We are anonymous, we are legion

Open letter to Kolaveri Di makers: How Dare You!

nishant — 2012-05-23T07:02:03Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom

sunil — 2012-09-04T08:28:02Z

Last month I wrote an open letter to Hillary Clinton. It was based on a presentation I that I made during a panel discussion at a Google sponsored conference titled Internet at Liberty 2012 in Washington DC on May 24, 2012.

Sunil Abraham's article was published in Thinking Aloud on July 17, 2012

The question that my panel tried to grapple with was "In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom?" My co-panelists were Cynthia Wong who is with the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Mohamed El Dahshan a writer and journalist, Dunja Mijatovic the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

Internet freedom is a curious subject. It is a technology specific liberty - for a moment consider television freedom. The US has more Muslims than India has Christians. But Indian television in the average hotel comes in hundreds and there are at least 3 channels of Christian preaching. But US television in hotels is usually less than 50 channels with no channels of Islamic preaching. In fact even the reception of secular channels from the Islamic World like Al Jazeera is still difficult in America. Can we accuse the US of not having television freedom since their television features Christian evangelists but not Muslim evangelists? Should it be part of India's foreign policy to evangelize television freedom given that there is a large domestic industry with clear international potential?

In an ideal world - citizens will possess technology-neutral freedom to communication and expression. But nothing can be farther from the truth. Communication technologies are regulated using a plethora of policies and practices and very often these have a chilling effect on freedoms.

The following is my response to the technology-specific demands for deregulation from the US Government.

Text of the Open Letter[2]

Recognise Access to Knowledge (A2K) as pre-condition for freedom of expression: There is no difference between aggressive enforcement of imbalanced and obsolete intellectual property laws and censorship. The need of the moment is not more enforcement to protect obsolete business models against the everyday practices of ordinary netizens but rather the reform of intellectual property law (levies, broader exceptions and limitations, pools, statutory and compulsory licenses, prizes etc.) to keep pace with innovations in technology and the production of knowledge and culture.

Recognise privacy as pre-condition for security: The alleged tension between privacy and security is a false dichotomy. Blanket surveillance by design compromises security. Surveillance is like salt in cooking — essential in very small quantities but dangerous even if slightly in excess. Blanket surveillance technologies are only going make things easier for — and will only serve as targets for — current and future online villains.

Don't lose the moral high-ground: Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Other countries are waiting to cherry pick from your worst practices. Also don't use trade agreements to selectively export components of US policy without the accompanying safeguards for civil liberties and rights. Citizens in oppressive and authoritarian states are depending on the US government, courts and civil society to protect their rights online. Don't undermine their capacity to shame their governments by holding up the US as the example of 'how to get things right'. They urgently need the US government to lead by example.

Recognise that freedom of expression has become a trade issue: This is unfortunate but this is true — thanks to the precedent set by the developed world when it came to asymmetric trade negotiations. Just as the US is interested in protecting the interests of its corporations in global markets — other governments are keen protect the interests of their own corporations. The optimal solution in this case is where all countries and corporations are equally unsatisfied. This will remain a continuing discussion.

Address developing country anxieties around critical internet infrastructure: Security by obscurity will no longer do — security by transparency through open standards, technologies and governance is the only way to fears and build a trust-worthy and secure Internet for all of us. For example, there is urgent need to develop standards for supply chain audits of information infrastructure. The US has dealt with the fear of back doors by banning the use of hardware and software from countries it does not trust. The developing world is not sure if there are back-doors in hardware and software manufactured by US corporations.

Time has comes to address this and other related anxieties.

Appreciate diversity in nomenclature: 'Freedom' and 'liberty' may be appropriate terms to use in the United States of America. But openness may be more in countries that are not yet full and robust liberal democracies. The Internet Governance Forum for example uses 'openness' instead of 'freedom'. Openness is also preferred because it includes 'freedom of expression', 'freedom of information' (also known as right to information, access to information or public and 'free knowledge' (free software, open standards, open content, open access, open data, open educational resources, etc.)

Don't be too instrumental in your interventions: Don't undermine the local credibility of like-minded civil society, think-tanks and research organisations by being too directive in your support. Managerialism will undermine reform of policies and practices in information societies and so does inappropriate/premature monitoring and evaluation (for example, looking for explicit attribution in terms of casual connections between your actions and outcomes). There is a need to support greater reflexivity in the global information society by developing institutional capacity in developing countries through unrestricted funding. True critical thinking is the foundation of both scientific progress and open societies. Go out of your way to find and support those who disagree with you. Protect the plural foundation of our networked society!

Video

Sunil Abraham was a speaker along with Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatovic in Plenary IV Debate 3 at the Internet at Liberty 2012 event organised by Google on May 24, 2012.

View the video on YouTube

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

Open Letter to "Not" Recognize India as Data Secure Nation till Enactment of Privacy Legislation

elonnai — 2013-07-12T11:07:58Z

India shouldn't be granted the status of "data secure nation" by Europe until it enacts a suitable privacy legislation, points out the Centre for Internet and Society in this open letter.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

This letter is with regards to both the request from the Confederation of Indian Industry that the EU recognize India as a data secure nation made on April 29th 2013, [1] and the threat from India to stall negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement with the EU unless recognized as data secure nation made on May 9th 2013.[2]

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, we request that you urge the European Parliament and the EU ambassador to India to reject the request, and to not recognize India as a data secure nation until a privacy legislation has been enacted.

