We are anonymous, we are legion

Kapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T06:02:29Z

The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has carried out an undercover investigation into the "chilling effects" of new information technology laws on freedom of expression online, with six out of seven major websites removing innocent content online without proper investigation, creating a "private censorship regime".

CIS’ still unpublished draft report, a copy of which Legally India has seen, was prepared before yesterday’s controversial announcement by India’s minister of communications and IT Kapil Sibal, who said that he was talking to major intermediaries on the web, such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo, to actively prevent “blasphemous” content from being posted online by users.

Earlier this year a CIS researcher and lawyer had sent "fraudulent" takedown letters to seven internet companies making claims without providing any evidence that certain third-party content violated provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, explained Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.

The rules, which were came into force in April 2011, aimed to limit the liability of web sites acting as intermediary publishers of information, if they comply to a takedown mechanism, but CIS said in its report that the rules were “procedurally flawed” because they ignored all principles of “natural justice”.

The researchers sent a notice to two Indian news website claiming without evidence that a reader’s comment related to the Telengana movement under a news article was “disparaging”, “racially and ethnically objectionable”, “hateful” and “defamatory”. One website removed two comments, while the other went even beyond the researcher’s request to remove only one comment and within 72 hours removed all 15 comments left by readers on the article.

The researchers also successfully convinced other websites, including a search engine, to remove content and links that they claimed encouraged money laundering or gambling,

The only response that was rejected outright was a facetious takedown request to a shopping portal that an ad for baby’s diapers “harmed minors” by potentially causing babies’ rashes.

"Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," stated the draft report on the research. "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."

"This is just the tip of the iceberg,” commented Abraham, adding that he was told by at least one major international intermediary company operating in India that it was "constantly" receiving takedown requests.

"Our empirical research demonstrates that intermediaries are unable to make the subjective test that is required of them," he added. "They are highly risk averse and they often choose to completely comply with the person sending a takedown notice."

"There is clear anecdotal evidence that […] the recently notified rules have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, and that there is no transparency or accountability."

"What we have is a private censorship regime that is alive and kicking in India."

This blog post by by Kian Ganz was published in Legally India on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/chilling-it-act

Facebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T05:25:52Z

In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants Internet sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google to screen and remove offensive content about religious figures and political leaders as soon as they learn about it. But those companies now say they can’t help.

India’s minister of communications Kapil Sibal began discussions with the online companies in September. On Tuesday, he told reporters the government will have to create new guidelines to disable such content from the Internet sites on its own.

"We will not allow intermediaries to say that ‘we throw up our hands, we can’t do anything about it,’" Sibal said.

Sibal had shown company executives derogatory images of the Prophet Mohammed and morphed pictures of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi that appeared on their platforms. Sibal said these images would offend "any reasonable person" and also hurt religious sentiments of Indians.

But on Monday, according to Sibal, the company executives said they cannot do anything.

Soon after Sibal’s news conference, Facebook said in a statement: “We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.” Those parameters are unlikely to include all the images the government of India wants screened out.

Sibal’s move did not come as a surprise for some observers in India, which has the third-largest Internet-user community in the world--more than 100 million people. Earlier this year, India introduced new rules that called on Web sites, service providers and search engines to not host information that could be regarded as “harmful, “blasphemous” or “disparaging.” The rules also called on Web sites to remove offensive material within 36 hours of a complaint.

"I can’t believe a democracy is doing this," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of India’s Center for Internet and Society. He said recent, unpublished research conducted by the group showed that "such rules have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression on the Internet." Researchers sent mock take-down notices to seven sites, complaining about their content. Abraham said six sites immediately deleted content. "They did not even verify the validity of our flawed complaint. They over-complied," he said.

Sibal’s announcement also sparked a debate on Twitter, where Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah weighed in:

The Streisand effect is an online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information further. (It is named after Barbara Streisand, who attempted in 2003 to hide pictures of her giant home; that only created more interest.)
But a blogger who calls himself the “Pragmatic Desi” argued that India had its own constraints:

But Member of Parliament Varun Gandi said that’s precisely why the Internet shouldn’t be censored:

The article written by Rama Lakshmi was originally published in the Washington Post on 6 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/facebook-google-tell-india-they-won2019t-screen-for-derogatory-content

FTN: Should social networking sites be censored?

praskrishna — 2011-12-08T05:32:41Z

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal met the representatives of Facebook, Google and others seeking to device a screening mechanism. Sunil Abraham was on CNN-IBN from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. speaking about freedom of expression in India.

VIDEO

Watch the original video on IBN Live here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/censor-social-networking-sites

Govt wants to scrub the Internet clean

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T04:07:03Z

Web advocacy groups, experts say govt’s move to evolve content guidelines amounts to censorship. This article by Surabhi Agarwal & Leslie D’monte was published in Livemint on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.

India, the world’s largest democracy, may force companies such as Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and Facebook Inc. to take down online content that it deems offensive because they haven’t been able to come up with an effective self-censorship mechanism governing millions of users.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government had no option but to "evolve guidelines" to ensure that "blasphemous content on the Internet or television is not allowed", with Internet and social networking sites such as those above "failing to respond to and cooperate with" the government’s request to keep "objectionable" content out of their websites, Kapil Sibal, minister of communications and information technology (IT), said in New Delhi on Tuesday.

His comments unleashed a firestorm of criticism by Internet advocacy groups and experts, who said the move amounted to censorship and was anti-democratic, impractical and unwarranted since existing laws were comprehensive enough to remove "objectionable" content. The move, they argued, would also stem the growth of user-generated content sites, and thus the Internet itself.

The government has been battling a series of corruption scandals and criticism of its inability to move forward on policy reforms. A campaign against corruption fuelled by online support has also challenged the government’s authority to legislate, forcing its own version of an anti-graft legislation onto the agenda.

The latest move by the government follows the introduction of new rules to the Information Technology Act, 2008, that were published earlier this year, also heavily criticized, that called on Internet service providers (ISPs) along with other entities to police online postings, including blogs.

Sibal referred to what he considered objectionable content as a "matter of grave concern", which affects the "sensibility of our people and is against our cultural ethos".

Once the new policy framework is implemented, companies “will be duty-bound to share information about those who post content, even if it (the content) is posted outside India”. He didn’t say by when the policy would be put in place.

Discussions with executives from the firms mentioned above had begun in September, Sibal said. They had been asked to come up with solutions to address the perceived problem in a month’s time and had failed to do so, he said.

According to local media reports, the move follows posts about some senior Congress leaders, including party president Sonia Gandhi. The minister, who is also one of India’s top lawyers, did not refer to any specific "objectionable" material during his press briefing, but rued that “the content has still not been removed".

Google India defended the right of free speech, while saying that it didn’t condone illegality.

"Even where content is legal but breaks our own terms and conditions, we take that down too, once we’ve been notified about it," Google India said in a release. "But it also means that when content is legal but controversial, we don’t remove it because people’s differing views should be respected, so long as they are legal."

Facebook India also said that it would remove any content that crossed the line.

It "has policies and onsite features in place that enable people to report abusive content", the company said. "We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service."

While Yahoo India declined to comment, Microsoft did not respond to an email till press time.

Internet censorship is a rising trend, with approximately 40 countries filtering the Web in varying degrees, including democratic and non-democratic governments. Governments are using increasingly sophisticated censorship and surveillance techniques, including blocking social networks, to restrict a variety of types of content, says the 2010 Global Network Initiative (GNI) report. GNI seeks to protect freedom of speech online.

This August, for instance, the Centre had written to the department of telecommunications, asking it to "ensure effective monitoring of Twitter and Facebook", which minister of state for communications and IT Milind Deora acknowledged a few days later in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha. He mentioned access to “encrypted data” on social networking sites, but did not elaborate on the subject.

Currently, the Indian Telegraph Act and the IT Act, 2008, (amendments were introduced in IT Act, 2000) give the government the power to monitor, intercept and even block online conversations and websites. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has put up a list of 11 such websites blocked by a government order. The data was received from the department of information technology (DIT).

Moreover, under section 79 of the IT Intermediary (Rules and Guidelines), 2011, intermediaries (comprising telcos, ISPs, network services providers, search engines, cyber cafes, Web-hosting companies, online auction portals and online payment sites) are mandated to exercise "due diligence" and advise users not to share/distribute information violative of the law or a person’s privacy and rights. Intermediaries are expected to act on a complaint within 36 hours of receiving it, and remove such content when warranted.

In case the intermediary doesn’t find the content objectionable, the matter will have to be contested in a court of law.

"Currently, you need a court of law to direct a company in case something has to be removed. That takes a lot of time. So there has to be a mechanism that is faster in dealing with such content as (it) can be very damaging," said a DIT official, who did not want to be named.

"The Indian government can, and should, monitor conversations and websites if it believes the content can harm the security, defence, sovereignty and integrity of the country," said Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer and cyber law expert. However, he wondered how the government would go about implementing the task of monitoring each and every conversation on an unstructured Internet.

Bangalore-based CIS, an Internet advocacy group, said "this pre-emptive manual screening of content, if implemented, would sound the death knell of freedom of expression in India".

"This screening is worrisome. Companies will err on the side of caution in a bid to please the government, and the courts will not be involved," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS. “This is not only unconstitutional, but technically impossible too. Speech and words have nuances. Can humans decipher these with accuracy?"

The move will undermine key principles on which the Internet was built, said Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of digital industry news and analysis blog MediaNama.

"It is completely impossible to enforce this. There is no way that content can be prescreened before it is placed online," he said. “It also kills the concept of immediate communication, which the Internet stands for."

Cyber law expert NA Vijayashankar, who runs cyber law information portal Naavi, said: "The government has valid reason to control anti-national activities on the Internet. But there are existing laws for it. The current proposition is impractical since pre-scrutiny of content on the Internet is not possible. It will affect the growth of user-generated content, which is helping Internet penetration grow in India."

Internet censorship happens frequently in countries such as Myanmar, Cuba, China (which had blocked keyword searches of the word "Egypt" on the Internet as well as on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter), Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. On the very day the Egyptian government set out to block Internet services in the country (in January), US Republican senator Susan Collins floated the COICA Bill, popularly called the "kill switch" Bill, which, if approved, would give the US president similar powers.

Read the original published in Livemint here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/scrub-the-internet-clean

Debate: Online content row-1

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T11:06:19Z

In a debate moderated by TIMES NOW's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, panelists Chandan Mitra, Editor-in-Chief, 'The Pioneer' & MP, BJP; Sabeer Bhatia, Co-founder, Hotmail; Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society; Ankit Fadia, Ethical Hacker; Suhel Seth, Managing Partner Counselage; Pradeep Gupta, Chairman, Cyber Media and Rajesh Charia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India discuss the issue if the Government should make clear definition of what is objectionable to internet/social media companies and draw a clear distinction between communally incitable material and political censorship.

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal today (Dec 6) vowed to stop offensive and defamatory content on internet sites as a controversy raged over government's move to monitor content in cyber space. Maintaining that the government does not want to interfere with the freedom of the press, he said if the social networking sites are not willing to cooperate with the government on stopping incendiary material "then it is the duty of the government to think of steps that we need." Sibal's hurriedly-called press conference came against backdrop of government's meetings with the officials from Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo over last few weeks after offensive material particularly against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was put on the net. He said his request for cooperation from them fell on "deaf ears" and "we will not allow intermediaries to say that the throw up our hands and we cannot do anything about it."

Facebook in its reaction said it will cooperate in removing any content that violates its terms which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service. Google said it will abide by local law and take any material if it violates its policies but asserted that it will not remove any content just because it is controversial. Google said that when content is illegal it abides by local law and removes it. And even where the content is legal but violates "our terms and conditions, we take that down too, once we have been notified." However, it says, when content is legal and does not violate its policies, it will not remove just because it is controversial.

Even as Sibal defended the government's move, criticism poured in the cyber space that India should not emulate countries like China in attempting to gag freedom of expression. However, the Minister got support from Shashi Tharoor, Congress MP, who is popular in cyber world. "Have to say I support Kapil Sibal on the examples he gave me: deeply offensive material about religions & communities that could incite riots," Tharoor tweeted. But his political rivals and MPs Varun Gandhi and Jayant Choudhary differed. Gandhi said Internet is the only truly democratic medium free of "vested interests, media owners & paid-off journos. Can see why Sibal wants to gag it," he said. Chaudhary said "Censorship of the internet - Forget the desirability issue for a minute, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE??!!!"

Sunil Abraham was on Times Now from 9.05 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on December 6, 2011 speaking about freedom of expression in India.

See the debate on Times Now

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/online-content-row

India’s dreams of web censorship

sunil — 2012-03-26T06:59:36Z

If you are offended by this post, please contact Kapil Sibal, India’s telecoms and IT minister, and he will make sure it is promptly taken down.

Actually, if Sibal has his way and you are offended by this post, the armies of people to be employed by internet companies operating in India to monitor their sites for potentially offensive material – whether it originates in India or abroad – will ensure that it is removed before it can even be published. And good luck to all of them with that.

That, anyway, was the gist of Sibal’s combative press conference in the courtyard of his Delhi home on Tuesday, the day after the New York Times reported he had met executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to discuss the preemptive removal of “offensive material”.

The press conference was prompted by uproar that swept Twitter on Monday night – one of the sites, incidentally, that Sibal would like to monitor – and was carried live on all major news channels.

Social networking sites have gained a lot of traction in India and are much used by politicians, celebrities and the burgeoning, young middle class.

"I believe that no reasonable person aware of the sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain," Sibal said, referring to "offensive material" he had shown some reporters prior to the conference. He added that the government did not believe in censorship.

According to the NYT, Sibal showed a group of IT execs a Facebook page that criticized Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress Party, calling it "unacceptable".

"We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service," Facebook said in a statement.

Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment. Google said it would issue a statement later in the day.

Sibal first approached the companies on September 5, giving them four weeks to present proposals for how they might comply with his request, he said. With no response by October 19, the ministry sent a reminder. On November 29, Sibal again met with the IT execs. They responded on Monday, saying they could not comply.

An Indian employee of one of foreign tech company, when asked about Sibal’s demand that each outfit set up dedicated teams to monitor content in real time, let out an extended, almost hysterical laugh, before regaining composure and asking: "Do you know how many users we have?"

Indeed, even in a country with low internet penetration like India – 100m people regularly use the internet, less than 10 per cent of India’s 1.2bn population – the task of monitoring real-time content generated on millions of sites opens up legal wormholes and is technically impossible, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics.

"Technically what he’s asking for is an impossibility: it’s not possible in the age of web 2.0 to manually curate or censor social media content," he said. “This is obvious to all of us. Isn’t it strange that the minister of IT, who seems to understand a lot of complex issues, is actually in favour of something like this?"

