We are anonymous, we are legion

Location Tracking: Why the Govt-Mobile Manufacturer War Won’t End Soon

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T06:32:56Z

The Union government and mobile operators are at loggerheads on location based services (LBS) – the service through which mobile companies can provide real time location of mobile users to the government.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on October 15, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In the aftermath of Nirbhaya gangrape case in December, Delhi Police approached mobile operators to implement LBS, but the operators refused citing the costs involved in the process, said M M Oberoi, joint commissioner of Delhi police. Oberoi was talking at the India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance, conducted by FICCI in New Delhi on Tuesday. “Often the person in distress dials 100 but does not know his or her location. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the PCR vans to track the victim. A lot of time is spent trying to figure out the victim’s location, as it happened in the 16 December gangrape case,” said Oberoi.


Representational image. Agencies.

As reported by Firstpost, the government has already directed all telecom service providers to make location details a mandatory part of call data records (CDR) of all mobile users in the country starting mid- 2014.

India is the second-largest mobile phone user with over 900 million users, as per the union government data. However, mobile companies are not complying with the government order, Oberoi told Firstpost. “In our attempt to develop a better response mechanism, we are also exploring ways through which we can bypass mobile companies to track the person. We can do it through software,” he added.

The mobile companies have maintained that they can help the government in tracking people in distress, but the kind of accuracy the law enforcement forces are demanding involves huge costs.

The DoT directive says that while detecting the location of the mobile users in urban centres, the telecom operator should achieve 80 percent accuracy in the first year of implementing the technology followed by 95 percent accuracy in the second year. However, it is not clear from the DoT note which year will be taken into account while determining the degree of accuracy of the company’s technology – 2011 (when the order was issued) or 2014 (when location details shall be part of CDR for all mobile calls).

“For such accuracy, we need to put enhanced cell tracking software on cell towers which is a very expensive process,” Rajan S Mathews, director, Cellular Operators Associations of India, told Firstpost.

In the last meeting with the representatives of DoT, Cellular Operators Associations of India told the former that it was against the idea of LBS for all mobile users, but can cooperate in the case of targeted tracking, said Mathews.

He suggested two alternatives which can work to track a person in distress. It should be mandated by the government, he said, that people use only high end phones which send signals to cell towers when they make a call. “It is not easy to make everyone use such devices though.”

Another possibility, according to him, is that a person gets registered with the mobile operator for such service. “When this person is in distress and dials 100, he avails the service through which police can track his or her location,” said Mathews.

According to Sunil Abraham, director of Bangalore based Centre for Internet & Society, it is unethical implement LBS as a blanket order and the government, along with mobile operators, should find a way out to introduce targeted surveillance.

“There is an initial increase in security that accompanies increase in surveillance – after which increased surveillance actually undermines the security imperative and could make the security worse than when surveillance was initiated. Therefore surveillance should always be targeted, blanket surveillance is almost always a terrible idea,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking

Bouquets & brickbats for Google's new privacy policy

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T05:40:56Z

Google's recent privacy policy change that allows the internet search company to use names, photographs and endorsements by its users in online advertisements is getting mixed reviews in India - advertisers love it, and activists love to hate it.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Economic Times on October 18, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Internet rights activists called it another incursion into individual privacy by the California-based company that uses 'Don't be evil' as an informal corporate motto. Brand advisers and marketers praised the ingenuity of personalisation that can make advertising much more effective.

"From a user perspective, there is a higher chance of them buying a product if it is endorsed by a friend," said Kunal Jeswani, chief digital officer at Ogilvy & Mather India. To his mind, the argument about user privacy is "naive" because when a user enters a social network, he/she should know his/her personal information, such as profile photographs and names, is already on the web.

Google announced its policy change regarding user information will be effective on November 11, giving the company the right to use profile names, photos and comments alongside advertisements by clients who use its online advertising network of over 2 million websites.

For instance, if a user has endorsed a product by giving it a "+1" or rated a product on the Google Play app store, his/her image will appear next to the ad when it is displayed to people who are part of his/her social circle on the social networking service Google Plus. The move is seen as Google's attempt to catch up with rival Facebook, which first introduced the concept of 'social ads' that let corporations use the power of influence of people within a person's social network to sell products.

Internet rights activists said such practices raise privacy concerns as they do not take prior consent of users.

"We are not comfortable with user information being used without their permission, especially since Google's privacy standards are not very high," said Uday Mehta, associate director at Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS International).

Last year, the agency complained to Competition Commission of India to investigate Google's alleged anti-competitive practices here. An investigation is ongoing.

In an emailed response, Google said it is notifying users about the change in policy, so that if a user does not like it, he/she can turn it off.

"Since we're updating an existing setting, we will continue to respect the choice you made about the old setting. That means if you already told us that you didn't want your +1s to appear in ads, none of your other shared endorsements will appear in ads," a Google spokesman said.

For example, Google said, if a user reviewed a restaurant, people who aren't in his/her Google Plus Circles of friends would not see that review in an ad that the restaurant might run through Google.

The latest ad strategy comes at a time when companies such as Google and Facebook have been attempting to increase their ad revenues by personalising advertisements to attract user attention. Over 90% of Google's $46-billion revenue in 2012 came from advertisements.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society said the issue highlights the need for a stronger internet privacy statute in India. The absence of clear privacy laws makes it impossible for government officials to understand the harm caused to personal rights because of the default settings of Google, he observed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-october-18-2013-indu-nandakumar-bouquets-brickbats-google-new-privacy-policy

What India can Learn from the Snowden Revelations

elonnai — 2013-10-25T07:29:57Z

Big Brother is watching, across cyberspace and international borders. Meanwhile, the Indian government has few safeguards in theory and fewer in practice. There’s no telling how prevalent or extensive Indian surveillance really is.

The title of the article was changed in the version published by Yahoo on October 23, 2013.

Since the ‘Snowden revelations’, which uncovered the United States government’s massive global surveillance through the PRISM program, there have been reactions aplenty to their impact.

The Snowden revelations highlighted the issue of human rights in the context of the existing cross-border and jurisdictional nightmare: the data of foreign citizens surveilled and harvested by agencies such as the National Security Agency through programs such as PRISM are not subject to protection found in the laws of the country. Thus, the US government has the right to access and use the data, but has no responsibility in terms of how the data will be used or respecting the rights of the people from whom the data was harvested.

The Snowden revelations demonstrated that the biggest global surveillance efforts are now being conducted by democratically elected governments – institutions of the people, by the people, for the people – that are increasingly becoming suspicious of all people.

Adding irony to this worrying trend, Snowden sought asylum from many of the most repressive regimes: this dynamic speaks to the state of society today. The Snowden revelations also demonstrate how government surveillance is shifting from targeted surveillance, warranted for a specific reason and towards a specified individual, to blanket surveillance where security agencies monitor and filter massive amounts of information.

This is happening with few checks and balances for cross-border and domestic surveillance in place, and even fewer forms of redress for the individual. This is true for many governments, including India.

India’s reaction

After the first news of the Snowden revelations, the Indian Supreme Court agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation requesting that foreign companies that shared the information with US security agencies be held accountable for the disclosure. In response to the PIL, the Supreme Court stated it did not have jurisdiction over the US government.