The Centre for Internet and Society believes that if Europe were to grant India status as a data secure nation based only on the protections found in the “Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules 2011”, not only will India be protected through inadequate standards, but the government will not have an incentive to enact a legislation that recognizes privacy as a comprehensive and fundamental human right. Since 2010 India has been in the process of realizing a privacy legislation. In 2011 the “Draft Privacy Bill 2011” was leaked.[3] In 2012 the “Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy” was released. The Report recommends a comprehensive right to privacy for India, nine national privacy principles, and a privacy framework of co-regulation for India to adopt. [4] In 2013 the need for a stand alone privacy legislation was highlighted by the Law Minister.[5] The Centre for Internet and Society has recently drafted the “Privacy Protection Bill 2013” - a citizen's version of a possible privacy legislation for India.[6] Currently, we are hosting a series of six “Privacy Roundtables” across India in collaboration with FICCI and DSCI from April 2013 - August 2013.[7] The purpose of the roundtables is to gain public feedback to the text of the “Privacy Protection Bill 2013”, and other possible frameworks for privacy in India. The discussions and recommendations from the meeting will be published into a compilation and presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The Center for Internet and Society will also be submitting the “Privacy Protection Bill 2013” and the public feedback to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) with the hope of contributing to and informing a privacy legislation in India.

The Centre for Internet and Society has been researching privacy since 2010 and was a member of the committee which compiled the “Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy”. We have also submitted comments on the “Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules 2011” to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha.[8]

We hope that you will consider our request and urge the European Parliament and the EU ambassador to India to not recognize India as a data secure nation until a privacy legislation has been enacted.

[1]. CII asks EU to accept India as 'Data Secure' nation: http://bit.ly/15Z77dH

[2]. India threatens to stall trade talks with EU: http://bit.ly/1716aF1

[3]. New privacy Bill: Data Protection Authority, jail term for offence: http://bit.ly/emqkkH

[4]. The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy http://bit.ly/VqzKtr

[5]. Law Minister Seeks stand along privacy legislation, writes PM: http://bit.ly/16hewWs

[6]. The Privacy Protection Bill 2013 drafted by CIS: http://bit.ly/10eum5d

[7]. Privacy Roundtable: http://bit.ly/12HYoj5

[8]. Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data Information) Rules, 2011: http://bit.ly/Z2FjX6

Note: CIS sent the letters to Data Protection Commissioners across Europe.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/open-letter-to-not-recognize-india-as-data-secure-nation

Open House on Security Practices in FinTech

Admin — 2017-11-12T10:18:09Z

CIS in collaboration with Has Geek is organizing an Open House on security practices in FinTech.

The prevalence of fintech companies operating in India is growing with new actors entering the sector and traditional actors such as banks beginning to offer digital financial services. The push to digital payments has been particularly strong after the demonetization policy, the development and implementation of Aadhaar and India Stack. Services offered by Fintech firms can range from offering a loan or credit to a digital wallet and digital banking and payment services.

Presently, there is a regulatory gap for many of the fintech services and business models. The Reserve Bank of India has published consultation papers on Peer-to-Peer lending platforms as well as Account Aggregators, but comprehensive regulations, especially those surrounding minimum security practices, have yet to emerge – presenting a critical policy and research window. Furthermore, under Section 43A of the IT Act and its associated Rules, ‘body corporates’ are required to implement reasonably security procedures compliant with ISO27001 or a sectoral standard approved by the Central Government. However, currently such a sectoral standard is absent for the FinTech and Digital Payments space.

The growing prevalence of these fintech technologies and the criticality of security of the same to engender citizen trust, protect rights, and comprehensive national security posture demands debate and discussion.

On November 17th, the HasGeek in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society will be holding an Open House from 6pm - 8pm to discuss security practices in the fintech industry.

Pressing questions for discussion include: How secure are these services? What security standards are they adhering to? Who is holding them accountable for adherence to security standards? What can individuals do if there financial data is compromised?

Please join us for a robust discussion on these issues @HasGeek House, 2699, 19th Main Rd, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, 19th Main Rd, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560008 from 6PM - 8 PM on November 17th.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/open-house-on-security-practices-in-fintech

Open house on information breaches

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T00:41:55Z

On May 26, 2017 at the Has Geek open house participants discussed the state of information security in India the legal and regulatory measures that companies must comply with, and consumers should be aware of. Udbhav Tiwari was a speaker at the event organized by Has Geek in Bengaluru.

Sandesh Anand–InfoSec professional at Cigital was the other speaker. Alok Prasanna Kumar, former Supreme Court advocate and Senior Resident Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal policy, moderated the discussion. Udbhav spoke about Breach Notifications and the legal and regulatory positions behind it in India. His presentation from the event can be found here: https://goo.gl/51GDba

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-house-on-information-breaches

Open Governance and Privacy in a Post-Snowden World : Webinar

vanya — 2015-10-04T11:09:12Z

On 10th September 2015, the OGP Support Unit, the Open Government Guide, and the World Bank held a webinar on “Open Governance and Privacy in a Post-Snowden World” presented by Carly Nyst, Independent consultant and former Legal Director of Privacy International and Javier Ruiz, Policy Director of Open Rights Group. This is a summary of the key issues that were discussed by the speakers and the participants.

See Open Governance and Privacy in a Post-Snowden World

Summary

The webinar discussed how Government surveillance has become an important and key issue in the 21^st century, thanks to Edward Snowden. The main concern raised was with respect to what a democracy should look like in the present day. Should the states’ use of technology enable state surveillance or an open government? Typically, there is a balance that must be achieved between the privacy of an individual and the security of the state – particularly as the former is primarily about social rights and collective interest of citizens.

At the international level, the right to privacy has been recognized as a basic human right and an enabler of other individual freedoms. This right encapsulates protection of personal data where citizens have the authority to choose whether to share or reveal their personal data or not. Due to technological advancement that has enabled collection, storage and sharing of personal data, the right to privacy and data protection frameworks have become of utmost importance and relevance with regard to open government efforts. Therefore, it is important for Governments to be transparent in handling sensitive data that they collect and use.

Many countries have also introduced laws to balance the right to privacy and right to information. The role of the private sector and NGOs involved in enabling an open and transparent government must also be duly addressed at a national level.

Key Questions:

Why should the government release information?

There are multiple reasons for doing so including:

For the purposes of research and public policy (which relates to healthcare, social issues, economics, national statistics, census, etc.)

