We are anonymous, we are legion

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

pranesh — 2012-12-27T04:31:39Z

The International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the Inter-national Telecommunication Regulations — a binding treaty containing high-level principles — are to be revised.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Deccan Chronicle on December 10, 2012.

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and the World Wide Web has come into existence.

Telecommunications is now, by and large, driven by the private sector and not by state monopolies.

While there are welcome proposals (consumer protection relating to billing of international roaming), there have also been contentious issues that Internet activists have raised: a) process-related problems with the ITU; b) scope of the ITRs, and of ITU’s authority; c) content-related proposals and “evil governments” clamping down on free speech; d) IP traffic routing and distribution of revenues.

Process-related problems: The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven’t held public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet activists who’ve raised alarm bells over WCIT.

w Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish between information services and telecom services, with regulators often not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

ITU’s relationship with Internet governance has been complicated. In 1997, it was happy to take a hands-off approach, cooperating with Internet Society and others, only to seek a larger role in Internet governance soon after. In part this has been because the United States cocked a snook at the ITU and the world community in 1998 through the way it established Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a body to look after the Internet’s domain name system. While the fact that the US has oversight over ICANN needs to change (with de-nationalisation being the best option), Russia wants to supersede ICANN and that too through current revisions of the ITRs. Russia’s proposal is a dreadful idea, and must not just be discarded lightly but thrown away with great force. The ITU should remain but one among multiple equal stakeholders concerned with Internet governance.

One important, but relatively unnoticed, proposed change to ITU’s authority is that of making the standards that ITU’s technical wing churns out mandatory. This is a terrible idea (especially in view of the ITU’s track record at such standards) that only a stuffy bureaucrat without any real-world insight into standards adoption could have dreamt up.

Content-related proposals: Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that worse provisions already exist in the ITU’s constitution. A more real threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even without revisions to the ITRs.

Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not come under ITU’s authority. A further worry is the increasing militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

Division of revenue: Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to prevent socalled “net neutrality” laws that aim to protect consumers and prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don’t seem to be considering these proposals seriously.

Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals? In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development, competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to achieve the policy objectives.

The threat of a “UN takeover” of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. Since the ITU’s secretary-general is insisting on consensus (as is tradition) rather than voting, the possibility of bad proposals (of which there are many) going through is slim. However, that doesn’t mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain. That people around the world are a bit more aware about the linkage between the technical features of the Internet and its potential as a vehicle for free speech, commerce and development, is worth having to hear some shriller voices out there.

The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-pranesh-prakash-december-10-2012-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns

Debate on Section 66A rages on

praskrishna — 2012-12-10T09:44:31Z

Last week, a reputed BPO in Chennai took down its Facebook page and introduced stricter moderation for posts on its bulletin board.

Vasudha Venugopal's article was published in the Hindu on December 10, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The measure, an official said, was aimed at avoiding any "callous remark by any employee." "We have discussions on many raging topics here, and we are just making sure the content is clean with no intended defamation."

The need to present only ‘unobjectionable content’ is just one off-shoot of a controversy that has gripped the country after at least five persons were arrested in recent months for posting their views online. But what started as an outcry by a few voices against the IT Act has now turned into a campaign against the constitutional validity of the Act itself. Last week also saw concerted protests to demand the repeal of Section 66A of the IT Act, under which most of the accused were booked. Human chains and protests were conducted in Chennai, Bangalore, Pune, Hyderabad, Guntur, Kakinada, Vijaywada, Visakhapatnam, Pune, Kozhikode and Kannur, among others.

In the past few months, the debate on the use of Section 66A in particular, and the Act in general, has gathered momentum. The arrests of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for circulating a cartoon lampooning West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee; cartoonist Aseem Trivedi; businessman Ravi Srinivasan for tweets against Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram; and the two girls in Maharashtra for criticising the bandh after Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death have sparked popular anger.

“Public anger and media attention have been so strong that the government has been forced to retreat, which is a good first step,” says Alagunambi Welkin, president of the Free Software Foundation Tamil Nadu, which organised the protests in Chennai. "The next step would be to plug the loopholes in the IT Act. After all, this same government has declared in various international forums that it is all for promoting openness online."

Activists say that along with the increased pressure on the government, collecting information on cases of the misuse of the Act are the tasks that have to be fulfilled immediately. Human rights activist A. Marx, who has filed a public interest litigation petition against Section 66A, says the selective application of the law is very troubling. From a broader perspective though, this is also an issue of global proportions. Recently, a man in the U.K. was jailed for 18 months after he was found guilty of posting abusive messages on an online memorial. In July this year, a young Moroccan was arrested in Casablanca on the charge of posting “insulting caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed on Facebook.”

As recently as Tuesday, a Shenzen resident was arrested for posting a letter online, accusing a senior village official of corruption, and last week, a man in Kent was arrested for posting an image of a burning poppy on a social network site.

However, Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre For Internet And Society, Bangalore, notes that the more problematic parts in India’s laws are ones that result from adaptation. India’s own adaptation of the U.K. law, for instance, considerably increases punishment from six months to three years. However, if it is any consolation, there are voices worldwide being raised on this issue. Till last week, Google’s search page had a message: "Love the free and open Internet? Tell the world’s governments to keep it that way," and a link for comments directed to the Dubai conference, which will see a wide-ranging discussions and key decisions on global internet governance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-sci-tech-internet-december-10-2012-vasudha-venugopal-debate-on-section-66a

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

pranesh — 2012-12-10T05:10:47Z

The threat of a ‘UN takeover’ of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. However, that does not mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Asian Age on December 10, 2012.

The International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the International Telecommunication Regulations — a binding treaty containing high-level principles — are to be revised.

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and the World Wide Web has come into existence. Telecommunications is now, by and large, driven by the private sector and not by state monopolies.

Process-related problems: The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven’t held public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet activists who’ve raised alarm bells over WCIT.

Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish between information services and telecom services, with regulators often not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

Content-related proposals: Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that worse provisions already exist in the ITU’s constitution. A more real threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even without revisions to the ITRs. Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not come under ITU’s authority. A further worry is the increasing militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

Division of revenue: Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to prevent so-called “net neutrality” laws that aim to protect consumers and prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don’t seem to be considering these proposals seriously.

Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals? In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development, competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to achieve the policy objectives.

The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-column-december-10-2012-pranesh-prakash-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns

Annual Conference on Human Rights 2012

praskrishna — 2013-01-07T10:47:00Z

Malavika Jayaram participated in this conference as a panelist in this event organised by Estonia and Google.

Read the original published by Estonian Institute of Human Rights on December 9, 2012.

Monday, December 10, 2012

09:30-10:00 Registration of participants

10:00-11:00 Opening session

Welcoming remarks:	Hanno Pevkur, Minister of Social of Affairs
Presentation of the Report on Human Rights in Estonia:	Mart Nutt, MP, Member of Supervising Board of Estonian Institute of Human Rights Karin Reivart, Research Manager, Turu-uuringute AS
Moderator:	Vootele Hansen, Chairman of Estonian Institute of Human Rights

11:00 – 12:40 Session 1

Human Rights and Security: Protecting victims and providing justice

In the modern world, the vast majority of casualties in armed conflicts are civilians. How should the international community react to human rights violations in conflict zones? Could a conflict exist between the requirements of peace on the one hand and justice, on the other? How can we implement the concept of Responsibility to Protect in practice? How does the promotion of human rights influence the ability of Western nations and institutions to interact with the rest of the world?

Keynote speech:	Stephen J. Rapp, United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in the Office of Global Criminal Justice.
Panelists:	Anthony Dworkin, European Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Policy Fellow Gentian Zyberi, University of Oslo, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Associate Professor Jeffrey D. Levine, United States Ambassador in Estonia
Moderator:	Riina Kionka, Head of Central Asia Division, European External Action Service; former Personal Representative for Human Rights in the area of CFSP for SG/HR

12:40 – 14:00 Lunch

14:00 – 15:40 Session 2

Human Rights and the Internet: Shuting down the Internet, shuting up the world

UN Human Rights Council Resolution L13 (6 July 2012) stresses that human rights must also be guaranteed in cyberspace. There is no doubt that the Internet has become an important resource for acquiring information, disseminating points of view and creating networks. Restricting Internet freedom also poses a direct threat to human rights. The panel will discuss these threats: who wants to restrict the Internet? Why and how are they doing it? How should we respond?

Keynote speech:	Dunja Mijatovic, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
Panelists:	Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia Thomas Zerdick, policy officer, DG Justice, European Commission Malavika Jayaram, Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, India David Mothander, Google Nordic Policy Counsel
Moderator:	Dr Katrin Merike Nyman-Metcalf, Tallinn University of Technology, member of the Council of Estonian Human Rights Centre

15:40 – 16:10 Coffee break

16:10 – 17:50 Session 3

Contemporary Human Rights Challenges in a Changing Global Balance of Power

The panel will focus on the role of human rights policy in the changing international environment. Does the shift in global power away from the West force a system based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law onto the defensive? How do we promote our values while engaging with authoritarian countries? Should human rights policy consider local needs and conditions?

