We are anonymous, we are legion

Kapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:45:43Z

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.

This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”

Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to Mint.

"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.

Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."

Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that Rule 3(2) which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from Section 66A of the IT Act, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.

Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.

"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate Apar Gupta in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.

Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."

Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”

To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”

Jaitley in-perspective

Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory” not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content, could be misused, according to Times of India.

IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".

Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to PTI.

He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.

Draconian Censorious Rules

Legally India reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.

The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.

Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.

Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression.

CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of “over-complying” intermediaries who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).

"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:19:38Z

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

This article by Preetika Rana published in the Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

The websites were blocked by private telecom operators following a ruling by Chennai’s High Court in March.

The story began when Chennai-based Copyrights Labs, a firm specializing in copyright infringement, petitioned the High Court to take pre-emptive action against people who might illegally upload two Tamil-language films: "3" and "Dammu."

The court ruled that Internet service providers, or ISPs, could block video-sharing sites where those films were illegally available.

The court named 15 prominent ISPs who were covered by the order.

But the court did not name any particular video-sharing websites to be taken down. And it remains unclear if any of those affected this week even carried the two films in question.

Two major Indian ISPs, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications, blocked content sharing websites including U.S.-based Vimeo and France-based Dailymotion and Pastebin.

They cited the court order as a reason but without proof the sites were carrying the movies. Other ISPs named in the court order did not attempt to block any websites.

The two telecom giants offered little further clarity on why these websites were blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders,” Bharti Airtel said in a statement.

Reliance Communication’s statement said: "Under Section 79 of the IT Act, an ISP has to adhere to any copyright infringement notice and court orders."

Responding to reports of the ban, Harish Ram, chief executive of Copyrights Labs said Thursday: "We have been fighting for this for long and it seems the ISPs are finally responding."

By Friday, the ISPs had restored services for Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin, although some users still reported access problems.

It is still unclear why the March order came into effect only now or why Reliance and Airtel decied to unblock the websites. The telecom firms did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Experts attacked ISPs for clamping down on free speech on the web.

"Why and how did telecom giants target select websites," said Pranesh Prakash, a program manager at Bangalore based-Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit group advocating free speech on the web. He pointed out that the High Court did not spell out the names of websites that should be blocked.

"Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web," he said. "Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?"

Bhupendra Kainthola, a spokesman for the telecom ministry, noted that the "government or the telecom ministry had nothing to do with the high court ruling.” When asked why the ministry did not intervene, Mr. Kainthola responded: “What can we do? If an order has been passed, we have to follow it… that is the law of the land."

The move comes only a few months after the central government issued an official sanction to prosecute internet giants Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that they host "blasphemous" content on their websites. A criminal case against the two companies is ongoing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban

Taming the Web, are we?

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:01:28Z

Two decades after its advent changed our lives, the world wide web - as we know it - faces a grave threat. Not from governments alone, but also from tech companies seeking to play gatekeepers.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article by Javed Anwer published in the Economic Times on May 13, 2012

The /b/ section at www.4chan.org is so extreme in nature that even web veterans squirm at the thought of going through it. Anyone can post virtually any picture here. Anonymously. It doesn't matter if the pictures are obscene , graphic or gory.

Yet, 4Chan, which was started by a 15-year-old in 2003, is an integral part of the world wide web. The large community at 4Chan mirrors the virtual world - lawless and anarchic in the traditional sense, highly innovative, funny and sometimes disturbing. Barry Newstead, chief global development officer of Wikimedia that manages Wikipedia, puts it succinctly. "The internet has been giving ordinary people the voice and the ability to contribute content and ideas and opinions. Sometimes we use it to create pictures of funny cats and sometimes it's the world's largest encyclopedia ," he says.

Until recently, it seems governments just noticed the funny cats. They left the web to its own devices. At the same time, the egalitarian ethos on which the web was founded - Tim Berners-Lee developed it and gave it away for free - kept realworld barriers, which corporations and people often put around their environment, away from it. In 2012, it looks like the honeymoon is over.

'Civilizing' the Net

Perhaps the problem is that, for all its perceived flaws, the internet has worked wonderfully well."Too well," says Jeff Jarvis, author of 'Public Parts' , a book on internet culture. It has allowed people to create Google, Facebook, Hotmail, WikiLeaks, Wikipedia and thousands of other websites and services that have changed lives. Last year Jarvis was in Paris, participating in e-G 8 called by then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. He heard the Frenchman's plans to"civilize" the web. "Nobody should forget governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies," said Sarkozy.

His sentiments are shared by politicians across the world, including in India. Just three days ago, Congress MP Shantaram Naik, aghast at the "filthy" comments on a website, said in the Rajya Sabha that the internet needs to be "purified" . Different politicians and governments have different reasons. But regulation is growing. In the last few years, governments across the world have proposed or enacted laws (see box) that aim to "civilize" the web.

Why the urgency? Is the internet broken? Jarvis says it is not. "The net is operating no differently today than it was a decade ago. But we see so many efforts to fix it - to regulate it under the cloak of privacy, piracy, decency, security, and even civility," he says. "I believe legacy institutions, including governments, are waking up to the extent of the net's disruptive force... they are trying to control the net and govern the change it causes."

Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, says that in the last two years governments have doubled their efforts to control the web. "During the revolutions in Arab countries last year, protesters mobilized themselves through Twitter and Facebook. Then there are Wikileaks and Anonymous. This has made governments and politicians jittery," says Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/taming-the-web

Cordon tightens: Rajya Sabha nod to harsh IT rules

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:49:10Z

Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted in this article by Anil Sharma & Aishhwariya Subramanian published in Daily News & Analysis on May 18, 2012.

The draconian intermediaries rules of the Information Technology Act that allows the government to aggressively police the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will continue for some more time as a motion to annul them in the Rajya Sabha was defeated by the treasury benches on Thursday.

The rules that came into effect last year almost became annulled after a determined push from MPs cutting across party lines in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. However, the government barely managed to scrape through but union communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal conceded that there were problems and promised to call for a meeting to address the concerns of the MPs.

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member from Kerala P Rajeeve had moved a statutory motion demanding that these rules be annulled as they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Rajeeve received enthusiastic support from the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, who made a detailed argument against the existing rules. An impressed Jaitley commended Rajeeve for involving Parliament in the process of framing the rules. Jaitley also slammed the government for trying to police the internet but stressed that like other media this could not be controlled. "In fact, if the internet had been there at that time even the Emergency would have been a fiasco," he said.

The members were keen that the motion be put to vote and the numbers in the Rajya Sabha were loaded against the government.

However, responding to Jaitley's suggestion, Sibal assured the house that the concerns of the members would be taken on board. "I request the members to write to me with their specific suggestions. I will take up the matter at a joint meeting with all the stakeholders and arrive at a solution," he said.

This pacified the members and the government ducked a potentially embarrassing situation.

Expressing his dissatisfaction with the minister's reply, Rajeeve stressed that just as there is a provision for withdrawing objectionable content from the internet within 36 hours, there should be scope for restoring it if the original author can justify it.

The debate was keenly followed by free speech activists who have been lobbying for months to get these draconian rules annulled. The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also conducted a major sting operation to prove how absurd these rules are. They sent several fake "take-down notices" to several companies hosting internet sites. The companies went ahead and shut down some blogs and web sites without even bothering to check if the complaints had any merit.

"The trouble with Indian government's proposal to address issues such as network neutrality, privacy and freedom of expression, is top-down. Unlike other countries where internet policies have always been developed with consultation with other stakeholders, here the government imposes its will," said Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS.

Netizens are concerned about India's bad track record when it comes to censorship and a policy for the internet. Delhi-based Anja Kovacks, from the Internet Democracy Project, feels that many of the concerns voiced by Indian government are justified. "Undoubtedly the internet presents a range of new challenges, in India as elsewhere, that need to be addressed. Many of the concerns the Indian government expresses are therefore also completely justified. But the ways in which it seeks to tackle these problems are not appropriate for a democratic nation." Kovacks believes that the current policy will impair the freedom of speech.

Ironically, while the UPA government is busy clamping down on domestic opinion, it is planning to take a far more liberal stand at an upcoming international conference on running the internet in Geneva later this year. "It is an ironical situation where India is not following domestically what it is proposing internationally," said Pranesh Prakash of CIS.

With the government holding on to its draconian rules, citizens using social networks like Twitter and Facebook or writing blogs will now have to worry about big brother watching over their shoulders.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rajya-sabha-nod-to-harsh-it-rules

Empires: Individuals in Search of Society

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:35:46Z

In their 2000 bestseller Empire, Michael Hardt and Toni Negri announced a new international condition no longer built on the imperialist model of the superpowers of old but on the new condition of globalization. This new and emerging networked world held with it the opportunity for politics to bring forward a 21st century of interconnectedness, openness and a shared sense of planetary responsibility.

This article by Marc Lafia was published in Huffington Post on May 18, 2012

What we've discovered since is that the new empire still plays by the games of the old empires: of nation states, of divisiveness, of scarcity, of might, control and fear, even while we have never had such enormous abundance and innovation.

It is this paradox that Empires -- our documentary film and online project, currently raising funds through Kickstarter -- sets out to unravel. The title works on multiple levels. It says that the nationalist empires are back. It also suggests that the empires of law, money, science, speed, nation states, and food are, in fact, complex networks that are inter-related and interdependent.

It is said that you know there is a network when you're excluded from it.

To be included is to have a voice, to participate, to have agency. These things drive the histories of political and philosophical thought. They are not abstract concepts but the very real struggles of networked relations, of powers, peoples, flows of energies and technologies.

How these networks work and how they interact is what Empires sets out to explicate.

We've sat down with an extraordinary group of historians, scientists, network technologists, sociologists, political organizers and artists to construct a conversation that describes the forces that shape our contemporary world. The list includes Manuel Delanda, Saskia Sassen, Florian Cramer, Natalie Jeremijenko, Kazys Varnelis, Geert Lovink, Alex Galloway, Michael Hardt, Anthony Pagden, Cathy Davidson, Greg Lindsay, Nishant Shah, James Delbourgo, Jon Protevi, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, and soon Paul D. Miller and Douglas Rushkoff.

What we've heard is that our managerial and government elites are dysfunctional and that the new order of things is every man for himself, that things find their own order, from the ground up. Our desires are expressed in our purchasing power. Money is how we vote and the market will continually adjust to accommodate the desires we express. We can all be winners using the network effects to scale up to success, a success each of us has agency to produce. There are no larger structures to trump agency. If you can make it you will make it.

