We are anonymous, we are legion

July 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-08-11T05:46:53Z

Seventh issue of the newsletter (July 2014) below:

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcome you to the seventh issue of the newsletter (July 2014). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

------------------------------
Highlights
------------------------------

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the 28^th session of the World Intellectual Property Organisation Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (WIPO-SCCR) held in Geneva from June 30 to July 4, 2014. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) gave its statements on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives and Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations.
India became the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and the Accessible Books Consortium was launched. Nehaa Chaudhari who participated in the 28^th session of the WIPO-SCCR reports on this in a blog entry.
Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva produced a research paper on patent valuation and license fee determination as part of the Pervasive Technologies project.
Our grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation was approved. CIS has been awarded Rs. 12,000,000 for the next one year for the Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia) project.
CIS and the University of Mysore organized the Open Knowledge day in Mysore on July 15, 2014. Six volumes of Kannada Vishwakosha was re-released under the Creative Commons (CC license).
We helped the Ministry of Science and Technology draft the Open Access Policy for the DST/DBT.
The first of the seven proposed roundtable meetings on “Privacy and Surveillance” conducted by CIS in collaboration with the Cellular Operators Association of India and the Council for Fair Business Practices was held in Mumbai on June 28, 2014. Anandini K. Rathore has blogged on this.
Bedavyasa Mohanty has produced a blog entry that analyses the nuances of interception of communications under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Post Office Act.
Vinayak Mithal has written a blog entry on the Constitutionality of Indian surveillance law that analyses ICANN's reactive transparency mechanism, comparing it with freedom of information best practices. He describes the DIDP and its relevance for the Internet community.
Nishant Shah speaks on the right to freedom of speech and expression in the latest interview conducted as part of the Cybersecurity series being done with a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa.
Nishant Shah’s peer reviewed article “Asia in the Edges: A Narrative Account of the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Summer School in Bangalore” was published in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Journal, Volume 15, Issue 2, on July 3, 2014. Nishant gives a narrative account of the experiments and ideas that shaped the second Summer School, “The Asian Edge” hosted in Bangalore, India, in 2012.
CIS recruited two new staff members in its Bangalore office. Rohini Lakshane joined as a Program Officer in the Pervasive Technologies project and K.N. Medini joined as a Senior Accounts Officer. Their profiles can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/people/our-team.

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------
Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. We compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). We will be publishing this soon. The draft chapters along with the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is 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 Update

Work Report for July (by Suman Dogra, July 31, 2014).

Blog Entry

India's Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty Celebrated; Accessible Books Consortium Launched (by Nehaa Chaudhari, July 1, 2014): India became the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.

Media Coverage

SpicyIP Tidbit: India ratifies the Marrakesh Treaty for the Visually Impaired (by Thomas J. Vallianeth, Spicy IP, July 1, 2014).

-----------------------------------------------------------
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.

►WIPO

Participation in Event and Statements
Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the 28^th session of WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from June 30 to July 4, 2014. The following have been the outputs from the event:

Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at WIPO SCCR 28 (by Nehaa Chaudhari, July 2, 2014).
Opening Comments by India on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28 (posted by Nehaa Chaudhari, July 7, 2014). This was the statement made by the Indian delegation at WIPO-SCCR 28^th session on July 2, 2014.
Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28 (by Nehaa Chaudhari, July 3, 2014).
28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (by Nehaa Chaudhari, July 29, 2014).

► Pervasive Technologies

Research Papers

Patent Valuation and License Fee Determination in Context of Patent Pools (by Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, July 9, 2014). Vikrant has produced research that examines patent valuation and license fee determination in detail.
Grounds for Compulsory Patent Licensing in United States, Canada, China, and India (by Maggie Huang, July 29, 2014). In her research paper Maggie tries to answer questions about the grounds of compulsory licensing in international treaties with specific examples from America and Asia.

►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).

Announcement
Our grant application to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) of the Wikimedia Foundation was approved by its board which met in Frankfurt from May 21 to 24, 2014. CIS had requested a grant of Rs. 18,406,454 and were awarded Rs. 12,000,000 for the next one year.

The following were done this month:

Articles / Blog Entries

Aircel & Wikimedia Foundation announce Wikipedia Zero (by Dr. U.B.Pavanaja, Prajavani, July 3, 2014). As per this, users of Aircel need not pay for data for accessing Wikipedia.
ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷରସଜ୍ଜା (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Samaja, July 4, 2014).
State of Odia Language in Computing and Future Steps (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Sovereign, July 7, 2014).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ବିକାଶର ରାସ୍ତା (by Subhashish Panigrahi, The Sambad, July 23, 2014).
University of Mysore Re-releases Kannada Vishwakosha (Encyclopaedia) under Creative Commons Free License (by Dr. U.B.Pavanaja, July 24, 2014). Leading English and Kannada dailies like Andolana Kannada, City Today, Deccan Herald, Hosa Diganta, Kannada Jana Mana, Kannada Prabha, Rajya Dharma, Samyukta Karnataka, The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Udayavani, Vijaya Karnataka, and Vijaya Vani published about this. Scanned versions of the published articles can be downloaded here.
Wiki Loves Pride 2014 and Adding Diversity to Wikipedia (by Dorothy Howard, Wikimedia Blog, July 25, 2014).
Doctors and Translators Are Working Together to Bridge Wikipedia's Medical Language Gap (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Global Voices, July 27, 2014). This was re-published on the Wikimedia Blog, July 30, 2014.
Classical Odia Language in the Digital Age (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Odisha Review, posted on July 28, 2014). The essay was published in the magazine’s June edition.

Event Organized

Open Knowledge Day (co-organized by Mysore University and CIS-A2K, Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies, University of Mysore, July 15, 2014). The event coincided with the Open Knowledge Festival in Berlin from July 15 to 17. Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the event. On this occasion Mysore University released six volumes of Kannada Vishwakosha under the Creative Commons (CC) license.

Participation in Events

National Level Seminar on Computer Application and Odia Language (organized by Institute of Odia Studies and Research, July 6, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi was a panelist.
Open Knowledge Festival 2014 (organized by Google, Omidyar, et.al., Berlin, July 15 – 17, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi represented India as the India Ambassador of OpenGLAM local and made a presentation.
#NAMA: The Future of Indic Languages (organized by Medianama, The Oberoi Hotel, Bangalore, July 24, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

News and Media Coverage
CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Wikipedia edit-a-thons to add content on LGBTs (by Renuka Phadnis, The Hindu, July 7, 2014).
Font problem hits Odia (by Bibhuti Barik, The Telegraph, July 7, 2014).
Four volumes of Kannada Encyclopaedia digitised (by R. Krishna Kumar, The Hindu, July 12, 2014).
‘ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ’ಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನು ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್ ಹಂಗಿಲ್ಲ (Prajavani, July 14, 2014).
Soon, all 14 volumes of Kannada encyclopaedia to be online (by R. Krishna Kumar, The Hindu, July 15, 2014).
ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ (Kannada Prabha, July 15, 2014).
ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ (Udayavani, July 15, 2014).
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ kannada ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ : ಈಗ ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ಮುಕ್ತ…ಮುಕ್ತ……( Just Kannada, July 15, 2014).
Six Kannada encyclopaedias released (Webindia 123, July 15, 2014).
150 Rare Books Get New Lease of Life Online, Courtesy Students (by Anila Backer, New Indian Express, July 15, 2014).
Open Access: Students help revive and digitize rare books for Malayalam Wiki Library (Spicy IP, July 15, 2014).
'Trolled' from US Congress, Wikipedia bans edits (by Narayan Lakshman, The Hindu, July 25, 2014).
Telugu Wikipedia struggles to stay afloat (by Renuka Phadnis, The Hindu, July 27, 2014).
The joys of being a Wikipedian (by Svetlana Lasrado, New Indian Express, July 29, 2014).
Kannada Wikipedia Presentation (Vijayavani, July 30, 2014).
Kannada Wikipedia Presentation for Kannada Science Writers (Prajavani, July 31, 2014).

►Openness

Blog Entries

Mozilla brings Indian Communities together Twice in One Month (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Mozilla Website, July 8, 2014).
Mozilla Brings Indian Communities Together (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Opensource.com, July 13, 2014).
Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, release Open Access Policy (by Anubha Sinha, July 18, 2014). We have also been acknowledged in the policy.

HasGeek Event

The Fifth Elephant (NIMHANS Convention Centre, July 25-26, 2014). CIS was a community outreach partner.

Media Coverage

Plan for open access to science research (by Renuka Phadnis, The Hindu, July 22, 2014).
Indian Govt looks to provide free access to publicly-funded research works (by Riddhi Mukherjee, Medianama, July 23, 2014).

-----------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------------------

►Freedom of Expression

As part of our project on Freedom of Expression (funded through a grant from the MacArthur Foundation) to study the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute to the debates around Internet governance and freedom of expression at forums like ICANN, ITU, IGF, WSIS, etc., we bring you the following outputs:

Blog Entries

ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy – I: DIDP Basics (by Vinayak Mithal, July 1, 2014).
Reading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights (by Jyoti Panday, July 2, 2014).
Facebook and its Aversion to Anonymous and Pseudonymous Speech (by Jessamine Mathew, July 4, 2014).
Free Speech and Surveillance (by Gautam Bhatia, July 7, 2014).
Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of Websites after Sony Complains Infringement of 2014 FIFA World Cup Telecast Rights (by Anubha Sinha, July 8, 2014).
GNI and IAMAI Launch Interactive Slideshow Exploring Impact of India's Internet Laws (by Jyoti Panday, July 17, 2014).

FOEX Live

We are also posting a selection of news from across India implicating online freedom of expression and use of digital technology: July 7, 2014.

►Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. We have produced the following outputs during the month:

Blog Entries

Models for Surveillance and Interception of Communications Worldwide (by Bedavyasa Mohanty, July 2, 2014).
The Constitutionality of Indian Surveillance Law: Public Emergency as a Condition Precedent for Intercepting Communications (by Bedavyasa Mohanty, July 4, 2014).
UK’s Interception of Communications Commissioner — A Model of Accountability (by Joe Sheehan, July 24, 2014).

Event Report

First Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable (by Anandini K Rathore, July 18, 2014).

Article

Private Censorship and the Right to Hear (by Chinmayi Arun, The Hoot, July 17, 2014). The article was also mirrored on the website of the Centre for Communication Governance.

Participation in Events

Information Influx Conference (organized by the Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, July 2 – 4, 2014). Malavika Jayaram was a speaker.
Consultation to Frame Rules under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 (organized by National Campaign for People's Right to Information and Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, New Delhi, July 5, 2014). Bhairav Acharya participated in the event.
Best Practices Meet (organized by DSCI, Hotel Leela Palace, Bangalore, July 9, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a panelist.
Rethinking Privacy: The Link between Florida v. Jardines and the Surveillance of Nature Films (organized by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, July 11, 2014). Bhairav Acharya gave a talk.
Region as Frame: Politics, Presence, Practice (organized by International Association for Media and Communication Research, Hyderabad, July 18, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker for these panels: Governing Digital Spaces: Issues of Access, Privacy and Freedom, UNESCO panel debate, and Special Session on Research Paths In and Outside of the Academy.
ICT Awareness Program for Myanmar Parliamentarians (organized by Myanmar ICT for Development Organization, July 26 – 27, 2014, Yangon). Sunil Abraham participated in the event as a speaker and presented on Innovation Ecosystem and Thinking about Internet Regulation.