The response of the Supreme Court of India demonstrates the potency of jurisdiction in today’s global information economy in the context of governmental surveillance. Despite being upset at the actions of America’s National Security Agency (NSA), there is little direct legal action that any government or individual can take against the US government or companies incorporated there.

In the PIL, the demand that companies be held responsible is interesting and representative of a global debate, as it implies that in the context of governmental surveillance, companies have a responsibility to actively evaluate and reject or accept governmental surveillance requests. Although I do not disagree with this as a principle, in reality, this evaluation is a difficult step for companies to take.

For example, in India, under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, service providers are penalized with up to seven years in prison for non-compliance with a governmental request for surveillance. The incentives for companies to actually reject governmental requests are minimal, but one factor that could possibly push companies to become more pronounced in their resistance to installing backdoors for the government and complying with governmental surveillance requests is market pressure from consumers.

To a certain extent, this has already started to happen. Companies such as Facebook, Yahoo and Google have created ‘transparency reports’ that provide – at different granularities – information about governmental requests and the company’s compliance or rejection of the same.

In India, P. Rajeev, Member of Parliament from Kerala, has started a petition asking that the companies disclose information on Indian data given to US security agencies. Although transparency by complying companies does not translate directly into regulation of surveillance, it allows the customer to make informed choices and decide whether a company’s level of compliance with governmental requests will impact his/her use of that service.

The PIL also called for the establishment of Indian servers to protect the privacy of Indian data. This solution has been voiced by many, including government officials. Though the creation of domestic servers would ensure that the US government does not have direct and unfettered access to Indian data, as it would require that foreign governments access Indian information through a formal Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process, it does not necessarily enhance the privacy of Indian data.

As a note, India has MLAT treaties with 34 countries. If domestic servers were established, the information would be subject to Indian laws and regulations.

Snooping

The Snowden Revelations are not the first instance to spark a discussion on domestic servers by the Government of India.

For example, in the back-and-forth between the Indian government and the Canadian company RIM, now BlackBerry, the company eventually set up servers in Mumbai and provided a lawful interception solution that satisfied the Indian government. The Indian government made similar demands from Skype and Google. In these instances, the domestic servers were meant to facilitate greater surveillance by Indian law enforcement agencies.

Currently in India there are a number of ways in which the government can legally track data online and offline. For example, the interception of telephonic communications is regulated by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and relies on an order from the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Interception, decryption, and monitoring of digital communications are governed by Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and again rely on the order of the executive.

The collection and monitoring of traffic data is governed by Section 69B of the Information Technology Act and relies on the order of the Secretary to the government of India in the Department of Information Technology. Access to stored data, on the other hand, is regulated by Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and permits access on the authorization of an officer in charge of a police station.

The gaps in the Indian surveillance regime are many and begin with a lack of enforcement and harmonization of existing safeguards and protocols. Presently, India is in the process of realizing a privacy legislation.

In 2012, a committee chaired by Justice AP Shah (of which the Center for Internet and Society was a member) wrote The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which laid out nine national privacy principles meant to be applied to different legislation and sectors – including Indian provisions on surveillance.

The creation of domestic servers is just one example of how the Indian government has been seeking greater access to information flowing within its borders. New requirements for Indian service providers and the creation of projects that go beyond the legal limits of governmental surveillance in India enable greater access to details about an individual on a real-time and blanket basis.

For example, telecoms in India are now required to include user location data as part of the ‘call detail record’ and be able to provide the same to law enforcement agencies on request under provisions in the Unified Access Service and Internet Service Provider Licenses.

At the same time, the Government of India is in the process of putting in place a Central Monitoring System that would provide Indian security agencies the ability to directly intercept communications, bypassing the service provider.

Even if the Central Monitoring System were to adhere to the legal safeguards and procedures defined under the Indian Telegraph Act and Information Technology Act, the system can only do so partially, as both provisions create a clear chain of custody that the government and service providers must follow – that is, the service provider was included as an integral component of the interception process.

If the Indian government implements the Central Monitoring System, it could remove governmental surveillance completely from the public eye. Bypassing the service provider allows the government to fully determine how much the public knows about surveillance. It also removes the market and any pressure that consumers could exert from insight provided by companies on the surveillance requests that they are facing.

Though the Indian government could (and should) be transparent about the amount and type of surveillance it is undertaking, currently there is no legal requirement for the government of India to disclose this information, and security agencies are exempt from the Right to Information Act. Thus, unless India has a Snowden somewhere in the apparatus, the Indian public cannot hope to get an idea of how prevalent or extensive Indian surveillance really is.

Policy vacuum

For any government, the surveillance of its citizens, to some degree, might be necessary. But the Snowden revelations demonstrate that there is a vacuum when it comes to surveillance policy and practices. This vacuum has permitted draconian measures of surveillance to take place and created an environment of mistrust between citizens and governments across the globe.

When governments undertake surveillance, it is critical that the purpose, necessity and legality of monitoring, and the use of the material collected are built into the regime to ensure it does not violate the human rights of the people surveilled, foreign or domestic.

In 2013, the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance were drafted, in part, to address this vacuum. The principles seek to explain how international human rights law applies to surveillance of communications in the current digital and technological environment. They define safeguards to ensure that human rights are protected and upheld when governments undertake surveillance of communications.

When the Indian surveillance regime is measured against these principles, it appears to miss a number of them, and does not fully meet several others. In the context of surveillance projects like the Central Monitoring System, and in order to avoid an Indian version of the PRISM program, India should take into consideration the safeguards defined in the principles and strengthen its surveillance regime to ensure not only the protection of human rights in the context of surveillance, but to also establish trust in its surveillance regime and practices with other countries.

Elonnai Hickok is the Program Manager for Internet Governance at the Centre for Internet and Society, and leads its research on privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/yahoo-october-23-2013-what-india-can-learn-from-snowden-revelations

An Interview with Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party

elonnai — 2013-10-25T04:50:56Z

The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party.

What activities and functions does your office undertake?

The activities and functions of the Dutch data protection authority can roughly be divided in 4 different categories: supervisory activities, giving advise on draft legislation, raising awareness and international tasks.

The Dutch DPA supervises the legislation applicable in the Netherlands with regard to the use of personal data. The most important law is the Dutch Data Protection Act, but the Dutch DPA also supervises for example the Acts governing data processing by police and justice as well as parts of the Telecoms Act.

The supervisory activities mainly consist of investigating, ex officio, violations of the law, with the focus on violations that are serious, structural and impact a large amount of people. Where necessary, the Dutch DPA can use its sanctioning powers, including imposing a conditional fine, to enforce the law. The Dutch DPA can also decide to examine sector-wide codes of conduct that are submitted to it and provide its views in the form of a formal opinion.

In addition to investigations, the Dutch DPA advises the government, and sometimes the parliament, on draft legislation related to the processing of personal data. Following the Data Protection Act, the government is obliged to submit both primary and secondary legislation related to data processing to the DPA for advice.

As regards awareness-raising, next to publishing the results of the investigations, its views on codes of conduct and its advice on legislation, the Dutch DPA also issues guidelines, on its own initiative, explaining legal norms. Via its websites, the Dutch DPA provides more information to both data subjects and controllers on how data can and cannot be processed. Specifically for data subjects, self-empowerment tools – including standard letters to exercise their rights – are made available. Furthermore, they can contact the Dutch DPA daily via a telephone hotline.

Last but not least, the Dutch DPA participates in several International and European fora, including the Article 29 Working Party of which I am the Chair, the European and the International Conference of data protection and privacy commissioners, of whose Executive Committee I am also the Chair.

What powers does your office have? in your opinion are these sufficient? Which powers have been most useful? If there is a lack, what do you feel is needed?

The Dutch DPA has a broad range investigative powers, including the power to order the controller to hand over all relevant information and entering the premises of the controller unannounced. All organisations subjected to the supervision of the Dutch DPA are obligated to cooperate.

The Dutch DPA also has a considerable range of sanctioning powers, it can for example order the suspension or termination of certain processing operations and can also impose a conditional fine. Currently a bill is before Parliament to provide the Dutch DPA with fining powers as well.

Especially when the bill providing the Dutch DPA with fining powers will be passed, I feel the powers are sufficient, giving us all the necessary enforcement tools to ensure compliance with the law.

How is your office funded?

The Dutch DPA is funded through the government who, together with the parliament, each year determines the budget for the next year. The budget is drafted on the basis of a proposal from the Dutch DPA.

What is the organizational structure of your office and the responsibilities of the key executives?

The Dutch DPA consists of a college of commissioners and the supporting Secretariat, itself consisting of 6 departments and headed by the Director. The Dutch DPA has 2 supervision departments, one for the private and one for the public sector, a legal department, a communications department, an international department and a department providing the operational support.

If India creates a framework of co-regulation, how would you suggest the overseeing body be structured?

Considering the many differences between India and the Netherlands - and Europe - this is a very hard question to answer. But whatever construction is chosen in India, it is of utmost importance to guarantee the independence of the supervisory authorit(y)(ies), who shall be provided with sufficient and scalable powers to be able to sanction violations.

What legal challenges has your office faced?

The biggest legal challenge we face at the moment is the new European legal framework currently being discussed. It is as yet uncertain whether and when this will enter into force, but it is clear that it will bring new challenges for our office.

What are the main differences between your offices?

Generally, I think that the differences between my office and the UK and Canadian offices mostly stem from our different legal and cultural backgrounds, especially the difference between the common law and codified law systems.

In addition, the norms and powers differ per supervisory authority. The Dutch DPA for example can enter a building without prior notice, while the ICO, if I understand correctly, can only enter with the consent of the supervised organisation.

I however prefer to look at the similarities and possibilities to overcome our differences, because I think that we all feel that providing a high level of data protection and ensuring user control are all of our main priorities.

Naturally, I am very curious to hear from Chrisopher and Chantal as well.

What are the most recent privacy developments for each of your respective offices?

The technological developments of the past decades and the increasing use of smartphones and tablets, have also made privacy developments necessary and have obliged us, as data protection authorities, to consider the rules and norms in this new environment.

What would you broadly recommend for a privacy legislation for India?

In my view the privacy legislation in India should in any case contain the basic principles of the protection of personal data, applicable to both the public and the private sector. Naturally with some exceptions for law enforcement purposes.

Furthermore, the Indian law should protect the imported data of citizens from other parts of the world as well, including the EU.

And as mentioned in my answer to question 5, it is of utmost importance that the Indian legislation guarantees the establishment of (a) completely independent supervisory authorit(y)(ies), provided with sufficient sanctioning powers, to supervise compliance with the legislation also of the government, including police and justice.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-jacob-kohnstamm

'Free Speech and Media in South Asia: Human Rights Concerns in a Globalizing World'

praskrishna — 2013-11-08T05:33:22Z

A seminar organized by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, in collaboration with the Centre for Media and Governance, National Law University, Delhi. Chinmayi Arun is one of the speakers.

Click to read the original published by Oxford University Press here

Speakers:

Salil Tripathi, English PEN

Defending Freedom of Expression in India

Emrys Shoemaker, London School of Economics

Mobile Communication and Internet Regulation in Pakistan: Mapping Social Implications

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University, Delhi

Privacy and Surveillance

Kumaravadivel Guruparan, University College London

Digital Media as Part of the Sri Lankan State's 'Counter-insurgency' Programme

Chair: Nicole Stremlau, PCMLP

This panel discussion will explore contemporary issues that envelop both the digital and the traditional media in South Asia. It will look at the effects of surveillance, prior restraints on speech, intermediaries and other key factors on the public sphere. It will also consider, in this context, the relationship of the traditional media with the Internet. This discussion will take place in the backdrop of evolving democratic engagement in India, and the constitutional jurisprudence that attempts to keep pace with it and with developments in communication technology. It will offer comparative perspectives from other countries grappling with similar concerns.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/university-of-oxford-october-25-2013-free-speech-and-media-in-south-asia

Interview with Dr. Alexander Dix - Berlin Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commissioner

maria — 2013-11-06T09:29:32Z

Maria Xynou recently interviewed Berlin's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commissioner: Dr. Alexander Dix. View this interview and gain an insight on recommendations for better data protection in India!

Dr. Alexander Dix has been Berlin's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commissioner since June 2005. He has more than 26 years of practical experience in German data protection authorities and previously served as Commissioner for the state of Bradenburg for seven years.

Dr. Dix is a specialist in telecommunications and media and has dealt with a number of issues regarding the cross-border protection of citizen’s privacy. He chairs the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications (“Berlin Group”) and is a member of the Article 29 Working Party of European Data Protection Supervisory Authorities. In this Working Party he represents the Data Protection Authorities of the 16 German States (Länder).

A native of Bad Homburg, Hessen, Dr. Alexander Dix graduated from Hamburg University with a degree in law in 1975. He received a Master of Laws degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1976 and a Doctorate in law from Hamburg University in 1984. He has published extensively on issues of data protection and freedom of information. Inter alia he is a co-editor of the German Yearbook on Freedom of Information and Information Law.

The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Dr. Alexander Dix on the following questions:

What activities and functions does the Berlin data commissioner's office undertake?
What powers does the Berlin data commissioner's office have? In your opinion, are these sufficient? Which powers have been most useful? If there is a lack, what would you feel is needed?
How is the office of the Berlin Data Protection Commissioner funded?
What is the organisational structure at the Office of the Berlin Data Protection Commissioner and the responsibilities of the key executives?
If India creates a Privacy Commissioner, what structure/framework would you suggest for the office?
What challenges has your office faced?
What is the most common type of privacy violation that your office is faced with?
Does your office differ from other EU data protection commissioner offices?
How do you think data should be regulated in India?
Do you support the idea of co-regulation or self-regulation?
How can India protect its citizens' data when it is stored in foreign servers?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-berlin-data-protection-commissioner

Beyond the Searchlight

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T11:15:27Z

Should we be wary of Google’s all-pervasiveness?

This article Debarshi Dasgupta was published in the Outlook on October 23, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Search Google

Some queries to type in the window

Is what is good for Google good for India, especially after Brazil and the EU question its actions?
Are politicians sending out the right signals by associating with Google’s initiatives?
Is Google directing the internet intellectual discourse in a way that will benefit it?
Does Google initiate the kind of offline activities it does here in other democracies?
Is Google shutting out potential competition by obtaining a stranglehold on the internet?

Google’s policy, its CEO Eric Schmidt had once said, was to get right up to the creepy line, but not cross it. It has generated contentious debate about the firm’s activities and products, whether it’s accessing your e-mails to feed you targeted ads, something we have now come to accept grudgingly, or its soon-to-be-released Google Glass that comes fitted with miniature cameras and has advocates all worried about the next big breach on the privacy frontier.

Not just online, where privacy violations and anti-competitive practices have raised concerns globally, some of Google’s offline activities in India too should have us asking questions based on conflict of interest and lack of transparency. Here too, the company seems to have placed itself right next to the creepy line. Especially the way it has gone about sponsoring research at key think-tanks and academia on areas that directly concern its business interests.

Nothing illustrates this better than the work of PRS Legislative Research, which Google has funded in the past. PRS produces policy briefings that are sent out to lawmakers and the media, including on internet governance. PRS hasn’t got a clearance to receive foreign funds since it became independent of the Centre for Policy Research in 2010, where it was launched, and has since then been largely funded by domestic sources.

Prashant Reddy, Blogger

“That an Indian user seeking arbitration
with Google has to do so in a California
court reeks of double standards.”

Does this growing network mean Google is having a say in shaping internet governance laws? Maybe yes. They should have a say by all means, just as other interested parties must get theirs. But given its influence and the certain opaqueness that marks its activities, some more transparency can only boost the credentials of a firm whose informal motto is—“Don’t be evil”. Google may have helped you find that bit of information from the googol tera bytes of online data but it has so far largely evaded discussion on how it has gone on to become big and influential in India.

But while it may have been forced to back out from funding PRS directly, Google’s web of research fellows in this country is growing. In August this year, the Asia Internet Coalition, of which Google is a founding member, selected its two inaugural India fellows—Shehla Rashid Shora and Astik Sinha, both of whom will analyse policies concerning the internet environment here. Sinha also happens to be a social media advisor for BJP MP Anurag Thakur.

So big that it hobnobs with Narendra Modi in the first of its Hangout series and, quite contrary to its espousal of free speech, has comfortable questions pitched to him. Or so influential that it has telecom minister Kapil Sibal, its bete noire from 2011 when his ministry was forcing them to pull down content, to attend the launch of chandnichowkonline.in, a business directory of Sibal’s constituency. Outlook made several attempts to get a reaction from Google but received none by the time this article had to go to the press.


Blurred lines Paid ads seem no different from search results for cameras

Google, since 2011, has also placed three fellows so far under its annual Google Public Policy Fellowship programme at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). The research is supposed to focus on “access to knowledge, openness in India, freedom of expression, privacy, and telecom”. Yet another crucial funding in May 2013 went to the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in New Delhi, which does research on areas directly linked to its business interests. The agreement contains a clause that says “Google will not be excluded from any future business opportunities”. Its research director Chinmayi Arun did not respond to Outlook’s e-mail and said she was too busy to speak when Outlook called her up.

A third institution Google has funded is the media watch website The Hoot. After the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai when the government hastily amended the IT Act, clamping down in a restrictive spirit, noted journalist and the website’s editor Sevanti Ninan was one of the many criticising the government publicly in her articles. Google, she says, contacted her somewhere around mid-2009 seeking a proposal on how they could help with what she was working on. Ninan sent one proposing a Free Speech Hub and received a grant of $22,000 in January 2010 (approximately Rs 10 lakh at 2010 exchange rates) from Google to do so. The hub is an online forum to track free speech violation and highlight problems surrounding freedom of speech and expression and regulation of media.

The commitment was renewed in February 2012 with another grant of Rs 42 lakh. Ninan says that while Google was “not interested in media ethics but free speech”, its approach was entirely “hands-off” to what the site could include on the hub. “I think it’s entirely up to the organisation being funded to decide how it handles a grant. At the same time, anything Google does should be under scrutiny just like other corporations.”

“More transparency
and accountability
can only be good,
both for Google and for the organisation
it funds.”
Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project

So just as it is necessary to publicise that Shell has ties with the India chapter of Brookings Institution or that Reliance sponsors the Observer Research Foundation, it is important that people know where Google is putting its money and for what gains. In fact, more so in the case of Google, a firm that touches our lives in so many more ways that Shell or Reliance does. Yet, a lot of what Google has been doing has gone without adequate publicity and scrutiny. Should we be any less sceptical of Google funding research that helps formulate policies on internet governance than we should be of, let’s say, the Tatas and Jindals on mining? “Google has huge money and its funding of research can be a very contentious issue, especially if it seeks to influence research. Therefore, parties who swear by full disclosure and transparency must adhere to it,” says senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. “More transparency and accountability can only be good, both for Google and the organisations it funds,” adds Anja Kovacs, who works with the Internet Democracy Project.


The great connector Hangout with Narendra Modi

But there has been little of that transparency online. For instance, the Rules and Regulations Review of The Information Technology Rules, 2011, put out and sent to MPs by PRS Legislative Research has no mention that an interested party (Google) has funded its work. Similarly, The Hoot has no mention of Google funding it on the ‘About the Hub’ page even though it has details of Google’s funding on the ‘Support The Hoot’ page. Google has also funded numerous ngos, in areas such as health and education, and has sought to promote the use of technology (often theirs, such as in the ongoing Google Impact Challenge Award).

“Because there is
no privacy
commissioner,
Indian citizens are
left vulnerable to
Google when it comes to
privacy.”
Sunil Abraham, CIS, Bangalore

This offline influence apart, Google’s hold online is worrying enough to call for action. The way it manipulates search results to favour clients of its AdSense programme is a global concern. For instance, a search for a popular phone model throws up matches of Google’s clients and features them more prominently than the actual site of the product. The Jaipur-based Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS) conducted a survey that found most internet users could not tell an ad from an organic search result from Google. Says Madhav Dar, an independent anti-trust economist, “Given its financial clout and dominance of e-commerce, Google can directly deny traffic to downstream sites. And because the internet ecosystem is still in a formative stage here, this is something that requires intense and urgent scrutiny by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).”

CUTS filed a formal complaint with the CCI in June last year alleging anti-competitive practices and abuse of its dominant position. BharatMatrimony.com too filed a complaint with the CCI in 2012 accusing it of directing online users’ search for “Bharat+Matrimony” to its rivals.

For many, Google crossed the creepy line when it declared, in a court filing in August this year, that people sending e-mails to any of Google’s 425 million Gmail users need have no “reasonable expectation” that their communications are confidential. This is something that concerns Sunil Abraham, the executive director of CIS, which hosts Google fellows but has received no funding from the firm. “India has no omnibus horizontal statutes, neither sufficiently evolved vertical statutes in specific areas of telecommunication or the internet,” he says. “And because of that there is no office of the privacy commissioner in India and the absence of this regulator doesn’t tame the voracious appetite that Google has for personal information. This happens in other jurisdictions, but the Indian citizen is left vulnerable to Google when it comes to privacy.” “Part of Google’s practice can be absolutely abhorrent, such as the way in which it seeks to have a monopoly in digitising information and being the only one to organise it,” adds Kovacs.


Amitabh Bachchan Google maps his home at WEF in Davos

Another controversial move online has been the decision between Airtel and Google to allow the former’s subscribers free usage of Google’s service up to 1 GB. This has thrown up concerns of violation of “network neutrality”, a widely acknowledged concept that requires internet service providers to not discriminate against third party applications and service.

Journalist and blogger Shivam Vij, however, thinks concerns surrounding Google’s offline activities are misplaced. “As long as they keep coming out with transparency reports that show the majority of requests for user data and content removal are refused, I’d consider them an ally. One should be grateful that Google is funding to protect free speech and ashamed that Indian firms aren’t,” he says. “And if they really have been trying to influence MPs, they would have bribed them, not put out research.”

Nikhil Pahwa, who runs Medianama, a digital media news and analysis website, is another person who says “he won’t look a gift horse in the mouth”. “I don’t know what the motives are, but I support what they are doing, especially given the way the state and Indian firms are failing us when it comes to protecting free speech online,” he adds. The only concern he has about Google is regarding its reported unwillingness to agree to a deal between the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI). The deal seeks to ensure smaller online publishers and advertising networks are paid on time by advertisers, who, in most cases, delay payments to smaller entities but always pay bigger players like Google on time. “Smaller players are suffering due to delay in payments, which can extend up to a year, a problem that Google does not face. The IAMAI initiative is something that Google is unwilling to support because it does not impact them,” he adds.

"Anything that
Google does should
be under scrutiny
just like other corporations."
Sevanti Ninan, Editor, The Hoot


The outreach Sibal attends the launch of chandnichowkonline, a business directory of his constituency; Qutub Minar, digitised

Criticising or questioning some of Google’s policies does not amount to siding with the government on cracking down on free speech on the internet. Outlook ran a cover in December 2011 where it was severely critical of the government’s attempt to muzzle online dissent. Neither does concern about Google’s activities stem from a fear of the foreign hand. Its expansion into Indian civil society has to be seen as an attempt by a profits-driven corporation to ensure its market interests in India are protected. The country becomes all the more important given the trouble it has been having in Brazil and in Europe, where the firm has been slapped with a slew of anti-trust charges. Keeping a close watch will only help enforce Google’s policy in India—not crossing the creepy line.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/outlookindia-october-28-2013-debarshi-dasgupta-beyond-the-searchlight

Bali meet to discuss Internet governance issues

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T08:29:23Z

Four-day event hosted by Internet Governance Forum to also discuss Internet access and diversity, privacy, security.

This article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on October 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Representatives of governments around the world, technology executives and activists will discuss issues such as Internet access and diversity, privacy, security, inter-governmental corporation, and Internet governance at a four-day event hosted by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that begins on Tuesday in Bali, Indonesia.

J. Satyanarayana, secretary, ministry of communications and information technology, confirmed India’s participation in the forum and said the country would be represented by Dr Govind, a senior director and head of department, e-infrastructure and Internet governance division, department of information technology.

“We will also be taking part in a working group on Internet governance and enhanced cooperation, which will be convened by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development in November,” said Satyanarayana.

“IGF is a valuable learning forum wherein different stakeholders can discuss Internet governance policy issues without any antagonism. Other fora for Internet policy like ICANN, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), ITU (International Telecommunication Union), etc., are places where international law and policy are developed, and do not allow for such learning because negotiations are always very acrimonious. Since IGF is only meant for learning, it does not directly address the global policy vacuum that exists for cyber crime, data protection and privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, who will be participating in the Bali event.

“Indian government, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community can become more competent and effective through such a dialogue in other multilateral and multi-stakeholder fora where international Internet standards, policies and laws are formulated. It also helps the stakeholders contribute to the development of internationally interoperable domestic policy,” he added.

In 2006, the UN secretary general established a small secretariat in Geneva to assist him in the convening of IGF. The first meeting was convened in October-November 2006 in Athens. In December 2010, IGF’s mandate was extended for five years.

In its eighth edition, IGF will have detailed discussions on issues such as free flow of information on the Internet, regulatory approaches to privacy, and protection of interests of individuals and communities in cyberspace, Internet surveillance and legal framework for cyber crime, said the forum in a statement on its website.

During the four-event, for instance, one of the workshops “will explore what core principles and strategies are needed to achieve a balanced and fair approach to data protection that is effective internationally and regionally”, according to IGF.

Some of the prominent speakers in the event include Jari Arkko, chairman, Internet Engineering Task Force, Finland; Virat Bhatia, president, South Asia, AT&T Inc.; Chris Painter, coordinator for cyber issues, US department of state; Karen Mulberry, policy adviser, Internet Society; and Matthew Shears, director of Internet policy and human rights, Center for Democracy and Technology.

According to industry estimates, over 2.5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide.

“No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspace. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups,” said IGF on its website.

According to a UN estimate, nearly 40% of the world’s population will be online by the end of 2013. “The Internet has become an essential tool for the creation of jobs and the delivery of basic public services,” said the UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Wu Hungbo, in a statement, adding that it is also essential “for improving access to knowledge and education, for empowering women, for enhancing transparency, and for giving marginalized populations a voice in decision-making processes”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-moulishree-srivastava-october-22-2013-bali-meet-to-discuss-internet-governance-issues

Indian politicians yet to tap voters online: CIS’s Abraham

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T05:31:34Z

Sunil Abraham talks about the role online media will play in forthcoming elections and the behaviour of online readers of news.

The interview (taken by Venkatesh Upadhyay) was published in Livemint on October 22, 2013.

Sunil Abraham, 40, is executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a not-for-profit research organization that works on issues related to freedom of expression and privacy. Abraham was in New Delhi to speak on the impact of media, social media and technology on governance and democracy, organized by the Observer Research Foundation together with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. On the sidelines of the conference, he talked about the role that online media will play in forthcoming elections as well the behaviour of online readers of news.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

How important will digital media be for the forthcoming elections?

I think the Internet in India is very different from, say, the one found in the US. So, our capacity to read from similar experience in their elections is limited. If you take the extensive exposure that the (Barack) Obama campaign had on the online space and the manner in which it supposedly helped the campaign, I don’t see that happening here.

Politicians and political parties very active on social media. You don’t think that will have an effect on elections?

I think the missing part of the equation till now is that there has not been any devising—to my knowledge—of targeting of voters through Facebook or Twitter. Our digital footprint leads to immense big-data opportunities, which I do not see politicians in India being able to exploit. Again, to give an example from the United States, there were certain instances there from where if you were member of a particular community, you could be targeted by political campaigns. Here, I don’t see that happening that easily.


Above: Sunil Abraham on the role of digital media in elections

So our politicians are wasting their time on social media?

Not entirely. In my view, one of the good things that the Internet does is that it has the capacity to democratize public opinion. One must also keep in mind that networks such as the ones available through social media are not homogenous. So nodes such as users who are opinion-makers and journalists are active on these networks, and so politicians can use these methods to reach out to more people.

Does the traditional media still have a role?
Of course. Traditional media is more likely to determine political outcomes in comparison to social media because most of the links that we see in social media are related to content that is created on traditional media. Now, of course, we can be sceptical of the role that traditional media plays in influencing the general mood of the country, but that is a different question.

Is there something peculiar about the manner in which readers interact with newspaper reports online?
I think one can usually see the comments section of some news sites littered with hurtful and hateful comments. So, some readers such as myself basically go through these comments to look at trolling and also sometimes for comic relief. But again, every news organization seems to be dealing with this differently. The Times of India, doesn’t, in my view, regulate its comments section. But one can see, say, in The Hindu, that readers’ comments are regulated and are usually very thoughtful.

Is there any particular reason why certain news readers respond the way they do?

Well, a part of the reason why people consuming news online comment and interact the way they do is that anonymity produces a level of freedom that allows people to be more brutal in their behaviour online.

At the same time, you can also see, in some instances, the chilling effects of surveillance, where people end up censuring their thoughts on issues. Of course, surveillance is not the answer. Societies need to deal with hateful threats on their own terms.

What will it take for politicians and public figures to get their message across, given the idiosyncrasies of the Indian digital media?
I think two components are crucial: trust and authenticity. For example, in the case of Wikipedia, there is an assumed amount of trust that the user has. The trust relationship between public figures who are active online and the public also is a two-way street. Politicians must also trust their common party members to use their social media presence as and when they want to. For example, why don’t they allow each and every member of the political party to man their Twitter handle for a day?

As for authenticity, the human mind can say whether an act by someone online is authentic or not.

Finally, what is your view on the role that larger Internet monopolies such as Facebook and Google are playing across the digital plane?

The Internet has also changed over the past 15 years. It used to be a decentralized network. Everybody was hopeful that it would have democratizing potential and, therefore, techno-utopianism was born. Now, it is increasingly clear that a small proportion of websites have 90% of the traffic and large corporations such as Google and Facebook play a significant role in configuring the attention economy. They are now also beginning to take this role very seriously themselves. In the case of Google, increasingly Google is using its power over the attention economy to play a role in the electoral process in India. They have been holding Google Hangouts and what they have been able to do is bring the public to the politicians.

Other concerns such as Facebook and Twitter through their walled-garden arrangements with telecom companies also play a similar role in configuring the attention economy. One is more innocuous—like the manner in which their algorithms are structured determining who shows up in their feeds.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-venkatesh-upadhyay-october-22-2013-indian-politicians-yet-to-tap-voters-online

Open Letter to Members of the European Parliament of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee

elonnai — 2013-10-23T05:00:02Z

An open letter was sent to the Members of the European Parliament of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the proposed EU Regulation. The letter was apart of an initiative that Privacy International and a number of other NGO's are undertaking.

Dear Members of the European Parliament of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee,

On behalf of The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, we are writing to express our support of the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (COM (2012) 11).

The legal framework established under the 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) in Europe has positively influenced many existing privacy regimes worldwide, serving as a model legal framework in jurisdictions that are in the process of developing privacy regimes, including India. The positive impact of the Data Protection Directive shows the potential of the Regulation to become a global model for the protection of personal data. The Regulation seeks to address new scenarios that have arisen in the context of rapidly changing technologies and practices, increasing its potential for positively influencing privacy rights for individuals globally.

India is currently in the process of considering the enactment of privacy legislation, in part with the aim of ensuring adequate safeguards to enable and enhance information flows into India from countries around the world, including Europe. At the same time, India is seeking Data Secure Status from the EU, on the basis of its current regime.

It is clear that the EU framework for data protection has a major influence on the current and emerging privacy regime in India. India is only one country of many that are in the beginning stages of developing a comprehensive privacy regime. Thus, we ask that you keep in mind how the Regulation will impact the rights of individual in countries outside of Europe, particularly in countries that are in the process of developing privacy regimes.

We ask that you take into consideration the four following points that we believe need to be addressed in the Regulation to help ensure adequate protection of the rights of individuals in the European Union and around the world.

Strengthen the principle of purpose limitation: The Regulation should incorporate a strong purpose limitation principle that strictly limits present and future uses of personal data to the purposes for which it was originally collected. Currently, Article 6(4) allows for the further processing of data when the processing is “not compatible with the one for which the personal data have been collected”. Though the provision establishes legal requirements, one of which must be before information can be used for a further purpose, this is has proven insufficient in the existing Directive. The current provision in the Regulation dilutes the principle of purpose limitation as well as weakening an individual’s ability to make informed decisions about their personal data.
Define principles for interpretation of broad terms: The Regulation should create principles for interpreting broad terms such as “legitimate interest” and “public interest”. These vague terms are used throughout the Regulation, and create the potential for loopholes or abuse. Because these terms can be interpreted in many different ways, it is important to create a set of principles to guide their interpretation by data protection authorities and courts to avoid inconsistent application and enforcement of the Regulation.
Clarify the scope of the Regulation: The Regulation should clearly describe the jurisdictional scope and reach of its provisions. Currently Article 3(1) states that the Regulation will apply to the processing of data “in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union”. The flow of information on the online environment coupled with trends such as cloud computing, outsourcing, and cross border business creates a scenario where defining what constitutes “context of the activities of an establishment”, is difficult and could lead to situations where personal data is not protected, as the collection, use, or storage of it does not necessarily fall within the “context of the activities”.
Address access by foreign alliance bodies: In light of growing demands by law enforcement for access, use, and transfer of personal information for investigative purposes across jurisdictions– the Regulation should define the circumstances in which personal data protected by its provisions can be accessed and used by foreign intelligence bodies, and the procedure by which to do so. The Regulation should address challenges such as access by foreign intelligence bodies to data stored on the cloud and data that has passed through/is stored on foreign networks/servers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/open-letter-members-european-parliament-civil-liberties-justice-home-affairs-committee

Removing Barriers to Connectivity: Connecting the Unconnected

praskrishna — 2013-11-09T03:14:43Z

The workshop was organised by Internet Society and ETNO on October 23, 2013. Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Click to read the details on IGF website here

In the spirit of Paragraph 50 of the Tunis Agenda, our panel aims to highlight best practices that will help in “turning the digital divide into digital opportunity”, and will look at what can be done to promote broadband penetration and access to infrastructure. By forging better Internet governance environments through dialogue and interaction, stakeholders can work together to build better local infrastructure and more efficient deployment of infrastructure. Internet technical community experts, policy-makers, and development experts know well the challenges that exist in promoting deployment of Internet infrastructure. From public-works challenges to human capacity development, each country may have their own unique challenges. Provisions and policies must be put in place to ensure that broadband connections are developed, maintained and improved to sustain the rise in Internet traffic and particularly to accommodate the fast growth of video traffic. Against this backdrop, this workshop proposes to assemble a group of experts and practitioners to discuss observations from the field (practical examples and information) about how to help encourage connectivity and to “lift” barriers to connectivity. We also will identify barriers for investment faced by the private sector and tries to define ways to improve the policy landscape and identify a sustainable economic model to foster private investment. We plan to do this by identifying connectivity challenges and by identifying best practices for working with all stakeholders to manage those challenges. The developing country perspective will be reflected, and the workshop will specifically address what is needed in practical terms to connect the unconnected – eg low-cost devices, open systems and public / private partnerships. Workshop participants will engage the audience to encourage a dialogue that seeks feed-back from participants. An output of the workshop would be a collaborative “living” list of best practices and observations identified during the workshop that can serve as a baseline to be added to given national and local dynamics.

Panelists

Raj Singh, Internet Society, Male, Technical Community, SINGAPORE, Asia-Pacific Group
Martin Levy, Hurricane Electric, Male, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Christoph Steck, Telefonica, S.A., Male, Private Sector, SPAIN, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Jennifer Haroon, Google, Female, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Simon Milner, Facebook, Male, Private Sector, UNITED KINGDOM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet & Society India, Male, Civil Society, INDIA, Asia-Pacific Group

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-removing-barriers-to-connectivity

Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections ?

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T08:18:56Z

This workshop is being organised by Internet Society at Bali on October 24. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists for this.

The Internet Governance Forum 2013 is being held at Bali from October 22 to 25. The overarching theme for the 2013 IGF meeting is: "Building Bridges"- Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development".

Read the original published on the IGF website.

Theme: Internet Governance Principles

The Internet dissolves geographical boundaries on a greater scale than any prior invention. It allows data, personal and otherwise, to flow across borders, supporting social and economic interactions. However, there is a complex mix of factors at play: multiple policy objectives that are sometimes in conflict; individuals’ rights; the interests of the communities; “monetization” of personal data for short-term and long-term commercial gain; different historical cultural and regulatory approaches to privacy; etc.

Across a diverse, global Internet, how can we best deal with the tensions that naturally result from differences in personal privacy expectations, economic aspirations, and regulatory regimes, particularly when it comes to online data protection?

This workshop will explore what core principles and strategies are needed to achieve a balanced and fair approach to data protection that is effective internationally and regionally. In the process, we will examine the possible paths to a global solution, together with impediments, and explore how successful local and regional approaches could be leveraged at the international level.

We will also strive to articulate lessons learned from recent initiatives such as the modernisation of the Council of Europe Convention 108, the revision of the OECD Privacy Guidelines, the APEC Cross Border Privacy Rules System, and the proposed revisions to the EU data protection framework, etc. in tackling these challenging issues.

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?
Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached

The submitter has not previously organised a workshop at the IGF. However, his colleague has co-organised the following workshops on related issues: 2012: ICC BASIS and ISOC - Solutions for enabling cross-border data flows – http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/IGF%202012%20ws86%20report_10%2012%2012%20final.doc 2012: CoE and ISOC – Who is following me: tracking the trackers – http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no181-who-following-me-tracking-trackers#report 2010: ISOC and EFF – The Future of Privacy – http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/future-privacy%2020100914.pdf Background papers: Report from a WSIS Forum 2012 thematic workshop entitled: “Data Privacy on a global scale: keeping pace with an evolving environment” – http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Data%20Privacy%20on%20a%20global%20scale_0.pdf Report from a IGF2012 workshop entitled “Solutions for enabling cross-border data flows - https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/IGF%202012%20cross-border%20data%20flows.pdf

Background Paper

Download background paper

Co-organisers

Ms. Sophie Kwasny, Head of the Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe , Intergovernmental Organizations, FRANCE, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Mr. Frederic Donck, Internet Society, Technical Community, BELGIUM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?
Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s)

Panelists

Please click on Biography to view the biography of panelist

Sophie Kwasny, Head of the Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe , Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, FRANCE, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Nigel Waters, Public Officer, Australian Privacy Foundation , Male, Civil Society, Australia, Asia-Pacific Group
Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) , Female, Technical Community, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Male, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography

Moderator

Frederic Donck, Internet Society, Director European Regional Bureau

Remote Moderator

Luca Belli, CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas Sorbonne University

Agenda

Moderator will briefly introduce the session as well as the different panellists. Each panellist will have 2 minutes (maximum) to introduce his/her own perspective on the general issues addressed by the moderator.

No powerpoints allowed. Very dynamic session with regular interventions from remote participants and audience, as well as between panellists is sought.

Moderator will work out questions (including through a coordinated approach before the session with panellists) and will organise the session in a way that allows a balanced conversation between all stakeholders (on-site/remotely).

Inclusiveness of the Session

Suitability for Remote Participation

Dynamic interaction with remote participants (ISOC community and chapters, technical community, Businesses, etc.) will be ensured through social medias, jabber, webex, and twitter (hashtag will be provided) etc.

Coordinated approach with remote moderator will be ensured as well as the necessary communication and information to remote participants in advance of and during the session.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-335-privacy-from-regional-regulations-to-global-connections

Charting the Charter: Internet Rights and Principles Online

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T07:03:53Z

This workshop is being organised by IRP Coalition on October 22 in Bali Nusa Dua Convention Centre. Pranesh Prakash is participating as a panelist.

Read the original published on the IGF website

Theme: Human Rights / Freedom of Expression on the Internet

Since the Charter of Internet Rights and Principles was developed dialogue about diverse internet related human rights issues have emerged in various UN human rights mechanisms e.g. racism/racial discrimination, human rights defenders, women's human rights, freedom of association, business and human rights, protection of cultural heritage. The workshop will map the issues under discussion in the UNHRC against those in the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (‘IRP Charter’) and explore multistakeholder perspectives and best practice examples of adherence to the Charter and human rights standards from diverse regions.

The focus is on progress, opportunities and challenges to monitor and advocate for the IRP Charter provisions particularly for marginalised groups e.g. rural and indigenous peoples, disabled people, urban poor as the second part of the two workshops put forward by the IRP Coalition and partners. Wider questions that the workshop looks to cover include: How are understandings about the interrelationship of internet governance and human rights standards developing at the Human Rights Council? Aside from freedom of expression and the right to Privacy, what other human rights are important in relation to the internet? How can the Charter be used to broaden the engagement of the Human Rights Council in internet governance issues? How does the work of the HRC inform the Charter, and other internet policy documents and mechanisms?

Since the 2009 IGF, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition has organised a range of workshops and Coalition meetings looking at the application of human rights standards (primarily those espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) to the Internet. In 2010 the previous draft of the IRP Charter (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) was launched with a rigorous discussion about what correct interpretation of existing standards is and the role of different stakeholders in relation to these.

In 2011 the IRP Charter was distilled down to 10 key advocacy points, the Ten Internet Rights and Principles (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/). These were debated as the Coalition undertook a closer analysis of the issue of copyright protection and how it interrelated with human rights on the internet. In 2012 the Coalition looked at how the Charter was feeding in to a derivative initiative at the Council of Europe to create a user-friendly Compendium of rights of internet users. The Coalition made a close analysis of the issue of anonymity online. This year we want to focus on human rights which, while contained in the Charter, have not received high levels of attention. We also want to loop in the work of Coalition members working on human rights, women’s rights, social, cultural and economic rights as well as the recent work of the Human Rights Council (which is the most authoritative global body applying human rights to the Internet) to incorporating human rights as an integral part of the internet governance field.

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?
Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached
The IRP Coalition launched the IRP Charter and Ten Principles in 2010/2011 (www.internetrightsandprinciples.org). These launches started a vigorous and productive chain of discussions and outreach initiatives in and around IGF Meetings. These were followed up in 2011 and 2012 with IGF workshops that focused in specific issues such as copyright, access as a right, and existing rights of internet users. This year we focus on human rights which, while contained in the Charter, have not received high levels of attention. We also want to loop in the work of Coalition members working on human rights, women’s rights, social, cultural and economic rights as well as the recent work of the Human Rights Council (which is the most authoritative global body applying human rights to the Internet) to incorporating human rights as an integral part of the internet governance field. Recent events underscore that the moment has come to ground human rights principles in internet governance practice as this affects everyday life, work, and government.

Background Paper

Download Background Paper

Session Type: Roundtable

Co-organisers

Ms. Dixie Hawtin, Global Partners and Associates, Private Sector, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications, Civil Society, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Group
Ms. Marianne Franklin, Goldsmiths (University of London, UK)/ IRP Coalition), Civil Society, United Kingdom, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?
Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s)

Panelists

Please click on the biography to view the profile of the panelists:

Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications, Female, Civil Society, New Zealand, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Frank La Rue, United Nations, Male, Civil Society, Guatemala, Latin American and Caribbean Group - Grulac
Asif Kabani, Ministry of Finance, Male, Government, Pakistan, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Carl Fredrik Wettermark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Male, Government, Sweden, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Marianne Franklin, (IRP Coalition/Goldsmiths (University of London, UK), Female, Civil Society, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Cornelia Kutterer, Microsoft, Female, Private Sector, BELGIUM, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Michael Rotert, eco-German Internet Industry, Male, Technical Community, Germany, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography

Moderator

Dixie Hawtin, Global Partners and Associates

Remote Moderator

Rebecca Zausmer, Global Partners and Associates

Agenda

This round table session explores the opportunities and challenges for upholding human rights standards on the internet using the IRP Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/). In tandem with the session on Disabilities and Indigenous rights this session aims to:

Address a number of human rights – moving beyond freedom of expression and privacy - to consider the IRP Charter provisions for socio-economic rights, education, women’s rights and rights of the visually impaired in the online environment.
Provide an assessment of the implementation of human rights standards on the internet o date.
Feed recommendations in to the IRP Coalition initiative to create a final version of the IRP Charter (in terms of substance, process, and uses of the document in practice)

The session will start by focusing on a selection of concrete examples (such as, the PRISM revelations, the Marrakesh Treaty on exceptions and limitations to copyright for the blind, racial discrimination, education rights online) before opening to a wider discussion. It brings together diverse perspectives on the relationship between human rights and internet policy, where the human rights movement needs to engage more or more effectively, and how the IRP Charter should be developed to assist this process. The outcomes of the workshop will feed into the IRP Coalition Meeting, ‘Towards the IRP Charter 2.0’.

Inclusiveness of the Session

Panellists will make short initial statements of up to 3 minutes, each will be tasked with a particular perspective to bring and enable several rounds of the table. It will also allow ample time for audience questions and comments. The audience will be invited to ask questions, and to answer questions which the moderators will pose to the floor.

Suitability for Remote Participation

Both the IRP and the APC have a good track record of marketing their workshops across a range of email lists, websites and social media to ensure that potential remote participants know about the workshop and can participate. Remote participants will be engaged by the remote moderator who will pose questions to them and facilitate an active remote conversation alongside the conversation in situ– making links between the two wherever possible.

Questions or Comments

Please note that Mr Frank La Rue has been invited. As his office needs some time to respond we have included his name as an unconfirmed participant for the time being.

Also a note on the number of participants:
As this is a roundtable, open discussion format there are more than five speakers in order to generate the range and depth needed for this sort of interactive and dynamic discussion. The IRP Coalition has taken the lead in instigating these sorts of discussion formats in multistakeholder meetings such as the UNESCO WSIS+10 event and the Lisbon EuroDIG. The session moderator is experienced for this format and the participants aware that long speeches are not required.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-99-charting-the-charter-internet-rights-and-principles-online

Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T09:02:02Z

This workshop is being organised by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of France, Western Europe and Others Group and Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of Germany, Western Europe and Others Group. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists for this workshop.

Read the original published on IGF website. Also read it on Internet & Jurisdiction website.

Theme: Legal Frameworks and Cyber-crime (Spam, Cyber-security, etc.)

This workshop is organized by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process launched in January 2012, which engages key actors from states, international organizations, companies, civil society, academia and the technical community from all around the world to address the tension between the cross-border Internet and national jurisdictions.

Over 2,5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide. On the one hand platforms’ Terms of Service try to set transnational rules on acceptable postings, but on the other hand content that is legal in one jurisdiction can be illegal or sensitive in other territories. No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspaces. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups.

Building upon the intersessional work conducted by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project since the 2012 IGF, the roundtable will address the following topics:

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data? regarding seizures, content takedowns and LEA access to user data? - See more at: http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/igf2013-workshop/#sthash.q6PQ3uMn.dpuf

How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Note: This roundtable is listed above under the “legal frameworks and cybercrime” track. However it equally touches upon other thematic areas: Human Rights/ Freedom of Expression on the Internet (addressing takedown procedures); Internet Governance Principles (eg. fair process and accountability) and Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation (the development of mutual frameworks).

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?

Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached

At the IGF 2012, after a year of interaction with different stakeholders, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized two workshops titled: “What is the Geography of Cyberspace?” and “What frameworks for cross-border online communities and services?” These sessions explored the roots of the tension between the Internet and the patchwork of national jurisdictions and examined how to address this common concern. Both these two workshops and the ongoing dialogue facilitated by the I&JProject in 2013 (including several preparatory meetings around the world) confirmed the need to explore how to develop appropriate frameworks to handle the tension in a multi-stakeholder setting. Therefore, the I&J Project will gather involved stakeholders at the 2013 workshop “Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces” to discuss the way forward: How could appropriate frameworks be developed and what commonly agreed interoperability procedures could ensure fair process?

Background Paper: No background paper provided

Session Type: Roundtable

Mr. Bertrand De La Chapelle, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, France, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Mr. Paul Fehlinger, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, Germany, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?

Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s):

Panelists

Please click on biography to view the biography of the panelist:

Fiona Alexander, Department of Commerce, NTIA, Female, Government, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Anne Carblanc, OECD, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet & Society, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, Female, Civil Society, South Africa, African Group
Biography
Carlos Affonso Pereira Da Souza, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Male, Technical Community, BRAZIL, Latin American and Caribbean Group – GRULAC
Biography
Ross Lajeunesse, Google, Male, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG Biography
Ebele Okobi, Yahoo, Female, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Linda Corugedo Steneberg, European Commission, Belgium, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography

Agenda

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data?
How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Inclusiveness of the Session

The format of the workshop is going to be an open roundtable discussion between a diverse group of stakeholders on the basis of a structured agenda, without formal presentations. Taking stock of the preparatory process with meetings around the world, the participants will be able to discuss the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder dialogue process, explore the components of possible frameworks and how to move forward. The objective is to produce a structured but fluid and dynamic discussion that includes the audience in the debate.

Suitability for Remote Participation

In addition to the remote participation tools provided by the IGF, the session will be covered live on Twitter with a dedicated hashtag and questions can also be submitted through tweets to open the discussion and engage new stakeholders. Moreover, participants of the Internet & Jurisdiction dialogue process around the world will be encouraged to participate remotely in the discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-42-fair-process-frameworks-for-cross-border-online-spaces

Tweets with "IGF13"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:29:42Z

Tweets with "IGF13".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf13