and humanities practices in India was undertaken last year. The 'mapping digital humanities in India' enquiry began with the term 'digital humanities' itself, as a 'found' name for which one needs to excavate some meaning, context, and location in India at the present moment. P.P Sneha published the third,fourth, and fifth sections of the study this month. The RAW programme has initiated a new annual conference series titled Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC). The first edition of the Conference, organised around the theme of "studying internet in India" will be held in Delhi in February 2016

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing a project on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Updates

● December 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; December 31, 2015).

-----------------------------------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Copyright and Patent

Blog Entries

Abuse of Dominant Position in Indian Competition Law: A Brief Guide (Sarthak Sood; December 9, 2015).
GCIP2015: Notes from the Inaugural Session (Spadika Jayaraj; SpicyIP; December 14, 2015).
GCIP Day 1 Session 3: Challenges in Re-Articulating Public Interest (Spadika Jayaraj; SpicyIP; December 17, 2015).
GCIP 15 Day 2: Discussions on Health Technology, Innovation and Access (Spadika Jayaraj; SpicyIP; December 17, 2015).
Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions in abeyance (Anubha Sinha; Anubha Sinha; December 21, 2015).
4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest: Statement of Conclusion for the IP and Development track (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 25, 2015). This was also published on the Global Congress Blog.

Event Organized

Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (Organized by National Law University, Delhi, American Assembly, Columbia University, Open A.I.R., American University, and CIS; New Delhi, December 15 - 17, 2015).

Participation in Event

CODE Session (Organized by IDRC; December 17, 2015; New Delhi). Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha participated in the event.

Media Coverage

NLSIU Conference on Access to Copyrighted Works for Persons with Disability: An enriching experience (Abolee Vaidya and Nuhar Bansal; SINAPSE; December 14, 2015). This is an event report on a one-day national conference on the 'Access to Copyrighted Works for Persons with Disability' for which Pranesh Prakash was a speaker .

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Articles

30 Books of Odia Author and Historian Jagannath Prasad Das to Come Online on Odia Wikisource (Subhashish Panigrahi; Discover Bhubaneswar; December 4, 2015).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର (Subhashish Panigrahi; Sambad; December 6, 2015).

Blog Entries

Open access in the Marathi language expands by a thousand books (Subhashish Panigrahi and Abhinav Garule; December 3, 2015). This was published on Wikimedia Blog.
Guru-G Learning Labs and CIS A2K Institutional Partnership (Tanveer Hasan; December 3, 2015).
Community Prioritisation of Content Donation: Kannada Wikisource (Tanveer Hasan; December 5, 2015).
Analysis of Institutional Partnerships: University of Mysore and Guru G Learning Labs (Tanveer Hasan; December 5, 2015).
Touch Point Report: Department of Tourism Studies, Christ University and St. Aloysius College, Mangalore (Tanveer Hasan; December 5, 2015).
TTT 2015 (Tanveer Hasan; December 5, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon at Mangaluru (Dr. U.B. Pavanaja; December 29, 2015).

Events Organized

Talk on bringing 1000 books about the culture of Maharashtra on Marathi Wikipedia (The Energy and Resources Institute; Bangalore; December 1, 2015). Avinash Chaphekar, Joint Secretary, Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha gave a talk.
Odia Wikimedia community meetup (Organized by Odia Wikipedia Community and CIS; Cuttack; December 3, 2015).
Sau Dhuni Teen Project: December Edit-a-thon (Women's Studies Centre, University of Pune; December 3, 2015).

Participation in Events

Telugu Wikipedia Day 2015, Photo Walk (Organized by Telugu Wikipedians; Dr. YSR State Archaeological Museum, Hyderabad; December 13, 2015). Pavan Santhosh attended the event. One of the popular Telugu news channel TV9 covered the event and telecasted the same. Eenadu published a special item on photo walk on December 13, 2015.
English Wikipedia and the Telugu Wikipedia joint meetup and edit-a-thon (Organized by Wikipedia community; Golden Threshold, Hyderabad; December 20, 2015). The event was covered inSakshi and Andhra Jyoti.

Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Post More Articles on Kannada Wikipedia (Indian Express; Mangaluru edition; December 12, 2015).

A Kannada Wikipedia Editathon was conducted in Mangalore on December 10, 2015. The following are the media coverage for the same:

Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Udayavani; December 7, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Vijayavani; December 11, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Vijaya Karnataka; December 11, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Udayavani; December 11, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Prajavani; December 10, 2015).
Kannada Wikipedia Editathon (Prajavani; December 13, 2015).

-----------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------------------
As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on studying the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government.

►Free Speech and Expression

Interview

Facebook shares 10 key facts about Free Basics. Here's what's wrong with all 10 of them (Shweta Sengar; Catch News; December 24, 2015).

Blog Entry

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality (Sunil Abraham; December 4, 2015).

Event Organized

Net Neutrality across South Asia (Organized by Observer Research Foundation, Centre for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Internet Policy Observatory and CIS; New Delhi; December 12, 2015).

Participation in Event

Consultation on "Understanding the Freedom of Expression Online and Offline" (Organized by Digital Empowerment Foundation and Association for Progressive Communications; YMCA, New Delhi; December 10, 2015). Jyoti Panday was a speaker at this event.