--------------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
--------------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Cyber-crimes shoot up 52% in India over last year (by K.V.Kurmanath, Hindu Businessline, July 2, 2014).
COAI, Centre for Internet & Society to hold pan-India meetings on privacy issues (IANS, July 4, 2014). The news was mirrored in the Times of India , NDTV, Business Standard , Economic Times , and World News.
Living in a Fish Bowl (by Shuma Raha, The Telegraph, July 16, 2014).
Terror recruiters target Indians on internet (by Sandhya Soman, July 18, 2014).
The trouble with trolls (by Vishal Mathur, Livemint, July 22, 2014).
India’s dedicated Cryptology centre gets Rs. 115 crore funding (by Harichandan Arakali, SearchSecurity.in, July 28, 2014).

►Cyber Stewards
As part of its project on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and the International Development Research Centre, Canada, CIS conducted 2 new interviews. With this it has finished a total of 19 interviews:

Video Interviews

Lobsang Gyatso Sither (July 31, 2014).

Lobsang Sangay (July 31, 2014).

--------------------------------
Digital Humanities
--------------------------------
CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Peer Reviewed Article

Asia in the Edges: A Narrative Account of the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Summer School in Bangalore (by Nishant Shah, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Journal, Volume 15, Issue 2, July 3, 2014). This is the narrative account of the experiments and ideas that shaped the second Summer School, “The Asian Edge” which was hosted in Bangalore, India, in 2012.

Blog Entry

Reading from a Distance — Data as Text (by P.P. Sneha, July 23, 2014).

-----------------------------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► 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 – 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, atsunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@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/july-2014-bulletin

India’s dedicated Cryptology centre gets Rs. 115 crore funding

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T07:18:08Z

Work on India's first dedicated cryptology centre – plans for which were first announced in June 2012 – will likely accelerate as the project has gained initial funding of Rs. 115 crore from the federal government, stepping up the nation's efforts to stay on top of an area critical to its military and financial interests.

The blog post by Harichandan Arakali was published in SearchSecurity.in on July 28, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The research facility, called the RC Bose Centre For Cryptology and Security, is to be built on the campus of the Indian Statistical Institute at Kolkata, where there is already ongoing cryptology research and consultancy work, albeit on a smaller scale, according to professor Rana Barua, the centre's head.

In a world where electronic transactions and access to an ever-increasing number of places, installations and objects have made physical borders less relevant, the task of securing them against threats means strong encryption of data is critical to national defense.

"This centre is of course a welcome initial step, but it can't be the only thing. We will have to, ideally, take a billion dollars from some of the big funds, such as the Universal Service Obligation fund or from the next (wireless) spectrum auctions, and throw it at cryptography," said Sunil Abraham, director for policy at the Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit research organisation.

"If the country takes our military superiority seriously, then when it comes to cyber wars, without having an upper hand in cryptography, there is no use discussing anything else," he added.

The new cryptology centre will focus on basic research, but take on applied work for India's defense needs and those of its financial institutions, professor Barua said, developing algorithms, testing encryption products for robustness, detecting vulnerabilities and so on.

The center will augment indigenous capabilities in cryptology and information security, Bimal K Roy, director of the India Statistical Institute told India's Press Trust, which reported the funding earlier this month.

"It is an important element of the overall efforts and framework to enhance capabilities to ensure holistic security of the Indian cyber space. With an eminent body of world class experts, it will act as a hub for all cryptographic requirements, cutting edge research and technology development within the country," Press Trust cited Roy as saying.

Once centre is up and running and, over the next two years, it will have the infrastructure to allow more than 30 researchers to work, but "the problem of course is to get good researchers in this area," Barua said.

Pretty much all the best mathematicians in the world today work with the US government either directly or as part of the American academia and via research projects funded by the US government, said the Centre for Internet and Society's Abraham.

Given that most of the standards used today are those set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the US standard-setting organisation, "we should ensure that our participation at NIST is of the highest quality and we need an army of mathematicians," he said.

However, in India there may be a small number of mathematicians who are capable of the highest level of cryptology research. Even if there are more, there is another problem for them to keep abreast of the latest advances.

In the past, maths used to be an open science and all advances would be published and available for peers to learn from each other. With the militarisation of the areas of maths that deal with cryptology, the latest research isn't available and mathematicians have to essentially work things out on their own as well as conjecture what others might be doing.

Today, every country other than the US faces a shortage of skilled cryptographers, according to Abraham: "Everybody is in the soup, but India is in worse soup because we went with this engineering craze instead of pure sciences and math, we've ignored building capacity in that area."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/search-security-july-28-2014-harichandan-arakali-indias-dedicated-cryptology-centre-gets-funding

Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T07:08:04Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop "Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead" on August 6, 2014, 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., at during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida.

Thematic Area of Interest

Enhanced Cooperation & the Multi-stakeholder model

Introduction:
Today, multi-stakeholderism is the catchphrase in Internet governance. With the display of a multi-stakeholder model at NETmundial, controversies and opinions regarding the meaning, substance and benefits of multi-stakeholderism have deepened. As the recent meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation of the United Nations Commission on Science, Technology and Development demonstrates, questions and concerns regarding meaning of multi-stakeholderism, the

legitimacy and desirability of its processes, and the successes and disappointments of its outcomes now dominate the discussion. At this juncture, clarity and consensus are imperative to determine the future of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance.

Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders:
The debates surrounding stakeholder-roles in Internet governance began with ¶ 49 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles and ¶ 35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineated clear roles and responsibilities. It created a ‘contributory’ multi-stakeholder model, where states held sovereign authority over public policy issues, while business and civil society were contributed to ‘important roles’ at the ‘technical and economic fields’ and the ‘community level’, respectively. At the same time, it set forth an agenda for enhanced cooperation.

As the WGEC meeting (April 30-May 2, 2014) demonstrated, there is as yet no consensus on stakeholder-roles. Certain governments remain strongly opposed to equal roles of other stakeholders, emphasizing their lack of accountability and responsibility. Civil society is similarly splintered, with a majority opposing the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while others remain dubious of permitting the private sector an equal footing in public policy-making. Still others question the wisdom of seeking a ‘fix’ when ‘nothing is broken’. In this session, we aim to interrogate the benefits and disadvantages of an ‘equal footing’ model, as opposed to a ‘contributory’ model.

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Who are the stakeholders? Should a multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance grant all stakeholders ‘equal footing’? Should such ‘equal footing’ be relegated to issues other than substantive public policy-making? On the other hand, is a ‘contributory’ model safer? Are states better equipped to represent interests inclusively? How can governments and businesses best perform their role as trustees of the public interest of interest users?

In view of the formidable consolidation by the private sector at NETmundial, while civil society splintered on issues of intellectual property and intermediary liability, can a ‘participative model’ better prevent detrimental outcomes?

Multi-stakeholderism beyond NETmundial:
As important as the meaning of multi-stakeholderism is the process of its execution. The need to fashion safe and sustainable processes for multi-stakeholder participation was highlighted by the successes and failures of private sector and civil society at NETmundial. From the ICANN and IGF models to stakeholder coalitions, premeeting coordination and governmental policy participation, this session shall expand on the quest for effective and beneficial stakeholder participation and representation in both the ‘equal footing’ and ‘contributory’ models, with a focus on enhancing developing country participation.

Particularly, lessons that Internet governance may draw from multi-stakeholder governance processes across areas shall be discussed. For instance, deliberative democracy, enterprise associations or unions (such as in the International Labour Organisation) may all be of value. Similarly, multi-stakeholder processes in environmental and corporate governance and the development sector may benefit Internet governance. In determining the value of these processes to Internet governance, public interest of users is an important consideration. The capability and initiative of governments to implement an effective bottom-up model of Internet governance is equally important and will be considered.

We aim to conduct a 90-minute workshop (2 panels of 45 minutes each), inclusive of 15-30 minutes in all for Q&A from audience, panellists and moderators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/multi-stakeholder-internet-governance-the-way-ahead

Minimising Legal Risks of Online Intermediaries while Protecting User Rights

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T07:50:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida on August 5, 2014, 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Jyoti Panday will be a panelist.

Thematic Area of Interest

Internet business in the Asia Pacific region

Consumer protection for users of global Internet services

Internet for socio-economic development

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Internet usage in the Asia Pacific region has been growing at a phenomenal rate and online service providers have benefited enormously from this growth. However, the region poses challenges for online service providers in terms of legal risks involved with respect to user generated content. Across the world from Europe to the US, it has been an accepted policy that service providers on the Internet cannot be held liable for user-generated content and this principle has found place in legislations enacted in this field in most countries. However, the Asian region has often seen blocking of services and websites due to user-generated content that is deemed to be illegal. There needs to be a debate on safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and the take-down provisions in legislations to ensure that the right to freedom of expression of citizens are protected while maintaining an environment that permits innovation in this space.

The workshop will also consider the different classes of intermediaries, how they differ functionally and if their differing roles should bear an impact on their responsibility with regards to protection of rights of users. Traditional models of consumer protection are based on distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of suppliers, facilitators and consumers. While developing consumer protection models for online intermediary platforms, their evolving roles and responsibilities as a supplier and a facilitator need to be considered. Intermediary platforms have also created and highlighted new consumer relations and issues that call for robust and fluid reddressal mechanisms.

The need to reflect on reddressal mechanisms for consumer issues pertaining to online intermediaries is also necessary, given the economic implications associated with intermediary liability. Failure to protect intermediaries stems innovation and restricts growth of start-ups and small to medium enterprises in the digital economy and has negative financial implications. Moreover, intermediaries are crucial in connecting developing countries to global markets and a failure to protect them, creates a barrier to information exchange and capacity building.

The panel will discuss the following issues:

Take-down procedures and Put-back provisions used in various countries in the region
Safe-harbour provisions for intermediaries
Need for classification of Intermediaries for the purpose of a take-down regime and user rights
Rights of users of services provided by online intermediaries
Recommendations for a balanced intermediary liability regime

Expected Format and Confirmed Panel Members

The workshop will be a ninety minute panel divided in two sessions of forty five minutes each. The proposed panel includes:

Mishi Choudhary (Moderator) SFLC.IN Civil Society India
Mishi Choudhary is the founding director of SFLC India. She started working with SFLC in New York following the completion of her fellowship during which she earned her LLM from Columbia Law School and was a Stone Scholar. In addition to her LLM, she has an LLB and a bachelors degree in political science from the University of Delhi, India.

Jyoti Panday, Center for Internet and Society, Civil Society, India
Jyoti Panday is Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society working on Internet governance and on issues related to the role and responsibility of intermediaries in protecting user rights and freedom of expression. She has experience in strategy, campaign management and research on issues and processes related to the development agenda, sustainability and democracy. She has completed her MSc in Public Policy from Queen Mary, University of London.