Abraham warned that the focus on blasphemous and vaguely defined "offensive" speech was dangerous, noting that the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.

But Sibal was defiant.

Asked what would be deemed "offensive", he said: “We will define it, don’t worry, certainly, we will evolve guidelines…to ensure that such blasphemous content” is not publicly available in India.

Asked whether his idea was technically feasible, he responded: "It is a feasible proposition, and we will inform you how as and when, we will inform you as and when."

When it was pointed out that the internet was a global phenomenon and that content originating outside of India might be hard to control, Sibal said: "We will certainly ask [companies] to give us information even on content posted outside of India – we will ask them for information, we will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue."

So, again, if you are offended by this post, feel free to drop him a line. And good luck.

The original blog post was published by the Financial Time's beyondbrics on December 6, 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this blog post. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/web-censorship

‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’

praskrishna — 2011-12-06T13:11:46Z

The Indian government has asked social media operators to delete information on the Internet that might offend the ‘‘sensibilities’’ of people in India, Kapil Sibal, India’s minister of communications and information technology, said Tuesday, confirming an earlier India Ink report.

"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people," Mr. Sibal told more than 100 reporters during a press conference on the lawn at his home in New Delhi. ‘‘Cultural ethos is very important to us."

He denied such a demand was censorship.

There is some content on the Internet that ‘‘any normal human being would be offended by,’’ he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.

The news conference was called in response to an India Ink blog post Monday about private meetings with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft, in which Mr. Sibal asked the companies to prescreen content in India before it is posted. The idea caused an outpouring of criticism for Mr. Sibal on social media sites in India on Monday night that intensified after the press conference on Tuesday.

Industry analysts and activists deemed it unrealistic and unconstitutional.

"It is technically impossible and places unconstitutional limits on the freedom of expression in India," said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, a research group based in Bangalore, India. "Shutting the Internet hasn’t worked in China or Saudi Arabia, and it won’t work in India," he said.

India now has an estimated 100 million Internet users, the fourth largest online population in the world behind China, the United States and Japan, and over 25 million Facebook users. Those figures are well behind India’s 850 million registered mobile phone users, but Internet use is expected to mushroom in coming years as inexpensive tablet computers enter the market.

Facebook was the only company to reply publicly Tuesday. "We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service," the company said in a statement.

In recent months, the Indian government held several meetings with social media companies, and asked them to develop a ‘‘mechanism’’ to screen out offensive content, Mr. Sibal said. So far, he said, these companies have been uncooperative.

Mr. Sibal declined to define what, exactly, was offensive content, but said he had found on the Internet "subject matter which was so offensive that it hurt the religious sentiments of large sections of the community."

Before the news conference, he showed examples of that content to some journalists, who described it as pornography combined with images of Mecca and Hindu gods. Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were "ex facie objectionable."

The Indian government has been tightening the leash on Internet freedom, and in April issued rules demanding demanding Internet service providers delete information posted on Web sites that officials or private citizens deemed disparaging or harassing. Last year, the government threatened to shut down BlackBerry service in the country unless the smartphones’ manufacturer, Research In Motion, allowed government officials greater access to users’ messages.

In a meeting Monday, executives from social media companies told Mr. Sibal they believed that American law applies to them, not the Indian government’s rules issued in April.

"Even if U.S. law applies, the community standards of India have to be taken into account," Mr. Sibal said. "We will not allow Internet companies to throw up their hands and say, ‘We cannot do anything about it."

Regulation of the Internet, particularly across country boundaries, remains a murky and hard-to-define area, said Mr. Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society. "Indian law seems to state that it has global jurisdiction," he said, "but that is not really true. An Indian court might give an order that is unenforceable in the United States or anywhere else," he said.

This article by Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on December 6, 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article. Read the original story here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended

Why this ‘kolaveri di' is India's coming of age

praskrishna — 2011-12-05T10:03:40Z

In the last two weeks, two videos have gone viral on the Internet in India. One, the catchy Tanglish-folksy ‘Why this kolaveri di' video, and two, the flash mob at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where a few hundred Mumbaikars were seen shaking a leg to the Bollywood hit, ‘Rang de basanti'. Nishant Shah, Director-Research has been quoted in this article by Deepa Kurup which was published in the Hindu on 4 December 2011.

If you logged on to any social avatar of the World Wide Web, these videos, the ‘shares', the ‘likes' and the instantly-trending tweets were unmissable. While the flash mob at CST, a tribute to those who lost their lives on 26/11, has around 11.45 lakh views on YouTube, ‘Kolaveri di', a promo for Tamil hero Dhanush's upcoming film 3 uploaded by Sony Music on November 16, has been viewed 1.43 crore times.

On the Web, a world that is constantly on the look out for the ‘next cool thing', that Kolaveri's viewership continues to grow by the day, has made commentators christen it the first viral marketing campaign in India. Perhaps more interesting than the song itself are the over two dozen versions of it that you will find on YouTube. There's an anti-inflation version featuring Sharad Pawar; a group of boys from Kerala using the song to appeal to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa on the Mullaperiyar dam issue; a talented young girl presenting a “female version” reply to the song that's arguably gender-biased, and many others have done remix versions and videos of the song. Like the song's appeal, the rip-offs too are pan-national.

While Bollywood trailers and content have always been popular online, film-makers have not actively tapped into this medium. Earlier this year, the makers of the Shah Rukh Khan starrer Ra.One became the first film to have its own YouTube channel, featuring songs, promos, footage, ‘behind the scenes', and cast interviews, supplemented by a fairly effective social media campaign. Add to this, the potential of revenue generation offered by music downloads and caller ring-back tone subscriptions; this form of marketing is cheap, easy, instant and a potential recipe for success.

Indeed, mobile value-added service provider, Techzone, which holds the exclusive rights for music tracks, videos and digital entertainment formats for the ‘Kolaveri' movie 3, has seen a “phenomenal” number of subscriptions, downloads and ‘live-in' requests. Techzone reportedly saw 22,000 downloads of the song in the first five days. While refusing to share numbers, marketing representatives from Techzone told The Hindu that the response has been overwhelming. TechZone deployed the content through its entire distribution network, which includes all telecom operators.

“Generally, for Tamil songs, 90 per cent of the demand comes from Tamil Nadu, but with this song we have received a sizable amount of requests from different parts of the country. This is a first for us,” the Techzone representative said.

A Vibrant Medium

So are we witnessing a change in cinema's relationship with cyberspace, asks Nishant Shah, a researcher from the Centre for Internet and Society. A campaign like Ra.One does not compare to ‘Kolaveri' because a movie trailer simply offers people a chance to be spectators, unlike the simple and catchy ‘Kolaveri', which has people remixing, editing the footage and using the video to create their own narratives.

Mr. Shah feels that indeed this is the first viral online video campaign that India has had. Most viral videos so far, he points out, were invariably pornographic or even voyeuristic in nature. “Like the Delhi MMS video — that was perhaps one of the earliest videos to go viral — to other pornographic clips of movie stars. Later on, we saw interesting remixes or spoofs, mostly regional; this is the first time that we have home-grown content that has gone viral simply because it is fun, simple and addictive. In that sense it's an intelligent campaign,” he explained. He also feels that this could be the coming of age of video as a medium, particularly so because the campaign has become a pan-India phenomenon.