Transparency and accountability (politicians, registers, public expenses, subsidies, fraud, court records, education)

Public participation and public services (budgets, anti-corruption, engagement, and e-governance).

However, all these have certain risks and privacy implications:

Risk of identification of individual: Any individual whose information is released has the risk of identification, followed by issues like identity theft, discrimination, stigmatization or repression. Normally, the solution for this would be anonymization of the data; however, this is not an absolute solution. Privacy laws can generally cope with such risks, but with pseudonymous data it becomes difficult in preventing identification.
Profiling of social categories which can lead to discrimination: In such a situation, policies and other legislations regulating the use of data and providing remedy for violations can help.
Exploitation and unfair/unethical use of information: When understanding the potential exploitation of information it is useful to consider who is going to benefit from the release of information. For example, in UK, with respect to release of Health Data, the main concern is that people and companies will benefit commercially from the information released, despite of the result potentially being improved drugs and treatment.

What are the Solutions?

The webinar also discussed potential solutions to the questions and challenges posed. For example, when commitments of Open Government Data Partnership are considered, privacy legislations must also be proposed. Further, key stakeholders must make commitments to take pro-active measures to reduce informational asymmetries between the state and citizens. To reduce the risks, measures must be taken to publish what information the State has or what the Government knows about the citizens. For example, in UK, within the civil society network, it is being duly considered in the national plan that the government will publicize how it will share data and have a centralized view on the process of information handling and usage of the data.

The Open Government Guide provides for Illustrative Commitments like enactment of data protection legislation, establishing programmes for awareness and assessment of their impact, giving citizens control of their personal information and the right to redress when that information is misused, etc.

Surveillance

The issue of surveillance and the role of privacy in an open government context was also discussed. The need for creating a balance between the legitimate interest of national security and the privacy of individuals was emphasized. With the rise of digital technologies, many governmental measures pertaining to surveillance intervene in individual privacy. There are many forms of surveillance and this has serious privacy implications, especially in developing countries. For example:

Communications surveillance
Visual surveillance
Travel surveillance

This raises the question: When is surveillance legitimate and when must it be allowed?

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance acts as a soft law and tries to set out what a good surveillance system looks like by ensuring that governments are in compliance with international human rights law.

In essence surveillance does not violate privacy, however, there must be a clear and foreseeable legal framework laying circumstances when the government has the power to collect data and when individuals might be able to foresee when they might be under surveillance.

Also, a competent judicial authority must be established to oversee surveillance and keep a check on executive power by placing restrictions on privacy invasions. The actions of the government must be proportionate and the benefits must not outweigh harm caused by surveillance.

Role of openness in a “mass surveillance” state

Surveillance measures that are being undertaken by governments are increasingly secretive. The European court of Human Rights has held that Secret surveillance may undermine democracy under the cloak of protecting it. Hence, open government and openness will work towards protecting privacy and not undermining it.

To balance the measure of government surveillance with privacy, there is a need to publish laws regulating such powers; publish transparency reports about surveillance, interception and access to communications data; reform legislations relating to surveillance by state agencies to ensure it complies with human rights and establish safeguards to ensure that new technologies used for surveillance and interception respect the right to privacy.

Conclusion

The conclusion one can draw is that Privacy concerns have gained importance in today’s data driven world. The main question that needs to be answered is whether Government’s should adopt surveillance measures or adopt an Open Government?

Considering equal importance of national security and privacy of individuals, it is required that a balance must be crafted between the two. This could be possibly done by enacting foreseeable and clear laws outlining scope of surveillance by the Government on one hand, and informing citizens about such measures on the other. Establishment of a competent judicial authority to keep a check on Government actions is also suggested to work out the delicate balance between surveillance and privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/open-governance-and-privacy-in-a-post-snowden-world-webinar

Open Forum - DINL, Digital Infrastructure Association

praskrishna — 2015-11-07T14:45:58Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation is organizing this workshop at IGF on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. Jyoti Panday will be speaking at this workshop.

In this open forum we wish to discuss the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. The fact that the traditional benign neglect of states towards the internet is increasingly replaced with political interest has positive and negative effects. We are particularly concerned with those state interventions – often for reasons of national security or economic interest - that impact on the technical and logical ‘core’ of the internet ecosystem – such as interventions in the DNS - and in the impact on organizations and businesses that are traditionally thought of as ‘technical’ and whose roles are in danger of being politicized, such as ISPs, CERTs and hard- and software developers. There is a growing need to separate out the legitimate interests of states from political overreach into the technical and logical core of the internet. A cooperative or constructive approach towards interaction, founded in firm principles, may strengthen the balance and lead to a sustainable protection of Internet values. In this open forum we will present ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and seek to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. More specifically we aim to discuss: A definition of a public core of the internet: this would comprise the core protocols and infrastructure of the internet which all governments should consider as a global public good, governed by the Internet community and protected from direct activities and involvement by any government Definitions of proper interfaces: outlining norms and mutual expectations that should govern the relations between governments and various central actors in the technical and economic internet ecosystem, such as ISPs, CERTs and hard- and software developers when it comes to fighting cybercrime, retrieve information, mandate takedowns, request information and more.

Speakers
In this IGF open forum DINL wants to explore these ideas and discuss them with thought leaders from other countries. Speakers include:

Bastiaan Goslings (AMS-IX, NL)
Jyoti Panday (CIS, India)
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil)
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy) and will be chaired by Michiel Steltman (DINL), but aims to broaden the debate on this issue with those present.

More information on IGF website here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-forum-dinl-digital-infrastructure-association

Open Call for Comments: The Privacy Protection Bill 2013 drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society

bhairav — 2014-02-25T05:38:27Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is announcing an Open Call for Comments to the CIS Privacy Protection Bill 2013.

In early 2013 the Centre for Internet and Society drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 as a citizen’s version of privacy legislation for India. The Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013 seeks to protect privacy by regulating (i) the manner in which personal data is collected, processed, stored, transferred and destroyed — both by private persons for commercial gain and by the state for the purpose of governance; (ii) the conditions upon which, and procedure for, interceptions of communications — both voice and data communications, including both data-in-motion and data-at-rest — may be conducted and the authorities permitted to exercise those powers; and, (iii) the manner in which forms of surveillance not amounting to interceptions of communications — including the collection of intelligence from humans, signals, geospatial sources, measurements and signatures, and financial sources — may be conducted.

The Centre for Internet and Society has been collecting comments to the Privacy Protection Bill since April 2013 with the intention of submitting the Bill to the Department of Personnel and Training as a citizen’s version of a privacy legislation for India. If you would like to submit comments on the Privacy Protection Bill to be included as part of the Centre for Internet and Society’s submission to the Department of Personnel and Training, please email comments to bhairav@cis-india.org.

Download the latest version of the Privacy Protection Bill (February 2014)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-protection-bill-2013-open-call-for-comments

Only digital sex, please

praskrishna — 2015-06-15T01:38:12Z

Many Indian men are getting so dependent on digital sex and online pornography that they can’t handle real relationships. And a new book says this is happening the world over. Prasun Chandhuri and Avijit Chatterjee turn the spotlight on the trend

The article was published in the Telegraph on May 31. Rohini is quoted.

P. Sharath doesn't know how to handle women. The 31-year-old software engineer, who works for a multinational company in Bangalore, thinks he doesn't need them either. The man who grew up in Hubli in Karnataka and now earns an eight-figure annual salary has his virtual world. That gives him his sexual satisfaction.

Socially awkward, Sharath did try to date a woman, but the relationship broke within a few months because he found that she was getting to be "clingy" and "boring". An attempt by his family to fix a marriage with a woman failed when he groped her in a cinema hall. His online women, on the other hand, need no pampering, and do not complain.

Sharath, however, is not happy. "He no longer gets any gratification from online sex and has been suffering from anxiety and depression," says Dr Ali Khwaja, a Bangalore-based psychologist and founder of the Banjara Academy, a counselling centre.

Increasingly, counsellors in urban India are coming across such cases of people who are so used to digital sex that they can't cope with real relationships any more. Khwaja refers to them as "hollow men" - people who go through despair after relations fail because of their dependence on digital pornography.

"Almost every week I meet a young man addicted to porn," says Mumbai-based counsellor Shefali Batra, author of the recently published book Teen Matters.

It's a pattern that many counsellors have noticed. As teenagers, young boys get hooked on to digital sex. "But it becomes a vicious addiction over time, playing havoc with their social and sexual development," Batra says. The women they meet do not match up to the large breasted and oversexed digital women - and the boys become men who cannot sustain marriages and relationships.

Pornography has always existed, and some counsellors do not believe that it is always harmful. But the spread of the Internet, the easy availability of smartphones and the profusion of sophisticated sex games and other platforms have led to a situation where men merely log on for sexual satisfaction.

The Internet is bursting at the seams with sex sites. There are various types of sex games, including cartoon sex games, 3D sex games, virtual reality sex games and so on where the viewer can indulge in sex with three or four imaginary characters. Some online games offer virtual simulation sex. In a new genre of digital porn, users can enjoy 3D porn with a special virtual reality headset that allows them to step inside their favourite games and completely immerse themselves in a sexual fantasy.

And this is happening across the world. In a recently released book, Men (Dis)Connected: How technology has sabotaged what it means to be male, psychologist Philip Zimbardo holds that "masculinity" is being destroyed by online pornography and gaming technology.

"We have surveyed over 20,000 young people in many countries. Even though we don't have data on Indian men, we assume that the impact of freely available porn is creating a new breed of addicts in every country," he says in an email interview. "These men prefer to masturbate to visual images than have live sexual relations with real women."

Nikita Coulombe, co-author of Men (Dis)Connected, adds that it is an "endless novelty" and a "virtual harem" for the men. "In 10 minutes you can see more 'mates' than your ancestors would have seen in their lifetime."

There was a time when people shrugged and said, it's just a phase. But Zimbardo believes that this addiction has gone beyond that and will have a "permanent negative impact" on young men everywhere because the porn industry is big business.

The professor emeritus at Stanford discovered this phenomenon when he found that many of his male students were shy and spent too much time poring over screens. Closer home, academic and writer Shiv Visvanathan had a similar experience while teaching at the O.P. Jindal University in Haryana.

"Many of these guys do not know how to talk to a girl - they'd rather convey their feelings through text messages or through social networks or mobile phones. Sometimes you'll even see two people sitting close together but talking over the phone, just to avoid a face-to-face conversation," Visvanathan says.

What this means is that young men are not just wary of getting into relationships - they are not missing them either. "Porn gives them instant gratification which can be repeated, say, 200 times. Moreover, the virtual body seems more transformable than the actual body and it's fast," Visvanathan points out.

It is an addiction that draws men more than women, primarily because the majority of Internet porn is male-centric and, more than teenage women, boys are addicted to computer games and associated thrills. "Research has affirmed that this is truer for the male brain in comparison to the female brain," explains Batra. "The male brain is more thrill and pleasure seeking and these exciting virtual realities provide an immense rush of pleasure in the brain."

Zimbardo's survey underlines this. It found that three out of five men expressed a "lack of interest in pursuing and maintaining a romantic relationship" while three out of four women between the ages of 18 and 30 said they were concerned about the "emotional immaturity or the unavailability" of men.

While the celebrated psychologist plans to conduct a similar survey in India, concerns are already rising because the lack of sex education in schools and colleges - coupled with repressed backgrounds and exaggerated pornographic images - gives the young a warped idea of sex and relationships.