Shahzad Ahmed, Bytes for All Pakistan, Civil Society, Pakistan
Shahzad Ahmad is the Country Coordinator of Bytes for All, Pakistan and founder of the Digital Rights Institute (DRI). He is currently working on issues of ICT policy advocacy, internet rights and freedom of expression. He is a development communications expert and is at the forefront of the Internet Rights movement in Pakistan.

Mr. Ahmad is a Diplo Fellow, Executive Board Member of the Association for Progressive Communications, Advisory Board Member of .PK ccTLD and a member of the International Advisory Board of Privacy International, UK. He regularly contributes to various publications and research studies on ICTs for development, freedom of expression and gender related issues. Widely travelled, he regularly participates in various forums at local, regional and global level. Mr. Ahmad maintains a strong engagement with broader civil society networks and strongly believes in participation and openness.

Professor KS Park, Korea University Law School Professor
One of the founders of Open Net Korea, Professor Park has written and is active in internet, free speech, privacy, defamation, copyright, international business contracting, etc. He has given expert testimonies in high-profile free speech cases including the /Minerva /case, the internet real name verification case, the military’s subversive book blacklisting case, the newspaper consumers’ boycott case, and the Park Jung-Geun Retweet case. As a result, the “false news” crime and the internet real name verification laws were struck down as unconstitutional, Park Jung-Geun and Minerva acquitted, the soldiers challenging book blacklisting reinstated, the newspaper boycotters acquitted partially as to the “secondary boycotting” charge (2010-2013).

Since 2006, he serves as the Executive Director of the PSPD Law Center, a non-profit entity that has organized several impact litigations in the areas of free speech, privacy, and copyright. There, the Law Center won the world’s first damage lawsuit against a copyright holder for “bad faith” takedown (2009) and the first damage lawsuit against a portal for warrantless disclosure of the user identity data to the police (2012).

Arvind Gupta, National Head-Information and Technology, Government/ BJP Political party, India
National Head, BJP Information Technology Cell

Faisal Farooqui, CEO, MouthShut.com, Private Sector, India
Faisal Farooqui is a highly recognized entrepreneur who is among the trailblazers of his generation. Faisal has founded and managed two successful Internet and technology companies -MouthShut.com, India's largest consumer review and social media portal and Zarca Interactive, a Virginia based enterprise survey and feedback company.

Ramanjit Singh Chima, Google, Private Sector, India
Raman Jit Singh Chima serves as Policy Counsel and Government Affairs Manager for Google, based in New Delhi. He currently helps lead Google'spublic policy and government affairs work in India. He is a graduate of the Bachelors in Arts and Law (Honours) programme of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. While at the National Law School, he was Chief Editor of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. He has studied Internet regulation as an independent research fellow with the Sarai programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and contributed to Freedom House's 2009 Freedom on the Internet report.

Apar Gupta, Legal, India
Apar Gupta is a practicing lawyer in Delhi working as a Partner at the law firm of Advani & Co. His practice areas include, commercial litigation and arbitration with a focus on technology and media. Apar as a retained counsel, represents an internet industry organisation in government affairs, including consultations on draft laws and policies which effect the sector. These issues include legal risks of intermediaries, media freedom and consumer rights. He has completed his masters in law from Columbia Law School, New York and has written columns for the Business Standard, Indian Express and the Pioneer on legal issues. Apar also is a visiting faculty at National Law University, Delhi.

Full Name, Affiliation and Contact Details of the Workshop Organizer

The workshop will be jointly organised by SFLC.IN and the Centre for Internet & Society, India. The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:

Name: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN I
E: mishi@softwarefreedom.org
Jyoti Panday—Centre for Internet & Society, India
E: jyoti@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights

Information Influx Conference

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T06:31:40Z

Malavika Jayaram was a speaker at the event organized by the Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam from July 2 to 4, 2014.

Click to read the full details here.

When IViR set up its research 25 years ago, the digital transition was just starting to gather speed. Since then, our societies have been undergoing enormous changes in the modes of expression, organization and (re)use of information. Traditional roles of producers, intermediaries, users and governments blur and are recast. Information is the central building block of market economies. New ways of creating, disseminating and using it impact the workings of democracy, of science and education, creativity and culture.

Information Influx will bridge disciplines, regions and institutional perspectives to confront the major challenges of developing the rules that govern the expression, organization and re(use) of information in our society – as the central aspects of IViR’s Research Programme.

Wednesday 2 July

13.00 – 16.30

Information Influx Young Scholars Competition:

13.00 – 15.00

Welcome by Prof. Mireille van Eechoud & Dr. L. Guibault

Catherine Doldirina (Joint Research Centre EC) – Open data and Earth observations: the case of opening access to and use of EO through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
Comments by Prof. Mark Perry

Jenny Metzdorf (University of Luxembourg) – The implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by national regulatory authorities – National reponses to regulatory challenges
Comments by Dr. Tarlach McGonagle

Harry Halpin (MIT/W3C) – No Safe Haven: The Storage of Data Secrets
Comments by Dr. Philippe Aigrain

15.00 – 15.15
Refreshments break

15.15 – 16.30

Ellen Wauters (ICRI – University of Leuven) – Social Networking Sites’ Terms of Use: addressing imbalances in the user-provider relationship through ex ante and ex post mechanisms
Comments by Dr. Chantal Mak

Nicolo Zingales (Tilburg University) – Virtues and perils of anonymity: should intermediaries bear the burden?
Comments by Prof. Joel Reidenberg

Closing remarks

17.00 – 18.30

Information Influx public opening:

Welcome Louise Gunning-Schepers (University of Amsterdam), Edgar du Perron (University of Amsterdam) and Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law)
Keynote – Degrees of Freedom: Sketches of a political theory for an age of deep uncertainty and persistent imperfection – prof. Yochai Benkler (Harvard Law School)
Young Scholars Award ceremony
Speech by Neelie Kroes (Vice-President of the European Commission) – Our Single Market is Crying out for Copyright Reform!

19.00 – 22.00

IViR 25th birthday soirée – by invitation

Thursday 3 July

9.00 – 10.00

Keynote – Governance, Function and Form – prof. Deirdre Mulligan (University of California, Berkeley)

As data and technology to wield it become pervasive, privacy protection must take new forms. Traditional models of governance centered on state actors, and human oversight do not scale to today’s challenges. Drawing from several research projects Mulligan suggests that focusing on roles and functions, rather than traditional forms and actors, can assist us in leveraging the potential of a range of human and technical actors towards privacy’s protection.

10.30 – 12.30

Parallel sessions:

12.30 – 13.45

Lunch

13.45 – 14.30

Julian Oliver & Danja Vasiliev

14.30 – 16.30

Parallel sessions:

17.00 – 18.00

Keynote – Copyright as Innovation Policy – Fred von Lohmann (Google)

Copyright has historically been concerned with encouraging commercial cultural production. Thanks to digital technology, however, copyright law today finds itself called upon to take on additional unfamiliar roles, including fostering technological innovation and encouraging amateur creative expression. The talk will suggest some ways that copyright can successfully grow into these new roles.

19.00 – 22.00

Conference Dinner

Friday 4 July

9.00 – 10.00

Keynote – Datafication, dataism and dataveillance – prof. José van Dijck (University of Amsterdam)

The popularization of datafication as a neutral paradigm is carried by a widespread belief and supported by institutional guardians of trust. That notion of trust becomes problematic when it leads to dataveillance by a number of institutions that handle people’s (meta)data. The interlocking of government, business, and academia in the adaptation of this ideology (“dataism”) prompts us to look more critically at the entire ecosystem of connective media.

10.30 – 12.30
Parallel sessions:

12.30 – 14.00

Buffet Lunch, plus: Brown bag lunch with Rob Frieden – Net Neutrality: One step beyond

14.00 – 15.00

Keynote – Intellectual Property: Two Pasts and A Future – prof. James Boyle (Duke Law School)

Twenty years from now, will our children look up from their digital devices and ask “Daddy, did anyone ever own a book”? In his keynote speech, James Boyle will trace the past lives of intellectual property, the battles fought, the technologies regulated. Can we find hints of the future in the battles of our past? Boyle’s answer is yes, and that answer should give us pause.

15.30 – 17.30

Parallel sessions:

17.30 – 18.30

Farewell drinks

Parallel sessions

Rights in the mix

Among amateur and professional creators alike there is a manifest need to not only share but also remix existing works. The panel discusses how adequately open content licensing systems support these needs. It also looks to how well this licensing system fits in the wider legal framework.

prof. Séverine Dusollier (University of Namur) (moderator)
Paul Keller (Kennisland)
prof. Daniel Gervais (Vanderbilt Law School)
prof. Volker Grassmuck (Lüneburg University)

Behavioural targeting – If you cannot control it, ban it?

The discussion about the potential pitfalls of behavioural targeting practices and the problems it may create for users and user rights continues in full force. The growing evidence of the ineffectiveness of the existing informed-consent-approach to regulation can no longer be ignored. Is it time for the regulator to move to more drastic means and ban certain behavioural targeting practices, and if so, which practices?

prof. Chris Hoofnagle (University of California, Berkeley) (moderator)
prof. Neil Richards (Washington University)
Frederik Borgesius (Institute for Information Law)
prof. Joseph Turow (University of Pennsylvania)
prof. Mireille Hildebrandt (University of Nijmegen)
dr. Tal Zarsky (University of Haifa)

Tomorrow’s news: bright, mutualized and open?

As public debate becomes more diversified, crowded, interactive, noisy and technology-dependent than ever before, what survival strategies are being devised for the news as we know it? Are existing expressive and communicative rights, and related duties and responsibilities, fit-for-purpose in increasingly digitized and networked democratic societies? Will tomorrow’s news still be worth tuning into?

dr. Tarlach McGonagle (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Susanne Nikoltchev (European Audiovisual Observatory)
Aidan White (Ethical Journalism Network)
dr. Luís Santos (University of Minho)
dr. Eugenia Siapera (Dublin City University)
Gillian Phillips (The Guardian)

Filtering away infringement: copyright, injunctions and the role of ISPs

Can technology solve the problem of intermediary liability for online copyright infringement? If so, should technology be allowed to determine law? This panel shall focus on the issue of injunctions imposed on online intermediaries to force them to adopt measures that filter or block copyright infringements by third parties on their websites.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Dirk Visser (University of Leiden)
Remy Chavannes (Brinkhof)
Fred von Lohmann (Google)
Sir Richard Arnold (High Court UK)
prof. Niva Elkin-Koren (University of Haifa)
prof. Reto Hilty (Max Planck Institute)

Mass-digitization and the conundrum of online access

Cultural heritage institutions face difficulties providing online access to digitized materials in their collections. This session examines a number of pressing issues, taking a trans-Atlantic perspective. When does digitization in public-private partnerships pose a threat to access to public domain materials? What ways are there to manage rights clearance of copyrighted materials and deal with territoriality?

prof. Martin Senftleben (VU University Amsterdam) (moderator)
prof. Pamela Samuelson (University of California, Berkeley)
dr. Elisabeth Niggemann (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek)
prof. Martin Kretschmer (Glasgow University)

The algorithmic public: towards a normative framework for automated media

In the online media, decisions about what users get to see (or not to see) are increasingly automated, through the use of smart algorithms and extensive data about users’ preferences and online behaviour. This raises a number of fundamental questions about freedom of expression, editorial integrity and user autonomy. Leading thinkers will debate algorithmic decision-making in online media and explore the contours of a much needed normative framework for automated media.

prof. Natali Helberger (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Joris van Hoboken (New York University)
prof. Wolfgang Schulz (Hans-Bredow-Institut)
prof. Niva Elkin-Koren (University of Haifa)
dr. Bernhard Rieder (University of Amsterdam)

Accountability and the public sector data push

Initiatives to make governments more ‘transparent’ abound. Freedom of information laws are reconfigured to push out ever more information to citizens and businesses. Promises of benefits abound too: better accountability and increased participation, as well as efficiency gains and new business opportunities. Can and should the next generation of freedom of information laws serve both political-democratic objectives and economic ones?

prof. Mireille van Eechoud (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
Chris Taggart (Open Corporates)
Helen Darbishire (Access Info)
prof. Deirdre Curtin (University of Amsterdam)
dr. Ben Worthy (Birkbeck University College London)
Jonathan Gray (Open Knowledge Foundation / University of London)

A new governance model for communications security?

Today, the vulnerable state of electronic communications security dominates headlines across the globe, while money and power increasingly permeate the policy arena. 2013 has seen no less than five sweeping legislative initiatives in the E.U., while the U.S. seems to trust in the market to deliver. Amidst these diverging approaches, how should communications security be regulated?

Axel Arnbak (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Deirdre Mulligan (University of California, Berkeley)
prof. Ian Brown (Oxford University)
prof. Michel van Eeten (Delft university of technology)
Amelia Andersdotter (European Parliament)
Ashkan Soltani (independent researcher)

Global information flows and the nation state

Information flows contest the physical spaces in which the nation state has been deemed a sovereign for almost five centuries. This tension dominates nearly all areas of information law, from data protection and IP enforcement to mass surveillance by national intelligence agencies. This session reflects on the broader challenges that territoriality presents for information law today.

prof. Urs Gasser (Harvard) (moderator)
prof. Joel Reidenberg (Fordham Law School)
prof. Graeme Dinwoodie (Oxford University)
Malavika Jayaram (Harvard)
Hielke Hijmans (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

United in diversity – the future of the public mission

Digital technologies and the information economy create fascinating new opportunities but also pose fundamental challenges to the fulfilment of the public mission of the media, public archives and libraries alike. This panel is a step towards establishing a dialogue between the three institutions: to explore the congruence between their missions, and their responses to critical issues such as technological convergence, the changing habits of users, the growing abundance of content and their relationship to new information intermediaries, such as search engines, social networks or content platforms.

prof. Natali Helberger (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Klaus Schönbach (University of Vienna)
prof. Frank Huysmans (University of Amsterdam)
prof. Egbert Dommering (Institute for Information Law)
Maarten Brinkerink (Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision)
Richard Burnley (European Broadcasting Union)

Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come – or gone?

Alternative compensation systems are designed to legalize and monetize online copyright restricted acts of distributing and consuming content. Empirical evidence shows that end-users strongly support paying flat-rate fees for the ability to legally download and share content. So what prevents us from introducing such schemes? The group of experts convened debates the future of alternative compensation systems in light of current legal, business and technology trends.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles)
prof. Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt)
dr. Philippe Aigrain (Quadrature du Net)
prof. Séverine Dusollier (University of Namur)

Assembly (Information influx)

Taking legal cases and controversies involving intellectual property, art collective Agency composes a growing list of “Things” that resist the split between “nature” and “culture”, a split that intellectual property relies upon. From the list of over a 1,000 Things, Agency calls forth Thing 002094, the copyright controversy Être et Avoir, to jointly speculate upon. The purpose is less to re-enact the judgment and more to prolong hesitation.

Agency
Severine Dusollier
Wilco Kalff
Sanne Rovers
Margot van de Linde
Arnisa Zeqo

Big brother is back

The debate about the pervasive surveillance of the online environment is roaring. Considering what we know now, what better metaphor is there than to conclude that we live in the world of Big Brother? This session will bring together leading thinkers and doers related to power and control in the communication environment, who will provide critical input on the way we think and speak about information freedom and control. Should we aspire to tame Big Brother or should we think differently about the problem?

Axel Arnbak (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Joris van Hoboken (New York University) (moderator)
John McGrath (National Theatre of Wales)
dr. Seda Gürses (New York University)
Hans de Zwart (Bits of Freedom)

Who owns the World Cup? The case for and against property rights in sports events

Sports have important economic, social and cultural dimensions. What is the optimal form of legal protection of sports events considering the public-private nature of sports? The focus of debate will be on football because of its major relevance in Europe in terms of diffusion, commercial exploitation, and social impact; but we can expect many insights to hold true for other sports as well.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge)
prof. Dirk Voorhoof (Ghent University)
prof. Peter Jaszi (American University Washington)
prof. Graeme Dinwoodie (Oxford University)
prof. Egbert Dommering (Institute for Information Law)
prof. Alan Bairner (Loughborough University)

Associated events

Invitation only:
Wednesday 2 July: Big Breakfast with Joseph Turow & Tal Zarksy – Ethical, normative, social and cultural implications of profiling & targeting in an era of big data – towards a research agenda, Institute for Information Law (IViR) & Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), East India House, room E0.02, 09.00-12.00 a.m.

Public event:

Friday 4 July: Lecture James Boyle & Marjan Hammersma about cultural heritage and the public domain
More information and registration at:
Cultural heritage institutions as guardians of public domain works in the digital environment, Rijksmuseum & Kennisland in cooperation with IViR, Rijksmuseum Auditorium, 18.00-20.00 p.m.

About IViR

The Institute for Information Law (IViR) is a centre of excellence in academic research which consistently seeks to further our understanding of how legal norms reflect and shape the creation, dissemination and use of information in our societies. That is the ambition at the heart of the many research initiatives IVIR has undertaken since its foundation in 1989. The urgency of taking an interdisciplinary and international approach has only grown in the past decades. It is crucial if we want to understand and evaluate the rapidly evolving complex and myriad legal norms that govern information relations in markets, in social and in political spaces. With over 30 researchers, teachers and support staff based in our offices in the historic centre of Amsterdam, we have the critical mass to broach key regulatory challenges of today’s information society.

Our focus on information relations deliberately cuts across traditional boundaries in legal scholarship. We bring together insights from constitutional law, human rights, public administration, intellectual property, contract and property law, and competition law. Our functional approach enables fruitful collaboration with experts from an array of academic disciplines, in information and communications technology, economics, media studies, political science and the arts.

Continuing a long Dutch tradition of openness towards the world, our work has a strong international orientation. It shows in the topics we study, the strong global network of affiliations we have in academia and the wonderful dynamic mix of upcoming and experienced researchers from all over Europe and beyond that make up IViR.

With each consecutive research programme we prioritize legal developments that fascinate us, and translate them into a variety of research projects. This includes doctoral research, research for policymakers at national, European and international level, and projects funded through national and European research grant programmes. Our current research programme and an overview of research projects can be found here. Doctoral dissertations, journal articles, books, case comments, studies, reports, lectures, debates, workshops, conferences and summer schools are the staple means of communicating what we do. Browse our publications here.

Media reports and conference outputs will be posted on the IViR website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/information-influx-conference

The trouble with trolls

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:42:36Z

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

The article by Vishal Mathur was published in Livemint on July 22, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide. Avoid conversation if you can The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse. Report to the social network You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties. Keep a copy of the offensive posts Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst. Don’t ignore privacy settings Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.” Get help from the law In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide.

Avoid conversation if you can
The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse.

Report to the social network
You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties.

Keep a copy of the offensive posts
Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst.

Don’t ignore privacy settings
Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.”

Get help from the law
In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-22-2014-vishal-mathur-the-trouble-with-trolls

ICT Awareness Program for Myanmar Parliamentarians in Yangon

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T09:37:26Z

Myanmar ICT for Development Organization-MIDO conducted ICT policy training for multi- party parliamentarian representatives in Yangon on July 26 and 27, 2014. Sunil Abraham presented on Innovation Ecosystem and Thinking about Internet Regulation.

Sunil's Presentations

Schedule

Day 1	Topic	Resource Person
0930-1030	What is the significance of ICTs to legislators?	Rohan Samarajiva (RS)
1030-1115	Stories from the field: What do poor people do with ICTs?	Helani Galpaya (HG)
1115-1145	Break
1145-1245	Legislation, policies, plans, strategies, regulation	RS
1245-1330	Modalities of making and implementing ICT policy	RS and HG
1330-1430	Lunch	Videos
1430-1530	What is independent regulation? Why is it needed for sector growth	RS
1530-1600	Break
1600-1700	Panel discussion: How social media can be used in public life	Sunil Abraham (SA), RS & Charitha Herath (CH)
Day 2
930-1030	Regulation of online speech	Nay Phone Latt (NPL)
1030-1100	Break
1100-1200	How to think about Internet policy	SA; counterpoint by CH
1200-1300	Hope in the heart and money in the pocket: Results of effective policy	RS
1300-1400	Lunch	Videos

We plan to have simultaneous interpretation. There will be time for discussion within each session.

Brief descriptions of sessions

What is the significance of ICTs to legislators?

Rohan Samarajiva

This is the introduction, wherein we bring out the economic, social and political significance of ICTs. Why legislators should pay attention to the subject.

Stories from the field: What do poor people do with ICTs?

Helani Galpaya

Here we present the findings of how the poor use ICTs, using demand-side data (both quant and quality) from Myanmar and countries in similar circumstances.

Legislation, policies, plans, strategies, regulation

In this session, a former policy advisor/regulator will present a perspective on the important distinctions between legislation, policies, plans, strategies, and regulation.

Modalities of making and implementing ICT policy

RS and HG

Here we will delve into the practical details of making policy and of implementing policy, using examples.

What is independent regulation? Why is it needed for sector growth

Progress in electronic connectivity is the foundation that will reduce the frictions in the Myanmar economy, create jobs and exports and enable social, political and economic innovations. This requires massive investments, most of which will be private and most of which will come from outside the country. What legislators need to know about creating an environment that will attract and retain foreign investment in a globalized economy will be discussed.

How social media can be used in public life

Sunil Abraham, RS and Charitha Herath

In the panel discussion, SA will pose questions to a policy advisor who has used social media in a political campaign and a social media savvy current government official.

How to think about Internet policy

SA; counterpoint by CH

A leading advocate of enlightened Internet policy, Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India, will present his ideas, highlighting the international dimension of Internet policy. CH will share his perspectives as a serving government official.

Regulation of online speech

Nay Phone Latt

Here, Myanmar’s leading blogger and founder of MIDO will discuss the current concerns with legislation that seeks to control online speech.