Tried and Tested

Viral marketing is quite big abroad. In that sense, this has all been ‘tried and tested' abroad — from commercials for beer and sunglasses to selling computers and even presidential campaigns; online videos and viral marketing plans are indeed the mainstay of many publicity strategies.

Marketing campaigns can no longer ignore the Internet. Neither can they treat it as an also-ran, says Prashanth, a social media junkie and marketing professional. “Campaigns now have to start thinking of making promotional content for the new media. Currently, a shorter version of regular campaigns are edited for the Web; there are some successful ones in this category too. But a campaign such as the ‘Kolaveri' has the industry sitting up and taking notice. In some sense, the logic is simple: you have your audience cut-out, and the reach is pretty much pan-national,” he explains.

Read the original story published in the Hindu

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

On the net, red herring

praskrishna — 2011-12-05T09:49:30Z

They are often the first clue in cyber crimes.But IP addresses may not be totally foolproof, writes Javed Anwer. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article published in the Times of India on 4 December 2011.

It was one morning that changed the life of Lakshmana Kailash K forever.In the wee hours of August 31,2007, Kailash,a techie in Bangalore,was woken up by cops from Pune.They told him he had posted images derogatory to Chhatrapati Shivaji on Orkut,and whisked him away to Maharashtra.The police had used the IP address provided by the internet service provider and information from Google,to find that the image was posted from a computer owned by Kailash.

It was one morning that changed the life of Lakshmana Kailash K forever.In the wee hours of August 31,2007,Kailash,a techie in Bangalore,was woken up by cops from Pune.They told him he had posted images derogatory to Chhatrapati Shivaji on Orkut,and whisked him away to Maharashtra.The police had used the IP address provided by the internet service provider and information from Google,to find that the image was posted from a computer owned by Kailash.

The Maharashtra cops are not the only ones to get it wrong.There is a widespread belief that IP addresses are akin to a smoking gun in most cyber crime cases.Tracing the IP address is also considered one of the easiest ways to crack a case.The result: even four years after what Kailash went through,investigators,internet service providers,private companies filtering web traffic and social networking websites,continue to jump to a conclusion on the basis of IP addresses.

There is a tendency to oversimplify the process, says Sunil Abraham,executive director of Centre for Internet and Society.While I have seen that courts have been always careful in cases where IP addresses are involved as a tool of investigation,I cant say the same about the local police.

In theory,IP addresses can be useful since they provide a link to individual computers.The address is a numerical string for example,192.168.1.1 that is assigned to any computing device connected to a network.However,given the dynamic and interlinked nature of the internet,using them as clinching evidence is fraught with dangers.

The second reason,according to Patnaik,is the presence of open wi-fi networks.Most people have no clue about technology.This means unsecured or poorlyconfigured wi-fi networks are common.The result: someone may park his car in a residential colony,scan for open wi-fi networks and use the open connection for sending a threatening or abusive email to his boss before leaving, he says.If the mail is traced,it will lead to the person who owns the wi-fi network and not the guy who used it illegally.

But police officers say that,to start with,the IP address is often the only clue thats there.Investigating cyber-crime is difficult because its all virtual, says Ranjit Narayan,special commissioner (crime).There are no clues other than the IP address.The investigation starts with it. Now,though,after their widespread abuse,there is a growing realization about the fallacy of the IP approach.A judge in the US recently said there was a very real disconnect between an IP address and a copyright infringer.Organizations like Electronic Frontier Foundation,which deals with matters related to cyber liberty and free speech on the web,have also taken up the issue in earnest. Perhaps,there is hope for the Kailashs of the future.

The original story was published in the Times of India, it can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/red-herring

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill"

Natasha Vaz — 2012-04-28T04:10:12Z

Privacy India in partnership with International Development Research Centre, Canada, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore is organising "Privacy Matters", a public conference at IIT, Bombay on 21 January 2012.

The conference will focus on the questions and dilemmas posed by privacy in India today, with a concentration on the "Right to Privacy Bill". The right to privacy in India has been a neglected area of study and engagement. Although sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, India does not as yet have a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. The absence of a minimum guarantee of privacy is felt most heavily by marginalized communities, including HIV patients, children, women, sexuality minorities, prisoners, etc. — people who most need to know that sensitive information is protected.

Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, legislators and the legal and academic community.

The event will focus on discussing the challenges and concerns to privacy in India. We invite you to attend the meeting and contribute your views. Please confirm your participation by getting in touch with Natasha (natasha@cis-india.org). We sincerely hope that you will be able to attend and look forward to your participation.

Agenda

09:30- 10:00	Registration
10:00- 10:30	Welcome- Privacy in India Prashant Iyengar is a practicing lawyer and lead researcher for Privacy India. He will present who Privacy India is, and the objectives of Privacy India's research. His presentation will focus on discussing privacy in India.
10:30- 11:15	Key Note Address- Draft Privacy Bill Critique Na. Vijayashankar is an e-business consultant. He established the premier Cyber Law information portal in India. He is the founder secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institue of Information Technology Law, and Founder Chairman of Digital Society Foundation. He will present a critique of the Draft Privacy Bill.
11:15- 11:30	Tea Break
11:30- 12:15	Session I Privacy and the Legal System Sudhir Krishnaswamy is an Assistant Professor at the National law School of India University and is currently writing a Doctoral Thesis at the Faculty of Law, Oxford University on ‘The Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian Constitutional Adjudication’. His presentation will look at the trajectory of privacy through the years from a legal perspective.
12:15- 13:00	Privacy and Constitutional Law N. Nappinai is an advocate who specializes in IP and technology laws. She is a founder member of Technology Law Forum (TLF). She has spearheaded and driven several initiatives of TLF with various organization including NASSCOM, FICCI, IMC etc., and has also conducted several workshops and training sessions for the Mumbai Police, Public Prosecutors & Industry verticals in Cyber Laws. Her presentation will define the scope of Article 21 under the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to privacy.
13:00- 13:15	Discussion
13:15- 14:00	Lunch Break
14:00- 14:45	Session II Privacy and Freedom of Expression Apar Gupta is an advocate who specializes in intellectual property, electronic commerce law and technology media and telecoms. He holds a master from Columbia Law School and has authored a Commentary on the Information Technology Act, 2000. His presentation will focus on the limits of a privacy right when it competes and conflicts with the freedom of speech and expression. He will examine certain provisions of the Draft Privacy Bill questioning how privacy arguments may be used to stifle debate or disclosure made in the public interest.
14:45- 15:30	Sexuality Minorities and Privacy Danish Sheikh graduated from Nalsar University of Law with a B.A., LL.B. (Hons.). Currently, he is a researcher at the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. He will examine the status of sexual minorities in the light of privacy framework in India. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he will bring to light the privacy violations being committed by both individuals as we all state authorities.
15:30- 15:45	Discussion
15:45- 16:30	Session III Privacy and National Security Menaka Guruswamy practices law at the Supreme Court of India. She was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, a Gammon Fellow at Harvard Law School, and a gold medalist from the National Law School of India and has law degrees from all three schools. Menaka has advised the United National Development Program and the United Nations Development Fund for Women. She will discuss the relationship between national security and privacy, from the perspective of surveillance by the state etc.
16:30- 17:15	Privacy and UID R. Ramkumar is a Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. He is advocate as well as a patent and trademark attorney. His presentation will focus on what standards of privacy are afforded within the UID system.
17:15- 17:30	Tea Break
17:30- 18:00	Discussion and Questions

	Organizers
	Privacy India Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, legislators and the legal and academic community.
	Privacy International (https://www.privacyinternational.org/) Privacy International’s mission is to defend the right to privacy across the world, and to fight surveillance and other intrusions into private life by governments and corporations. PI has been providing citizens and policy-makers with the tools and perspectives to enable them to hold to account those who threaten privacy since 1990. PI has active associates and networks in 46 countries.
	The International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca/) Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is one of the world’s leading institutions in the generation and application of new knowledge to meet the challenges of international development. They help developing countries use science and technology to find practical, long-term solutions to the social, economic, and environmental problems they face.
	The Centre for Internet & Society (http://cis-india.org/) The Centre for Interenet & Society brings together a team of practitioners, theoreticians, researchers and artists to work on the emerging field of Internet and Society to critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange.
	Partners
	The Godrej India Culture Lab (www.godrej.com) The Godrej India Culture Lab is an interdisciplinary space which aims to build knowledge networks and interpret the changes rapidly taking place in contemporary India by bringing together the best minds from global academia, business and the creative worlds working on different aspects of Indian society.
	IIT, Bombay (www.iitb.ac.in/) Established in 1958, IIT is recognised worldwide as a leader in the field of engineering education and research. It is reputed for the quality of its faculty and the outstanding calibre of students graduating from its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Over the years, there has been dynamic progress at IIT Bombay in all academic and research activities, and a parallel improvement in facilities and infrastructure, to keep it on par with the best institutions in the world.
	Tata Institute of Social Sciences (http://www.tiss.edu/) Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) offers higher professional education in the field of human service and applied social science research. The institute has gone beyond the initial concern of social work education, since its inception in 1936, to consistently contribute to the promotion of sustainable, participatory development and social justice. Through its work, the Institute facilitates strong linkages between education, research, field action and policy advocacy.

Speakers

1. Apar Gupta

2. Danish Sheikh, Alternative Law Forum

3. NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law, and Founder Chairman of Digital Society Foundation

4. N S Nappinai, Advocate and Founder Member of Technology Law Forum

5. Prashanth Iyengar, Assistant Professor & Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies, Lead Researcher with Privacy India, Bangalore; Legal Aid Manager with Rural Development Institute, Hyderabad; Researcher & Lawyer with Alternative Law Forum

6. R. Ramkumar, Assistant Professor, School of Social Sciences, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

7. Shishir Jha, Project Lead at Creative Commons India and Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

8. Menaka Guruswamy, practices law at the Supreme Court of India.

9. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, is an Assistant Professor at the National law School of India University.

Download the invitation [PDF, 988 kb]

Download the event poster [PDF, 2155 kb]
IIT Bombay Map http://www.iitb.ac.in/campus/howto/howtoget.html

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/right-to-privacy-bill-conference

An Interview with Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

elonnai — 2011-12-03T01:26:04Z

Elonnai Hickok interviewed Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada. The full interview is reproduced below.

When Canada weighed a broad privacy legislation against sectoral legislation, was the decision close? What were the most decisive factors?

Canada’s legislative privacy regime consists of both broad and sectoral privacy legislation.

Broadly, the use of personal information in Canadian commercial activities is regulated by federal legislation under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), or by provincial legislation that is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA, or by provincial legislation that is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA.

Sectorally, a prime example is the protection of personal health information under Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA).

Regarding the decisive factors surrounding Parliament's passing of a broad private sector privacy statute, you may know that oversight of PIPEDA falls within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). Accordingly, you may wish to focus your contact with the OPC regarding your question. In addition, Industry Canada may have some helpful resources regarding the federal government’s decision to enact PIPEDA.
Do you see the different perceptions and cultural understandings of privacy as something to be addressed through legislation? If not, do you think it should be addressed at all? How?

In an era marked by the widespread use of new information technologies, globalization, and the international flow of personal information, the establishment of global privacy standards is required to effectively protect personal privacy. Fortunately, an international community of data protection commissioners is hard at work contributing to the establishment of a set of global privacy principles. At the annual International Data Protection Commissioners Conference in 2005, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, chaired a Working Group of Data Protection Commissioners that led to the Creation of a Global Privacy Standard. Such a principled but flexible approach can also be seen, for example, in the landmark Privacy by Design (PbD) resolution adopted unanimously, in 2010, by the international Privacy Authorities and Regulators at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Jerusalem.[1]

The resolution recognizes PbD as an “essential component of fundamental privacy protection” – an International Standard, and urges its adoption in regulations and legislation around the world. Governments that employ this internationally recognized standard will be able to both protect privacy and address local and national priorities.[2]
How does the Canadian model implement self-regulation of privacy standards? How is that balanced against legal enforcement of privacy legislation?

In Canada, as elsewhere, private sector privacy regulation recognizes the dual purposes of protecting the individual's right to privacy, on the one hand, and recognizing the commercial need for access to personal information, on the other.[3]

PIPEDA furthers these two purposes by tying a set of flexible, technology-neutral privacy principles to a statutory framework of rules governing the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

In particular, Part I of PIPEDA provides the overarching statutory framework, while Schedule I, which was borrowed from the Canadian Standards Association’s Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, provides flexible, technology-neutral privacy principles. To accomplish the dual purposes that animate PIPEDA and its Schedule, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has directed that the interpretation and application of this regulatory framework should be guided by "flexibility, common sense and pragmatism."[4]

Such an approach allows organizations to address their own goals and priorities within a privacy protective framework. Moreover, by incorporating the flexible principles of PbD, organizations can "go beyond mere legal compliance with notice, choice, access, security and enforcement requirements." Instead, they can be empowered to design their own responsive approaches to risk management and privacy-related innovation, within the context of the relevant regulatory framework. This approach allows organizations to develop doubly-enabling, positive-sum solutions that are win/win in nature and appropriate given the size and nature of the organization, the personal information it manages, and the range of risks, opportunities, and solutions available.
Does Canada favor private forms of redress or agency/state enforcement to prevent and remedy privacy violations? In what circumstances is one more effective than the other?

Canadian privacy legislation includes both state enforcement and private forms of redress; neither is necessarily favoured.

For example, under PHIPA, the Attorney General may impose fines of up to $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations who are found to be in breach of PHIPA. Further, our office has broad powers of investigation and can directly order a custodian to comply with its obligations. An individual affected by a Commissioner’s final PHIPA order may commence a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court for damages for actual harm suffered.

Another example is under PIPEDA where contravention can result in fines of up to $100,000 depending upon the type and severity of the matter. Further, the federal privacy Commissioner has powers to investigate and report findings with respect to privacy complaints. Following the release of the Commissioner’s report, a complainant may apply to the Federal Court to seek remedies that include damages and an order requiring an organization to correct its practices.

Generally, fines and other penalties imposed on individuals and corporations by the government are effective in deterring certain actions and protecting the public from a variety of harmful practices. On the other hand, a private right of action may be effective when a particular individual is harmed by an individual or corporation and is seeking damages to compensate or redress that particular harm.
What types of privacy violations are the most common? How have these been addressed?

The most common types of privacy violations are inadvertent disclosures or privacy breaches of personal information, including personal health information. In particular, these violations usually stem from the improper retention, transfer and disclosure of personal information.

Privacy breaches are addressed in a variety of ways, depending on the type and amount of information disclosed. For example, under PHIPA, if health information is stolen, lost, or accessed by unauthorized persons, the health information custodian must notify the affected individual at the first reasonable opportunity and should take immediate steps to contain the breach. Further, the Commissioner may order the health information custodian to take corrective action such as requiring the custodian to implement a certain procedure when handling personal health information or conduct privacy training.
What forms of privacy education has Canada pursued? What audiences have been targeted? Which efforts have been the most successful and why?

Canadian institutions and organizations have pursued a wide variety of privacy education initiatives including programs that award professional designations (e.g. IAPP, CAPAPA, University of Toronto Identity, Privacy and Security Initiative, University of Alberta Program).

Our Office has led a wide variety of educational initiatives to spread the word about privacy protection and freedom of information under our Ontario legislation. We have focused on a variety of audiences from the general public to individuals who deal with privacy and access to information issues as part of their daily professional role.

Initiatives include frequent contact between our Information Officers and the public, and dozens of marketing materials geared to providing guidance (e.g. “Circle of Care: Sharing of Personal Health Information for Health-Care purposes”, “What to do When Faced With a Privacy Breach: Guidelines for the Health Sector”). Our Office has developed Educational Resource Guides (Grade 5, Grade 10, Grades 11/12), which have been added to the formal Ontario curriculum to help teachers educate about privacy protection. Commissioner Cavoukian participates in extensive presentations and speeches at numerous conferences and events. As well, representatives from our Office reach out into the community to educate about our offerings and role (hospitals, conference, community events etc.). In addition, to educate Ontarians about privacy protection, the IPC also allots significant resources to many marketing initiatives including a quarterly e-newsletter, video production, and social media outreach. Most recently, we circulated an online tool kit (available via USB as well), to assist new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Co-ordinators in the public sector. Most of our resources are available in English and French.

Without a doubt, the IPC’s most successful educational effort thus far is in the area of PbD, now an international standard. This Ontario-made solution was created by Commissioner Cavoukian who has led the IPC in partnering with global stalwarts such as IBM, Intel, and Nokia to advance Privacy by Design, and to foster innovation in many fields, including biometrics, the Smart Grid and even Targeted Advertising. Privacy by Design knows no boundaries and makes sense for everyone — especially businesses. Not only is it cheaper to build in privacy before a breach occurs, it is also a compelling way to win the trust of clients and build a successful brand.
What [have] proven to be [the main] challenges or obstacles to protecting privacy in Canada?

The most common obstacle to protecting privacy is that key stakeholders hold on to misconceptions about privacy.
Misconception #1 – Privacy is dead or obsolete.
Misconception #2 – Privacy stops us from performing our job.
Misconception #3 – With the massive growth of online social media, you cannot have both widespread connectivity and privacy.

Not only do these misconceptions contradict each other, they are both dead wrong!

Privacy is alive and well and more relevant than ever. Consider, for example, that the same technologies that serve to threaten privacy may also be enlisted to support it. Properly understood, privacy is becoming increasingly critical to achieving success in the new economy. In this environment, PbD offers a principled, flexible, and technology-neutral vehicle for engaging with privacy issues, and for resolving them in ways that support multiple outcomes in a full functionality, positive-sum, win-win scenario.

It does so by ensuring that privacy is built in right up front, directly into the design specifications and architecture of new systems and processes.

PbD seeks to accommodate all legitimate interests and objectives in a positive-sum “win-win” manner, not through a dated, zero-sum approach, where unnecessary trade-offs are made. PbD avoids the pretense of false dichotomies or unnecessary trade-offs, such as privacy vs. security, demonstrating that it is possible to have both. For more on PbD, go to www.privacybydesign.ca

Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D., Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Ann Cavoukian is recognized as one of the leading privacy experts in the world. Noted for her seminal work on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) in 1995, her concept of Privacy by Design seeks to proactively embed privacy into the design specifications of information technology and accountable business practices, thereby achieving the strongest protection possible. In October, 2010, regulators from around the world gathered at the annual assembly of International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Jerusalem, Israel, and unanimously passed a landmark Resolution recognizing Privacy by Design as an essential component of fundamental privacy protection. This was followed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s inclusion of Privacy by Design as one of its three recommended practices for protecting online privacy – a major validation of its significance.

An avowed believer in the role that technology can play in the protection of privacy, Dr. Cavoukian’s leadership has seen her office develop a number of tools and procedures to ensure that privacy is strongly protected, not only in Canada, but around the world. She has been involved in numerous international committees focused on privacy, security, technology and business, and endeavours to focus on strengthening consumer confidence and trust in emerging technology applications.

Dr. Cavoukian serves as the Chair of the Identity, Privacy and Security Institute at the University of Toronto, Canada. She is also a member of several Boards including, the European Biometrics Forum, Future of Privacy Forum, RIM Council, and has been conferred a Distinguished Fellow of the Ponemon Institute. Dr. Cavoukian was honoured with the prestigious Kristian Beckman Award in 2011 for her pioneering work on Privacy by Design and privacy protection in modern international environments. In the same year, Dr. Cavoukian was also named by Intelligent Utility Magazine as one of the Top 11 Movers and Shakers for the Global Smart Grid industry, received the SC Canada Privacy Professional of the Year Award and was honoured by the University of Alberta Information Access and Protection of Privacy Program for her positive contribution to the field of privacy. Most recently in November 2011, Dr. Cavoukian was ranked by Women of Influence Inc. as one of the top 25 Women of Influence recognizing her contribution to the Canadian and global economy. This award follows her recognition in 2007 by the Women’s Executive Network as one of the Top 100 Most Powerful Women in Canada.

Notes

[1].Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, Landmark Resolution passed to preserve the Future of Privacy, http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/2010-10-29-Resolution-e_1.pdf
[2].For a discussion of how governments might employ an PbD approach to privacy regulation, see Commissioner Cavoukian’s White Paper, Privacy by Design in Law, Policy, and Practice available at:
http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/Resources/Discussion-Papers/Discussion-Papers-Summary/?id=1095
[3].See the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (Can.), http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html.
[4].Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., 2004 FCA 387, Locus Para. 38-46.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/interview-with-anne-cavoukian

All India Privacy Symposium

praskrishna — 2012-02-27T11:08:32Z

Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, Privacy International, UK and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is organizing the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre, New Delhi on Saturday, February 4, 2012.

Since June 2010, Privacy India has been engaging in discussions with policy makers, the public and sectoral experts about privacy in India. The discussions have ranged from topics of identity and privacy, to minority rights and privacy, and consumer privacy. The findings of our research show that privacy was a neglected area of study for India in the past, however, this is changing. Advancements in technology, the introduction of e-governance initiatives like the National Fibre Optic Network, the introduction of new legislations, and debates surrounding national security, have brought privacy debates to the forefront in India. Although currently sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, e.g., the Telegraph Act or RBI guidelines for banking, India has just begun to consider a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. This conference is an opportunity to look forward to what could be the future scope of privacy in India.

Privacy India was set up in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, under the auspices of an international organization ‘Privacy International’. Privacy International is a non-profit group that provides assistance to civil society groups, governments, international and regional bodies, the media and the public in a number of countries. For more info, visit its website.

This is a public meeting. For participation in the event, get in touch with Elonnai (elonnai@cis-india.org)

Symposium Advisors

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet &Society (www.cis-india.org)
Rajan Gandhi, Society in Action Group
Phet Sayo, IDRC (www.idrc.org)
Gus Hosein, Privacy International (www.privacyinternational.org)
Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore (www.clpr.org.in)
Vickram Crishna, Privacy International (www.privacyinternational.org)

Agenda

09:30- 10:00	Registration
10:00- 10:15	Welcome & Introduction to Privacy India Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)
10:15- 10:30	Tea Break
10:30- 11:30	Panel I: Privacy and Transparency Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society) Panelists: Prashant Bhushan (Senior Advocate, New Delhi), Simon Davies (Director General, Privacy International, UK), Ponnurangam K (Assistant Prof, IIIT New Delhi), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Aruna Roy (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director Corporate Affairs, Microsoft) Poster:Srishti Goyal (Law Student)
11:30- 12:30	Panel II: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Professor, Azim Premji University) Panelists: Anant Maringanti (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan (Advocate&Social Activist), Ram Sewak Sharma (Director General, UIDAI), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), R K Singh (Union Home Secretary, New Delhi), Apar Gupta (Advocate, Supreme Court of India) Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student)
12:30- 13:30	Lunch
13:30- 14:30	Panel III: Privacy and National Security Moderator: Justice A P Shah (Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court)* Panelists: Menaka Guruswamy (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Amol Sharma (Journalist, Wall Street Journal)*, Saikat Datta (Journalist, DNA), Eric King (Human Rights and Technology Advisor, Privacy International, UK), Prasanth Sugathan (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center) and Oxblood Ruffin (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective) Poster: Suchithra Menon (Law Student)
14:30- 15:30	Panel IV: Privacy and Banking Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University) Panelists: M R Umarji (Chief Legal Advisor, IBA), N A Vijayashankar (Cyber Law Expert), Sucheta Dalal (Managing Editor, MoneyLife Magazine)*, Malavika Jayaram (Advocate, Bangalore) Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student)
15:30- 15:45	Tea Break
15:45- 16:45	Panel V: Privacy and Health Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist & LGBT Activist) Panelists: K K Abraham (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Shri Sayan Chatterjee (Secretary, National Aids Control Organization), Dr V M Katoch (Secretary, Department of Health Research), Dr B S Bedi (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia) Poster: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
16:45- 17:00	The Way Forward Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)

Bios of Speakers

Usha Ramanathan

Usha Ramanathan is an internationally recognized expert on the jurisprudence of law, poverty and rights. She writes and speaks on leading issues like the Bhopal gas leak tragedy, mass displacement, civil liberties, criminal law, environment and the judicial process. She is involved in the UID project and has written and debated extensively on it. She is a member of Amnesty International's Advisory Panel on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has been called upon by the World Health Organisation as a expert on mental health on various occasions. Her writings can be found at http://www.ielrc.org/.

NA.Vijayashankar

NA.Vijayashankar, more popularly known as Naavi, is a Techno Legal Information Security Consultant based in Bangalore, India. Naavi is a pioneer in the field of Cyber Law in India. He is the author of the first book (1999) and first E-Book (2003) on Cyber Laws in India. He has also authored a book titled “Cyber Laws, Corporate Mantra for the Digital Era”, “Cyber Laws Demystified” and “Cyber Laws for Engineers” as well as a book on Cyber Crimes in Kannada.

Naavi is the founder of www.cyberlawcollege.com which is the pioneering virtual educational institution in India dedicated to Cyber Law Education. Cyber Law College presently conducts offline and virtual courses on Cyber Laws. It has conducted several courses in association with law colleges in Karnataka such as KLE Law College, Bangalore, JSS Law College, Mysore, SDM law college Mangalore and KLE Law College Hubli.

Naavi is also the founder of www.naavi.org the premier Cyber Law Portal in India. Naavi has been engaged in the training of Police in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and conducts several courses in Cyber Laws for different audiences. He has been a guest faculty in a number of institutions including NPA, IDRBT, DTRI, ISACA, NADT, LBS National Academy, Judicial Academies, NALSAR, etc., as well as several law, engineering and management institutions.

Naavi has over three decades of senior Corporate executive experience behind him. He has been an ex-Banker and Consultant to several Companies in IT Services. He has conducted hundreds of training sessions to professionals of various disciplines such as bankers, lawyers, chartered accountants, engineers, software professionals, police and judicial officers through workshops and in-house training programmes in cyber laws, cyber crimes, information security and related areas.

Chitra Ahanthem

Chitra Ahanthem is a features writer with Imphal Free Press, published in Imphal, Manipur. She is also a freelance writer and researcher on issues around HIV/AIDS, child rights, conflict and gender.

Baljit Singh Bedi

Baljit Singh Bedi did his B.Tech and M.Tech. from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi. After serving for five years in the Centre for Applied Research in Electronics (CARE) IIT, Delhi he joined the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communication & IT (MCIT), Government of India. The major responsibilities and contributions over the years cover conceptualizing, evolving and implementation of a number of major schemes/programmes and projects in the field of electronics and IT applications with primary role in healthcare. He was instrumental in starting an integrated programme in promoting the area of Electronics, IT and Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Standards in Healthcare in India. As the head of Medical Electronics & Telemedicine division, he was looking after the activity of promotion of e-health & tele–health technology and R&D in medical electronics and launched a number of schemes in India. He was part of the National Task Force Telemedicine in India set up by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW), Government of India and headed the Group on Standards. He was a Member of National Knowledge Commission’s Working Group on India-Health Information Network Development (I-HIND) and is part of the Advisory Group for follow-up implementation program under the consideration of MoH&FW. He is actively involved in policy, development and deployment programmes of IT in Health initiatives of DIT, MoH&FW, and Media Lab Asia. He is a member of the National Committee set up by MoH&FW for EMR Standardization and Heading its Task Group on Interoperability. He is also International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Expert for e-Health Standardization. He is Executive Member of Indian Association of Medical Informatics (IAMI) and President, Telemedicine Society of India (TSI). At present, he is an Adviser to the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Scientific Society of MCIT, Government of India.

Deepak Maheshwari

Deepak Maheshwari is Director – Corporate Affairs with Microsoft in India and responsible for interactions with the policymakers & regulators as well as with industry associations & the civil society organizations. An active participant and a keen observer of the interplay between technological innovation and socio-economic development, he has been closely associated with development & evolution of Information & Communication Technology policy, law & regulation for more than a decade and is often invited as a speaker and a contributor of articles & opinions in the media.

He has been active in several trade associations and served as committee chair & co-chair. He served for two consecutive terms as the elected secretary in the ISP Association of India and co-founded National Internet eXchange of India (NIXI) as well as the ITU-APT Foundation of India. He is also a member on the academic board of the IIM Ahmedabad- IDEA Telecom Centre of Excellence.

At times mistaken as a lawyer, he was actually awarded degree in engineering by one of India’s leading technical institute IT-BHU. His professional experience of more than 2 decades spans functional responsibilities across sales, marketing, operations and last but not the least, corporate affairs.

*Participants to be confirmed

Download the poster here
Download the agenda here (PDF, 755 KB)

VIDEOS

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

What is Dilligaf?

nishant — 2011-12-01T09:52:53Z

On the web, time moves at the speed of thought: Groups emerge, proliferate and are abandoned as new trends and fads take precedence. Nowhere else is this dramatic flux as apparent as in the language that evolves online. While SMS lingo – like TTYL (Talk To You Later) and LOL (Laughing Out Loud)– has endured and become a part of everyday language, new forms of speech are taking over.

“Leetspeak” or “L33t” (derived the word “elite”), for example, incorporate numbers in words, giving geeks their own language. One that they use to bypass firewalls and filters trained to recognize certain words – so in “l33t”-speak, porn becomes Pr0n, and onwards moves mankind.

These mutations are not permanent: Like organisms, they grow to form new constellations of words and expressions demanding that users keep pace. And while purists have bled their hearts out, lamenting the savage attack on the language and grammar that digital technology has spawned, there is also a recognition of the fact that these linguistic developments are not merely experiments – they capture the spirit of a democratized knowledge system and the opening up of the information highway. User-generated content sites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Tumblr embody these acronyms and attitudes, where any attempt at regulation, control or imposition of authority is usually met with the reply – DILLIGAF (Do I Look Like I Give A F***)?

DILLIGAFers – people who live a significant part of their lives online – might scoff at older forms of institutional control, but they don’t necessarily live in a space of anarchy, either. For example, academic credentials, institutional affliations and geopolitical location might not bear the same weight on Wikipedia as while writing a book, but there are other ways in which digital rank can be pulled. Your overall Internet experience, editing history and ability to garner mass support for your views are more important in determining your place in Wikipedia’s hierarchy. Any attempt at pulling rank with assets like money, influence or name are casually discarded with succinct exclamations like WTF (What The F***) and BFD (Big F****ing Deal).

One of the defining characteristics of the DILLIGAF generation is their fiercely independent spirit. While they’re constantly connected and incessantly sharing information, they are also terribly alone. When it comes to searching for information, finding people or exploring the web, personal skills with different digital tools and platforms makes one independent. In fact, one of the deterrents for the less technically inclined to join online communities is the idea that they’re supposed to find their own way as they tread unknown digital paths. Hence, DILLIGAFers often resort to acronyms like RTFM (Read The F***ing Manual) for people (read: the rest of us) who ask for information that can be easily found. And with the rapid Googlization of the world, an obvious question is met with an obvious answer – RTFG (Read The F****ing Google).

Geeks have invented many interesting and creative acronyms to make their voices heard, and while some of the acronyms predate the Internet, they often capture the irony of online and offline existence. SNAFU (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up), an acronym that supposedly emerged in America during the Second World War, often finds its way into describing the complexity of our lives. The dramatic nature of interactions, the struggle to establish trust and the complex structure of experiences all find voice online. FML (F*** My Life), an acronym as well as a popular networking site, is a sterling example of such a space, where people share stories of how things went wrong for them, allowing other users to rate their stories on a sympathy meter.

One of the most delicious ironies of the online space is that while irreverence might find a way into acronyms, unnecessary profanity is looked down upon. If you go around swearing on discussion pages, you will immediately be ostracized, and quite possibly asked to STFU (Shut The F*** Up).

This article by Nishant Shah was published in GQ India on September 4, 2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/what-is-dilligaf

Dialogue Cafe @ Centre for Internet and Society

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T11:10:08Z

The Centre for Internet and Society announces the launch of its dialogue cafe, where every month, we approach seminal thinkers, scholars and practitioners to help explore knowledge paradigms that help us understand and research techno-social realities through innovative thought, concepts and frameworks.

The dialogue cafe draws upon different disciplines, histories, perspectives and intellectual legacies in order to respond to a seminal piece of writing that has changed, challenged and shaped the contours of interdisciplinary science and technology studies.

The dialogue cafe initiates several strands of dialogues — between critical thinkers and canonical texts, between different paradigm of knowledges that interact with digital and internet technologies, and between interlocutors located in different disciplines, to initiate critical thought/work for new and innovative research in the field of Internet and Society.

For its first brew of conversations, the Dialogue Cafe serves you...

Computation and the Humanities: Revisiting a Silent Revolution

Steve Jobs’ comments on how “technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities” made Apple hearts sing is today widely re-circulated, but not fully comprehended. We often take this to be the mark of one man’s genius, rather than the symptom of a broader interdisciplinary history. Noted Artificial Intelligence scholar Philip Agre recalls, “When I was a graduate student in artificial intelligence, the humanities were not held in high regard. They were vague and woolly, they employed impenetrable jargons, and they engaged in "meta-level bickering that never decides anything".

What happened, in the formative decades of Jobs and Agre’s generation, to bring technology and the humanities into conversation? What have the results been, other than well-designed personal computational devices, and what is the significance for us? On December 2, 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society invites you to a Dialogue Cafe, where we engage in exploring what this all means and what kinds of labour it might take to ‘marry’ these disparate ways of knowing.

As a response to Philip Agre’s seminal essay on “Critical Technology Practice”, the cafe will begin with an exposition by Kavita Philip (University of California, Irvine), opening up into a critical response spearheaded by Cherry Matthew, and leading to a larger dialogue with the audience, exploring fault lines of interdisciplinary research and challenges of integrated technology studies.

For more background on these questions, audience is encouraged (but not required) to explore the materials at Agre’s home page http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/, and STSrelated links from Wikipedia’s page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology_and_society

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dialogue-cafe

Move over Kolaveri di, here comes Gowda

praskrishna — 2011-11-28T06:58:54Z

Transparency is the buzzword in governance and chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda is eager to set a new benchmark. You could soon watch what the chief minister is doing at office, live on YouTube. This article was published in dailybhaskar.com on November 28, 2011.

Cameras are being installed at the chief minister's office in Vidhana Soudha and his home office, Krishna. The live footage will be uploaded to YouTube. "I always wanted to maintain transparency in my functioning. Very soon, I will put it to work, when people can watch me live at what I am doing when inoffice. Let the people see who come to meet me, what I do and how I work. This will set a new example, but there will be no compulsion for my colleagues to emulate me. It is entirely up to them whether to follow me or not," said Gowda on Sunday.

Kerala chief minister Oommen Chandy has already set a precedent by installing cameras in his office. On July 1 this year, the day Chandy's experiment went 'live', one lakh visitors logged in. Talking to The New York Times earlier this year, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, said "He applauded Chandy's webcams, even if the effort amounted to no more than tokenism."This type of tokenism is also quite useful," The NYT reported Abraham as saying.

In Karnataka, the much-hyped Citizens' Charter would be implemented after the state legislature, which begins on December 6, ends. The cabinet had already cleared the proposal and the bill on time-bound delivery of public services would be introduced in the session, added Gowda.

The proposed bill will make it mandatory for officials in government offices to deliver public services within stipulated period of time and failure to do so would make them liable for penal action and fine to be computed for every day of delay.

Already, Bescom chief P Manivannan has installed a webcam in his office. The NYT earlier reported Manivannan as saying that "he was installing a 'hemispheric' camera that would capture the goings-on in his entire office rather than just show his visitors."

Read the original published in dailybhaskar.com here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/here-comes-gowda

We are anonymous, we are legion

Kapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act

Facebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content

FTN: Should social networking sites be censored?

Govt wants to scrub the Internet clean

Debate: Online content row-1

India’s dreams of web censorship

‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’

Why this ‘kolaveri di' is India's coming of age

A Vibrant Medium

Tried and Tested

On the net, red herring

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill"

Agenda

Session I

Session II

Session III

Organizers

Partners

Speakers

An Interview with Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D., Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

All India Privacy Symposium

Symposium Advisors

Agenda

Bios of Speakers

Usha Ramanathan

NA.Vijayashankar

Chitra Ahanthem

Baljit Singh Bedi

Deepak Maheshwari

What is Dilligaf?

Dialogue Cafe @ Centre for Internet and Society

Computation and the Humanities: Revisiting a Silent Revolution

Move over Kolaveri di, here comes Gowda