We are anonymous, we are legion

DIT's Response to RTI on Website Blocking

pranesh — 2011-08-02T07:13:47Z

For the first time in India, we have a list of websites that are blocked by order of the Indian government. This data was received from the Department of Information Technology in response to an RTI that CIS filed. Pranesh Prakash of CIS analyzes the implications of these blocks, as well as the shortcomings of the DIT's response.

Quick Analysis of DIT's Response to the RTI

Blocked websites

The eleven websites that the DIT acknowledges are blocked in India are:

Of the eleven blocked websites, one was still accessible on a Tata Communications DSL connection. Two of the blocked websites are grassroots news organizations connected to the Independent Media Centre: IndyBay (San Francisco Bay Area IMC) and the Arizona Indymedia website. The Bloggernews.net page that is on the blocked list is in fact an article by N. Vijayashankar (Naavi) from March 12, 2010 titled "Is E2 labs right in getting zone-h.org blocked?", criticising the judicial blocking of Zone-H.org by E2 Labs (with E2 Labs being represented by lawyer Pawan Duggal). The Zone-H.org case is still going through the judicial motions in the District Court of Delhi, but E2 Labs managed to get an ex parte (i.e., without Zone-H being heard) interim order from the judge asking Designated Officer (Mr. Gulshan Rai of DIT) to block access to Zone-H.org.

As has happened in the past, the government (or the court) accidentally ordered the blocking of all of website host webs.com, instead of blocking only http://donotdial100.webs.com (which subdomain apparently hosted 'defamatory' and 'abusive' information about mafia links within the Maharashtra police and political circles).

It is interesting to note that for most of the websites on most ISPs one gets a 'request timed out' error while trying to access the blocked websites, and not a sign saying: "site blocked for XYZ reason on request dated DD-MM-YYYY received from the DIT". On Reliance broadband connections, for some of the above websites an error message appears, which states: "This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom".

Judicial blocking

As per the response of the government, all eleven seem to have been blocked on orders received from the judiciary. While they don't state this directly, this is the conclusion one is led to since the Department admits to blocking eleven websites and also notes that there have been eleven requests for blocking from the judiciary. Normally the judiciary is often thought of as a check on the executive's penchant for banning (seen especially in the recent book banning cases in Maharashtra, for instance, where the Bombay High Court has overturned most of the government's banning orders). However, in these cases the ill-informed lower judiciary seem to be manipulated by lawyers to suppress freedom of speech and expression, even going to the extent of blocking grassroots activist news organizations like the Independent Media Centre.

Websites not blocked by DIT

The DIT also notes that the blocks on Typepad.com was not authorized by it (nor, according to the RTI response received by Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama was the Mobango.com block authorised by the DIT). Typepad.com, Mobango.com, and Clickatell.com don't seem to be blocked currently. However, as was reported by Medianama, for a while when they were being blocked, some sites and ISPs (such as Typepad.com on Bharti Airtel DSL) showed a message stating that the website was blocked on request from the Department of Telecom, which we don't believe has the authority to order blocking of websites. While we still await a response from the Department of Telecom to the RTI we filed with them on this topic, in a letter to the Hindu, the Department of Telecom has clarified that it did not order any block on Typepad.com or any of the other websites. This leaves us unsure as to who ordered these blocks. Further, it points out a lacuna in our information policy that ISPs can suo motu block websites without justifications (such as violation of terms of use), proper notice to customers, or any kind of repercussions for wrongful blocking.

Insufficient information on Committee for Examination of Requests

All requests for websites blocking (except those directly from the judiciary) must be vetted by the Committee for Examination of Requests (CER) under Rule 8(4) of the Rules under s.69A of the IT Act. Given that the DIT admits that the Designated Officer (who carries out the blocking) has received 21 requests to date, there should be at least 21 recommendations of the CER. However, the DIT has not provided us with the details of those 21 requests and the 21 recommendations. We are filing another RTI to uncover this information.

Text of the DIT's Response

Government of India
Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
Department of Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110003

No : 14(3)/2011-ESD

Shri Pranesh Prakash
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domulur Stage II,
Bangalore- 560071.

Subject: Request for information under RTI Act,

Sir,
Reference your request dated 28lh February 2011 on the above subject.
The point wise information as received from the custodian of Information is enclosed for your reference and records.

sd/-
(A.K.Kaushik)
Additional Director & CPIO
Tel: 011-24364803

Subject : RTI on website blocking requested by Shri Pranesh Prakash

(i) Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under S.69A of the Information Technology Act ("IT Act"), 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 ("Rules") or any other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in contravention of S.69A of the IT Act?

Reply - This Department did not order Airtel to block the said site.

(ii) Has the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?

Reply - The Department has issued directions for blocking under section 69A for the following websites:
(a) www.zone-h.org.
(b) http://donotdial100.webs.com (IP 216.52.115.50)
(c) www.bloggernews.net/124029
(d) http://www.google.co.in/#h 1 =en&source=hp& biw=1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+ wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql =&oq=dr+ babas& gs_rfai=&fp=e791 fe993fa412ba
(e) http://www.cinemahd.net/desktop-enhancements/wallpaper/23945- wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html
(f) http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/ kamasutra-hindi-movie
(g) http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged- to.html
(h) http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta- wardrobe.html.
(i) http://www.facebook.com/pages/l-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076
(j) www.indybay.org
(k) www.arizona.indymedia.org

(iii) How many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?

Reply - Designated Officer received 21 request for blocking of information. 11 websites have been blocked on the basis of orders received from court of law. One request has been rejected. For other requests, additional input/information has been sought from the Nodal Officer.

No request for emergency blocking under rule 9 of the Rules have been received.

(iv) Please provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.

Reply - The present composition of the Committee is :
(a) Designated Officer (Group Coordinator - Cyber Law)
(b) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
(c) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(d) Additional Secretary and Ministry of Law & Justice
(e) Senior Director, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team

(v) Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, and copies of their recommendations.

Reply - The Committee had met on 24-08-2010 with respect to request for blocking of website www.betfair.com.

(vi) Please provide us the present composition of the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
(vii) Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of all orders issued by the Review Committee.

Reply - This Department do not have details for above. The said information may be available with Department of Telecommunications.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking

Is Data Protection Enough?

elonnai — 2012-03-22T05:28:51Z

The following note looks briefly at different sides of the privacy debate, and asks the question whether a Data Protection law is enough privacy protection for India.

In a recent article, Rahul Matthan explained how many threats to personal privacy come from a lack of data protection laws – particularly in the context of the UID – and he thus urges India to pass a law that is focused on data protection. He said, “We don’t question this lack of personal space. It is part of the compromise we make when we choose to live in India.” Though his argument has a surface appeal, there are also many cases emerging in the news today that suggest that India is concerned with a much broader scope of privacy than just data protection. In the DNA, a news article covered a recent court decision that concluded that watching pornography at home is not an obscenity and does not qualify as a public exhibition, even when there are visitors to the home. In that case, police arrested persons who hosted a party under section 292 (obscenity) of the Indian Penal Code for watching pornography and housing strippers. The judge ruled that the activities that were taking place were done in private and thus did not amount to an offense under section 292. This is an important decision about the protections of spatial privacy being afforded to individuals. The bungalow was considered a private space, and the computer a private possession. In other words, India does have a greater understanding of privacy and the need for its protection, and it extends beyond data protection. In another news item, the Hindu reported that 5,000 to 6,000 phones are tapped on average daily. The article speculated that this number could increase in response to the 2G scam and other scams that are coming out. The type of privacy violation that wiretapping poses is likewise not a question of data protection, but of how a nation guards against an unwanted invasion of personal space and when security takes precedence over privacy. Are Indian citizens willing to subject themselves to phone taps to try to eliminate – or at least minimize – the number of scams that are occurring? In yet another news item, it was reported that in the North, councils are attempting to ban the sale of cell phones to unmarried women to help prevent unsolicited affairs with members from different castes. This again raises questions not of data protection or informational privacy, but of personal privacy. How will phone companies know that a woman is married? Will parents suddenly begin regulating their daughters’ phones? Does an existing legislation afford protection to women in this situation? Though data protection is a component of privacy, it is only one component. There are many definitions of privacy, and privacy in itself is somewhat of a difficult word to define, but India should recognize that there are privacy protections and privacy debates that extend beyond data protection. It is too easy to characterize India as large and communal and overlook these important questions.

Returning to Rahul Matthan’s article, Matthan says, “The vast majority of our country that remains under-served by the government will gladly exchange personal privacy for better public service.” I was particularly intrigued by this statement, because it suggests that privacy is an expendable right, and that government service cannot improve without privacy compromises. The logical extension of this concept is that privacy is not a fundamental right but only a consumer issue, and that policymakers can always trade off privacy in exchange for better public benefits, for better security, and for cheaper products. A legal system needs to address the case at hand, but it needs to be mindful of the larger consequences as well. There is no doubt that the UID project demands a data protection law, but India is facing questions of privacy that extend beyond data protection, and the steps that are being taken to answer those questions need to be applauded and brought into the current debate. If we legislate away rights, we must do so by weighing the cost and finding it acceptable.

Sources

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article905944.ece

http://is.gd/hJWD8 http://is.gd/hJWSX

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp//lifestyleindiatelecommarriage

Matthan, Rahul. The Mint:Technology. Nov. 24 2010

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/is-data-protection-enough

Surveillance Technologies

elonnai — 2012-03-22T05:40:24Z

The following post briefly looks at different surveillance technologies, and the growing use of the them in India.

Surveillance...

New security technologies are constantly emerging that push the edge between privacy and a reasonable level of security. Society's tolerance level is constantly being tested by governments who use surveillance and monitoring technologies to protect the nation. Governments claim that they need absolute access to citizens life. They need to monitor phones, look through emails, peer into files – in-order to maintain security and protect against terrorism. Though as a side note, in an Economic Times article published on Nov. 4 2010 it was reported that government computers were being hacked into through viruses, and top secret documents were being stolen. The irony of the story is that the viruses were introduced to the computers through porn websites visited by officials.

...In a Car? On the Street? In an Airport?

Despite the fact that governmental monitoring might make the common man uncomfortable, the reality is that governments will always win the national security vs privacy fight. The story becomes more complicated when it moves from the government directly monitoring individuals, to security agencies monitoring individuals. For instance the use of full body scanners at airports, or trucks equipped with scatter x-ray machines used to control crime in neighborhoods - is a much more heated debate. There are other ways in which to check passengers for banned items, and other ways to keep crime off the streets without mandating that individuals submit themselves to invasive scans, or scanning unaware individuals.

...In the Movie Theater????..for Marketing Purposes????

Surveillance technology has now been taken even another step further. No longer is it being just used to prevent violent crimes or terrorist attacks. Today the movie industry is using controversial anti-piracy tools to protect the films they produce. For instance the security company Aralia Systems manufacturers products such as: CCTV cameras and anti-camcorder systems that shine infrared light beams on audiences as they watch a movie. The light beams reflect off camcorders and alerts the theater that there are camcorders present. Though this practice can be seen as invasive - individuals might be opposed to being probed by light beams throughout movies, the extent of potential privacy invasion does not stop there. Aralia Systems has partnered with Machine Vision Lab and has created a system that harvests audiences emotions and movements as they watch movies. The data can then be used by market researchers to better tailor their behavioral advertising schemes. Essentially movie theater monitoring has merged surveillance technologies with behavioral marketing technologies in a twisted invasion of movie watchers personal privacy.

Is this technology in India?

Though behavioral monitoring and piracy technologies such as ones produced by Aralia Systems are not yet used in Indian movie theaters – security measures against piracy are used. Movie theaters across India are equipped with metal detectors at the door, and security personel check your handbag or back pack for camcorders. According to a Indian Express article, the organization Allegiance Against Copyright Theft believes one of the reasons monitoring technology is not yet used in theaters is because there is no present Indian legislation that penalizes recording in halls. Once legislation is passed, they speculate there will be a push to use these technologies. Even though monitoring technology is not yet used in theaters, monitoring of consumers behavior is increasing. Recently in India the WPP owned research agency IMRB International has developed an online audience measurement system that uses tailored metering technology to track the sites that users visit. The Web Audience Measurement System has launched this technology in a sample size of 21,000 Indian households, covering 90,000 individuals. IMRB has said that the meters are capable of capturing usage data from multiple computers, and that they can then use the information to market to the individual. Does it seem ironic to anyone that companies now charge for a service – movie tickets, internet services, telephone services – and make an extra profit by data mining at the expense of a persons privacy?

Sources

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Govt-depts-asked-not-to-store-sensitive-info-on-Net-connected-computers/articleshow/6874631.cms
http://www.research-live.com/news/technology/imrb-unveils-web-measurement-service-for-indian-market/4003941.article
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17276/anti_piracy_tool_will_harvest_market_your_emotions?source=rss_blogs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/antipiracy-unit-joins-hands-with-cinema-halls-to-curb-camcording/695439/2

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/surveillance-technologies

Privacy, By Design

praskrishna — 2011-04-12T06:45:36Z

The Centre for Internet and Society invites people and organizations in the business of 'privacy online' to engage with it in Privacy, By Design — an open space discussion that brings together coders, developers, users and entrepreneurs interested in the design of privacy online.

Is Privacy something we are born with or is it constructed for us? Different actors like governments, markets, cultural negotiators, are often attributed the responsibility of defining what it means to be 'private'. In our rapidly digitizing world, Internet and digital technologies have emerged as new factors that influence the design of privacy. Ranging from social networking systems to e-governance projects and economic transactions to interpersonal relationships, the design of privacy online has become a central concern.

Privacy, By Design is a part of The Identity Project (TIP), a collaboration between the Centre for Internet and Society and the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society. It is a research inquiry that hopes to consolidate multiple perspectives, and ideas in an attempt to initiate a dialogue between people who are in the business of designing platforms and applications that pivot around privacy. For instance: How do the platforms we use define our understanding of privacy? What does privacy in the cloud look like? What are the parameters by which privacy is defined within the digital world? What role do digital technologies play in producing the 'privacy effect?'

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/privacy-by-design

March 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T10:59:46Z

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.

Researchers@Work

RAW is a multidisciplinary research initiative. CIS believes that in order to understand the contemporary concerns in the field of Internet and society, it is necessary to produce local and contextual accounts of the interaction between the Internet and socio-cultural and geo-political structures. To build original research knowledge base, the RAW programme has been collaborating with different organisations and individuals to focus on its three year thematic of Histories of the Internets in India. Monographs finalised from these projects are online for peer review.

New Blog Entry by Zainab Bawa in Transparency and Politics

A History of Transparency, Politics and Information Technologies in India

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.

Column on Digital Natives

A fortnightly column on ‘Digital Natives’ authored by Nishant Shah is featured in the Sunday Eye, the national edition of Indian Express, Delhi, from 19 September 2010 onwards. The following was published recently:

Watson knows the Question [Indian Express, March 6, 2011]

Blog Entries by Maesey Angelina

Maesey Angelina works as a programme officer at Hivos, Jakarta on gender, women and development while exploring research initiatives on Digital Natives in Indonesia. She spent one month in CIS, working on her dissertation, exploring the Blank Noise project under the Digital Natives with a Cause framework. She writes a series of blog entries. The new ones are:

Blog Entries by Samuel Tettner

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

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.

Featured Research

Accessible Mobile Handsets in India: An Overview

Blog Entry

Note on the Authorities under the Working Draft of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2011 (9th February 2011)

Intellectual Property

CIS believes that access to knowledge and culture is essential as it promotes creativity and innovation and bridges the gaps between the developed and developing world positively. Hence, the campaigns for an international treaty on copyright exceptions for print-impaired, advocating against PUPFIP Bill, calls for the WIPO Broadcast Treaty to be restricted to broadcast, questioning the demonization of 'pirates', and supporting endeavours that explore and question the current copyright regime. Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Featured Research

Pirates, Plagiarisers, Publishers [ Written by Prashant Iyengar and originally published in the Economic & Political Weekly, February 26, 2011, Vol XLVI No 9]

Submission

Comments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty (March 2011)

Openness

Workshops organised

Design!publiC [Taj Vivanta, New Delhi, March 18, 2011]
Open Access to Scientific Information Indian International Centre [New Delhi, March 16, 2011]

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.” CIS involvement in the field of Internet governance has taken the following shape:

Submissions

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.

Submission

Privacy and Governmental Database

Workshops organized

Privacy Matters - A Public Conference in Ahmedabad [Ahmedabad, March 26, 2011]
Public Talk by Dr. Ian Brown on Privacy, Trust and Biometrics [Centre for Contemporary Studies, IISc, Bangalore, March 21, 2011]
Electronication: Ragas and the Future [Jaaga, Bangalore, March 6, 2011]
Role of the Internet in Fostering Freedom of Expression and Strengthening Activism in India - A Workshop in Delhi [Constitution Club, New Delhi, March 4, 2011]
Global Challenges to Freedom of Expression [Constitution Club, New Delhi, March 4, 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:

Featured Research

India's untapped potential: Are a billion people losing out because of spectrum?