Hope in the heart and money in the pocket: Results of effective policy

Results of effective policy implementation will be discussed with reference to specific country experiences.

Resource persons

Rohan Samarajiva, PhD, (program director) is founding Chair of LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across emerging Asian and Pacific economies. He was Team Leader at the Sri Lanka Ministry for Economic Reform, Science and Technology (2002-04) responsible for infrastructure reforms, including participation in the design of the USD 83 million e-Sri Lanka Initiative. He was Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka (1998-99). In this capacity, he established the Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka; conducted the first public hearing and public notice proceedings; successfully concluded a license-violation proceeding; and laid the foundation for a competitive market. He was also a founder director of the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka (2003-05), Honorary Professor at the University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka (2003-04), Visiting Professor of Economics of Infrastructures at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-03) and Associate Professor of Communication and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000). Dr. Samarajiva was also Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh (2007-09).

Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society. He founded Mahiti in 1998, a company committed to creating high impact technology and communications solutions. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers. Sunil continues to serve on the board. Sunil was elected an Ashoka fellow in 1999 to 'explore the democratic potential of the Internet' and was also granted a Sarai FLOSS fellowship in 2003. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Helani Galpaya is LIRNEasia’s Chief Executive Officer. Helani leads LIRNEasia’s 2012-2014 IDRC funded research on improving customer life cycle management practices in the delivery of electricity and e-government services using ICTs. She recently completed an assessment of how the poor in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka use telecenters to access government services. For UNCTAD and GTZ she authored a report on how government procurement practices can be used to promote a country’s ICT sector and for the World Bank/InfoDev Broadband Toolkit, a report on broadband strategies in Sri Lanka. She has been an invited speaker at various international forums on topics ranging from m-Government to ICT indicators to communicating research to policy makers. Prior to LIRNEasia, Helani worked at the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka, implementing the World-Bank funded e-Sri Lanka initiative. Prior to her return to Sri Lanka, she worked in the United States at Booz & Co., Marengo Research, Citibank, and Merrill Lynch. Helani holds a Masters in Technology and Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor’s in Computer Science from Mount Holyoke College, USA.

Charitha Herath has served as Secretary, Ministry of Mass Media and Information in the Government of Sri Lanka since 2012. Prior to his present appointment, he was the Chairman of the Central Environment Authority. Currently on secondment for national services from his permanent academic position as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, he continues to work on his academic research, specializing in governments and politics in Asia, ethnic studies, cultural psychology, social and political philosophy, with his main focus on political psychology. More detail at http://charithaherath.wordpress.com/about-2/

Nay Phone Latt is the Co-founder and Executive Director of Myanmar ICT Development Organization (MIDO). He graduated from Yangon Technological University with a civil engineering degree in 2004. He co-founded the Myanmar Blogger Society in 2007. Award winner of PEN Barbara Goldsmith Award and RFS’s Cyber Dissidents Award. Former Political Prisoner. CEC Member of Myanmar Journalists Association(MJA) Chief Editor of ThanLwinAinMat Online Magazine (www.thanlwin.com). Member of Board of Directors of House of Media & Entertainment (HOME).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ict-awareness-program-for-myanmar-parliamentarians-yangon

UK’s Interception of Communications Commissioner — A Model of Accountability

joe — 2014-07-24T06:08:53Z

The United Kingdom maintains sophisticated electronic surveillance operations through a number of government agencies, ranging from military intelligence organizations to police departments to tax collection agencies. However, all of this surveillance is governed by one set of national laws outlining specifically what surveillance agencies can and cannot do.

The primary law that governs government investigations is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, abbreviated as RIPA 2000.

To ensure that this law is being followed and surveillance operations in the United Kingdom are not conducted illegally, the RIPA 2000 Part I establishes an Interception of Communications Commissioner, who is tasked with inspecting the surveillance operations, assessing their legality, and compiling an annual report to for the Prime Minister.

On April 8, 2014 the current Commissioner, Rt Hon. Sir Anthony May, laid the 2013 annual report before the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. In its introduction, the report notes that it is responding to concerns raised as a result of Edward Snowden’s actions, especially misuse of powers by intelligence agencies and invasion of privacy. The report also acknowledges that the laws governing surveillance, and particularly RIPA 2000, are difficult for the average citizen to understand, so the report includes a narrative outline of relevant provisions in an attempt to make the legislation clear and accessible. However, the report points out that while the Commissioner had complete access to any documents or investigative records necessary to construct the report, the Commissioner was unable to publish surveillance details indiscriminately, due to confidentiality concerns in a report being issued to the public. (It is worth noting here that though the Commissioner is one man, he has an entire agency working under him, so it is possible that he himself did not do or write all of that the report attributes to him). As a whole, the report outlines a series of thorough audits of surveillance operations, and reveals that the overwhelming majority of surveillance in the UK is conducted entirely legally, and that the small minority of incorrectly conducted surveillance appears to be unintentional. Looking beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, the report represents a powerful model of a government initiative to ensure transparency in surveillance efforts across the globe.

The Role of the Commissioner

The report begins in the first person, by outlining the role of the Commissioner. May’s role, he writes, is primarily to audit the interception of data, both to satisfy his own curiosity and to prepare a report for the Prime Minister. Thus, his primary responsibility is to review the lawfulness of surveillance actions, and to that end, his organization possesses considerable investigative powers. He is also tasked with ensuring that prisons are legally administrated, though he makes this duty an afterthought in his report.

Everyone associated with surveillance or interception in the government must disclose whatever the commissioner asks for. In short, he seems well equipped to carry out his work. The Commissioner has a budget of £1,101,000, almost all of which, £948,000 is dedicated to staff salaries.

The report directly addresses questions about the Commissioner’s ability to carry out his duties. Does the Commissioner have full access to whatever materials or data it needs to conduct its investigations, the report asks, and it answers bluntly, yes. It is likely, the report concludes, that the Commissioner also has sufficient resources to adequately carry out his duties. Yes, the Commissioner is fully independent from other government interests; the commissioner answers his own question. Finally, the report asks if the Commissioner should be more open in his reports to the public about surveillance, and he responds that the sensitivity of the material prohibits him from disclosing more, but that the report adequately addresses public concern regardless. There is a degree to which this question and answer routine seems self-congratulatory, but it is good to see that the Commissioner is considering these questions as he carries out his duties.

Interception of Communications

The report first goes into detail about the Commissioner’s audits of communications interception operations, where interception means wiretapping or reading the actual content of text messages, emails, or other communications, as opposed to the metadata associated with communications, such as timestamps and numbers contacted. In this section, the report outlines the steps necessary to conduct an interception, outlining that an interception requires a warrant, and only a Secretary of State (one of five officials) can authorize an interception warrant. Moreover, the only people who can apply for such warrants are the directors of various intelligence, police, and revenue agencies. In practice, the Secretaries of State have senior staff that read warrant applications and present those they deem worthy to the Secretary for his or her signature, as their personal signature is required for authorization.

For a warrant to be granted, it must meet a number of criteria. First, interception warrants must be necessary in the interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime, or to safeguard economic wellbeing of the UK. Additionally, a warrant can be granted if it is necessary for similar reasons in other countries with mutual assistance agreements with the UK. Warrants must be proportionate to the ends sought. Finally, interception warrants for communications inside the UK must specify either a person or a location where the interception will take place. Warrants for communications outside of the UK require no such specificity.

In 2013, 2760 interception warrants were authorized, 19% fewer warrants than in 2012. The Commissioner inspected 26 different agencies and examined 600 different warrants throughout 2013. He gave inspected agencies a report on his findings after each inspection, so they could see whether or not they were following the law. He concluded that the agencies that undertake interception “do so lawfully, conscientiously, effectively, and in our national interest.” Thus, all warrants adequately meet the application and authorization requirements outlined in RIPA 2000.

Communications Data

The report goes on to discuss communications data collection, where communications data refers to metadata–not the content of the communications itself, but data associated with it, such as call durations, or a list of email recipients. The Commissioner explains that metadata is easier to obtain than an interception warrant. Designated officials in their respective surveillance organization read and grant metadata warrant applications, instead of one of the Secretaries of State who could grant interception warrants. Additionally, the requirements for a metadata warrant are looser than for interception warrants. Metadata warrants must still be necessary, but necessary for a broader range of causes, ranging from collecting taxes, protecting public health, or for any purpose specified by a Secretary of State.

The relative ease of obtaining a metadata warrant is consistent with a higher number of warrants approved. In 2013, 514,608 metadata warrants were authorized, down from 570,135 in 2012. Local law enforcement applied for 87.5% of those warrants while intelligence agencies accounted for 11.5%. Only a small minority of requests was sent from the revenue office or other departments.

The purposes of these warrants were similarly concentrated. 76.9% of metadata warrants were issued for prevention or detection of crime. Protecting national security justified 11.4% of warrants and another 11.4% of warrants were issued to prevent death or injury. 0.2% of warrants were to identify people who had died or otherwise couldn’t identify themselves, 0.11% of warrants were issued to protect the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and 0.02% of warrants were associated with tax collection. The Commissioner identified less than 0.01% of warrants as being issued in a miscarriage of justice, a very low proportion.

The Commissioner inspected metadata surveillance efforts, conducting 75 inspections in 2013, and classified the practices of those operations inspected as good, fair or poor. 4% of operations had poor practices. He noticed two primary errors. The first was that data was occasionally requested on an incorrect communications address, and the second was that he could not verify that some metadata was not being stored past its useful lifetime. May highlighted that RIPA 2000 does not give concrete lengths for which data should be stored, as Section 15(3) states only that data must be deleted “as soon as there are no longer grounds for retaining it as necessary for any of the authorized purposes.” He noted that he was only concerned because some metadata was being stored for longer periods than associated interception data. As May put it, “I have yet to satisfy myself fully that some of these periods are justified and in those cases I required the agencies to shorten their retention periods or, if not, provide me with more persuasive reasons.” The Commissioner seems determined that this practice will either be eliminated or better justified to him in the near future.

Indian Applications

The United Kingdom’s Interception of Communications Commissioner has similar powers to the Indian Privacy Commissioner suggested by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. Similar to the United Kingdom, it is recommended that a Privacy Commissioner in India have investigative powers in the execution of its charter, and that the Privacy Commissioner represent citizen interests, ensuring that data controllers are in line with the stipulated regulations. The Report also broadly states that “with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material, the Commissioner may exercise broad oversight functions.” In this way, the Report touches upon the need for oversight of surveillance, and suggests that this responsibility may be undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner, but does not clearly place this responsibility with the Privacy Commissioner. This raises the question of if India should adopt a similar model to the United Kingdom – and create a privacy commissioner – responsible primarily for overseeing and enforcing data protection standards, and a separate surveillance commissioner – responsible for overseeing and enforcing standards relating to surveillance measures. When evaluating the different approaches there are a number of considerations that should be kept in mind:

Law enforcement and security agencies are the exception to a number of data protection standards including access and disclosure.
There is a higher level of ‘sensitivity’ around issues relating to surveillance than data protection and each needs to be handled differently.
The ‘competence’ required to deliberate on issues related to data protection is different then the ‘competence’ required deliberating on issues related to surveillance.

Additionally, this raises the question of whether India needs a separate regulation governing data protection and a separate regulation governing surveillance.

Allegations of Wrongdoing

It is worth noting that though May describes surveillance operations conducted in compliance with the law, many other organizations have accused the UK government of abusing their powers and spying on citizens and internet users in illegal ways. The GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center has come under particular fire. The organization has been accused indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers, among other things. Led by the NGO Privacy International, internet service providers around the world have recently lodged complaints against the GCHQ, alleging that it uses malicious software to break into their networks. Many of these complaints are based on the information brought to light in Edward Snowden’s document leaks. Privacy International alleges that malware distributed by GCHQ enables access to any stored content, logging keystrokes and “the covert and unauthorized photography or recording of the user and those around him,” which they claim is similar to physically searching through someone’s house unbeknownst to them and without permission. They also accuse GCHQ malware of leaving devices open to attacks by others, such as identity thieves.

Snowden’s files also indicate a high level of collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA. According to the Guardian, which analyzed and reported on many of the Snowden files, the NSA has in past years paid GCHQ to conduct surveillance operations through the US program called Prism. Leaked documents report that the British intelligence agency used Prism to generate 197 intelligence reports in the year to May 2012. Prism is not mentioned at all in the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s report. In fact, while the report’s introduction explains that it will attempt to address details revealed in Snowden’s leaked documents, very little of what those documents indicate is later referenced in the report. May ignores the plethora of accusations of GCHQ wrongdoing.

Thus, while May’s tone appears genuine and sincere, the details of his report do little to dispel fears of widespread surveillance. It is unclear whether May is being totally forthcoming in his report, especially when he devotes so little energy to directly responding to concerns raised by Snowden’s leaks.

Conclusion

May wrapped up his report with some reflections on the state of surveillance in the United Kingdom. He concluded that RIPA 2000 protects consumers in an internet age, though small incursions are imaginable, and especially lauds the law for it’s technological neutrality. That is, RIPA 2000 is a strong law because it deals with surveillance in general and not with any specific technologies like telephones or Facebook, use of which changes over time. The Commissioner also was satisfied that powers were not being misused in the United Kingdom. He reported that there have been a small number of unintentional errors, he noted, and some confusion about the duration of data retention. However, any data storage mistakes seemed to stem from an unspecific law.

Despite May’s report of surveillance run by the books, other UK groups have accused GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center, of indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers. Privacy International has submitted a claim arguing that a litany of malware is employed by the GCHQ to log detailed personal data such as keystrokes. The fact that May’s report does little to disprove these claims casts the Commissioner in an uncertain light. It is unclear whether surveillance is being conducted illegally or, as the report suggests, all surveillance of citizens is being conducted as authorized.

Still, the concept of a transparency report and audit of a nation’s surveillance initiatives report is a step towards government accountability done right, and should serve as a model for enforcement methods in other nations. May’s practice of giving feedback to the organizations he inspects allows them to improve, and the public report he releases serves as a deterrent to illegal surveillance activity. The Interception of Communications Commissioner–provided he reports truthfully and accurately–is what gives the safeguards built into the UK’s interception regime strength and accountability. In other nations looking to establish privacy protections, a similar role would make their surveillance provisions balanced with safeguards and accountability to ensure that the citizens fundamental rights–including the right to privacy–are not compromised.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-interception-of-communications-commissioner-a-model-of-accountability

Information & Communication Technology in Making a Healthy Information Society with special reference to use of ICTS in Educational Technology

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T09:06:20Z

The Department of Computer Science, Andhra Loyola College in collaboration with the Department of Computer Science, Krishna University will be organizing a UGC-sponsored National Seminar on August 11 and 12, 2014 at Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada.

T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, Access to Knowledge from the Centre for Internet and Society will be giving a key note address at this event.

See the invitation below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/information-communication-technology-in-making-a-healthy-information-society-with-special-reference-to-use-of-icts-in-educational-technology

Terror recruiters target Indians on internet

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T06:57:56Z

What's in a name? If it indicates your religious identity, then you could get trolled by strangers wanting to draw you in with videos on the importance of archaic customs and doctored accounts of world history.

The article by Sandhya Soman was published in the Times of India on July 18, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

City-based lawyer Shakeel Ahmed recently took one such bait on the Holocaust from a stranger on WhatsApp just to know what kind of propaganda is in circulation.

"I can laugh at such videos and false images but they might confuse youngsters," says Ahmed. Online baiting to lure sympathizers and recruits by seasoned extremists has been on the police radar. If the four youngsters from Thane and Kalyan are indeed now in Iraq fighting for the Islamic militia ISIS, then a good part of their indoctrination could have happened online, say experts.

ISIS is known to have an aggressive social media policy, including an Arabic-language Twitter app, to spread their message and recruit supporters even after the Iraqi government curtailed internet in areas captured by the group recently. "There are many websites, including jihadi ones, favoured by people with extremist leanings," says Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Himanshu Roy. Often, the initial contact is made on social networking sites and messenger services.

"The organizations spot youngsters and befriend them before inviting the trusted select to closed chat rooms," says K P Raghuvanshi, senior police official and former ATS head.

The discussion ranges from arranging finance to direct involvement, says Roy. "We have reason to believe that these four boys, who are all educated and come from reasonably well-off families, would have visited such sites and exchanged views with others," he says, refusing to elaborate. The youngsters are supposed to have been in touch with each other.

Those without a wide social network are easy targets, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a research organization. "If, as a young Muslim, you are in touch with only your friends and family, you might believe the false information that enters your circle of trust," he says. Contrary to belief, you don't meet a variety of people on social media. "Unless you have a critical understanding of internet, the medium with its interactivity and multi-media potential could aid propaganda," he says.

It was terrorist group Al-Qaeda that started using technology effectively since 2001. Its supporters came together to upload good quality videos of beheadings and suicide bombings to grab attention. Now, there is a variety of 'jihadist' software to prevent detection, whether it is a plug-in for instant messaging service, encryption for text messages or a stealth online network, according to media reports.

In India, terrorists took to technology in a big way from 2008 onwards when Indian groups like Indian Mujahideen recruited educated people, says an official. "Even a man who didn't know English, learnt to type Hindi using English alphabets and send and receive attachments," says the officer.

While officials say that it is difficult to monitor all the online activity, Roy says that ATS will tackle it. "This is the first instance of youngsters from Maharashtra going out to fight some other war," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-july-18-2014-sandhya-soman-terror-recruiters-target-indians-on-internet

Private Censorship and the Right to Hear

chinmayi — 2014-07-22T05:57:09Z

Very little recourse is available against publishers or intermediaries if these private parties censor an author’s content unreasonably.

The article was published in the Hoot on July 17, 2014 and also mirrored on the website of Centre for Communication Governance.

DNA newspaper's removal of Rana Ayyub's brave piece on Amit Shah, with no explanation, is shocking. It is reminiscent of the role that media owners played in censoring journalists during the Emergency, prompting L.K. Advani to say, "You were asked to bend, but you crawled."

The promptitude with which some media houses are weeding out political writing that might get them into trouble should make us reconsider the way we think about the freedom of the press. Discussions of press freedom often concentrate on the individual's right to speak, but may be more effective if they also accommodated another perspective - the audience's right to hear.

It is fortunate that Ayyub's piece was printed and reached its audience before attempts were made to bury it. Its removal was counterproductive, making DNA's decision a good example of what is popularly known as the Streisand Effect (when an attempt to censor or remove infor-mation has the unintended consequence of publicising the information even more widely).

The controversy that has emerged from DNA removing the article has generated much wider attention for it now that it has appeared on multiple websites, its readership expanding as outrage at its removal ricochets around the Internet.

This incident is hardly the first of its kind. Just weeks ago, news surfaced of Rajdeep Sardesai being pressurised to alter his news channel's political coverage before the national election. The Mint reported that the people pressurising Sardesai wanted a complete blackout of Kejriwal and the Aam Admi party from CNN-IBN. Had he capitulated, significant news of great public interest would have been lost to a large audience. CNN-IBN's decision would have been put down to editorial discretion, and we the public would have been none the wiser.

Luckily for their audience, Sardesai and Sagarika Ghose quit the channel that they built from scratch instead of compromising their journalistic integrity. However, the league of editors who choose to crawl remains large, their decisions protected by the Indian constitution.

The freedom of the press in India only protects the press from the government's direct attempts to influence it. Both big business and the state have far more instruments at their disposal than just direct ownership or censorship diktats. These include withdrawal of lucrative advertisements, defamation notices threatening journalists with enormous fines and imprisonment, and sometimes even physical violence. Who can forget how Tehelka magazine's exposure of largescale government wrongdoing resulted in its financiers being persecuted by the Enforcement Directorate, with one of them even being jailed for some time.

The instruments of harassment work best when the legal notices are sent to third party publishers or intermediaries. Unlike the authors who may wish to defend their work or modify it a little to make it suitable for publication, a publishing house or web platform would usually prefer to avoid expensive litigation. Third party publishers will often remove legitimate con-tent to avoid spending time and money fighting for it. Pressurising them is a fairly effective way to silence authors and journalists.

Consider the different news outlets and publishing houses that control what reaches us as news or commentary. If they can be forced to bury content, citing editorial discretion, consider what this means for the quality of news that reaches the Indian public. Indira Gandhi understood this weakness of the press, and successfully controlled the Indian media by managing the proprietors.

Although media ownership still remains concentrated in a few hands, the disruptive element that still offers some hope of free public dialogue is the Internet where, through blogs, small websites and social media, journalists can still get access to the public sphere. This means that when DNA deletes Rana Ayyub's article, copies of it are immediately posted in other places.

However, online journalism is also vulnerable. Online intermediaries which receive content blocking and take down orders tend to over-comply rather than risk litigation. Like publishers, these intermediaries can easily prevent speakers from reaching their audiences. Just look at the volume of information online that is dependent on third party intermediaries such as Rediff, Facebook, WordPress or Twitter. The only thing that keeps the state and big business from easily controlling the flow of information on the Internet is that it is difficult to exert cross-border pressure on online intermediaries located outside India.

However, the ease with which most of the mainstream media is controlled makes it easy to construct a bubble of fiction around audiences, leaving them in blissful ignorance of how little they really know. Very little recourse is available against publishers or intermediaries if these private parties censor an author's content unreasonably. Unlike state censorship, private censorship is invisible, and is protected by the online and offline intermediaries' right to their editorial choices.

Ordinarily, there is nothing wrong with editorial discretion or even with a media house choosing a particular slant to its stories. However, it is important for the public to have access to a healthy range of perspectives and interests, with a diversity of content. If news of public significance is regularly filtered out, it affects the state of our democracy. Citizens cannot participate in governance without access to important information.