Panelists:	Anna Sevortian, Director of Human Rights Watch´s Russia Office Frank Johansson, Director of Amnesty International´s Finland Office Douglas Davidson, US State Department Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues; former Head of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dr Anja Mihr, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, Associate Professor
Moderator:	Hannes Hanso, Researcher, International Centre for Defence Studies

17:50 – 18:00 Conclusions

Dr Mart Nutt, MP, Member of Supervising Board of EIHR

18:30 – 21:30 Dinner, hosted by the President of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves

The dinner will be the Swissôtel Tallinn (6. floor).

N.B! The organiser reserves the right to make changes in the programme and the presenters

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/estonian-institute-of-human-rights-december-9-2012-annual-conference-on-human-rights-2012

Online Censorship: How Government should Approach Regulation of Speech

sunil — 2012-12-05T07:06:52Z

Why is there a constant brouhaha in India about online censorship? What must be done to address this?

Sunil Abraham's article was published in the Economic Times on December 2, 2012.

Of course, we must get the basics right â€” bad law has to be amended, read down by courts or repealed, and bad implementation of law should be addressed via reform and capacity building for the police. But most importantly those in power must understand how to approach the regulation of speech.

To begin with, speech is regulated across the world. Even in the US â€” contrary to popular impression in India â€” speech is regulated both online and offline.

However, law is not the basis of most of this regulation. Speech is largely regulated by social norms. Different corners of our online and offline society have quite complex forms of self-regulation.

The harm caused by speech is often proportionate to the power of the person speaking â€” it maybe unacceptable for a politician or a filmstar to make an inflammatory remark but that very same utterance from an ordinary citizen may be totally fine.

To complicate matters, the very same speech by the very same person could be harmful or harmless based on context. A newspaper editor may share obscene jokes with friends in a bar, but may not take similar liberties in an editorial.

The legal scholar Alan Dershowitz tells us, "The best answer to bad speech is good speech." More recently the quote has been amended, with "more speech" replacing "good speech".

Censorship by the state has to be reserved for the rarest of rare circumstances. This is because censorship usually results in unintended consequences.

The "Streisand Effect", named after the singer-actor Barbra Streisand, is one of these consequences wherein attempts to hide or censor information only result in wider circulation and greater publicity.

The Maharashtra police's attempt to censor the voices of two women has resulted in their speech being broadcast across the nation on social and mainstream media. If the state had instead focused on producing good speech and more speech, nobody would have even heard of these women.

Circumventing Censorship

Peer-to-peer technologies on the internet mimic the topology of human networks and can also precipitate unintended consequences when subject to regulation. John Gilmore, a respected free software developer, puts it succinctly: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Most of the internet censorship in the US is due to IPR-enforcement activities. This is why Christopher Soghoian, a leading privacy activist, attributes the massive adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies such as proxies and VPNs (virtual private networks) by American consumers to the crackdown on online piracy.

In India, and even when the government has had legitimate reasons to regulate speech, there have been unintended consequences.

During the exodus of people from the North-east, the five SMS per day restriction imposed by the government resulted in another exodus from SMS to alternative messaging platforms such as BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), WhatsApp and Twitter.

In both cases the circumvention of censorship by the users has resulted in a worsening situation for law-enforcement organisations â€” VPNs and applications like WhatsApp are much more difficult to monitor and regulate.

Mixed Memes

Regulation of speech also cannot be confused with cyber war or security. Speech can occasionally have security implications but that cannot be the basis for enlightened regulation.

A cyber war expert may be tempted to think of censored content as weapons, but unlike weapons that usually remain lethal, content that can cause harm today may become completely harmless tomorrow. This is unlike a computer virus or malware. For example, during the exodus, the online edition of ET featured the complete list of 309 URLs that were in the four block orders issued by the government to ISPs.

However, this did not result in fresh harm, demonstrating the fallacy of cyber war analogies. A cyber security expert, on the other hand, may be tempted to implement a 360Â° blanket surveillance to regulate speech, but as Gilmore again puts it, "If you're watching everybody, you're watching nobody."

In short, if your answer to bad speech is more censorship, more surveillance and more regulation, then as the internet meme goes, "You're Doing It Wrong".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship

Technology Culture and Events in South East Asia — A Presentation by Preetam Rai

praskrishna — 2012-12-19T12:25:29Z

Preetam Rai who works with nonprofits, startups and educational institutions will do a small presentation cum discussion at the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore on December 18, 2012, from 5.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

In 2012, Myanmar hosted one of the largest open technology event with over 5000 attendees joining the Barcamp Yangon. Every month, Cambodian youth put together dozens of self-initiated peer learning events and actively use social networks to recruit participants. Thais are creating physical spaces where social entrepreneurs and developers collaborate with each other.

Join us to explore these trends and how they are helping change South East Asia. Learn how the technology enthusiasts are ignoring past national antagonism and traveling across borders to connect with peers.

We will introduce you to events and spaces(coworking spaces, hackerspaces) that you can join in to explore this activity first hand when you are traveling through the region.


Participants from several South East Asian countries at BlogFest 2012 in Cambodia.

Preetam Rai

Preetam Rai helps put up technology and educational events in South East Asia. He works with nonprofits, startups and educational institutions helping them connect better with their audiences. He was the South East Asian Regional Editor at Global Voices Online, a social media aggregation project initiated by the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society. He is on twitter at @preetamrai.

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/technology-culture-and-events-in-south-east-asia

Comments on the Proposed Rule 138A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 Concerning Radio Frequency Identification Tags

bhairav — 2012-12-04T15:32:55Z

The Centre for Internet & Society gave its comments on the proposed Rule 138A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The comments were made in response to Notification GSR 738(E) published in the Gazette of India on October 3, 2012.

I Preliminary

1.1 These initial comments are made with regard to Notification GSR 738(E), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), on 3 October 2012
(“Impugned Notification”).

1.2 The Impugned Notification proposes to insert a new rule 138A in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (“CMV Rules”) to make mandatory the installation of radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tags on all light and heavy motor vehicles to enable their instant identification and monitoring by electronic toll collection booths, the police and any other authority or person that is able to query and read RFID tags.

II Validity of the Impugned Notification

(a) The Scope and Limits of the Executive Power of the Union

2.1 The competence of the Central Government to govern by executive action (such as the Impugned Notification) is restricted to the extent of the executive power of the Union.[1] Following the Ram Jawaya Kapur case,[2] it is settled that the extent of the Union’s executive power is coterminous with the legislative power of Parliament even in the absence of controlling legislation in that field.[3] This is in addition to the Union’s subordinate executive power to give effect to legislation through statutory delegation[4] and its directory executive power to give directions to the States.[5] Thus, there are three kinds of executive power exercisable by the Union:

(a) the regular power, exercisable in the absence of controlling legislation, if the subject of executive action is a matter upon which Parliament is competent to legislate;
(b) the subordinate power, exercisable under the terms of a controlling statute, if that statute specifically delegates such a power to the Union; and
(c) the directory power, exercisable within judicial limits, to secure the compliance of the States with the laws of the Union.

2.2 The regular executive power of the Union cannot be exercised over a matter that is controlled by parliamentary legislation.[6] This principle is akin to, but does not correspond exactly with, the doctrine of occupied field which is primarily concerned with the legislative entries contained in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, it is settled that since the power of the executive to act is subject to the control of the legislature, a statutory regime, where it exists, cannot be circumvented by the free exercise of executive power.[7] In the case of the Impugned Notification, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 constitutes a statutory regime that occupies the field to preclude regular executive action by the Central Government with regard to RFID tags in motor vehicles. The Impugned Notification should next be examined only in light of the scope and limits of the Union’s subordinate executive power since, as the Impugned Notification is not a direction to the States, the Union’s directory executive power is not in issue.

(b) Extent of the Central Government’s Rule-Making Power

2.3 The subordinate executive power of the Union emanates from section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) that confers the Central Government with the power to make rules to implement the statute. At this point it is important to note that the legislative competence of the MV Act is traceable to Entry 35 of List III, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Entry 35 concerns:

Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.

Entry 35 being a concurrent subject, it is open to both the Union and the States to act to regulate motor vehicles.[8] Accordingly, the MV Act also vests the States with subordinate executive power through sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138 and 176 which confer State Governments with the power to make rules to implement the statute in, and amend its application to, their particular states. As for the Union, so for the States is the regular executive power precluded by the existence of a statutory regime.[9]

2.4 Section 110 of the MV Act states:

110. Power of the Central Government to make rules. – (1) The Central Government may make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the width, height, length and overhand of vehicles and of the loads carried;
(b) the size, nature, maximum retail price and condition of tyres, including embossing thereon of date and year of manufacture, and the maximum load carrying capacity;
(c) brakes and steering gear;
(d) the use of safety glasses including prohibition of the use of tinted safety glasses;
(e) signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors;
(f) speed governors;
(g) the emission of smoke, visible vapour, sparks, ashes, grit or oil;
(h) the reduction of noise emitted by or caused by vehicles;
(i) the embossment of chassis number and engine number and the date of manufacture;
(j) safety belts, handle bars of motor cycles, auto-dippers and other equipments essential for safety of drivers, passengers and other road-user;
(k) standards of the components used in the vehicle as inbuilt safety devices;
(l) provision for transportation of goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life;
(m) standards for emission of air pollutants;
(n) installation of catalytic convertors in the class of vehicles to be prescribed;
(o) the placement of audio-visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices in public vehicles;
(p) warranty after sale of vehicle and norms therefor:

Provided that any rules relating to the matters dealing with the protection of environment, so far as may be, shall be made after consultation with the Ministry of the Government of India dealing with environment.