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.

Big-Bang Budgets? [published in the Business Standard on March 3, 2011]

Forthcoming Events

CIS is organising some conferences/workshops in the month of March/April:

Web Sites Accessibility Evaluation Methodologies: A New Imperative for State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[Hyderabad International Convention Centre, Hyderabad]
Shadow Search Project (SSP) in CIS [CIS, Bangalore]
Facebook Resistance Workshop [CIS, Bangalore]

News & Media Coverage

Networking its way to better governance (Hindu, March 28, 2011]
‘Learn from failed UK NIR project’ (Deccan Chronicle, March 22, 2011]
Design!publiC - News from Livemint (Livemint, March 18, 2011)
Muzzling the Internet (Outlook, March 17, 2011)
Battle for the Internet (Down to Earth, Issue: March 15, 2011)
Cause and effect Facebook-style (Hindustan Times, March 13, 2011)
Catch-all approach to Net freedom draws activist ire (Sunday Guardian, March 13, 2011)
Lives suspended in the Web (Indian Express, March 11, 2011)
Draft IT guidelines may gag internet freedom (Times of India, March 11, 2011)
Govt proposal to muzzle bloggers sparks outcry (Times of India, March 10, 2011)
New Indian Rules May Make Online Censorship Easier (Yahoo News, March 7, 2011)
Anti-Social Network (Mail Today, February 27, 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/march%20-2011-bulletin

The Draft Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 – Comments by CIS

praskrishna — 2011-08-02T07:37:37Z

The Draft Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 (“Bill”) is a Bill to provide for delivery of government services manadatorily through electronic means by phasing out manual delivery of services. It is heartening to note that the Bill shifts the approach to electronic delivery of services by Government agencies to one as part of the citizens' right to service delivery through electronic means rather than a luxury or benefit doled out by the Government. The Bill introduces bodies exclusively accountable for ensuring that electronic delivery of services by the Government at the state and central levels. While this is a welcome move on the part of the Government there are a few comments we, at the Centre for Internet and Society, have on the present version of the Bill:

Accessibility
The Bill does not make it mandatory for all Government services to be accessible to all including persons with disabilities. The Bill refers to the term “access”, as defined in Section 2(1)(a) from the prespective of merely gaining physical access to the services or availability of such services1 rather than from the perspective of catering to the ability of a person with print (or other) disbilities from gaining access to the services in the normal format. It is very important that the electronic services are delivered in a format which is accessible to all persons including persons with disbilities, elderly persons etc. It should be mandatory for the Government to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and National Informatics Centre (NIC) guidelines for web accessibility. It is also important to ensure accessibility of all documents produced during service delivery by Government agencies.
Linguistic Accessibility
Section 5(2)(b) of the Bill requires the Government to prescribe a framework for all its agencies to ensure web presence or enablement which refers to rendering electronic services in the language chosen by the user. In pursuance of the same, it is important for delivery of services to be available in all national languages of India to begin with in addition to the content being encoded in Unicode font for all languages. It is important to note that there are not many open fonts available for Indian languages. Hence, it must be ensured that the Government allocates sufficient funds to ensure linguistic accessbility of the services delivered, while ensuring implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
Public Scrutiny
In order to ensure transparency of Government services and process of service delivery, it is essential that the Bill incorporates a provision to enable citizens to gain access to information provided by the Government as part of the service delivery process unless disclosing such information would amount to violation of any applicable law. Similarly, provision should be made for making public all RTI applications filed with the Government and responses to them.
Use of Free and Open Source Software
Considering that electronic service delivery by Government agencies is effected through public money, it is important that Governments are urged to use Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for service delivery. This cuts costs to a great extent and also make the process more transparent and capable of customisation to varied needs of different departments. It is important to insert a provision requiring the Government to use FOSS as far as possible and in the event of any use of proprietary software, the Government should clearly explain the reason for such use, the costs incurred for the same, the additional benefit derived out of its use and other relevant details.
Open Standards
The Bill must stress on use of open standards for all computer resources and service delivery systems by Government agencies. As is the case with FOSS, such use brings down operation costs drastically and makes the service delivery process transparent and available for all to use. Use of ODF formats for documents, HTML for websites, ISA standards for hardware is recommended. It is also useful to ensure compliance with W3C guidelines by the concerned Government departments during implementation of the Bill.
Whistleblower Exception
The Bill does not contain any safeguards to ensure free and fearless disclosure of any wilful violation of the law impacting larger public interest. It is important to include a provision protecting any person exposing any violation of the provisions of the Bill or blowing the cover off any scam or farudulent activity decieving the public committed by service providers under the Bill. Such protection can be given by ensuring that the actions of such whistleblower, to the extent required for the exposure, does not constitute an offence under the provisions of the Bill.
Penalties for Offences
- Chapter 4 of the Bill gives a detailed list of acts constituting an offence under the Act including Section 15 which specifically relates to offences by companies. It is critical to ensure that the punishment and penalities for offences extend not only to citizens and companies but also to Government officials who misuse information they are privy to under the provisions of the Bill. In fact, a separate provision specifically applicable to the various offences which could be committed by Government officials under the Bill can reduce misuse of its provisions by the Government.
- It is to be noted that several provisions listed under Chapter 4 of the Bill covering offences and penalties are a reproduction of the provisions for the same under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). Such reprodution is unnecessary and acts which are already deemed to be offences and have punishments prescribed for them under the IT Act (or any other legislation for the time being in force in India) need not be covered again in the Bill. This will avoid duplication and confusion in the legislations.
- Section 19(1) of the Bill provides that no alleged offence under the Bill can be tried in a court of law unless the Central Electronic Delivery of Services Commissioner (“Central Commissioner”) or the State Electronic Delivery of Services Commissioner (“State Commissioner”) authorises the same by issuing a complaint in this regard to the relevant court. This provision directly conflicts with a citizen's constitutional right to seek legal redress since it takes away his freedom to approach a court of law for redressal of his grievance without the permission of the Commissioners. It is recommended that the provision be either deleted or suitably modify so that it is not in violation of this constitutional right.
Bottoms up Approach
A decentralised approach should be adopted along the lines of the Panchayati Raj system giving the citizen a greater say in the framework and implementation of service delivery by Government agencies. Implementation can be at the Panchayat and District levels apart from State levels. Citizens must be able to access and update their information. Furthermore, they should be able to define to a certain extent, access control to their information. This will automatically make them eligible or ineligible for various government services.
Charges for service delivery
Section 4 of the Bill authorises the Government to allow service providers to collect charges for electronic service delivery while Section 3(2) provides for the Government to regulate the manner and method of payment of such charges. It is critical to ensure that such charges levied under the provisions of the Bill do not exceed the charges levied by the Government agency for manual delivery of services. Charges for manual service delivery may include charges for photocopy, printing, paper, postage etc., all of which are totally eliminated during service delivery through electronic means. Thus, levying the same charges, let alone greater charges for electronic service delivery is totally unnecessary and places an additional burden on the citizen ultimately defeating the very purpose of the Bill.
Security in payment of charges
Section 3(2) of the Bill provides for the Government to regulate the manner and method of payment of charges for delivery of services.It is important that each transaction that takes place is done securely and without the exposure of an individuals confidential details. There are many ways to structure the transaction of payment of fees to achieve this goal. We reccommend that the SCOSTA smart card structure is used for completing and processing a transaction.
Data Security and Privacy
Section 5(1)(e) of the Bill requires the Government to ensure integrity, security and confidentiality of data collected, preserved and retained. We recommend that in addition to this, the Government also ensures integrity, security and confidentiality of data or information that is transferred, accessed or deleted. We also recommend that the Bill requires the Government to prescribe a framework under Section 5(2) for agency privacy policies to ensure that they are interoperable and consistent between different departments of the Government.
Functions of the Central Commissioner
Section 8 of the Bill grants the Central Commissioner the power to perform any or all of the functions listed in the provision including Section 8(f) which refers to the power of the State Commissioner in conducting the work of the State Government agencies. A Central Government authority may not have a say in all matters under the purview of the State Governments. This aspect has been left out for consideration while drafting this provision and hence it needs to be relooked at.
Cut-off Date for Implementation
While the Bill mandates a cut off period of 180 days for the Government to finalise on the scope, framework and manner of service delivery under its provisions, it states that the Government “may” prescribe a framework for implementation of the provisions. It is recommended, for the purpose of ensuring speedy implementation of the provisions, that the term “may” in Section 5(2) be replaced by “shall”.
Transparency of Government Agencies
Transparency and accountability of the Government towards the citizen is as important as the transparency of the citizen towards the Government. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill must ensure that the Government activities are transparent to the citizens by making available to the citizens, details of the responsible officials under the Bill, manner of service delivery and other relevant information in this regard.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/draft-electronic-delivery-services

Second Expert Meeting on Human Rights and the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-06-08T10:01:55Z

The second expert meeting on human rights and the Internet is being organised by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression on 30 and 31 March 2011 in Stockholm (Sweden). Anja Kovacs will participate in this meeting.

List of Participants (draft)

Alison LeClaire Christie alison.leclairechristie@international.gc.ca	Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative, Canadian mission to UN in Geneva
Anabella Rivera libert.expresion@gmail.com	Executive Director, DEMOS, Guatemala
Anja Kovacs anja@cis-india.org	Fellow, The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Anna Nawrot anna.nawrot@rwi.lu.se	Researcher, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights, Lund, Sweden
Annie Game agame@cjfe.org	Executive Director, CJFE-IFEX
Anriette Esterhuysen anriette@apc.org	Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa
Arthit Suriyawongkul arthit@gmail.com	Thai Neitzen Network, Centre for Popular Media Reform
Brett Solomon brett@accessnow.org	Executive Director, Access Now
Charlotta Bredberg charlotta.bredberg@sida.se	Thematic Coordinator for Democracy, Human Rights, Peace and Security, Global Programme Unit, Department for Global Cooperation, Sida
Cynthia Wong cynthia@cdt.org	Director, Project on Global Internet Freedom, Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington DC
Daniel Westman Daniel.Westman@juridicum.su.se	Researcher and Teacher, Faculty of Law, Stockholm University
Danny Aerts danny.aerts@iis.se	CEO, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (.SE)
David Mothander davidmothander@google.com	Nordic Policy Counsel, Google, Stockholm
Dunja Mijatovic pm-fom@osce.org	OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
Eduardo Bertoni eberto2@palermo.edu	Director, Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Palermo University School of Law, Argentina
Eric King eric@privacy.org	Human Rights and Technology Advisor, Privacy International
Grace Githaiga ggithaiga@hotmail.com	Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANET)
Guy Berger G.Berger@ru.ac.za	Professor, School of Journalism & Media Studies, Rhodes University, South Africa
Helena Bjuremalm helena.bjuremalm@sida.se	Senior Policy Specialist, Democracy Assistance, Sida
Hossam Bahgat Hossam@eipr.org	Executive Director, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Cairo
Jan Kleijssen jan.kleijssen@coe.int	Director, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe
Jean-Luc Delvert Jean-luc.DELVERT@diplomatie.gouv.fr	Counsellor, Human Rights Division, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, France
Jean-Pierre Kempeneers, jem.kempeneers@minbuza.nl	Head of the Human Rights Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
Jermyn P Brooks jermynbrooks@aol.com	Chair, Global Network Initiative
Joana Varon joana@varonferraz.com	Researcher, Centre for Technology and Society, Rio De Janeiro
Joe McNamee joe@mcnamee.eu	EU Advocacy Coordinator, European Digital Rights Initiative
Joy Liddicoat joy@liddicoatlaw.co.nz	Project Coordinator, Internet Rights are Human Rights, APC, South Africa
Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis@netnod.se	CEO, NETNOD, Stockholm
Lee Hibbard Lee.HIBBARD@coe.int	Coordinator for Internet Governance and Information Society, Council of Europe
Lisa Horner LisaH@global-partners.co.uk	Head of Research & Policy, Global Dialogue, London
Lise Bergh lise.bergh@amnesty.se	Director, Amnesty International, Swedish Section
Louise Bermsjö louise.bermsjo@sida.se	Programme Manager for Democracy and Human Rights, Global Programme Unit, Department for Global Cooperation, Sida
Lucille Morillon internet@rsf.org	Head, Bureau of New Media, Reporters sans frontières
Maciej TOMASZEWSKI maciej.tomaszewski@ec.europa.eu	European Commission DG INFSO, Unit A3 Internet; Network & Information Security
Maria Häll maria.hall@enterprise.ministry.se	Deputy Director, Division for Information Technology Policy, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden
Mats Ringborg mats.ringborg@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador of Sweden to OECD and UNESCO
Matthew Barzun BarzunMW@state.gov	US Ambassador to Sweden
Michael Camilleri MCamilleri@oas.org	Attorney, office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, OAS
Nicklas Lundblad nlundblad@google.com	Senior Policy Counsel, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Google
Nicole Gregory nicole.gregory@fco.gov.uk	Head of Human Rights Section, Human Rights and Democracy Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK
Orest Nowosad onowosad@ohchr.org	Director, Special Procedures of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Patrik Fältström patrik@frobbit.se	Distinguished Consulting Engineer, Cisco
Patrik Hiselius Patrik.Hiselius@teliasonera.com	Senior Advisor, Public Affairs, Group Communications, Telia Sonera
Paula Uimonen paula@spidercenter.org	Director, The Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions, Stockholm
Richard Allan, ric@fb.com	Director of Policy in Europe, Facebook
Richard Esguerra gwen@eff.org	Senior Activist, Global Internet Freedom Policy, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Robert Guerra guerra@freedomhouse.org	Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
Robert Hårdh Robert.Hardh@civilrightsdefenders.org	Executive Director, Civil Rights Defenders, Stockholm
Sally Elkhodary sally.khodary@anhri.net	Programs Director, The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, Cairo
Sarah Labowitz LabowitzSB@state.gov	Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US State Dept
Staffan Jonson staffan.jonson@iis.se	Policy Adviser, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (.SE)
Sylvie Coudray s.coudray@unesco.org	Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, UNESCO
Thomas Hajnoczi, Thomas.HAJNOCZI@bmeia.gv.at	Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Austria to Council of Europe
Toby Mendel toby@law-democracy.org	Executive Director, Centre for Law and Democracy
Vilhelm Konnander vilhelm.konnander@gmail.com	Global Voices
Wolfgang Benedek wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at	Professor, Faculty of Law, Graz University, Austria
Yaman Akdeniz yaman.akdeniz@bilgi.edu.tr Ženet Mujić zenet.mujic@osce.org	Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University Senior Adviser, office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

Organisers

Frank la Rue Co-Chair of the meeting libert.expresion@gmail.com	UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Olof Ehrenkrona Co-Chair of the meeting olof.ehrenkrona@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador, Political Adviser to Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, MFA, Sweden
Per Sjögren per.sjogren@foreign.ministry.se	Head, Dept of International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law, MFA, Sweden
Hans Dahlgren hans.dahlgren@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador for Human Rights, MFA, Sweden
Måns Molander mans.molander@foreign.ministry.se	Head of Human Rights Section, MFA, Sweden
Johan Hallenborg johan.hallenborg@foreign.ministry.se	Special Adviser, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Maria Koliopanou maria.koliopanou@foreign.ministry.se	Assistant, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Karin Keil Pettersson karin.keil-pettersson@foreign.ministry.se	Assistant, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Pauline Etemad pauline.etemad@foreign.ministry.se	Intern, HR Section, MFA Sweden
Rolf Ring rolf.ring@rwi.lu.se	Deputy Director, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden
Gordana Jankovic Gordana.Jankovic@osf-eu.org	Director, Open Society Foundation Media Program
Vera Franz vfranz@osf-eu.org	Senior Program Manager, Information Program, Open Society Foundations
Stewart Chisholm Stewart.Chisholm@osf-eu.org	Senior Manager for Freedom of Expression, Open Society Media Program

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/second-expert-meeting

India Should Watch Its Internet Watchmen

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T05:08:05Z

The month after terrorists attacked Mumbai in 2008, India's government initiated legislation enabling it to eavesdrop on electronic communication and block websites on grounds of national security. There was no public debate before the bill in question was introduced, and hardly any debate inside parliament itself before it passed in 2009. In the law, there were no guidelines about the extent to which an individual's right to privacy would be breached. And there was certainly no mention, and therefore, reassurance, that due process would be followed when it came to restricting access to websites. This article by Rahul Bhatia was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2011.

It's taken about two years for the first signs of misuse to show up. And there may be many more, as the government uses vague discretion instead of firm rules to police India's Internet. Various groups can exploit these discretionary powers to their own ends.

Earlier this month, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), the body appointed by the government to protect India's information infrastructure, blocked a text-message provider that sends out advertisements in bulk over mobile phone. It also blocked Typepad.com, a publishing platform used frequently by bloggers. Both restrictions have now been lifted.

Most contentiously, a Delhi court ordered CERT-In to block access to Zone-H.org, an Italian security giant that acts as a repository of hacked websites—that is, it collects screen grabs of sites that are infiltrated, which later proves valuable for studying the cyber crime in question. A representative of this website accused an Indian cyber security firm, E2 Labs, of using Zone-H's logo and images to promote its own cyber security school courses. E2 Labs dragged Zone-H to court in 2009 and, on grounds of defamation, had Zone-H's website blocked. What muddies the waters is that E2 Labs claims to work for the government.

Nobody knows what threat, if any, these websites posed to national security. Users who tried accessing them simply received a one-line message from their service providers that the sites had been blocked due to "instructions from the Department of Telecom." That message later disappeared, replaced by the standard error message: "Page Not Found."

Many bloggers immediately started comparing this case to the situation they found themselves in 2006, when the government banned Blogspot.com right after Mumbai's suburban train system was hit by bomb blasts. The Department of Telecom then did not offer an official reason, leaving people guessing that this was some kind of response to that terrorist attack.

That's happening again. The guidelines under which CERT-In operates say that all information related to website blocking is classified. Moreover, its mandate does not include communicating with the public. Which is why everyone is in the dark. Nobody even knows how widespread the blockade is. There's no hint of the process involved. There's no course for redress for those who own the affected sites.

Inquiries from journalists about the Department of Telecom's method of functioning have gone unanswered. When cornered by the press this month, India's Information Technology minister Kapil Sibal, who oversees this department, passed responsibility to the ministry of home affairs, which manages the nation's internal security.

Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for blocking these websites. India has faced its share of terrorist attacks that have, in the last decade, begun to affect the country's urban centers. Terrorists have gotten more sophisticated. The 2008 Mumbai assault especially put pressure on security personnel to be electronically vigilant, because the terrorists used satellite phones and internet technology to communicate. Since then, the government has ramped up its scrutiny of the Internet, including getting into a high-profile dispute last year with Blackberry-maker Research in Motion. Blogs are fair game, too, seeing as how terrorist groups have been known to use them for recruiting and communication. But if there are good reasons this time for blocking the sites in question, they're unknown and unexplained.

That lack of explanation is cause for alarm. First, there's the impact on businesses. Intermediary guidelines proposed by the Department of Information Technology put the onus on service providers to remove any material that, in addition to endangering national security, "causes inconvenience or annoyance," is "grossly offensive or menacing in nature," or "belongs to another person." These open-ended guidelines mean service providers have to spend a good chunk of their time dealing with government officials to determine, say, what is offensive.

The larger impact is on the rule of law. The clumsiness with which New Delhi has blocked these sites undermines any legitimacy the laws have. Lawyers I've spoken with already say that the guidelines, which are open to wide interpretation, violate the country's constitution.

This legal debacle has implications beyond any immediate security concerns. Despite being a democracy with a vigorous free press, India can't afford to take freedom of speech for granted. The concern here is that a statute intended to protect the country from terrorism may also give new legal cover to people trying to restrict speech for other reasons.

Already, thanks in part to the lack of political support for free speech, varied groups hijack cracks or loopholes in the legal framework to their populist ends. For instance, a colonial-era law against religious insults was used in 2007 to appease Hindu nationalists who wanted the government to punish Muslim painter M.F. Hussain for depicting "Mother India" in the nude. That case suggests that the new ill-considered and badly implemented rules for online policing could be exploited by political or business interests.

India undoubtedly faces a serious terrorism problem. But New Delhi needs to defend itself through laws that don't end up impinging on free speech in damaging, undemocratic ways.

Mr. Bhatia is a writer with Open Magazine in Mumbai.

Read the original story here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-watchmen

Networking its way to better governance

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:13:04Z

New policy to regulate Government presence on social media. This article by Deepa Kurup was published in the Hindu on March 28, 2011.

The official Facebook page of the Karnataka Criminal Investigation Department, “DGPCIDKARNATAKA”, is a string of one-sided comments punctuated with official-ese, or newspaper links of some prominent crime or an article by the officials.

The Twitter account, also started around June 2010, has all of 38 tweets, and barely any interaction with “common” men/women. Started with much fanfare, these are among the very few State Government agencies that took to social media, but haven't taken it beyond mere formalities. On the brighter side, blogs by a few Ministers — most prominently, Higher Education Minister V.S. Acharya and Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs S. Suresh Kumar — are lively and even interactive, in spurts. A few government departments too have blogs, but none remarkable.

Though the Indian Government's tryst with social media is fairly new — it took a few Twitter controversies, courtesy former Minister @ShashiTharoor, to make the government sit up and take note — some departments such as IndiaPost, the Delhi Traffic Police, Census India and even the Planning Commission, have been able to take it beyond mere posturing and have interacted with citizens, even tried to solve problems. IndiaPost's Twitter page is a good example of how agencies can engage with stakeholders, at least to an extent.

A draft policy

Twitter recently hit headlines again when foreign secretary Nirupama Sen logged on with an official ID and interacted with Indians stranded in Libya looking to make their way back. All these examples, that have earned these departments accolades, has prompted the Indian Government to come up with a new policy for social media.

The e-governance group of the Department of Information Technology (DIT) held a meeting this week to draw up guidelines to “regulate” Government presence on social media sites.

Speaking to The Hindu, a DIT official said this had been on the Government's agenda because efforts in this direction had been all too scattered, and some of the success stories had convinced them that it could be a good platform for interaction. The official added that the feedback they got on the 12th Planning Commission's Facebook page was seen as a good example of how these tools could be leveraged.

But why regulate at all? Regulating social media use by government officials is imperative mainly to ensure that use of information or data is compliant with existing laws.

Consistency needed

Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-governmental organisation, points out that with no general rules in place, the use of Twitter or Facebook account varies according to the bureaucrats heading the departments. “This cannot be the case as the channel of communication has to be a continuous thing, and the data shared with citizens has to be accurate; which means the same standards need to be applied to online sharing of data as is applied to offline data handling. Departments should also be obliged to back-up online data periodically,” he says.

For instance, a traffic police department announced that citizens could share pictures of traffic rule offenders on Facebook or on its website, to facilitate tracking of offenders. “Such a move could have huge privacy implications, and may also lead to vigilante activism,” warns Mr. Abraham, adding that we need a policy so that all activity, however casual it may seem, is compliant with existing law governing data protection and privacy.

With the Government jumping on to the 2.0 bandwagon (often under pressure like in Mumbai where citizens created a Facebook page for the police forcing them to create a real one), it is time to really make it official. So, while the idea of giving a face to government agencies and pushing for transparency and greater interaction with citizens, standardisation of social media use is indeed the way forward.

Read the original article in the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/networking-better-governance

‘Learn from failed UK NIR project’

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:12:12Z

The new government in the UK recently scrapped its decade-long work spending millions of pounds on establishing the National Identity Registration (NIR) number simply because it realised it wasn't workable. This article by Madhumita was published in the Deccan Chronicle on March 22, 2011.

There might just be a lesson in this for India that has begun the ambitious Unique Identification (UID) project. The fact, experts says, is that the technology to make this project work successfully in India, that is attempting to cover the largest biometric registry in the world so far, does not exist, at the moment.

According to Dr Ian Brown, senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, there was very little evidence that the NIR in UK met the objectives it laid for the initiative. Dr Brown, who has worked extensively on privacy with regard to biometrics, asserted that in the area of privacy and trust there was already a lot of distrust among citizens concerning identity registration. Additionally the UK government losing the CDs that contained information of 25 million people, led to the debate of data breach, a major issue for India concerning the UID.

“The reasons behind the need for the card included politically popular goals that varied depending on the demands of that political moment. From anti-terrorism to reducing social security fraud, identification fraud, illegal immigration and creating a sense of community, the UK government's response was thin when it came to checking for evidence on the project successfully meeting these objectives. If it was for the largest argument of fitting into the wider perspective of criminal justice and security, then studies have shown that cost-effective measures such as streetlights managed to reduce crime by 30 per cent as against surveillance cameras that reduced crime a mere three per cent in the UK,” stated Dr Brown during a lecture at IISc.

India too has argued the same reasons of terrorism and security along with literacy and eradicating poverty. But where is the evidence that one cannot breach this system? Asked advocate Malavika Jayaram.

Prashant Iyengar of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) reiterating this stated that there was no guarantee that an individual's information would be safeguarded. The general consensus was that nobody is opposed to the UID, just its current form.

UK’s NIR disaster

The introduction of the UK’s National Identity Register (NIR) scheme was much debated, and various degrees of concern about the scheme were expressed by human rights lawyers, activists, security professionals and IT experts, as well as politicians.

Many of the concerns focused on the databases which underlie the identity cards rather than the cards themselves.

Biometrics consists of methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control.

It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance. India is undertaking an ambitious mega project (the Multipurpose National Identity Card) to provide a unique identification number to each of its 1.25 billion people.

Read the original in the Deccan Chronicle here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/failed-uk-nir-project

Privacy and Governmental Databases

elonnai — 2012-03-22T05:41:38Z

In our research we have found that most government databases are incrementally designed in response to developments and improvements that need to be incorporated from time to time. This method of architecting a system leads to a poorly designed database with many privacy risks such as: inaccurate data, incomplete data, inappropriate disclosure of data, inappropriate access to data, and inappropriate security over data. To address these privacy concerns it is important to analyze the problem that is being addressed from the perspective of potential and planned interoperability with other government databases. Below is a list of problems and recommendations concerning privacy, concerning government databases.

Government Databases and recommendations for privacy practices

Citizen-State relationships and privacy standards
Government databases foster different types of relationships between the state and its citizenry. For instance: User databases, service providing databases, and information providing databases. Each one these relationships requires a different level of privacy. Thus, it is important to identify the type of relationship that the database will foster in order to determine what type of privacy model to implement.
Specific privacy policy

Each government database should have a specific privacy policy that are tailored to the information that they hold. Each policy should cover the following areas:
- data collection
- digitization
- usage
- storage
- security
- disclosure
- retrieval
- access (inter departmental and public)
- anonymization, obfuscation and deletion.
Personal vs. personal sensitive and public vs. non-public data categories

Data in government databases requires varying degrees of privacy safeguards. The division of personal information vs. non personal information etc. creates distinct

categories for security levels over data and permissibility of public disclosure. Ex of personal information: Name, address, telephone number, religion. Ex of non-personal data: gender, age. This could work to avoid situations such as the census - where a person’s name, address, age, etc, were all printed for the public eye.
Standardization of Privacy Policies and Access Control

Government databases should all be designed upon interoperable standards so that the databases can "talk" to each other. The ability to coalesce databases strengthens the potential for use and reuse by different stakeholders. Furthermore, the interoperability of systems helps to avoid the creation of silos that hold multiple copies of the same data. To protect the privacy in interoperable systems - restricted and authorized access within departments and between departments is key. The Department of Information Technology has recently published a "Government Interoperability Framework" titled "Interoperability Framework for eGovernance" This policy document is the appropriate place to articulate interoperable privacy policies that could be adopted across eGovernance projects.
Record of breach notification

If data breach occurs in government database, the breach should be recorded and the appropriate individuals notified.
Anonymization/obfuscation and deletion policies

Once the purpose for which the data has been collected has been served it must be anonymized/obfuscated or deleted as appropriate. All data-sets cannot be deleted as bulk aggregate data is very useful to those interested in trend analysis. Anonymizing/obfuscating the personal details of a data set ensures that privacy is protected during such trend analysis.
Accountability for accuracy of data

Frequently data that is collected and entered into government databases is not accurate, because the departments are not collecting the data themselves. Thus, they feel no responsibility for its accuracy. If a mechanism is built into each database for identification of each data source this brings accountability for data accuracy.
Appropriate uses of government databases

Businesses should feel automatically entitled to aggregate and consolidate public information from government databases because it is technically possible to do so. Their uses of government database must be guided by policies that define "appropriate usage."
Access, updation and control of personal information

Citizens must be able to access and update their information. Furthermore, they should be able to define to a certain extent access control to their information - which would automatically make them eligible or ineligible for various government services.

Bibliography

Rezhui, Abdemounaam. Preserving Privacy in Web Services. Department of Computer Sciences, Virginia Tech.
Medjahed, Brahim. Infrastructure for E-Government Web Services. IEEE Internet Computing, Virgina Tech. January/Feburary 2003.

Mladen, Karen. A Report of Research on Privacy for Electronic Government. Privacy in Canada

joi.ito.com/privacyreport/Contents_Distilled/.../Canada_E_p252-314.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-govt-databases

Privacy Matters - A Public Conference in Ahmedabad

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:14:41Z

On behalf of Privacy India, and in partnership with the Research Foundation for Governance in India and Society in Action Group, the Centre for Internet and Society invites you to “Privacy Matters” a public conference focused on discussing the challenges and concerns to privacy in India. The event will be held at the Ahmedabad Management Association. We would be honored if you would attend the meeting and contribute your views.

The conference will focus on the questions and dilemmas posed by privacy in India today, with a concentration on security, national surveillance, prisoners rights and privacy. The right to privacy in India has been a neglected area of study and engagement. Although sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, India does not as yet have a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. The absence of a minimum guarantee of privacy is felt most heavily by marginalized communities, including HIV patients, children, women, sexuality minorities,prisoners, etc. – people who most need to know that sensitive information is protected. Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India.

One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of a comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, legislators and the legal and academic community.

Please confirm your participation with:

elonnai@privacyindia.org, or
jsree.t@gmail.com

Agenda

Privacy Matters

March 26th 10:30 – 4:30 pm

Ahmedabad Management Association
Core-AMA Management House
Torrent-AMA Management Centre
ATIRA Campus, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg
Ahmedabad 380 015, Gujarat, INDIA
Phone: +91-79-263086

Time	Session
10:00 to 10:30	Registration and Welcome Prashant Iyengar Prashant Iyengar is a practicing lawyer and lead researcher for Privacy India. He will present who Privacy India is, and the objectives of Privacy India's research. Lastly he will outline the present scenario of Privacy in India.
10:30 to 11:15	Keynote Address Usha Ramanathan Dr. Usha Ramanathan is an internationally recognized expert on law and poverty. Her research interests include human rights, displacement, torts and environment. Ms. Ramanathan will speak about the coerced decline of privacy. National security, corruption, pragmatism, and the emergence of technologies that often work to establish that privacy is an irrelevant notion. She will look at links not often made between privacy and personal security, between data bases and national security, and the centrality of dislodging privacy in projects of social control are, perhaps deliberate.
11:15 to 11:30	Tea break
11:30 to 1:00	Opinions on Privacy Justice J N Bhatt, Mr. Ajay Tomar, Renu Pokharna In this session key officials from Gujarat will share their experiences and opinions on privacy in the context of India. Speakers include: Justice J N Bhatt is the former Chief Justice of Gujarat and Bihar, and currently the head of the Gujarat State Law Commission. He has had ad successful career including having: joined the Office of the Government Pleader, at Jamnagar in 1976, worked as Central Government Counsel in special matter of Armed Forces and Labour Cases, and has authored more than 50 Articles on Jurisprudence, Constitution, International Law, A.D.R, Legal Aid and Lok Adalat and Judicial Reforms Renu Pokharna, a member of the Chief Minister's Office, State of Gujarat, has spent her career working towards the betterment of society, especially the poor and the hungry through policy and not charity. For example she is a part of the project “Gujarat Skill Development Mission”. The project tries to achieve convergence of skill training programs to make them more effective. Mr. Ajay Tomar is the chief of the Anti-Terrorism Squad in Gujarat. He has worked on cracking down on many cases involving national security and surveillance including the “Pepsi Bomber”.
1:00 to 2:00	Lunch Break
2:00 to 2:30	Privacy, Minority Identities, and Security Bobby Kuhnu Bobby Kuhnu is a lawyer, social activist, and writer. Mr. Kuhnu will examine the ideological underpinnings of the discourse on privacy and its bearings on socially marginalized identities particularly in the context of the Indian state and the constitutional right to privacy.
2:30 to 3:00	Privacy and National Security Mathew Thomas Mathew Thomas is a management consultant and activity leader for development centers. Mathew has held top positions in the Indian Army, and the Defense Research and Development Organization, where he headed the missile manufacturing facility. His presentation will focus on national security and privacy.
3:00 to 3:15	Tea Break
4:00 to 4:30	Open discussion and summary

Other Distinguished Participants

Justice Madhukar

Former Judge, Trial Courts, Gujarat

Kanan Divatia

Lawyer and Professor of Law, L A Shah Law College

Professor Amal Dhru

Visiting Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

Madhusudan Agarwal

Founder, Ma'am movies

Gaurang Raval

Drishti Media

Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta

Independent Candidate, IIT Delhi Alumnus

Madhusudan Agarwal

Founder, Ma'am movies

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/privacy-matters-ahmedabad

Public Talk by Dr. Ian Brown on Privacy, Trust and Biometrics

nishant — 2011-04-04T07:15:29Z

Trust is hard to build, but easy to lose. What factors affect individuals' trust in new technologies? How can governments create citizen trust in biometric security tools? Can biometrics be designed to be privacy-friendly? And how did these questions lead to the cancellation of the UK's national identity scheme, after a decade of development costing tens of millions of pounds? About the speaker: Dr Ian Brown's research is focused on public policy issues around information and the Internet, particularly privacy and copyright. He also works in the more technical fields of communications security and healthcare informatics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/ian

Muzzling the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:14:44Z

It is strange suddenly to be confronted with the provisions of a law passed way back in 2008. But why should the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, pushed through in the weeks following the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai be making news now? This news item by Sundeep Dougal was posted in Outlook on March 17, 2011.

The Economic Times, with a report headlined Government can switch off your internet if necessary breathlessly reported yesterday:

The Indian government has armed itself with powers to 'switch off' or kill the internet during times of national emergencies, becoming one of the first few countries to assume such far reaching authority. Even as the US and other western nations debate the judiciousness of giving the government's complete control to shut down cyber traffic, India has moved a step ahead and incorporated a provision under the IT Act of 2008, giving the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, to block the internet if necessary. The shutdown can happen in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, its defense, security of its states, friendly relations with foreign states or for public order. Failure to comply will result in imprisonment of up to seven

But perhaps the report can be excused for the simple reason that because the act was pretty much hustled through Parliament at a time when the national mindspace was preoccupied with other concerns, there was not much analysis or criticism in the mainstream media, though specialised blogs did raise an alarm even then. [See one critique dating back to December 2008 here April 2010 here -- and for the record, the bill was endorsed by the President in Feb 2009, and then only notified in October 2009.]

Read the ET report further and you realise that the reference was perhaps occasioned by the following development that the news report went on to provide:

Not satisfied with this provision, India is now moving ahead to develop alternate plans in case the 'switch' does not work. The draft plan by the Cabinet Committee on Security and Ministry of Home Affairs along with Ministry of IT & Communications to 'choke' the internet at will, which ET reported last year, is also learnt to be in its final stages.

Choking refers to handicapping the servers by subjecting it to multiple requests and attacks and preventing it from functioning effectively

But more dangerous to the issue of freedom of the internet were the recent reports, earlier in the month, of the blocking of Typepad, Mobango, Clickatell by some ISPs, though only one of them provided a message saying, "This site has been blocked as per request from the Department of Telecom". It was 2006 all over again.

As usual, the real problem was the total arbitrariness of the process and the confusion was confounded further when an unnamed Airtel spokesperson told the Hindu that there was no directive from the government, and this was “just a temporary network problem”.

The crux of the matter can be summed up in this one quote from Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama in the Hoot: "what gets me angry is that we wouldn't even have got to know of the blocking. There are never any indications of which websites are blocked and why. We have got to have more transparency on these issues."

Medianama also compiled and reported the following:

Tech2 wrote about a blogspot blackout on Feb 12th.
CuttingtheChai wrote about Kirtu.com, where the not-safe-for-work comic Savita Bhabhi was hosted, Mobango, Typepad and Clickatell being blocked on Feb 22nd.
Kafila reports, and this is something that we’ve also been told about as well, that Zone-H.org has been blocked as well. This is strange, but there is a suggestion that a company called E2 Labs got Zone-H blocked, because they did a post criticizing E2′s proposal to start a cyber security educational institution, alleging that there was falsification of information. A pdf of the post here, via Naavi.org. Again, we need clarity on why these blocks have been ordered. Also read Apar Gupta’s post
the utilitarian critique of E2 Labs v. Zone-H

Medianama further reported that on the sidelines of the Gov 2.0 conference last Friday, Communications & IT Minister Kapil Sibal passed the buck on the issue of lack of transparency in the way the Indian government blocks access to websites. Sibal told MediaNama that we should “Ask the Home Ministry, because this is a security issue.”

As Shivam Vij of Kafila asked:

All I want to ask Kapil Sibal is: How is Savita Bhabhi a threat to India’s national security? Wait, I have another question: why should I ask the Home Ministry when the orders for blocking come from your own Ministry, Mr Sibal, and the committee that decides on blocking has only one Home Ministry representative and two from your Ministry, sir?

In theory a lot of people will say that the internet can not be free of regulation, that the government must block some sites. But this is the problem in practice: the government will block a soft porn comic - only because it was talked about openly, discussed in the papers, and so on. Only because it came in the way of some bureaucrat’s antiquated sense of morality. Why, there are countless hard core Indian porn sites that are not blocked! (Oops, I shouldn’t be giving ideas.)

And when you wonder why the Government of India thinks Savita Bhabhi is too obscene for you, they will say national security!

If you don’t know about the Savita Bhabhi blocking issue, see this Huffington Post article.

All of this of course assumes ominous overtones when one considers the government's attitude on Wikileaks and offers an inkling of the shape of things to come when we look at the recent release of the long awaited draft rules for important sections of the Information Technology Act 2000, objections to which were sought from the public by February 28, 2011.

So far, the following draft rules have been formalised:

The Draft rule under section 43A- Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal information

Privacy India and Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore have offered a detailed para-wise commentary here.

The Draft rule under section 79-Due diligence observed by intermediaries guidelines

A detailed, para-wise, criticism is available by the Centre for Internet and Society which pointed out, inter-alia:

they vest an extraordinary power of censorship in the hands of the intermediary, which could easily lead to the stifling of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech online. Analogous restrictions do not exist in other fields, e.g., against the press in India or against courier companies, and there is no justification to impose them on content posted online. Taken together, these provisions make it impossible to publish critical views about anything without the risk of being summarily censored.

The rules are so loosely worded as to cover almost anything. For example, consider Section 3 of the proposed rules, particularly point (g):

"causes annoyance or inconvenience or deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature;"

Imagine the number of sensitive souls out there who could be claiming "inconvenience" because of "annoyance" having been caused.

The Draft rule under section 79-Guidelines for Cyber Cafe

A critique by PRS blog | Medianama | Centre for Internet and Society points out, inter alia, that

if enforced it will end up choking public access Internet in the country, whether through Cybercafes or at Wifi hotspots, which would cover all regular cafes that offer Internet access, the airport, where some telcos allow access, or even on-campus connectivity.

While the comments for the above rules were invited only till 28.02.2011, perhaps it would still be useful to let the authorities know what one thinks about these rules by sending an email to: grai AT mit.gov.in

Read the original post in the Outlook here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/muzzling-internet

Battle for the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:28:19Z

In this article written by Latha Jishnu and published by Down to Earth, Issue: March 15 2011, the author reports about the events in the United States in the post WikiLeaks scenario.

As the Internet becomes the public square and the marketplace of our world, it is increasingly becoming a contested terrain. Its potential for diffusing knowledge and subverting the traditional channels of information is tremendous. So it is not surprising that governments, corporations and even seemingly innocuous social networking sites all want to control and influence the way the Internet operates. It’s easy to see why. Close to a third of humanity is linked to this system—and the dramatic growth in Internet usage over the past decade is set to explode in coming years. So is its commercial promise. Latha Jishnu looks at events in the US following the WikiLeaks exposé of its diplomatic cables, and in the hot spots of political turmoil across the world to understand the significance of the Internet in today’s interconnected world and the threats it faces. Arnab Pratim Dutta explains the technology used to block access to the Net.

An opposition supporter holds up a laptop showing images of celebrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square, after Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak resigned (Photo: Reuters)

Ideas and ideologies, images and reports of events, both minor and cataclysmic, fly on the Internet, swirling through cyberspace, gathering resonance, metamorphosing and touching millions of lives in different ways. Many of the ideas—and visuals—could be banal (as they very often are), some dangerous, others bringing promise of change. Some have the power to subvert, helping to stir and stoke the smouldering embers of political and social unrest as recent uprisings in north Africa, West Asia and Asia have shown. To many, the Internet is the rebel hero of our times, subverting conventional media and leaking news and information that governments would like to censor. Even a village in the remote reaches of Odisha’s Malkangiri district which may have no electricity is in some way linked to cyberspace through smart cell phones because mobile operators are increasingly turning Internet service providers (ISPs) and bringing the worldwide web to the conflict-ridden forests of central India.

It is about the power and reach of connection, unprecedented since people first began communicating with each other. The Internet, therefore, is turning into a conflict zone with everyone seeking control of it: governments, corporations and social networking sites, all of whom have different agendas. Social networks may seem innocuous but they are as much a hazard as the others to Internet freedom. Surveillance of “netizens” is becoming commonplace, whether in democracies or in totalitarian regimes, through a host of new laws and regulations ostensibly aimed at strengthening national security, cyber security or protecting business interests.