It is, therefore, vital to acknowledge the harm caused by private censorship. A democracy is endangered when a few parties disproportionately control access to the public sphere. We need to think of how to ensure that the voices of journalists and scholars reach their audience. Media freedom should be seen in the context of the right of the audience, the Indian public, to receive information.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-july-17-2014-chinmayi-arun-private-censorship-and-the-right-to-hear

First Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable

anandini — 2014-08-09T04:13:50Z

The Privacy and Surveillance Roundtables are a CIS initiative, in partnership with the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), as well as local partners. From June 2014 – November 2014, CIS and COAI will host seven Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable discussions across multiple cities in India. The Roundtables will be closed-door deliberations involving multiple stakeholders.

Through the course of these discussions we aim to deliberate upon the current legal framework for surveillance in India, and discuss possible frameworks for surveillance in India. The provisions of the draft CIS Privacy Bill 2013, the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, and the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy will be used as background material and entry points into the discussion. The recommendations and dialogue from each roundtable will be compiled and submitted to the Department of Personnel and Training.

The first of seven proposed roundtable meetings on “Privacy and Surveillance” conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with the Cellular Operators Association of India and the Council for Fair Business Practices was held in Mumbai on the 28th of June, 2014.

The roundtable’s discussion centered on the Draft Privacy Protection Bill formed by CIS in 2013, which contains provisions on the regulation of interception and surveillance and its implications on individual privacy. Other background documents to the event included the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, and the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.

Background and Context

The Chair of the Roundtable began by giving a brief background of Surveillance regulation in India, focusing its scope to primarily telegraphic, postal and electronic surveillance.

Why a surveillance regime now?

A move to review the existing privacy laws in India came in the wake of Indo-EU Fair Trade Agreement negotiations; where a Data Adequacy Assessment conducted by European Commission found India’s data protection policies and practices inadequate for India to be granted EU secure status. The EU’s data protection regime is in contrast, fairly strong, governed by the framework of the EU Data Protection Directive, 1995.

In response to this, the Department of Personnel and Training, which drafted the Right to Information Act of 2005 and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 was given the task of forming a Privacy Bill. Although the initial draft of the Bill was made available to the public, as per reports, the Second draft of the Bill has been shared selectively with certain security agencies and not with service providers or the public.

Discussion

The Chair began the discussion by posing certain preliminary questions to the Roundtable:

What should a surveillance law contain and how should it function?
If the system is warrant based, who would be competent to execute it?
Can any government department be allowed a surveillance request?

A larger question posed was whether the concerns and questions posed above would be irrelevant with the possible enforcement of a Central Monitoring System in the near future? As per reports, the Central Monitoring System would allow the government to intercept communications independently without using service providers and thus, in effect, shielding such information from the public entirely.

The CIS Privacy Protection Bill’s Regulatory Mechanism

The discussion then focused on the type of regulatory mechanism that a privacy and surveillance regime in India should have in place. The participants did not find favour in either a quasi-judicial body or a self-regulatory system – instead opting for a strict regulatory regime.

The CIS Draft Privacy Protection Bill proposes a regime that consists of a Data Protection Regulation Authority that is similar to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, including the provision for an appellate body. The Bill envisions that the Authority will act as an adjudicating body for all complaints relating to the handling of personal data in addition to forming and reviewing rules on personal data protection.

Although, the Draft Bill dealt with privacy and surveillance under one regulatory authority, the Chair proposes a division between the two frameworks, as the former is governed primarily by civil law, and the latter is regulated by criminal law and procedure. Though in a 2014 leaked version of the governments Privacy Bill, surveillance and privacy are addressed under one regulation, as per reports, the Department of Personnel and Training is also considering creating two separate regulations: one for data protection and one for surveillance.

Authorities in Other Jurisdictions

The discussion then moved to comparing the regulatory authorities within other jurisdictions and the procedures followed by them. The focus was largely on the United States and the United Kingdom, which have marked differences in their privacy and surveillance systems.

In the United Kingdom, for example, a surveillance order is reviewed by an Independent Commissioner followed by an Appellate Tribunal, which has the power to award compensation. In contrast, the United States follows a far less transparent system which governs foreigners and citizens under separate legislations. A secret court was set up under the FISA, an independent review process, however, exists for such orders within this framework.

The Authority for Authorizing Surveillance in India

The authority for regulating requests for interceptions of communication under the Draft CIS Privacy Protection Bill is a magistrate. As per the procedure, an authorised officer must approach the Magistrate for approval of a warrant for surveillance. Two participants felt that a Magistrate is not the appropriate authority to regulate surveillance requests as it would mean vesting power in a few people, who are not elected via a democratic process.

In the present regime, the regulation of interception of telecommunications under Indian Law is governed by the Telegraph Act,1885 and the Telegraph Rules,1951. Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, permit interception only after an order of approval from the Home Secretary of the Union Government or of the State Governments, which in urgent cases, can be granted by an officer of the Joint Secretary Level or above of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union or that State’s Government.

Although most participants felt confident that a judicial authority rather than an executive authority would serve as the best platform for regulating surveillance, there was debate on what level of a Magistrate Judge would be apt for receiving and authorizing surveillance requests - or whether the judge should be a Magistrate at all. Certain participants felt that even District Magistrates would not have the competence and knowledge to adjudicate on these matters. The possibility of making High Court Judges the authorities responsible for authorizing surveillance requests was also suggested. To this suggestion participants noted that there are not enough High Court judges for such a system as of now.

The next issue raised was whether the judges of the surveillance system should be independent or not, and if the orders of the Courts are to be kept secret, would this then compromise the independence of such regulators. As part of this discussion, questions were raised about the procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the US regulation governing the surveillance of foreign individuals, and if such secrecy could be afforded in India. During the discussions, certain stakeholders felt that a system of surveillance regulation in India should be kept secret in the interests of national security. Others highlighted that this is the existing practice in India giving the example of the Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing orders which are completely private, adding however, that none of these surveillance regulations in India have provisions on disclosure.

When can interception of communications take place?

The interception of communications under the CIS Privacy Protection Bill is governed by the submission of a report by an authorised officer to a Magistrate who issues a warrant for such surveillance. Under the relevant provision, the threshold for warranting surveillance is suspicious conduct. Several participants felt that the term ‘suspicious conduct’ was too wide and discretionary to justify the interception of communication and suggested a far higher threshold for surveillance. Citing the Amar Singh Case, a participant stated that a good way to ensure ‘raise the bar’ and avoid frivolous interception requests would be to require officers submitting interception request to issue affidavits. A participant suggested that authorising officers could be held responsible for issuing frivolous interception requests. Some participants agreed, but felt that there is a need for a higher and stronger standard for interception before provisions are made for penalising an officer. As part of this discussion, a stakeholder added that the term “person” i.e. the subject of surveillance needed definition within the Bill.

The discussion then moved to comparing other jurisdictions’ thresholds on permitting surveillance. The Chair explained here that the US follows the rule of probable cause, which is where a reasonable suspicion exists, coupled with circumstances that could prove such a suspicion true. The UK follows the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’, a comparatively lesser degree of strength than probable cause. In India, the standard for telephonic interception under the Telegraph Act 1885 is the “occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety” on the satisfaction of the Home Secretary/Administrative Officer.

The participants, while rejecting the standard of ‘suspicious conduct’ and agreeing that a stronger threshold was needed, were unable to offer other possible alternatives.

Multiple warrants, Storing and sharing of Information by Governmental Agencies

The provision for interception in the CIS Privacy Protection Bill stipulates that a request for surveillance should be accompanied by warrants previously issued with respect to that individual. The recovery of prior warrants suggests the sharing of information of surveillance warrants across multiple governmental agencies which certain participants agree, could prevent the duplication of warrants.

Participants briefly discussed how the Central Monitoring System will allow for a permanent log of all surveillance activities to be recorded and stored, and the privacy implications of this. It was noted that as per reports, the hardware purported to be used for interception by the CMS is Israeli, and is designed to store a log of all metadata.

A participant stated that automation component of the Centralized Monitoring System may be positive considering that authentication of requests i.e. tracing the source of the interception may be made easier with such a system.

Conditions prior to issuing warrant

The CIS Privacy Protect Bill states that a Magistrate should be satisfied of either. A reasonable threat to national security, defence or public order; or a cognisable offence, the prevention, investigation or prosecution of which is necessary in the public interest. When discussing these standards, certain participants felt that the inclusion of ‘cognizable offences’ was too broad, whereas others suggested that the offences would necessarily require an interception to be conducted should be listed. This led to further discussion on what kind of categorisation should be followed and whether there would be any requirement for disclosure when the list is narrowed down to graver and serious offences.

The chair also posed the question as to whether the term ‘national security’ should elaborated upon, highlighting the lack of a definition in spite of two landmark Supreme Court judgments on national security legislations, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act,1985 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, i.e. Kartar Singh v Union of India [1] and PUCL v Union of India.[2]

Kinds of information and degree of control

The discussion then focused on the kinds of information that can be intercepted and collected. A crucial distinction was made here, between content data and metadata, the former being the content of the communication itself and the latter being information about the communication. As per Indian law, only content data is regulated and not meta-data. On whether a warrant should be issued by a Magistrate in his chambers or in camera, most participants agreed that in chambers was the better alternative. However, under the CIS Privacy Protection Bill, in chamber proceedings have been made optional, which stakeholders agreed should be discretionary depending on the case and its sensitivity.

Evidentiary Value

The foundation of this discussion, the Chair noted, is the evidentiary value given to information collected from interception of communications. For instance, the United States follows the exclusionary rule, also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree rule”, where evidence collected from an improper investigation discredits the evidence itself as well as further evidence found on the basis of it.

Indian courts however, allow for the admission of evidence collected through improper collection, as does the UK. In Malkani v State of Maharashtra[3] the Supreme Court stated that an electronically recorded conversation can be admissible as evidence, and stated that evidence collected from an improper investigation can be relied upon for the discovery of further evidence - thereby negating the application of the exclusionary rule.

Emergent Circumstances: who should the authority be?

The next question posed to the participants was who the apt authority would be to allow surveillance in emergent circumstances. The CIS Privacy Protection Bill places this power with the Home Secretary, stating that if the Home Secretary is satisfied of a grave threat to national security, defence or public order, he can permit surveillance. The existing law under the Telegraph Act 1885 uses the term ‘unavoidable circumstance’, though not elaborating on what this amounts to for such situations, where an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary evaluates the request. In response to this question, a stakeholder suggested that the issuing authority should be limited to the police and administrative services alone. In the CIS Privacy Protection Bill - a review committee for such decisions relating to interception is comprised of senior administrative officials both at the Central and State Government level. A participant suggested that the review committee should also include the Defence secretary and the Home secretary.

Sharing of Information

The CIS Privacy Protection Bill states that information gathered from surveillance should not be shared be shared amongst persons, with the exception that if the information is sensitive in terms of national security or prejudicing an investigation, an authorised officer can share the information with an authorised officer of any other competent organisation.

A participant highlighted that this provision is lacking an authority for determining the sharing of information. Another participant noted that the sharing of information should be limited amongst certain governmental agencies, rather than to ‘any competent organisation.’

