We are anonymous, we are legion

Tough neighbourhood tests India's e-tolerance

praskrishna — 2011-06-15T10:51:48Z

The combination of having restrictive neighbours as well as security threats could make freedom on the web in India a casualty, writes Anahita Mukherji in this article published by the Times of India on June 12, 2011.

While Indians have enjoyed relatively free cyberspace, growing security threats have resulted in new laws that may tighten the screws on India's freedom on the web. This is one of the findings of a global report titled Freedom on the Net 2011.

There is a widespread fear that the lack of internet freedom in neighbouring countries, like China and Pakistan, may adversely impact India. "If restrictions are placed in certain countries, information links get weakened. Also, governments tend to copy moves of other countries when it comes to a restriction of freedom on the net," said Ketan Tanna, the India researcher for the report.

However, Sarah Cook, Asian research analyst and assistant editor for Freedom on the Net, said that while India may be in a tough neighborhood, it is also possible to seek out the "best practices from countries further afield, or even design its own, and not follow the 'worst practices' from the countries next door".

"It is ultimately up to the Indian government and people to decide how adversely they let being in a tough neighborhood impact internet freedom. It is true that there are objective threats that India faces. All of these can be used as justifications for why the government should be given wide authority to block certain content or monitor internet traffic. But in a democratic society, such needs must be balanced against citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Ensuring transparency, accountability and legal specificity in any measures taken to restrict the free flow of information is an important way of balancing those factors," said Cook in an email interview with TOI.

Recent regulations have given the government more freedom to censor content. In 2008, Parliament passed amendments to the IT Act, which came into effect in 2009 and have expanded the government's monitoring capabilities. Two months ago, the government enforced another set of guidelines on internet usage. They make it mandatory for intermediaries (ISPs, websites, blogs etc) to notify users not to publish or use information that could be harmful, defamatory or cause annoyance in any way. If an intermediary is informed of such information by the government, it has to block it within 36 hours.

According to the new rules, content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" is entitled to a ban.

An RTI activist from The Centre for Internet and Society managed to get a list of 11 officially banned websites in India in April 2011.

Nikhil Pahwa, the founder editor of Medianama, a digital media portal, feels the new guidelines could result in a further slide in India's rank.

Read the original published in the Times of India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-e-tolerance

Snooping Can Lead to Data Abuse

sunil — 2012-03-21T10:39:22Z

THE NATGRID, aiming to link databases of 21 departments and ministries for better counter- terror measures, adopts blunt policy approach, subjecting every citizen to the same level of blanket surveillance, instead of a targeted approach that intelligently focuses on geographic or demographic areas that are currently important.

All you manage to do with the current approach help software, hardware and biometric equipment vendors achieve their sales targets. It is quite unlikely that security agencies will learn anything insightful by putting everybody under the same degree of surveillance. There is no scientific evidence to show that we will be a safer nation if the government eavesdropped into all aspects of a citizen’s life. Targeted surveillance, on the other hand, is like good old- fashioned detective work. Put a particular section — of potential troublemakers — under surveillance and leave the others alone.

With round- the- clock, 100- per cent, 360- degree surveillance, all the data is scrutinised all the time. The more effective approach is to sample and collect data while maintaining data trails. If anything suspicious is noticed, the rest of the trail can be dug up. Blanket surveillance only leads to leaks and abuse and tremendous distraction. The surveillance infrastructure will be overburdened as 99 per cent of the records and files scanned will be of no interest terms of fighting terrorism, etc.

The 21 databases need to be opened only when there is anything suspicious in any of the extracted and scrutinised samples or subsets. If there is a suspicious pattern, it should lead to opening of subsets in all the databases. Obviously, there should be ways in which the databases can talk to each other — demand for a particular subset, and not for all the records to be available to agencies all the time.

The NATGRID has to be able to let investigators selectively go in and out of the necessary subsets data. No one should be able to have a 360 degree view of all activities of all Indians. AS OF now, the NATGRID design does not appear to have a safeguard for data abuse. And no matter what you see Hollywood movies, this configuration does not exist in Europe or the US. Two important forms of protections that should be available in democracies with robust privacy laws are missing in India. The first is breach notification.

If intelligence agencies and the police have looked up your files, you have a right to be informed. Secondly, you can request for a copy of the information that is maintained on you and request modifications if the data is inaccurate, so as to prevent harassment. Such checks and balances are necessary an intelligent and appropriate surveillance regime.

Merging all 21 databases for 1.2 billion people into a single system only provides a juicy target for any internal or external enemy. From the perspective national security, it is a foolish thing to do. Terrorist groups will be able to target a single failure point destroy over a billion lives. Since the current configuration of the NATGRID only undermines national security, one is forced conclude that national security is a false pretext.

This explains the deep scepticism among many the intelligence agencies involved. The real purpose of the project is to scare citizens in the age of Arab springs. The NATGRID is a disciplinary measure aimed at social engineering of citizens’ behaviour. Unfortunately, our media has been misled by the corporate cheerleaders of this humongous waste of money.

The writer is executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore.
( As told to Max Martin)

Follow on Mail Today

Download the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/snooping-to-data-abuse

The New Right to Privacy Bill 2011 — A Blind Man's View of the Elephunt

Prashant Iyengar — 2012-02-29T05:45:41Z

Over the past few days various newspapers have reported the imminent introduction in Parliament, during the upcoming Monsoon session, of a Right to Privacy Bill. Since the text of this bill has not yet been made accessible to the public, this post attempts to grope its way – through guesswork – towards a picture of what the Bill might look like from a combined reading of all the newspaper accounts, writes Prashant Iyengar in this blog post which was posted on the Privacy India website on June 8, 2011.

I am relying entirely on the following three newspaper accounts in the Times of India, the Hindu and the Deccan Chronicle.

A Constitutional/Fundamental Right?

The Times of India piece which broke the story seems to have misunderstood/misquoted Law Minister Veerappa Moily. The article is titled “Right to privacy may become fundamental right” which connotes a constitutional amendment. However this is inconsistent with the later portions of the same article as well as subsequent newspaper accounts in DC and the Hindu. So its safe to assume that this will not be a fundamental right to privacy, but a statutory right to privacy – like what the Right to Information Act grants us.

Preamble

I’m extrapolating here from the Hindu article:

"To provide for such a right [of privacy] to citizens of India AND to regulate collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of their personal information."

So it’s an omnibus Privacy and Data Protection Law that’s being passed. How nice. This addresses some of the misgivings that we had last year against the "Approach Paper on Privacy" released by the Department of Personnel and Training.

Definition of ‘Right to Privacy’

The Hindu article appears to quote directly from the Bill.

Every individual shall have a right to his privacy — confidentiality of communication made to, or, by him — including his personal correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph messages, postal, electronic mail and other modes of communication; confidentiality of his private or his family life; protection of his honour and good name; protection from search, detention or exposure of lawful communication between and among individuals; privacy from surveillance; confidentiality of his banking and financial transactions, medical and legal information and protection of data relating to individual.

This is a wonderfully expansive definition of the right to privacy which spans diverse areas including privacy of communications, reputational privacy, bodily/physical privacy, confidentiality, privacy of records and data protection. I’m especially pleased that this section does not limit this right to privacy only to claims against the state (as in the Right to Information Act).

The Deccan Chronicle article contains a slightly different definition of 'right to privacy' under the Bill. Here the right to privacy includes "confidentiality of communication, family life, bank and health records, protection of honour and good name and protection from use of photographs, fingerprints, DNA samples and other samples taken at police stations and other places."

This wording is slightly more granular, but less broad. I’m wondering if it is a part of the same section, or a different one entirely.

Interception

What is most interesting is the attempt made in this Bill at harmonization of interception rules across all modes of "communication". (Currently there are different rules/procedures that followed depending on the mode of communication used – Indian Post Act, Telegraph Act, IT Act.)

Here are some of the sweeping changes sought to be introduced:

The bill prohibits interception of communications except in certain cases with approval of Secretary-level officer – not below the rank of home secretary at the Central level and home secretaries in state governments
Mandatory destruction of intercepted material by the service provider within two months of discontinuance of interception.
Constitution of a Central Communication Interception Review Committee (CCIRC) to examine and review all interception orders passed (under all Acts?).
CCIRC empowered to order destruction of material intercepted under the Telgraph Act.
"unauthorised interception" (by whom?) punishable with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine of Rs 1 lakh, or both, for each such interception. This makes it a cognizable, non-bailable offense.
Disclosure of legally intercepted communication by “government officials, employees of service providers and other persons” will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years. (It is unclear whether this will be a cognizable offence or not)

Data Protection

The Bill adds muscle to the newly introduced Data Protection Rules under the IT Act, by creating an overarching statutory regime for Data Protection.

Thus, the bill forbids "any person having a place of business in India but has data using equipment located in India" from collecting or processing, using or disclosing "any data relating to individual to any person without consent of such individual". I assume that there will be exceptions to this section. The wording of this section seems to preclude its application to the government (unless you can interpret the ‘government’ to mean ‘a person having a place of business in India’. I have no views on the likelihood of that argument.

The bill evidently authorizes the establishment of an oversight body called “Data Protection Authority of India” that will investigate complaints about alleged violations of data protection. The following appear to be the functions of this body

to monitor development in data processing and computer technology;
to examine law and to evaluate its effect on data protection
to give recommendations and to receive representations from members of the public on any matter generally affecting data protection.
to investigate any data security breach and issue orders to safeguard the security interests of affected individuals whose personal data has or is likely to have been compromised by such breach.

Video Surveillance

The bill includes a very interesting prohibition on "closed circuit television or other electronic or by any other mode", except in certain cases as per the specified procedure.

No further details are provided about the exceptions or the procedure and one expects the devil to be in the details.

Bodily Privacy

The bill prohibits "surveillance by following a person".

This innocuously worded provision has the potential to effect sweeping changes in the criminal administration of this country (if it is even applicable to the state police machinery) . Currently, Police Acts in the various states contain no provisions that enable a person to challenge the surveillance imposed on them. This new section could provide a powerful new shield to the victims of police harassment.

Impersonation and Financial Fraud

In a section apparently dealing with identity theft, the Bill criminalises inter alia "posing as another person when apprehended for a crime" and "using another’s identity to obtain credit, goods and services".

I think the first (at least) is unnecessary since it is already covered by the crime of Impersonation under the IPC.

Residual

A curious provision appears to be a fine imposed on “any persons who obtain any record of information concerning an individual from any officer of the government or agency under false pretext”. Such a person shall be punishable with a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakh.(unclear whether there is a term of imprisonment in addition).

It will be interesting to see how this section conflicts with the Right to Information under which no 'pretext' need be given to the public authority.

I also think it is ill-conceived to penalise the person obtaining the record of information – the government body in custody of the information should be made more responsible in scrutinizing the 'pretext' before handing over such information.

Tailpiece

That’s all I can make out from the three articles referenced. Looks like it’s going to be a really interesting bill. I’m optimistic about it for the sincere attempt it appears to make to grapple with the protean nature of Privacy concerns we encounter. Veerappa Moily has claimed that this bill will be introduced in the monsoon session in July but has also cautioned that "it’s difficult to commit the timeframe". I think we should make haste slowly with this Bill and hope that the Law Ministry will have the wisdom to solicit public comment before introducing it in Parliament.

I’d greatly appreciate someone sending me a copy of the bill if you have access to it.

Read the article published on the Privacy India website here.

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

Do You Want to be Watched?

sunil — 2012-03-21T09:11:45Z

The new rules under the IT Act are an assault on our freedom, says Sunil Abraham in this article published in Pragati on June 8, 2011.

Privacy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security. A bank safe is safe only because the keys are held by a trusted few. No one else can access these keys or has the ability to duplicate them. The 2008 Amendment of the Information Technology (IT) Act and their associated rules notified April 2011 proposes to eliminate whatever little privacy Indian netizens have had so far. Already as per the internet service provider (ISP) license, citizens using encryption above 40-bit were expected to deposit the complete decryption key with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. This is as intelligent as citizens of a neighbourhood making duplicates of the keys to their homes and handing them over at the local police station. With the IT Act’s latest rules things get from bad to worse. (For an analysis of the new rules under the IT Act, see the In Parliament section of this issue).

Now imagine my daughter visits the neighborhood cybercafe, the manager would now be entitled to scan her ID document and take a photograph of her using his own camera. He would also be authorised to capture her browser history including unencrypted credentials and authentication factors. He would then store this information for a period of one year and provide them to any government entity that sends him a letter. He could continue to hold on to the files as there would be no clear guidelines or penalties around deletion. The ISP that provides connectivity to the cybercafe would store a copy of my daughter’s Internet activities for two years. None of our ISPs publish or provide on request a copy of their data retention policies.

Now suppose my daughter used an online peer-production like Wikipedia or social-media platform like MySpace to commit an act of blasphemy by drawing fan-art for her favorite Swedish symphonic black metal band. A neo-Pentecostal Church sends a takedown notice to the website hosting the artwork. Unfortunately, this is a fringe Web 2.0 platform run by Indian entrepreneur who happens to be a friend of yours. When the notice arrived, our entrepreneur was in the middle of a three-week trek in the Himalayas. Even though he had disabled anonymous contributions and started comprehensive data retention of user activity on the site, unfortunately he was not able to delete the offending piece of content within 36 hours. If the honourable judge is convinced, both your friend and my daughter would be sitting in jail for a maximum of three years for the newly christened offence of blasphemous online speech.

You might dismiss my misgivings by saying “after all we are not China, Saudi Arabia or Myanmar”, and that no matter what the law says we are always weak on implementation. But that is completely missing the point. The IT Act appears to be based on the idea that the the Indian public can be bullied into self-censorship via systemic surveillance. Employ tough language in the law and occasionally make public examples of certain minor infringers. There have been news reports of young men being jailed for using expletives against Indian politicians or referring to a head of state as a “rubber stamp.” The message is clear—you are being watched so watch your tongue.

Surveillance capabilities are not a necessary feature of information systems. They have to be engineered into these systems. Once these features exists, they could potentially serve both the legally authorised official and other undesirable elements. Terrorists, cyber-warriors and criminals will all find systems with surveillance capabilities easier to compromise. In other words, surveillance compromises security at the level of system design. There were no internet connections or phone lines in the bin Laden compound—he was depending on store and forward arrangement based on USB drives. Do we really think that registration of all USB drives, monitoring of their usage and the provision of back doors to these USBs via master key would have lead the investigators to him earlier? Has the ban on public wi-fi and the current ID requirements at cyber-cafes led to the arrest of any terrorists or criminals in India? Where is the evidence that resource hungry blanket surveillance is providing return on investment? Intelligence work cannot be replaced with resource-hungry blanket surveillance. Unnecessary surveillance distracts the security with irrelevance.

Increase in security levels is not directly proportional to increase in levels of surveillance. A certain amount of surveillance is unavoidable and essential. But after the optimum amount of surveillance has been reached, additional surveillance only undermines security. The multiple levels of data retention at the cybercafe, by the ISP and also by the application service provider does not necessarily make Indian cyberspace more secure. On the contrary, redundant storage of personal sensitive information only acts as multiple points of failure and leaks—in the age of Niira Radia and Amar Singh one does not have be reminded of authorised and unauthorised surveillance and their associated leaks.

Finally, there is the question of perception management. Perceptions of security does not only depend on reality but on personal and popular sentiment. There are two possible configurations for information systems—one, where the fundamental organising principle is trust or second, where the principle is suspicion. Systems based on suspicion usually gives rise to criminal and corrupt behavior. If the state were to repeatedly accuse its law-abiding citizens of being terrorists and criminals, it might end up provoking them into living up to these unfortunate expectations. If citizens realise that every moment of their digital lives is being monitored by multiple private and government bodies—they will begin to use anonymisation and encryption technology round the clock even when it is not really necessary. Ordinary citizens will be forced to visit the darker and nastier corners of the internet just to download encryption tools and other privacy enabling software. Like the prohibition, this will only result in further insecurity and break-down in the rule of law.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/want-to-be-watched

The Digital is Political

nishant — 2012-03-21T09:14:23Z

Technologies are not just agents of politics, there is politics in their design, writes Nishant Shah in this article published in Down to Earth in the Issue of June 15, 2011.

The links between digital technologies and politics, especially in the light of the recent West Asian-North African uprisings, have been well-established. But there is a pervasive belief that the technologies of computing, in themselves, are apolitical. There are two warring groups when it comes to debates around political participation and social change that the digital and Internet technologies have fostered.

On the one hand are people who celebrate the negotiation- and intervention-making power of these technologies and attribute to them great power that can change the world. On the other are those who look at these developments with suspicion, trying to make a case for the power of the human will rather than the scope of technology design.

Both sides remain convinced that there is a cause-and-effect link between technology and politics, but nobody talks about the politics of technology. The functional focus on digital technologies—economic prosperity, time-space shrinkage, transparent interaction and governance—has been overwhelming. This fosters a pervasive belief that technologies of computation and communication are agnostic to politics: there is a disconnect between everyday practices of technology and spectrum of politics within which we operate.

Let me give an example to explain this. Take a blank sheet of paper. To all appearances, it is completely agnostic to the uses it can be put to. It can become a letter of love, it can become a note of dismissal, shattering the dreams of somebody who is fired, it can be a promissory note facilitating legal and economic transactions, or it can become the rag to mop a spill on your desk. It is generally presumed that the piece of paper does not have any design or agency. And yet, it is obvious from history that this sheet of paper did indeed revolutionise the world.

The advent of the printing press, the ability to mass-produce paper, the possibility of sending disembodied messages, the power of the paper to store information which can then be retrieved, has been transforming the world the last 500 years. It is a technologised platform that, by its very design possibilities and limitations, is able to shape, not only how we have communicated with each other, but also how we think. Let us remember the first proof of our identity is not in images or in sounds, but in a document, printed on a piece of paper, that declares us human and alive and legally present—the birth certificate.

We have grown so used to the world of writing and of printing that we have appropriated paper as an integral part of the human socio-cultural fabric. However, technology interfaces and products have not only a political agenda in their design, but also the power to shape the ways in which human history and memory function. The blank sheet of paper, in its inability to capture oral traditions, eradicates them. The tyranny of a piece of paper brings a fixity to articulations which are fluid. To think of the paper as bereft of political design, ambition and destiny, would be to neglect the lessons learned in history.

The digital interface needs to be understood through similar prisms. It is presumed that the digital interface in itself is not political in nature. Or politics is reduced to the level of content. In the process certain significant questions remain unanswered: who owns the digital technologies? Who supports them? Who benefits from them? Who controls them? Who remains excluded? Who is being made to bear the burdens?

Questions about exclusion and discrimination, built into the very structure of technology, are often overlooked. How do technologies determine who gets a voice? How do the digital webs exclude those who shall always remain outcasts? What happens to our understanding of the relationship between the state and the citizen? What are our digital rights? How does the technology design mitigate social evils? How does technology emerge as the de-facto arbitrator of law?

Politics plays a part in the very presence and design of these technologies. It is perhaps time to proclaim that like the personal, the “The Technological is the Political.”

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/digital-is-political

Say 'Password' in Hindi

nishant — 2012-03-21T09:18:19Z

English might be the language of the online world, but it’s time other languages had their say, writes Nishant Shah. The article was published in the Indian Express on June 5, 2011.

On skype the other day, a friend narrated an incident that made the otherwise familiar terrains of the internet, uncanny. His grandmother, who had recently acquired a taste for Facebook, had signed off on a message saying “Love, Granny”. For people of the xoxo generation, this sounds commonplace, in fact it might even be archaic. However, for my friend, who had never thought of his emotions for his grandmother as “love”, it produced a moment of sheer strangeness.

In Gujarati, it would have been silly to think of your emotions for family as “love”. There are better nuances. The emotional connect between lovers is different from the affective relationship with parents. The fondness for siblings is different from the bond with friends. And it was unnerving, for him, to have this range of emotions suddenly condensed into “love”. Like many of us polyglots who work in the rapidly digitising world of the World Wide Web, he was experiencing the gap between the mother tongue and the other tongue. It is an experience that is quite common to non-native speakers of English, who have to succumb to de facto English language usage on the global web and often find themselves at sea about how to translate emotions, histories and experiences into a language which does not always accommodate them.

This experience only becomes more intense for people who are fluent neither in the English language nor in international online English. This question of localisation of language remains one of the biggest gating factors of the internet. It also remains, after literacy and skills, the biggest impediment to including people from non-mainstream geopolitics in discussions online. Several global linguistic majorities have dealt with this by producing different language webs. Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and German are among the largest non-English language internets which are in operation now. However, in post-colonial countries like India, where linguistic diversity is the order of the day, the efforts at localisation have been sporadic and not very popular.

There are many facets to the implementation of localisation practices. It requires developing local language fonts so that people don’t have to merely transliterate local words using an English language script. These fonts further need to be made translatable into other languages, identified by machine translations. Keyboards and hardware infrastructure, which grants ease of access to the users need to be built. Tool kits to de-Anglify the computer language, code, browser signs etc. are being developed. There are many attempts being made by public and private bodies in the country to produce this ecology of localisation, both at the level of hardware and software.

And yet, adoption of localisation tools, despite a growing non-urban user base, remains low. Most people engage with the digital and online services through English, even though their fluency with the language might be low. One of the reasons why localisation of Indic language content is facing so much resistance is because of a narrow understanding of localisation as linguistic translation. Most attempts at localisation in the country merely think of translating English terms like “browser”, “code”, or “password” into the regional languages. In many instances, the term is merely rewritten in the local script.

Such an approach to localisation ignores the fact that the language of technology does not only produce new expressions and words, but also new ways of thinking. While localising the English language content, care also has to be given to translating the contexts, which the words and phrases carry. Do a simple exercise. Take the word “Password”. Try and translate this into your local language so that it makes complete sense to a native speaker. You will realise that just saying “Password” doesn’t mean much and that it requires background information to make that word intelligible to a community.

The second is that localisation is not merely about giving rights to generate content online. While the Web 2.0 wave of user-generated content is ruling the internet now, we must realise that most people come online to consume as much, if not more than, what they generate. Policies that promote local language information production, translation projects etc. need to be in place so that the minimum threshold of information is available online in languages other than English. Government documents, state records, public artifacts, etc. need to be digitised and made available in local languages so that people can access data online.

Localisation is not only about language and translations. It is about changing the top-down approach; instead of forcing existing concepts on to material realities which don’t always fit them, it is time to see that the true power of digital technologies is in building bottom-up models where everyday practice can be captured through localised vocabularies that allow for users to say, “I love you,” to anybody, in a language, and meaning that makes sense to them.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/password-in-hindi

Technology, Transparency and Accountability: A Bar-Camp in Delhi

praskrishna — 2011-06-06T06:30:09Z

Accountability Initiative (AI) held a bar-camp on “Technology, Transparency and Accountability” on 5th June at Google office in Gurgaon. Pranesh Prakash participated in this bar-camp.

The camp brought together technology enthusiasts, coders, hackers and policy-thinkers together in a collaborative environment to develop innovative solutions to accountability and transparency challenges in India.

Agenda

10:00 AM - Introduction
10:30 AM - 11:30 AM Combined sessions at the cafe
11:30 AM - 1:30 PM - Breakout sessions in the various rooms and demo sessions in the cafe
1:30 PM - Lunch
2:30 - 5:30 PM - Breakout sessions in the various rooms and demo session in the cafe
5:30 - 6:30 PM - Deciding the future of the camp and creating blueprints for further collaboration
6:30 PM - Ending session

Some of the topics being talked about thus far

Social accountability tools and how can technology be used for this?

Public finance tracking and PAISA
Participatory budgeting
Participatory research for tracking outcomes
Citizen report cards
Social audits

Open Data and why it is important for transparency

Where can you find government data
Scraping government data using Needle Base
Why is visualization important?
Some examples of how open Data is changing the world
Akshara's work at the Karnataka Learning Partnership and the need for open educational data.
Data-mashups
The draft policy on open data in India
One stop govt ports

Technology innovations for improving the Right to Information

A wishlist
Shouldn't the replies to RTI be in the public domain?
Filing an RTI: Problems and Prospects
RTI Question and Answer Portal
How do you file an RTI though an SMS?

Egovernance initiatives that are leading to greater accountability and transparency

Mahima Kaul - Digital Empowerment Foundation

Making the links between politics and businesses transparent

Rohit Chandra

Electoral accountability

‘Improving and Strengthening Democracy in India’ - Lessons from Election Watch Process

Crowd-sourcing actionable data

An example of crowd-sourcing - Powercuts.in

Transparency in diplomacy

Using online tools to engage and be engaged by the public.

How should we look at technology when dealing with grassroots situations?

How can programmers help in making governance more transparent?

Perspectives from the Government

Perspectives from the NIC
Perspectives from the NEGP
Perspectives from the Office of Mr Sam Pitroda, Adviser to the Prime Minister of India on Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations.

Making conversation: citizens and their government

Making visual sense of Data and Policy

Policy to Practice: From the lab and to the people

How can legislators and parliamentarians and MPs be tracked by citizens?

Research Tools to work with large amounts of data

Other interesting ideas that have come up

Panini Keypad - Mr Abhijit Bhattacharjee
How Ashok Leyland dealt with its problems of too many layers between the customer on the ground and the top management - Its implications for the government

The Speakers

Nikhil Dey - Nikhil Dey has done more to fight for the rights of people than he will ever allow the world to find out. Always far from the spotlight, he has worked quietly to shape legislation, lobby governments and politicians and build grassroots campaigns.Born in 1963 in the city of Bangalore, Nikhil was educated in India and the US. Before the formal completion of his graduate course at the George Mason University, he left to ‘follow his bliss' and came to India. His initial work was with the Kheduth Mazdoor Chetna Sangathan in Madhya Pradesh. He then joined Aruna Roy and Shankar Singh in 1987 to go to a village called Devdungri in Rajsamand district, Rajasthan. Devdungri was soon to become the head office of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a peasants-workers-women organisation founded by the trio in 1990. He currently is the Convener of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information.

Shri Sailesh Gandhi - Shailesh Gandhi is one among the handful of people whose dogged perseverance has demonstrated that the Right to Information Act is a valuable tool that can be used by ordinary people to resolve issues and to clean up public life. Currently one of the Information Commissioners of India, Mr Gandhi is a graduate from IIT-Mumbai and first-generation entrepreneur.

Prof Trilochan Sastry - Prof Trilochan Sastry has a Bachelors in Technology from IIT, Delhi, an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) USA. He taught for several years at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad after which he moved to IIM, Bangalore. He is currently Dean at IIM Bangalore. He has taught in other Universities in India, Japan, Hong Kong and United States and has published several academic papers in Indian and International journals. Has received national award for research and teaching. He was part of the cofounding team of ADR India in 1999.

GVL Narasimha Rao: Rao is a well known Psephologist who has been predicting Indian elections for two decades for various leading media organisations in the country. He is the founder of Development & Research Services Pvt. Ltd., a leading research organisation offering professional research services for various governmental, international and commercial organisations. Formerly, he was a Columnist for MINT newspaper and regularly writes in various newspapers on politics and elections.

Rao is presently Media Adviser to Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh in the rank of a state minister. He is also a member of the BJP’s National Committee on Electoral Reforms under the guidance of BJP’s senior Leader Mr. L.K. Advani.

Rao is President of VeTA (Citizens for Verifiability, Transparency and Accountability) and has organised various efforts in highlighting the lack of transparency and verifiability in Indian EVMs. He has authored a book titled “Democracy at Risk! Can We Trust Our EVMs?” which became the intellectual basis for the campaign for EVM reform. He had highlighted the vulnerabilities of India’s EVMs in a round table international Electronic Voting Workshop in Washington D.C. last year which was also attended by the Election Commission of India. Rao has blogged extensively on the vulnerabilities of EVMs at www.indianEVM.com which exerted huge pressure on the Election Commission of India and even served as an eye opener for laying bare hitherto unknown vulnerabilities (brought out by the research of Hari Prasad et al.) and raising uncomfortable questions regarding the pitfalls in EVM procurement, storage and field administration.

Mahima Kaul - Mahima Kaul is a writer/journalist and has worked with different formats - print, video and online. She has written for The Indian Express, Sunday Guardian, PBS World Focus and also worked on video programming for Al Jazeera and PBS. She was the India producer for PBS's special coverage on the Mumbai Terror Attacks, which was nominated for an Emmy Award. She has a blog that has been picked up by (among others) OpenDemocracy, Global Voices, Huffington Post and Ground Report.

She is deeply involved in ICT4D -- Information and Communication Technologies for Development -- sector. She has worked with Video Volunteers, a community media organization, and helped launch India's first community TV channel, India Unheard. She is a consultant with the Digital Empowerment Foundation where she manages the Digital Knowledge Center, the first information portal in India on best practices in ICT4D. Mahima has also established The Open Communication Foundation as a multidisciplinary platform devoted to ICT4D.

Rohit Chandra - Rohit Chandra is an engineering graduate currently doing research in the areas of power, energy and natural resources at the Centre for Policy Research. He will be discussing a nascent idea at the Accountability Initiative which hopes to map the links between businesses and politicians.

Sukhman Randhawa - Sukhman has completed her Masters in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, UK and has obtained a BA in English Literature (Hons.) from St. Stephen's College, Delhi University. She is also an honorary fellow of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust. She has worked as a Research Associate at the National Knowledge Commission (NKC), a high level advisory body to the Prime Minister of India, on the focus areas of Higher Education, Libraries, National Portal for Teachers, National Environment Portal, National Biodiversity Portal, Quality of Life, and worked on compiling the final report of the Commission. At NKC, she also worked with State Governments for implementation of NKC recommendations and preparing blueprints for action. She has also worked with IL&FS Education and Technology Services Ltd in Delhi. Currently she is working at the Office of Mr Sam Pitroda, Adviser to the Prime Minister of India on Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations.

Gautam John - Gautam used to be a lawyer with a focus on copyright laws and has also been an entrepreneur. He is passionate about education, equality and equity and focuses on 'access' as a way to achieve these. Gautam was a TED India Fellow in 2009 and is a Creative Commons supporter. He works with the Akshara Foundation where he manages the Karnataka Learning Partnership project, Pratham Books and is an advisor to Inclusive Planet. He is a founder member of Wikimedia Chapter (India) and currently serves as Secretary on the Executive Committee.

The Karnataka Learning Partnership is a multi-party, multi-stakeholder platform to bring transparency in the public preschool and primary education space. Karnataka Learning Partnership is also a public space where citizens can contribute to the cause of ensuring better schools and schooling for our children.

Raman Jit Singh Chima - is a senior analyst, Public Policy and Government Affairs at Google, India.

Pranesh Prakash - Pranesh Prakash is a programme manager with the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit research and advocacy organization. He is a lawyer by training who's comfortable at a bash prompt. He works mostly around issues of intellectual property rights reform, promoting IP alternatives and transparency through different kinds of 'opennesses'—open standards, free/open source software, open government data, open access to law—as well as issues of freedom of speech and expression and privacy that relate to the Internet.

Last year, Pranesh along with Glover Wright, Sunil Abraham and Nishant Shah, prepared a report around open government data (OGD) in India as part of a series of studies commissioned by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative . In that report they looked at the existing ecosystem in terms of data practices, the policy environment (RTI, copyright, standards, NeGP, NKC's recommendations, etc.) , and specific OGD case studies of governmental organizations, civil society organizations, public-private partnerships, and civic hackers. The report then charts out challenges any campaign for OGD in India must address, as well as observations on how the very conceptualization of OGD must be different in India, and strategic recommendations on how to grow the OGD movement in India.

Rishabh Verma - A Python enthusiast, FOSS contributor,loves data mining and is always upto finding unusual patterns in large datasets. Organizer of Tech & Entrepreneurial events, he digs data-contextualization books when he should rather be preparing for his board exams.

Thejesh N - Thejesh GN is a Technologist. His area of interests are web, Open Data and Open Source technologies. He moonlights visualizing public data. He loves blogging and hacking open source software. You can find more about him here.

Chakshu Roy - Chakshu is a lawyer who specialised in real estate law and commercial agreements before joining PRS. He has earlier worked in corporate law with the Chamber of Law, New Delhi. He holds bachelors degrees in Commerce and Law from Delhi University. Chakshu Roy heads technology initiatives at PRS Legislative research, developing a comprehensive technology strategy to engage large sections of the Indian population in policy making.

Vinay Kumar - Vinay Kumar is the chief strategist at Digital Greens. He currently manage operations of Digital Green and contribute to its organizational development. He is also a consultant to Translational Health Science & Technology Institute (THSTI) at Department of Biotechnology. Prior to this he was at India Operations Director at PATH and Regional Operations Manager for Asia / Near East with IntraHealth International. Earlier he was with the Reserve Bank of India. I have an MA in Political Science and M. Phil. in International Relations from JNU and MBA from FMS.

Manu Srivastava - Manu Srivastava works as Vice President - Delivery at eGovernment Foundation, a not-for-profit trust that was founded in Feb 2003 by Nandan Nilekani & Srikanth Nadhamuni with a goal of creating an eGovernance system to improve the functioning of City Municipalities leading to better delivery of services to their citizens. He has been in the field of Municipal Governance for the last 7 years and focusses on supply side, with the Municipal Governments, to create sustainable, efficient, transparent and accountable Municipalities. eGovernments Solutions have been deployed in more than 250 municipalities across the country.

Dinesh Shenoy - Dinesh Shenoy is a business developer at Palantir. Palantir is a firm believer in the fact that well-informed citizens lead to better government, and making government data available is certainly an important first step. In practice, however, information is scattered across countless domains, and combining such widely dispersed knowledge in a meaningful way is a technical challenge beyond any private citizen's capabilities. Palantir has eliminated this barrier, democratizing the data and providing the tools to place a new world of analysis at your fingertips.

Palantir has developed AnalyzeThe.US which allows anyone to to explore vast amounts of data, including key datasets from www.data.gov. It brings critical knowledge together on a single stage, while providing rich analytical applications that enable anyone to develop an intuitive picture of the complex flow of resources, money, and influence that affect how our government functions. Ultimately, by allowing citizens to analyze our democracy, AnalyzeThe.US democratizes analysis.

Paul Culmsee - Paul Culmsee is a dialog mapper based in Perth, Australia. He has faciliated a number of meetings and done lot of dialog mapping particularly for the public sector in the areas of urban planning and health. He is the only certified dialog-mapper in the Southern hemisphere. He has also dialog-mapped politicians. His work has culminated in soon to be released book called "Beyond Best Practices", which outlines IBIS based techniques - a radically inclusive approach to knowledge management that allows groups to capture and make sense of unstructured knowledge during project meetings. and case studies. The book goes beyond the tool of mapping and the concept of wicked problems to look at what is needed to create and maintain a "holding environment".

Frederick Noronha - Frederick Noronha is a journalist, writer, publisher and photographer from Goa, India. He is known for online community building, and for promoting the cause of Free Software in India. Among the other campaigns he has been actively associated with are the successful community radio campaign, right to information initiatives, sharable content (including the information commons, Creative Commons, Wikipedia). He has been active in mailing lists within India, and has undertaken blogging assignments in Uganda, Malaysia and Thailand. He is on twitter at @fn and shares his links via Facebook and del.icio.us (fredericknoronha)

Nikhil Pahwa - Nikhil Pahwa is a media junkie, journalist and a blogger. He has covered the digital media business for more than 3 years. He has helped bringing a pan-media perspective to digital media reportage, highlighting industry issues, identifying opportunities and problems, and questioning the efficacy of decisions being made by some large media companies. Nikhil Pahwa undoubtedly is one of the popular names in the business of digital media coverage. Companies referMedianama for the latest breaking news in the digital media industry.

Kohl Singh Gill - Dr. Kohl S. Gill is the President and founder of LaborVoices, Inc. Dr. Gill served as an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow for the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, most recently as the South Asia and Middle East Labor Affairs Officer for the Office of International Labor and Corporate Social Responsibility in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Prior to federal service, Dr. Gill was an Indicorps Fellow in the slum areas of Delhi, India, serving as a volunteer paralegal with local residents, using transparency legislation to fight both petty and grand corruption at the local level. Dr. Gill is a graduate of the California Institute of Technology and received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, for his work in quantum computing and semiconductor physics.

Aaditya Dar, Dhruv Suri and Ritwik Agrawal - Aaditya, Dhruv and Ritwik are interested in exploring and evolving innovative interventions to improve governance in India. They have varied backgrounds - economics, policy research, law, advocacy [and even math!] and have worked together in the past on education and governance related issues as part of United Students.

Vijay Pratap Singh Aditya is a development professional with hands-on experience in institution development, development research, communication systems and grassroots networking. He has considerable experience in developing systems and platforms for enabling enterprise support. Vijay is an Electrical Engineering Graduate with a Post-Graduation in Management from the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, M.P., India. Vijay is co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Ekgaon.

The other speakers were:

Vivek Joshi
Siddhant
Mudit Tuli
Ankit Rastogi
Nirmesh Singh
Manish Shekhar
Shashank S
Mandira
Tonushree
Shomikho Raha

The rationale behind the camp

Founded in 2008, AI is a research initiative that aims to improve the quality of public services in India by promoting informed and accountable governance. To this end, one of AI's key efforts is to develop innovative models for tracking government led social sector programs in India. The Centre for Policy Research, an independent and non-partisan research institute and think-tank, is the institutional anchor for this initiative.

It is now widely accepted that greater transparency – access to information and data on the day to day functioning of government – is key to creating accountable and effective governance systems. The Right to Information Act (2005) has played a significant role in strengthening transparency by committing the government to both proactively providing citizens with information and also responding to specific information requests. While the Act has met much success – RTI applications are growing by the day - there remain concerns related to quality, and reliability of information and data provided. Moreover, there are still many gaps in the Government’s efforts to proactively disclose information and data of public relevance.

Technology is one of many tools that can help address these gaps. There are some incredible initiatives taking place across the world on opening government data and on getting data to work for ordinary citizens. [See below for a sample of initiatives] Through the bar camp, we hope to create a platform for technologists to share these technologies and contribute to the debate on strengthening accountability and transparency.

Equally, we believe that technology solutions can be significantly enhanced if they are developed in consultation with people working on the ground, people who deal with the challenges of our current governance systems in India. By organizing a bar camp, we at AI want to initiate a conversation between technology specialists and people working on the ground. Through the bar camp, we intend to create a space where people can share their knowledge about how best to use new technologies to make our government really work for the people.

Online conversations

To faciliate conversations between interested people and for people who are interested in being a part of the planning process, we created a Google-Group. To send in your suggestions for the camp, both on what you would like to hear, and on what sessions you would like to take, you can use the google-group or send in your entries through our Facebookpage, our Twitter handle or through comments on this blog post. Our entry on the official bar-camp page is here. To tweet about us please use the hash-tag #TAC1.

Do you need more ideas?

To spark your thought processes, we consolidated a list of websites which deal with "Technology, Accountabilty and Transparency". Have fun!

A compendium of ideas from across the world can be found here.
The Sunlight Foundation does some excellent work on technology and transparency issues.
The technology for transparency network maps technology initiatives across the world.
Code for America brings together techies from across the world to use their skills for the greater common good.
Civics Common is another organization working on using technology for common good, and this involves a lot of transparent data.

For any other information, please contact lemmanuel @ accountabilityindia.org.

See the entire details on the Accountability Initiative website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/technology-transparency-accountability

A Street View of Private and the Public

Prashant Iyengar — 2012-03-21T09:34:23Z

Prashant Iyengar on how in the eyes of the law, the internet giant is like the homeless in India. This article was published by Tehelka on June 4, 2011.

Since last Thursday, Internet-search giant Google has been busy collecting images of roads in Bengaluru in order to launch its popular StreetView service for the city. It is a feature that allows users of Google Maps to virtually navigate and explore cities through a 360-degree, street-level imagery. To achieve this, Google drives vehicles with cameras mounted on them through each street and neighbourhood in a city, systematically capturing everything in their path, including buildings, roads, traffic, animals and human subjects.

Intrinsically, the idea is exciting for its ability to enable distant users to sample street life in cities and neighbourhoods that they may have never physically visited. Or, even for the exhilaration it permits of viewing familiar spaces virtually.

However, this technology has also raised interesting privacy concerns in countries where it has previously been launched. In April 2008, shortly after the service was first launched in the US, Google was sued by a couple who objected to the pictures of their home being publicly displayed. This suit was settled out-of-court two years later. Google had, meanwhile, made changes to their service, permitting users to "opt out" of the service, rendering similar suits unnecessary. Google has faced similar concerns in other jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, and has successfully fended them off by adapting its service by voluntarily blurring faces of all individuals captured during the process and vesting more agency in the hands of users to take down information that offends them.