In this ethos of the elevation of our uniqueness to the exclusion of our commonalities, we have become blind to any possible collective power. We now, in the West, are a society of individuals in search of society.

With reluctance today to accept such universalisms as global citizenship, rights to a living wage, to mobility, to social ownership of information channels and planetary resources, we are left with a notion that society, like nature, will be chaotic and disruptive, and that through this new 'natural law' of volatility, of self organization, a new politics will emerge and find its shape.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/individuals-in-search-of-society

Cyber Appellate Tribunal in Bengaluru

praskrishna — 2012-05-30T05:47:48Z

Bengaluru will be home to the southern chapter of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT), which will reach out to victims of cyber crime, the state government announced at the Cyber Security Summit here on Tuesday.

Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article published in the Deccan Herald on May 9, 2012.

But on the other hand, the IT Secretary, who is the state adjudicator, has held in all the cases that he has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the banks and that no complaint can be admitted under Section 43 of the IT Act against any corporate entity.

"The state IT secretary has passed more than 80 orders. They include both cases of phishing and orders against cyber cafes for not adhering to rules under the IT Act. The Adjudicator has held that ‘section 43 of IT Act is not applicable to a body or Corporate’, after the amended IT Act came into force in 2008," said Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet Society "I feel Section 43 has been mis used . The definition given in this section cannot be understood either by lawyers or technical people. If there is a genuine case of phishing and a user has suffered losses over the internet then there should be no ambiguity in passing the order," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cyber-appellate-tribunal-bengaluru

Letter for Civil Society Involvement in WCIT

Center for Democracy & Technology — 2012-05-24T06:55:30Z

This page features a letter from academics and civil society groups from around the world to International Telecommunication Union Secretary-General Dr. Hamadoun Touré regarding the lack of opportunity for civil society participation in the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) process.

This letter was published by the Center for Democracy & Technology.

A PDF of the letter is available here. ONG Derechos Digitales has provided a Spanish translation of the letter. For more background on the WCIT, see our policy post, Civil Society Must Have Voice as ITU Debates the Internet, and our ITU resource page.

Civil society organizations and academics are invited to join this call to address deficiencies in the WCIT process. For more information, contact signon@cdt.org.

17 May 2012

To Secretary-General Dr. Hamadoun Touré, the Council Working Group to Prepare for the WCIT-12, and ITU Member States:

The undersigned human rights advocates, academics, freedom of expression groups, and civil society organizations write to express our desire to participate in the preparatory process undertaken for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). The current preparatory process lacks the transparency, openness of process, and inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders that are imperative under commitments made at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). We ask that the Secretary-General, the Council Working Group, and Member States work to resolve these process deficiencies in several concrete ways.

The continued success of the information society depends on the full, equal, and meaningful participation of civil society stakeholders (along side the private sector, the academic and technical community, and governments) in the management of information and communications technology, including both technical and public policy issues. Indeed, WSIS outcome documents recognize the need for a multi-stakeholder approach in technical management and policy decision-making for ICTs. The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society urges international organizations “to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making … and to promote and facilitate such participation.” And such participation depends on transparency and openness of process at every stage of substantive and procedural dialogue.

Yet there has been scant participation by civil society in the Council Working Group’s preparatory process for the WCIT so far, even as media reports indicate that some Member States have proposed amending the International Telecommunication Regulations to address issues that could impact the exercise of human rights in the digital age, including freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy rights. Under the current process, civil society participation is severely limited by restrictions on sharing of preparatory documents, high barriers for ITU membership (including cost), and lack of mechanisms for remote participation in preparatory meetings.

As an important step towards fulfilling WSIS commitments for building a more inclusive information society, the undersigned request that the Secretary-General, the Council Working Group, and Member States:

Remove restrictions on the sharing of WCIT documents and release all preparatory materials, including the Council Working Group’s final report, consolidated reports from all preparatory activity, and proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations;
Open the preparatory process to meaningful participation by civil society in its own right and without cost at Council Working Group meetings and the WCIT itself, providing formal speaking opportunities and according civil society views an equal weight as those of other stakeholders. Facilitate remote participation to the extent possible; and
For Member States, open public processes at the national level to solicit input on proposed amendments to the International Telecommunication Regulations from all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, and release individual proposals for public debate.

We welcome Secretary-General Touré’s commitment to creating a more inclusive information society and ensuring equitable access to ICT around the world. Collectively and individually, the undersigned human rights advocates, academics, freedom of expression groups, and civil society organizations work to fulfill this vision through a range of national and global institutions and we call for the same opportunity to engage at the WCIT, consistent with WSIS commitments. We urge you to ensure the outcomes of the WCIT and its preparatory process truly represent the common interests of all who have a stake in the future of our information society.

Sincerely,
Access
Article 19
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Eduardo Bertoni, Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la
Información (CELE), Universidad de Palermo, Argentina
Bytes for All, Pakistan
Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil
Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), India
Consumers International
Digitale Gesellschaft e.V.
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
Electronic Frontier Foundation
European Digital Rights
Freedom House
Global Partners & Associates
Global Voices Advocacy
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Watch
Internet Democracy Project, India
Internet Governance Project (IGP)
Kictanet, Kenya
Rebecca MacKinnon
MobileActive Corp
New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute
ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile
Open Rights Group
Panoptykon Foundation, Poland
Public Knowledge
Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders
World Press Freedom Committee

Ageia Densi, Argentina
Bolo Bhi, Pakistan
Index on Censorship
IP Justice
Julia Group, Sweden
Net Users' Rights Protection Association, Belgium

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement

The Private Eye

nishant — 2012-05-24T06:25:48Z

The world’s largest digital social networking system, oh ok, Facebook, to just name names, was recently in a lot of buzz.