Proposals for Telecommunication Service Providers

In the Indian interception regime, although surveillance orders are passed by the Government, the actual interception of communication is done by the service provider. Certain proposals have been introduced to protect service providers from liability. For example, an execution provision ensures that a warrant is not served on a service provider more than seven days after it is issued. In addition an indemnity provision prevents any action being taken against a service provider in a court of law, and indemnifies them against any losses that arise from the execution of the warrant, but not outside the scope of the warrant. During discussions, stakeholders felt that the standard should be a blanket indemnity without any conditions to assure service providers.

Under the Indian interception regime, a service provider must also ensure confidentiality of the content and meta data of the intercepted communications. To this, a participant suggested that in situations of information collection, a service provider may have a policy for obtaining customer consent prior to the interception. The Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal information) Rules, 2011 are clearer in this respect, which allow for the disclosure of information to governmental agencies without consent.

Another participant mentioned that the inconsistencies between laws on information disclosure and collection, such as the IT Act, the Right to Information Act and the recently enacted Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 need to be harmonised. Other stakeholders agreed with this, though they stated that surveillance regulations should prevail over other laws in case of any inconsistency.

Conclusions

The inputs from the Bombay Roundtable seem to point towards a more regulated approach, with the addition of a review system to enhance accountability. While most stakeholders here agreed that national security is a criterion that takes precedence over concerns of privacy vis-à-vis surveillance, there is a concomitant need to define the limits of permissible interception. The view here is that a judicial model would prove to be a better system than the executive system; however, there is no clear answer as of yet on who would constitute this model. While the procedure for interception was covered in depth, the nature of the information itself was covered briefly and more discussion would be welcome here in forthcoming sessions.

Click to download the Report (PDF, 188 Kb)

[1]. 1994 4 SCC 569.

[2]. (1997) 1 SCC 301.

[3]. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 417.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-surveillance-roundtable-mumbai

GNI and IAMAI Launch Interactive Slideshow Exploring Impact of India's Internet Laws

jyoti — 2014-07-17T12:01:01Z

The Global Network Initiative and the Internet and Mobile Association of India have come together to explain how India’s Internet and technology laws impact economic innovation and freedom of expression.

The Global Network Initiative (GNI), and the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) have launched an interactive slide show exploring the impact of existing Internet laws on users and businesses in India. The slide show created by Newsbound, and to which Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has contributed its comments—explain the existing legislative mechanisms prevalent in India, map the challenges of the regulatory environment and highlight areas where such mechanisms can be strengthened.

Foregrounding the difficulties of content regulation, the slides are aimed at informing users and the public of the constraints of current legal mechanisms in place, including safe harbour and take down and notice provisions. Highlighting Section 79(3) and the Intermediary Liability Rules issued in 2011, the slide show identifies some of the challenges faced by Internet platforms, such as the broad interpretation of the legislation by the executive branch.

Challenges governing Internet platforms highlighted in the slide show include uniform Terms of Service that do not consider the type of service being provided by the platform, uncertain requirements for taking down content and compliance obligations related to information disclosure. Further the issues of over compliance and misuse of the legal notice and take down system introduced under Section 79 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011.

The Rules were created with the purpose of providing guidelines for the ‘post-publication redressal mechanism expression as envisioned in the Constitution of India'. However, since their introduction, the Rules have been criticised extensively, by both the national and the international media on account of not conforming to principles of natural justice and freedom of expression. Critics have pointed out that by not recognising the different functions performed by the different intermediaries and by not providing safeguards against misuse of such mechanism for suppressing legitimate expression, the Rules have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Under the current Rules, the third party provider/creator of information is not given a chance to be heard by the intermediary, nor is there a requirement to give a reasoned decision by the intermediary to the creator whose content has been taken down. The take down procedure also, does not have any provisions for restoring the removed information, such as providing a counter notice filing mechanism or appealing to a higher authority. Further, the content criteria for removal of content includes terms like 'disparaging' and 'objectionable', which are not defined and prima facie seem to be beyond the reasonable restrictions envisioned by the Constitution of India. With uncertainty in content criteria and no safeguards to prevent abuse complainant may send frivolous complaints and suppress legitimate expressions without any fear of repercussions.

Most importantly, the redressal mechanism under the Rules shifts the burden of censorship, previously, the exclusive domain of the judiciary or the executive, and makes it the responsibility of private intermediaries. Often, private intermediaries, do not have sufficient legal resources to subjectively determine the legitimacy of a legal claim, resulting in over compliance to limit liability. The slide show cites the 2011 CIS research carried out by Rishabh Dara to determine whether the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression, towards highlighting the issue of over compliance and self censorship.

The initiative is timely, given the change of guard in India, and stresses, not only the economic impact of fixing the Internet legal framework, but also the larger impact on users rights and freedom of expression. The initiative calls for a legal environment for the Internet that enables innovation, protects the rights of users, and provides clear rules and regulations for businesses large and small.

See the slideshow here: How India’s Internet Laws Can Help Propel the Country Forward

Other GNI reports and resources:

Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose

Strengthening Protections for Online Platforms Could Add Billions to India’s GDP

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gni-and-iamai-launch-interactive-slideshow-exploring-impact-of-indias-internet-laws

Living in a Fish Bowl

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T07:15:22Z

Though India needs a comprehensive law on the right to privacy, it may not be ready for something as avant garde as the “right to be forgotten” on the Internet, argues Shuma Raha

The article by Shuma Raha was published in the Telegraph on July 16, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

If you do a Google search for journalist and television personality Barkha Dutt, a raft of scurrilous information about her pops up. It isn’t tucked away somewhere on the 10th page either — it’s all up front, right there in “autosuggest”, almost prompting you to go and check it out. And thanks to Google’s search algorithm, the more people click on that link, it further strengthens the score for that “hit”.

Dutt says she has brought the matter to the attention of Google, but to no avail. “I have lost interest in the whole struggle,” she says. “But Google definitely needs to do something about the slanderous, inaccurate, fictional information out there that creates a narrative of its own.”

Well, in Europe at least, the tech giant has taken a step in that direction. Late last month, it started erasing search results that threw up information deemed to be “irrelevant”, “outdated” or “excessive”. The move came after the European Court of Justice ruled that Internet search engines would have to allow people the “right to be forgotten” in specific cases and accordingly, take down information about them.

The European Court ruling has triggered a huge debate since an individual’s right to be forgotten seems to be at complete loggerheads with people’s right to know. Nevertheless, it’s a landmark decision when it comes to right to privacy on the Internet. After all, the online space has perma-memory and inaccurate or irrelevant or outdated information about a person can be embedded there forever, damaging him or her in manifold ways.

So how far are we in India from securing the right to be forgotten on the Internet?

The short answer to that is, very far. That is because India does not have a well-defined privacy regime wherein one could envisage a court of law handing out a similar — and some would say a somewhat radical — order on a Google or a Bing. “The right to be forgotten is a bit too advanced for us,” says Sunil Abraham, director, Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression and privacy. “After all, we are yet to come up with a privacy and data protection regime that implements the best practices of European countries.”

Adds Apar Gupta, a Delhi-based lawyer, who has written extensively on privacy issues, “Sector specific privacy legislation do exist, but they do not provide substantive rights or efficient remedy in case of violations.”
No one disputes that India should get a right to privacy law, especially one that relates to the collection, processing and use of personal data. Right now the government’s surveillance mechanisms like the Central Monitoring System and the Lawful Interception and Monitoring Systems allow security agencies and income tax authorities to intercept communication, snoop on phone conversations, read emails and SMSes with little or no safeguards for privacy protection.

A right to privacy bill has, in fact, been in the works since as early as 2011. But the government has been dragging its feet over it. Early this year, a new version of the draft bill was “leaked” to the press. But few are happy with it. On the positive side, it raises the penalty for unlawful interception of communication (from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 crore) and increases penalties for other offences such as obtaining personal data under false pretexts. But crucially, it almost wholly exempts intelligence agencies from the purview of the law, thereby allowing them unbridled access to personal information. Of course, no one knows if this “leaked” draft is indeed the official one.

Experts say that the government should really formulate a right to privacy law based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Justice A.P. Shah. The report, which was published in 2012, proposes that the right to privacy be statutorily extended to all Indians. It recommends, among other things, the appointment of privacy commissioners and the formulation of certain “national privacy principles” such as taking the consent of the individual prior to the collection of data, allowing him the choice to withdraw such consent, limiting the use of personal information to the stated purpose and so on. The privacy principles would apply to all data collectors in both private and public sectors.
There are, of course, a number of provisions in existing laws that relate to privacy. For example, Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, sets down certain privacy safeguards such as maintaining details about the officer ordering an intercept of telecommunication.

Moreover, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, prescribes “punishment for the violation of privacy” (in the context of capturing “private” images of a person without his or her consent); Section 43A lays down that a “body corporate” will be liable to pay compensation in case it fails to protect personal data gathered in the course of its operation; and Section 79 stipulates that “intermediaries” — entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter — would have to take down any information stored or transmitted by them that is found to be grossly harassing, defamatory, blasphemous, obscene, pornographic and so on, within 36 hours of being notified.

Of course, this section of the IT Act has been roundly criticised as arbitrary and Draconian, but that is another story.
The point is that despite the fair number of privacy provisions, in the absence of a comprehensive law, the untrammelled and unauthorised use of personal data cannot be ruled out. “Every country in the world collects personal data. But once the data are collected for a particular purpose they should not be used for any other purpose. The law has to be in a position to catch the violators,” says Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO of Data Security Council of India, an organisation that works to promote data protection and privacy best practices.

As always, the key issue is that an individual’s right to privacy has to be balanced with public interest. And it is in that context that experts feel that even if India were to have a privacy law, it is probably not ready for something akin to the European Court ruling on the right to be forgotten. As Gupta says, “It raises a real danger of public personalities blocking legitimate journalism on grounds of privacy. This is specially true in a country like India which permits a high degree of illegality in the name of secrecy and confidentiality.”

Abraham agrees with that view. “I’m not sure if the right to be forgotten will enhance privacy or usher in a level of censorship,” he says.

As Europe grapples with that debate, India’s privacy warriors are asking for something far more fundamental — a comprehensive law that guarantees the right to privacy to all.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl

Rethinking Privacy: The Link between Florida v. Jardines and the Surveillance of Nature Films

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:51:48Z

Bhairav Acharya gave a talk on "Rethinking Privacy" at an event organized by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) on July 11, 2014.

In a 2010 article in Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Brett Mills proposed that animals have a right to privacy and that wildlife documentaries, specifically BBC's Nature's Great Events (2009), invaded this right without an examination of animal conservation ethics. In the 2013 Florida v. Jardines decision, the Supreme Court of the United States re-examined the constitutional validity of 'dog sniff laws' that permitted police animals to enter the threshold of private property to conduct 'minimally invasive warant-less searches' and 'Terry stops'; this was the latest in a long line of Fourth Amendment cases that examine the ethics of conserving and protecting public order. I attempt to draw links between the two scenarios that highlight the dissonance between sociological and jurisprudential constructions of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rethinking-privacy