Putting aside the privacy debate over StreetView in other jurisdictions momentarily, I want to raise two questions about India and the Indian law in the context of StreetView: first, does Indian privacy law – that evanescent sub-topic of tort and constitutional law – contain anything useful or even informative which we can bring to bear on this discussion? And, do the specificities of the Indian street life merit a different approach to the privacy question?

On the first question, the legal right to privacy in India has been, for the most part, a child of the higher judiciary. However, despite a fairly substantial volume of case law that has accumulated by now that references "privacy", one cannot suppress a sense that the concept lacks, even today, a definitive articulation. The individual’s privacy in India today is an uneven concept – stronger in some situations and non-existent in others. It is a contingent, rather tame concept of a general right to privacy that we have, from which it is not possible to mount a confident attack against Google.

Given this state of indeterminacy about one’s right to privacy, a case for the extension of this right in public spaces seems even more far-fetched. Indeed, in specific cases, courts have dealt damaging blows to the emergence of such a concept. For instance, in a tort case from colonial times, it was held that a window overlooking a public street would not infringe the privacy of the neighbours across the street. Likewise, in a case involving sex workers, the Supreme Court held that they were not entitled to move freely in a public place due to the very subversive nature of the professions they practiced in private – signalling that the private seeps into the public only as a limiting or negative concept.

Against this context Google’s extension of its opt-out privacy principles to India is commendable, because they are not warranted by the current state of law in the country. Indeed, it may even result in a "wagging the dog" of privacy jurisprudence in India by seeding the notion of a limited "right to public anonymity", which is currently indeterminate in the Indian law. That individuals have no “legitimate expectation of privacy in a public place” is axiomatic in most other common-law jurisdictions and is one of the hidden legal ballasts that supports Google’s StreetView service. However, there has not yet been an occasion for the Supreme Court to pronounce on this question. It is very likely that the court will defer to international precedent on the matter. However, until this eventuality, the legal position on the question must be regarded as unsettled.

Turning briefly to the second question regarding the specificities of the Indian situation, India is home to one of the largest populations of urban homeless persons. To them the street, generally, and pavements and bridges, more specifically, are "home" regardless of their tenuous legal title to these claims. To casually dismiss their claims is to crudely conflate privacy with property, which is insensitive to the tragedies of urban life in India. In his insightful essay on filth and the public sphere, Sudipta Kaviraj makes the fascinating point that "for the poor, homeless and other destitute people" of India, "public means not-private spaces, from which they could not be excluded by somebody’s right to property.

It comprises assets which are owned by some general institution like the government or city municipality which does not exercise fierce vigilance over its properties as individual owners do, and which allows through default, indifference and a strangely lazy generosity, its owned things to be despoiled by those with out other means. Public space is a matter not of collective pride but of desperate uses that can range from free riding to vandalizing.

I would add here that this notion of public space is shared not just by the homeless but Google as well, which has taken advantage of the lazy generosity of the Bengaluru traffic police to appropriate images of the city for its purposes. Like the homeless, Google is willing to cede to competing private interests, if they are asserted strongly enough. (This makes Google StreetView, despite its origins in Mountain View in California, characteristically Indian!) In the past, Google has required users to submit documentary proof of their titles before their claims to opt out are honoured. In the context of the homeless particularly, honouring privacy in India may require a different approach. Fortunately for Google, the homeless are not likely to fiercely assert this right.

To conclude, I will like to clarify that I write to praise Google not to bury him, since Google is an honourable man. Over the past several decades, technology – from wire tapping to DNA tests to paternity tests – has been the site and discursive nucleus that has facilitated an efflorosence of privacy jurisprudence in the country. Two decades ago we did not have Facebook, Google, unsolicited calls and spam, and, correspondingly, neither did we have a sharp notion of our privacy. One awaits with optimism the kinds of changes in privacy jurisprudence that might emerge from StreetView.

Prashant Iyengar is a lawyer and consultant on privacy issues with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

He can be contacted at prashantiyengar@gmail.com.

Read the original published in Tehelka here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/street-view-of-private-and-public

Bloggers' Rights Subordinated to Rights of Expression: Cyber Law Expert

elonnai — 2012-03-21T09:35:06Z

Vijayashankar, an eminent cyber law expert answers Elonnai Hickok’s questions on bloggers' rights, freedom of expression and privacy in this e-mail interview conducted on May 19, 2011.

A set of rules relating to regulation of the Internet (mentioned in section 79 of the ITAA, 2008) was released in April 2011. In light of the rules framed under the IT Act, and as part of our research on privacy and Internet users, we have been looking into questions surrounding bloggers’ rights, freedom of expression, and privacy.

The new rules require among other things that intermediaries take down any content that could be considered disparaging. In practice, these rules will act to limit the ability of individuals to express their opinions on the Internet — especially for the bloggers. Though these requirements seem to only impact the freedom of expression of bloggers, a blogger’s privacy rights, especially in relation to the protection of their identity, are also pulled into question. Other issues surrounding bloggers’ rights and privacy include: if bloggers are identified as journalists, then whether they should be afforded the same protections and privileges, e.g., should bloggers have the right to free political speech and should intermediaries have freedom from liability for hosting speech or others’ comments? Are bloggers allowed to publish material that is under copyright on their website?

On May 19, 2011, through e-mail, I had the opportunity to interview Vijayashankar, an expert in cyber law, on issues regarding the rights of bloggers freedom of expression, and privacy. Vijayashankar has authored multiple books on cyber law, taught in many universities, and is an active leader of the Netizen movement in India. Below is a summary of the questions I posed to Vijayashankar and his responses.

I began the interview by trying to understand bloggers’ rights and how they are defined. Often the term 'bloggers' rights is used casually, but it is important to understand the different roles that a blogger plays in order to understand what his/her rights are, how they could be violated, and how they could be protected. Vijayashankar explained that a blog is comprised of two parties: a blogger and an intermediary – which is the application host. Bloggers have many different roles: authors, editors, or publishers of content, and thus, a blogger’s rights should be defined within these contexts. As authors, bloggers write their own article/blog or adds comments to others’ blogs. As such, they should have the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions and determine a level of privacy with which to maintain them, without regulation or censorship from a third party. Though the freedom of expression and privacy should be basic rights for blog authors, bloggers must also be held accountable and responsible for the content that they choose to make public by posting on accessible web pages.

The need for a blogger to be held responsible and accountable is similar to the limitation on speech that informs defamation law, and it means that a blogger cannot be entirely anonymous – at least not once a blog is public and is challenged. Thus, accountability must limit the right to be entirely private and anonymous. Though a blogger should be held accountable, the international implications give rise to thorny issues of jurisdiction and accountability under unforeseen laws: all of which raises the question whether, instead of local jurisdictions seeking to enforce their laws against potentially out-of-the-jurisdiction bloggers, an international third party should be entrusted with the responsibility of holding bloggers accountable and responsible – whether that takes the form of an organization like the WTO or WIPO or looks more like specially trained international arbitrators.

This challenge arises because bloggers live in different jurisdictions where different rules apply, but their opinions cross multiple borders and boundaries. This raises questions such as: Which jurisdictional law should the blogger be accountable to? Should a blogger be held responsible for actions that are considered violations in a jurisdiction in which a blog is read, even if those actions are not violations in the jurisdiction in which it is written? And if a blogger is to be held responsible, who should hold him responsible – the country where the action is considered a violation or his own country – and where does a private party have a cause of action? According to Vijayashankar, blogger’s rights’ are always subordinated to the rights of expression guaranteed to the blogger in his country where he is a citizen.

Furthermore, the rights of a blogger have to be seen in the context of who has the "cause of action" against blog writing, i.e., which party involved has the right to complain. If an individual is a victim of a blog, and that individual is a citizen of another country and is guaranteed certain rights, the blogger's rights cannot override the rights of the victim in his own country. Hence, the victim has the right to invoke law enforcement in his country, and the law enforcement agencies do have a right to seek information from the blogger. If, however, a citizen brings a private civil action against a blogger, the discovery limitations are much more severe across boundaries, and the blogger’s national policy on responding to discovery from other countries will determine the extent to which information from the blogger will be made available. To the extent that the impact of a blogger’s expression reaches across boundaries, his actions should be considered similar to a situation where a citizen of one country does certain things which affect the rights enjoyed by a citizen of another country. It does not seem right that a blogger can say something offensive in one jurisdiction and be held liable, but a different blogger can say the same thing from another jurisdiction and be protected. On the one hand, since the Internet as a medium broadcasts across geographical boundaries, it is the responsibility of the individual countries to erect their "cyber boundaries" if they do not want the broadcast to reach their citizens. On the other, individuals should be able to invoke international laws to seek consistent application of standards about what is actionable and what information is discoverable in support of an action. This suggests that an international tribunal might be the best solution.

Other questions to think about when exploring the idea of a trusted third party holding online bloggers accountable include: who would form the third party, what legal authority/power would they have, would this group also be in charge of reviewing a country’s "cyber boundaries" in addition to holding online bloggers accountable? and how would it avoid being influenced by any one government or by other stakeholders?

Next I asked him for examples of common privacy violations that happen to online users. A few he said included identity theft in the form of phishing, which leads to financial frauds, and is one of the most dangerous consequences of privacy breach. Other examples included manipulation of online profiles in social networking sites to cause annoyance, defamation, and coercion; cyber squatting with content which can be misleading; posting of obscene pictures with or without morphing of victim’s photographs to other obscene photographs/pictures; and SPAM – particularly through mobile phones – are all serious forms of privacy violations.

My third question focused on privacy violations and bloggers. How could a blogger’s rights be compromised, especially with a focus on privacy? For bloggers, is privacy important simply to protect their identity and content, or are there other implications for privacy and bloggers? In our research we have looked into ways in which practices such as data retention by ISPs, government/law enforcements’ access to web content including private conversations, and poorly established user control over privacy settings on websites can violate online users’ privacy. According to Vijayashankar, a blogger is mainly concerned about privacy in the context of protecting his identity. It is important for bloggers to protect their identity because the content they create could be considered controversial or illegal in different regions. Thus, it is critical for bloggers to have the right to blog anonymously. An exception to this right is that if the blog is so offensive then the law enforcement agency can take action. In some countries individuals also can sue bloggers. To help protect bloggers from unreasonable and ungrounded searches, Vijayashankar suggested that a mechanism be created by which international and domestic law enforcement agencies can request 'sensitive' information. This mechanism would work to filter and evaluate requests for information without bias, and according to a country’s law own domestic law.

I then asked him what legal protections he felt bloggers needed. He said that he believes that it is important that bloggers and online users’ right to anonymity, protection of identity and freedom of expression (political and non-political) are protected from excessive regulations. An interesting point that he raised was about the protection of bloggers from international requests for information. According to –him — bloggers can be protected only to the extent to which their rights are protected in their own country. If a request for information comes to a law enforcement agency of a country of which the blogger is a citizen, information may need to be released unless an “asylum” has been granted.

An example of the situation Vijayashankar is referring to is that if a blogger in India writes content that is found to be controversial by the U.S Government; the U.S Government then has a right to request and access that information, unless the Indian Government provides protection over the citizen and the information and refuses to release it. Though right to information requests tend to be governmental, this rule changes if it is a citizen requesting information. Very rarely can a citizen of one country request information about a blogger from another country and gain access. The question of international discovery over Internet material is one that has many angles that need to be taken into consideration – a few being: what the content on the blog contained; was the content against an individual or a government; who is requesting the information — a citizen or the government, and whom are they requesting the information from? For example, in the US Supreme Court case, Calder vs. Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984), information about a woman, Shirley Jones, was published in another state, but the court ruled that the wrongful action was directed to her where she was.

A large part of the debate over bloggers’ rights is centered on governments’ need to monitor online activity. Developments such as the new rules to the IT Act, the Indian Government’s request for blackberry’s encryption keys, and the news about the government wiretapping citizens’ phones show that the Government of India is demanding access to see and regulate content created by online users in India. When asked about bloggers’ rights and government access to content, Vijayashankar stressed that there has to be a mechanism to check the requests from government agencies, and any such mechanism should have popular representation. He went on to explain that presently an order for the blocking of a blog or for private information is made by a government agency or a court. Unfortunately, government agencies may be responsive to certain interests. Likewise, decisions of conventional courts can be inconsistent. Therefore, it is important that a mechanism that reflects the common person’s input is put in place. This could either be a stand-alone private body, such as Netizen Protection Agency, acting as one more layer of protection, or the government body itself could build in adequate public representation. Courts would need to recognize such bodies and seek their opinion as an input to any dispute. This is an innovative option, but one that is a radical departure from the view of a court as an impartial tribunal that is supposed to weigh every matter independently on its merits.

Lastly, I asked if a privacy legislation could address the issue at hand i.e., could a privacy legislation work to protect bloggers’ rights by providing them identity protection and protection of their content and in general what should be included in a comprehensive privacy legislation? Though India already addresses bloggers’ rights through the Information Technology Act, it could be possible that privacy legislation could establish a third party group to work to protect bloggers’ rights and hold both governments and bloggers’ accountable. When asked what should be included in a comprehensive privacy legislation, Vijayashankar suggested that it should recognize that privacy rights of individuals are part of the larger interests of the society, and a comprehensive legislation should work to take all the stakeholders into consideration.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/bloggers-rights-and-privacy

Big Brother is Watching You

sunil — 2012-03-21T09:32:28Z

The government is massively expanding its surveillance power over law-abiding citizens and businesses, says Sunil Abraham in this article published by the Deccan Herald on June 1, 2011.

Imagine: An HIV positive woman calls a help-line from an ISD/STD booth. The booth operator can get to know who she called, when and for how long. But he would not have any idea on who she is or where she lives.

Now, instead of a phone call, imagine that she uses a cyber café to seek help on a website for HIV positive people. The cyber-cafe operator would have a copy of her ID – remember that many ID documents have phone numbers and addresses. He may then take her photograph using his own camera. One can only hope that he will take only a mug-shot without using the zoom lens inappropriately. He would also use a software – to log her Internet activities and make a reasonable guess on her HIV status.

The average Facebook page may have 50 different URLs to display the various images, animations and videos that are linked to that page. Each of those URLs would be stored, regardless of whether she scrolls down to see any of them.

The cyber-cafe operator is obliged under the Cyber Cafe rules to store this information for a period of one year. But there are no clear guidelines on when and how he should dispose of these logs. An unethical operator could leak the logs to a marketeer, a spammer, a neighbourhood Romeo or the local moral police. A careless operator maybe vulnerable to digital or physical theft and before you know it, such logs could end up on the Internet.

Ever since 26/11, cyber-cafes in metros have been photocopying ID documents – but so far not a single terrorist attack has been foiled or a crime solved thanks to this highly intrusive measure. But despite the lack of evidence to prove the efficacy of the current levels of surveillance, the government has decided to expand them exponentially.

Imagine again: A media organisation such as Deccan Herald is investigating a public interest issue with the help of a whistle-blower or an anonymous informant. Deccan Herald reporters may think that by turning the encryption on when using Gmail or Hotmail they are protecting their source.

But the ISP serving Deccan Herald is obliged by the license terms to log all traffic be it broadband, dial-up or mobile users passing through it. Again, there are no clear guidelines on when to delete these logs and none of the Indian ISPs publicly publish a data retention policy. Besides retaining data, the ISPs have to install real-time surveillance equipment within their network infrastructure and make them available for government officials. If a government official wants to track who is talking to Deccan Herald reporters, he just has to ask.

With ISPs and online service providers – all the police have to do is send an information request under Section 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, they don't even have to bother about a court order. Between January 2010 to June 2010 Google received 1,430 information requests from India. Many other companies, for example, Microsoft, are not as transparent as Google about the state surveillance. So we will never know what they are subjected to.

If the whistle-blower was using Blackberry, all traffic would be transferred from the device to the RIM's Network Operation Centre situated outside India in an encrypted tunnel before it travels onto the Internet. This prevents the government from learning which mail server is being used from the logs and surveillance equipment at the ISP premises. And that is why the government has been engaged in a five-year long public fight with RIM over access to Blackberry traffic.

Now, thanks to the IT Act, the government can demand the service providers, including RIM, to hand over the decryption keys by accusing any individual of a variety of vague offenses -- for example engaging in communication that is ‘grossly harmful’ or ‘harms minors in any way’ – under the IT Act. Refusal to hand over the keys is punishable with a jail term of three years.

Finally, imagine that an Indian enterprise is developing trade-secrets or handling trade-secrets on behalf of their international partners. This enterprise is using a VPN or virtual private network for confidential digital communication. As per the ISP license all encryption above 40-bit is only permitted with written permission from DoT along with mandatory deposit of the decryption key.

In the age of wire-tap leaks, only a miniscule minority of international business partners would trust the government of India not to leak or misuse the keys that have been deposited with them. Most individuals, SMEs and large enterprises routinely use encryption higher than 40 bit strength. For example, Gmail uses128 bit and Skype uses 256 bit encryption. Many services use dynamic encryption, that is generate different keys for each session.

So far I have not heard of anyone who has actually secured permission or deposited the keys. In other words, the Indian enterprise has two choices – either break the law to protect business confidentiality or obey it and lose clients.

The IT Act (Amendment 2008) and its associated Rules, notified in April this year are a massive expansion of blanket surveillance on ordinary, law-abiding Indians. They represent a paradigm shift in surveillance and a significant dilution in privacy protections afforded to citizens under the Telegraph Act.

This has terrifying consequences for our plural society, free media and businesses. Department of Information Technology in particular Dr. Gulshan Rai's office has so far only brushed aside these concerns and denied receiving feedback from the industry and civil society. If our media continues to ignore this clamp down on our civil liberties, we will soon have to furnish ID documents before purchasing thumb drives. After all, Bin Laden was found using them in his Abbottabad home.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-brother-watching-you

The Present — and Future — Dangers of India's Draconian New Internet Regulations

anja — 2011-08-02T07:22:24Z

The uproar surrounding India's Internet Control Rules makes clear that in the Internet age, as before, the active chilling of freedom of expression by the state is unacceptable in a democracy. Yet if India's old censorship regimes are to be maintained in this new context, the state will have little choice but to do just that. Are we ready to rethink the ways in which we deal with free speech and censorship as a society? Asks Anja Kovacs in this article, published in Caravan, 1 June 2011.

WHAT ACTUALLY DEFINES A DEMOCRACY? It is a trickier question than it first seems, and yet it is worthwhile, at least every now and then, to remind ourselves of what constitutes the political system we hold so dear. Free and fair elections; an independent legislative, executive and judiciary; and freedom of the press—these are all vital ingredients. But what may be democracy’s defining element, or at least its sine qua non, is the right to freedom of opinion and expression: without this equal right to “seek, receive and impart information”, as the universal declaration of Human Rights frames it, a system of governance of the people, for the people and by the people simply remains meaningless. Without a free flow of information, democracy does not exist.

It is with good reason, then, that bloggers, tech enthusiasts and watchdogs from civil society have been up in arms over two new sets of rules, notified in April 2011, that will impact every Indian’s Internet use. Formulated by the Central Government under powers conferred to it by the IT (Amendment) Act 2008, one set governs what is known as the liability of intermediaries. This determines in which cases, and to what extent, companies ranging from Google and Facebook to local Internet service providers (ISPs) are legally responsible for the content that you upload.

The second set of rules pertains to cybercafes. In a manner reminiscent of the licence Raj, there are new registration standards for these establishments, which go beyond the usual requirements for commercial enterprises and include detailed procedures to identify all users. Cybercafes will be required to maintain and submit, on a monthly basis, logs that detail the use of all computers in the cafe and to keep backups of all users’ browser histories, to be maintained for at least one year.

There is much that is wrong with these rules, but what makes them such a particular threat to freedom of expression? Some effects are likely to be indirect: for example, the Internet has the potential to emerge as an important avenue for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to express and discuss concerns so rarely taken into account by the mainstream media. But by putting into place stringent identification requirements for cybercafe users, who are likely to be less well-off, the access of underprivileged users in particular will be further constrained. Moreover, the combination of the need for identification with the requirement for cybercafes to keep a log of every user’s browser history means that anonymity online is now effectively made impossible in India. For whistleblowers, artists, writers or anyone desiring anonymity, there is no longer a place in Indian cyberspace.

But the most troubling impact on freedom of expression of the new mandates remains direct: in their attempt to delineate the liability of Internet providers and websites, the new rules for “intermediary due diligence” actually add important new curbs on freedom of expression to Indian law. India’s Constitution recognises a fairly extensive list of so-called “reasonable restrictions” and these are more or less replicated in the Rules: “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. But the Rules, which were never vetted by Parliament, do not limit themselves to these Constitutional provisions. Rather surprisingly, they add a whole new slew of qualifications, many of which are so vague, moreover, that they leave the door wide open to abuse. Thus, for example, the Rules impose a blanket ban on impersonation and make it illegal to share any information that is “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “blasphemous”, “disparaging” or “insulting any other nation”. None of these terms have been explained or defined.

Lacking the precision that would allow citizens to precisely regulate their behaviour in line with the law, overly broad regulations such as these are widely believed to have a chilling effect: in order not to violate the law, people begin to censor themselves—to keep quiet rather than protesting or engaging. But in this particular case, the effects are likely to be particularly pernicious because of a second provision made by the Rules: wherever an intermediary receives a complaint claiming that any information they store, host or publish contravenes the provisions of the Rules, the intermediary is required to take down this information within 36 hours. Censorship, in other words, will effectively be privatised.

The prospect is all the more depressing because the intermediaries have little incentive to resist participating in such censorship. Given the restrictions on free speech that are effectively enforced within Indian society by vigilante groups, especially in the last two decades, the possible impact of these rules is even more frightening. If Facebook has little reason to uphold your right to maintain a page that is critical of say, Gandhiji, what prevents vigilante groups from policing our lives online even more than they do offline? The only recourse available to the owner of the confiscated information will be going to court—meaning that defending one’s own freedom of speech online will require endless litigation.

These are worrying omens, in other words, for those who believe that freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy. But to what extent do these new provisions represent a radical break with India’s existing restrictions on free speech? Since its founding, the independent Indian nation-state has wielded censorship as a tool to both contain the conflicts that emanate from India’s tremendous diversity and to ensure its homogeneous social, moral and political development. If the list of reasonable restrictions in the Constitution is fairly long, this is because the country’s lawmakers were clear at the time of Independence that freedom of expression would need to be subordinated to the social reforms necessary to put the country on Nehru’s path to development. India’s far-reaching anti-hate speech laws, too, derive from the desire to combat ill will and disharmony. Since the Internet now makes it so much easier to publish opinions that are hurtful, or indeed “grossly harmful” or “disparaging”, the new Rules can in many ways be seen as an attempt to continue this strategy in the Internet age.

The problem, however, is that irrespective of the merits of such a strategy in the past, within the radically altered communicative context of the Internet, it is simply no longer feasible. As the Internet guru Clay Shirky has argued, earlier systems of media and communication worked on a “filter, then publish” principle. Because publishing a newspaper, for example, is expensive, editors and journalists take upon themselves the role of filtering out the “worthwhile” from the “not-so-worthwhile”. Without them making that vital differentiation between “news” and “information” on the one hand and “drivel” on the other, newspapers would simply not be viable. In the Internet age, however, this principle has been reversed. The arrival of social media especially has made it so easy and cheap for anyone to share their opinions that the mantra now is: first publish, then filter. The gatekeeper role of the traditional media stands much reduced.

For the Indian government’s strategy of using censorship as a tool to mitigate social conflict, this shift has two important consequences. The first one is quantitative: it means that there are now far more speech acts to police. That undoubtedly has made the state’s task much more difficult. But there is also a second, qualitative difference: it also means that whether the government approves of this or not, there will now be a far wider range of people who will make their voices heard, and thus, a far wider range of opinions that will be expressed in the public sphere. And it is precisely to stop such a diversity from emerging that much censorship in India has been justified over the years. As a 1980 report of the Working Group on National Film Policy argued: “if the overall objective of censorship is to safeguard generally accepted standards of morality and decency, in addition to the well recognised interests of the State, the standards of censorship applicable to freedom of expression cannot be very much ahead of the standards of behaviour commonly accepted in society. Censorship can become liberal only to the extent society itself becomes genuinely liberal”.

What such statements conveniently elide, of course, is the enormous diversity within Indian society itself. Whose standards of behaviour are they thinking of? Kashmiri, Manipuri, Chhattisgarhi? Gandhian, feminist, communist? Adivasi, Muslim, Dalit? Who represents this community of the nation? Censorship always benefits the status quo, and the Indian case has been no different. The rise of the Internet has merely revealed, with increasing frequency, cracks in the supposedly uniform moral, social and political development of India that the government envisioned. If the old censorship regime is to nevertheless be maintained in this new context, it will therefore increasingly require the active chilling of freedom of expression on the part of the state. What the uproar surrounding the Internet Control Rules makes clear is that in the Internet age, as before, this is an unacceptable route for a modern democracy. A new model to deal with diversity and dissent is urgently required.

What makes our democracy? With the undeniable challenges that the Internet throws to our established ways of operating, it is time to reopen this debate as a society, rather than leaving it to politicians and bureaucrats. The open forum of the Internet may often offend, or rattle our sensibilities and beliefs, but it also presents new possibilities for engagement and debate. Will we take this opportunity?

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-present-and-future-dangers-of-indias-draconian-new-internet-regulations

India Weighing Looser Web Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-31T12:23:22Z

Indian authorities are considering revisions to new Internet regulations after criticism from free-speech advocates and companies like Google Inc. that fear they could be exposed to liability under the regime. This article by Amol Sharma was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 30, 2011.

The rules, which took effect in April, require Internet companies to remove objectionable content from their sites, including anything "grossly harmful" or "harassing," within 36 hours of being notified by authorities. Executives could thereafter face penalties, including stiff fines or even jail time, say lawyers who have reviewed the regulations.

The rules may soon be revised to add greater liability protections for Internet companies, Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said in an interview.

Mr. Sibal said it is fair for the government to ask Internet companies to put in place codes of conduct that restrain users from posting certain material online, as the regulations do. But he said it is "relatively unfair" to expect Internet companies—which are referred to in the rules as "intermediaries"—to be responsible for third-party content. "To make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market," Mr. Sibal said.The backlash after the rules were enacted has been growing. Civil-liberties groups are expressing fears the rules are too open to interpretation and could be used by the government to restrict free speech on the Web. The regulations represent an effort by India to get a grip on the Web without the kind of direct censorship or website-blocking practiced in countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

He said ministry officials are trying to "apply our minds and see if the regime can be made more rational."

In its defense earlier this month, India's ministry said the restrictions rightly require that Internet companies observe due diligence in order to enjoy exemption from liability for content posted by third parties. "These due diligence practices are the best practices followed internationally by well-known mega corporations operating on the Internet," the statement said.

Google was among the companies and nonprofit organizations that offered feedback on the rules before they went into effect. The Web giant unsuccessfully sought changes to limit its potential liability for third-party content and to scale back a list of banned material that it said was "too prescriptive."

The rules also require removal of content that is "ethnically objectionable," "disparaging," or that "harm[s] minors in any way."

On Monday, a Google India spokeswoman referred to a previously issued statement on the matter. "If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information. The regulatory framework should ideally help protect Internet platforms and people's abilities to access information," the statement said. Google has faced requests in many countries to take down content including social-networking profiles and YouTube videos that foreign governments or users find objectionable.

India is one of the world's largest Internet markets, with a user base estimated at more than 80 million. That represents only a slice of its 1.2 billion-strong population, leaving room for growth.

Mr. Sibal, who wasn't the telecom minister when the act was passed, is trying various efforts to boost Web usage. He plans to bring 500,000 villages online within a few years by laying a massive fiber-optic backbone and using wireless devices to let Web traffic travel the "last mile" to rural households.

He said the government has to be careful not to get in the way of Internet companies trying to build up the market. "We need to ensure that we don't put conditions which are adverse to the efficient functioning of the intermediaries," he said. Despite his interest in relaxing the new rules, however, Mr. Sibal said Internet companies must "take into account the sensitivities of the countries in which they're operating."

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said his organization and other civil liberties groups are preparing legal challenges to the regulations on constitutional grounds.

He said the groups will broadly argue that the rules have put in place arbitrary and unclear restrictions on speech and have gone beyond the scope of the Information Technology Act of 2008, the law on which they are based.

Mr. Abraham welcomed Mr. Sibal's interest in potentially revising the regulations. "If Kapil Sibal gives this his personal time...there's a good chance the next version would be more robust in terms of constitutionality," he said.

Read the original published by the Wall Street Journal here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/looser-web-rules

May 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T10:23:01Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! In this issue we are pleased to present you the latest updates about our research, upcoming events, and news and media coverage.

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by CIS and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who want to critically engage with the dominant discourse on youth, technology and social change, in order to look at the alternative practices and ideas in the Global South. It also aims at building new ecologies that amplify and augment the interventions and actions of the digitally young as they shape our futures.

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Samuel Tettner is a Digital Natives Coordinator in CIS. He has written the following blog entry:

What Scare a Digital Native Blogathon?

Accessibility

Estimates of the percentage of the world's population that is disabled vary considerably. But what is certain is that if we count functional disability, then a large proportion of the world's population is disabled in one way or another. At CIS we work to ensure that the digital technologies, which empower disabled people and provide them with independence, are allowed to do so in practice and by the law. To this end, we support web accessibility guidelines, and change in copyright laws that currently disempower the persons with disabilities.

New Blog Entry

Universal Service — An Instrument for Accessibility

Openness

CIS believes that innovation and creativity should be fostered through openness and collaboration and is committed towards promotion of open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software. Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Internet Governance

Although there may not be one centralized authority that rules the Internet, the Internet does not just run by its own volition: for it to operate in a stable and reliable manner, there needs to be in place infrastructure, a functional domain name system, ways to curtail cyber crime across borders, etc. The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), paragraph 34 defined Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Column in Indian Express

Nishant Shah, Director-Research will be writing a series of columns on Internet and Society issues. His first column on transparency, technology and NGOs in India came out on Sunday:

Power to the People [Indian Express, May 15, 2011]

New Blog Entries

Killing the Internet Softly with Its Rules [By Pranesh Prakash in Indian Express, May 9, 2011]
Rebuttal of DIT's Misleading Statements on New Internet Rules
CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality

CIS is doing a project, ‘Privacy in Asia’. It is funded by Privacy International (PI), UK and the International Development Research Centre, Canada and is being administered in collaboration with the Society and Action Group, Gurgaon. The two-year project commenced on 24 March 2010 and will be completed as agreed to by the stakeholders. It was set up with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around challenges and violations of privacy in India. In furtherance of these goals it aims to draft and promote over-arching privacy legislation in India by drawing upon legal and academic resources and consultations with the public.

Featured Research

Limits to Privacy

Conference Report

Privacy By Design — Conference Report

Workshop

Second IJLT-CIS Lecture Series, National Law School [National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, May 21-22, 2011]

Upcoming Conferences

Panel Discussion on UID – Its Feasibility, Utility and Legality [May 26, 2011]
Privacy Matters - A Public Conference in Hyderabad [The English and Foreign Languages University (TBC), Hyderabad, June 18, 2011]

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. It is imperative to resolve these issues in the common interest of users and service providers. CIS campaigns to facilitate this:

Column

Shyam Ponappa is a Distinguished Fellow at CIS. He writes regularly on Telecom issues in the Business Standard and these articles are mirrored on the CIS website as well.

Spectrum reforms - Good & Bad news [published in the Business Standard on May 5, 2011]

Miscellaneous

Public Lecture

The Task of the Translator after Google [CIS, April 30, 2011]

News & Media Coverage

Sunil Abraham, CIS : "Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy veut promouvoir de nouvelles restrictions à la liberté d’expression" [LE MAG IT, May 24, 2011]
As Simple as a Tweet [Deccan Chronicle, May 24, 2011]
A Network of Chains [Outlook, Issue of May 30, 2011]
Bangalore-based NGO files RTI query asking list of websites blocked by Indian govt [Daily News & Analysis, May 18, 2011]
IT Act if enforced will leave internet use in India no freer than in China [Daily News & Analysis, May 15, 2011]
Your Privacy is Public Property [Mail Today, May 15, 2011]
Point By Point Rebuttal Of Indian Government’s Statement On Internet Control Rules [Medianama, May 13, 2011]
New rules to ensure due diligence: IT dept [Times of India, May 11, 2011]
Indian civil liberties groups are now geared to fight the draconian IT Rules [Weekend Leader.com, Vol 2 Issue 18, 6 - 12 May, 2011]
New Internet rule: 'Objectionable' content can be removed without notifying users [dailybhaskar.com, May 11, 2011]
India Chills Online Speech [digitalcommunities, May 3, 2011]
Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup [Consumer's International Blog, May 5, 2011]
Digerati See Censorship in New Web Rules [Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2011]
Free expression [Watertown Daily Times, May 2, 2011]
India curbs on Bloggers and Internet [TruthDrive, April 29, 2011]
Bright lights, geek city [Hindu, April 28, 2011]
India Cracks Down on Internet Free Speech [April 28, 2011]
India's cyber cafes going porn-free [msnbc.com, April 28, 2011]
Thousands queue for iPad 2 across Asia [AFP, April 28, 2011] [News hosted by Google]
New internet rules open to arbitrary interpretation [Times of India, April 27, 2011]
India Puts Tight Leash on Internet Free Speech [New York Times, April 27, 2011]
India Can Restrict 'Objectionable' Web Content under New Rules [TMCnet Legal, April 27, 2011]
Iraqi Minister meets Secretary, Indian Ministry of Panchayat Raj [Karnataka News Network, April 27, 2011]
The world is your oyster, by invitation only [Livemint, April 26, 2011]
No access to pornography in cyber cafes, declare new rules [Times of India, April 26, 2011]
India Proposes Restrictions on Tapping Telephone Calls [PC World, TechWorld and CIO, April 26, 2011]

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/may-2011-bulletin

Public data on the Web leaves much to be desired

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T07:38:04Z

Making government data accessible to all is a vital challenge, says Deepa Kurup in her article published in the Hindu on May 28, 2011.

Tim Berners-Lee, chief architect and inventor of the World Wide Web and an ardent advocate of open data, said, earlier this year, that countries should be judged on their willingness to open up public data to their citizens. This, along with 'network neutrality', he considered as important as free speech, he had emphasised, adding that this was particularly critical for developing nations.

In January 2011, the British Government, led by Mr. Berners-Lee, launched www.data.gov.uk, a site aimed at creating a platform for disclosing data to citizens, civil society organisations and even private institutions from a wide range of government departments and processes.

In India, while ‘civic hackers' and non-governmental organisations are coming up with interesting initiatives that attempt to put government data in the form of mash-ups and easily readable content online, government data on the Web leaves much to be desired. Half a decade after the powerful and progressive Right to Information Act was implemented, accessing government data online is still a challenge. Given the huge amount of public information that has been generated this year through Census 2011, and some sections of these even being GIS mapped, it is imperative that government data be ‘set free', researchers say. They believe that this could not only aid governance and public planning but also increase citizen engagement in public processes.

Technology aid

A recent study by a research team at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research organisation, finds that despite challenges, the Government and bureaucrats in India are receptive to using technology to open up more data to the public. Speaking to policymakers across the country, the report records various impediments and accessibility barriers, and surveys existing open data initiatives in the Government.

Drawing from these, the report presents a set of recommendations to help the Government move towards an open data ecosystem. These include re-examining the end goals and the end users of this data, involving volunteers and citizens in putting out the data in accessible forms, and seeking support from pre-existing ‘open content' communities such as Wikipedia editors or open street mappers, to name a few.

For a start

Nishant Shah, researcher at CIS, says it is heartening to see that governments, and policymakers, are already thinking along the lines of open government data. There are several initiatives, such as the Bhoomi project or Nemmadi of the Karnataka Government, that may not look at themselves as open data initiatives, but are certainly going that way, Mr. Shah points out. There are several critical infrastructure changes that are happening such as the use of computers at different levels of governance, setting up of community Internet centres in villages and various e-governance programmes; so there is a lot of hope that data will be accessible to more people, he adds.

Challenges

However, Mr. Shah points out that while there is talk about taking government data into the public domain, the larger ecosystem for this has not been worked out. The report points out that there is insufficient standardisation, while e-governance, to a large degree, has been far from perfect. System interoperability issues and the larger issues of privacy (in the absence of any existing law) are both challenges.

Speaking to The Hindu, a senior official from the department of e-governance said it was indeed on the Government's agenda to open up more data, and offer it in more accessible formats. He pointed out that interoperability of formats is a huge problem, one that he hopes the recently enforced National Policy on Open Standards will accurately address.

"However, it is a gargantuan process to get departments across the country, at different levels of governance, to comply. This may take time and effort. Another problem is that the input formats are not standardised, which means a lot of vital data is being offered in cumbersome formats that are barely useable," he says. However, a bigger concern is to provide the information ecosystem to take this to the millions that are left out of the Internet loop. That is a greater challenge, he points out.

Read the original story published by the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/public-data-on-web

Mobile education comes to villages

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T05:49:27Z

PEOPLE living in remote villages, trekking many miles to schools and colleges before dropping out, can now look forward to a tech option — mobile education. Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note. This article by Shayan Ghosh was published in Mail Today on May 27, 2011.

India has 791 million mobile subscribers according to regulatory body TRAI with a significant share in villages. That is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at.

Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter. “ The technology is pretty new in India and we are planning to implement things like SMS alerts to students and coursespecific databases,” K. R. Srivathsan, pro vice- chancellor, IGNOU, said.

"It will definitely change the scenario of education in rural India," noted Srivathsan.

"All possible components required in a learning cycle including auditory, visual, reading, writing, collaboration, interaction, recording and computing," Amit Zaveri, CEO, EnableM, a company that delivers education through mobile devices, said.

"In rural areas the challenges for delivery of learning content & services are many including physical distances ( to institutes etc.), lack of teachers, no or limited access to standardised & branded content, time & cost constraints, limited capability for peer assessments, lack of skills development facilities for employability," Zaveri added.

Mig33, a Singapore- based mobile social network is hopeful that the mobile revolution could actually mean impart education to all.

"Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With the advent of 3G, this is going to become bigger and better.

Also tablets are expected to play very effective role in this," Mohit Gundecha, India operations head, Mig33, said.

"With 3G the video clips can help educate, smart apps can help people learn, good sms apps can engage audiences about education concepts. We already see a host of companies coming in to take care of the hardware aspects and digital content to match the need," Gundecha explained.

According to Vikram Nagaich, director and founder, InnovateEdu, on one side, with mobile phones the content the reach of the content could be very wide. However, the efficacy would have to be delivered through extremely innovative and sophisticated content.

"Mobiles can penetrate better as they have things in favour like better battery life and people do not need any training to operate it. This gives it an upper hand over computers," Sunil Abraham, ED, Center for Internet and Society, said.

The Tech Option

Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to the 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note.

With a significant share in villages, this is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter.

In rural areas, challenges regarding delivery of learning content & services are many and include physical distances, lack of teachers, limited access to standardised content.

Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With 3G, this is going to become better.

Read the original story here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mobile-education-villages

We are anonymous, we are legion

Tough neighbourhood tests India's e-tolerance

Snooping Can Lead to Data Abuse

The New Right to Privacy Bill 2011 — A Blind Man's View of the Elephunt

A Constitutional/Fundamental Right?

Preamble

Definition of ‘Right to Privacy’

Interception

Data Protection

Video Surveillance

Bodily Privacy

Impersonation and Financial Fraud

Residual

Tailpiece

Do You Want to be Watched?

The Digital is Political

Say 'Password' in Hindi

Technology, Transparency and Accountability: A Bar-Camp in Delhi

Agenda

The Speakers

The rationale behind the camp

Online conversations

Do you need more ideas?

A Street View of Private and the Public

Bloggers' Rights Subordinated to Rights of Expression: Cyber Law Expert

Big Brother is Watching You

The Present — and Future — Dangers of India's Draconian New Internet Regulations

India Weighing Looser Web Rules

May 2011 Bulletin

Digital Natives with a Cause?

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Accessibility

New Blog Entry

Openness

Featured Research

Comments

Interview

Internet Governance

Column in Indian Express

New Blog Entries

Featured Research

Conference Report

Workshop

Upcoming Conferences

Telecom

Column

Miscellaneous

News & Media Coverage

Follow us elsewhere

Public data on the Web leaves much to be desired

Technology aid

For a start

Challenges

Mobile education comes to villages

The Tech Option