Nishant Shah's article was published in the Indian Express on May 14, 2012

The world’s largest digital social networking system, oh ok, Facebook, to just name names, was recently in a lot of buzz. For once, it was not about the laments of how we are downgrading the meaning of friendship, eroding social relationships, and visions of an apocalyptic future where people will lose the knack of face-time to interface intimacies. Instead, the buzz was about Facebook’s collaboration with the American non-profit coalition Donate Life America to encourage more people to sign themselves up as organ donors. The feature that allows the American users to sign up as organ donors, promising their organs, in the event of their death, to others who might live through them, has been an instant hit. More than a lakh people have updated their status to reflect their volunteering as organ donors, and thousands others have signed up for the noteworthy initiative.

There is no doubt that harnessing the powers of social networks for such causes is laudable, and indeed, follows the trends that we have been witnessing the last few years, where people have mobilised their networks for a range of things — from overthrowing governments to dancing in flash mobs. It is interesting that initiatives which were already working with large-scale networks are now collaborating within the social media space to tap into the immense potential of social networking. It is also noteworthy that Facebook Connect, which is a slowly growing system by which users authenticate themselves to different portals and can use their Facebook credentials instead of creating new profiles with more passwords to remember, was used effectively to facilitate registering for a new system. It is a testimony to Facebook’s growing omnipresence, that initiatives like these can use those credentials in their systems.

There is a wide range of interests that punctuate this phenomenon and there is a rich discourse that reports, analyses and maps it. However, I want to take this opportunity to make a distinction between data types that is often lost in the presumption that all information on a social network is the same kind of information. With the enabling of this feature, Facebook has started mining a new set of personal data that is at once fiercely private and vulnerable. Till now, Facebook and other such social networking systems were already harvesting a wide range of data — personal data such as name, gender, birth-date, pictures, etc.; social data such as relationships, interactions, communities, groups, likes, etc.; usage data like preferences, navigation, search, frequency of interaction et al. While all this data has been about the personal, it is also data that we share and display in our everyday life. Who we are, what we look like, the politics that we subscribe to, the communities we are a part of, languages we speak, products we consume and people we hang out with is physical data that is available to anybody who cares to watch us.

While there are serious repercussions on what happens when such data falls into malicious hands, there is still objectivity to this data. This is data which we can understand as personal — as referring to the person, but not necessarily private. Private data is actually the information that we have singular access to. And this distinction between the personal and the private is good to understand, because with the Organ Donor badge, Facebook has entered a new realm of data mining, which is truly private. Till now, privacy arguments around Facebook have not been as fuelled as they might otherwise be, because there is an innate understanding that there is a certain performative aspect to our personal data, because it facilitates different kinds of negotiations, transactions and engagements. However, with private data — health and medical history, gender and sexual orientations, desires and fantasies, moral and ethical choices — we are entering murky waters. This happens because while violation of personal data can be easily rectified by resorting to the law, the private is more in the grey zone, subject to interpretations and often unquantifiable in its intensity.

The concerns that will emerge are the same kinds that we have seen in other large projects that deal with private data like the Aadhar project that uses biometric identification data to identify citizens in India. While Facebook might not be collecting biometric data, it is important to recognise that this new kind of data disclosure, which puts our private information in the public domain, only mandates better security and privacy control within these social networks. As we move towards a data-driven future, we need to be more aware of the different kinds of data sets that we are making public and educate ourselves about the risks of this disclosure, without being carried away by the sway of meme-like behaviour and viral trends online. The next time you decide to reveal some new kinds of data about yourself, pause for a moment and reflect on whether it is personal or private, and whether it is absolutely necessary to facilitate your interaction within that information system and the rewards and dangers it comes with.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/private-eye

Open letter to Kolaveri Di makers: How Dare You!

nishant — 2012-05-23T07:02:03Z

When it comes to piracy, you are sure to have an opinion. You might either make a virtue out of it, talking about cultural commons and collaborative conditions of production. Or you might vilify it as the social fault-line that is destroying the very pillars of commerce and cultural negotiations.

This article by Nishant Shah was published in First Post on May 22, 2012.

No matter which part of the fault-line you fall under, this is the time for all good (and otherwise ambiguously identified) people to come to the aid of the party. This is an open call for anybody who has been on the interwebz, to share and distribute one particular object whose rights protector have recently taken your right to access countless platforms which are a part of your everyday life online.

If you haven’t yet grasped it, I am referring to the recent events where, following a John Doe order from the High Court of Chennai, all kinds of file sharing platforms are suddenly being blocked by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) across India.

The film producers of ‘3’, the movie whose claim to fame has been the spectacular viral success of the Kolaveri Di song, have moved the courts to issue a blanket order that has suddenly made it impossible for Indian netizens to access file sharing, user-generated-content hosting websites which allowed for digital cultural texts – from print to music to movies to presentations – to be shared and disseminated freely online.

The producers and those who support them, are glorying in this legal battle where they have identified nodes in our networks, through which their copyright information was potentially being pirated. They are hoping that by ensuring this lack of digital mobility for their film, they will be able to entice audiences to come into the theatres and spend their money ‘legitimately’ on the film.

They are revelling in the fact that hundreds of thousands of users have been thwarted in their attempts at copyright infringement. What they haven’t realised is that they have justified their box-office greed by infringing on your and my rights to perform everyday activities online.

I am sure there is going to be a smart-aleck riding a moral high horse, who will applaud this move and point out to me about the rights of the producers to protect their content. There are many who support this high-censorship which not only betrays the power of the Music And Film Industry Association (MAFIA, to friends) to curb us of our rights, but also the completely depraved technology apparatus of the State which seems to have no understanding of how the internet actually works.

However, i want to shift the focus from the rights of these victimised producers and right-holders to the right of the individual who is actually the structural unit of cyberspaces. And I want to suggest to you that these right-holders, who incidentally, have such global value only because the Kolaveri Di song put them on the global meme map, have now infringed upon my right to access my content which I had put out to share.

There are open content videos on Vimeo that we have produced through years of research and a huge amount of financial investment, which are now no longer available to people who want to view them.

There are powerpoint presentations and publications on file sharing sites, seeded through torrents, which are now impossible to access for people in India. A large amount of our personal research and lectures, which we have shared for educational purposes, are now not even available for us to download.

And we are not alone in this. Hundreds of thousands of individuals, who have shared openly licensed material, have now lost the ability to access that information because one private company wanted to make sure it made its profits.

I am not going to write a manifesto for the digital world, but I do want to put it out there, this new cultural MAFIA, grant to me my rights which their actions have violated. For every site that they have included in their banned list, they have disrespected the open, collaborative licenses that enabled sharing of information whose value, usage and worth is more than their commercial pot boiler, which shall hopefully be forgotten before we realise it was released in the markets.

Their commercially driven arrogance has suddenly demanded that we pay a price for the shared information, and that price should be to those who hold rights over the movie.

And so I am writing this open call, for you to come and demand your right. If that movie producer has the right to protect his interests, you and I have the right to protect ours. I demand that for every site that I am not able to access, for public domain information that I am entitled to, they pay us a penalty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-kolaveri-di

The Awesome Contracts Project (Geekup @ CIS)

praskrishna — 2012-05-11T12:17:09Z

Vivek Durai, co-founder at Awesome Contracts, a Singapore-India startup will give a public lecture on May 18, 2012 at the Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore. Lawyer, musician, legal recruiter and entrepreneur, Amith Narayan will also participate through Skype!

The Awesome Contracts Project

Contracts are ubiquitous in our everyday life. They are also a nuisance. And they typically come attached with a bigger nuisance - lawyers! Interestingly though, contracts are a lot like code. Geek-lawyers, a very small, minuscule tribe on this planet, tend to notice a lot of similarities between the two. If this is true, it opens up a lot of possibilities, including changing the way we do business and in particular generate contracts, negotiate and seal deals.

We'll talk about some of the technology and some of the products we're working on that we think can provide power to a lot of folks.

Agenda

17:00 - 17:05	Welcome with Tea, Coffee, and Snacks
17:05 - 17:15	Lightning Talks
17:15 - 18:00	The Awesome Contracts Project
18:00 - 18:30	Q & A

Vivek Durai

Vivek Durai is a co-founder at Awesome Contracts, a Singapore-India startup that is working on interesting problems in the field of law and contracts. As with just about everyone else, he and co-founder Amith Narayan would like to change the world. Preferably, for the better. Vivek and Amith are both alumnus of the National Law School of India University.

Vivek is a lawyer by training, a geek by nature, and generally human. Most of the time. As far as ideologies go, Vivek is a Pythonista currently flirting with Node and other things. He is also incidentally a Partner at Atman Law Partners, a young three office boutique law firm.

Amith Narayan

Amith Narayan loves hats. He likes them so much in fact, he's been wearing all kinds. He has been a corporate lawyer, a musician, a record producer, a legal recruiter, and now an entrepreneur running this crazy little startup. Amith grew up in Calicut (Kozhikode) Kerala, trained in law at NLSIU, worked in the grand dame of the Indian legal world - Crawford Bayley - before moving to Singapore where he's been living for the past 10 years. Amith will join us over Skype during the talk.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/awesom-contracts-project

Chilling Effects and Frozen Words

Lawrence Liang — 2012-04-30T07:32:17Z

What if the real danger is not that we lose our freedom of speech and expression but our sense of humour as a nation? Lawrence Liang's op-ed was published in the Hindu on April 30, 2012.

While freedom of speech and expression is an individual right, its actualisation often relies on a vast infrastructure of intermediaries.

In the offline world, this includes newspapers, television channels, public auditoriums, etc. It is often assumed that the internet has created a more robust public sphere of speech by doing away with many structural barriers to free speech. But the fact of the matter is that even if the internet enables a shift from a ‘few to many' to a ‘many to many' model of communication, intermediaries continue to remain important players in facilitating free speech. Can one imagine free speech on the internet being the same without Twitter, social networks or Youtube?