While most governments are seeking to filter and block specific content, in extreme cases, as in Egypt, the Net has been blacked out using what some experts say is the “kill switch” (see ‘The Egypt shutdown’). This could emerge as the biggest threat to the Internet since other regimes could be tempted to go the Egyptian way. Most governments, however, prefer not to use it, not even the censorship-obsessed Chinese and Saudi regimes because the Internet is also about business—commerce of increasing significance is being routed through its sinews. Take one small example: In January alone, Britons spent a whopping £5.1 billion online, recording a 21 per cent jump in e-commerce revenues over January 2010, according to the latest edition of the IMRG/CapGemini e-Retail Sales Index. It is the kind of figure that stops authorities from reaching for the kill switch.

In the case of China, e-commerce transactions hit 4.5 trillion yuan (US $682.16 billion) in 2010, up 22 per cent year-on-year, according to China e- Business Research Center and CNZZ Data Center. Of this, online B2B or business-to-business deals accounted for the bulk: 3.8 trillion yuan (US

Popular whistleblower website wikileaks.org was unavailable for some time in December 2010

$576.05 billion). And retail sales are expected to zoom, too, pretty soon with e-commerce websites selling directly to customers growing to more than 18,600 last year. Thanks to a dramatic spike in the rate of Net penetration and impressive growth of online business.

But the world has a long way to go before the Internet becomes ubiquitous or an all-encompassing global commons. Currently, just two billion people are linked to the system (see above: ‘Big picture’), which is less than a third of the world’s population. And the reach, as the chart shows, is rather patchy. India may be in the top five Internet user nations with a total of 81 million users but penetration is an abysmal 6.9 per cent, the worst in the list. Blame that on our pathetic education levels and poverty. China, however, is the undisputed leviathan with 420 million users in 2010—some estimates put the figure closer to 500 million now—who account for more than a fifth of the world’s Internet users. No other country’s growth in this sector matches China’s either in speed or drama.

This is one reason Washington frequently raises the issue of China’s policing of the Internet in different fora. The most recent was on February 15 when secretary of state Hillary Clinton made the second of her rousing speeches on safeguarding the Internet from all kinds of government interference. Speaking at George Washington University in Washington DC, Clinton pointed out that the attempts to control the Internet were rife across the world but singled China for repeated attacks.

“In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down. These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the Internet.”

That seemed a fair assessment of the trends but the irony is that even as the secretary of state was speaking, the Department of Justice was seeking to enforce a court order to direct Twitter Inc, to provide the US government records of three individuals, including Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland's Parliament who had been in touch with others about WikiLeaks and its founder Juan Assange last year when WikiLeaks released its huge cache of US diplomatic cables.

A commentary in China Daily noted with asperity: “The Assange case reveals such rhetoric is just so much hypocrisy. It is apparent that when Internet freedom conflicts with self-declared US national interests, or when Internet freedom exposes lies by the self-proclaimed open and transparent government, it immediately becomes a crime.”

The Assange case more than anything else has exposed how vulnerable the Net is to political meddling and control. In December last year, Amazon said it stopped hosting the WikiLeaks website because it “violated its terms of service” and not because the office of the Senate Homeland Security Committee chaired by Joe Lieberman had questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks had turned to Amazon to keep its site available after hackers tried to flood it and prevent users accessing the classified information. Few people were willing to credit Amazon’s feeble explanation for cutting off WikiLeaks and the general surmise was that Lieberman had put some kind of pressure on the webhosting platform. According to one analyst, the simple reason is that the US government is one of the company’s biggest clients. According to a press note issued by the company: “Government adoption of AWS (Amazon Web Services) grew significantly in 2010. Today we have nearly 20 government agencies leveraging AWS, and the US federal government continues to be one of our fastest growing customer segments.”

As Amazon abandoned WikiLeaks, Paypal, Visa and MasterCard had also dumped WikiLeaks. This set off a fullscale cyber war in which a fourth party made its presence felt: Hackers/ ‘hacktivists’ who unleashed operation payback for what they deemed unfair targeting of WikiLeaks and Assange. This involved a series of (DDOS) attacks on Paypal, MasterCard, Swiss Bank PostFinance and Lieberman’s website.

So while governments in many parts of the world block sites, jail or kill dissidents for expressing their views on the Net, threats to the freedom of the Internet come primarily from the paranoia that governments suffer and from badly crafted policies they implement to protect business and other interests.

US enforcement agencies shut down 84,000 sites, falsely accusing them of child pornography

The US, the ultimate symbol of liberal democracy, is no less uneasy about the power of the Internet. A slew of laws are making their way through the Senate, laws that will give the administration sweeping powers to seize domain names and shut down websites, even those outside its territory, and laws that strengthen the powers of the president in the time of a cyber emergency, including the use of a kill switch. In September, the US Senate introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which would allow the government to create a blacklist of websites that are suspected to be infringing IP rights and to pressure or require all ISPs to block access to those sites. In these cases, no due process of law protects people before they are disconnected or their sites are blocked.

In India, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, Parliament hastily passed amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000, without any discussion in either House. The December 2008 amendments have some good points but they also allow increased online surveillance. Section 69A permits the Centre to “issue directions for blocking of public access to any information through any computer resource”, which means that the government can block any website.

Pranesh Prakash of the Bengalurubased Centre for Internet and Society notes that while necessity or expediency in terms of certain restricted interests is specified, no guidelines have been specified. “It has to be ensured that they are prescribed first, before any powers of censorship are granted to anybody,” said Prakash in an analysis of the amendments. “In India, it is clear that any law that gives unguided discretion to an administrative authority to exercise censorship is unreasonable.”

Civil rights activists say the section has broadened the scope of surveillance and that there are no legal or procedural safeguards to prevent violation of civil liberties.

As the battle for keeping the Internet is joined by netizens who are aware of the power of connection, governments, too, are ramping up command and control measures. Among the risks to an open, democratic Internet are the following:

Threat to universality

The basic design principle underlying the World Wide Web is universality, and, according to its founder Tim Berners-Lee, several threats are emerging. Among these are: cable companies that sell Internet connectivity wanting to limit their Net users to downloading only the company’s mix of entertainment and social networking sites (see ‘Hidden dangers of Facebook’).

Another is by pricing Net connectivity out of the reach of the poor and allowing differential pricing. Berners- Lee, warned at a recent London conference: “There are a lot of companies who would love to be able to limit what web pages you can see...the moment you let Net neutrality go, you lose the web as it is...You lose something essential—the fact that any innovator can dream up an idea and set up a website at some random place and let it just take off from word of mouth...”

Actions against piracy

The nub of such operations lies in the US Department of Homeland Security, whose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) have been seizing domains because they are suspected of hawking pirated goods. The first seizure was in November last year when 82 websites selling counterfeit goods ranging from handbags to golf clubs were taken out.

Last month, there was another raid on the Internet. According to TorrentFreak and other Internet monitoring sites, the two agencies wrongly shut down 84,000 websites that had not broken the law, falsely accusing them of child pornography crimes. After the mistake was identified, it took about three days for some of the websites to go live again. The domain provider, FreeDNS, was taken aback. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible,” it said.

Earlier, DoJ and ICE had seized the domain of the popular sports streaming and P2P download site Rojadirecta. What is shocking is that the site is based in Spain and is perfectly legal. Two courts in Spain have ruled that the site operates legally, and other than the .org domain the site has no links to the US.

Internet freedom could easily become the biggest casualty in the illconceived and poorly designed procedures adopted by developed countries— France, the UK, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand have similar laws—to protect intellectual property from counterfeiters and pirates, primarily at the behest of the film and music recording industries.

There are indications India may be planning to follow suit (see ‘India’s three-strikes policy’), although civil rights groups say it could amount to a form of deprivation of liberty.

Surveillance technology

The problem with the use of technology in keeping the Internet safe cuts both ways. With increasing number of cyber attacks on both official and public websites from an array of hackers and malware, governments are reaching for ever more sophisticated high-tech surveillance systems. For instance, computer systems of the US Congress and the executive branches are under attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month, according to a recent Senate report. The result: more spyware. One such is deep packet inspection technology. It is a tool that protects customers from rampant spam and virus traffic. Experts say the Internet could not survive without this technology and yet, it helps authorities to keep a close watch on what people are doing on the Net. In the US, ISPs are required to have this technology.

So what can be done? Keep close tabs on government involvement in the Internet and ensure that its intrusion in both the content and the engines of this system is kept to the minimum.

Read the original article written by Latha Jishnu in Down to Earth here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/battle-internet