►Big Data

Blog Entry

Benefits and Harms of "Big Data" (Scott Mason; December 30, 2015).

►Cyber Security

Blog Entry

Ground Zero Summit (Amber Sinha; December 22, 2015).

Participation in Events

Second Regional Conference on Connectivity for All: Future Technologies, Markets and Regulation (Organized by International Telecommunications Society, IIMA IDEA Telecom Centre of Excellence and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; New Delhi; December 13 - 15, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a panelist.

Event Organized

Bangalore Chapter Meet - DSCI (CIS, Bangalore; December 1, 2015). CIS hosted the Bangalore Chapter Meet of DSCI. Pronab Mohanty, Inspector General of Police gave a talk on Cybercrimes. Sunil Abraham presented the outcome of his study "Anonymity in Cyberspace".

►Privacy

Blog Entries

UID Research (Vanya Rakesh; December 2, 2015).
DNA Research (Vanya Rakesh; December 2, 2015).
Privacy Policy Research (Vanya Rakesh; December 2, 2015).
Sectoral Privacy Research (Vanya Rakesh; December 2, 2015).
Security Research (Vanya Rakesh; December 3, 2015).
Eight Key Privacy Events in India in the Year 2015 (Amber Sinha; December 31, 2015).

Participation in Events

Kick Off Meeting for the Politics of Data Project (Organized by Tactical Tech; Phnom Penh; December 7-8, 2015). Amber Sinha participated in the event.
Unbundling Issues of Privacy, Data Security, Identity Matrics, for Financial Inclusion (Organized by Indicus Foundation and MicroSave; December 10, 2015; Metropolitan Hotel and Spa, New Delhi). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.

►Miscellaneous

Blog Entry

Smart Cities in India: An Overview (Vanya Rakesh; December 21, 2015).

Participation in Event

Elite Capture of Governance (Organized by Forum for Urban Governance and Commons; December 16, 2015; Bangalore). Vanya Rakesh participated in the event.

--------------------------------
Telecom
--------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Articles

The Free Basics debate: Trai has a point in imposing temporary ban on net neutrality (Sunil Abraham; FirstPost; December 24, 2015).
Millions of Indians Slam Facebook's 'Free Basics' App (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 29, 2015).

--------------------------------
Researchers at Work
--------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by contemporary concerns to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It is interested in producing local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Upcoming Events

A.I. Hype Cycles and Artistic Subversions (CIS, Bangalore; January 22, 2016). Gene Kogan will give a talk.
First Edition of Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 - Studying Internet in India: Call for Sessions (Organized by CIS; New Delhi; February 25 - 27, 2016).

Blog Entries

RAW Lecture #01: Nishant Shah on 'Stories and Histories of Internet in India' - Video (P.P. Sneha; December 1, 2015).
FOV Podcast - Data, People, and Smart Cities (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; December 2, 2015).
Reading from a Distance - Data as Text (P.P. Sneha; December 7, 2015).
The Infrastructure Turn in the Humanities (P.P. Sneha; December 7, 2015).
Living in the Archival Moment (P.P. Sneha; December 14, 2015).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

India's net neutrality debate is unique and complex (Pratap Vikram Singh; Governance Now; December 14, 2015).
Start-up India turns the heat on Facebook Free Basics (Anita Babu; Business Standard; December 22, 2015).
A Scam Masquerading as Santa (Apurva Venkat & Vandana Kamath; Bangalore Mirror; December 25, 2015).
Facebook goes out all guns blazing in push for Free Basics, Net neutrality advocates cry foul (IBN Live; December 29, 2015).
Foreign Media on Zuckerberg's India Backlash (Bhuma Shrivastava; NDTV; December 30, 2015).
Mark Zuckerberg's India backlash imperils vision for free global web (Bhuma Shrivastava; Livemint; December 30, 2015).

---------------------------------
About CIS
---------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Offices

Bengaluru - No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, 560071. Location on Google Map .

Delhi - First floor, B 1/8, Hauz Khas, near G Block market, after Crunch, New Delhi, 110016. Location on Google Map.

► Follow Us

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, 560 071.

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/december-2015-bulletin

We are anonymous, we are legion

The Creation of a Network for the Global South - A Literature Review

I. Introduction

II. Evolution of the Network

III. Structure

III. Evaluation

V. Learning and Recommendations

Elite Capture of Governance in Bangalore

What are People's Rights in Digital World

A Critique of Consent in Information Privacy

Will India win net neutrality battle?

A prerequisite for startups

Whither public consultation

Free Basics: A camouflage?

Zero or equal rating?

Human Rights in the Age of Digital Technology: A Conference to Discuss the Evolution of Privacy and Surveillance

Participation

Introductions

The Aadhaar Case

The Draft Encryption Policy

Questions Raised

Facebook Free Basics: Gatekeeping Powers Extend to Manipulating Public Discourse

Nasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing

Facebook Free Basics vs Net Neutrality: The top arguments in the debate

Watch our video

Nasscom against differential pricing for data services

Zuckerberg's India Backlash Imperils Free Global Web Vision

Reply to RTI Application under RTI Act of 2005 from Vanya Rakesh

Facebook’s Free Basics Shuts Down In Egypt, Continuing Troubled Run

Free Basics: Negating net parity

Gatekeeping powers

December 2015 Bulletin

Highlights