One way of thinking of the infrastructure of communication is in terms of ecology, and in the ecology of speech — as in the environment — an adverse impact on any component threatens the well-being of all. The idea of cyberspace as a commons is a much cherished myth and in the early days of the internet we were perhaps given a glimpse into its utopian possibility. But we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the problems that plague free speech in the offline world (including ownership of the avenues of speech) are absent in cyberspace. Recall in recent times that one of the most effective ways in which various governments retaliated to the leaking of official secrets on WikiLeaks was by freezing Julian Assange's PayPal account.

Direct & Indirect Controls

It may be useful to distinguish between direct controls on free speech and indirect or structural controls on free speech. India has had a long history of battling direct and indirect controls on free speech and with a few exceptions the interests of the press have often coincided with the interests of a robust public sphere of debate and criticism.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a number of large media houses battled restrictions imposed on the press by way of control of the number of pages of a newspaper, regulation of the size of advertisements and the price of imported newsprint. On the face of it, some of these restrictions may have seemed like commercial disputes but the Supreme Court rightly recognised that indirect controls could adversely impact the individual's right to express himself or herself as well as to receive information freely.

In the online context, there has also been a similar recognition of the role of intermediaries in providing platforms of speech and it is with this view in mind that a number of countries have incorporated safe harbour provisions in their information technology laws.

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act is one such safe harbour provision in India which provides that intermediaries shall not be liable for any third party action if they are able to prove that the offence or contravention was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence or contravention. But this safe harbour has effectively been undone with the passing of the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.

The rules clarify what standard of due diligence has to be met by intermediaries and Sec. 3(2) of the rules obliges intermediaries to have rules and conditions of usage which ensure that users do not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that is in contravention of the Section. This includes the all too familiar ones (defamatory, obscene, pornographic content) but also a whole host of new categories which could be invoked to restrict speech (“grossly harmful,” “blasphemous,” “harassing,” “hateful”).

As is well known, any restriction on speech in India has to comply with both the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, as well as ensuring that the grounds of censorship are located within 19(2). Even though there are laws regulating hate speech in India, blasphemy is not a category under Art. 19(2) and has hitherto not been a part of Indian law. Some of the other categories such as “grossly harmful” suggest the people who drafted the rules seem to have taken a constitutional nap at the drafting board.

Sec. 3(4) of the rules provides that any intermediary who receives a notice by an aggrieved person about any violation of sub rule (2) will have to act within 36 hours and where applicable will ensure that the information is disabled. In the event that it fails to act or to respond, the intermediary cannot claim exemption for liability under Sec. 70 of the IT Act. It is worth noting that most intermediaries receive from hundreds to thousands of requests from individuals on a daily basis asking for the removal of objectionable material. The Centre for Internet and Society conducted a “sting operation” to determine whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on free expression.

In the course of the study, frivolous takedown notices were sent to seven intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled. The takedown notices which were sent by the researcher were intentionally defective as they did not establish how they were interested parties, did not specifically identify and discuss any individual URL on the websites, or present any cause of action, or suggest any legal injury. Of the seven intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, six over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them.

Caution

Even in cases where the intermediaries challenged the validity of the takedowns, they erred on the side of caution and took down the material. While a number of intermediaries would see themselves as allies in the fight against censorship, more often than not intermediaries are also large commercial organisations whose primary concern is the protection of their business interests. In the face of any potential legal threat, especially from the government, they prefer to err on the side of caution. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed.

The procedural flaws (subjective determination, absence of the right to be heard, the short response time) coupled with the vague grounds on which such takedowns can be claimed, clearly point to a highly flawed situation in which we will see many more trigger happy demands for offending materials to be taken down.

We have already slipped into a state of being a republic of over sensitivity where any politician, religious group or individual can claim their sentiments have been hurt or they have been portrayed disparagingly, as evidenced by the recent attack and subsequent arrest of Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University for posting cartoons lampooning Mamata Banerjee.

Nervous State

In the era of global outsourcing it was inevitable that the state censorship machinery would also learn a lesson or two from the global trends and what better way of ensuring censorship than outsourcing it to individuals and to corporations. The renowned anthropologist, Michael Taussig, once compared the state to a nervous system and it seems that the Intermediary rules live up to the expectations of a nervous state ever ready to respond to criticism and disparaging cartoons.

What if the real danger is not even that we lose our freedom of speech and expression but we lose our sense of humour as a nation?

The evident flaws of the rules have been acknowledged even by lawmakers, with P. Rajeeve, the CPI(M) M.P., introducing a motion for the annulment of the rules. The annulment motion is going to be debated in the coming weeks and one hopes that the parliamentarians will seriously reconsider the rules in their current form.

When faced with conundrums of the present it is always useful to turn to history and there is reason to believe that while censorship has a very respectable genealogy in Indian thought, it has also been accompanied in equal measure by a tradition of the right to offend.

In his delightful reading of the Arthashastra, Sibaji Bandyopadhay alerts us to the myriad restrictions that existed to control Kusilavas (the term for entertainers which included actors, dancers, singers, storytellers, minstrels and clowns). These regulations ranged from the regulation of their movement during monsoon to prohibitions placed on them, ensuring that they shall not “praise anyone excessively nor receive excessive presents”. While some of the regulations appear harsh and unwarranted, Bandyopadhay says that in contrast to Plato's Republic, which banished poets altogether from the ideal republic, the Arthashastra goes so far as to grant to Kusilavas what we could now call the right to offend. Verse 4.1.61 of the Arthashastra says, “In their performances, [the entertainers] may, if they so wish, make fun of the customs of regions, castes or families and the practices or love affairs (of individuals)”. One hopes that our lawmakers, even if they are averse to reading the Indian Constitution, will be slightly more open to the poetic licence granted by Kautilya.

