We are anonymous, we are legion

A multistakeholder discussion on India’s Position in the UN for Internet Governance UN Committee for Internet Related Policies (UN-CIRP)

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T09:49:26Z

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) is hosting this event in New Delhi on September 19, 2012 from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham has been invited as a panelist.

Discussions and debate on the issue of internet governance has increased over the past few years. The entire issue of internet governance has become strikingly important for the internet users, government, Indian industry, mobile and internet service providers, internet companies, social media, civil society, academia as well as youth and women on account of the fact that internet subscriber base has already reached the 125 million mark, and is expected to increase dramatically under the targets established in NTP 2012. Unlike in telecommunications, issues related to internet and data penetration requires not just discussion between government and service providers but cooperation and dialogue amongst a host of other stakeholders – commonly known as Multistakeholder Groups.

International discourse

At a global level, after the declaration of the 2005 Tunis Agenda, there is a general agreement that internet governance structure should be dispersed, multistakeholder and bottom up rather than top down, and not controlled by a single entity. There are a number of proposals pending which seek to address internet governance issues through a multistakeholder process including at the UN, IGF and Council of Europe.

Our role as stakeholders in internet development will ideally involve a domestic perspective as well as a need for global engagement to shape the international dialogue. The decisions that are being made over the next few months at international fora, will have a deep and lasting impact on our businesses, operations, architecture, revenue streams at one level and access, diversity, cyber security, content regulation, multilingualism and management of critical internet resources at another. Government, in close collaboration with other stakeholders, has a critical role, especially relating to policy making, cyber security, spam, crisis management, digital piracy, and dispute resolution to name a few.

India’s proposal in UN for internet governance

In October 2011 the Government of India submitted a proposal for establishment of a new institutional mechanism for global internet governance by way of the United Nations Committee on Internet Related Policy (UN-CIRP). The UN-CIRP’s mandate will include inter alia tasks such as developing and establishing international public policies relating to global issues of internet; coordinating and overseeing bodies responsible for the technical and operational functioning of the internet; facilitating negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on internet related public policy; address developmental issues, promote and protect human rights, including the right to development; undertake arbitrations and dispute resolution where necessary and crisis management (detailed statement attached for your ready reference.)

The CIRP which finds its mandate in the Tunis Agenda 2005 (copy attached) under the process of Enhanced Cooperation will comprise of 50 member states chosen on basis of equitable geographic representations, supported by the regular budget of the United Nations, serviced by UNCTAD secretariat, reporting directly to the UN General assembly. It will ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four advisory groups - one each for civil society, private sector, intergovernmental / international organizations, and the technical/academic community. It will also have its own research wing and keep close links with the IGF – for policy consultations and inputs.

Other countries have taken views keeping in mind their own best interest, including some who wish to continue with the existing governance process, others who seek an improvement in the existing process and those who seek a greater involvement of UN ITU in issues related to internet governance.

Multistakeholder Consultation

To have a detailed multistakeholder discussion FICCI has invited some of the most influential and informed voices for a panel discussion and interactive session with experts from 10:30 AM. to 01:00 PM. on Wednesday, 19^th September 2012, at FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi.

The panel and audience, apart from being experts will represent a multistakeholder group across various functions of the government, private sector, telecom and internet eco-system related companies, civil society, academia, legal experts, media organisations, technical community, and students and women. An equal number of experts will also intervene from the audience. The session is aimed at discussing in detail India’s proposal of UN-CIRP and provide multistakeholder inputs which will help inform and guide further dialogue at the upcoming international fora such as the 67^th UN General Assembly from September 26^th to 6^th October 2012, in New York, IGF from 6^th to 9^th November 2012 in Baku, and WCIT from 3^rd to 14^th December 2012, in Dubai.

Agenda

10.30 11.00	Registration and Networking
11.00 11.15	Introduction and Agenda Setting - by Mr. Virat Bhatia, Chairman, FICCI Communication & Digital Economy Committee
11.15 12.00	Panel Discussion
12.00 12.45	Taking stock, next steps and wrap-up by Mr. Virat Bhatia, Chairman, FICCI Communication & Digital Economy Committee

Proposed Panelists

Sl. No.	Name / Title	Representing
1.	Mr. Nitin Desai, Special Advisor to UN Secretary General on Internet Governance and Chairman of Multistakeholder Advisory Group for Internet Governance Forum (Formerly)	Internet Governance specialist
2.	Ambassador A Gopinathan, India’s Permanent Representative to UN in Geneva (Formerly)	Leading Diplomat Internet Governance
3.	Senior official from Department of Electronics & IT, Government of India *	Government
4.	Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, President, Foundation for Media Professionals, India	Media
5.	Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change	Civil Society
6.	Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society	Civil Society
7.	Mr. Rajesh Chharia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI)	ISP
8.	Mr. Naresh Ajwani, Member, NRO NC-Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC)	Industry
9.	Member of Parliament*	Politics
10.	Mr. Rajan Mathews, Director General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)	Mobile Operators

* Invited. Confirmation awaited.

See India's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy
See the Tunis Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/multi-stakeholder-discussion-on-indias-position-in-the-un-for-un-cirp

The DNA Profiling Bill: Developing Best Practices

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:54:30Z

On the 27th of September 2012 the Centre for Internet & Society invites the public to a meeting and talk with international experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States. The meeting will take place from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at the India International Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi in Conference Room No. 2.

The public meeting and talk will focus on the proposed DNA Profiling Bill pending in Parliament and explore best practices concerning the collection, storage, and retention of DNA samples and best practices concerning the analysis of DNA samples and use of DNA samples as evidence in courts. Case studies from the US and the UK will be explored to understand what India can do better from the experiences of other countries.

Dr Helen Wallace

Dr Helen Wallace is Director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit organisation which aims to engage members of the public in ensuring that genetic science and technologies are used in the public interest. She is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on the social and ethical issues raised by DNA databases and is widely quoted in the UK press. Helen provided expert evidence to the applicants in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court ruled unanimously that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA database records was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. She has supplied both oral and written evidence on this issue to numerous parliamentary committees including the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and the UK Science and Technology, Home Affairs and Constitutional Committees, as well as the scrutiny committee for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This new Act requires the removal of about a million innocent people's records from the UK National DNA Database and the destruction of all stored biological samples.

Jeremy Gruber

Jeremy Gruber is the JD, President and Executive Director of Council for Responsible Genetics. Jeremy joined CRG in March 2009. Previously he served as the legal director of the National Workrights Institute, a human rights organization dedicated to the rights of American workers. Prior to that he served as the field director for the ACLU’s National Taskforce on Civil Liberties in the Workplace. Jeremy has worked for over a decade on genetic non-discrimination legislation at the state and Federal level. He helped author and pass numerous state laws on genetic non-discrimination. Jeremy is a founder and executive committee member of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, a group of 500 organizations that advocated for genetic non-discrimination legislation on Capitol Hill and played a major role in the recently passed Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) by Congress. He worked closely with members of Congress and staff on GINA language as well as strategy and support. He is a prolific writer on privacy issues and is often consulted by state legislatures. He is regularly featured in print, radio and television. Jeremy holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from St. John’s University School of Law and a B.A. in Politics from Brandeis University.

Forensic DNA: A Human Rights Challenge

The above video was originally posted in YouTube

Click on the links below to download the files:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the-dna-profiling-bill-developing-best-practices

DNA Databases and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:39:06Z

Using DNA to trace people who are suspected of committing a crime has been a major advance in policing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dna-databases-and-human-rights.pdf

Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary

Rishabh Dara — 2016-04-24T11:54:22Z

This document provides a critique of “The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 and proposes an alternate set of Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf

Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012

pranesh — 2016-04-24T11:48:49Z

Any restriction on freedom of speech should embody and be guided by the following principles, as identified by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.pdf

Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012

pranesh — 2016-04-24T11:56:49Z

Any restriction on freedom of speech should embody and be guided by the following principles, as identified by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.odt

Consumer Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-13T09:21:26Z

This chapter will examine the present legal state of consumer privacy in India and seek to understand the gap between policy and implementation of policy. In doing so, it will look at what are the existing avenues for protection of consumer privacy in India, how is the definition of consumer privacy evolving through case law and public opinion, and what are the current challenges to consumer privacy in India. Traditionally speaking, and according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in India, a consumer is a broad label for any person who buys goods or services with the intent of using them for non-commercial purposes. In the typical sense, when people think of themselves as being consumers, they think about transactions with a vendor through a physical exchange of money in a store or through an online exchange for a product or service. Certain services that consumers use put an extraordinary amount of sensitive personal information into the hands of vendors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/consumer-privacy.pdf

Communications from DeitY regarding blocking of Traffic emanating from IP addresses from States assessed to be sensitive in the current prevailing situation

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:27:46Z

(DS Cell)

No.813-7/25/2011-DS

Subject: Communications from DeitY regarding blocking of Traffic emanating from IP addresses from States assessed to be sensitive in the current prevailing situation.

Notes on pre pages (24/N to 25/N) may kindly seen.

PUC at (70/C) is a communications [D.O No - 6(30)/2012-CLFE dated 23/08/2012] from Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology. It has been communicated that Ministry of Home Affairs has sent an Office Memorandum No. II/21021/221/2012-IS-II/M dated 23.08.2012 (copy enclosed). MHA has requested that "Twitter Inc may be directed to all traffic emanating from IP addresses in the States assessed by the Central Intelligence Agencies to be sensitive in the current prevailing situation viz. Kerala, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra. Karnataka, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh by 6.00 PM today. In case of non- compliance of this geographical specific blocking which flows from sensitive assessment of prevailing situation, then Twitter may be blocked on All India level".

2. Department of Telecom has been requested to consider the technical feasibility of the request of MHA and advice the DIT accordingly. In this regard feedbacks have been collected from the major service providers on the following issues:

(i) allocation of State-wise IP address
(ii) technical feasibility of specific area wise /state wise blocking of website/URL.

Feedbacks received from Tata Communications, (67/C & 73/C) Bharti
Airtel (68/C & 77/C), BSNL (75/C), Reliance Communications (72/C),
IDEA (76/C) & ISPAI (74/C). These comments are compiled as below

Sr.	Name of the company	Comments on state-wise IP address allocation & specific area wise /state-wise blocking of website/URL.
1	Tata Communications	TCL does not allocate IP addresses to its customers on a state-wise basis and there is no IP Address range specific to any of the States of India. Specific area wise /state wise blocking of website /URL is technically not feasible.
2	BSNL	IP addresses in the BSNL Network is as below. 1) Leased line:- On national Basis 2) Wimax/CDMA.GSM - on Zonal Basis 3) ADSL Broadband :- On Circle basis.
3	M/s Bharti Airtel	IP addresses are allocated internally hubwise. In mobile network, we have 7 hubs and the IP address pools are internally allocated to different hubs. The blocking of website/ URL can be done at the gateway only as: 1) There is no state wise IP pool allocation to the customers, and; 2) Airtel has deployed URL blocking system at Chennai and Mumbai Internet gateway.
4	M/s Reliance Communications	IP addresses are not allotted Statewise. The blocking has been implemented at the Gateway locations. Hence specific area wise /' stale wise blocking of website / URL is not possible.
5	M/s Idea	Currently our ISP operation can't block region wise as we give bulk service to GGSN and are in a way blind to the traffic distribution after GGSN. We can only block sites/links at gateway level which will affect the complete GGSN.
6	Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI)	We would like to inform that it is technically not feasible to block website/URL area wise / state wise.

With reference to aforesaid feedbacks from Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) and major Internet Service Providers it has come out that in the present scenario Internet Service Providers having majority of Internet subscribers have not allocated IP addresses area wise /state-wise and it would not be possible for them at present to carry out specific area wise /slate-wise blocking of website/URL.

3. In view of above it is proposed to reply to Secretary, DeitY as per draft placed at (.l?/C).

Put up for kind considerations and approval please.

(Subodh Saxena)

Dir.(DS-II)

DDG(DS)

Member (T)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/september-4-dot-mha-regional-twitter-blocking

Seventh Meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T06:20:53Z

The seventh meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on September 18, 2012 at 10.30 a.m. in the Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

The agenda of the meeting is to discuss and finalize the draft report prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the two Sub-Groups of the Expert Group.

The meeting notice was sent by S. Bose, Deputy Secretary (CIT&I) to the following individuals:

Justice A.P. Shah, Chairman
Shri R. S. Sharma, D.G., UIDAI
Shri R. Ragupathi,Additional Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs
Dr. Gulshan Rai, D.G. CERT-In, DeITy
Shri Manoj Joshi, J.S. DOPT
Shri Som Mittal, Nasscom
Ms. Barkha Dutt, NDTV
Ms. Usha Ramanathan
Shri Sunil Abraham, CIS
Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj
Ms. Mala Dutt
Shri R.K. Gupta

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/seventh-meeting-of-group-of-experts-sept-18-2012-under-chairmanship-of-justice-shah

August 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:53:44Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of August 2012 from the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS). The present issue features an analysis of the latest list of sites blocked by the Indian government from August 18, 2012 to August 21, 2012, the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012, and press coverage related to the recent North East exodus.

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Special Section on Freedom of Expression

We usually cover Freedom of Expression under Internet Governance. However, in the month of August there has been much discussion regarding the North East exodus from Bangalore and the blocking of a number of websites by the Indian government from August 18 to 21, 2012. This special section covers reportage and original content from CIS:

Featured Research

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition) (by Pranesh Prakash): Pranesh Prakash did a preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government. There were a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that were blocked. In this analysis, Pranesh examines why these have been blocked, are the blocks legitimate, are there any egregious mistakes, why the whole list hasn’t been put up, why can one access items that are supposed to be blocked, what should the government have done, etc. The analysis was quoted/cross-posted in the following places: Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012), The Hindu (August 24, 2012), LiveMint (August 24, 2012), Global Voices (August 24, 2012), Outlook (August 23, 2012), FirstPost.India (August 23, 2012), IBN Live (August 23, 2012), News Click (August 23, 2012), Medianama (August 23, 2012) and KAFILA (August 23, 2012).

Columns

To regulate Net intermediaries or not is the question (by Sunil Abraham, Deccan Herald, August 26, 2012): “Given the disruption to public order caused by the mass exodus of North-Eastern Indians from several cities, the government has had for the first time in many years, a legitimate case to crackdown on Internet intermediaries and their users.”

Social media, SMS are not why NE students left Bangalore (by Nishant Shah, First Post, August 25, 2012): “I woke up one morning to find that I was living in a city of crisis. Bangalore, where the largest public preoccupations to date have been about bad roads, stray dogs, and occasionally, the lack of night-life, the city was suddenly a space that people wanted to flee and occupy simultaneously.”
What lurks beneath the Network (by Nishant Shah, Down to Earth, August 24, 2012): “There is a series of buzzwords that have become a naturalised part of discussions around digital social media—participation, collaboration, peer-2-peer, mobilisation, etc. Especially in the post Arab Spring world (and our own home-grown Anna Hazare spectacles), there is this increasing belief in the innate possibilities of social media as providing ways by which the world as we know it shall change for the better. Young people are getting on to the streets and demanding their rights to the future.”
Censoring the Internet: A brief manual (by Sunil Abraham, Tehelka, August 23, 2012): “Blocking websites on the Internet should be proportionate to harm they intend. However, the government of India's approach is against the principles of natural justice.”
The Perils of 'Hactivism' (by Chinmayi Arun, LiveMint, August 20, 2012): “Civil disobedience includes accepting the penalty for breaking the law. Untraceable hackers are far removed from this ethic.”

Foreign Media Coverage

India blocks more than 250 Web sites for inciting hate, panic (by Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post on August 20, 2012): “A blanket ban does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the circulation of rumors because people become more vulnerable in a communication vacuum.”— Sunil Abraham.
India’s ethnic clashes intensify within social-media maelstrom (by Stephanie Nolen, Globe Mail, August 23, 2012): “Now for a change, the government has legitimate grounds to censor speech...but they’ve cried wolf on so many occasions before.” — Sunil Abraham.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Australian Financial Review, August 24, 2012): “Before, the government’s had no grounds for censorship, it was only acting on the bruised egos of bureaucrats and officials... this time, it’s got a legitimate right given the disruption of public order. But it hasn’t done so very effectively.” — Sunil Abraham.
New Delhi Expands Curbs on Web Content (by R Jai Krishna and Rumman Ahmed, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012): “The government's move to block several Twitter handles is a clear case of administrative overreach...This action means citizens are less likely to believe that the government can use its powers responsibly.” — Sunil Abraham.
Govt in line of fire over web censorship (by Surabhi Agarwal, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Both Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta seem to be having a right wing ideology, but while the former’s account is blocked the latter’s is not...The difference is on the kind of content which has been posted.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India's social media crackdown reveals clumsy govt machinery (by David Lalmalsawma, Reuters, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Internet expert criticizes Indian cyber blockades (by Muneeza Naqvi, Associated Press, August 24, 2012): “The government has gone overboard and many of its efforts are legally questionable.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was also covered in Bloomberg Businessweek (August 24, 2012), Khaleej Times (August 24, 2012), ABC News (August 24, 2012), Seattle Times (August 24, 2012), Vancouver Sun (August 24, 2012), Kansas City. (August 24, 2012), Times Colonist (August 24, 2012), Merced Sun-Star (August 24, 2012), Yahoo News (August 24, 2012), SanLuisObispo.com (August 24, 2012), Terrorism Watch (August 25, 2012), Sci-Tech Today (August 26, 2012).
How ISPs block websites and why it doesn’t help (by Gopal Sathe, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Even though many of the items on that list do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed [...] the people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering the ISPs to block them.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India’s Internet Curbs Under Legal Cloud (by Rumman Ahmed and R Jai Krishna, Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2012):” The four orders that were sent to the ISPs don’t say under which section or under what power these orders are being sent...They were sent without invoking any statute or without invoking any law.” — Pranesh Prakash.
After Violence in India, a Crackdown Online (by Gardiner Harris, New York Times, August 25, 2012): “I don’t see this as politically motivated censorship...I see this as gross ineptitude by the government.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Inde: la tentative de contrôler l'internet est "illégale" (Agence France Presse, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India threatens action against Twitter for ethnic violence 'rumors' (originally posted by Ben Sheppard in AFP and published in the China Post, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Blocked websites: Where India flawed (CIOL, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India: Social Media Censorship to Contain ‘Cyber-Terrorism'? (by Aparna Ray, Global Voices, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Delhi defends Internet blocking (Gulf Today, August 25, 2012): “The officials who are trusted with this don’t know the law or modern technology well enough.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India Blocks News Website Pages for 'Spreading Fear' over Assam Violence (by Gianluca Mezzofiore, International Business Times, August 24, 2012): “The government's highest priority should have been to counter the rumours and it did a really bad job of that.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Internet clamp outrage (Gulf Daily, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (by Devidutta Tripathy and Satarupa Bhattacharjya, Reuters, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Indian government defends Internet blocking (AFP, August 23, 2012): “I hope that this fiasco shows the folly of excessive censorship and encourages the government to make better use of social networks and technology to reach out to people.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was cross-posted in the following: The National (August 25, 2012), MSN News (August 24, 2012), StarAfrica.com (August 24, 2012), Jakarta Globe (August 24, 2012).
Criticism mounts over India censorship (by James Crabtree in Mumbai and Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco, Financial Times, August 24, 2012): “I am not questioning their original motives, but I do think this is excessive and incompetent censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Facebook's Delicate Dance With Delhi On Censorship (by Mark Bergen, Forbes, August 29, 2012): “Perhaps the Indian government has wasted, frittered away goodwill...It has cried ‘wolf’ so many times that this time the internet intermediaries are not taking them as seriously as they should.” — Sunil Abraham.
Internet Analysts Question India’s Efforts to Stem Panic (by Vikas Bajaj, New York Times, August 21, 2012): “The Internet intermediaries are responding slowly because now they have to trawl through their networks and identify hate speech.” — Sunil Abraham. This was cross-posted in NDTV on August 22, 2012. A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2012, on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: Internet Moves by India to Stem Rumors and Panic Raise Questions.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2012 and cross-posted in Channel 6 News on August 24, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.
India Debates Misuse of Social Media (by Anjana Pasricha, Voice of America, August 21, 2012 and re-posted in Chosunilbo on September 4, 2012): “Social media websites and other Internet intermediaries should have been asked by the government to run banner advertising or some other form of messaging that revealed the lack of truth in the rumors that were circulating.” — Sunil Abraham.
Officials Raise Questions over Indian Government’s Efforts (by Bruce Totolos, French Tribune, August 22, 2012). “The government acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication.” — Sunil Abraham.
India seeks a tighter grip on social media (United Press International, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

National Media Coverage

Internet expert Pranesh Prakash criticizes Indian cyber blockades (Economic Times, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Govt orders blocking of 300 specific URLs including 16 Twitter accounts (Times of India, August 23, 2012): “The blocking of many of the items on the list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a large number of the items ought to be removed.” — Pranesh Prakash.
NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online (tech 2, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.
Govt cracks down on Twitter (Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “The blocking was done without due process of law...the government should have engaged with the social media platforms since a majority — 217 out of 310 — of the block orders were aimed at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Twitter users hit back at government ban (originally posted in Reuters and carried in the Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
When #GOIBlocks, twitterati fly off their ‘handles’ (Hindustan Times, August 26, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s tweet is quoted.
Regulating the Internet by fiat (by V Sridhar, Hindu, August 26, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective (by TV Mahalingam and Shantanu Nandan Sharma, Economic Times, August 26, 2012): “Perhaps, for the first time, the Indian government had legitimate reasons to censor speech.” — Sunil Abraham.
Some ISPs block Wordpress domain across India (tech 2, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Details emerge on government blockade of websites (Hindu, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (INDOLink, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India Blocks Facebook, Twitter, Mass Texts in Response to Unrest (by Simon Roughneen, Media Shift, August 28, 2012): “In the older forms of governance, which were imagined through a broadcast model, the government was at the center of the information wheel, managing and mediating what information reached different parts of the country. In the [peer-to-peer] world, where the government no longer has that control, it is now trying different ways by which it can reinforce its authority and centrality to the information ecosystem. Which means that there is going to be a series of failures and models that don't work.” — Nishant Shah.
Tata Photon unblocks Wordpress.com (by Rohini Lakshane, tech 2, August 30, 2012): “This is not the first time an ISP has gone overboard in implementing censorship, be it copyright issues, piracy or inflammatory content. In 2006, the government had chastised ISPs for over-censoring content and blocking unintended websites and pages...ISPs have numerous grouses against the government. They do not possess the technical capabilities to implement the government's orders, at times, whether about surveillance or censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Northeast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content? (by Wahid Bukhari, Merinews.com, August 23, 2012): “Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Haphazard censorship? Leaked list of blocked websites in India (IBN Live, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond (Economic Times, August 23, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Videos

FTN: Is it time to regulate social media? (IBN Live, August 21, 2012): Sunil Abraham, Pavan Duggal, A Mukherji and Nikhil Pahwa spoke to CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose in Face the Nation episode that was telecasted in IBNLive on August 21, 2012. Sunil said “if one looks at the initial orders that the government sent these intermediaries those were very broad instructions. The order was addressed to all intermediaries under the IT Act.” Watch the full video on IBN Live.
Govt vs Tweeple: Has clampdown hit free speech? (NDTV, August 23, 2012): Has the Government crossed the line by ordering the blocking of several Twitter accounts, many belonging to prominent journalists? The debate was featured in NDTV on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham spoke to Sonia Singh of NDTV. Sunil said that “we should focus on designing of the censorship regime in the country and the lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice.” Watch the full video on NDTV.
Is the govt caught in the 'censorship' web? (NDTV, August 26, 2012): In “We the People” Pranesh Prakash responded to Barkha Dutt’s question on what does a government do in a time of social unrest. See the full debate on NDTV.

Events Organised

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian (CIS, Bangalore, August 27, 2012): Christopher Soghoian gave a lecture on the role companies play in assisting government surveillance.
The Asian Edge: 2012 Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society Summer School: The 2nd Biannual Inter Asia Cultural Studies (IACS) Summer School was hosted in Bangalore by CIS and the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society.
Biometric Identification: Specified Error, Accuracy and Efficiency, Considered for the Operations of the UIDAI — A Talk by Hans Varghese Mathews (CIS, Bangalore, August 17, 2012): Hans Varghese Mathews gave a public lecture on biometric identification.

Events Participated

Sixth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, August 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham participated in the meeting.
APNIC 34 Conference (Phnompenh, Cambodia, August 23 – 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Ang Peng Hwa, Paul Wilson, Duangthip Chomprang and Raul Echeberria in the session on Internet Governance Plenary. The event was organised by APNIC.

Events Hosted

Meetup for Bangalore's designers (CIS, Bangalore, August 11, 2012): CIS hosted the meet-up in Bangalore.
Visit by students from Hindustan University, Chennai (CIS, Bangalore, August 16, 2012): Sunil Abraham and Elonnai Hickok gave a lecture to students from the Hindustan University.
Interface Intimacies (TERI Complex, Bangalore, August 18 – 20, 2012): CIS conducted a research workshop with Audrey Yue and Namita Malhotra.

Upcoming Events

Thinking with Data@CIS (CIS, Bangalore, September 16 – 18, 2012): The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at CIS, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts. Screening starts from September 12.
Cartonama Conference (MLR Convention Centre, JP Nagar, Bangalore, September 22, 2012): The Cartonama Conference is centred around geospatial data, mapping and location based services. HasGeek supported by CIS is organising this event.
UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes (Alternative Law Forum, Infantry Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore, September 24, 2012): CIS in collaboration with Alternative Law Forum invites the public to a talk with international experts, Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States.

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 2,00,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India. The knowledge repository deals with these modules: Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies, Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom, Telecommunication and the Market, Universal Access and Accessibility, The International Telecommunications Union and other international bodies, Broadcasting, Emerging Topics and Way Forward. Dr. Surendra Pal, Satya N Gupta, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Payal Malik, Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra and Dr. Nadeem Akhtar are the expert reviewers.

The following are the new outputs:

Auctioning and Allocation of Spectrum (by Snehashish Ghosh): Auction of spectrums was introduced in the telecommunication market after the failure of the administrative process of allocating spectrum. Auctions use a price mechanism to allocate spectrum. Auction of spectrum can be used to increase efficiency and earn maximum revenue.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The main objective of the TRAI Act was to establish the TRAI and the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal. Snehashish also touches upon the amendment to the TRAI Act, government control over TRAI, scheme of the TRAI Act, constitution of TRAI, its powers and functions, grounds and procedures for appeal to the tribunal, etc.
Broadband Wireless Access – Standards (by Jürgen Kock): Jürgen tells us about the broadband wireless access standards, why we need technical standards, who define BWA standards, WiMAX standards and long term evolution.
Mesh Networks (by Ravikiran Annaswamy): Ravikiran tells us the definition of Mesh Networks, its importance, applications and the things to explore in future.
National Telecom Policy, 2012 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 2012 was approved by the Union Cabinet on May 31, 2012. Snehashish tells us about the vision of the National Telecom Policy, 2012, its background, the strategies (broadband rural telephony and universal service obligation fund), licensing, convergence and value-added services, spectrum management, etc.
New Telecom Policy, 1999 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The New Telecom Policy, 1999 was formulated on the basis of the report of Group on Telecommunication. In this unit, Snehashish talks about the objectives of the Policy, its targets, the new category of service providers, role of the regulator, other mandates to the Policy, amendment to the New Telecom Policy, 1999, etc.
National Telecom Policy, 1994 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 1994 was formulated for the purpose of opening up the Indian markets for foreign direct investment as well as domestic investment in the telecom sector. Snehashish throws light on the objectives of the National Telecom Policy, 1994, the status of telecom services prior to the implementation of the aforesaid Policy; value added services, hardware and technological aspects, basic services, and outcomes of the National Telecom Policy.

Column in Business Standard

Decision Analysis for Interest Rates - II (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, August 2, 2012): “India needs to make practical choices that prioritise growth. This is the second column. The previous column was published in the Business Standard on July 5, 2012. It explained how lower interest rates could improve growth by increasing net profits.”

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

Key Research

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report (by Pranesh Prakash): The India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 was published on the A2K Network website. According to the report, India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them.

Press Coverage

Copyright Law: More Than a Moral Obligation (by Jaya Bhattacharji Rose, Businessworld, August 9, 2012): “So far, things have worked well because sepia-tinted photographs have generally become part of the public domain. But now, only photographs by photographers who died before 1951 are part of the public domain. This has shrivelled up the public domain in photographs since it is even more difficult to trace the photographer...than to estimate the age of a photograph, determining whether a photograph is in the public domain is laden with uncertainty. The use of historical photos in books (and Wikipedia) will be badly affected.”— Pranesh Prakash.

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and electronic accessibility policies:

Blog Entry

Ring Side View: Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (by Rahul Cherian): As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at Huffington Post and in the Guardian.

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? examines the changing landscape of social change and political participation in light of the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Public Talk

Decoding Digital Natives (Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, August 31, 2012): Nishant Shah gave a public lecture.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Event Hosted

Bangalore Force.com August Meetup (CIS, Bangalore, August 19, 2012): John Barnes, CTO Model Metrics gave a lecture at the event organised by Bangalore Force.com.
Technology Evangelists and Religious Evangelists — A Talk by Katherine Sydenham (CIS, Bangalore, August 10, 2012): Katherine Sydenham from the University of Michigan School gave a lecture.
Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy & Open Government — Talk at CIS (CIS, Bangalore, August 1, 2012): The event was co-organised by Open Knowledge Foundation and CIS. Lucy Chambers and Laura Newman gave an informal talk on ‘Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy, and Open Government'.

CIS is hiring
*Jobs*
CIS is seeking applications from interested candidates for the following posts:

Research Manager: CIS is seeking an individual, full-time, for a period of 12 months, beginning from October 2012. The Research Manager is expected to contribute to conceptualising, managing and executing research projects in the field of Internet and Society, build knowledge networks of researchers towards collaborative and open knowledge production and dissemination, developing and executing the monitoring and evaluation processes for humanities and social sciences based research, supporting and managing academic, popular and hybrid publishing projects from existing and new research and initiate innovative and creative areas and methodologies of studying the Internet and its practices in India and the larger Global South, to develop key research clusters and networks. Send in your applications to admin@cis-india.org.
Researcher/Editor (Accessibility): CIS is hiring for the full-time position of a researcher for its accessibility programme. The job will entail working on researching on national and international policies and best practices in the field of accessibility of information and technology for persons with disabilities. To apply, please send your CV and three examples of writing to nirmita@cis-india.org
Programme Director – Access to Knowledge: CIS is seeking a Programme Director for its New Delhi office. The Programme Director will manage CIS’s Access to Knowledge programme which is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, to support the growth of Wikipedia and its sister projects and to advance access to free knowledge in India. The Programme Director will partner with the large Wikimedia community in India to focus on Indic and English languages and will manage a team of four staff members.
Programme Officer – Internet Governance: CIS is seeking an individual with a strong background in legal research and policy work to be part of its internet governance (IG) programme. The candidates must have good knowledge of Indian and international law on freedom of expression and privacy, demonstrable research skills, have strong communication skills and be media savvy with the ability to convey complex legal issues clearly to a general audience, open to travel and work independently.

To apply for the posts of Programme Director and Programme Officers, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) or Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three references.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, NIA Bill, etc.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/august-2012-bulletin

China outranks India in world’s first ever web index

praskrishna — 2012-09-07T09:08:37Z

India has been ranked 33rd on a list of 61 countries in a brand new web index that seeks to measure how effectively countries are using the Internet to improve people’s lives. And Indian Internet activists say that given the increasing level of control the government seeks to exercise over the net, that is no great surprise.

The article was published in FirstPost on September 6, 2012. Nishant Shah is quoted.

The index, which has been compiled by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World wide web, measures the economic, social and political impact of the internet, on criteria ranging from the proportion of people online to the amount of useful content available.

Sweden has topped the list ahead of the US and UK, while amongst Asian countries, the Republic of Korea came in at 13th. Interestingly, China ranked 20, 13 places ahead of India.

Speaking to Firstpost about the index and India’s ranking, Nishant Shah of the Centre for Internet and Society said that given the increasingly disturbing nature of the government’s response to the Internet in India, it was no surprise that the country had not fared well on the index.

“The Internet today doesn’t work according to the idealistic principles of openness, and democracy of information that Berners-Lee envisioned for it, and in India in particular, although the Internet has helped us rethink what the government can do, the attitude is that that Internet can only be used in ways that the government sees fit”, said Shah

The methodology of the ranking has rated countries on the basis of three parameters:

Web Readiness: The quality and extent of Communications Infrastructure (facilitating connectivity to the Web) and Institutional Infrastructure (policies regulating Web access and skill and educational levels enabling the full benefit of the Web).

Web Use: The Index looks both at Web usage within countries (such as the percentage of individuals who use the Internet) and the content available to these Web users.

The Impact of the Web: The Index uses social, economic and political indicators to evaluate the impact of the Web on these dimensions. This includes measures of social networks, business internet use and e-participation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-firstpost-com-sep-6-2012-china-outranks-india-in-worlds-first-ever-web-index

Bangalore's new champions for culture

praskrishna — 2012-09-07T08:59:59Z

The hundred and ninth imprint of TimeOut Bengaluru edition is dedicated to a group of people who TimeOut believes are playing critical roles in determining the cultural contours of this city, and are the new champions for the arts and culture in Bangalore. Lawrence Liang, founder of Alternative Law Forum is one of them.

Click to read the original published by TimeOut Bengaluru on August 31, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/timeout-bengaluru-bangalore-beat-bangalores-new-champions-for-culture

UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T03:40:07Z

On September 24, 2012, the Centre for Internet & Society in collaboration with the Alternative Law Forum invites the public to a talk with international experts, Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States. The meeting will be held at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore from 5.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The UK National DNA Database was the first to be established, in 1995, and is the largest per capita in the world. A major DNA expansion programme began in 2000 but is now being rolled back by the implementation of a new Protection of Freedoms Act, following a judgment against the UK government by the European Court of Rights. The lessons for the UK experience for the DNA Bill in India will be discussed, including the need for safeguards to protect privacy and rights, maintain public trust in police use of DNA, and prevent miscarriages of justice.

Dr. Helen Wallace

Dr. Helen Wallace is Director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit organisation which aims to engage members of the public in ensuring that genetic science and technologies are used in the public interest. She is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on the social and ethical issues raised by DNA databases and is widely quoted in the UK press. Helen provided expert evidence to the applicants in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court ruled unanimously that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA database records was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. She has supplied both oral and written evidence on this issue to numerous parliamentary committees including the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and the UK Science and Technology, Home Affairs and Constitutional Committees, as well as the scrutiny committee for the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012. This new Act requires the removal of about a million innocent people's records from the UK National DNA Database and the destruction of all stored biological samples.

Jeremy Gruber

Jeremy Gruber is the President and Executive Director of Council for Responsible Genetics. Jeremy joined CRG in March 2009. Previously he served as the legal director of the National Workrights Institute, a human rights organization dedicated to the rights of American workers. Prior to that he served as the field director for the ACLU’s National Taskforce on Civil Liberties in the Workplace. Jeremy has worked for over a decade on genetic non-discrimination legislation at the state and Federal level. He helped author and pass numerous state laws on genetic non-discrimination. Jeremy is a founder and executive committee member of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, a group of 500 organizations that advocated for genetic non-discrimination legislation on Capitol Hill and played a major role in the recently passed Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) by Congress. He worked closely with members of Congress and staff on GINA language as well as strategy and support. He is a prolific writer on privacy issues and is often consulted by state legislatures. He is regularly featured in print, radio and television. Jeremy holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from St. John’s University School of Law and a B.A. in Politics from Brandeis University.

Overview and Concerns Regarding the Indian Draft DNA Profiling Act

Forensic DNA: A Human Rights Challenge

The above video was originally posted in YouTube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/uk-dna-database-and-european-court-of-human-rights-lessons-that-india-can-learn-from-mistakes

Need a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:37:09Z

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year now.

This article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in LiveMint on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The government said it needed to improve the way in which it dealt with issues such as Internet hate messages besides blog posts and SMSes that seek to create panic so that it’s not accused of trying to gag free speech.

"We all have agreed that we need some combination of self-regulation and government interventions. But we need to do it in a proper way,” said department of telecom secretary R. Chandrasekhar, while addressing a Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) conference on the issue of “legitimate restrictions on freedom of online speech".

	The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities. Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities.

Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

Defending the government move, Gulshan Rai, chief of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-in), said it was the first time that the emergency provision of the Information Technology Act 2008 had been exercised. Even though the list was not drawn up by his agency, due scrutiny was carried out before issuing orders to block the sites.

This came after allegations that government may have also blocked bona fide posts as it sought to block content related to the North-East.

Twitter accounts of some journalists and other individuals associated with and sympathetic to right-wing causes were blocked, according to a list published earlier by The Economic Times.

"This is certainly not the last time we are seeing such a situation, so meaningful ways to respond to such complex situations will have to be devised," said Chandrasekhar.

He added that there was also a need to collaborate better with all stakeholders to devise not just defensive strategies during a crisis but also ways to contain its impact using the social media.

Ankhi Das, head of public policy at Facebook India, said that during the London riots of 2011, the UK government enlisted the support of social networking sites to dispel rumours.

"Social media can also be allies of the government at times like this," she said.

Raman Jit Singh Cheema, a senior policy analyst at Google India, cited a similar example of authorities in Japan using such methods to send out correct information following the tsunami that hit the country in 2011.

"We need to collaborate on a continuing basis, so that when you are faced with such a crisis, you are able to deal with it," said Chandrasekhar.

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year after minister for communication and information technology Kapil Sibal raised the issue of regulating social networking sites. They had allegedly not complied with the government’s demand that offensive content be removed.

Chandrasekhar said that processes should be clearer, more transparent and well-defined.

"These need to be brought out in the form of some kind of a standard operating procedure, so that they (stakeholders) are expected to know how to conduct themselves and how they can expect the government to deal if a contingency arises," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues

Thinking with Data@CIS

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:11:49Z

The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts.

Introduction to the course

Rajesh and Anand are offering a course titled Thinking with Data at NIAS. It’ll be covered in 12 – 14 two-hour sessions. The course will cover the basic ways in which we can use data to enhance our thinking capacities. Click here for more information about the course.

Salient Features

How to think with data and work on interesting problems.
Refresher course in programming using Python and HTML.
Discussions and FAQs with faculty and participants.
Project work.

Timings and Venue

It will be screened every Wednesday, starting from September 12, 2012, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

As part of the class, we are also offering a refresher course in Python and HTML

Objectives: Introduction to Programming using Python

Hardware Requirement: Learners should bring their own laptops

Prerequisites: Enthusiasm to learn.

Audience Level: Learners with following answers are welcomed.

I’m not too comfortable with programming
I can program, but not that well in Python
I’m good at Python

Timings of the Refresher Course:

September 16, 2012: 5:00 to 8.30 p.m.

September 17, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

September 18, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/thinking-with-data