"In a society where talking about sex is taboo, their only avenue to satisfy sexual curiosities becomes porn," says Rohini Lakshane, researcher, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

This is why sexologist Prakash Kothari often encounters young men who yearn for a "14-inch organ" and suffer from performance anxiety and depression. "Proper sex education can teach them just two inches and oodles of erotic love are enough to satisfy your female partner," says Kothari.

The experts stress that they are not against pornography. "One should not shoot the messenger," contends Audrey D'Mello, programme director, Majlis, a legal counselling centre in Mumbai. "If used properly it can be an aphrodisiac," Kothari adds.

But many of the images that the young today see are violent and bestial. "These twisted forms of sex are being consumed by young men and boys through smartphones across the country," laments Ira Trivedi, author of India in Love. Lakshane believes that easy access to violent pornography "degrades and objectifies women", giving men and boys a "skewed view of sex and intimacy".

Calcutta-based Subhrangshu Aditya counselled a woman who wanted a divorce because her husband forced her to replicate all that he watched on porn. "It was torture for her, devoid of romantic love or eroticism," Aditya says.

Indeed, the effect on men has an impact on women as well. Trivedi points out that as men devote themselves to porn, women go for measures such as vaginal beautification to attract men.

Or women go off sex altogether.

"These women have an extreme phobia about sex," says Aindri Sanyal, an infertility specialist at a Calcutta-based fertility centre. "Some haven't even got their marriage consummated. So they want to conceive through artificial insemination."

Is there a way out? Experts such as Khwaja are doing what they can. "I am trying to help Sharath socialise in mixed groups, then spend a few minutes at a time doing a favour for a woman, or showing a gesture. I want him to focus on understanding the emotions that girls go through and eventually make him understand how to interact with another flesh-and-blood person who has her own romantic and sexual needs," he says. "The process will take quite a long time."

Zimbardo, 82, wants the "socially crippled generation" to hit the Escape button on their digital devices. He wants to remind them that real sex involves communicating with a real person, feeling their pain, earning their trust and making a real connection to their heart. Like people did, once upon a time.

If it’s May, it’s got to be India

Some porn stats

In 2014, India ranked among the highest consumers of pornographic content in the world, according to Pornhub, an online video hub
Around 25 per cent of Indian visitors on Pornhub.com were women, 2 per cent higher than the worldwide average of 23 per cent
Indians seek out pornography most in May and least in October
More Indians surf porn on their smartphones than on desktops
On an average, Indians spend 8 minutes and 22 seconds per visit to Pornhub, 30 seconds less than the rest of the world
Of all states, people from Andhra Pradesh spend the least time on Pornhub — 6 min and 40 sec; people from West Bengal spend 9 min and 5 sec; people from Assam spend 9 min and 55 sec
Sunny Leone is India’s favourite porn star
In most places in the world, porn is viewed most on Monday, but in India, it’s on Saturday
Porn viewing in India dips by over 25 per cent on Diwali, Dussehra, New Year’s Eve and Gandhi Jayanti.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-telegraph-may-31-2015-only-digital-sex-please

Online Trolls Attack Critics of India's Aadhaar State ID System

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T13:34:00Z

India's biometric state ID system has been leaking citizens’ data for months. When this information surfaced in April 2017, it stoked fears that the system could be used as an instrument of surveillance against Indian residents.

The blog post by Rohith Jyothish was published by Global Voices on May 31, 2017.

The Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI), which administrates the system known as Aadhaar (meaning foundation in Hindi) maintains that it only collects minimal personal data and stores it securely. But critics have firmly expressed doubts about these claims.

The implications of these leaks, and of any system flaw in Aadhaar technology, are substantial, especially for Indians who depend on the Aadhaar system in order to authenticate their identities when they use any number of government services. The Aadhaar system has become the gatekeeper of state systems and services ranging from voting to financial savings to food subsidies.

The digital sphere is now starting to see a pushback against Aadhaar critics through articles and blogposts that describe concerned citizens and privacy experts as the ‘anti-Aadhaar brigade‘ and accuse them of publishing “half-truths” and “spread[ing] confusion to advance their own interests.” One such article was even featured on the UIDAI website.

Some of the most well-researched critiques of the system have come from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an inter-disciplinary research organisation in Bangalore that has now become a target of the pro-Aadhaar lobby. Shortly after CIS released a report that pointed out security flaws in the Aadhaar ecosystem, the UIDAI accused the organization of hacking into the Aadhaar system themselves.

In fact, CIS had investigated databases of four specific government websites. Three were available publicly, the fourth one was accessible by simply changing one of the URL parameters. Following the accusation from UIDAI, CIS clarified that the Aadhaar numbers along with other sensitive personal financial information like bank account details were made available by government websites themselves, putting a sizeable portion of Indian citizens at risk of financial fraud.

The Press Trust of India (India's largest news agency) referred to it as a “flip-flop”, which was contested by researchers at CIS.

Independent technology news platform Medianama reported that the accusation by the UIDAI is regrettably consistent with previous actions in which they filed a case against a journalist for exposing flaws in Aadhaar's enrollment mechanism.

A website called ‘Support Aadhaar‘ and its Twitter handle sought to collate opinions supporting Aadhaar and quell those speaking against it. However, most of their messages appear to evade or deflect the concerns that critics have raised by touting the benefits of the system and portraying critics as having a poor understanding of the benefits of technology.

Many Twitter users have also begun noticing patterns in the pro-Aadhaar posts:

Meanwhile, several critics of Aadhaar have repeatedly been trolled by anonymous handles on Twitter. These ‘sock puppet’ accounts seemed to be targeting those who criticise Aadhaar on social media.

One of the most active trolls issued an open challenge to reveal their identity with just their Aadhaar number. Technology entrepreneur Kiran Jonnalagadda accepted the challenge and found that ‘@Confident_India’, one of the many anonymous troll Twitter handles, is Sharad Sharma, the co-founder and director of iSPIRT Foundation (Indian Software Product Industry Roundtable), the software lobby that built the backbone of the Aadhaar ecosystem.