(2) Rules may be made under sub-section (1) governing the matters mentioned therein, including the manner of ensuring the compliance with such matters and the maintenance of motor vehicles in respect of such matters, either generally in respect of motor vehicles or trailers or in respect of motor vehicles or trailers of a particular class or in particular circumstances.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,-

(a) the Central Government may exempt any class of motor vehicles from the provisions of this Chapter;
(b) a State Government may exempt any motor vehicle or any class or description of motor vehicles from the rules made under sub-section (1) subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

2.5 The subordinate executive power of the Union, i.e. the rule-making power, is restricted to the exact extent of the delegation.[10] This is a well settled and undisputed principle of administrative law. Therefore, the Central Government cannot, in exercise of the rule-making power granted under section 110 of the MV Act, frame rules for matters for which it has not been specifically empowered under that section. Section 110 of the MV Act does not grant the Central Government the power to make rules for mandating RFID tags on vehicles. Clauses (a) to (p) of section 110(1) descriptively list the matters relating to the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles that the Central Government is competent to regulate by exercising its executive power. This list is exactingly drafted; the absence of general words or a miscellaneous empowerment obviates the need for examining any particular word or words in clauses (a) to (p) in light of the principle of ejusdem generis.

2.6 In the absence of a specific empowerment, or even a general empowerment that may be positively construed ejusdem generis, only two clauses of section 110(1) require further examination. These are:

(e) signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors; and,
(o) the placement of audio-visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices in public vehicles;

Clause (e), which deals with signalling appliances, cannot be read to include RFID tags since, in accordance with the principle of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of the words “signalling appliances” is derived from its association with the words “lamps and reflectors.”[11] Therefore, RFID tags, which are totally unrelated to lamps, reflectors and related signalling appliances, are not the subject of clause (e). On the other hand, while clause (o) contains an executive empowerment in respect of radio devices, the empowerment only concerns “public vehicles”; and, hence, the installation of RFID tags in non-public vehicles including light vehicles, such as cars, and heavy vehicles, such trucks and lorries, cannot be carried out under this clause. In any event, the word “radio” must be interpreted noscitur a sociis in light of its association with the words “audio-visual” and “tape recorder” to yield an executive empowerment in respect of in-vehicle entertainment devices only.

2.7 Therefore, in the absence of an empowerment under section 110 of the MV Act in respect of RFID tags, the Impugned Notification of the Central Government is ultra vires the MV Act. Rules that are ultra vires the parent statute for exceeding the limits of subordinate executive power are void.[12] The Impugned Notification is both ultra vires its parent statute and void. In this regard, it is instructive to note that it is settled that void rules neither acquire validity by a subsequent conferment of statutory power nor by their publication in the Official Gazette.[13]

III Constitutional Implications regarding Privacy

3.1 Across the world, RFID technology has been challenged on the basis of its intrusion into personal privacy. RFID tags operate on a pre-determined radio frequency; and, unless the tags are programmed to rapidly, constantly and randomly switch frequencies or are able to jam unauthorised queries – an extremely expensive proposition, RFID signals can be easily intercepted. The interception a vehicle’s RFID signals, whether by public authorities or by private persons, can yield detailed locational information of the driver of the vehicle. This is an unwarranted intrusion into the locational privacy of individuals.

3.2 Locational privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to privacy. An intrusion into this right, such as in the form of mandatory RFID tags on vehicles, will reveal information as to inter alia a person’s whereabouts and daily routine as well as addresses of friends’ houses, visits to the hospital, visits to a place of worship, restaurant preferences, addresses of children’s schools and so on. This will affect ordinary citizens, politicians and civil servants equally. All this information will be at the hands of the police. To place the power of tracking and monitoring ordinary individuals with the police, when such technology is not even available with intelligence agencies, would be an act of recklessness. This is compounded by the total lack of safeguards accompanying the attempted imposition of RFID technology.

3.3 Following the Kharak Singh[14] and Gobind[15] cases, the locational privacy of individuals, specifically in relation to their privacy from the police, is constitutionally protected.[16] It is now accepted that privacy is an essential ingredient of personal liberty forming a part of the right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further settled that the personal liberty of an individual cannot be taken away except by a law that establishes a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable that withstands the tests of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution.[17]The Impugned Notification, while constituting a “law” under Article 13 of the Constitution, does not create a fair, just and reasonable procedure to deprive individuals of their personal liberty and therefore fails the tests imposed by Maneka Gandhi. Therefore, the Impugned Notification, even if it were not void for want of competence, would be ultra vires the Constitution for violating Article 21.[18]

IV Summary

4.1 In sum:

(a) Section 110 of the MV Act does not bestow on the Central Government a specific empowerment to make rules in respect of RFID tags;
(b) The Impugned Notification exceeds the delegated limits of the Central Government’s subordinate executive power;
(c) The Impugned Notification is ultra vires the MV Act, its parent statute;
(d) Rules that are ultra vires the parent statute for exceeding the limits of subordinate executive power are void;
(e) The Impugned Notification is void;
(f)   The imposition of mandatory RFID tags on vehicles will yield locational information to seriously invade the right to privacy;
(g) The right to privacy is an essential ingredient of personal liberty and is constitutionally protected;
(h) The Impugned Notification violates the right to privacy without creating a fair, just and reasonable procedure to deprive persons of their personal liberty;
(i)   The Impugned Notification is ultra vires the Constitution for violating Article 21;
(j)   Any rule that mandates RFID tags on vehicles to violate the right to privacy is void ab initio.

[1]. Article 73 of the Constitution of India.
[2]. Ram Jawaya Kapur AIR 1955 SC 549.
[3]. Ibid at prs. 12-14.
[4]. See generally, In re Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332, Harishankar Bagla AIR 1954 SC 465, Rajnarain Singh AIR 1954 SC 569 and Edward Mills AIR 1955 SC 25.
[5]. See Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution and State of Rajasthan (1977) 3 SCC 592.
[6]. Bishamber Dayal (1982) 1 SCC 39 at pr. 20.
[7]. Bharat Coking Coal (1990) 4 SCC 557 at prs. 15-17.
[8].Article 253 of the Constitution.
[9]. Article 162 of the Constitution.
[10]. See In re Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332, State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 640, Shri Sitaram Sugar (1990) 3 SCC 223 [all Constitution Benches], Ramakrishnan Kulwant Rai 1989 Supp (1) SCC 541, K. M. Charia Abdullah (1965) 1 SCR 601, Charanjit Gill (2000) 5 SCC 742, ADM (Rev.) Delhi Administration (2000) 5 SCC 451 and State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 402.
[11]. For foundational Indian case law on the principle of noscitur a sociis, see generally, M. K. Ranganathan AIR 1955 SC 604, Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 110 and Corporation of the City of Nagpur AIR 1960 SC 675.
[12]. See Supreme Court Welfare Association (1989) 4 SCC 187 and State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 402.
[35]. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (1988) 2 SCC 351 at prs. 12-14.
[14]. Kharak Singh AIR 1963 SC 1295. The majority, speaking through Ayyangar, J., found that ‘domiciliary visits’ conducted by the police in exercise of powers granted under police regulations violated Article 21 of the Constitution; and, the minority speaking through Subba Rao, J., found that both secret police picketing (as to the location of individuals) and domiciliary visits violated both Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
[15]. Gobind (1975) 2 SCC 148.
[16]. For a jurisprudential development of the right to privacy in India, see generally Kharak Singh AIR 1963 SC 1295, R. M. Malkani (1973) 1 SCC 471, Gobind (1975) 2 SCC 148, R. Rajagopal (1994) 6 SCC 632, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (1997) 1 SCC 301, Mr ‘X’ (1998) 8 SCC 296, Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496, Bharat Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5, Naz Foundation (2009) 160 DLT 277, Selvi (2010) 7 SCC 263 and Ram Jethmalani (2011) 8 SCC 1.
[17]. Maneka Gandhi (1978) 1 SCC 248 at prs. 4-14 (per Bhagwati, Untwalia and Fazal Ali, JJ.), 48-49 (per Chandrachud, J.), 62-78 and 79-91 (per Krishna Iyer, J.) and 192-199, 201, 203 and 211-215 (per Beg, CJI.)
[18]. In this regard, see also Supreme Court Welfare Association (1989) 4 SCC 187 and N. Bakshi 1962 Supp (1) SCR 505 for the proposition that rules violating the Constitution are void ab initio.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-motor-vehicle-rules

Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000: Cases

snehashish — 2012-12-06T09:20:51Z

In this blog post Snehashish Ghosh summarizes the facts of a few cases where Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000, has been mentioned or discussed.