Click for the original published in the Hindu on April 30, 2012. Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher based at Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. He can be contacted at lawrence@altlawforum.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-frozen-words

It’s mainstream vs social

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T04:23:27Z

Mainstream and social media share an increasingly uneasy relationship. Mahima Kaul, a Guest Columnist with the Sunday Guardian wrote this article. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.

The Abhishek Manu Singhvi CD scandal brought into focus the increasingly confrontational relationship between social media and mainstream media. When a court order kept the mainstream from broadcasting the CD, social media took centrestage in spreading it online and keeping a buzz about the scandal for days. Many termed it as a "victory" for social media. Others slammed social media users as "eternal voyeurs" and wondered why they seemed to be above the court order. In return, blogs went as far as to title a post, "Why the Indian MSM (mainstream media) Wants Social Media Dead".

A quick recap: after the CD leak, Singhvi moved court to stop certain media organisations from telecasting it. The Delhi High Court gave an ex parte order that "the defendants (media house), their agents ... are restrained from publishing, broadcasting and disseminating or distributing in any form or any manner..." However, people caught hold of the video and kept linking it on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. It went viral. Singhvi resigned from all political posts and settled the matter out of court. In his statement of resignation, Singhvi's bitterness at the role of social media was apparent: "in either event it raises no public interest issue... contumacious internet violation of a flagrant kind." I will save you a Google search: contumacious means to be wilfully disobedient to authority.

There are questions to be asked. Who was the 13 April court order aimed at? Is Singhvi's proposition that an internet violation took place true?

The order was explicitly binding on only specific organisations (Aaj Tak, India Today Group and Headlines Today). The rest of the mainstream media showed remarkable restraint. In the case of the video being linked on social media, it was users' prerogative, as they were not covered under that order even though Singhvi's statement suggests otherwise. However, there is another angle to consider. Social media users would have broken the law only if the video content itself was objectionable. "If the video is judged to be 'obscene', then under s.67 of the Information Technology Act, 'causing [obscenity] to be transmitted', is also a crime," says Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society. So, the question is, was this video obscene? While my journalistic integrity did not extend to watching the video, I've been told it has neither nudity nor explicit sexual activity, and cannot be considered obscene. Therefore, it appears that social media has functioned well within its rights.

What remains, then, is the view that social media "should" be restrained. How? A court order could stop users from linking the video online, but it would only be applicable in India. Also, there are already provisions in the IT Amendment Act 2008, which allows for "offensive" material to be removed by the intermediary, or site blockage by the government. Twitter has already announced national policies of censorship, although this incident would probably not qualify for such a drastic action. Sunil Abraham adds that the court could also give a "John Doe order" against prospective offenders that enables the IP owner to serve notice and take action at the same time against anyone who is found to be guilty. However, this step is to be taken with caution. In criticising the existing order on the Singhvi case, Arun Jaitley wrote in an editorial that "a pre-publication injunction (should) ... be exercised with great caution specially in a case of libel and slander," because in this case it was yet to be proven that the CD was indeed fabricated.

It seems there is offline outrage about online outrage. However, for mainstream media to call for restraint on social media based on their own actions seems to be hypocritical in this particular instance, because they did so only because of a court order. One need to look at stories ranging from the Mumbai attacks to the Arushi Talwar murder case to understand the invasive nature of mainstream media in India. What is more worrying is that the mainstream media is equating itself with social media in some ways, wondering why it needs to have editorial checks if citizens can gossip away on Twitter. In return, social media is counting its victories against the mainstream in a manner that suggests that the two consider each other competitors. Although most conversation on social media would not exist without mainstream news sources, ultimately their function in society is not the same. The media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy, while social media is considered an "unofficial" channel. If either is found indulging in illegal or harmful activities, they can and must be checked. But, in the end, it serves freedom of speech to keep the two functioning in context, not in confrontation.

Read the original published in the Sunday Guardian on April 30, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mainstream-vs-social

Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet

Rishabh Dara — 2012-12-14T10:22:24Z

The Centre for Internet & Society in partnership with Google India conducted the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. This was offered for the first time in Asia Pacific as well as in India. Rishabh Dara was selected as a Fellow and researched upon issues relating to freedom of expression. The results of the paper demonstrate that the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ notified by the Government of India on April 11, 2011 have a chilling effect on free expression.

Intermediaries are widely recognised as essential cogs in the wheel of exercising the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. Most major jurisdictions around the world have introduced legislations for limiting intermediary liability in order to ensure that this wheel does not stop spinning. With the 2008 amendment of the Information Technology Act 2000, India joined the bandwagon and established a ‘notice and takedown’ regime for limiting intermediary liability.

On the 11th of April 2011, the Government of India notified the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ that prescribe, amongst other things, guidelines for administration of takedowns by intermediaries. The Rules have been criticised extensively by both the national and the international media. The media has projected that the Rules, contrary to the objective of promoting free expression, seem to encourage privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression. On the other hand, the Government has responded through press releases and assured that the Rules in their current form do not violate the principle of freedom of expression or allow the government to regulate content.

This study has been conducted with the objective of determining whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression. In the course of the study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 prominent intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled.