Sharma accidentally tweeted a denial from the troll account which has since been deleted. He then tweeted again from his personal handle which was captured.

iSPIRT officially denied allegations by Jonnalgadda that the “evidence presented is a deliberate misreading of our intent to engage with those speaking against India Stack.” India Stack is the digital infrastructure that has been built over Aadhaar.

But several other Twitter users have confirmed that Sharma's phone number is linked to ‘@Confident_India’. By their own admission, iSPIRT seemed to have an officially sanctioned project intended to systematically challenge anti-Aadhaar campaigners in online platforms. But they refuse to term these actions as “trolling”.

However, Sharma later made an apology for trolling and called it a “lapse of judgement”. CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham seemed to appreciate the message. He tweeted: Bravo to @sharads for this! All of us at @cis_india look fwd to collaborating with @Product_Nation & @sharads to serve Indian s/w sector. https://twitter.com/sharads/status/866943195678035968 …

iSPIRT is an initiative which finds far-reaching support from several IT industry leaders in India. What is worrying is that there is still no clarification from iSPIRT on the identities of the other anonymous trolls and their position on trolling against genuine concerns raised by citizens.

More than a week after the trolling revelations, iSPIRT announced on its website, the results of an investigation carried out by an Internal Guidelines and Compliance Committee over the allegations against Sharma of operating the anonymous handles, ‘@Confident_India’ and ‘@Indiaforward2′. Jonnalgadda was one of the trolling victims who testified in the internal meeting. A summary of the investigation was posted bafflingly by the accused himself in which he says that project Sudham has been dissolved and that he has been told to not make public appearances on behalf of iSPIRT for four months while he remains Director and the face of the organisation. FactorDaily reported that iSPIRT members on the condition of anonymity said that Pallav Nadhani (Founder, Chief Executive, FusionCharts) and Naveen Tewari (Co-founder, InMobi) who quit iSPIRT were upset with their excessive focus on India Stack.

One wonders whether this kind of behavior would be treated differently if it took place offline. Is intimidating those who appear to be ‘detractors’ the most effective way of dealing with criticism? Why is a software lobby taking it upon themselves to defend the idea of Aadhaar and India Stack through such means?

Many are hoping that experts on both sides of the issue can find a way to debate questions around the privacy and security of Aadhaar's technology — that affect some 1.3 billion people — in a more democratic way.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-voices-rohith-jyothish-may-31-2017-online-troll-attack-critics-of-indias-aadhaar-state-id-system

Online privacy should not come at the cost of security: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2014-11-02T02:27:12Z

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society’s executive director, on privacy laws and Internet penetration.

Anirban Sen's article was published in LiveMint on May 19, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a research thinktank that primarily focuses on issues of Internet governance, is pushing to revise the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and make a stronger case for privacy laws and free speech in India, an issue that has caused widespread concern after the government tried to restrict access to more than a 100 websites last year with little justification.

“We want to revise the IT Act...that’s the toughest one and that’s not going to happen very soon because the government is treating it like an ego battle now. They no longer listen to the others,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.

The IT Act has been at the centre of debate, with some of its provisions such as Section 66A, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, coming under criticism from rights advocates for being too vague and subject to interpretation.

CIS, which will complete five years on Monday and is organizing a four-day event focusing on issues such as cyber security, surveillance in India and privacy, said it also was working towards creating a privacy law for India within the next 3-4 years. India, which is estimated to have Internet penetration of just 10%, is the third-largest Internet market in the world.

“We’re getting closer and closer to that (privacy law),” said Abraham, adding that privacy should not come at the cost of security.

Over the past five years, Bangalore-based CIS has also been part of some government committees such as the Justice AP Shah Committee, which focused on privacy laws in India, and is also currently working on the country’s telecom policy. The non-government organization, which receives grants from international bodies such as the Wikimedia Foundation, has also worked on policies for the government of Iraq and is currently also doing policy work for the government of Burma.

“Five years ago we were making noise from outside the room, we were not inside any policy making space. That has also changed. From an organization that was mostly outside the room, we’re increasingly being trusted by our own government,” said Abraham, who was one of the most vocal critics of the government’s unique identification (UID) project when it was first launched. Abraham had raised concerns over its overtly broad scope and issues over privacy in the project.

For CIS, one of the biggest achievements over the past five years was being part of the policy framework for the government of India’s draft national policy on open standards for e-governance, said Abraham, adding that the organization was working towards increasing Internet penetration in the country, especially in rural areas.

“We’re hoping that every single mobile phone user in the country will become an Internet user. We’re planning for that future,” he said.

The CIS event starting on Monday will include speakers such as legal researcher and advocate Lawrence Liang and Vibodh Parthasarathi, an associate professor at the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. Both Liang and Parthasarathi are members of the board at CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-anirban-sen-may-19-2013-online-privacy-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-security

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical

pranesh — 2011-12-12T17:00:50Z

The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.

Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the IT Rules that have been in force since April 2011.

Background

The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the MCIT had been in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as 'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.

Concerns

One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the ICCPR and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.

Secrecy

It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.

Making intermediaries responsible

The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.) Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are. Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (Janhit Manch v. Union of India) and Madras (R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.

IT Rules, 2011

In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech. Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical

Online outcry forces government to withdraw draft encryption policy

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T02:05:01Z

The article by Naina Khedekar discussing encryption policy was published in First Post on September 23, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.

Read the original published by First Post here.

Yesterday, the government released a draft encryption policy aimed at keeping a tab on the use of technology by specifying algorithms and length of encryption keys used by ‘all’. It wanted businesses, telcos and Internet companies to store all encrypted data for 90 days in plain text which should be presented before the law enforcement agencies whenever asked to. Moreover, failing to do so would mean legal action as per the laws of the country.

After a huge outcry, most of us woke up to the new proposed addendum this morning wherein the government has clarified to exempt products such as social media sites including WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter; payment gateways; e-commerce and password based transactions and more from the draft policy.

Finally, the government has decided to withdraw the draft encryption policy.

I have written for that draft to be withdrawn, made changes to and then re-released: RS Prasad : ANI pic.twitter.com/W2IP4meEGb

— Firstpost (@firstpost) September 22, 2015

Some sort of encryption policy is there all over the world: Ravishankar Prasad pic.twitter.com/cDvsOWtjcM

— Firstpost (@firstpost) September 22, 2015

What’s fascinating is how the whole process felt like déjà vu. Haven’t we seen the drama unfold before. While the dust on the net neutrality sage has barely settled, we’re already facing newer issues related to encryption and privacy. We never learn from our mistakes, do we? A new draft policy, public outcry, and then comes the much-needed changes.

The Indian government hasn’t just caused anxiety and chaos among the netizens, but the initial draft completely misguided people. According to TheNextWeb, “The Indian government has made a fool of itself and caused anxiety among citizens with a woefully misguided proposal for a national encryption policy that it’s just released to the public for feedback.”

While we sit back and talk about Digital India, smarter cities and so on, the makers of the law seem to be clueless about some major by-products concerning these initiatives such as security, privacy and likewise. Each time the government talks about a new initiative meant to bring in some law and order pertaining to digital rights, it somehow manages to come up with implications that could affect us far worse.

In this case, the Indian government is trying to ensure that its law enforcement agencies have easy access to encrypted information whenever required, but this could easily compromise security and privacy in the process.

Moreover, each time the government releases a proposal for our digital lives, it’s people who remind the government about the adverse implications it could have. Does the expert panel writing these reports know nothing about privacy and how it possibly works? Or is the government simply looking at a trial balloon policy to gauge reactions by people. So, next time we don’t react, a draconian rule might just be governing our digital lives.

The whole net neutrality saga continued for months with assurance from the government on how it supports free and equal Internet, and eventually made ‘certain changes’. This seems headed on a similar path. Though the new addendum comes with changes, it still leaves us as muddled as before.

Pranesh Prakash of the CIS has tweeted out how the new clarification clarifies nothing.

This clarification by the govt does not clarify anything, but further muddles the encryption policy. pic.twitter.com/1KK8AFRp6Q

— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) September 22, 2015

All OSes will be illegal in India (IV.6 + V.3 of draft encryption policy) unless Microsoft, Apple, Red Hat, etc, sign agreement w/ govt.

— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) September 21, 2015

If India enacts that National Encryption Policy, their global back-end and support business will be drastically reduced. If it survives.

— Lin S (@Just_this_time) September 21, 2015

A new Medianama report also points out loopholes in the changes announced. The report adds how any encrypted service would have to sign an agreement with the government. With the heavy mobile penetration and increasing number of encrypted mobile services that people use, it is really feasible for the government to ink an agreement with all the services that are based outside the country.

Problems with the update to India's draft anti-privacy policy http://t.co/gKus1o3uaC pic.twitter.com/adqVJTedFI

— Nikhil Pahwa (@nixxin) September 22, 2015

In the past, we’ve seen the blame game around the laws, usually the ‘hurriedly’ changed laws passed (after the inability to monitor encrypted messages during the Mumbai terrorist attacks) in the winter session of 2008 without any debate or discussion by bears the brunt. Earlier this year, we saw the government crack down the Section 66A of the 2008 Information Technology Act describing it “unconstitutional” and “hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, the two cardinal pillars of democracy.”

Why can’t all the thinking be done before drafts are penned down for public review. A well thought out report would help avoid retractions later.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-naina-khedekar-september-23-2015-online-outcry-forces-government-to-withdraw-draft-encryption-policy

Online or Offline, Protest Goes On

Junaid Nabi Bazaz — 2017-12-21T14:53:51Z

Strap: Kashmiris say internet blockades have no effect on uprisings

Srinagar, J&K: Ahead of the Srinagar parliamentary by-polls held on 9 April 2017, the Jammu & Kashmir state government suspended mobile data services to prevent protests around the election. The constituency went to polls with strict restrictions on movement, and with no access to mobile internet. As soon as the electoral staff reached their respective polling booths, however, there were protests. People at dozens of locations in central Kashmir’s Budgam district began to gather to demonstrate against the central and state governments, which they believed had not safeguarded Kashmiri interests.

Faizan, a 12-year-old schoolboy, was killed in the Dalwan shooting	Abbas, 21, was one of the victims of the shooting in Dalwan
Abbas’ home in Dalwan	The school in Dalwan where the shooting occurred

Picture Courtesy: Junaid Nabi Bazaz

In Dalwan village, a picture-postcard village atop a hill 35 kms from Budgam town, no votes were cast: the officers fled the polling station, and the paramilitary forces and police shot at protesters. Two people – a 21-year-old son of a policeman and a 12-year-old schoolboy – died on the spot.

People of Dalwan have been voting in droves in every parliamentary, legislative and local body election, even on occasions where much of Kashmir boycotted polls. But in April, residents said they were fed up with legislators not working to ensure uninterrupted power, water supply, concrete roads, or even a permanent doctor at its only dispensary. So, a village that has never demonstrated or produced any militants in the last 30 years of uprisings in the Kashmir Valley erupted in protest that election day. Now, the cemetery in which the two killed civilians are buried has been renamed as Martyr’s Graveyard.

Bazil Ahmad, a resident of Dalwan, says that nothing could have prevented the protests that day. “We protested against state, it was a spontaneous response,” says 22-year-old Ahmad who threw his first stones that day. “If the government believes that an internet blockade could prevent protests, they’re living in a fool’s paradise.” He sees the internet only as a free platform to express his anger and disappointment. “The actual trigger for the anger comes from the denial of rights and state aggression, not because of the internet,” says Ahmad.

As the news about the killings spread to neighbouring villages word-of-mouth, residents there too protested. Journalists in these villages updated their newsrooms. In a few days, all newspapers in Kashmir carried the news of eight deaths, scores of injuries, and the appalling 6.5% voter turnout in Budgam and Ganderbal districts.

After the ban was lifted, videos captured on polling day were posted on Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp. One of them was a video of Farooq Dar, a voter returning from the polling booth, tied to the front bumper of a military vehicle as it patrolled villages. A paper with his name was tied to his chest, and a soldier announced on the loudspeaker, “Look at the fate of the stonepelter.” The video created an uproar internationally. The armed forces were accused of using a civilian as “a human shield”, pushing it to hold an inquiry, and the police to lodge an FIR.

After these videos emerged, the government on April 26 officially banned 22 social media sites and apps, including Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter, for over a month. Once again, it seemed to have little effect on the protests – and protestors.

Sajad, who has been throwing stones for the past eight years at the armed forces, says, “The government is miscalculating the use of internet and the occurrence of protests.” The 28-year-old refers to the protests using the Kashmiri phrase kani jung, loosely translated as ‘stone battle’, which to him conveys a revolutionary zeal. Youths like Sajad who participate in the protests insist that they are provoked each time by an instance of human rights violation that exacerbates the long experience of militarisation, aspiration for “azadi”, and conflict in Kashmir. Internet shutdowns do nothing to erase this trigger, he says, and sometimes heighten their anger.

In just 2017, there have been 27 internet or social media bans in J&K, according to internetshutdowns.in. In the absence of evidence or study about its effects, it’s unclear if these blockades curb the spread of misinformation at all, or prevent the mobilisation of people for protests. For instance, on 15 April 2017, students from Degree College in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district protested against the armed forces for firing teargas and beating them. Though there was an internet ban in place, the incident went live on Facebook. It led to more student protests across the state. Schools, colleges and universities had to be closed for weeks.

Due to the frequency of blockades, several Kashmiris, including ministers, bureaucrats, civilians, protesters and police officers, have found a way out: they have turned to VPNs (Virtual Private Networks).

A VPN allows users to remain secure online and also enables them to access content or websites that are otherwise blocked. Sajad says, "A selective ban on the internet does not help, because we use VPNs. A person gains access to a network, and everyone in the area finds out how. Let the government block everything, it won’t stop protests.” To illustrate his point, Sajad gives the example of uprisings in the summer of 2016, during which internet, pre-paid and post-paid connections were shut for months. “Were there not protests?” he asks. “Kashmir was resisting Indian forces even before the internet existed, so why would it be difficult for us to use the same means now?”

Gulzar, a 30-year-old who has joined protests since he was 15, says the internet is more often used to disseminate information about the injustice, and not to organise protests. “A guy from Srinagar will only protest in Srinagar, and not go to other places. So, it is not too difficult to find out where protests are going on,” says Gulzar.

A DSP-rank police officer in the cyber crime cell of the J&K Police, on the condition of anonymity, says that bans have not yielded absolute results, but have been useful in preventing small-scale protests. He cited the example of district-level territorial internet blockades, done during gunfights between militants and the armed forces, to prevent immediate information sharing that may lead to the operation being compromised. “Say some militants are caught during an encounter in a village in Pulwama district. We block the internet as a precautionary measure in that area,” he says. “In case the district is violence-free, we reduce the bandwidth. That has now become the standard operating procedure.”

The police officer adds that accustomed to the bans, people now record the protests and later post videos on social media once the ban is lifted. “So, in effect, what the internet ban achieved is neutralised as soon as the internet is back on,” he says.

Names changed to protect identity.

Junaid Nabi Bazaz is a Srinagar-based journalist and a member of 101Reporters.com, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters. He has been working as a journalist in Kashmir since 2010. He has covered human rights, economy, administration, crime and health over these years. He has also written for contributoria.com, an independent division of The Guardian.

Shutdown stories are the output of a collaboration between 101 Reporters and CIS with support from Facebook.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/online-or-offline-protest-goes-on

Online Interest in Advani Rises

sachia — 2011-04-02T15:58:08Z

Article by Sruthi Krishnan in the Hindu, 15 May 2009, quoting CIS Research Director Nishant Shah

Online interest in BJP leader L.K. Advani reached its highest point in the last 12 months when a slipper was thrown at him. The data on Google Trends, an application that shows how often a search term has been sought for on Google over time, also shows that the interest in Mr. Advani’s name rose steadily as the general elections approached.

Contrary to what many consider as just another activity on the Internet, searching is the “backbone of cyberspace,” says Nishant Shah, Director (Research), Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. .

The search for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh shows a peak in July 2008 in the last 12 months, corresponding to the UPA Government winning the trust vote. That the interest in searching for public personalities closely mirrors news interest in the outside world is undeniable, says Mr. Shah. “The Internet is not as much a broadcast media as a search-and-find media.” Hence, in this context, the Internet acts as a “reference book” rather than a “best seller,” he says.

In the last 12 months, the political event that fired up Google in India was the launch of Praja Rajyam, coinciding with a spike in the search for actor Chiranjeevi’s name. This was the highest among the search history in the last 12 months of the ten most searched politicians in India on Google – a list released by Google recently.

The list includes Mr. Advani, Mr. Singh, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi.

However, Mr. Shah cautions that in an emerging information society like India, an increase in online search for a particular name or event may not imply that it is popular across the country. “Given the limited amount of internet access and the almost homogeneous user group that has interactive access to being online, it means that within that particular class-language group, a certain event or person is gaining popularity.”

The analysis by Google Trends also shows that most of the searches for Mr. Chiranjeevi were made in Telugu, compared to English.

While Hyderabad is where the actor’s name was searched the most number of times, the top 10 cities includes San Jose and Houston in the United States.

Interestingly, Sanjay Dutt, the other actor in the list, generated the highest volume of searches in Pakistan.

-----

Read the article at the Hindu website here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/online-interest-in-advani-rises