There has been numerous instances application of the Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ITA”) in the lower courts. Currently, there are six High Court decisions, in which the section has been mentioned or discussed. In this blog post, I will be summarizing facts of a few cases insofar as they can be gathered from the orders of the Court and are pertinent to the application of 66-A, ITA.

Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on June 5, 2012)

Petition before High Court for release of passport seized by investigating agency during arrest

In the case of Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Decided on June 5, 2012), a petition was filed before the Kerala High Court for release of passport seized at the time of arrest from the custody of the investigating agency. The Court accordingly passed an order for release of the passport of the petitioner.

The Court, while deciding the case, briefly mentioned the facts of the case which were relevant to the petition. It stated that the “gist of the accusation is that the accused pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them made attempts to extort money by black mailing a Minister of the State and for that purpose they have forged some CD as if it contained statements purported to have been made by the Minister.” The Court also noted the provisions under which the accused was charged. They are Sections 66-A(b) and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with a host of sections under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (120B – Criminal Conspiracy, 419 – Cheating by personation, 511- Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 468 – Forgery for purpose of cheating, 469 – Forgery for purpose of harming and 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Nikhil Chacko Sam v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on July 9, 2012)

Order of the Kerala High Court on issuing of the summons to the petitioner

In another case, the Kerala High Court while passing an order with respect to summons issued to the accused, also mentioned the charge sheet laid by the police against the accused in its order. The accused was charged under section 66-A, ITA. The brief facts which can be extracted from the order of the Court read: “that the complainant and the accused (petitioner) were together at Chennai. It is stated that on 04.09.2009, the petitioner has transmitted photos of the de facto complainant and another person depicting them in bad light through internet and thus the petitioner has committed the offence as mentioned above.”

J.R. Gangwani and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Decided on October 15, 2012)

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an application for quashing of criminal proceeding draws attention to a complaint which was filed under Section 66-A(c). This complaint was filed under Section 66-A(c) on the ground of sending e-mails under assumed e-mail addresses to customers of the Company which contained material which maligned the name of the Company which was to be sold as per the orders of the Company Law Board. The Complainant in the case received the e-mails which were redirected from the customers. According to the accused and the petitioner in the current hearing, the e-mail was not directed to the complainant or the company as is required under Section 66-A (c).

The High Court held that, “the petitioners are sending these messages to the purchasers of cranes from the company and those purchasers cannot be considered to be the possible buyers of the company. Sending of such e-mails, therefore, is not promoting the sale of the company which is the purpose of the advertisement given in the Economic Times. Such advertisements are, therefore, for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience to the company or to deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of such messages. These facts, therefore, clearly bring the acts of the petitioners within the purview of section 66A(c) of the Act.”

Mohammad Amjad v. Sharad Sagar Singh and Ors. (Criminal Revision no. 72/2011 filed before the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khana Additional Sessions Judge – 04 South East: Saket Courts Delhi)

Revision petition against the order of the metropolitan magistrate

In a revision petition came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the metropolitan magistrate has dismissed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without discussing the ingredients of section 295-A, IPC and 66-A, IT Act.

In this case, the judge observed that, “...section 66A of Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not refer at all to any 'group' or 'class' of people. The only requirement of Section 66A IT Act is that the message which is communicated is grossly offensive in nature or has menacing character.” He also observed that the previous order “not at all considered the allegations from this angle and the applicability of Section 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 to the factual matrix of the instant case.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/section-66-a-information-technology-act-2000-cases

Transcripts from WCIT-12

snehashish — 2012-12-03T14:00:21Z

We are archiving copies of the live-transcripts from the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 (WCIT-12) which is being held in Dubai from 3–14 December, 2012.

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions/sessions at the WCIT,2012 which is live-streamed and made available by the ITU. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:

Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Opening Ceremony (December 3, 2012)

Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Plenary 1 (December 3, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transcripts-of-wcit-2012

Seminar/Artist Talks : "Outresourcing" with the Transmediale Collective

praskrishna — 2012-12-12T07:06:20Z

Sharath Chandra Ram is presenting a White Paper at this event initiated by the Berlin - Transmediale new media collective in Bangalore on December 3, 2012.

OutResourcing is a collaboration project in 2011-2013 of transmediale, festival for art and digital culture, Berlin in cooperation with CEMA, Center for Experimental Media Arts at Sristhi School of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore. It is supported by Goethe Institute and the framework of Germany and India 2011-2012: Infinite Opportunities.

OutResourcing explores the pervasive phenomenon of outsourcing from a critical constructive point of view. Outsourcing is often either simply embraced as an economical necessity of labor costs in a global economy or criticised as such on the basis of the uneven distribution of wealth, power and/or labor that it entails.

General Welcome and Introductions

2.00 p.m.	First session “outResourcing Phase 1: Rebugging and Insulating” Moderator: Kristoffer Gansing, artistic director, Transmediale
2.15 p.m.	Kristoffer Gansing – 15 minutes introduction to outResourcing
2.30 p.m.	Prayas Abhinav (Artist talk), MAS*ING: INSULATION, ARTIST TALK
3.00 p.m.	Linda Hilfling (Artist talk), THE REBUGGING MANUALS
3.30 p.m.	Sharath Chandra Ram (Artist talk), CLOSED CAPTION
4.00 - 4.30 p.m.	Common discussion 30 minutes

Break 30 minutes

5.00 p.m.	Second Session “outResourcing Phase 2: “Manufacturing and Copying” Moderator: Abhiyan Humane
5.10 p.m.	Galerie C&V "ESSAY ON PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES"
5.40 p.m.	Presentation of exhibition by Srishti School of Art, Design & Technology in collaboration with Galerie C&V Title - THE CONVENIENT TRUTH
6.15 p.m.	Common discussion 25 minutes

Break 20 minutes

7.00 - 8.00 p.m.

Introduction: Kristoffer Gansing
Keynote lecture: Dieter Daniels: RE-SOURCING THE READY-MADE

For more information about the event, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/seminar-artist-talks-outresourcing-with-the-transmediale-collective

Second International e-Governance Conference

praskrishna — 2012-12-11T10:50:29Z

The second international conference on governance and electronics which is held under the motto "Together Toward Digital Inclusion" is organized by the National Committee for Corporate Governance Electronic Iraq and the United Nations Development Programme at Rashid Hotel in Baghdad from December 2-3, 2012. The event aims to review the achievements of the program e-governance Iraqi national, and discuss the challenges of applying e-governance as a tool to achieve public sector reform and digital inclusion.

Sunil Abraham is a speaker at this event and is presenting on "Review of the Legal Environment in Iraq for Effective e-Governance", and "Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq".

Conference Agenda

Sunday, December 2, 2012

09:00 – 10:00	Conference Registration
10:00 – 11:00	Opening Ceremony H.E. Nuri Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq Ms. Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator H.E. Dr. Abdul Kareem Al-Samaraii, Minister of Science and Technology
11:00 – 11:30	Break
11:30 – 12:30	Plenary session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Thamir Al Ghadban, Head of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Commission (PMAC) Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, UNDP Expert Q & A
12:30 – 13:30	Plenary session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning Dr. Laurence Millar, UNDP Expert Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning Q & A
13:30 – 13:40	Plenary Session 3: Challenges of e-Governance Implementation Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology
13:40 – 14:00	Break
14:00 – 15:30	Workshop 1: Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance Chairman: Mr. Jaber Zwayed Atiyah, Director General – National Security Commission Dr. Rohan Samarajiva Lirne, UNDP Expert Dr. Shahani Markus Weerawarana, UNDP Expert Ms. Raghad Abdulrasoul National Centre for Consultation and Management Development/Ministry of Planning Q&A
13:30 – 14:30	Lunch @ AL-Rashid

Monday, December 3, 2012

09:00 – 09:15	Closure of the Plenary Session 3 Presentation of workshop results
09:15 – 10:45	Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in Framework of e-Governance Program Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning Mr. Manu Srivastava, UNDP Expert Dr. Adil Abdullah Shuhaieb, member of e-Governance Committee in Missan Governorate Mr. Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate Eng Haider Shaker Yaji , Muthana Governorate Q&A
10:45 – 11:00	Break
11:00 – 12:00	Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC) Mr. Sunil Abraham, UNDP Expert Mr. Ammar Salih and Dr. Firas Hamadani/ Minister of Foreign Affairs Q&A
12:00 – 13:00	Plenary Session 6: Building e-Services Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh Mr. Emilio Bugli Innocenti, UNDP Expert Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Ahmed Saad, Director General – Ministry of Municipality and Public Work Q&A
13:00 – 14:30	Conference Closing Session Chairman: Dr. Samir Attar, Deputy Minister – Ministry of Science and Technology Looking forward Adopt conference recommendation UNDP Closing Speech Government of Iraq Speech
14:30 – 15:30	Lunch @ AL-Rashid

Papers/Speakers Bio Summary

Plenary Session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform

Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology

e-Governance and public sector reform/ Subhash Bhatnagar The paper shares experiences from different countries of implementing e-Governance projects that have significantly contributed to governance reform by enhancing transparency and reducing corruption in delivery of public services. Some lessons are drawn for Iraq. E-Governance should be used as a means of implementing public sector reform agenda. The implementation of projects should be accelerated. *Subhash Bhatnagar* is an alumnus of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). Currently he is an honorary adjunct professor at the IIMA. He was a Chair Professor, member of Board of Governors and the Dean of IIMA in his 30 year tenure at IIMA. He has been a visiting Professor in universities in the US and Africa. He worked with the World Bank in Washington DC for six years serving as an advisor to to mainstream e-Governance in the operations of the Bank. He has been a lead speaker in training workshops for ministers and legislators for 16 states in India. His research and consulting work has covered E-Governance, ICT for development, National IT Policy, and Corporate IT Strategy. He has hundred research papers and seven books to his credit which include two books on eGovernance. He is on the editorial boards of seven international journals and has served as Chairman of International Committees in the ICT field. He serves on a number of central and state Government committees in Inda including the steering committee for ICT sector for formulating India’s 12^th Five Year Plan. He was made a Fellow of the Computer Society of India in 1994. He has served on the boards of a number of educational institutions and private enterprises in India. He has travelled to nearly 60 countries, delivering public lectures and conference key notes

Plenary Session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society

Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning

Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society/ Laurence Millar This paper describes the importance of digital inclusion to achieve the e-governance Vision for Iraq. The paper reports on international experience in digital inclusion and e-governance, using examples from New Zealand, United Kingdom, Bahrain and Taiwan. These experiences illustrate how to develop a plan for increasing digital inclusion in Iraq which is aligned to the wider priorities for social and economic outcomes. Laurence Millar is an independent advisor in the use of ICT by governments, and Editor at Large for FutureGov magazine. He is the lead advisor for the e-government strategy and second action plan for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and has also worked with other GCC countries on their e-government strategies. He provides expert advice to the government on the adoption of digital technology and broadband in schools; he is also Chair of 2020 Communications Trust, which is the leading provider of digital literacy programmes in New Zealand. During his career of more than 35 years, he has worked in the public and private sector, in the UK, USA, Asia and New Zealand. From 2004, he led the New Zealand e-government programme providing leadership in strategy and policy, establishing a foundation of shared infrastructure, and maintaining oversight of government ICT investment; he finished in the role of NZ Government CIO on 1 May 2009. He is married with four adult children and lives in Wellington, New Zealand; he has a MA from Cambridge University and an MSc with distinction from London University.
The role of ICTs in promoting public participation/ Dr. Kathim Ibrisim Participation is a basic feature of good governance, which suggests providing a democratic environment in the community that allows the integration of citizens, institutions of civil society, stakeholders and the poor and marginalized groups into policy-making and follow-up implementation. As much a democratic atmosphere allows for participation good governance can achieve the hopes of community regardless of its different components. This paper provides an assessment of the reality of public participation in Iraq which is based on a survey of public participation in four sectors concerned with providing services (Health/Education/Higher Education/Water and Sanitation). It was carried out by the National Centre and the support of the ESCWA in 2011 - in the light of identification the main challenges facing the participation. It will focus on how to use ICT in promoting public participation in setting priorities and policy-making and follow-up implementation.
Dr. Kathim Mohammed Breisem Okabi, Director General of the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology since 2008, holds Ph.D. in object-oriented software engineering, M.A. in empirical computer science – 1989, Higher Diploma in systems analysis – 1982, and B.A. of Statistics – 1980. Dr. Kazem served as a professor at the universities of Jordan (Al al-Bayt University/Philadelphia University) for the period 1996-2008, a professor at the Al-Tahadi University/Libya for the period 1983 – 1992, and a statistician for the period 1980 -1983.

Plenary Session 3: Workshop 1 (Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance)

Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology

ICT Infrastructure for e-Government and e-Governance in Iraq / Rohan Samarajiva Lirne Governments provisioning e government services have to address two specific policy principles with regard to infrastructure: ensure universal access to their services and assure a higher level of reliability than with comparable private services. Unlike a decade or so ago, governments today do not have to rely solely on common-access centers (telecenters) to provide universal access. In most countries, mobile signals cover almost the entirety of the population; most households have at least one electronic access device; the few that do not, can gain such access. Today’s smartphones have capabilities little different from the early telecenters, except for functionalities such as printing, scanning, etc. and the support of intermediaries. Therefore, delivering voice-based e government services in the short term and mobile-optimized web-based services in the medium term, with common-access centers performing specialized backup functions, is a viable strategy. Conventional web interfaces that adhere to common standards must be maintained but articulated with mobile applications and voice-based services provided through a government call center. In light of difficulties in supplying continuous electricity and security at the present time, special attention has to be paid to reliability. Reliability can be achieved, beginning with a proper understanding of requirements such as the importance of ensuring redundancy of suppliers, paths and media. Samarajiva is founder Chair and CEO of LIRNEasia, a regional think tank focusing on ICT policy and regulation in the emerging Asia Pacific. He most recently completed a diagnostic report on the potential of the ICT Sector for inclusive growth in Bhutan for the Asian Development Bank. He is a member of the team supporting the World Bank to establish the Pacific ICT Regulatory Resource Center, based at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. He served as policy advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh in 2006-07 and 2009. In 2002-2004, Samarajiva served as Team Leader of the Public Interest Program Unit of the Ministry for Economic Reform, Science & Technology of Sri Lanka. He was one of the designers of the USD 53 million plus e Sri Lanka Initiative (that had a major e gov focus) that led the way to rapid growth of fixed and mobile broadband in Sri Lanka. He was one of the founder directors of the ICT Agency. Samarajiva has been active in ICT (including telecom) policy and regulation for over 20 years. From 1998-1999, he served as Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka at the invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka. He taught at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000) and at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-2003).
The role of private sector software development services companies in e-Government solution implementation/ Shahani Markus Weerawarana Iraq is a country in transformation and has embarked on a compelling vision for e-Government based on a National e-Governance Strategy and Action Plan. Since the private sector plays an important and pivotal role in any national e-Government program, it is important to develop a comprehensive roadmap towards establishing a true public-private sector partnership in Iraq. As a prerequisite for such an endeavor, we review the current status of the e-Government program implementation in Iraq, the critical challenges that need to be addressed in achieving a robust public-private sector partnership in Iraq and the best practices prevalent globally and regionally with respect to addressing such issues along with the resultant policy and program implications. Based on this critical analysis, we formulate many recommendations that could be included in a public-private sector partnership development roadmap that would create momentum in establishing a competitive and vibrant private-sector role in a knowledge-based economic environment geared towards enabling the vision of e-Iraq. Shahani Markus Weerawarana has global experience in the IT industry, government and academia, in a professional career has spanned many different roles, including being an educator, engineer, entrepreneur, manager and researcher. Currently, she is a Visiting Scientist at Indiana University, USA and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Previously, she was the CTO at the ICT Agency (ICTA) of Sri Lanka, which is the country's apex IT policy & planning agency for implementing the e-Sri Lanka program. At ICTA, she played a key role in providing technical guidance for many eGovernment projects, including spearheading the design and implementation of LankaGate, a 'FutureGov' Award winning project. Prior to joining ICTA, Shahani was the Head of Engineering at Virtusa (Sri Lanka), where she directly and indirectly led more than 600 IT professionals. Before joining Virtusa Shahani worked in the USA, at Prescient Markets Inc and at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center in New York. Her professional activities have included being a member in the Sri Lankan Presidential Task Force in English and IT, an adviser to the Royal Government of Bhutan in their Interoperability Framework and Enterprise Architecture initiative, and a member of the Open eGovernance Forum Advisory Board in the Pan Asia Network for Democratic eGovernance. She is a free & open source software advocate and is a Committer and PMC member in the Apache Software Foundation. Shahani has more than 50 academic publications and her academic activities include the formulation of Asia's first MBA in eGovernance program for the University of Moratuwa, and the supervision of more than 30 MBA and MSc research projects. Her research interests include e-governance, software engineering, parallel & distributed systems, e-science, and TLA practices in higher education. Shahani has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Purdue University, USA.
Assess the reality of the public-private partnership (PPP) and its role in promoting ICT for development/ Raghad Abdulrasoul This paper, a field survey in four service sectors (health, education, higher education, water and sanitation), aims at identifying the reality and types of PPPs and how could such partnerships contribute in the provision of or complement services within the target sectors in addition to understand and recognize the quality of the services provided by the private sector than in the public sector with a focus on the role of PPP in the promotion of ICT to support national development efforts and improve the quality of public services. Raghad Abdulrasoul, an expert at the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology, Higher Diploma in Development Planning/specialty in feasibility studies and B.A. of Statistics. She has functional experience and participated in implementing projects with international organizations (UNICEF/UNDP/ESCWA) in different subjects dealing with the reform and modernization of the Iraqi public sector. She performed many advisory tasks for various institutions in the state in subjects (performance evaluation, organizational structures, job descriptions , mainstreaming of procedures). She provided a variety of lectures at the National Centre and state institutions in the areas of administration, planning and feasibility studies.

Workshop 2 Challenges for creating an enabling legal environment
Chairman: Mrs Afaf Khairallah Hussein, Prime Minister Office

Review of the legal environment in Iraq for effective e-Governance/ Sunil Abraham This paper examines the legal environment and compares it to international best practices for information society aspects that have direct implication for e-governance. It begins with transparency and openness law where there is an examination of right to information/access to information law and subsidiary policies such as free/open source software policy, open content or access policy, open standards policy, electronic accessibility policy, open government data policy. Then it examines privacy law looking at various options for the horizontal statute and also the vertical statutes necessary to comprehensive protect citizen/consumer rights and also public interest simultaneously. This is followed by an examination of intellectual property rights law overall before a more focussed examination patent law and copyright law. The paper ends with examination of some miscellaneous statutes such as the Cyber Crime Law and Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Act. Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities. He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, 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. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada. Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.
Implementation of the e-system in the Iraqi elections/Dr. Tariq Kazim Ajil, University of Thi Qar

Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in framework of e-Governance Program

Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning

Municipal e-Governance Platform / Manu Srivastava The paper discusses the Municipal eGovernance Platform developed by eGovernments Foundation (eGov). The paper sees this in the back ground of the policies and frameworks that the shaped the Municipal eGovernance sector in India. The paper discusses the basic design approach for developing the platform, the platform itself and then discusses the future direction for the platform. *Manu Srivastava* Bio: Manu Srivastava managed and a founding member of the eGovernments Foundation since 2003, that aims at creating an eGovernance Platform (Municipal ERP) to improve the efficiencies of City Municipalities leading to better delivery of services. Between 2000 and 2003, Manu was the project leader of GlobeTrades (Silicon Valley), for creation an Internet platform for medium and large companies to set up industry specific Internet-based solutions to streamline global Procurement and Distribution. He Architected and delivered award winning Citizen Services Solutions in area of eGovernance such as Nirmala Nagara.
Ninawa e-Governance Roadmap/ Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate

Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information

Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC)

Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq/ Sunil Abraham This paper attempts to identify some next steps for the implementation of the Iraqi Government Interoperability Framework and National Enterprise Architecture[GIF/NEA]. The paper begins with an introduction which provides an historical overview of the GIF/NEA formulation process an the policy document itself. This is followed by a discussion of Open Standards to understand why the GIF/NEA and other open standards policies in the Iraqi government remain critical from a variety of perspectives. The paper then proceeds to look at GIFs across the world and attempts to characterize some of the strategies employed by governments to reach their policy objectives. The paper also features a examination of emerging semantic standards that are most useful from the perspective of storing government data. The paper ends with certain concrete recommendations for taking the open standards agenda forward with Iraqi e-governance. Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities. He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, 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. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada. Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.

Plenary Session 6: Building e-services

Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh

Breaking information silos: towards an Iraqi e-Service ecosystem supporting the life-event approach/ Emilio Bugli Innocenti This paper analyses the current status of the e-Service implementation within the e-Governance programmes in developing countries with a specific focus on the Life Event approach delivery of-e-Services along with the related Service Oriented Architecture. Then, it discusses the most suited SOA engineering methodology in order to boost e-Service re-use and integration. Finally, a combined SOA and Cloud Computing approach is proposed in order to provide an effective/efficient implementation of Iraqi e-Governance Action Plan along with a possible fast take-up of e-Services. Emilio Bugli Innocenti has 27 year experience in the ICT domain and over 20 in the e-Governance domain. As Senior e-Governance Consultant he has been working with assignments in transition and developing countries in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, South America and South East Asia. He has been Project Manager of large International ICT projects targeting different sectors and e-Governance, in particular dealing with the implementation of e-Services. He is member of the Italian Industry Executive Association, IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery. He holds a MSc in Physics and speaks English, Italian and French.
E-governance and cloud computing services This lecture addresses the historical perspective of cloud computing from a virtual concept to provide computing as a public facility launched in the mid-sixties of the last century as well as the phases of computing services offered by individual computers and then the network to the services provided on line. It also addresses the benefits and types of cloud computing comparing between the benefits and weaknesses of each type. Furthermore, it particularly tackles the economic benefits of balancing security with information, through the architecture and various levels of cloud computing and its impacts on architectures that must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the ten risks will be put in cloud computing in particular. Adil Matloob is one of the advisors to the Ministry of Science & Technology Baghdad, Iraq. He works in the field of knowledge based systems and artificial intelligence for the last 30 plus years. He was the managing director of the SoftDev limited; a British based company, and a technical director for the Washington based multinational company; the United Press International. He is one of the pioneers’ researchers on machine translation software in the beginning of the nineties with the product known as ArabTrans software. He works on Arabic data mining as well as Arabic abstraction and Arabic knowledge based system. Adil has M.Sc and PhD from Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom in 1977 & 1980 respectively.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/second-international-e-governance-conference-at-baghdad

So Much to Lose

nishant — 2012-12-07T16:39:09Z

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray.

Nishant Shah's column was published in the Indian Express on December 2, 2012.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray. For me, the brouhaha was elbowed out by the case of the police arresting two women for critiquing the events on Facebook. The person who wondered about the nature of the enforced mourning and the state of our public life, and her friend who “liked” the comment on Facebook, were booked and arrested under charges that can only be considered preposterous.

I will not repeat these arguments because it is needless to say that I am on the side of the women and think of this as yet another manifestation of the stringent measures which are being evolved as an older broadcast way of thinking meets the decentralised realities of digital technologies.

In the midst of this the idea of internet freedom needs to be revisited. The global Press Freedom Index 2011-12 report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, ranks India at 131, or as a “partly free” country, marking us as a country where the notion of internet freedom is not to be taken for granted, and possibly also one where the concept is not properly understood.

Citing various instances from the central government’s plans to censor the social web to the authoritarian crackdown on activists and cultural producers involved in online civic protests, from the traditional media industry’s stronghold over intellectual property regimes to the arrest of individuals for voicing their independent critiques online, the report shows that we not only have an infrastructure deficit (with only 10 per cent of the people in the country connected), but also a huge social and political deficit, which is being exposed by our actions and reactions to the Web.

Take the case of professor Ambikesh Mahapatra dean of the chemistry department of Jadavpur University, who was picked up by the police and lodged in the lock up for almost 40 hours for forwarding an e-mail that contained a cartoon of Trinamool Congress leaders Mamata Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi. He and his housing society co-resident Subrata Sengupta were charged with defamation and outraging the modesty of a woman. While the proceedings are underway with the next date of hearing slated in February, 2013, the Jadavpur university professor says, “Section, 66A of the IT Act is being used for suppression of the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is being misused by the state government, repeatedly. The section does not empower anyone to arrest those who voice their opinion and never meant to harm anybody’s image. Prompt action is needed to check the misuse of law.”

Likewise, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old a businessman from Pondicherry, was arrested for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. His arrest and consequent release has not blunted his spirit. He says, “At the time (of the arrest) I had not heard of Section 66(A). I still cannot fathom why and how a tweet sent out to just 12 people — half of them family and friends — caught the eye of the police. By evening, when I had come home from the police station, my Twitter following had gone up to 1,700. About 15,000 people re-tweeted the statement that got me arrested.”

Given the series of incidents that have marked the last year and the whimsical nature of regulatory injunctions on internet freedom in the country, it might be a good idea for us to reflect on democracy and freedom.

We need to examine the fundamental nature of freedom, and how these attempts at regulating the internet are only a symptom of the systemic failures of enshrining freedom of speech, information, identity and dignity in India. However, internet freedom is often a difficult concept to engage with, because it is one of those phrases that seem to be self-explanatory but without a straightforward explanation. There are three axes which might be useful to unpack the baggage that comes with internet freedom, both for our everyday practices, and our imagined future:

Freedom of: The freedom of the internet is something that is new and needs more attention. We have to stop thinking of the internet as merely a medium or a conduit of information. As the Web becomes inextricably linked with our everyday lives, the internet is no longer just an appendage or an externality. It becomes a reference point through which our social, political and economic practices are shaped. It becomes a defining point through which we draw our meanings of what it is to be a part of the society, to have rights, to be politically aware, to be culturally engaged — to be a human. The freedom of the Net is important because the crackdowns on the Net are an attack on our rights and freedoms. The silencing of a voice on Facebook, might soon gag the voices of people on the streets, creating conditions of silence in the face of violence perpetuated by the powerful.

Freedom to: Freedom to the internet is often confused with access to the internet. While, of course, access is important in our imagination of a just society where everybody is equally connected, freedom is also about creating open and fair societies. If the power of the internet is in creating alternative spaces of expression, deliberation and opinion-making, then the freedom to the internet is about being safe and responsible in these spaces. A society that controls these spaces of public discussion, under the guise of security and public safety, is a society that has given up its faith in freedom.

Freedom for: It is often not clear that when popular technologies of information and communication are regulated and censored, it is not merely the technology that is being controlled. What is being shaped and contained is the way people use them. The freedom for the internet is about the freedom for people. The possibility that Internet Service Providers are being coerced into revealing personal information of users to police states, that intermediaries are being equipped to remove content that they find offensive from the web, and that views expressed on the social media can lead to legal battles by those who have the power but not the acumen to exercise it, all have alarming consequences. There is a need to fight for freedom, not only for the defence of technology but also for the defence of the rights that we cherish that risk being eroded.

The case of these Facebook arrests is not new. It has happened before and it will continue happening as immature governments are unable to cope with the real voices of representational democracy. These cases sometimes get naturalised because they get repeated, and even without our knowledge, can start creating a life of fear, where we internalise the regulatory system, not voicing our opinions and ideas for fear of persecution. And so, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether you endorse the viewpoints of the people who are under arrest, whether you feel implicated or not in this case, we have to realise that even if we might not agree with somebody’s viewpoint, we must defend their right to have that particular viewpoint. Anything else, and tomorrow, when you want to say something against powers of oppression, you might find yourself alone, as your voice gets heard only by those who will find creative ways of silencing you.

— With inputs from Gopu Mohan, Madhuparna Das and V Shoba

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose

List of Chairman and Members of CRAC

snehashish — 2012-12-02T06:22:25Z

Notification on the constitution of the "Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee"

LIST OF CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF CYBER REGULATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOTIFICATION[1]

17th October, 2000

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) the Central Government hereby constitute the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee”, consisting of the following, namely: –

1. [2][Minister, Communication and Information Technology] - Chairman

2. Secretary, Legislative Department - Member

3. Secretary, [3][Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology] - Member

4. Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - Member

5. Finance Secretary - Member

6. Secretary, Ministry of Defence - Member

7. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member

8. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce - Member

9. Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India - Member

10. Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, Presently Member Secretary, Law Commission - Member [sic]

11. President, NASSCOM - Member

12. President, Internet Service Provider Association - Member

13. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Member

14. Controller of Certifying Authority - Member

15. Information Technology Secretary by rotation from the States - Member

16. Director General of Police by rotation from the States - Member

17. Director, IIT by rotation from the IITs - Member

18. Representative of CII - Member

19. Representative of FICCI - Member

20. Representative of ASSOCHAM - Member

21. [4][Scientist “6”, Department of Information Technology] - Member Secretary

2. Travelling Allowance/Dear Allowance, as per the Central Government rules, for non-official members shall be borne by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology.

3. The Committee may co-opt any person as member based on specific meetings

_______________________

[1] Vide G.S.R. 790(E), dated 17th October, 2000

[2] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[3] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[4] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Senior Director, Ministry of Information Technology”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/chairman-and-members-of-crac

Meeting of the Network of Internet & Society Centers

praskrishna — 2012-12-11T10:18:41Z

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University together with the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society in Berlin, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore, the Center for Technology & Society at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, KEIO University SFC, the MIT Media Lab, the MIT Center for Civic Media, and the NEXA Center for Internet & Society, will host a highly interactive and participatory meeting of representatives from these and other research centers focused on Internet and society issues.

Taking place on December 6-8 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, this gathering will serve as the inaugural event for a nascent global network and create an opportunity for participants to scope and identify mechanisms for collaboration, research, and informal coordination.

Theme

Internet-driven Developments: Structural Changes and Tipping Points As a starting point, the December meeting will focus on the theme of “Internet-driven Developments: Structural Changes and Tipping Points,” provoking both substantive questions to facilitate ideas for collaboration, as well as process-oriented questions regarding the structure, governance, and composition of the network of centers. This topic is intended to provide a conceptual lens for the meeting itself, and to enable myriad connections to the diverse research areas and interests of the participating organizations; however, it is not meant to frame the thematic areas of the network writ large. Rather, we hope that the theme stimulates conversations about future areas of collaboration within and beyond the topic areas outlined in this concept note.

With this goal in mind and building upon the research interests of the participants, the two proposed overarching “horizontal” questions of the meeting are:

What are the structural changes (as opposed to hype, fashion, spikes, etc.), from societal, economic, legal, and educational perspectives, promoted by the Internet and related technological advancements? What do we know about these tectonic shifts and where are knowledge gaps? How do these shifts compare to earlier changes facilitated by new technologies? What further changes do we anticipate?
2 What are the forces and tipping points that have catalyzed these structural changes— including the actions of individuals (such as users, citizens, and individual activists) and institutions (such as government, business, and civil society)? Where do we currently see or anticipate tipping points? As a research community that seeks to inform advocacy efforts, policymaking, civic discourse, and other societal interests, how can these concepts inform or drive our activities?

We hope to discuss these guiding (“horizontal”) questions in the context of exploring two areas of research or use cases (“verticals”), which might inspire future activities of the network itself as well as collaboration among participants:

Political participation: Various research efforts over the past decade have focused on the question of if and how the Internet changes political participation, from new forms of electronic voting to the broader question of potential changes in political discourse in the digitally networked public sphere. During the meeting, we will take stock of the current landscape, with a particular focus on recent elections and political movements around the globe, and explore open questions, future research directions, questions, emerging tools and methodologies.

Production modes: Digital technologies in general and the Internet in particular have changed the ways in which goods are produced and services provided. Within this context, new modes of production — most prominently “peer-based” models — have emerged, accompanied by innovative organizational models and set-ups. Questions we hope to explore include: How relevant are these shifts from an economic, organizational, societal, business, and creative perspective? Has recent empirical research confirmed the theory of commons-based peer production, or challenged it? What conditions facilitate new modes of Internet-based production and what are the benefits and challenges from a public policy perspective? What do interesting case studies in the field, from collaborative online journalism to crowd-funding, tell us about the direction of this trend?

In a number of learning calls leading up to the meeting, we hope to further specify the proposed substantive areas, identify core issues of mutual interest for discussion, nominate speakers and rapporteurs, and learn about each other’s work in respective areas.

Key Objectives

The meeting will not only focus on substantive issues within the proposed themes, but also seek to provide a foundation for discussions regarding structural and process-oriented objectives for the network.

Substantive goals include: based on the proposed themes and topics, becoming familiar with each other’s work; facilitating the exchange of information regarding current and future projects, research areas, and innovative methods; identifying connection points, concrete ideas for initial and continued institutional collaborations on projects, and tools to support sustained and future efforts; and building a shared vocabulary and structure for collaboration among Internet & society centers, including existing and potential actors in the Global South.

Structural/process-oriented objectives include: defining the scope and core DNA of the network; exploring initial structures for governance, shared research, exchange programs, and mechanisms for collaboration; and identifying tools and practices for communication among teams, within the network, and externally.

From Ideas to Action

Using the substantive discussion as a jumping-0ff point, we will collectively explore how to apply lessons learned from the process of conducting interdisciplinary and international research into a network that embodies those same values. What analytical frames and empirical indicators can researchers offer to better inform policy makers and citizenry? How can we make public debates more rational and informed? What are methodological and data issues we should consider in research projects? What role do we envision for advocacy and broader communication for greater societal impact? How do these discussions inform and scope the potential areas of activity of the network? Through what specific mechanisms, such as research, tool development, convenings, or teaching, will Centers address these challenges? Invited colleagues, collaborators, and guests will provoke discussions and pose questions that challenge current assumptions and encourage experimentation.

Mode of Engagement

We are committed to leveraging the tremendous diversity of the participants to develop novel understandings — and approaches to reaching them — by actively embracing differences in geography, discipline, organizational approach, culture and context, among many other facets. Not only must we consciously address the more straightforward challenges of translation (language and discipline), but we must proactively develop ways to meaningfully and efficiently engage the deeper divisions we identify among us. Allowing differences to become splits would be unfortunate, but more importantly, it is at precisely these gaps where new perspectives are possible, and great gains are within reach.

Fulfilling this commitment will be a real challenge because it requires behavior change on our part. We must avoid or explain terms of art, make explicit and explore our assumptions, explain our methods, perform necessary translations, and otherwise take steps to maximize hospitality and genuine understanding. Because this work is interactive in nature, it is essential that we are economical in our group discussion, leaving as much time for the interactions that will highlight and address gaps, rather than making extended monologues that risk losing other participants and sacrifice the provocative stimuli offered by our diversity. In short, let us be clear, brief and to the point. Let us listen to each other closely and encourage new voices, rather than inadvertently privileging only a few dominant ones. Let us be aware that participants will have different styles of engagement, and that we need to collectively find ways to embrace them, even as they adapt to this special environment. Above all, let us have enjoy this rare opportunity to gather and engage on issues we care about with this unique group of colleagues.

Draft Agenda

Thursday, December 6
9:30-1:00 pm (Optional) Cyberscholars Forum For those meeting participants who arrive in Cambridge early, we welcome them to attend a half day meeting of the Cyberscholars Working Group, which includes fellows from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Yale Information Society Project, MIT Media Lab / Center for Civic Media, and other institutions.
3:00 Opening Exercise: Mapping Collaboration The opening session of the symposium on “Structural Changes and Tipping Points” will include participants of the Cyberscholars forum, and will highlight the landscape of existing collaborations among researchers, as well as generate ideas for new modes and methods for collaboration to be considered over the course of the meeting. This early convening will allow the opportunity for representatives to bring the unique strengths of their institutions to the table and consider ways we can take advantage of coordinated efforts.
5:30 Opening Session Structural Change: Understanding Structural Changes, Tipping Points, and their Effects on Systems Historical examples of significant structural change, and the events and conditions leading up to those dramatic shifts, will offer a lens for the meeting where societal advancements catalyzed by technological innovation can be analyzed and understood. As digital technologies increasingly intersect with and support institutions, industries, and individuals, what cautionary tales does history reveal regarding how to study and engage important tipping points? What lessons from history will enable societal development? And what structures are currently changing or are ripe for change (and research) in the next decade?
6:45 Joint Reception with Cyberscholars Participants The reception will include displays from the Harvard metaLAb and the Harvard Library community.
Friday, December 7
8:30 am Breakfast
9:00 Welcome
9:15 Foundations: Key Ingredients for Structural Change in the Digital Ecosystem: Data, Algorithms, Intermediaries This opening session will set the stage by exploring the key elements that facilitate current and the next generation of structural shifts in the digitally networked information ecosystem and discuss both drivers and inhibitors of change from social, economic, legal, and educational perspectives. Instead of providing a holistic overview of all factors that are in play, the session will focus on three particularly important elements: the power of “big data”, the importance of algorithms, and the role of new intermediaries. Beyond phenomenological stock-taking, the participants will discuss the next generation of legal, ethical, economic and other issues that arise in the context of these key elements and the need for collaboration - and potentially intervention – with regard to these and related factors of change. The discussion will help orient the relationship between structural change and associated tipping points, and will be further explored throughout the day via participant-organized breakout sessions and use case discussions.
10:15 Use Case #1 Political Participation: New Orders, Democracy, Governance, and Civic Engagement Various research efforts over the past decade have focused on the question of if and how the Internet changes political participation, from new forms of electronic voting to the broader question of potential changes in political discourse in the digitally networked public sphere. During the meeting, we will take stock of the current landscape, with a particular focus on recent elections and political movements around the globe, and explore open questions, future research directions, questions, emerging tools and methodologies. Examples we could examine, and potentially consider as “tipping points,” may range from SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA to the Arab Spring and the post-election crisis in Kenya in 2008 to many other major political events. These examples may also highlight the limits, challenges, and dangers of the new media environment.
11:15 Coffee Break
11:30 Morning Breakout Sessions & Afternoon Proposals Semi-moderated discussion sessions proposed by participants in advance of the meeting (such as sessions on Internet & democracy, research methods, region specific issues, and other projects) will take place, with an eye towards developing contributions to the final session on future directions.
Additionally, participants will brainstorm and propose sessions to lead during the unconference sessions in the afternoon, with a preference for more exploratory topics. Anyone at the meeting can suggest, lead, or participate in the discussions, and topics can range from those relevant to the substantive themes of the symposium to ideas for networking, shared research, and anything beyond.
12:30 pm Lunch
1:30pm Use Case #2 Economic and Production Modes: New Models for Innovation & Entrepreneurship Digital technologies in general and the Internet in particular have changed the ways in which goods are produced and services provided. Within this context, new modes of production — most prominently “peer-based” models — have emerged, accompanied by innovative organizational models and set-ups. Questions we hope to explore include: How relevant are these shifts from an economic, organizational, societal, business, and creative perspective? Has recent empirical research confirmed the theory of commons-based peer production, or challenged it? What conditions facilitate new modes of Internet-based production and what are the benefits and challenges from a public policy perspective? What do interesting case studies in the field, from collaborative online journalism to crowd-funding, tell us about the direction of this trend? Examples of market and industry shifts, institutional changes, and individual impact may serve as illustrations of tipping points where new models of production have fostered true innovation, and reveal paths for what to expect in the future.
2:30 Participant-Led Unconference Sessions Meeting participants who proposed sessions will lead discussions around topics related to the main theme of the symposium or around ideas related to the formation of a network of centers.
3:30 Break
4:00 Reflections and Future Directions A rapporteur from each center will offer brief reflections and key takeaways based on their experience during the meeting. A shortlist of “low hanging fruit” (i.e. things that we can immediately start to collaborate on) will be developed in advance and serve as the basis for the session, so the group can make progress towards developing a substantive agenda and initial workplan for the network at the meeting.
7:00 Reception and Party
Saturday, December 8
9:00-12pm Breakfast session: Action plan for the next year In the Food for Thought mode, representatives will meet to discuss an innovation and collaboration agenda for the inaugural year of the network. Using inputs from learning calls and the previous days of the meeting, participants will work to identify existing or new projects where researchers, faculty, and staff can immediately begin collaborating. We will also create a rough plan for addressing action items that are “low hanging fruit” for the launch of the network.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/meeting-of-network-of-internet-and-society-centers

The real Sibal’s law: Resisting Section 66A is futile

praskrishna — 2012-12-03T05:16:11Z

The Information Technology Act is “substantially the same” as laws instituted in other democracies like UK and the United States. What’s more, the language that is employed in various sections is exactly the same. Thus was the thrust of Kapil Sibal’s defense of Section 66A on NDTV last night.

The article by Lakshmi Chaudhry was published in FirstPost on November 30. Pranesh Prakash's blog post on section 66A which was also carried in Outlook is quoted.

The problem therefore lies not in the law but in its interpretation: “It’s very difficult to interpret the act on the ground. If you give this power to a sub-inspector of police, it is more than likely to be misused.” Sibal is hence “open” to putting in place guidelines that may prevent such abuse, whether it involves requiring a senior police officer to make the call or specifying the “circumstances” in which the law is applicable.

Now, there are many ways to tear apart Sibal’s logic. In Outlook, for example, Centre for Internet and Society’s Pranesh Prakash offers a detailed comparison with the UK law to show that: one, the UK courts have “read down” the “broad wording” of the law; two, they remain subject to EU human rights provisions; and three, UK law may well be unconstitutional under the Indian Constitution which offers stronger free speech protection.

Prakash’s legal arguments are worthy, meticulously argued and — in my view — somewhat moot.

Here’s why. Would discarding or amending Section 66A prevent the MNS goons from hauling Sunil Vishwakarma to the police station for a Facebook update? Would it prevent the Palghar policemen from filing a case against Shaheen and Rinu under pressure from the local Sainiks? Would that Jadhavpur professor then be immune from Trinamool harrassment for offending Mamata?

The answer is a big fat N-O.

Sibal is right. In India, the actual law is often irrelevant. Interpretation is all. And that interpretation in the real world of the police thana is determined not by legal standards but according to political power. So we have wonderfully progressive statutes on the book — as we do in the matter of women’s rights — that exist only in theory. More effective and employed are the draconian, colonial-era laws that are routinely used to punish the innocent. The IT act is just one of them.

In India, law is a weapon, a brahmastra of the powerful. The Sainiks were looking to make an example of someone, to exercise their political brawn. Shaheen and Rinu were convenient targets, and once selected, no law could have saved them from Shiv Sena wrath. The legal threshold for “offensive” content is irrelevant to NCP Kiran Pawaskar who put pressure on the police to arrest two Air India employees because they “shared lewd jokes about politicians, made derogatory comments against the Prime Minister and insulted the national flag in their posts.”

The goonda raj of politicians on the Internet merely reflects the reality offline. All that our online activity does is make the aam aadmi more visible, and therefore easier to target and victimise. They can’t put in spy cameras in every living room, but now they can monitor our conversations on Facebook and Twitter instead. In a sense, the Internet has allowed Big Brother into our homes

This is why comparisons to UK or US — which enjoy the rule of law — are irrelevant. And why upgrading the rank of the policeman — DCP or Inspector-general — making the call will not change the outcome in most cases. The political pressures on a DCP or IG are not different than on a lowly sub-inspector who takes action not because he doesn’t understand the law, but because he understands all too well the costs of non-compliance. As for putting a magistrate in charge, well, it was a magistrate who authorised the arrests of Shaheen and Rinu.

The only reason the policemen who arrested the girls may be punished is that the Congress party is in power in Maharashtra, as in not the Shiv Sena or the BJP. In Kolkata, for example, Mamata-di has no intention of taking action against those who arrested Ambikesh Mahapatra. ‘Raja chale bazaar to kutta bhonke hazaar‘ (the king walks to market, though a thousand dogs bark),” declared Didi when pressed on Justice Katju’s criticism of her anti-free speech stance.

It succinctly embodies the attitude of our leaders. Sibal may be saddened by the Palghar case but he was every bit as unruffled as Mamata when Ravi Srinivasan was arrested for an innocuous tweet accusing Karti Chidambaram of corruption. There are naturally no plans to drop the case against him. So it matters little if the IT act is amended or who is tasked with interpreting Section 66A. Who is punished, who receives justice, however delayed, is determined by politics not law.

In his NDTV interview, Sibal chided Barkha for bringing up “5-10 instances” of unlawful arrests when “there must be millions of [abusive] comments that have been put on the internet.” It’s a familiar Sibal strategy that he has employed in the past. Pressed on Ravi Srinivasan’s arrest, he told reporters, “There are 500 things by the name of Kapil Sibal and there are some things which I really don’t like. But I have not taken action.”

What he’s really saying is that each time we update, tweet or comment, we enter an online version of russian roulette, the kind you play with a gun. You never know which chamber is loaded, or when a politician is likely to pull the trigger. We survive not by the mercy of the law but at the whim of the powerful. In India, law isn’t an ass; it’s our dear netaji’s chaprasi.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-politics-lakshmi-chaudhry-november-30-2012-the-real-sibals-law-resisting-section-66a-is-futile