The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.

Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritize the allocation of its legal resources according to the commercial importance of impugned expressions. Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgement) complies with the takedown notice.

The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is also no recourse to have the removed information put-back or restored. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice.

The Rules in their current form clearly tilt the takedown mechanism in favour of the complainant and adversely against the creator of expression.

The research highlights the need to:

increase the safeguards against misuse of the privately administered takedown regime

reduce the uncertainty in the criteria for administering the takedown

reduce the uncertainty in the procedure for administering the takedown

include various elements of natural justice in the procedure for administering the takedown

replace the requirement for subjective legal determination by intermediaries with an objective test

Click to download the report [PDF, 406 Kb]

Appendix 2

The above documents have been sent to:

Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Human Resource Development and Minister of Communications and Information Technology
Shri Milind Murli Deora, Minister of State of Communications and Information Technology
Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Dr. Anita Bhatnagar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
Dr. Gulshan Rai, Scientist G & Group Coordinator, Director General, ICERT, Controller Of Certifying, Authorities and Head of Division, Cyber Appellate Tribunal

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet

Social Media 1, Indian Government 0

praskrishna — 2012-04-27T04:44:39Z

The futility of the Indian government’s attempts to control what is posted on Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites was thrown into high relief this week, after a video purportedly showing Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singvi having sex in his office resulted in his resignation.

The article by Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on April 26, 2012

Mr. Singhvi, who also is a prominent lawyer, said the video was a fake, but resigned from his spokesman spot and from a parliamentary law committee he headed Monday evening, to “prevent even the slightest possible parliamentary disruption,” he said in a statement.

The video, which has now been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people on YouTube and other social media sites, is neither explicit, nor immediately incriminating – most of it appears to show little more than the top of Mr. Singhvi’s balding head, in profile, bobbing above the top of his desk. He might be waxing his office floor, or searching somewhat frantically for a dropped contact lens.

Still, a Delhi High Court injunction on April 13 banned television stations from broadcasting the video, which was originally distributed to media outlets on a CD. Perhaps frustrated by their inability to show the footage in question, India’s television news stations have been engaged in unusually highbrow debate about whether India actually needs stricter privacy laws for public figures.

There’s no such talk on social media sites, though.

The video was quickly posted on Facebook, Pirate’s Bay and other social media and video-sharing sites. While a Facebook page especially created for it has been taken down, there are now dozens of versions of the video on YouTube, in increasingly pixelated versions as users copy and post it again and again. (One YouTube user even helpfully posted a video of the Facebook page, and filmed the process of opening all the links on the page.)

Social media companies received requests from Indian law enforcement officials and court orders asking them to remove the video, which they did, executives in social media companies said on background. But it kept popping up again and again.

Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga of the Delhi-based Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena, a right-wing group, told wire service IANS that he posted the video on Twitvid, which allows users to distribute videos via Twitter. “I am not afraid of these people and they deserve this,” he said. “I am prepared for any consequences,” he said.

Facebook officials said they couldn’t comment on the situation. The page in question that featured the Singhvi video was created with by a “fake” user, which is against Facebook’s rules.

Google received a copy of a generic court order from Mr. Singhvi’s lawyers on April 24 asking it to remove the video, which it followed.

“Our policy prohibits inappropriate content, on YouTube and our community effectively polices the site for inappropriate material,” the company said in an e-mailed statement. Inappropriate material includes videos that “contain pornography, harassment, content that violates privacy, illegal acts or explicit violence violate the YouTube community guidelines,” it said. Users can flag content they feel is inappropriate, she said, and then the company’s staff reviews the content and removes it if it violates guidelines. “In addition, Google acts to promptly remove an offending video if a court order requires it,” the statement said.

But since Google has taken down the first offensive videos and copies of videos, others have sprung up. Per Google’s general policy, these will only be removed if YouTube users or others complain about them.

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by the Bar Council of Delhi (of which Mr. Singhvi is a member) seeking to take action against Mr. Singhvi’s driver, who had allegedly originally distributed the CD.

Investigating who first introduced the video to social media sites and circulated it there is next to impossible, Internet experts say.

“No country, even though its law might say so, is able to exercise jurisdiction across the world” on the Internet, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bangalore’s Center for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy group. Because India does not have a bilateral cyber-crime agreement with the United States (as the European Union does), getting American companies like Facebook and Google to take down or investigate the source of content that offends Indian government officials can be a slow and cumbersome process, he said.

The Indian government may never be able to track down who first posted the video, Mr. Abraham said. “Drawing a chain of causality and trying to arrive at the first person who introduced it onto the Internet is a bit of a complicated task,” he said. “Even if you find one version of the story, there might be another one,” he said. In addition, the Indian government might only be able to access records from Indian telecommunications providers, he said, and related to Indian ISP addresses.

A screenshot of the YouTube page displaying several video clips that show up with the search terms “Abhishek Manu Singhvi sex CD.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/social-media-indian-govt

India's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism

pranesh — 2012-04-26T13:45:25Z

Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.

(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as "Practise what you preach" on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)

The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of "computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act is a great example of that.)

The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a clarification through a press release, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called "arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev, who has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.

Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.

While s.5 of the Telegraph Act only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.

Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has been granted very broad functions under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.

All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body.

The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an "Internet Steering Committee" which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's Internet Governance Division, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism